*** Official MYSTIC RIVER Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Michael Reuben]

Interesting, Damin. The events that you find "goofy" are among what I consider to be the high points of an exceptionally fine film (except possibly for Bacon's reconciliation scene, which was something of a plot device). While Mystic River might have been a mere police procedural, as Blood Work was, a combination of assured direction and uniformly excellent acting turned it into a personal and family drama of almost Shakespearean proportions. Comparisons to L&O are understandable but inapt, because the murder investigation is only a part of the story (which is why the film has a lot more ground to cover after the murderer is apprehended). The fact that the audience can figure out quite early who the killer is works to the film's advantage, IMO, and is part of the film's design.

I'm not sure how well the film will age, but it's one of the better theatrical experiences I've had this year. And while I wouldn't necessarily agree with A.O. Scott's extravagance in praising Sean Penn's performance, I found it gripping and effective. And I found Linney brilliant in that final sequence.

M.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I thought Linney was excellent and think she's a very underrated actress. I liked this film alot, but I want to see it again before I rate this film among some of the best films I've seen recently.




Crawdaddy

 

[Michael Reuben]

Linney comes from the theater, and like many actors whose first love is the stage, she's willing to trade a lower profile (and lesser income) for artistic satisfaction. That's not to say that she isn't appreciated; it's just a much smaller audience (theatergoers vs. moviegoers). She's doing another play on B'way this spring, and it's expected to be a hot ticket.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I’m still waiting for it to show up here. Interesting to read your thoughts.

 

[Stephen_Dar]

Well, I'm not surprised to see so many negative reviews of the film here. I agree with those negative reviews, actually, almost to a tee (my group was snoozing through this thing, plot was TV-quality police drama, depended a lot on really lame coincidences and unrealistic behavior), and like someone said above, I find myself disturbed by the reviews I've read so far. Disturbed because the reviews were so freakishly positive. I had no interest in the film until I read those reviews, so I was hoodwinked. What is the cultural phenomenon that is behind this strange disconnect that many of us are perceiving here, I wonder?

Could it be that films have been so terrible for so long in Hollywood that people are desperate to throw a bone to anything that isn't all MTV quick cutting and mindless effects?

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm not surprised to see so many negative reviews of the film here.

Neither am I, but for different reasons.

M.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Could it be that films have been so terrible for so long in Hollywood that people are desperate to throw a bone to anything that isn't all MTV quick cutting and mindless effects?

My guess would be an outsized level of appreciation for Clint Eastwood. Then again, Blood Work's reviews weren't even in the same ballpark (though the usual suspects like A.O. Scott, Owen Gleiberman, Richard Roeper, and Roger Ebert all gave it positive reviews).

Phil Hall's review of Mystic River for Film Threat, while overly harsh, gets much of it right for me. There's something a little too amateurish about much of Eastwood's direction for me, both as a director in the original sense of directing actors and as an auteur. He can't cover this up with endless crane and helicopter-over-water shots, either.

The shelf-life for the positive aspects of the film is apparently rather short, as I find myself disliking the film more as I dwell on it.

DJ

 

[Michael Reuben]

My guess would be an outsized level of appreciation for Clint Eastwood.

Doubtful. None of the critics you've listed has ever been shy about slamming a film, no matter who made it.

M.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Doubtful. None of the critics you've listed has ever been shy about slamming a film, no matter who made it.

Something strange seems to me to be at work in A.O. Scott's review, at least. It ranges from the questionable (the hyperbolic praise heaped upon the actors) to the head-scratching ("the movie almost entirely avoids melodrama or grandiosity").

The general awe that so much of Hollywood seems to emote whenever Eastwood's name is mentioned seems the most likely suspect to me to explain this phenomenon, even if those critics can trash a film from a respected filmmaker now and again. All the better if the film is actually of generally passable quality so that they can legitimately hang some of their praise upon it (better still if Eastwood has pushed the needle from pulpy to artsy on us). In the last 20 years, for example, it seems that the only reviews approaching negative that Ebert gave director Eastwood were for The Rookie and Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong, and it's a good film that deserves all of its accolades. I certainly don't hate the film (if I did, I could better understand the likelihood of a large group holding a directly opposite opinion), and I'm glad others have found something to enjoy.

DJ

 

[Steve_Tk]

Didn't this come out wednesday? I guess people are waiting for this weekend?

 

[Robert Crawford]

The film opened here in Michigan on Wednesday.

 

[Lew Crippen]

It opens in Dallas Friday.

 

[Vickie_M]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not surprised to see so many negative reviews of the film here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neither am I, but for different reasons.

I thought it was a very good movie, though I had a few problems with it, mostly having to do with occasional "Hollywood" inflections here and there, and the horrible annoying anti-piracy dots that took me out of the movie. On its own, I would probably only give it 3 1/2 stars (out of 5) but the brilliant acting throughout by an amazing cast adds an entire star. I agree with everyone who's praised Sean Penn's performance, and I think Tim Robbins should also be praised just as highly. Marcia Gay Hardin had a tough role as a pathetic, confused wife and did well. I really felt sorry for her. Laura Linney was pretty much a non-entity until that last chilling scene of hers.

She had a small role, but it was nice to see Emmy Rossum again. I remember her vividly from Songcatcher and thought she was wonderful in Passionada.

I guess I was caught up in it, because I didn't guess the killer's identity. I knew who probably didn't do it, but not who did.

I was distracted a few times throughout and then at the end, when I asked a woman sitting next to me if she would cover her cell phone. All night she kept taking it out and looking at it as if she were reading her e-mail or messages or baseball scores or something. The screen was quite bright and very annoying. Anyway, I finally asked her to shield it with her hand, and I must have missed something.

Spoilers, of course.

Why didn't Sean arrest Jimmy? I heard Sean ask if Jimmy was going to send Celeste $500.00 a month too, as they were standing in the street. Then there was Annabeth's creepy whispering into Jimmy's ear, then the parade, where everybody gave each other "knowing" looks. Sean just let Jimmy go, and no one else followed up on the case, huh? I felt as if I had gone out to get popcorn and missed something really important. It was an unspoken bond that caused Sean to keep his mouth shut? How did this play out in the book? (which I do want to read now)

 

[Michael Reuben]

Why didn't Sean arrest Jimmy?

Lack of evidence. There isn't even a body, just a missing person who will be presumed to have fled to avoid arrest for murder. Sean knows what happened, but he can't prove it.

(I haven't read the book, so I don't know how it's handled there.)

M.

 

[Vickie_M]

Lack of evidence.

(slaps forehead) Of course! Thanks!

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Yeah, but didn't Jimy pretty much confess to Sean the morning after? I'd think that would be some pretty strong evidence right there. BTW, I knew that Ray did it as soon as he walked into the convenience store the morning after. How? Simple; it's always the guy with the hockey stick. (Or maybe I've just watched Dogma too many times).

 

[Michael Reuben]

but didn't Jimy pretty much confess to Sean the morning after?

Not with anything like the directness and clarity required for a confession that would hold up in court.

M.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Here are some of my problems with the film that I alluded to in the review thread: SPOILERS ABOUND!

1.The storyline involving Sean and his estranged wife was not fully fleshed out for me to care about this couple’s problems. Very little time was put into developing this storyline.

2.The close-ups of Sean’s wife’s lips, after which we then see her full face. Was there supposed to be some type of mystery to this? Oh yes, and that “they lived happily ever after” ending.

3.The kids responsible for the murder chase the girl into the woods (or park) to make sure that she doesn’t tell anyone about the supposed “accident”. Yet, they call 911 themselves to report the incident. Hmmm, okay. This is the turning point in the crime investigation but also its biggest flaw. Maybe the film can also convince me that there are kids that experiment with guns at 2 in the morning.

4.Jimmy wears a very visible designer leather trench coat towards the end of the film only to make him look tough. But the choice was just too uncharacteristic of him and so out of place. We already know he is tough without dressing him this way. Wasn’t he in prison?

5.After so many years of marriage to her husband Dave, Celeste just finally discovers about his abused condition from him. Isn’t this something that she should have known in the early stages of their marriage and therefore, helped him overcome this bad experience?

6.The cross and the potshots against Christianity.

7.The helicopter shots that look and feel like helicopter shots and the overabundance of crane shots.

8.Subtlety is not one of Eastwood’s stronger points in this film. He has a predilection to repeat things over and over again. Yes, we already know how troubled Dave is. No need to keep pounding it into our heads by showing his escape into the woods over and over again.

And Dave getting into the backseat of the car once again and looking back as it drives off. From the way he acted, it looks like this is the first time he sat in the back seat after his childhood abduction.

Boy, I had more problems with this film than I originally thought. I better stop now. Little things? Some are. But they keep compounding.

~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

One more:

9. Oh yeah, let's stage an abduction in broad daylight, not a quick one so that they wouldn't know who the perpetrators are, but instead, engage in a 10-minute conversation first and on top of it all, we'll abduct him in front of his two friends right in front of his own house.

~Edwin

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, it seems like you also have a problem with the book that this film was based on if you're going to slam the film about the abduction.