|
Directed by: Clint Eastwood Starring: Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden Mystic River was one of this year's nominees for best picture, so it stands to reason that it is one of the best films that Hollywood produced last year. I found this story of a grieving father and his relationship with his two friends -- one of whom is a detective investigating the case while the other seems to be overwhelmed by his conscience and by disturbing and tragic events that occurred during his childhood -- to be one of my favorites of the year, even though at times I felt more than a little "creeped out" while watching this picture. The true strength of this movie is twofold: One in the strong direction of Clint Eastwood who brings a very excessive masculine feel to the picture; and two in the superb acting which resulted in academy awards for Penn and Robbins and a nomination for Harden. That being said perhaps the story left a little to be desired for many but I would definitely recommend this film if you are not deterred by its heavy themes. RATING: 4.5 PROS: One of the best acted movies of the year. CONS: Overwhelmingly heavy at times. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0327056/
|
#
?
May 25, 2004 07:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
I thought it was rather over rated. Heavy handed and over dramatic at moments (think sean penn going "NoOooOOooOoooOoOOoOoo") with some real cliché moments that got bigger rolleyes then all of jeddites posts combined for all viewers involved. By the time they treaded out toward the ending I was already past caring and really only stuck through to the end because I sat through house of the dead, so I can sit through anything. I'll give Clint Eastwood credit, some of the visuals are compelling but it's a case of style (or in this case "polish") over substance. It's almost like no one really, really read the script, and did it anyway. I could get into the plot points and such, but that would spoil alot. 2.5/5 I don't really get the big fuss over this movie. Academy oversight maybe? Could be a case of expecting an intelligent story, not some half assed character study on my part.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2004 05:40
|
|
|
Fully agree with zer0 on this movie. Even with solid performance from the all-star trio (Fishburne, Bacon, Pen) I was unimpressed. Most difficult moments in the story were acted out by substandard actors. Particulary cheezy and unconvincing was the wife of Dave (name?). By the time movie was over I was asking myself 'Is that all?? What's all the fuss?' What a let down...
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2004 07:35
|
|
|
Let me add myself to the list of people who considered this movie quite overrated. I may just still be bitter over Bill Murray losing the Oscar to a guy who plays the same character in almost every movie it seems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2004 10:44
|
|
|
Overrated, but still good. Kevin Bacon and Marcia Gay Harden were quite good, I thought, but Sean Penn didn't impress me too much and I frankly thought Tim Robbins was exceedingly unconvincing. Penn and Robbins seemed to me to be in the "Look at me! I'm ACTING!" camp. Otherwise, it was well directed and written, and kept me entertained. 3.5 - above average. Above average, but not great.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2004 20:54
|
|
|
I really didn't enjoy any of this movie. "Heavy-handed" is an understatement- I felt like the entire movie was a poor attempt at manipulating the feelings of the viewer. The plot was ultimately not very interesting, and the "bond" between the friends was completely unbelievable. Very overdone and uninteresting. I like Tim Robbins just fine but I felt really underwhelmed by his performance here. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 00:30
|
|
|
I thought this was very overrated and was only so big at the nominations because it was an artsy piece by Clint Eastwood. Tim Robbins, however, acted very well and I thought deserved best supporting actor (despite the movie not being so enjoyable). Sean Penn though, I can not believe won the best actor award...it was just very much a surprise to me; then again the way the Academy works these days...it's not much of a surprise. All in all not a bad film for a rental or to watch on cable, but one of the best movies of the year? No thanks. Average at best. 2.5/5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 00:39
|
|
|
Average suspense/mystery film. Good performances, though a bit overrated (especially Sean Penn's). 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2004 02:42
|
|
|
On the surface this seems like a very good movie; amazing acting performance, a gripping and thrilling plot and an anti-climactic ending. But my real problem with the movie is the message it portrays. The message being that "love" can be used as an excuse for murder, that emotion is enough to overcome the inate wrong of taking another person's life. This facet of the movie really perturbed me and made me question the motivation of making the film in the first place. 4/5 vivisectvnv fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 16, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2004 05:54
|
|
|
I thought that this was a good movie, although like zer0spunk says there are quite a few  moments. Vigilante justice might be "wrong" in the sense that it is no longer about incapacitation and rehabilitation and instead is simply about getting revenge, but I didn't have a problem with it being touched on here. The need for retribution is wired in us pretty deep, and an occasional exploration of those emotions certainly isn't anything to gripe about.I thought Sean Penn did a decent acting job, at least as good as if not better than Bill Murray's performance in Lost in Translation (though admittedly I found LiT a lot more enjoyable). Regardless of your opinion of the movie or of the awards it took home, at least it kept Clint Eastwood off-camera last year. Do you really want another Blood Work? 3.5
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2004 13:27
|
|
|
I absolutely love this movie. The film opens with three young boys playing street hockey in an irish neighbourhood soon after which events take place that changes the life of one of them forever. The movie then picks up many years later shortly before another tragedy. The event brings the friends into each others lives and slowly we learn about the lives they've lived so far. The mystery plot is far from unique, but the acting, music and tension is absolutely marvellous. What makes this movie absolutely breathtaking for me was the way the plot plays with your emotions and judgements. We're shown two extreme cicumstances very early on and by then assume we have the characters figured out. But slowly, the history and relationships of the characters unravels. By the end we finally find ourselves questioning our own thoughts and feelings towards particular characters earlier in the movie. The themes (loyatly, redemption, pain and vengeance) are all well handled and succeeds in showing true human faults in the most tragic ways. To me, this is the closest thing to Shakespeare that I've seen in a modern context. 5/5 A depressing, thought provoking movie that does its best to show the faults in human nature. Well acted and shot but could have used some tighter pacing. Recommended for anyone that likes to think about movies they've seen long after they're over. Quantuvis fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Jun 28, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2004 06:24
|
|
|
Although I didn't consider this movie a waste of time completely, I left it thinking: "Great acting, good story, complex characters, and excellent possibility for drama/conflict... but what's the point?" 2.5
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2004 01:04
|
|
|
The performances are a bit over the top, and the conclusion unsatisfying, given the slow build-up... but it is nice to see a Hollywood movie with big Hollywood stars that takes some risks. I guess I don't really know what to think. I didn't love it but I didn't hate it. I wanted to see what would happen, but it often seemed too deliberately slow. Kevin Bacon was very good, the rest of them needed to rein it in a little bit. Rating: 3
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2005 22:31
|
|
|
I was left feeling rather underwhelmed by this film when I saw it after enduring all the Oscar hype. It's well acted and engaging enough but its by no means a classic or even great, just watchable and rather disposable whodunnit drama which is ultimately pretty unsatisfying. Also I remember thinking the music was pretty rubbish but thats just a minor point really anyway. I'm not massive fan of Sean Penn and he didn't really do anything to change this, although 21 Grams did more to make me like him than this film did. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2005 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 16:22 |
|
|
When I imagine the creative process that went into making this movie, I think the writer thought: I really want to make the viewers stomach turn in gut-wrenching anger/horror/shock -- as if that were an interesting combination of emotions that hasn't been portrayed before. If the writer was a chef, I think he would have thought that a sour/fishy/burned smell would be an interesting sensation for a diner to experience. The best that I can say for the film is that it achieved its purpose. Sometimes, we watch an awful mess (i.e., tragedy) because it's cathartic; however, this movie just left me feeling absolutely angry. And I have never finished any other movie in my lifetime that left me feeling angry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 01:55
|
|
