"Mystic River" is a movie I saw, not because I wanted to, but because I felt obligated to do so. It got an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, and I always make sure that I see all the Best Picture nominees before the winners are announced. I saw "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" last week for the very same reason, and ended up being extremely bored. Fortunately, I didn't go through the same suffering with "Mystic River." It's a good movie, and I was never bored. Still, I don't see why it got the Oscar nomination. Yeah, the movie's good, really good, but it's not great.
Critics love this movie, and it got a lotta Oscar nominations, but I'm sorry, I don't see the big deal. The acting was expectedly very good, but the ones who I think did the best acting aren't the ones getting all the praise. Maybe it's me, maybe I had my expectations too high, but with all the nominations, all the critics loving it, and the talent in front of and behind the camera, I expected more.
Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are both getting heaps of praise for their performances in the film. Indeed, their performances are very good, but I don't know why they're such shoe-ins to win the Oscar. Sean Penn is an excellent actor, but he's slightly over-the-top here, and I think he's been better in other films (such as most recently, "21 Grams," which is the movie he really shoulda been nominated for). Tim Robbins is really good, but this is probably one of the least challenging roles of his career. Watch him in "Jacob's Ladder" or "The Player" to really see him strut his stuff.
Marcia Gay Harden, in my opinion, gives the best performance in the film. She got an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress, but she hasn't gotten the press that Sean Penn or Tim Robbins has gotten. Maybe it's because she already won an Oscar for her role in "Pollock," but watch her in "Mystic River." She's unbelievable. Her performance is the one that blew me away. Another performance that stood out was from Tom Guiry. You may remember him as "Scotty Smalls," the main character in "The Sandlot." Since then, he's been in quite a few military movies, like "U-571," "Tigerland," and "Black Hawk Down." In everything I've seen him in, he's excellent. His performance is one of the best ones in "Mystic River." Finally there's Kevin Bacon. Probably one of the most underappreciated and underrated actors in Hollywood, this guy really deserves more credit.
This movie was directed by Clint Eastwood, the famous actor/director who won a Best Director Oscar for his work in the dark western masterpiece, "Unforgiven." He usually stars in the movies he directs (like with "The Bridges of Madison County," "Sudden Impact," "Bronco Billy," "The Outlaw Josey Wales," "Play Misty for Me," and many others), but there are rare instances where his work is only behind the camera, like with "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil" and of course, this film. Though I wouldn't see a movie just because it was directed by Clint Eastwood, I have a lot of respect for his work. He's a great director. This is far from his best film, though. Then again, I don't know if he could ever top "Unforgiven." I'm not a huge fan of westerns, but that movie kicks ass.
The script was written by Brian Helgeland, the talented writer/director who wrote "Conspiracy Theory," wrote and directed "A Knight's Tale" and "Payback," and helped write the great film, "L.A. Confidential." He adapted the story from the novel by Dennis Lehane, which I've never read. Is the ending as vague in the novel as it is in the film? I'd like to know the answer to that. I don't wanna give anything away, but in the film, there's some unresolved business between Sean Penn's character and Kevin Bacon's character. It's hinted that it actually IS resolved, but if it is, then it seems to be resolved in a way that doesn't make a lotta sense. I dunno, maybe I missed something. Anyway, the script is very good, but for whatever reason, I didn't care about the characters as much I should have. The thing is, I'm the only person who seems to feel that way, so maybe it's me. I like the movie, but everyone else who's seen it seems to like it a whole lot more.
So there you have it. Take my opinion for what it's worth, I don't think the movie is as great as others seem to think it is. I liked it, I think the movie is really good, but I can't see why it was nominated for Best Picture. I guess it's just that 2003 was a really bad year for movies. Considering that "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" was also nominated for Best Picture, that's the only explanation I can come up with.
Scale of 1-10: 8