Mystic River (2003) User Reviews

Second time around

[Antagonisten · 8/10 · 8 November 2005]

I must admit that when i watched this movie for the first time i didn't really think that much of it. Sure the acting was amazing, but that was expected. But then something happened. I got a chance to read the book by Dennis Lehane and suddenly all the pieces fell into place. I watched the movie again and this time it was amazing.

I don't know how i should interpret how my feelings toward this movie changed after reading the book. Is it a good adaptation if i like it more after reading the book? Should a movie stand so well on it's own merits that the book is not necessary? I don't know myself, all i know is that it all became so much clearer after reading the book.

First of all the acting was amazing even the first time around. But still, after reading the book it was as if the characters gained one more level of depth. I have always felt that Tim Robbins is the true gem in this movie. His pained portrayal of the lost soul Dave Boyle is pure magic, seldom has an Oscar been so well deserved. Sean Penn is predictably great in his portrayal of Jimmy Markum. It's a difficult character, a person you really don't know what to think about. In one respect he is a worried father, in another respect he is a cold-blooded man with few things to like about him. The rest of the cast is solid, with Kevin Bacon the brightest star among them.

When it comes to the plot itself this was where much was changed from reading the book. The trick is not to watch this as a crime-drama. Rather it's a movie about behavioral patterns, about humans. What they are capable of and what dictates their actions. There are huge amounts of sadness and melancholy to this story. Of people unable to break out of the path it seems life has chosen for them. This i think didn't really break through to me that well when i watched the movie for the first time. But the book is much more clear on this and when i watched the movie again i saw it there as well.

In the end this is a triumph of two things really. First the great acting of some of the finest actors in Hollywood today, second the sensitive and thoughtful directing of Clint Eastwood. He manages to bring out Dennis Lehanes story in a way that is so understated and minimalistic at times i didn't even catch on the first time around. But if i look closely all the elements are there and it is truly a great adaptation as well as a great movie.

A Tragic Story of the Loss of the Youth in a Contemporary Classic

[claudio_carvalho · 9/10 · 26 June 2004]

Twenty years ago, the boys Jimmy Markun, Sean Devine and Dave Boyle are neighbors and pals, playing hockey on the street. One day, Dave is kidnapped by two men, being sexually abused, but escapes from them four days later. In the present days, each one of them followed one way in their lives: Jimmy (Sean Penn) is married with Annabeth Markum (Laura Linney), has three daughters and has a small business. Sean (Kevin Bacon) is a detective, and his pregnant wife left him six months ago. His colleague is the detective Whitey Powers (Laurence Fishburne). And Dave (Tim Robbins) is a traumatized man, married with Celeste Boyle (Marcia Gay Harden) and having a young son. When the nineteen years old daughter of Jimmy, Katie Markum (Emmy Rossum), is found dead in the neighborhood, the three friends in childhood meet each other again, in the investigation of the murder. A tragic event happens in the conclusion of this investigation. This movie is excellent. Yesterday, I saw it on DVD and I was impressed with the direction of Clint Eastwood and the performance of the cast. It is almost impossible to highlight one actor or actress, but I was stunned with the performance of Sean Penn. It is a film based on the acting, and not on special effects, shootings or race of cars. I was very impressed, since the tragic story of the loss of the youth is very real, full of human flaws, disturbances, prejudice and judgements. The destiny of this movie in the future may be to be considered a contemporary classic. My vote is nine.

Title (Brazil): `Sobre Meninos e Lobos' (`About Boys and Wolves')

Character Study in a Minor Key.

[nycritic · 9/10 · 23 April 2005]

Most murder mysteries go the way of unleashing tension and a mounting sense of suspense and danger as the plot originating from the murder in itself reveals red herrings and a more sinister plot underneath just waiting to be discovered.

Clint Eastwood's thriller goes a completely different direction: while the identity of the killer is still at the center of the story and is revealed in almost surprising -- but plausible -- sequence, this is more a powerful character study of three childhood friends joined together by the very horror of a life extinguished. All three actors make their roles their own -- Sean Penn is quietly intense and devastated, Tim Robbins is the ultimate broken man through circumstances not of his control who still relives his own tragedy every day, and Kevin Bacon plays a stoic detective who also has some relationship issues of his own.

If there's one weakness in the movie it's the way the women are written. While Marcia Gay Harden fares better in her portrayal of a housewife who discovers what she believes to be a deadly secret involving her husband (Tim Robbins), Laura Linney, while being strong in her own role, is a little underwritten throughout and her sudden change at the end is a little inexplicable though chilling and recalls Lady MacBeth's speeches towards MacBeth.

A very bleak take on the notion that some people never learn from the mistakes they make in life and how those mistakes come back to rip their own life apart in the most subtle of ways, one of the most emotionally dark movies of 2003 and completely deserving of its Oscar wins (for Best Actor and Supporting Actor, a feat repeated in this years Oscars for 2004) and nods.

Falls sort of greatness but superb nonetheless

[Buddy-51 · 30 November 2004]

Lovers of great acting had best not pass up 'Mystic River,' Clint Eastwood's powerful, award-laden adaptation of Dennis Lehane's best-selling novel. Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon play three working class Bostonians forever bound together by a mutual childhood tragedy that has since gone on to define the kind of people they've become and the kind of lives they've led. The film begins with a brief prologue as we see the three youngsters - Jimmy, Sean and Dave - out playing in the street one day, when they are confronted by a pedophile who, posing as a policeman, tricks one of them, Dave, into getting into the car with him and another man. Fast forward to the present as we pick up the trio as grown men who have, for all intents and purposes, gone their separate ways. Penn is Jimmy Markum, a former petty thief who spent two years in the slammer but who has since turned straight and now owns a neighborhood liquor store. When Jimmy's daughter from his first marriage turns up murdered, the three men's lives intersect in ways they could never have imagined. Bacon is Sean Divine, a homicide detective assigned to the case, and Robbins is Dave Boyle, a sporadically employed man who may be a prime suspect in the murder. Dave still lives with the trauma of that earlier soul-shattering experience, while Jimmy and Sean wrestle with why they managed to escape the cruel finger of fate that pointed so grimly at their hapless playmate. The film is about how the events of our early lives (and, in the case of Jimmy, it doesn't stop at this one incident) can end up coming back to haunt us later down the road.

The Brian Helgeland screenplay makes the pain that each of these men experiences vivid and palpable. The grief Jimmy feels over the loss of his beloved child, the psychological torment Dave suffers as a result of his abuse, and the bewilderment and loneliness Sean experiences from a failed marriage all become integral to this dark tale of bitterness, revenge and attempted healing. At times, we do find ourselves wishing that the script would concentrate less on the details of the murder investigation and more on the inner workings of the three main characters. Too often we feel as if we are only scratching the surface of the roiling psychological torment taking place deep in the bowels of these men. The plotting, particularly towards the end, often feels more contrived than it needs to be, with heavy-handed ironies and obtruding parallelisms that don't seem to know when to leave well enough alone. Laura Linney, as Jimmy's second wife, has a key Lady Macbeth moment late in the film that might have been effective had we been more fully prepared for it and had her character been more thoroughly developed throughout the course of the film. As it is, the scene seems to come out of nowhere and leaves us both bewildered and hanging.

Still, these are minor quibbles when it comes to a movie as finely acted and directed as this one is. Penn hits all the right notes as a man facing the worst experience life could possibly throw at a person - the murder of one's child - trying to make sense of a tragedy that defies any rational explanation. Robbins beautifully underplays the role of a man scarred forever by what happened to him in his youth, now endeavoring to function as an adult when he was robbed of any semblance of a childhood. Bacon is excellent as the man who attempts to put all the pieces together, not only of the case but of the shattered lives he and his two buddies have been living all these years, and Marcia Gay Harden is outstanding as Dave's loving wife who struggles with what is perhaps the greatest moral dilemma faced by any character in the movie. Linney, Lawrence Fishburne and Tom Guiry offer fine supporting performances.

As director, Eastwood allows his superb cast ample time to develop their characters, never hurrying the proceedings along and always allowing the conversations to play themselves out. He recognizes the quality of the material and feels no need to gussy it up with self-conscious camera angles or fancy editing. He also uses the bleak settings of blue collar Boston as an effective backdrop to the stark, chilly tale he is telling.

Perhaps it is just an odd coincidence that three of the very best movies of 2003 - '21 Grams,' 'The House of Sand and Fog' and 'Mystic River' - all suffer from the same tendency on the part of the filmmakers to move away from reality and towards melodrama and contrivance in the final act. Of the three, '21 Grams' and 'The House of Sand and Fog' are harmed less by this than 'Mystic River' because they have a somewhat deeper thematic base and richer character development than does the Eastwood film. Still, 'Mystic River' is a mighty impressive achievement for those who made it and a rich, memorable experience for those who see it.

Long Live the King?

[BrandtSponseller · 10/10 · 12 February 2005]

After three eleven year-olds from a close-knit lower middle class Boston suburb undergo a tragic experience where one is abducted and abused for four days, their lives diverge. The abducted one never overcomes the emotional trauma, another begins a life of crime, and the third becomes a cop. None ever venture very far from the neighborhood. When tragedy strikes again, their lives are gradually brought back together on a collision course that leads to some unexpected results.

Mystic River is a surprisingly dark film, with a controversial denouement. It is masterfully directed, acted, shot, edited, lit and scored. It is a mostly humorless and occasionally difficult realist drama, that will undoubtedly affect most viewers emotionally in a variety of ways--you may cry, you may become angry with at least one character and the lack of just deserts, and you may find it a bit depressing, although producer/director/composer Clint Eastwood and scripter Brian Helgeland do through in a relatively minor glimmer of hope/happiness at the very end.

Not that I tend to agree with awards organizations, but it should be no surprise that Mystic River has fine acting. A bulk of its many awards and nominations, including two Oscar victories, were for on screen performances. What is less recognized is the positive effect that the locations, cinematography, lighting and score have on the atmosphere of the film. Kokayi Ampah found the perfect, generic, metropolitan lower middle class neighborhoods, buildings and bars. It could be any slightly depressing, but maybe about to gentrify, suburb of Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, or any number of at least Northeastern and Midwestern U.S. cities. Tom Stern's cinematography is continually, subtly inventive. Just check out the shot of Sean Penn where shadows from a railing form symbolic jail bars on the wall behind him. The lighting tends to the late 1990s/early 2000s look that is more monochromatic and leaning-towards blue. There are a lot of well-placed shadows, often creating a chiaroscuro look. Eastwood's score is understated but very effective. And how can you not like a film where three sexy girls dance on top of a bar to jazz fusion?

The story is absorbing. There is an unexpected (to me, at least--I try to watch films the first time knowing as little about them as possible) mystery angle that is effectively sustained until almost the end. I haven't read Dennis Lehane's novel yet, but I just ordered it after seeing the film--the film piqued my interest enough to want to explore more. But the most interesting part of the story to me, at least, was the extremely gray depiction of Penn's character, Jimmy Markum. Markum is revealed to be largely criminal, and not quite likable in his attitude towards his daughter (he doesn't respect her individuality, even though she's actually an adult). Yet at the same time, he is compared by at least one character to a "king", and in many ways, he is treated as one in the neighborhood. This may or may not be meant more metaphorically by the character saying it, but it is possible to read much of the film as being about a traditional king trying to live in modern day metropolitan suburbia. In some historical and cultural contexts, surely Markum's behavior in the film would have a more noble sheen, including his "mistake". This is perhaps why poetic justice never arrives, and instead, the character is seen as contented, with his queen and court by his side, being regaled with a parade instead. In modern contexts, many kings' behavior would not be so noble, and instead we'd notice more the injustices done to the peasantry and sympathize with them. Markum's character cannot be depicted more literally as royalty, as if he were far removed from the socio-economic status of the film's peasantry (although we find out eventually that he has more money to spare than most folks in his neighborhood), because it would be instead read as a moral tale of economic disparity as is exists solely in modern times. Putting everyone on a level playing field, more or less, is the only way to create a parable of how kings would be perceived, solely in terms of their decisions and actions, in our era.

Of course, there is more to the film than that, and it's not the only interpretation possible (in fact, it probably seems very left field to many readers), but it's worth pointing out not only as something literally interesting to contemplate, but to show the kind of storytelling depth that is contained in Mystic River--a film you should not miss.

Unpleasant to watch...but with some amazing acting.

[planktonrules · 9/10 · 30 August 2017]

The film begins many years ago and shows three friends, Dave, Jimmy and Sean outside their homes in Boston. Some pedophiles arrive and pretend to be cops and they kidnap and rape Dave...who, fortunately, is able to eventually escape.

Years pass and the three men are grown. Jimmy (Sean Penn) is a family man whose youngest is about to take her first communion. However, he and the family don't realize that his oldest has been brutally murdered. When he learns of this, he vows revenge.

At about the same time, Dave (Tim Robbins) returns home very late. He's bloody and cut...and his story about attacking a mugger seems contrived. There also is a boyfriend of the dead girl...and he has some 'splaining to do. And, there are a couple detectives who are investigating all this and one of them is Sean (Kevin Bacon). What really did happen? Who really is at fault? And, will the police get to them before Jimmy and his thug friends?

"Mystic River" is occasionally tough to watch, as it deals with child sexual abuse, murder and extreme violence. It's also quite grim. Because of this, you should consider all this before watching the film. This being said, it is a very good film and features some amazing acting...so if you're up to it, by all means give the film a look. I appreciate not only the acting but all the false leads and clues...and the viewer will not so easily piece it all together.

Chilling, effective and real

[jofitz27 · 9/10 · 24 April 2005]

After a while, one has come to expect mediocrity from Clint Eastwood. "Blood Work" "Space Cowboys" and "Sudden Impact" all shining examples of this. But what he has here is true; sophisticated, intricate and rewarding. Viewing is definitely recommended.

Three boys, Dave (Tim Robbins) Jimmy (Sean Penn) and Sean (Kevin Bacon) are reunited after the murder of Jimmy's nineteen year-old daughter. Immediately, a whodunit case arrives. Sounds average, dunnit?...

No. It's much more than average. What might appear as a normal murder mystery is more. The acting, particularly from Robbins and Penn, is immaculate. Robbins is still recovering from child sexual abuse along time ago. Penn, so realistically and amazingly, mourns over the loss of his daughter. Laurence Fishburne (playing cop Whitey) is as smart talking as ever, whilst Kevin Bacon gives a solid performance as the homicide cop investigating the case.

Though the film becomes a bit uneven towards the end, this tough, brutal and uncompromising; but still, a masterpiece, and the best work Eastwood as done in years.

Final Analysis: 9 out of 10

Simply stunning

[teyhow · 9/10 · 27 May 2005]

This movie is a kick in the gut. Rarely is such a brilliant cast assembled, and even when it happens, rarely do they act like this. Tom Guiry (very impressive), Tim Robbins and Sean Penn show emotion that directors don't often stick in. And it comes off flawlessly. During a scene with Marcia Gay-Harden and Tim Robbins crying in their kitchen, there is an energy coming off of the screen that strikes you right in the chest. Which is really the way the whole movie works. It grabs you and shakes you, and makes you watch even when it can be painful to do so. The only reason that this film didn't win best picture is Return of the King. Any other year, and Mystic River has it. Eastwood's finest moment. Check it out--you won't be disappointed.

The acting was superb, but the ending was...

[tachiiderp · 6/10 · 24 January 2021]

Mystic River was a film I knew for years but haven't watched until now. It won 2 Oscars in the best actor and supporting role category, so I was stoked to watch this at some point.

Lo and behold, the acting from these actors were very good. Sean Penn played the tough guy mourning father incredibly well, while Tim Robbins showed his internal struggles constantly on screen. Even to the end, how Tim Robbins acted with Sean Penn in the final act was insanely well done. You can see how he struggles with the truth and how far he's willing to go to live.

Other than that, the story is a bloody mess. The movie dropped the ball so incredibly hard in the final act. One primary issue is how everything seemed to line up perfectly given the timing of events. Dave just happened to kill another man in the same time frame as Jimmy's daughter went missing, and that he just happened to be in the same bar as Jimmy's daughter as well. Of course, the story double dips on coincidental events, with Sean figuring out who actually murdered Katie around the same time Jimmy killed Dave. I understand a story is fictional and have to rely on coincidences to drive a story forward, but when you fully rely on coincidences to drive the drama of the film, it feels cheap and contrived.

There were also some questionable directing choices, like what was the point of not showing Sean Devine's wife during their mysterious phone calls? That arc was also barely explored, and it felt like it was only put there so you didn't feel as devastated after what Jimmy did to Dave.

Let's talk about the other female characters: Jimmy's second wife. The insane speech she gave at the end came from nowhere. We had no idea she was this crazy person okay with her husband killing an innocent man. We also have Dave's wife who, when directly asked by Jimmy, nodded to her husband killing Katie? This whole movie essentially was just filled with people making decisions when they're rationally not able to. It's mistakes after mistakes.

In a way, Dave's wife confessed to Jimmy because of her fear and lack of understanding for her husband. In a way, Jimmy killed Dave because of his hot-headedness and revenge-obsessed worldview. Yet, we have no explanation for why Jimmy's wife applauded him for killing an innocent man. Like, the only thing you can say about her is that she's utterly crazy, because we've given no information of who she is.

The movie also chose to end deliberately open so we don't know if Sean will eventually have enough evidence to send Jimmy to prison, and it appears a similar cycle will begin again with Dave's child when he finds out the truth. At the end of the day, Mystic River explored the irrationality of men when a devastating event occurs. It explored how violence perpetuates more violence and how some people cannot get out of this loop.

In that it succeeded in what it tried to do. However, the story relied on way too many coincidental events to push the emotional impact and behaviours of its characters, lessening the quality of the story as a whole. I believe the story would've been much better explored if it was a TV series so it can establish all the characters. Without these details, it just appears certain characters are crazy and some scenes become completely irrelevant.

The ties that bind - for the good, the bad, and the in-between.

[Pedro_H · 8/10 · 6 October 2005]

Three young friends play in the Boston street. They start to misbehave and a car approaches and a man climbs out looking like a cop, acting like a cop and seeming to have police ID. He beckons one boy over. He says they are going to take the boy somewhere (home maybe?) - the others say nothing and look on, glad it isn't them.

However the man is not a cop, he is a child molester/sadist and has taken him to rape and quite possibly later murder. However, several horrific days later, the boy escapes to freedom - nevertheless what happened to him and the two others will never leave them. It marks every day of the rest of their lives: and for Dave (the kidnapped boy) the wounds run very deep in to his flesh.

I am frightened of saying it, but Clint Eastwood is now America's best director: and not only that, he is one of the bravest. This is not the most obvious film. Dark, mean and giving little security blanket to hang on to. Thankfully he has assembled the best cast anyone could ask for and all three co-leads (the three street boys that go on to be men - Sean Penn (Jimmy), Tim Robins (Dave) and Kevin Bacon (Sean)) are excellent. Also worth a mention is Laurence Fishburne as a laconic black cop with a firm but fair attitude.

This film is not really much about women nor is it flattering to them. The later actions of Dave's wife (Marcia Gay Harden) make little sense on any level unless clues lie on unfilmed pages of the Dennis Lehane novel. Further discussion of it would be a spoiler.

The plot could (falsely) read as a whodunit or thriller: Jimmy's (an ex-con who now runs an convenience store) daughter is murdered and two main suspects quickly emerge. A boyfriend who was about to elope with her and the former abused boy Dave who had seen the girl behaving slightly wildly in a bar on the night she was killed. To make things worse Dave had come home late with a stab wound from that very night - he was "stabbed by a mugger," so he says, but the cover story makes no sense.

To complicate things further Sean (Bacon) is now a cop on this very case with female problems of his own. Thankfully they are mostly off screen because this film has enough problems for several movies. He is no longer open friends with Jimmy, but clearly he is viewed as more than just an ex-con trying to make good.

People that have read the book say that it remains true to its pages and that maybe is the reason why things happen slowly and the end is not an absolute full stop. The thriller part of exercise creaks like an old door because we have to believe that the Dave incident was a giant coincidence or he was - somehow - involved. And if so, why?

I was intrigued as to why the three central characters should stay loyal to the area. What keeps them? Especially Dave who everyone views as damaged goods and not a crime victim. Even his own wife. As I said before, Jimmy runs a store (where did he get the money - from crime?) but has a criminal past and maybe even a criminal future if some of the people he is around are anything to go by. This is not a film that believes in total revelation.

I am also puzzled by when the "present day" is meant to be. There is confusion about whose blood was found in a certain place which would have been solved easily by DNA examination. They talk only of blood groups.Hmmm...

Despite its many faults this is serious and skillful film making and while I agree with another reviewer - that television does this kind of the thing better - that isn't to say that this isn't a welcome addition to the cannon of believable (in outline form) street drama involving imperfect people trying to make the best of things in very difficult circumstances.

Good (not great film)

[arunsampath · 7/10 · 2 August 2016]

OK it is a Clint Eastwood film. So here goes.

The Good:

1. Stellar cast and great performances all around. Sean Penn shines! 2. Clint's direction is spellbinding (for the most part). 3. Unconventional story line. Keeps you hooked until the end to find out who the murderer was.

The Bad:

1. Annabeth's (Laura Linney) BS about Jimmy (Sean Penn) being King etc. just comes out of nowhere and it is just that, BS. She lets Jimmy kill Dave (Tim Robbins), her cousin Celeste's husband because well, he is the king! Really? That was so completely out of character for her, the way she is portrayed for the rest of the film.

2. Jimmy being portrayed as some sort of a poor man's Godfather is not entirely convincing. Him killing Dave is even less so.

The Ugly:

1. Lauren Devine's (Kevin Bacon's wife) character is utterly ridiculous. And you are left wondering why she returns to Sean (Kevin Bacon) in the end. Talk about resolution with no logic.

2. Kid killers and the killing: The way the killing happens is so random, you are rendered "speechless" (sorry, one of the kid killers is mute). The behavior of the two kids after the killing, is very unnatural. They go around as if nothing happened fooling everyone. Yet Dave completely unravels after he kills a pedophile (understandably so).

3. The ending:

a. Gosh, talk about an unsatisfying ending. The last 10-15 minutes spoils the entire film which until then is running great!

b. Sean's reaction to Jimmy after he gets to know he killed Dave is again out of character especially after he knows that he also killed Just Ray. Yet earlier, he reacts with righteous indignation when he is accused of going soft on Dave as he was the suspect.

c. The parade scene ending gives a load of "what's going on here?" moments shot after shot. Certainly the low point in the film.

Yes, the review is harsh but I still hold on to the 7 stars rating. It is well worth a watch for sure.

to rank among the 5 best movies made in 2003

[dbdumonteil · 10/10 · 23 April 2005]

Let's say it straight away: before "Mystic River" (2003), Clint Eastwood's last works had left me a little unsatisfied; particularly "Blood Work" (2002), a watchable thriller with a certain charm but without great originality. But the following year, with "Mystic River", he made a sensational comeback and quite obviously this movie, which critically and commercially gave a boost to his career is his most accomplished since "Unforgiven" (1992).

By watching "Mystic River" one can feel that Clint Eastwood, more than ever put a lot of effort into the elaboration of his movie. From a subtle screenplay written by Brian Helgeland who shows that he is a far better scriptwriter than director (as far as I'm concerned, I hated the rather insipid "A Knight's Tale" 2001), Eastwood develops an absorbing and ingenious directing which contributes in weaving a shady and even stifling by moments atmosphere. On another extent, Eastwood takes back a way that had worked for him in "Blood Work": favoring calm and patience. And indeed, on an unhurried pace, the film-maker takes all his time to shot the evolution of this detective story. More important, he made this choice for another reason: to do a thorough psychological study of the three main characters. The basis of "Mystic River" consists in a classic detective investigation (nevertheless passionating in its construction) doubled with a relevant description of the three main protagonists.

To watch "Mystic River" is like to find oneself on the edge of a forest and to disappear into it. The more the movie progresses, the more we discover three heart-broken characters because they are linked by dark events. First, Jimmy Markum (Sean Penn). We learn that he has flirted with violence and has spent a few years in jail but he seems to have become a well-behaved man: he works in a grocery store and regularly goes to church. But the death of his daughter crushed him and he is determined to avenge her. Then, Sean Divine (Kevin Bacon) who appears as a reliable and lucid cop but whose private life is hell: he experienced a failed marriage and his wife keeps on harassing him day and night. At last, Dave Boyle (Tim Robbins), a broken father who underwent a deep traumatic experience (he was kidnapped and raped by two men who claimed to be priests). The consequences are terrible: he can't communicate anymore, he can't defend himself anymore and he wanders like a ghostly figure in the streets of his neighborhood. As a matter of fact, this traumatic scene is at the root of the three characters' misfortunes. Being the very first sequence of the movie, it sets the tone of Clint Eastwood's 24th movie. It presents Jimmy, Sean and Dave playing in a street. The sky is gray, the houses of the neighborhood are bare and austere. The ball which disappears through the manhole may symbolize the loss of childhood. Then, a big black car arrives. One of the men gets out and claims to be a priest (or does he?). He orders Dave to go into the car and the latter drives away. This moment will haunt the three boys for the rest of the lives and will deeply influence their personality. Roughly, "Mystic River" demonstrates in a conclusive way how such a past dramatic event can influence our present lives.

In virtually all the critics I have read, "Mystic River" was hailed for its cast. It's true that Penn, Bacon and Robbins rank among the best American actors of their generation and I think we will never thank Eastwood enough for having reunited them. By giving a lot of depth to their respective characters, one can feel that they were giving their all, which can explain why the movie was shot in a rather short time (39 days). They may even never battle their dazzling performances. And the rest of the cast is just as equal as the whole, especially the actresses whose female characters have an important role in the story since they influence (unconsciously or not) their husbands' actions and characters.

To a third degree, Eastwood's major work is also used to denounce the deceptive superficiality of the appearances, the omnipresence of violence and the credulity of many inhabitants. The film opens with an overview of the neighborhood but doesn't show yet that it is devastated by violence. No matter what the time is. Violence is omnipresence and the fact that it touches younger generations proves that it isn't ready to subside.

At last, let's also congratulate Eastwood for the remarkable music he has signed himself with his son. With this music, simplicity rhymes with efficiency. One has just to listen to a few notes to feel an intense emotion inside us.

In the middle of all these qualities, there are just minor faults. So, Bacon is a tormented cop due to his disastrous marriage and however, we really don't know what went wrong with his wife. Is it Dave's kidnapping? Is it his trying job? This point remains ambiguous. Ambiguous is also the adjective that suits the best to qualify the end of the film. What can mean the gesture Bacon makes to Penn? But these two points let freely the way to any possible interpretation.

The contribution of the crew in Eastwood's work is total and so is my enthusiasm for "Mystic River". If you haven't seen it yet, go and watch it. You won't regret it. At the age of 73 years old, "grandad" Clint Eastwood is still in great form and given the recent triumph of "Million Dollar Baby" (2004), he seems to have decided to bring the house down again in the landscape of American cinema for our greatest pleasure.

Eastwood's intricately-plotted family drama

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 4 September 2011]

Eastwood's expert direction and wonderful performances from the three leads make MYSTIC RIVER a drama worth watching. The film is made up of three interlocking sections, each represented by one of the leads. Kevin Bacon supplies the lesser police procedural aspects of the movie, Tim Robbins lends plenty of mystery to a whodunit plot, and Sean Penn is at the heart of the family drama-cum-tragedy.

The film is unpredictable throughout and slowly paced, taking its time to get to grips with the storyline instead of rushing through the plot. Never once does it feel boring. The attention to technical detail is spot on as you'd expect, and the mood finely judged throughout. It takes actors and a director of rare talent to make a movie this compelling, but in the case of MYSTIC RIVER everything comes together in a film that never disappoints.

Am I the only one who thinks this movie sends a terrible message?

[metamerc · 5/10 · 22 February 2006]

Call me simple, but I just watched Mystic River for the first time last night and it appears to condone the killing of the character played by Tim Robbins in a sort of, "Well, he's been all messed up since he was raped and molested as kid, anyway, so doing him in does everyone - especially him - a big favor." Excuse me, but I think that's a terribly brutal message to send. Yes, physical and emotional abuse can cause untold damage, but there are ways for people to seek out treatment through therapy.

The best thing about this film is how most everyone kind of 'expects' the Tim Robbins character to be found guilty and is surprised in the end. The fact that the writer makes 'Dave' actually complicit and responsible for _another_ murder does not wash with me as a sort of way of saying 'Well, he deserved what he had coming to him' as is insidiously and mischievously implied. It seems like a cop-out to me.

The bottom line is that Sean Penn's character brutally murders his childhood friend based on hearsay and the third friend, played by Kevin Bacon, suggests he will just look the other way even though it's pretty clear he knows Penn did it. And he's a cop!

So what the f*ck is going on with the little speech Penn's character's wife gives at the end of the film? "You could be the king of this town?" Maybe true, but also clear is the fact that he's going to be eaten by his demons in the process.

And all of this is OK? Watching the freaking parade stand murderers and friends side by side? Being guilty of murder is OK as long as you atone for it? Let's put our attention and hopes on the next generation?

Am I the only one to find this to be a bunch of crap?

Mystic River is a well acted and well directed American classic.

[egipson · 24 August 2004]

When I finally got to watch Mystic River, I was mesmerized by the acting of the ensemble cast. I watched this movie twice, alone and again with my husband. The content of the movie is relevant in any time frame. Upon watching it the second time I noticed "small" things that tied the movie and its characters together. Forgiveness, no I would not classify any of the characters as forgiving. It is very clear that Dave probably never receive counseling for the unspeakable crime done to him as a boy, Jimmy never really let go of his "on edge nerve" and Sean remains the responsible friend but not afraid to face life's messes. To watch a human drama unfold with such sad consequences and heavy retribution on one hand and little to no retribution on the other hand is a depiction that life is not always fair and some of us receive the bounty of life, while others get the smaller piece of pie.

This movie was well acted and well directed. I will never forget Sean Penn's portrayal of Jimmy in this star ensemble cast.

truely the years best! Eastwoods masterpiece!

[roysall · 10/10 · 19 October 2003]

Mystic River, a film I have been anticipating for months, gave me more than I could have ever expected. Clint Eastwood has delivered the finest film of his career. Mystic River, a tragic, yet needed to be made film, introduces us to three childhood friends who meet with unspeakable tragedy. Set in Boston, friends Jimmy (Sean Penn) Sean (Kevin Bacon) and Dave (Tim Robbins)are confronted by two men and Dave is ultimately abducted and abused before making his escape. Their lives will never be the same again.

Fast-foreward 25 years later. Sean is now a detective investigating the murder of Jimmy's daughter. Jimmy, who is now an ex-con, runs a local convenience store. Dave is now a father himself and is visibly still impacted by the events that occured 25 years earlier. The three friends, who are now estranged, are reunited as the evidence begins to unfold and Dave is considered a prime suspect in the murder. What follows is a tragic, brutal ending that will unlikely be forgotten.

What I liked most about this film is that it does not give us a hollywood feel. This would not be a good film if it ended differently or the way hollywood would want it to end. Eastwood slams the audience into the lives of these men and shows us what we sometimes choose not to see, real life and how tragedy affects us. I cannot praise Eastwood enough for this film. There has been talk of oscar nominations for Mystic River. Best Picture, best director, best actor, best supporting actor, best supporting actress, best screenplay, and the list goes on. Never have I seen a cast like this. The film was excellently crafted and Eastwood has done a stellar job. This is without a doubt the best movie I have ever seen. 10/10

Eastwood's next Oscar hit after "Unforgiven"

[Travis_Bickle01 · 9/10 · 6 August 2005]

Eastwood's big Oscar hit after "Unforgiven", that other masterpiece directed by Dirty Harry himself. "Mystic River" is based on the bestselling novel by Dennis Lehane and it has an incredible cast. The main leads are for Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon. Furthermore we have Laurence "Morpheus" Fishburne, Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden. The movie itself is very dark and sober without much music. The story is brilliantly written and the acting is without any doubt superb.

I'm glad Sean Penn finally won an Academy Award, he's a brilliant actor and he certainly deserves the recognition. Tim Robbins was good as well, but I think Benicio del Toro should have won the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role. His performance in "21 Grams" was much more superior to Robbins' performance in "Mystic River". Anyway, that's just what I think. Kevin Bacon was excellent as well and he is one of the most underrated actors of his generation. Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney were good as usual.

Although I very much enjoyed this movie, it didn't exactly turned out to be the masterpiece I was expecting. But that's maybe because this was only the first time I watched it. Anyway, I'm still looking forward to see Eastwood's masterpiece of this year: "Million Dollar Baby". But this movie is absolutely worth seeing as well.

8,5/10

A well-told whodunit tragedy

[Miroslav-27 · 8/10 · 12 September 2022]

Watched this movie in 2022 as it had been almost 20 years since I'd seen it and couldn't really remember much. The story is still tragic, the acting is still very good, the directing is still top-notch, and the ending is still haunting. On paper, Mystic River could have turned into a classic murder mystery film, but the material actually goes much deeper. There are additional themes explored here: childhood trauma, consequences for our actions, connections from the past, ripple effects of neighborhood tragedy, etc. These elements are carefully intertwined with the main storyline which is what keeps Mystic River a step above its peers. A star-studded cast bring this film into Oscar-winning territory and you will be glad you rewatched it.

Verdict: Watch it.

Who killed Katie?

[igornveiga · 8/10 · 12 August 2022]

It's definitely a good movie, it's not a masterpiece, but it still manages to have a lot of fun in terms of suspense. I watched the movie and I kept wanting to guess who the murderer was and it's funny how the movie forces us to believe that it's a certain character and once it indicates that it's another one and at least I was very curious.

The film revolves around three characters, Sean an investigating police officer in the homicide department, Jimmy an ex-con with mafia connections and Dave a young man who was kidnapped and abused as a child. Separated by time, one day Sean receives a call to investigate a murder, and the one who died was Jimmy's daughter Katie. Faced with this tragedy, the friends meet again and the plot begins.

A good movie that promises suspense until the final scene that you can be sure is not predictable, maybe it frustrates a lot of people because in fact it's not the ending you expected. It is worth mentioning the performance of Tim Robbins that greatly enhances the film and passes in an excellent way the chaos of the mind of a person who grows up traumatized and without psychological support.

coincidences galore mar film

[rickblaine1942 · 6/10 · 4 November 2005]

I enjoyed Mystic River on some levels- cinematography, mood, setting, score, character development. I can even go along to some degree with ploys set up to connote a modern-day Shakespearean tragedy.

What I find totally implausible, however, are the numerous contrived coincidences needed to prop up the story- otherwise it falls over like a house of cards.

Katie Markum meets her doom at the hands of her boyfriend's mute brother(Silent Ray) and his buddy, when she randomly encounters them the night before she's supposed to run off with the boyfriend(Brendan). Silent Ray just happens to be playing around that night with a gun that was used in a liquor store robbery years before by Brendan's father. One of the boys takes a pot shot at Katie's vehicle, causing her to drive off the road injured, and when they discover they know the girl- well naturally, she's got to die, otherwise she'd rat them out, they figure.

Coincidentally, Silent Ray and Brendan's father (Just Ray) was killed by Katie's father (Jimmy) years before for ratting him out to the police and Jimmy did a two-year stretch in the pen before coming out and getting his revenge. And Katie just happened to fall in love with Brendan, the young man Jimmy dislikes because he's Just Ray's son.

Now Dave (Jimmy's boyhood friend), also of the neighborhood, just happens to see Katie in a bar just before she's killed (which later sets him up as a suspect). Dave's withdrawn from being molested as a kid, but coincidentally, on the fateful night of Katie's murder, he happens to run into another molester and ends up beating him badly. Oh, the irony.

Naturally, when Dave comes home with blood on his hands and relates the incident to his wife, Celeste, she becomes immediately suspicious when a news report reveals Katie's murder. This was a glaring plot contrivance.

There was no groundwork laid for Celeste's suspicions, never-the-less this being a Shakespearean tragedy, suspicion outweighed the bond they'd formed since childhood and subsequent marriage.

The third boyhood friend (of Jimmy and Dave)- Sean is a Boston detective and even though he rarely sees the guys anymore, he just happens (out of all the detectives in big-city Boston) to draw Katie's homicide case.

We know for this story to come full circle there must be more tragedy to balance the scales. Celeste relates her suspicions to Jimmy who, in turn, kills his friend Dave just before Sean solves Katie's murder.

There were other plot blunders. Even though Sean (and his partner Whitey) do bravura police work to connect Katie's murder to a 20-year-old robbery, we're then supposed to believe modern-day Boston hasn't advanced enough to unravel blood and fiber evidence at Katie's homicide scene and the scene where Dave beat up the molester.

Finally, Annabeth's (Jimmy's wife) speech near the end justifying Dave's murder is absurd- unless of course, you buy into the film as fable. But since it's presented as gritty realism, the scene feels out of place. Also awkward are Sean's phone conversations with his estranged wife who calls him up but says nothing. If this is meant to draw a parallel with the mute Silent Ray, it doesn't make sense.

If you recall Clint Eastwood's 1999 'True Crime', Eastwood plays a self-indulgent reporter who follows a string of clues of an old murder investigation, and is able to save the condemned man in the nick of time. Apparently, Eastwood thought that resolution was too pat and happy.

So in Mystic River, the detectives solve the case just a smidgen too late to keep Jimmy from killing Dave. Here, revenge and violence are deemed honorable emotions indifferent to the suffering of innocent people. If the wrong people die, so what- at least intentions were good.

The anguish worn by most of the lead characters also seems contrived, manipulating the audience into thinking they're watching something meaningful.

Classic Eastwood

[geoff33 · 10/10 · 14 November 2003]

This movie is a good study in human nature and fate. Eastwood has always tried to haze the line between a good guy and the things a person does to define him as such. His good guys do so much bad and his bad guys do so much good that we are often left pondering what we see in his movies. Mystic River will take your imagination and patience to the limit. Mystery, intrigue and suspense are superbly blended for a home run.

Just a fair film

[cybertigger1 · 6/10 · 27 December 2006]

I honestly don't understand why some consider this a great film. It's got mostly decent acting, directing, cinematography, music, and the like, but frankly the drama seems mostly manufactured out of unlikely coincidences which destroy any illusion of reality. Take away those and you're left with an average episode of "Law & Order: Criminal Intent." Three childhood pals encounter a couple of pedophiles pretending to be cops. One is abducted and abused for four days before escaping. Over the years the friends drift apart ... one becomes a cop, one becomes a criminal (now supposedly reformed), and the third, the one who was abducted, manages to get married and raise a family but has trouble keeping jobs.

One night the daughter of the ex-criminal is murdered. That same night the ex-abductee comes home covered in blood and with his hand injured, and he gives people different stories about what happened. Meanwhile, the cop is called in to investigate. The police initially suspect the ex-abductee but then their investigation pulls them in another direction as they learn more about the ex-con's past. While this is going on, the ex-con and his crooked friends are doing their own hunt for the killer.

So how's it all turn out? Well, it seems the murder was actually committed by a couple of idiot kids in a prank gone bad. They intended to pull this prank on a random motorist, but that random motorist just happened to turn out to be the girlfriend of one of the kids' older brother. Meanwhile the ex-abductee really had killed someone that same night, but it was a pedophile he saw molesting a kid in a car. But the hotheaded ex-con kills his old friend before the cop can unravel the mystery and catch the real killers.

Come on. This requires more suspension of disbelief than your average fantasy film. We are asked to accept far too many coincidences. Let's list them: 1. One childhood friend, who suffered trauma as a kid, sees the daughter of another childhood friend, an ex-con supposedly gone straight, on the night she's murdered.

2. This girl is killed by a couple of kids trying to pull a prank on a random motorist. However, the random motorist just happens to be one of the kids' older brother's girlfriend.

3. This older brother happens to have a father who had reason to dislike and want to seek revenge on the girl's father.

4. Meanwhile, this same night, the first childhood friend kills somebody else, injuring his hand in the process, and leaves that person's body someplace where it's not found for several days, which coupled with his seeing the victim on the night she was killed naturally leads to him becoming a suspect in that murder.

5. The cop who is called in to investigate the girl's murder is a childhood friend of both the victim's ex-con father and of the man who was abused as a kid and who saw the victim on the night she was killed.

How often does anything remotely like this happen in real life? Yet I've heard this movie praised for its stark realism. Please.

Don't get me wrong, if you can manage to suspend your disbelief and focus on the acting and other good aspects, this is an OK film, even though there are other problems besides the coincidences. For example, the way the ex-con's wife is revealed to be a rather cold-blooded b***ch who easily rationalizes away her husband's inexcusable crime, when there is no inkling of this aspect of her character earlier in the film. And the cop character's inexplicable behavior after his ex-con childhood friend basically confesses that he has killed their other childhood friend out of a mistaken belief that this man had murdered his daughter. He not only does not arrest the ex-con on the spot, as he gets into his car and drives away he smiles and talks happily on the phone with his wife as she tells him she's coming back home.

Yeah, I suppose it's a kinda "gritty drama," but realistic it's not. And it's not particularly profound, either.

The strongest American movie since American Beauty

[tylerdurden19 · 10/10 · 15 October 2003]

Mr. Eastwood has made a film of true and honest art. A film that looks up to Shakespear and actually does him justice. The depth and emotion that is in each and every scene is remarkable. All the Performances are for the ages. Mr. Penn creates a man that is deeply flawed and yet totally human. Mr. Bacon digs into a man's soul that has dealt with guilt and loss. Mr. Robins provides a man that is a child in mind and an adult in actions that is never cartoonish or ironic. The amazing Mr. Guiry makes Brendon something for the ages, a teen that is not a illustration of a teen but rather a person that has complex emotions and emotional reactions (he should win the oscar, or at least get a nomination). Ms. Gay Harden never sinks to cliches for a single moment in her playing of a woman that can not trust the man she loves, yet still loves him. Ms. Linney brings to life a woman that is truely Lady Macbeth. The music, Editing, and camera work are all exceltent as well. Mr. Helgeland's screenplay is bound for oscar gold. Great job to all involved! This is a must see for any movie lover or average film patron in general.

One question, anybody else see it? (SPOILERS)

[rarematters · 7/10 · 6 July 2004]

This movie is unique and thoughtful. Clint Eastwood is equally integral to this film's success as are the other actors in this strongly talented cast. Eastwood manages to be a powerful force equal to an actual headlining cast appearance. One thing I noticed and can't quite figure. (Spoilers) If you watch the non-talking kidnapper turn around in the car to face young Dave, the direction of the movie makes a very clear point to show us his ring, as he places his hand on the seat. So obvious, I remembered it as a possible clue. When Sean Penn stands barebacked in front of the window while the parade is going on, he has the same cross tattooed onto his back as was depicted on the ring. Hmmm... I pose an open question about this to everyone.

Very Problematic

[MO-66 · 5/10 · 5 February 2004]

Glad to see there are other disappointed viewers of Mystic River. This is the movie that could have been good based on the story. But the actual script, directing and yes, acting , are off just enough so that the parts to do not add up to an exceptional whole. Sean Penn was really "ACTING" as hard as he could, Marcia Gay Harden seemed overly fidgety and pathetic. SPOILERS: The biggest weaknesses of this movie are the story elements- why did Sean Penn's relationship with his daughter seem incestuous and yet that was never examined, why is Tim Robbins in a gay cruising area when he attacks and kills a man, what does Kevin Bacon's estranged wife have to do with any of this (except to confirm that it's a "happy" ending for him), why does Laura Linney suddenly turn into Lady Macbeth at the end- excuse me, was Lady Macbeth even in this film before the end? And the main thread of the movie- who killed Sean Penn's daughter- oops, it was just a couple of foolish kids and they don't know why they did it. Oops, sorry. The potential for tragedy is so untapped here- the little kid that actually committed the murder should have done it for revenge- Sean Penn killed his father years before! Hello, why is there no connection here other than a weak coincidence that up til then had been the PLOT! Clint Eastwood dropped the ball big time.