Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: October 8, 2003
6.7
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 456 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
307
Mixed:
56
Negative:
93
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
N8daGR8Oct 30, 2003
Read the book! If ever you think of going to see this movie based on the reveiws, DON'T and spend your money on the book. Trust me you will thank yourself. Character development was apparently something Helgeland and Eastwood felt a Read the book! If ever you think of going to see this movie based on the reveiws, DON'T and spend your money on the book. Trust me you will thank yourself. Character development was apparently something Helgeland and Eastwood felt a film could do without. The cinematography is so overtly obvious in trying to lead you on that it becomes annoying after about five minutes, but just wait you get the joy of sitting through over two hours of this...enjoy. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful
0
JeffG.Dec 10, 2004
This was one of the most pretentious pieces of s..t I've ever seen! It seems all we need for a collective, critic circle jerk is to have Sean, Tim, Kevin, and child molestation in the same film. A story can enlighten, inform, unite, This was one of the most pretentious pieces of s..t I've ever seen! It seems all we need for a collective, critic circle jerk is to have Sean, Tim, Kevin, and child molestation in the same film. A story can enlighten, inform, unite, mystify, amuse, or frighten. Can anyone explain to me how this film did any of the above? A trailer that seemed to hint that Tim Robbins's character would track down his molesters with the aid of friends he hadn't seen in years, a plot that my wife and I figured out at the halfway point, and enough dead-end/pointless plot devices to fill Boston Harbor. Above all, this film carried with it the most reviling aspect of 'hip,' modern film-making, and that was the moral vacuum that this film resides in. Thank you for the forum. Jeff Graham-Tulsa, OK. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful
0
MaddieJan 28, 2004
It's got plotholes you could drive a truck through. Pretentious performances and directing.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
0
JeffB.Feb 1, 2004
Arrogant yet completely forgettable.
1 of 2 users found this helpful
2
DanielB.Feb 20, 2004
I saw this film back in October when it first opened. I was never so disappointed. The writing, acting, and directing all demonstrate a shocking lack of self-awareness and patent snobbery. The writers had fertile ground to work on, so why I saw this film back in October when it first opened. I was never so disappointed. The writing, acting, and directing all demonstrate a shocking lack of self-awareness and patent snobbery. The writers had fertile ground to work on, so why did they choose to cheapen the narrative with stupid plot twists that come straight out of a dime store thriller? While Tim Robbins is quite good in his limited role, Sean Penn's turn was aggravatingly artificial. I fervently hope that Bill Murray wins the Oscar for his far more sensitive and genuine acting in Lost in Translation. Its whole tone is self-congratualory and smug which is completely out of place and just mind-numbing for the viewer. Essentially, the film is out of touch with itself. It tries to walk and talk like a good movie, when it is anything but. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful
3
JasonT.Mar 27, 2004
Silly, annoyingly pretentious garbage. How the hell did this crap get nominated for best picture?
1 of 2 users found this helpful
1
LarryR.Oct 26, 2003
Overly pretentious, full of undeserved self-importance, and making the revolutionary statement that violence begets violence. Wow, who wudda' thunk? Be prepared to sit through over two hours of inaudible dialogue by Sean Penn and a Overly pretentious, full of undeserved self-importance, and making the revolutionary statement that violence begets violence. Wow, who wudda' thunk? Be prepared to sit through over two hours of inaudible dialogue by Sean Penn and a preachy predictable plot. Isn't something supposed to happen in movies? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
AustinW.Oct 29, 2003
Over-acted, over-directed, ham-handed - just plain awful. Bacon and Fishburne are pretty good, but Penn, Harden, Linney (ugh - that monologue Beth referred to is horrendous), Robbins, etc, etc are all TERRIBLE. It's like a bad episode Over-acted, over-directed, ham-handed - just plain awful. Bacon and Fishburne are pretty good, but Penn, Harden, Linney (ugh - that monologue Beth referred to is horrendous), Robbins, etc, etc are all TERRIBLE. It's like a bad episode of law + order with an extra hour and a half and a blue filter. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JohnJan 12, 2004
Out of all the actors, I could only admire Marica Gay Harden - she seemed to be the only person who didn't blatantly try to out-act everyone else. As far as the story goes, it completely degerates in the last third. As a murder mystery, Out of all the actors, I could only admire Marica Gay Harden - she seemed to be the only person who didn't blatantly try to out-act everyone else. As far as the story goes, it completely degerates in the last third. As a murder mystery, it fails. As a social commentary, it fails even more. And as far as packing an emotional impact, Laura Linney's monologue in the end drove me to laughter. Still, the end was sickening. Eastwood ends the film with such a disgusting lack of faith in mankind that I felt sick to my stomach. And I can stomach depressing films. Mystic River just sucks. (p.s. for truly harrowing acting, see 21 Grams. Penn's performance is remarkably better). Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
AlexG.Jan 26, 2004
Tedious and the scenery chewing performances overshadow any substance.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
DaveW.Mar 21, 2005
How can you make a movie like this and sleep at night. Clint Eastwood should be ashamed. Making a movie like this should bring him down. Clint Eastwood knows better then to show a movie that crap. I give this movie a 0.
0 of 3 users found this helpful
1
SteveM.Nov 11, 2003
I give it a 1 because one of the aerial shots of Boston was well-done. That, of course, left me with another 136 minutes to calculate the average number of white dots on an Ice Cap (28). Sadly, this intensive labor proved more profound than I give it a 1 because one of the aerial shots of Boston was well-done. That, of course, left me with another 136 minutes to calculate the average number of white dots on an Ice Cap (28). Sadly, this intensive labor proved more profound than the movie. One wonders what is going on with our society that so many people would slobber over this film. It may be time to move to Canada. Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
1
SteveM.Nov 11, 2003
I give it a 1 because one of the aerial shots of Boston was well-done. That, of course, left me with another 136 minutes to calculate the average number of white dots on an Ice Cap (28). Sadly, this intensive labor proved more profound than I give it a 1 because one of the aerial shots of Boston was well-done. That, of course, left me with another 136 minutes to calculate the average number of white dots on an Ice Cap (28). Sadly, this intensive labor proved more profound than the movie. One wonders what is going on with our society that so many people would slobber over this film. It may be time to move to Canada. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
ElliottOct 12, 2003
Saw it in NY the other day and I can't explain in words the anger that rushed through me as the film progressed. When the inexplicable and random ending destroys any credibility the story had prior to, Eastwood continues to progress in Saw it in NY the other day and I can't explain in words the anger that rushed through me as the film progressed. When the inexplicable and random ending destroys any credibility the story had prior to, Eastwood continues to progress in the wrong direction. The denouement succeeds only in fortifying the lack of faith Eastwood has in mankind; the image of the supportive community is erased, the characters almost "give up" although innocent people have been killed. The conclusion made me sick unlike any film ever had before. Truly, deeply sick. But for unplanned reasons I think. Aside from some of the brilliant acting, especially from Marcia Gay Harden as the ONLY human character in the film, Mystic River is an unmitigated failure. The score is pedantic and dull, the dialogue is laughably bad, and Laurence Fishburne's character as the comic relief (his name is "Whitey" !?!) - only aid in allowing this film to crash and burn. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
M.DonnasNov 2, 2003
About 20 minutes into this movie I felt a feeling in my gut that this movie was going to suck. After waiting for two more hours I told my self to trust those feelings from now on. There is simply nothing good about this movie. Not even the About 20 minutes into this movie I felt a feeling in my gut that this movie was going to suck. After waiting for two more hours I told my self to trust those feelings from now on. There is simply nothing good about this movie. Not even the super cast could over come Eastwood's over dramatic, over cut, and obsolete style of direction. Very disappointing. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
0
StevenZ.Sep 25, 2007
The most overrated movie of all time. Hideous, offensive, and soul-destroying. The kind of movie that tells you life sucks and everything's awful, and then fakes the evidence. Every plot twist is rigged and unbelievable, every line is The most overrated movie of all time. Hideous, offensive, and soul-destroying. The kind of movie that tells you life sucks and everything's awful, and then fakes the evidence. Every plot twist is rigged and unbelievable, every line is ponderous and humorless, and the experience leaves you thinking there's nothing that can be accomplished in life. And don't blather to me about the "powerful acting." The best performances in this movie--the fine, quiet work done by Kevin Bacon, Laura Linney, and Laurence Fishburne--were, of course, the least acclaimed. All the praise and Oscars went to the overdone hamming of Penn, Robbins, and Marcia Gay Harden (who, to be fair, was given nothing to play but scaredy-cat.) It was embarrassing seeing the great Ms. Linney trying to make that bogus Lady Macbeth scene at the end believable. One of those movies that's trying to impress you rather than tell a story, which you're supposed to learn a lesson from. "Life sucks" is not an original message, nor one that will come as a great surprise to many people, but overpraised hack directors always seem to think they're doing something daring by trotting it out. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
CritiqueGirlMar 4, 2011
It was on TV recently and talk about not able to hold my attention. I popped in now and then to see if I could stand it as there was nothing else on. Bad.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
3
BethM.Jan 27, 2005
Couldn't stand the acting by Sean Penn or Laura Linney in this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
SwedenFeb 27, 2005
Movie just made me mad. And it insisted on driving itself into the ground for about 10 minutes after the movie had actually ended. Compeletly unsatisfying. Tim Robbins was just a goof. Some roles are made for unknown actors and this was one Movie just made me mad. And it insisted on driving itself into the ground for about 10 minutes after the movie had actually ended. Compeletly unsatisfying. Tim Robbins was just a goof. Some roles are made for unknown actors and this was one of them. The fact that I could see through his bad Boston accent just made me hate him personally. There was so much idiocy in this film it made me laugh. What's the point of the mute kid? What's the point of Bacon's mute phone-stalker wife? Frankly, what's the point of the whole childhood abduction flashback? I get the feeling that Eastwood is trying hard to convince me of some "truth" about the haunting repercussions of lost innocence, but all I see is ham-fisted, cliched, wankery. Just sucked. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohnC.Nov 15, 2003
Borrrring There is just nothing there. It was like wearing shoes that weighed 20 pounds apeice and trying to walk through mud. The movie just plods and plods and ...
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JordanT.Jan 4, 2004
And I'm being nice with my rating. I was extremely upset by the time it ended. Not only is some of the acting bad, especially Sean Penn's over-acting, but the story is full of flaws and boring. I kept looking at my watch for this And I'm being nice with my rating. I was extremely upset by the time it ended. Not only is some of the acting bad, especially Sean Penn's over-acting, but the story is full of flaws and boring. I kept looking at my watch for this torture to end. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
TooGoodToBeTrueJan 8, 2004
A MUST SEE!!! For all insomniacs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CriticsHaveGoneMadFeb 4, 2004
I have never been so disappointed in critics in my entire life. I saw this movie 2 weeks after it came out because of all the wonderful reviews it received. I was suckered! No point, predictable plot, and for me, obvious killer. Lady MacBeth I have never been so disappointed in critics in my entire life. I saw this movie 2 weeks after it came out because of all the wonderful reviews it received. I was suckered! No point, predictable plot, and for me, obvious killer. Lady MacBeth scene that everyone has been gushing about came out of no where and didn't fit. Felt ridiculous. Didn't care about the characters because they didn't care about each other. Yes, Sean Penn did some very impressive acting, but the movie was horrible. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TomK.Mar 3, 2004
Listen, I'm not a LOTR freak by any means. That being said, and looking at this movies on it's own merit, it had to be one of the slowest moving, wastes of time I've experienced as of late in the cinema. The plot was simple Listen, I'm not a LOTR freak by any means. That being said, and looking at this movies on it's own merit, it had to be one of the slowest moving, wastes of time I've experienced as of late in the cinema. The plot was simple enough for a three year old to figure out. But even more sad than that was the fact that the characters, (yes, even the one played by the normally outstanding Tim Robbins) were people I just didn't care about. Not one iota. Sitting through this movie was like watching paint dry. Watching paint dry is actually more enjoyable, since there usually is a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment accompanying it. Do yourself a favor, and avoid this 2 hour waste of your life. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FassieJul 15, 2004
Rotten acting, rotten storyline, rotten lighting....and rotten directing. Absolute waste of time. I saw the movie because it had good actors.....rotten decision on my part.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
HollyB.Jun 19, 2005
This is one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen. Not only was the plot weak -- uninspired melodramatic story with underdeveloped characters -- and the directing AND acting, including Sean Penn, were extremely weak. I thought Tim This is one of the most overrated movies I've ever seen. Not only was the plot weak -- uninspired melodramatic story with underdeveloped characters -- and the directing AND acting, including Sean Penn, were extremely weak. I thought Tim Robbins was the only strong character. All in all, an awful movie. What is everyone thinking? I guess this is what appeals to the general public. Sad. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
AlexDec 19, 2003
There are worse films this year, but none more infuriating and overplayed. The story deteriorates into dreadfulness in the last half hour and suddenly explodes into a series of pathetically delivered monologues and Christ-like poses. Easily There are worse films this year, but none more infuriating and overplayed. The story deteriorates into dreadfulness in the last half hour and suddenly explodes into a series of pathetically delivered monologues and Christ-like poses. Easily the most overrated film of the year; how it has managed to rack in such applause is shocking. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BethOct 23, 2003
It's not the subject of the film that is so much tragic as the film itself. In one Razzie-worthy example, Laura Linney's monologue in the end was so hilariously bad, I laughed out loud in the theater, much to the anger of the It's not the subject of the film that is so much tragic as the film itself. In one Razzie-worthy example, Laura Linney's monologue in the end was so hilariously bad, I laughed out loud in the theater, much to the anger of the others around me. I couldn't help it - few films have ever felt so calculated, so false, so unbelievably awful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
GarthB.Jan 24, 2004
Where to begin. For starters don't see this horrible film. I don't know what the critics were thinking! This film has more plot holes than swiss cheese. I can't say much about those without giving some of the plot away - but Where to begin. For starters don't see this horrible film. I don't know what the critics were thinking! This film has more plot holes than swiss cheese. I can't say much about those without giving some of the plot away - but for example, a red haired boy grows up to have black hair and a black haired boy grows up to have reddish hair. Or how about the fact that perhaps the actions of the so-called police in this movie are totally unbelievable. Or perhaps that the killer in the end has nothing to do with anything in the movie at all (the way it is told). There are others, take your pick - nuff said. Besides that, the story has been done enough before. The writing is dismal - and at times nonsensical. Clint Eastwood tries to push the symbolism WAY too far to the point that it makes little sense. There are technical flaws too - see if you can find em yourself (or save your money). Worst of all, the ending is weak. This film doesn't get a 0 because Tim Robbins and Sean Penn (though at times a bit too Pacino-ish) do good jobs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
KarlS.Feb 12, 2004
Overwrought, overwritten, overacted, overdirected. It's also pretentious and constantly blaring its inflated sense of importance to the viewer. In the end its pomposity just translates into random speeches and non sequiturs. The plot is Overwrought, overwritten, overacted, overdirected. It's also pretentious and constantly blaring its inflated sense of importance to the viewer. In the end its pomposity just translates into random speeches and non sequiturs. The plot is one of the most predictable of the year, and yet also manages to have more holes than Swiss cheese. I left the theater with a headache. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
GeorgeJ.Feb 17, 2004
Sean Penn scrunches up his face a lot. Female roles are one-dimensional and exist for nothing else than to prop others up. To see real acting, go see Lost in Translation.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
[Anonymous]Feb 22, 2004
This movie is NOT an accurate portrayal of Irish working-class Boston, and this is something critical to the story but that is totally overlooked by the reviewers. In its portrayal of working-class Irish Boston, it totally skims over the This movie is NOT an accurate portrayal of Irish working-class Boston, and this is something critical to the story but that is totally overlooked by the reviewers. In its portrayal of working-class Irish Boston, it totally skims over the race issue, which was a HUGE factor in Irish-Catholic identity in the seventies and since. The author of the book is clearly a very biased writer who glamorizes a culture believing itself racially superior to blacks, and ethnically superior to Italians, that is excused for the violence it produced during the Boston school desegregation crisis and against black and Italian Bostonians, in general. This was totally swept under the rug by the movie and the book and should be enough to discredit it. The know-it-all reviewers don't bother doing any research on the factual background of films. Shame on them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EmineeeT.Feb 29, 2004
I expected a lot from this movie...and was very disappointed. The actors are first rate, but played horrible, emotion-less characters in this movie. The story line left large holes that were never answered. The movie lacked feeling, appeal, I expected a lot from this movie...and was very disappointed. The actors are first rate, but played horrible, emotion-less characters in this movie. The story line left large holes that were never answered. The movie lacked feeling, appeal, and flow. I do not recommend it. Sean Penn should not have won best actor...perhaps Bill Murray??? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MichaelApr 13, 2004
Laura Linney's closing monologue should be nominated somewhere for the worst monologue ever delivered. So atrocious I laughed out loud in the theater!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LSAug 21, 2004
The acting was alright at times, but this movie was HORRIBLE! The script was cliched and the movie tried to be deep and thematic with the whole "river" theme, when the river was barely shown or mentioned at all!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
derilFeb 18, 2015
changeling is far better.........,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..........................................................,,,,,.no moral at all
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews