- Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures
- Release Date: Oct 8, 2003
User Score
6.3
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 337 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 216 out of 337
-
Mixed: 32 out of 337
-
Negative: 89 out of 337
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
AlexRMar 20, 20064wow, I can find some seemingly good aspects about this film if I try, but come on!.. a 10? Award nominations? I just can
-
-
JeffG.Dec 10, 20040
-
-
MaxwellS.May 9, 20044I was looking forward to this movie more than anything in late 2003 except for LOTR:ROTK. What happened?! Seriously! This movie had everything going for it. The acting was spectacular, it was based on a great book, and Clint Eastwood at the helm. Sadly, it was boring, predictable, and disappointing.
-
-
N8daGR8Oct 30, 20030
-
-
MaddieJan 28, 20040It's got plotholes you could drive a truck through. Pretentious performances and directing.
-
-
JeffB.Feb 1, 20040Arrogant yet completely forgettable.
-
-
DanielB.Feb 20, 20042
-
-
JasonT.Mar 27, 20043Silly, annoyingly pretentious garbage. How the hell did this crap get nominated for best picture?
-
-
LarryR.Oct 26, 20031Overly 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?
-
-
AustinW.Oct 29, 20033Over-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.
-
-
JohnJan 12, 20043
-
-
AlexG.Jan 26, 20040Tedious and the scenery chewing performances overshadow any substance.
-
-
FrancineG.Mar 27, 20044
-
-
BethM.Jan 27, 20053Couldn't stand the acting by Sean Penn or Laura Linney in this movie.
-
-
SwedenFeb 27, 20052
-
-
JohnC.Nov 15, 20030Borrrring 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 ...
-
-
JackOct 13, 20034Like Elliott below, I too was very disappointed with the movie. It was calculated and the actors seemed as though they were trying to outdo each other. It was highly disturbing and consistently gloomy - I can handle distubing fare, but Mystic River is just flat-out unpleasant. I wanted it to end long before it did.
-
-
JackOct 13, 20034Like Elliott below, I too was very disappointed with the movie. It was calculated and the actors seemed as though they were trying to outdo each other. It was highly disturbing and consistently gloomy - I can handle distubing fare, but Mystic River is just flat-out unpleasant. I wanted it to end long before it did.
-
-
JordanT.Jan 4, 20041And 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.
-
-
TooGoodToBeTrueJan 8, 20040A MUST SEE!!! For all insomniacs.
-
-
CriticsHaveGoneMadFeb 4, 20043
-
-
TomK.Mar 3, 20041
-
-
DavidH.Apr 30, 20044
-
-
FassieJul 15, 20041Rotten 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.
-
-
T.M.Jan 31, 20054One of the most overrated films of 2003 (along with "LOTR:ROTK" and "Lost in Translation"). A great cast is wasted on a bunch of thoroughly unlikable characters, and on a self-indulgent, ponderous, wretchedly overblown screenplay. I thought it would never end, and when it did, I was troubled by the ideas the ending promoted.
-
-
DaveW.Mar 21, 20050How 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.
-
-
HollyB.Jun 19, 20052This 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.
-
-
BobA.Jan 15, 20064A noble effort by Eastwood, but ultimately a movie that leaves the audience unsure if they should really care. The editing is disjointing, the solution to the murder mystery is unsatisfying, the twist is shallow and the acting is the equivalent of the lunatics taking over the asylum.
-
-
SteveM.Nov 11, 20031I 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.
-
-
SteveM.Nov 11, 20031I 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.
-
-
ElliottOct 12, 20033
-
-
M.DonnasNov 2, 20030About 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.
-
-
AlexDec 19, 20032There 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.
-
-
BethOct 23, 20032It'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.
-
-
JJNov 18, 20044Good acting by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins. Everything else sucks. The storyline leaves too many loose ends. K. Bacon seemed too weak and what contribution did the subplot of the wife calling him on the cell phone add to the movie. This movie certainly doesn't deserve all the kudos it gets.
-
-
GarthB.Jan 24, 20042
-
-
KarlS.Feb 12, 20042Overwrought, 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.
-
-
MariahJ.Feb 13, 20044Tim Robbins turns in a good performance and Sean Penn falls overboard his hamming boat. The book was far better than this patchy, lifeless, self-important adaptation.
-
-
JonFeb 15, 20044A depressing, disappointing mystery flick. It tries to be important by exploiting social issues such as child abuse, but the overacting made me cringe, and the inflated script (which was lifted striaght out of the book, and badly botched during the attempt) is simply overbearing.
-
-
GeorgeJ.Feb 17, 20043Sean 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.
-
-
[Anonymous]Feb 22, 20041
-
-
EmineeeT.Feb 29, 20041I 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???
-
-
MichaelApr 13, 20043Laura Linney's closing monologue should be nominated somewhere for the worst monologue ever delivered. So atrocious I laughed out loud in the theater!!!
-
-
LSAug 21, 20043The 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!
-
-
StevenZ.Sep 25, 20070
-
-
Mar 4, 20112It 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.
-
75This is at bottom a pulp thriller that strains -- sometimes pretentiously, at other times with gutter magnificence -- to reach the level of basic human truths.
-
100To see strong acting like this is exhilarating. In a time of flashy directors who slice and dice their films in a dizzy editing rhythm, it is important to remember that films can look and listen and attentively sympathize with their characters. Directors grow great by subtracting, not adding, and Eastwood does nothing for show, everything for effect.
-
100Mystic River is classic Eastwood, classic noir. If there is still some doubt about whether this one-time macho star is actually a world-class moviemaker, Mystic River should end the argument for good. One of the best American movies of the year, crisply well-crafted and beautifully acted.