User Score
6.3 out of 10

Generally favorable reviews- based on 337 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 89 out of 337

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. AlexR
    Mar 20, 2006
    4
    wow, I can find some seemingly good aspects about this film if I try, but come on!.. a 10? Award nominations? I just can
  2. JeffG.
    Dec 10, 2004
    0
    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
  3. MaxwellS.
    May 9, 2004
    4
    I 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.
  4. N8daGR8
    Oct 30, 2003
    0
    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
  5. Maddie
    Jan 28, 2004
    0
    It's got plotholes you could drive a truck through. Pretentious performances and directing.
  6. JeffB.
    Feb 1, 2004
    0
    Arrogant yet completely forgettable.
  7. DanielB.
    Feb 20, 2004
    2
    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
  8. JasonT.
    Mar 27, 2004
    3
    Silly, annoyingly pretentious garbage. How the hell did this crap get nominated for best picture?
  9. LarryR.
    Oct 26, 2003
    1
    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?
  10. AustinW.
    Oct 29, 2003
    3
    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.
  11. John
    Jan 12, 2004
    3
    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
  12. AlexG.
    Jan 26, 2004
    0
    Tedious and the scenery chewing performances overshadow any substance.
  13. FrancineG.
    Mar 27, 2004
    4
    The film was badly disjointed and the acting chews more scenery than anything else I have seen in a few years. Given its pedigree in the directing, writing, and acting departments, it was bound to garner some critical attention, pretty much all of it undeserved. It pretends to be some kind of profound examination of the human condition. It's actually a depressing melodrama and unsuspenseful suspense flick. Expand
  14. BethM.
    Jan 27, 2005
    3
    Couldn't stand the acting by Sean Penn or Laura Linney in this movie.
  15. Sweden
    Feb 27, 2005
    2
    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
  16. JohnC.
    Nov 15, 2003
    0
    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 ...
  17. Jack
    Oct 13, 2003
    4
    Like 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.
  18. Jack
    Oct 13, 2003
    4
    Like 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.
  19. JordanT.
    Jan 4, 2004
    1
    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.
  20. TooGoodToBeTrue
    Jan 8, 2004
    0
    A MUST SEE!!! For all insomniacs.
  21. CriticsHaveGoneMad
    Feb 4, 2004
    3
    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
  22. TomK.
    Mar 3, 2004
    1
    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
  23. DavidH.
    Apr 30, 2004
    4
    I saw this movie before it received any recognition, so while I was expecting something interesting, I wasn't expecting it to win awards. However, even then, I was disappointed because the movie is so obvious in its attempt to create drama that all of the emotion is just sucked out of it. I think Clint Eastwood has done some interesting work in the past, but here he is trying to hard. And, so are the actors. They want to be good so much that ... it just isn't. I'm perplexed by the critical acclaim, which shows the power of hollywood. Maybe if we're told enough that it's great, perhaps we will believe it too! Expand
  24. Fassie
    Jul 15, 2004
    1
    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.
  25. T.M.
    Jan 31, 2005
    4
    One 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.
  26. DaveW.
    Mar 21, 2005
    0
    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.
  27. HollyB.
    Jun 19, 2005
    2
    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.
  28. BobA.
    Jan 15, 2006
    4
    A 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.
  29. SteveM.
    Nov 11, 2003
    1
    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.
  30. SteveM.
    Nov 11, 2003
    1
    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.
Metascore

Universal acclaim - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 42
  2. Negative: 1 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: Ty Burr
    75
    This is at bottom a pulp thriller that strains -- sometimes pretentiously, at other times with gutter magnificence -- to reach the level of basic human truths.
  2. 100
    To 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.
  3. Mystic 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.