Not Eastwood's best

Rating: 5/10 (8 September 2009)

So, there I was, excited to watch a movie, from a director I respect very much. The story seemed interesting, the cast seemed interesting, everything seemed interesting, and I expected once again to be completely immersed into the poetics of Eastwood's directing. And it did happen. It happened in a manner that I wanted to get away; the only thing forcing me to watch it through - my incredulity of the whole thing. I managed to see the whole movie, after which I had a serious headache, and a feeling of deep anxiety. And, of course, a question which kept ringing in my mind, "What just happened?"
Angelina Jolie is a great actress, and did her job well. But still, as all actors have their forte, here's where the problems start with this movie. It's hard to say what her character is like. Is she a mother, deeply disturbed by the missing of her child, or a cloaked tigress, trying to pose as a sensitive woman asking for help. Jolie's forte is her passion, her ability to portray strength, but in this movie, it seems that her strength is bridled to a degree it's implausible. Over-accentuated gestures, stares, make-up, everything, left an impression that she wasn't exactly what she was telling us she was. I believe it would be more interesting to watch an actress whose forte was sensitivity, and softness, become a tigress fighting for her child.
Jeffrey Donovan did an excellent job in presenting us with all the anxiety his character was going through. Michael Kelly as Detective Ybarra also did a wonderful job. And a true discovery was Eddie Alderson who played Sanford Clark, rising up to the role he was dealt, and doing it in a truly professional manner. But, even though these actors, along with Malkovich, did an excellent job, by rounding up their characters into real people, they were merely touched, serving as a carrier for the role of Mrs Collins, who was pretty much one sided, and insecure about what she was actually portraying. Yes, she wanted to find her son. And she was willing to do anything to do it. But that's not all she was. And if her impotence at finding help was all there is to say about her, then it should have been her forte, and it should have been more deeply explored. Yelling "Where's my son?!" for x-times seemed like a superficial cliché.
Another problem with the movie is its pace and tempo. It starts real slow, and after about an hour and a half, its tempo changes drastically, to a climax with the discovery of the murders. This is achieved through a series of disturbing scenes, leading to a denouement, adding a heartbeat to the movie. And for reasons, to me unknown, the movie continues. Again extremely slow pace, and then another climax, culminating with the scene of the hanging, leading onward gradually to the real ending. The dramatic intensity of the events completely being out of balance.
The third problem is factuality. I'm no expert in linguistic peculiarities of the early 1930s, my only experience with them revolving around old Cagney movies. Still, the discourse used seemed like a combination of late 1950s as well as contemporary language. The scenery seemed authentic enough, so I wonder how other aspects of the time depicted didn't follow as well. Also, from what I've read about the actual events, there's no mention of Northcott's mother anywhere. If this is "a true story" which is clearly stated in the beginning of the movie, it fails to prove that it's indeed a true story. So, again with the question, "What just happened?"
A horrid story about a mother trying to find her missing son, countered by a corrupt and extremely inefficient police force, which instead of using its power to do something about it, direct it against her, is disturbing enough. The social critique of a society, whose problems linger on till today, but with a different shade, is noteworthy and important. But it simply wasn't enough for this movie to work properly. If shock is seen as enough to stir people up, then it could as well have been directed as a thriller or a horror movie. If it was meant to convey an important message, it should have dealt more with important details instead of hasty directing.
I can't wait for another Eastwood movie, since I'm convinced he can do much better than this.