What were they thinking?

Rating: 6/10 (12 November 2004)

Is there such an animal as a script reader in Hollywood these days?
First off, this is MY kind of movie. Kind of a psycho thriller who-done-it mystery. I've seen TV shows pull it off better.
The acting? The Characters were written well so pretty much anyone decent would have done a good job. Tim Robbins probably had the only really good performance yet he was the only one given a challenging role. I don't really buy the "guy crying" or "physically challenged" best actor awards Hollywood gives out. One scene you'll hear an actor with a brooklyn accent, the next with a california accent and the next with a Boston accent. And how much did they get paid?
The plot? This could have been a GREAT movie. With just a few little changes. There were enough twists and turns to make you wonder a little but after having to battle through the flaws, I didn't really care who did it at the end and was ultimately disappointed at the unconvincing attempt to name a killer. So weak and powerless.
The Direction? Eastwood must be getting really old because there were so many obvious flaws it was distracting. Maybe if he'd come off his high horse and let someone with talent direct it (like someone his grandsons age) it would have at least let the cameras do some talking so the actors didn't have to do the "wink wink" thing.
The Ending . LOL!!. When I thought the movie was going to end, I was thinking "ok, not a bad ending, I get it, mystic river. Not bad." That was before they actually said the words Mystic river and before the real ending came. I'm still in awe that they ended the movie that way. Don't get me wrong, I was very glad that it ended but I couldn't help to laugh at the ending. So utterly pathetic and meaningless and drove what could have been a sort of decent film far into the depths of mediocrity