indie-light

Rating: 6/10 (25 January 2004)

while there were some moments of great acting, namely sean penn's character in a few moments of inspiration, this film falls flat. i believe that the shortcomings of this film are a weak screenplay and poor direction. there are many unanswered and poorly supported plot developments in this film which make it highly unbelievable. classic strereotypes are tiredly employed such as thugs cloaked in black leather, dragnet-like dialog, obvious red herrings, a dingy bar by the river's edge that reeks of hollywood set design, poorly crafted and ineffective (downright obtrusive) music. each time i heard that music i was in disbelief that it was being paired to supposedly intense scenes, wondering who could possibly believe that it supports the emotions trying to be evoked on-screen.
the film drew from varied genres and didn't know what type of film it wanted to be. psychological thriller, heartfelt drama, murder mystery/crime scene investigation: it did none of these well. we all recognize that the cast was top-notch so why does it fall flat? mystic river's plot is simply unbelievable and exposes many incongruities as it unravels to an anti-climatic ending. poor character development is exposed by shocking revelations of immoral character (shocking not in the "oh my god!" sense but in the "where in the hell did that come from?" sense). this film wants very badly to be important, to make some deep statement about the complexities of life and to reveal the moral ambiguity that can lay beneath the surface of a person's character and to that end it fell very short.
i believe that this film received so much praise because it incorporates elements of independent film that people find intellectual, nuanced and stylish. however, this film is indie-light and would only please indiscriminate audiences weaned on low-brow television crime drama.