Mystic River (2003) - 8/10

After watching a good run of 'crowd pleasing' movies I wanted to take a look at something that was a bit more serious in nature. Mystic River is neo-noir drama with some serious star power behind and has a reputation for being, well, a bit of bummer. I struggled a bit more than usual on this rating, but ultimately I think it tips just enough to graduate from a 7 and into an 8/10. Lets jump in to see why. 

1. Acting

Mystic River is the type of contemplative murder mystery that requires some heavy hitter actors to keep it level. The power of the film and its cynical noir nature requires a particular level of finesse and depth. I found every actor to be very compelling in this film, but the majority of the weight is carried by the three main leads. Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon and Sean Penn are prolific actors and they are able to capture extremely layered characters in a way that feels dramatic and grounded. Sean Penn in particular is asked to carry a heavy burden in terms of character and range and seems to do it all with ease and authenticity. Tim Robbins also excels as he endeavors to bring a damaged Red Herring to fruition without falling into melodrama. 

Maybe the most impressive thing to note on the acting - Eastwood is notorious as a director for doing as few takes as possible. This means a large portion of these incredible performances are likely the very first or second takes.

2. Cinematography

 The word 'powerful' gets thrown around a lot when talking about movies like this. 'Powerful' is usually shorthand for the performance of an actor, but that performance (subtle though it may be) relies heavily on the world in which they exist. This perhaps is why Mystic River works so well - Clint Eastwood's style and cinematography relies on things like natural lighting, authentic settings (such as blue collar Boston neighborhoods), and a natural 'feel' to the world. This style helps make the movie feel incredibly real-to-life; as if you're not watching a movie, and instead live within the neighborhood where the plot's investigation takes place.

3. Production/Costume Design

A great deal of this film was shot on location; specifically the historically working class neighborhoods of South and East Boston. The locales add greatly to the naturalist style of shooting and lend authenticity to the plot. Moreover, the costume team are able to capture the style of the time and setting very effectively, again adding to its credibility.

 

4. Writing

This aspect is probably where my biggest internal debate lies in regards to how to rate this movie. Lets start with the good: 

The characters, their trauma, their struggles, and their actions, all feel very real. The way in which their experiences, personalities and collective trauma they all suffered in childhood translates to their adult versions was wonderfully crafted. Each character feels unique, and their sensibilities inline with their future selves. 

The ensemble surrounding the main characters also serve a vital role in building out the world that envelopes the central plot. 

Now, as far as the mystery of the story in concerned, this is more in the vein of a crime thriller than a whodunnit. The reveal of the killer is certainly important, but less so than how the characters are affected by it and the toll the investigation has on them. This is a character piece, not Sherlock discovering obscure clues and putting all the threads together. I also wonder exactly how early the writers wanted the audience to figure out what actually happened. By the midpoint (if not sooner) it was clear who the killer was. For some that may have ruined the future reveal. For others like me, it changed the rest of the film into a 'race against the clock' for the characters and their seemingly inevitable collision. 

Now the bad:

The end of this film, and more specifically the epilogue, seems to have fallen apart a bit. I suspect, that there are some deleted scenes the would make aspects of it more coherent. Or perhaps it is just the simple fact that movies will always struggle to capture all of the little details when they are adapting novels that have much more time to flesh out certain aspects of the story. 

For example, one the aspects that baffles me is Kevin Bacon's character revealing that the killer(s) in this movie were 'just a couple of kids messing around'. It undermines the extremely obvious motivation of one of the killers and makes the murder seem like just happenstance. Maybe there was a moment I missed or it was supposed to reveal something about Bacon's character, but it just seemed like a really odd choice. 

Laura Linney and Sean Penn also have a very bizarre scene towards the end of the film. Her 'motivational' talk with Penn seems to come out of the blue and drives Penn's character towards something that feels like it was never alluded to as the story unfolded. Almost the exact opposite in fact. It makes his character arc and where he ends up feel entirely misplaced, as if it were extracted from a much different movie.

 Similarly Kevin Bacon's B-story (which is at least referenced throughout the film), concludes with a big 'meh'. Like is the audience supposed to be invested in his and his wife's storyline at all? Also, his interaction with Penn at the Parade is very weird. Were they building towards being enemies at some point and I missed it? It seemed more interesting when there was a subtle unspoken understanding between them prior to the epilogue.

5. Sound Design

Mystic River does feature an original score and soundtrack. It is subtle and fitting of the film's atmosphere, but went largely unnoticed outside the quieter more contemplative moments.

6. Editing

The movie definitely feels tighter than its 138 minute runtime which is likely due to smart editing. The plot kept moving at a nice pace, but doesn't feel like it rushes past the important moments. It was nicely balanced.

7. Visual Effects

Nothing big to note in terms of VFX. 

8. Originality or Strength of Adaptation

I already touched on this a lot in the writing section. My biggest takeaway is that even an incredibly well executed film like this can struggle with adapting a novel. However, despite some of the flaws, the film mostly chose the right things to focus on and left the unnecessary aspects on the cutting room floor. 

9. Stunt Coordination

Nothing big to note here. 

10. Direction

Clint Eastwood, despite his well known reputation, has never been fully 'my cup of tea'. I have never consumed much of his work as an actor, and while I really enjoy some of his directorial efforts, there are more misses than hits for me. It is really just a case of taste I think because others seem to hold him in very high regard. 

Mystic River is definitely a case where I am happy to be wrong. His directorial style is perfectly suited for this movie and his collaboration produced a very strong finished product.

Legacy/Final Thoughts

Mystic River may not be the first film that comes to mind when thinking about 'Boston movies' or neo-noirs, but it is more than worthy of being included in the pantheon's of either. Overall, Mystic Rivah was wicked good kid.