In Reply to: Another category: Tragedy posted by orejones on February 6, 2004 at 05:37:15:
My wife and I disliked Mystic River more than just about anything we've seen the past couple of years; to place this in proper context, with rare exception we're both impressed by Clint Eastwood's directorial efforts!As for Mystic River though, the plot was lame and predictable, and the acting, Sean Penn's especially, overwrought and unbelieveable. The crime scene where the girl is found that was supposedly so shocking, as indicated by the intense music and the detective throwing up, wasn't even marginally *yawn* disturbing (i.e., on a prime time CSI scale of 1-10, that was about a 1/2), much less unexpected. Furthermore, the heavy handed symbolism and forced irony was terribly pretenscious and constantly drawing attention to itself. The real tragedy was that we contributed money to this fiasco!
>>> "...even with some minor flaws, shows how Shakespeare would have told a tragedy today, in a solid filmic language." <<<
Minor flaws? Great Caesar's Ghost! You are kidding aren't you? If this WERE a period Shakespearean play in all liklihood Queen Elizabeth would've canceled it's future performances, permanently closed the Globe Theatre and had Shakespeare & his actors unceremoniously tortured (i.e., in return) and flogged out of London! Unfortunately, no amount of Tudoring can improve Clint's modern day Shakespearean tragedy. ;^)
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- LOL! Well, I'm of the opinion that Mystic River IS a tragedy, but perhaps not in the way you mean it. - Audiophilander 10:06:51 02/06/04 (2)
- Re: I will disagree - Dave-A 06:41:11 02/09/04 (1)
- While I disagree with your assessment, it's ernest, even if overly generous. - Audiophilander 11:26:30 02/09/04 (0)