Teddman said:
Are you serious, you don't know what he's criticizing? It's been quite awhile since I've seen the movie, and I get the gist of what he's talking about in the first point.
You're a brilliant, brilliant man.
Basically, all of Sean Penn's criminal past had nothing to do with the murder of his daughter. The gun that was used to kill his daughter being the same one he himself had used to kill others... It was a complete red herring and had nothing to do with the central homicide of the film.
From what I remember, they were able to trace the particular gun used in the murder back to a shop. The shop owner strongly suspected one person, who happened to be the father of the kid who was dating the murdered girl. The father himself isn't strongly considered as a suspect since he'd have no motive and is out of town (still alive since he's sending money - of course, it's Jimmy that sends the money to cover up the fact that he killed him). Any suspicious lies with the son. Ultimately, however, it turns out that it was the other son who killed her. The events leading up the murder were left open-ended, but I suspect it was intentional.
Penn's "criminal past", insofar as he killed the father of the boyfriend, serves to explain: 1) why he doesn't trust the boyfriend - why he initially suspects the boyfriend as the murder, 2) why the father is considered alive and an existing element in the entire case, and 3) while Robbins is possibly going to be killed, the revelation that Penn has done it before (which is just good for story purposes) and that it's not just an empty threat
As for the part before that you quoted, the "unrelated" bit threw me off. I didn't get that. I suppose he wanted a much stronger connection or something.
The coincidences surely hamper the movie. I didn't believe that such a string of events could ever happen to take place in real life (connected as they were), the grief and emotions depicted in the film then seemed forced and contrived in that context, and it was purely a case of audience manipulation.
I don't know what that means. "A case of audience manipulation".
Basically, it took the "Mystic" out of "Mystic River." The film constantly teases you with hints of an underlying mytery, emotionally powerful revelations, and at the end it was just a string of flimsy coincidences that drove the film, not some long-overdue payback for past crimes or a culmination of childhood trauma.
Only it WAS a culmination of childhood trauma. Read between the lines. Or, see below.
I think that I understand the concept of tragedy, and I also happen to
think that the ending of Mystic River was poor. The murder of Sean
Penn's daughter had nothing to do with the tragedy of all those year's
ago. What happened to Tim Robbins on the night the crime had nothing
to do with the murder of Sean Penn's daughter but was simply the
wildest of disconnected coincidences. Even the connection between Sean
Penn having been responsible for the death of the daughter's
boyfriend's father had no connection her murder. Even *that* was
purely coincidental.
That's not a tragedy. That's just a bunch of coincidences leading to a
someone being killed who happened to have a coicidental relationship
to something bad that happened a bunch of years ago. No real
connection to the contemporary killing -- which is what all of the
events of the story were promising -- that somehow what had happened
back them had somehow led to this terrible happening -- is not
directly then somehow indirectly. But no. One had nothing to do with
the other.
I think that the first seven-eighths of "Mystic River" is a mighty
good movie -- but I also happen to think that the ending is a great
disappointment. I don't care whether a movie has a downbeat ending or
not -- I just want it have a good ending, not a bad ending. And this
was a bad ending. It was a "mystery story" ending -- "Ah-hah! The
supposedly mute brother of the dead girl's boyfriend was the killer,
bet you didn't suspect him!" Who cares? This wasn't a mystery. This
wasn't about the "mystery" of who killed the girl. This was about the
consequences of a long, unhealed wound -- and we were led to believe
that that was the story that we were really watching. And that story
didn't have jack shit to do with the dead girl's boyfriend's
supposedly mute brother.
Robbins was tortured as a child. From then on, he lived a lie. He was a different person. He became what people wanted him to be, because the 'true' Robbins was a monster. When Penn said that he would survive if he confessed, Robbins naturally [and convincingly] told Penn how he had killed his daughter, thinking he would be spared. Penn, however, was lying in order to hear what he was convinced was the truth, and killed Robbins. Tragic. That was the connection.
With regards to the TRUE murderer, that was: 1) the necessary conclusion to the apparently confusing evidence, 2) a sidestory in itself - that the mute didn't want to be left alone, and his apparently controlling friend did well in helping him (though I don't think it was a complete accident, I'm not convinced that their ultimate plan was to kill her).
Still not seeing the flaws. I think the worst criticism someone can throw at this film is that it beat incredible odds and fit together as a whole. In hindsight, a series of events such as these could never happen in real life. But as I watched the movie, from beginning to end, I didn't find myself concerned with any of that. I took it as it is. And it seems like the large majority did the same, critical eyes and all.
