Is it just me, or does this steaming pile of shit hinge on the most ridiculous coincidence in film history? Seriously. A well acted, written, directed film for the most part sure, and one targeted to rational intelligent adults. These same adults were expected to buy the idea that on a given night, Sean Penn’s daughter is killed (for a ridiculously contrived reason as well, but we’ll ignore that one) and the murderer not caught, on that same night childhood friend Tim Robbins appears covered in blood, and by coincindence has killed (or injured- I forget) a third party, whose body now cannot be located as proof? Wouldn’t you have better odds of being struck by lightning while accepting your lottery winnings than for this to happen?
Then I go to IMDB and its rated in the Top 250, and well known and respected critics like Ebert are gushing about it, and on and on, while maybe only two lesser known critics even mention the preposterous ending.
My questions:
Do ridiculous endings or contrivances like this ruin an otherwise decent film for you, or can you overlook it if the movie is good otherwise? I see something similar with In The Heat of the Night- people gush over it, and seem to ignore the totally ridiculous connections that are made to solve the crime.
Are there any other decent notable films that expect you to buy such coincidences or contrivances?
Although I’m not the biggest Mystic River fan (the movie was a bit ruined for me when my girlfriend pointed out the absurdity of Sean Penn’s character wearing Chanel sunglasses), I think most good fiction is built around such coincidences. Obviously, some of them are more ridiculous than others and can cause the plot to feel too contrived - but I didn’t have any trouble w/ the ones you point out from Mystic River.
Well, the thing is, there’s only a story to tell because of this coincidence. Coincidences do happen occasionally in the real world, and sometimes they do indeed set off interesting chains of events.
And Mystic River, in my opinion, did a decent job of taking a not-impossible coincidence and following what ensues in a realistic way.
Movies can and often do use coincidences as a lazy cop-out to resolve plot points, which is something I’d complain about, but I don’t think that Mystic River does this.
I’m with you Wee Bairn and I have one further question: why on earth did the actual murder(s) call 911 from a phone booth after they killed her? IIRC, they knew she was dead and even hid her body, so why would they call for help?
Coincidences happen all the time and it is not bad writing (or bad filmmaking) to base a story on them. The ones in Mystic River do not require any particular stretch.
Next, you’ll say that World War I was implausible because the Archduke’s driver took a wrong turn that put him right in front of one of the assassins. What are the odds of that? :rolleyes:
Sean Penn didn’t really win the Oscar for this. He won it for Best Performance in a Leading Role in George Bush is a Cunt. Most of the Academy Thinks He’s a Cunt. Now Watch While I Take My Attention-Whoring Ass to Iraq to Plead for Peace Because I’m Such a Goddamn Humanist.
IMO this is probably about Sean Penn’s 20th best performance in a movie. The big scene where he finds his daughter’s dead body is overracting at its worst.
It wasn’t really Penn’s best performance but he has consistently been one of the best actors in Hollywood for years. It was a lifetime achievement award of sorts, but had nothing to do with politics.
Anyway, what’s wrong with being a humanist? Why does caring about human life make somebody a “cunt?” And FYI, Sean Penn was RIGHT about Iraq…just sayin’…
You’re going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Penn’s politics had nothing to do with his Oscar win that year? For a cynic, you’re a little naive.
It’s possible, or it could have been like Scorsese’s last year- a sort of lifetime achievement award. If he were a shit actor with same politics it would be obvious, but since he is a great actor, it could be either/or, or both.
Here are the other nominees for that year:
[ul][li]Jude Law - Cold Mountain[/li][li]Ben Kingsley - House of Sand and Fog[/li][li]Bill Murray - Lost in Translation[/li][li]Johnny Depp - Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl[/ul][/li]I didn’t see House of Sand and Fog, but none of the others was particularly Oscar-worthy. In fact, this was a pretty weak list, IMO.
Kingsley was OK in Sand and Fog, but it was nothing extraordinary for him.
Of that list (which is admittedly weak), I think I would have given the statue to Johnny Depp just for being fresh and original and for carrying what should have been a mediocre popcorn movie on his back and making it watchable.
Penn was fine in MR (he only had the one scene where he really overacted), but I think it was respect for his body of work as a whole combined with weak competition which got him the award.
I’d like to know who Johnny Hildo thinks should have won the award instead of Depp.
