Mystic River ~Possible Spoilers~ - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

apetaster · 10-18-2003, 07:15 PM

We just got back from the movie, and I have to say I was impressed. I had read the book, and found this movie to be as true to the original book storyline (and lots of the dialogue) as any other 'book to movie' conversion I have seen (IMO, worst was 'Sum of All Fears.')

As much as I am not a fan of either of them, Robbins and Penn both were totally believable - Eastwood put together a real good work here.

End Ebert mode.

guthmund · 10-18-2003, 09:42 PM

I like Eastwood and am a big fan of Robbins, but I can't stomach Sean Penn.

I only hope my distate for Mr. Penn can be diverted long enough to enjoy this movie as I enjoyed the book quite a bit.

docbungle · 10-19-2003, 11:44 AM

I was very dissapointed with this film. To give it credit, it followed the book very well. However, the whole thing was filmed in around 30 days or so and it really shows. Everything feels rushed. All of the dialogue feels forced and nothing really flows naturally. It felt as if everyone was just going through the motions, and hadn't really been given time to prepare for their roles. I thought Tim Robbins did a pretty good job, though.

Journeyman · 11-04-2003, 03:42 PM

I was out with two of my buddies. One of them suggested Mystic River based on the fact that it has Edward Norton (Yes!) and Robert Dinero (ROCK!) in it, so we just had to go in and see it. 20 minutes in, we figured out he was fulla shit, and thus hated it completely (in spite of an impressive cast either way).

Question: Did anyone else crack up when Tim Robbins goes, "Vampires." and then does his little monologue on "How they're like... undead."?

10-18-2003, 07:15 PM	#1 (permalink)
apetaster Insane Location: P.R. Mass.	Mystic River We just got back from the movie, and I have to say I was impressed. I had read the book, and found this movie to be as true to the original book storyline (and lots of the dialogue) as any other 'book to movie' conversion I have seen (IMO, worst was 'Sum of All Fears.') As much as I am not a fan of either of them, Robbins and Penn both were totally believable - Eastwood put together a real good work here. End Ebert mode.

10-18-2003, 09:42 PM	#2 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I like Eastwood and am a big fan of Robbins, but I can't stomach Sean Penn. I only hope my distate for Mr. Penn can be diverted long enough to enjoy this movie as I enjoyed the book quite a bit. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

10-19-2003, 11:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
docbungle It's all downhill from here Location: Denver	I was very dissapointed with this film. To give it credit, it followed the book very well. However, the whole thing was filmed in around 30 days or so and it really shows. Everything feels rushed. All of the dialogue feels forced and nothing really flows naturally. It felt as if everyone was just going through the motions, and hadn't really been given time to prepare for their roles. I thought Tim Robbins did a pretty good job, though. __________________ Bad Luck City

11-04-2003, 03:42 PM	#4 (permalink)
Journeyman Like John Goodman, but not. Location: SFBA, California	I was out with two of my buddies. One of them suggested Mystic River based on the fact that it has Edward Norton (Yes!) and Robert Dinero (ROCK!) in it, so we just had to go in and see it. 20 minutes in, we figured out he was fulla shit, and thus hated it completely (in spite of an impressive cast either way). Question: Did anyone else crack up when Tim Robbins goes, "Vampires." and then does his little monologue on "How they're like... undead."?