Oscar bait DENIED: CHANGELING- Page 3

[Robert Taylor]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:23am

Again, it's so strange because I can see your point EXACTLY, and yet I still disagree.

I completely understood why she was so quiet during the last third: she had been put through hell just for speaking the truth for so long that she did not want to get her hopes up. And you could also infer that, since she had suffered so much and so often for her son that it was time to finally (FINALLY) let other, good people take over. So because she was avenged, she of course would seem perkier when the story flashed forward.

And as for the hanging itself, it served two purposes:
1) If the son did die, this was the death of the son being avenged.
2) It's still messy despite justice being served and, even though her son has been avenged, that does not mean she (or us, by extension) can get much peace.

As for the business with the end of the "changeling" child subplot, that little scene by the train station was a fantastic payoff, at least personally.

Here's the thing with the city: it happened. And to me, that's fascinating. That one woman (okay, in reality there were three simultaneous cases that brought down the police department, but hers got the most press) could do so much good just because she could not back down. She changed the face of a city, fer cryin' out loud! But, once again, I completely see your point. You wanted it to remain micro and focused more on the child, but I was fine with it becoming more and more macro as the film progressed.

Here's why I find our conversation fascinating: critics are split on this film about an even 50-50, and it seems to be a love/hate thing, not a "it's great" or "it's almost great" split. And I thought to myself "WTF!? Did these critics see the same movie I did?" And now that we've written back and forth, I understand why some didn't get it. That doesn't mean I don't love it any less, but I understand why others might.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:41am

Agreed. I came home, read the Rolling Stone, New Yorker and NY Times, all saved. Only the RS review liked it, enough to rave, actually, and both of the others referenced this 3rd act problem, though with different points raised. Then the Village Voice basically hated it because they said Eastwood was too formal and reverential, and adored the performance of the serial killer. Go figure. We need some new POVs here, Robertaylor. I still want someone to explain why the incremental presentation of the killer's execution served the overall story.

[lusciouslace]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 4:31pm

I know that an earlier poster asked how this kid fooled everybody even his friends. How nobody noticed that he wasn't Walter. This was on people.com today. Thought you might be interested in it. :)

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20239857,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/14/08 at 6:33pm

Thank you so much for posting that! Boy, and they even looked alike, eerily so! Now there's a story! One semi-sidestepped by Eastwood and especially the lazy screenwriter, who couldn't be bothered with nuance or character. And of course, the key ingredient in that reveal was the very point that I raised (my post): the boy had a clear, powerful motive, to get to California. That is almost entirely missing from the film. The boy is a vague enigma, underwritten and underEXPLAINED. And yet this childis a key player, unlike that damned serial killer, whose screen time is far greater, but to no satisfying end.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 11/15/08 at 2:11pm

I saw it on Wednesday night and I absolutely loved it. It's got flaws (the first half hour is slow) but Jolie is stunning and the last two hours are wonderful. Especially the last twenty minutes or so. I really enjoyed it and I hope it gets some Oscar recognition, it's an excellent movie.

[LilMiZBroADwaY23]

Posted: 11/15/08 at 2:43pm

I thought the serial killer was fascinating. He was obviously insane. I looked up more about the Chicken Coop Murders when I got home after seeing it, and finding out that Northcott was the product of his sister and his father gave him some more depth for me.

He was clearly messed up, as most children of such close incestual relationships are. I wish they would have played up more of this in the movie, but after finding this out the run-in with the sister in Canada made much more sense.

I really don't think he had much of a motive, other than mental illness.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 10:32am

alright so i finally saw 'Changeling' yesterday despite the mediocre reviews... i should preface this by saying I love "Mystic River" and I think "Million Dollar Baby" is one of the best films ever made... wasnt too crazy about "Flags Of Our Father" but thought "Letters From Iwo Jima" was fantastic.

So I like Clint, most of the time. Anyhow... I also have a soft spot for Angie, because I think she's the most gorgeous actress working in the biz and a damn good actress too... people seem to forget she's a good actress because of all the tabloid stuff.

ANYHOW... so I walked into the film unsure of what to expect. The reviews were mediocre, and thats never a good sign since the critics love Clint (mostly). I have to say... I enjoyed this film quite a bit! It wasnt his best film, but I actually really really liked it. I was drawn in from the moment the boy went missing. Once the whole serial killer thing popped up I was glued to the screen and on the edge of my seat. The cinematography was GORGEOUS. As was Angie. And the acting was superb. Even from the little kids. I think Angie was fantastic, but to me, the real star was the actor who portrayed the killer. He was both creepy, and yet in a weird way I felt sympathy for him... just slightly tho. And the cop was evil... I wanted to punch him. haha.

So yeah, not a masterpiece, but I cant for the life of me figure out why this received such mediocre reviews? It was very good! to me atleast

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 12:37pm

What fascinated you about the killer? He killed children, and he was messed up? What was compelling? I'm fascinated by that creep being hanged ... fascinating anyone! This is not an argument starter, but an info securer: I'd honestly like to know what made this man's sustained presence on screen dramatically worthwhile to you.

[cubanpab]

Posted: 11/17/08 at 1:21pm

*spoiler*

i dont think i used the word fascinating, i said he was creepy and yet evoked a bit of sympathy towards the end with his whole "someone say a prayer for me" hanging scene... i felt terrible for angelina the whole time, and was really creeped out by the killer... and i thought the actor who played him was very effective. maybe it was because i had read the real story about gordon northcott and i knew that he himself was the product of child abuse and incest and clearly suffered severe mental issues due to his crazy upbringing... it was also compelling the way the film doesnt ever tell you whether or not walter died... did he? didnt he? we all assume he did... and the killer almost confesses a few times... and then doesnt... and then the other boy shows up and we hear that walter may have escaped... but we never know.

i thought the film was very interesting. any story where a mother gets the wrong child returned to her, and then placed in a psych ward for complaining to the police... thats interesting!

I love these type of crime thriller movies... I thought 'Zodiac' was one of the best, if not maybe even THE BEST film of last year... and that was about a serial killer. Those stories are fascinating. because we cant wrap our minds around what makes anyone do those things... its interesting.