It's hard for me to accept because it's wrong. Plain and simple.

Changeling is a true horror story.



The setting in 20's LA is gorgeously seamless¹. The screenplay is taut when called for, and yet slack when needed². The acting was okay³.



12 out of 5.



Footnotes

¹I dare anyone to tell me that Clint's use of color in the cinematography of Changeling, was any less of a style choice than a director who chooses B&W...

²The elements of the story were so vividly told, yet the overarching story seems almost like some kinda retro episode of E! Hollywood True Story - - if so, it's a ultra-quality version of that amped-out docudrama genre. As it stands, it's a rip-roarin' tale for the patient...

³Angelina Jolie can hardly be confused with a great actress - - she's more like a Halle Berry grade actress - - sure they're both good at doing their own thang/schtick - - but there ain't nobody gonna be mixin' up either of 'em for a Meryl Streep anytime soon...

Meryl was the one in Wanted, right?

B-

I really think apart from Jolie's performance, the film itself is going through the motions. The story itself is fascinating, but the narative is so badly told. The period detail is very nice, but it would have packed a bigger punch if they concentrated more on the script. Maybe historical accuracy should have been ignored here.

Um, no, not at all. Its' quite simple, you don't have to like the thing that is best. I appreciate some movies but don't enjoy them. And vice versa. Generally speaking my favorite movies are the ones I consider best, but occasionally I love a movie despite the fact that is not very good. As a reviewer I give my best ratings to the best movies, but while I thought Slumdog Millionaire was a better movie than Forgetting Sara Marshall, I enjoyed the latter so much more, that I put it higher on my favorites list of 2008.

Anyway, I liked this movie, thought its' critical reaction was uncalled for but it was not nearly as good as some here make it out to be. A rather intense and thrilling film that never goes as in depth as I wish it would and is never as enjoyable or important as it could be. In addition if it were not Eastwood behind the camera and Malkovich support it would have sucked. Jolie was fine but nothing incredible and ditto to the writing.

An interesting story fails to ignite due to pedestrian and uncreative writing and one-dimensional characters. Angelina Jolie is one-note the whole way through and so is the rest of the cast. Every turn the movie takes feels predictable and mundane. The only positive aspect is the art direction and costume design which are well-done. However the film largely fails to engage the audience to care about the story and its protagonist or to be even mildly interested in it. C-

7/10 -> B-

This could've been great, but it's far from that. It's a good movie, but it's trying to deal with more than what it can handle. The whole mom searching for her son/crazy mom/police corruption/woman's rights plot points don't mesh together well at all. And it's not because of the short running time, the movie is much longer than it should be for what it turned out to be. It's the lame ass script that's the main problem here. The story isn't being told well.

The movie looks beautiful, and Clint did a great job directing it. Jolie was pretty good too. At least her nom is more than deserved compared to her hubby's. But J. Michael totally dropped the ball on his part.

Well, then. This is a very weak movie. Technically everything about it should have made it pretty good. Jolie plays crazy well. Eastwood directing. Great setting. Great plot. But the movie is just, so... so boring! It's about 2 and a half hours, and the first hour went by quite well. Then it looses interest. I didn't like the psych ward part, I already saw Jolie play that, and she played it a lot better in G,I. Jolie was good in this, but the overacting is a bit much and those man hands, yikes!. Also maybe this was just me but when the dentist said, "Hell yeah!" I was so taken out of the era. Anyway, the film was just alright, the script wasn't very tight and the acting outside of Jolie was pretty horrendous. The whole case went on for FAR too long. C

CHANGELING

I finally rented this one a week ago and watched it last night.

Wow. This movie was well crafted and superbly acted. It's all about Jolie here pretty much and it was excellent work. I went in not knowing a thing but I did wiki the criminal's name with about 20 minutes left to know more about what happened. I was teary eyed at a couple moments and angered and shocked at the corruption of the cops during the film. Angered at the ultimate pointlessness of the killings. I just didn't understand it. I couldn't believe that she could get tossed away like she did. I compared it to rendition when it happened. It was crazy to me. Ultimately, the film does give you satisfaction in the end and a sense of hope in the end even though she never does find her son it was a hopeful ending. Anyway, I loved the movie and thought Jolie was amazing in it and now know her nomination was totally deserved.

Grade - A

A

Awesome movie.

B


Changeling is neither a great nor a bad movie. It's one of those middle-of-the-road efforts by Clint Eastwood and overall one of the lesser works he has produced over the last ten years. It tells a very interesting story, set in an interesting time period and has a great actress headlining it. Just looking at these points, one should be expecting a terrific film. Well, the problem is that the whole movie is told in a very mundane way that never really captures the viewers' attention and keeps them excited about what will happen next. At some points it manages to get some emotions out of the audiences, but that never lasts.

See, I love Angelina Jolie. I think she's a great actress. She deserved her Oscar win for Girl, Interrupted and was snubbed by the Academy for her performance in A Mighty Heart. But here, while mostly convincing, she never gets much more out of the role then your typical grieving /furious/determined mother. It has been done before and she brings nothing personal or special to the part. Yes, she's very solid all the way through (sometimes a bit overacting, but not too much), but there's not a single moment in her performance that makes a lasting impression.

I liked the attention to period detail. The art direction, the costume design, the cinematography...all these technical aspects capturing the 1920s Los Angeles were very well-done. But when you look past the gloss, all you find is a decent leading performance and a very mediocre script at the hands of a skilled director who's doing a routine job. His Gran Torino later that year might have taken itself less seriously, but was certainly more fun and an overall better film.