I saw this film on Saturday night here in Los Angeles, and I must say that the sum of the parts are better than the whole.

True enough, Mr. Eastwood's directorial talents are obvious, but I found the familiarity of this story (haven't read the novel, but saw the plot progression from miles away) somehow left me emotionally detached. Somehow I didn't quite care as much as Eastwood planned, but I must also say the acting throughout was exceptional.

Most impressive -- Kevin Bacon's assured performance, which does not falter in the midst of more colorful portrayals.

I had a most interesting discussion with a couple leaving the theatre, and after exchanging opinions, I came to realize where my marginal rating of "Mystic River" lies. The direction could be described at poetic...and this story screams out for the rawness of a Scorsese-style direction.

Also, I felt a disconnect with the adult portrayals as a group of former childhood friends -- I didn't quite believe the adult performers were once the child actors....the best example I can think of would be the character portrayed by Richard Gere in "An Officer and A Gentlemen"...the child actor portarying a young Zack brought an uncanny emotional connect to the adult Zack, pushing the story forward.

Even though there are verbal references, I felt no similar connection, and given the circumstances (no giveaway if you haven't seen or know the story), this was key to the storytelling.

Ultimately, "Mystic River" is a tour-de-force show of acting...but does it rise above the highly stylized direction? You be the judge.