Changeling is another Clint Eastwood project, meaning he did everything except playing the lead. And the only reason he didn’t do that is because Angelina Jolie payed him a very big sum to be allowed to do it. Well… probably.
I’ve had some major issues with it. And not in a good way. [Hm… can you have issues with something in a good way?]
Plot:
Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) is a single mom in the twenties. After coming home from work one day, she finds that her nine year old son is gone. Months of search follow, led by the Los Angeles Police, which is more corrupt than anything else. Finally, they give her the news that her son has been found. Unfortunately, the kid they want to reunite her with, is not her Walter. When Christine tells them, they try to convince her that she’s fooling herself. What follows is the fight between a mother looking for her son and the police trying to get good press for once.
It’s based on a true story.
[SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS]
Just for the people, who haven’t seen it: Christine Collins gets admitted to a psychiatry for saying that this kid is not her son. Turns out, he really isn’t. [He admits that later.]
While Christine Collins, helped by a priest [John Malkovich], battles the corrupt police in court, another police man finds the trail of a serial killer – Gordon Stewart Northcott – who used his nephew, Sanford Clark, to lure little boys to his farm and kill them there. Supposedly, he also killed Walter Collins.
The whole story is absolutely ludicrous. If it wasn’t based on a real story, I’d suggest to hang the writer from his balls. But as it is, I’ll just suggest a slight flogging for J. Michael Straczynski. Although there were some good things (like the remarks about the state of feminism or the Catch-22 in the psychiatry ward), mostly it sucked. The problems I had with the screenplay:
- The dialogue was so corny, it’s unbelievable.
The whole movie follows Christine Collins, who never gives up, who never loses hope that maybe her son is still alive. Then, one of the boys kidnapped by the murderer is found and the film ends like this:
Christine Collins: Three boys tried to escape that night, and if one boy got away then maybe one or both of the other two escaped too. Maybe he’s out there somewhere, afraid to tell the truth, afraid of what will happen to him or to me. But one thing I know is that boy gave me something I didn’t have before.
Detective Lester Ybarra: What’s that?
Christine Collins: Hope.
Seriously: YOU NEVER HAD ANYTHING BUT HOPE!
- The most interesting parts about the whole story were only mentioned.
What is it with this boy, pretending to be Walter? Who was he, what happened to him?
How did the public react? While we saw a few protesters on the street, what did people see and hear and believe?
- While it all starts out like a try to shed some light on the whole story, ultimately there were many things left unanswered.
Like the motivation of the impostor boy – I’m sorry, but I didn’t believe that at all. That just can’t be all. And then suddenly the police made him do it? Why would he go along with that? And stick to it for that long?
- Straczynski is apparently of the LotR school of endings. There were like ten endings and an epilogue. I didn’t like it in LotR, I didn’t like it here.
Okay, apart from the script. The acting was mostly average and the really good actors they had, had much too small roles. John Malkovich was completely wasted, except for the first speech he was allowed to do in the beginning. Eddie Alderson, who was absolutely phenomenal as Sanford Clark, the boy who uncovers the serial killer, had probably ten minutes screen time. Jason Butler Harner was the embodiment of creepy as said killer. Michael Kelly as “the good cop” Ybarra was very believable.
Angelina Jolie, who was the centre of the movie, looked the part – she probably should have lived in the twenties, she kind of fits in that time. Unfortunately, all she ever had to do was look distraught and clamp her hand in front of her mouth.
Visually, it was a beautiful movie with many good shots. Although I’m usually not a fan of Clint Eastwood’s directing, I have to give him this.
Well, to summarise, while the story is good, it wasn’t well told. It’s a movie you can watch, but you won’t regret it forever if you happen not to see it.
kalafudra's Stuff 
it seemed to have such good promise from the trailer as well, nevermind, nice review
newman
Thanks!
Yeah, the story itself is good. Unfortunately, the rest: not so much.
”
The whole movie follows Christine Collins, who never gives up, who never loses hope that maybe her son is still alive. Then, one of the boys kidnapped by the murderer is found and the film ends like this:
Christine Collins: Three boys tried to escape that night, and if one boy got away then maybe one or both of the other two escaped too. Maybe he’s out there somewhere, afraid to tell the truth, afraid of what will happen to him or to me. But one thing I know is that boy gave me something I didn’t have before.
Detective Lester Ybarra: What’s that?
Christine Collins: Hope.
Seriously: YOU NEVER HAD ANYTHING BUT HOPE!
”
So, it probably wasn’t that well thought out anyway, but there’s more than one way of interpreting that statement, isn’t there? There’s hope the way you could say she always had, which is (I imagine) more like an unwillingness to go into despair, a desperate optimism, clinging on to a possibly irrational belief because anything else would be too overwhelming a tragedy to bear…and then there’s hope in the sense that we normally use it, which is something else,really, it’s a…HAPPIER thing.
I wasn’t planning to watch the movie anyway, because it sounded like the sort of thing that would get me depressed without really teaching me anything…if it isn’t even well told, I suppose I’ll stick by that.
I don’t know. I mean, your interpretation makes sense, if you see the two emotions as different from each other. But I’m not sure I do.
Maybe if she would have said: “You gave me reason to hope.” Or maybe: “You strengthened my hope.” It would still be corny, but at least it would make sense.
The movie’s watchable. But I don’t think you’ll miss much if you don’t.
That’s another one I won’t be watching.
Nothing, neither rain, nor fire, nor sleet, nor Clint Eastwood will get in the way of my J. Michael Straczynski love. *sticks fingers in her ears*
Btw, according to Variety, Clint Eastwood is Hollywood’s longest-standing actor-director team ^^
I wouldn’t have watched it either if my mum hadn’t wanted to see it. And she paid for the ticket. :)
Okay, Straczynski shall be yours. I won’t say a thing.
I have seen the link from your blog. Beautiful pictures, as usual. And the Clint Eastwood thing is not only funny, but also true. :)