Changeling (2008)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The atmosphere this movie create is very bad for the story they are trying to tell. The color contrast is very dull. The choice of music is off. The pacing of the story is bad. The progression of the story is very slow. So, over all it's just pathetic.

No need to recap the plot. The movie's a superbly woven screenplay that rivets interest for full two-hours plus. I've read accounts of Northcott's killings, which the screenplay follows factually, but in a very general sense. However, I wish I knew how many of the aspersions cast on the LAPD and city government are true. The script is pretty unsparing in it's portrayal of official misdeeds. So I'm really curious. Then there's that psychiatric hospital where if you're not unhinged going in you will be coming out. Apparently that's where the authorities sent people in need of help. Thus, thanks to officialdom, it seems Christine (Jolie) has no chance of either finding her boy or surviving the experience.As a result, what starts out as a missing boy mystery turns really into an expose of LA government and related institutions. That the two themes are interwoven so effectively is a real tribute to scenarist Straczynski.Also, it looks like producer Eastwood spared little expense recreating 20's fashions and street scenes. These help lend flavor to the proceedings. Then too, I really love the cloche hats the ladies wear. And check out all those black flivvers cruising around town. I guess only jokers went into the showroom asking for a black one. In terms of cast, wisely they are largely unknowns except for Jolie and Malkovich. As a result, we're not distracted by name players in supporting roles, which allows the storyline to remain uppermost. Also, actor Harner (Northcott) strongly resembles pictures I've seen of the real serial killer. Kudos to Jolie for a carefully calibrated turn without milking the part. Likely the temptation was there given the mother's emotional strain. And big time kudos to Eastwood for assembling a crew that turns difficult material into a compelling gem.

This movie is based on a true story that occurred in L.A. in March of 1928. Christine Collins is a single mother of a young boy, Walter (Gattlin Griffith). Christen works as the supervisor of a large group of telephone operators while Walter attends school. One Saturday, when she had promised to take Walter to see a Charlie Chaplin movie, she is called into work to fill in for another sick employee. When she returns from work, Walter is no where to be found. She immediately calls the police, knowing that Walter is reliable and would call her if he had a reason not to be home. The police take her call but reject doing anything immediately: Walter had not been missing for more than 24 hours. After her request is made official, days (then weeks) go by as Walter remains missing.The media is informed and Christine's search for Walter becomes a famous case as newspapers and radio reporters won't let up on the police department's failure to find Walter. A local minister, Rev Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich), who broadcasts on the radio and has some public clout, seems to be particularly interested in the 'widespread corruption of the LAPD.' He uses their lack of action in this case to further attack the LAPD. Weeks after Walter's disappearance, Christine receives news from the LAPD that Walter had been found with a drifter in Illinois and that he would be returning home safe and sound. When Christine goes to meet him at the train station, the boy who meets her is not Walter (even though he claims to be). After police Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) has the newspaper take a picture of Christine and her "son," he insists that she take him home in spite of her certainty that he is NOT Walter. Jones suggests that Walter's appearance may have changed and that Christine might be in a state of shock. When she continues to insist that the strange boy in her house is not Walter Dr. Earl W. Tarr (Peter Gerety), who regularly works with the police, tries to convince her that the new boy's shorter height and the fact that he is circumcised (Walter wasn't) all could be explained logically. As she continues to speak out, the police have her committed to an asylum.She is released when a young illegal immigrant, 14-year-old Sanford Clark (Eddie Alderson) is discovered at a nearby ranch. He is arrested for deportation back to Canada. But before deportation, Clark reveals that he was involved in a bizarre series murders (about twenty other boys). The alleged murderer is Clark's uncle, Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Hamer). (For more about the actual events, see 'Wineville Chicken Coop Murders' on Wikipeia.) Could Walter have been one of those murdered..or was he one of the two that got away..or was he still missing in another location? These are the issues that continue to be unfolded as the movie plays out.

Let's see if I got this down correctly, it's Los Angeles in 1928, a young boy raised in a single working mother household disappears while he's left at home unattended. Months later, the police desperate to keep their decaying reputation intact because their so corrupt, lazily claims that they found her child. When she confronts them and tells them that's not her child, the lazy asses say she's making thing up. When she refuses to dismiss the case, the cops end up locking her away in an asylum. While this is happening, some graphic details involving another child abduction case catches their attention feeling that the misfired details to the story is more macabre than the one's been uncovered. Why would anyone want to see this exhibition of manipulative cheapness? All it delivers here is just showcasing children's lives being threatened. In a nutshell, all that this movie stems down to is fear-mongering and the audience is just simply biting into it. From what I gathered this story was based on actual events and yes I admit it's sad that these cases do happen. However, at the same time, the movie is so one-sided it's preposterous. Aside from that the events following the case lack in anything uplifting, energetic or eye-opening or any other terminology words that the Oscar hacks like to utilize. This movie fails miserably that can't be repaired. Angelina Jolie stars as single-mother Christine Collins. She works as a telephone operator and is one of the best workers on the staff. When she gets called into work one fine Saturday she leaves her son Walter (Gattlin Griffith) at home by himself. When she returns home, the boy has vanished. Five months has passed, she gets the news that the cops have found a boy located in Illinois that suitably matches Walter's description. When she arrives that the station, she is surrounded by reporters and police who are just trying to conceal their corrupt reputation as they reveal the boy to her. When she sees the boy, she confirms that this child is not Walter. But the cops knowing they goofed still want Christine to take the child anyways. She then tries to take the case even further with the chief of police Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) that even though the proof that the boy they found was not Walter, he declares that Christine has serious mental disorders. And when she refuses to dismiss the case, the LAPD have her institutionalized to an asylum. While there she's befriended by fellow inmate named Carol Dexter (Amy Ryan) who instructs her on getting by in the loony bin. Meanwhile on her side, a local Reverend Gustav Brieglab (John Malkovich) who opposes corruption stands up to defends Christine's case while the token good cop Lester Ybarra (Michael Kelly) makes a grisly discovery involving a tip about a missing child who was abducted by crooked Canadian criminal. This movie clearly is every mother's worst nightmare. When we go to the cinemas, we want to be entertained and thrilled and to chase our troubles and insecurities away. So why do we need to watch a movie where real events like this one could happen to anyone at any time? What makes matters worse is that it is so surreal to actually think the cops even back then would be so corrupt and uncaring it makes this true story feel as though the production never once took this subject matter very seriously. It just never felt convincing. Sure director Clint Eastwood's intentions were good and Jolie did quite well in her respected role and had the emotions accurate in how any mother would react when faced in this dire situation. But the film quite insufferable and very painful to watch. When the final credits roll, there was no justice that truly prevailed. No feel-good moments were delivered here and it took a ton of excruciating frustrations for common sense to get through. And then some important details that could've been utilized to good effect were thrown out the window. Like why didn't they question the neighbours who were checking up upon Walter? That could've been a potential lead, but it was neglected because common sense was nowhere to be found. After all is said and done, "Changeling" is two hours and twenty minutes of torturous manipulation that took a serious story and made very little progression to make this story enthralling.