i loved this film, and it's also interesting to compare it to affleck's previous work: the speech you paraphrased about changing, and doug's final decision to leave his neighborhood echoed will hunting's decision to leave boston. the themes between good will hunting, gone baby gone, and the town are all similar, and it's interesting to see them broken into all these different types of characters and plots.

I liked & enjoyed this movie and thought it had some strengths but wasn't nearly as admiring of it as you are, Scott.

Some shortcomings, as I saw it:

Nemesis - I thought the Jon Hamm character, Frawley, was one-dimensional. I suppose that's standard in movies like this, but he had no real personal agenda other than "get the bad guys." Some of his dialogue when he's interrogating Doug (Affleck) was good, but it also felt so standard, even stereotypical cops 'n robbers to me and I think that's because this cop was just a cop. (Nothing against Hamm.)

Claire & Doug - I agree that Claire fell for him too fast, but for me, nothing about that relationship was interesting. I didn't think their scenes together had any sense of discovery or recognition of here's a person who's special to me. I didn't get what connection the two had so I didn't believe that they did either, but the movie insisted they did. Ho-hum.

Trickster - James was interesting and I loved the dilemma that this put Doug in - he saved my life, how can I leave him behind - but I didn't think this was handled to especially strong dramatic effect. James just blurts out the background deep in the 2nd Act, if I'm recalling correctly (shortly before the Fenway Park robbery). It felt to me like exposition. If we'd known more or had more of this told or at least hinted earlier, we could have seen more of the push/pull on Doug. I suppose this was supposed to be a "reveal" but I don't think it worked that well. It would have been OK to have had this information earlier and watch the characters go through smaller trials of independence/loyalty before the big decision.

Doug & Claire at the outside eatery - see, this is one of the moments I thought the film could have done so much more with. I so badly wanted Claire to see the tattoo. Then, what does she do? How does she react to Doug? Does she think she needs to protect him - maybe she wants to believe Doug doesn't know what his friend's up to? Or does she immediately run from Doug? Start to tell the police but then not because she's met this guy and he's nice and he kept James from killing her? if she runs from Doug - WTF is Doug going to do now because James is right - she's trouble? I thought this could have been *so* much more suspenseful and provided more twists and turns.

I hadn't caught the fact that Doug's father is a mentor, by way of negative example, so I was glad to have that pointed out.

I think probably the fact that it was a drama with action is part of what appealed to me. (maybe a big part.)

Still, I was caught by Doug's desire to get out. And the world, the culture, was pretty convincing. I liked the foreshadowing of Doug's AA attendance. AA by now is old hat, but we do see that Doug's made it out of one big problem so maybe he can make it out of another.

I liked & enjoyed this movie and thought it had some strengths but wasn't nearly as admiring of it as you are, Scott.

Some shortcomings, as I saw it:

Nemesis - I thought the Jon Hamm character, Frawley, was one-dimensional. I suppose that's standard in movies like this, but he had no real personal agenda other than "get the bad guys." Some of his dialogue when he's interrogating Doug (Affleck) was good, but it also felt so standard, even stereotypical cops 'n robbers to me and I think that's because this cop was just a cop. (Nothing against Hamm.)

Claire & Doug - I agree that Claire fell for him too fast, but for me, nothing about that relationship was interesting. I didn't think their scenes together had any sense of discovery or recognition of here's a person who's special to me. I didn't get what connection the two had so I didn't believe that they did either, but the movie insisted they did. Ho-hum.

Trickster - James was interesting and I loved the dilemma that this put Doug in - he saved my life, how can I leave him behind - but I didn't think this was handled to especially strong dramatic effect. James just blurts out the background deep in the 2nd Act, if I'm recalling correctly (shortly before the Fenway Park robbery). It felt to me like exposition. If we'd known more or had more of this told or at least hinted earlier, we could have seen more of the push/pull on Doug. I suppose this was supposed to be a "reveal" but I don't think it worked that well. It would have been OK to have had this information earlier and watch the characters go through smaller trials of independence/loyalty before the big decision.

Doug & Claire at the outside eatery - see, this is one of the moments I thought the film could have done so much more with. I so badly wanted Claire to see the tattoo. Then, what does she do? How does she react to Doug? Does she think she needs to protect him - maybe she wants to believe Doug doesn't know what his friend's up to? Or does she immediately run from Doug? Start to tell the police but then not because she's met this guy and he's nice and he kept James from killing her? if she runs from Doug - WTF is Doug going to do now because James is right - she's trouble? I thought this could have been *so* much more suspenseful and provided more twists and turns.

I hadn't caught the fact that Doug's father is a mentor, by way of negative example, so I was glad to have that pointed out.

I think probably the fact that it was a drama with action is part of what appealed to me. (maybe a big part.)

Still, I was caught by Doug's desire to get out. And the world, the culture, was pretty convincing. I liked the foreshadowing of Doug's AA attendance. AA by now is old hat, but we do see that Doug's made it out of one big problem so maybe he can make it out of another.

sorry for the double post - not sure how it happened.

the story may have been stronger if claire pursued Doug and if doug still went after his Ex GF.

The ex GF represented his missing mothers role he thinks he needs

Claire representing the mother he never had and the one he really needs.

and then in the end if he pushes the ex GF away and accepts claire.

thats kinda what happens but claires character may have been to squeaky clean. shes like the ideal mother, not charlestown enough, gritty enough.

That's interesting stuff. I saw a panel of actors once, who talked about how one dimensional their characters were and that they weren't good with that at first, until they realized that as supporting characters, like Frawley here, they are supposed to be one dimensional. That's how Doug sees him. To Doug he's simply a cop out to get him. End of story. The same goes for Claire. I think Doug sees the chance for a true love relationship that he's never really had, and which his lifestyle precludes. She exemplifies and amplifies this to him. He's in love with the prospect of love, more than with her as a person, I think. So you have to see things from the point of view that the story is told. If it's from the protagonist, some people are close or long time relationships and therefore deep characters. Others are not. The idea of more dimensional characters is more of a book style where you have the time to get into those sub-plot, supporting character details. In film, the actor does that work and incorporates it all into the few lines and scenes they have to work with. This also may be a reflection on the talent of the actor and director to bring out that backstory in the supporting roles.