The River Wild (1994)

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

"The River Wild" stars Meryl Streep as Gail, a young woman whose holiday rafting trip is hijacked by small-time criminals. Despite a poor last act, the film is functional, unpretentious and boasts fine cinematography. It was directed by Curtis Hanson.Today, "The River Wild" screams 1994. Here's an action film with no CGI, with the obligatory Spielbergesque "marital problems", with the typical "90s son", "architect father" and "Jerry Goldsmith score", and which proudly rides a then new trend: the "extreme sports/wilderness action movie" ("Cliffhanger", "Pointbreak", "Drop Zone", "The Edge" etc).Where "River" differs from its siblings is in its casting of Meryl Streep, who imbues the film with a seriousness not often found in such pictures. Streep wants you to believe that her Gail is a REAL WOMAN, REAL MOTHER and REALISTIC/NATURALISTIC ACTION HEROINE! "The River Wild's" script never really lets her achieve this, but watching Streep insert her brand of forced naturalism into what is essentially a big studio action movie, is nevertheless fascinating.7.5/10 – See "The Sand Pebbles", Herzog's "The Wrath of God" and Elia Kazan's "Wild River".

Curtis Hanson directed this exciting thriller that stars Meryl Streep and David Strathairn as Gail and Tom Hartman, who are taking their son with them on a white water river rafting trip in the mountains while on vacation. Gail is the real expert rafter, which will come in handy as they are intercepted by two men named Wade and Terry(played by Kevin Bacon and John C. Reilly) who at first pretend to simply be lost and inexperienced rafters. Wade even bonds with their son to an extent, and appears charming to Gail, but they are both really crooks who kidnap them at gunpoint and force Gail to lead them over the rapids, where they will meet up with their accomplices. How can Gail get them out of this mess? Good film with solid direction and performances, especially Streep and Bacon. May not be entirely original, even routine, but so skillfully presented it doesn't matter.

This is a good drama, set to nice scenery and enough action to keep it afloat on a "river Wild" of course.Three bandidos (sounds cooler than bandits, so I'll say it) are on this "river wild", as are a man, his wife, and their son.Issues arise between the couple, and when the two groups meet, one of the bandidos is dead, and the husband becomes weakened, which of course you know, because Meryl Streep has to be the star.This is all leading up to a final confrontation with the psychopath played by Kevin Bacon.So what makes this interesting is the wild card. The accomplice, played by Reilly, is not any of the stereotypes we are used to seeing. He is not the sicko, killer, maniac, or complete low life. Neither is he the good hearted kid who means well. He is the one we don't know throughout the movie, and that plays a key role in its ending.It ends with a decision that must be made by Meryl Streep, when she has one bullet for two men. One with the physical force and power of the knife. The other with the mental control. It becomes a throwback to the bad guys from "Rope" in a way.Does she make the right decision? Does she miss completely? I won't spoil that.

I don't like films that make idiot of you - spectator, and this is one of that sort. The story is fine, the plot is dramatical, but all the other things are unbelievable - lot of luck for the family, lots of coincidences, and insoluble situations. What I mean:1, i don't know anything about guns but is it possible that a revolver squelched 15 times (at least:) is still able to shoot??2, how can a wounded man climb a mountain, then fall down from it, swim across quite wild river, run through thick forest to follow a pretty quick raft - all this without disinfectant and food and in his sopping clothes.. - and finally build a sophisticated trap! Well, great performance - but the man in the film was not Chuck Norris :-D3, was the ranger blind? he managed to find a small camera somewhere in mud and driftwood, but he didn't notice a cut-up raft.4, smoke signals must have been pretty secret! Seen only by mother and her child, not by villains.And so on.. Btw, in my opinion a 12-year-old child would end up with psychical trauma and nightmares after seeing a few murders in the flesh.Just one plus for the film: I don't know if it was camera, dramaturgy or good acting - from the very beginning I knew that there was something wrong with Wade, that he was bad. I didn't know anything about the film but I felt it'd be thriller :) The character was well performed i think. However, the film was another US junk.