Okay. So, I never saw this movie before. I liked it. It followed many of the conventions of the horror genre. It starts out grounded in realism--the marriage is in trouble: At some point, I should figure out the stats of how many horror/thrillers involve a crumbling marriage; I bet they're staggering. Anyway, for whatever reason, Gail isn't happy in her marriage, and Rourke isn't happy with his father. Honestly, nobody is happy in the Hartman house--except maybe for Maggie (or Mack). They all have unfulfilled desires. Gail wants to spend more time with her hubby. The kids wanna feel like their dad wants to be around them. Tom wants to be the provider and the husband/father
( ... )
There are so many movies with this same theme. A lot of them made around the same time. I can think of Nick of Time, Desperate Hours and Deadly Pursuit straight up. And the same theme was used back in the 30s by Hitchcock! I love thrillers, and the times when Wade was his creepiest were the best. I agree, it wasn't his hat. We were supposed see these small cracks in his story, but perhaps this was a problem with the movie too. It was too obvious Wade and co were evuuuul from the start.
But I still liked the movie too! Perhaps a bad thriller with DS, MS and KB is still better than a good thriller with nobodies!
Hitchcock did this theme the best, for sure. His films didn't end as tidily, usually, and his characters were deeply flawed beings. *Needs to do a re-watch*
I've noticed a curious thing, more than once: when I watch a movie with DS in it, I usually start watching because of DS, but then I invariably realize that there are some other good things in the movie in addition to DS. It might be the subject, the ideas, the plot, the cast... or at least the scenery and/or music. So, really big disappointments are very rare, there's almost always something enjoyable that distracts the attention from the flaws (if there are any). And this is true of The River Wild, too. Maybe the plot is indeed a bit predictable and cliched at times, and maybe the bad guys in fact do behave a bit stupidly; but somehow, I've never given it much thought. IMHO, Kevin Bacon gives a good performance, so that you just watch him without stopping to think or analyze (at least I do). And Meryl Streep... well, she's just great. I'd say in a way she is like the river - just as impressive
( ... )
I know I sounded snarky about this movie when I wrote the review, because putting it all down made me realise all the issues I have with it! But I still like it! Meryl's so naturally good in everything. I wonder how the whole thing would have coped without the likes of her, Bacon and DS though.
I think the way they were trying so hard to make Gail the hero was why I am being contrary and refusing to give her all the kudos. :)
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to say I thought you sounded snarky. And I quite agree with all you've said; I just wanted to point out that, for me personally, in this case the positive things somehow outweighed the weaknesses (and I don't think this would happen if it weren't for DS and Meryl Streep... and the dog as well :))
I didn't realise how snarky I'd be! Considering how much I truly enjoyed the movie! And yes, I think I'm putting it down to the power of the actors in it! And the dog. *snort*
Comments 8
Reply
But I still liked the movie too! Perhaps a bad thriller with DS, MS and KB is still better than a good thriller with nobodies!
Reply
Reply
Reply
I think the way they were trying so hard to make Gail the hero was why I am being contrary and refusing to give her all the kudos. :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment