RavenGlamDVDCollector Back* in the day when I first saw it, I was quite impressed with it. Truly a darkly controversial movie dealing with deeply disturbing subject. As RavenGlamDVDCollector, I've been putting off adding it to my collection for a long time, back in my VHS days, I'd had some misgivings about something with such negative imagery, and here we have a stark-naked glazed- eyes corpse... but recently realized I've got zilch, nada, zip of Ione Skye, so finally got around to obtaining this DVD.*I'm South African, this movie wasn't released here until much, much later. Our censors back then would have taken just one look at the naked white corpse and prayed for damnation of all that is Hollywood. After viewing, I found my opinion of this movie had changed considerably.I guess it is held in very high regard by the average reviewer here. So, hate me for this:I think it is a wasted opportunity to have delivered something better. Why?1) Crispin Glover is nothing but theatrically camp. His strung-out on drugs character comes across as simply a kinda effeminate loopy guy who'd have gotten his ass kicked in real life instead of having any friends. Over-acting, over-the-top, lays it on super-thick and then puts an extra layer on top of all that for extra overkill. I'm sorry, but you're just a comic, dude. (the two little boys were far more convincing, though the lead one was over-acting as well)2) Dennis Hopper can do better than that. Come on! At times he seemed to be laughing at his own silly antics. He was more goofy than creepy.I expected beforehand that I was really gonna enjoy this. And the way it starts, Daniel Roebuck was perfect, and I was settling in for A WINNER, but no...Who would have taken a guy like Layne seriously? Light-weight mascara'd halfway lady boy Layne?Daniel Roebuck also throws it away with an uneven performance, like, every time the dude speaks. Moodily just sitting there smoking at the beginning, he was perfect as some thuggish anti- social creep, until speaking up...Unexplained: The corpse was naked. The flashback murder seems to have been non-sexual, like a game gone wrong, and she was clothed. What gives? Goofs: Rigor mortis. One moment, the corpse has a hand that is still slack. Next moment, as it is rolled into the water, really really sickeningly stiff (like a dummy). People, take reality into account. I have a good mind to post it as a Goof, but I'd have to do some research on rigor mortis first besides what my common horse-sense tells me, and, er, no thanks...Plus point de lux for the movie : Two beautiful actors, the hottest couple back then. Keanu Reeves and Ione Skye. She is just beautiful.But miscast. Her character is kinda dumb. Some things dawn a bit slowly on that chick. While Ione Skye is so clearly bright and outright compassionate (you can tell that simply by looking at her) (those eyes!). One of the best scenes (which was just kicking up the movie a notch) was her reaction to the corpse of her friend - she retreats, abject horror, but it was cut short. Oh, waste!And, of course, had Ione not been in this, I'd not have been associated with this movie. At all. I'm very, very sensitive to dead-eyed white corpses as well.They almost had something much, much better here.Do not understand me wrong: Basically, it remains a good product. Like many others here would attest. But with more mistakes than there should have been. Some of them very serious flaws. I'm saying what Crispin gave, well was a notable performance, but entirely not the really needed one. As an outsider character, sure, that performance, yes, but he wouldn't have had such followers. Somebody else should have been the driving force, the leader.Then it would have been riveting, edgy... (get it???)

Veronica6 A lot of people don't realize that this is based on a true story. I knew and went to jr high and high school with the people involved. This actually happened during our first year of high school. The characters were exaggerated a bit. I remember the kids coming back to school and talking about seeing a dead body and poking it with a stick. The girl who was killed was actually a very quiet and sweet girl who happened to befriend the wrong person. A lot of people were afraid of him and thought he was weird and avoided him. He wanted to be more than friends, she wasn't interested so he killed her (so the story goes). Google Marcy Conrad to get the real story. For me knowing what really happened and seeing this movie don't jive but overall it was a decent movie.

Rodrigo Amaro Remember of "Stand by Me" and the whole thing of the four kids journey trying to find a dead body and on the way evaluating their lives up to that point? Now, picture this scenario: what if one of the kids was involved in a murder and keep bragging to everybody about his act showing a corpse as a way to prove that he killed someone? "River's Edge" pretty much covers such topic except that instead of kids we have a bunch of teenagers (and some kids too) getting involved in a complicated situation. One of them killed a girl and for whatever reasons he decided to share this with his friends who don't know how to respond to such problem. A part of the group who saw the body wants to protect their killer friend (Daniel Roebuck) like his buddy Layne (Crispin Glover), while others more doubtful of the whole thing like Matt (Keanu Reeves) and Clarissa (Ione Skye) want to do the right thing and let this being handled by the cops. It's only the beginning of a snowball effect that will become an avalanche sooner or later when other people get stuck with them in this case such a dangerous lunatic (Dennis Hooper), Matt's younger brother and plenty of others. Dramatic and thrilling enough to make you care about it "River's Edge" is a good film while dealing about the teen angst and how they try to cope with adulthood and its problems (here, throughout this crime they'll learn the value of friendship and also some moralistic lessons). The greatest thing covered here was the lack of communication between the teens in certain moments, when they couldn't express what they were feeling about everything happening to them, that was incredibly real, this anxiety of wanting to say and show something but not being able to do it. Other good point that must be raised is their immaturity, also very credible. They're dumb characters but not dumb enough to let you hating them like some flicks tend to do; you'll understand their idiotic moves and actions as being completely natural to them who are more interested in getting stoned and causing trouble then realizing the consequences for their acts. Sadly, this could be an great movie if wasn't for the creative flights of imagination from its writer and director who put unnecessary and unrealistic things in a story that sounds so real, so credible. Examples: the kids reaction when they see the body for the first time. I mean, do people wouldn't freak out a bit in seeing a friend that was killed by another friend?; the teacher's lousy reaction asking his students how they felt about the girl's murder, that was over-the-top and fake; the whole segment involving Keanu's little brother wanting to get revenge on him because he was beaten by him was very unbelievable, however it's interestingly presented, it's a good thing.What could make this movie better than it is would be erase Matt and Clarissa's date night when the whole disaster wasn't solved, that was distractive (and Keanu's face while getting laid. What was that?). Instead of these expendable tender moments the film should be longer and present more about the character's past, develop them in order so we could know how they were as friends, this sense of company, if they were so close to each other or if their friendship was always moved by some interest. The acting in this film is quite difficult to be analyzed, the result will vary depending of the viewer. I enjoyed the at times over-the-top performance of Crispin Glover, other people say he ruined the film. He's very good in playing this twisted junkie who wants to help his friend, trying to be the lead of the gang. Keanu is quite bad in this, emotionless. Having his role being played by Johnny Depp, even at that time when he wasn't all that famous, and we would have a different and good performance. The rest of the cast goes in between's, some good, some bad.It's well made and it makes some outstanding and relevant social commentaries on youth, family, and what growing up really means. Check it out some time. 8/10

knucklebreather "River's Edge" is a very perplexing movie. The most striking feature of the movie seems to be the universally apathetic characters. In the opening sequence we learn that Samson, a very large, uncontrollable teenager has killed Jamie, a member of his group of stoner friends from school, and left her naked body by the river's edge.While there are many movies about heartless killers, Samson is fully realized, such as he is, and I was struck by the utter lack of any rime or reason to his actions, any "Hollywood" touches to humanize him or explain what he did. He killed a girl and really doesn't care. There was no planning, before or after, no moralizing, at most he is amused by it.Samson (also called John because of his last name) tells his friends, who display apathy that might be shocking. The only one who seems to care is Layne (Crispin Glover) who wants to cover it up so his friend doesn't get arrested and executed. But the rest don't really seem too shaken by it, they don't get mad at John, they even justify his actions, and they certainly don't go to the police right away.River's Edge works because there is no clear message. I'm sure many people can find one in it, but it's definitely not a movie that hits you over the head with some moral. It presents some very strangely behaving people, who are often over the top but depicted with just enough realism that you have to take what is going on seriously. The fun in this movie is that you get to float around in this shockingly apathetic teenage wasteland for an hour and a half, and see what you can make of it.The main problem I had with the movie was the direction and soundtrack, which coincide to create awkward transitions and moments where "River's Edge" feels like a crappy low-budget flick you'd find being mocked on MST3K. None of the dialogue or plot falls into that category, but it's the transitions between scenes, where they often just kind of end unimpressive and cut to the next one.The soundtrack also kept drawing me away from the movie. It includes some edgy metal for 1986, which is perfectly fine for the movie, but it doesn't do much with it, and instead most of the music is an orchestral soundtrack. Parts of it are very atmospheric and perfect for the movie's feel, but at other times it is hitting cliché film score notes during tense scenes and really seeming quite cheesy. I contrasted this movie with "Picnic at Hanging Rock", a spiritual cousin of "River's Edge" I would say, where the score was so utterly perfect at always building the mood, and really think River's Edge could have been an incredible movie with a score that consistent.River's Edge isn't perfect. I had honestly never even heard of it until I saw it mentioned as a superior film with the same basic themes as "Bully" by Larry Clark. I am very glad I rented it, and am a bit surprised I'd never heard of it. It deserves to be better known. It has some flaws and not everyone will like it, but there is a lot of depth here, and of course its cast includes several famous people in early or debut roles.