River's Edge

Less Than Zero could have been the 80s movie that reveals teenage apathy in its most extreme form had they actually stuck to the damn book. But, where they hadn't, this movie presents does the job, and leaves you with the creepiest feeling when its all over in ways not done until the late nineties with Larry Clark's movies 'Kids' and 'Bully.'

Societal outcast teens are faced with a rather curious dilemma (they don't treat it much like one) when their estranged friend (Daniel Roebuck) boasts to them that he killed a teenage girl near the river's edge in their suburban town. Keanu Reeves may be the only civilized character among the bunch, the only one willing to exhibit any sort of conscience, anyway, while the others either don't do anything about the girl's death or want to help their friend hide the body.

I don't know who is more sick in this film--Crispin Glover--who becomes nearly obsessed and quite paternal in trying to protect the friend and hide the crime by smuggling him out of the state. Dennis Hopper, an on-edge drug dealer (who clings to a female blowup doll) that befriends the teens (as a dealer, of course) and suddenly becomes involved in the events. Or, Josh Miller, who plays Reeve's little brother, Tim. He appears to be the most apathetic of them all, at least until his emotional breakdown at the end. It is definitely not peppy 80s teen fare, obviously. And certainly makes the point strikingly clear about the serious detachment these kids deal with (despite a bizarre series of events) thanks to many great performances all around (even Reeves proved some acting capability).

Help yourself to a comedy to recover if it rocks you too hard.

I just saw this movie for the second time. I first saw it back in the mid-90's as a Vanguard Video selection. It has retained it power.

It is interesting from several aspects. One is that it is based on a true story. Two is it is a launching pad for two interesting actors: Keanu Reeves and Crispin Glover. And three, it has Dennis Hopper in one of his better social misfit/psychotic character roles.

The movie is also a study in the way people act in different settings. You have characters in one-on-one, family, peer group, school, general society settings, etc. The story does well in demonstrating how a person will act in each setting.

I wish I could find the details of the actual murder to compare to the movie. I saw a short bit that indicated it occurred in California and that several schoolmates were taken to view the corpse.

This is a good choice for a rainy night video rental. Be prepared to feel unsettled at the end.

Not to take away from anyone else, especially the writer Jimenez and the director Hunter, and the high school teacher and a lot of other people that make this movie really good, but I have to say I found Daniel Roebuck's performance completely riveting. He should have been nominated for it. He's big and brutal but also young and self-pitying and yet careless about his own fate. Those gestures, the tossing of beer cans and breaking into the ammo shop. Really well done.

That scene w/Hopper and the doll by the riverbank was one of the better moments of cinema I've seen in a long, long time. Why was this movie so under the radar compared to other 80's movies? That's what I want someone on this board to answer. The critics kind of mystify me, I guess. I agree with a lot of the postings here that this movie is underrated. Buy why?

Although the movie begins with a crime on the river's edge ,the film is not really a detective story,not a thriller.It is rather a chronicle of the lives and times of a bunch of high school students ,not particularly brilliant.The milieu in which they're nurtured is not particularly appealing:the scene when the mother screams that she would never have had children if she had had the choice is desperate to a fault.There's an interesting parallel between DEnnis Hopper's doll ,the young sister's one and ...the criminal's one.No actor overacts so the movie can be depicted as realistic.The history teachers provides the low point of the movie,his lesson being made of clichés we have heard a thousand times or more.THe wanderings through the night recall sometimes Lucas's "American Graffiti" but it seems that the young heroes come here from the wrong side of town.

"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.