moonspinner55
Mel Gibson isn't terribly convincing as a southern farmer and family man trying to hold onto his river-ravaged land; even when covered in soot and wearing overalls, everything about the young, wiry Gibson breathes prosperity. Corporate shady Scott Glenn (in a sleepwalking performance) wants Gibson and wife Sissy Spacek off their land in order to build a dam and flood the valley (it'll mean more jobs), but Gibson refuses to sell out. Sub-plot with Mel taking factory work (after crossing a picket line) is presumably meant to give us a more complete portrait of the man, but it just makes the character seem hard-headed. Upon opening with a lovely series of nature shots courtesy cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, director Mark Rydell immediately loses his footing with a sequence of contrived family action in a rainstorm (underlined by an awful John Williams score to heighten the drama, which has no pay-off). It's all downhill from there, with petulant, milky-skinned Gibson failing to match up with homespun Spacek, and two perky kids who keep playing to the camera. "The River" was released the same year as "Places in the Heart" and "Country", and was easily the weakest 'farm movie' of the lot. Glossy, superficial and dull. *1/2 from ****
Predrag
This film portrays the powerful struggles that a lot of independent farmers, face. That being, corporate take over or buy-out's which fazes out the livelihood of a farmer and their families. The direction is colorful and nearly flawless. I agree with the previous reviewer though about Mel Gibson. His character, a mite too proud, is a little difficult to take sometimes. He definitely could have shown more bite in the scene where he is attacked by the strikers. The scene where he confronts Scott Glenn in the office is his best scene in this movie. But he definitely could have done a better job with the character. He seems miscast at times.The on screen chemistry between Spacek and Gibson underscores the uncomfortable aura of the marriage in the movie. There's something strange about the couple, something that just doesn't click; a feeling of looming doom regarding their relationship. Scott Glenn's character does not help the uneasy tension. They're all just trying to keep their families afloat, is all. Mel Gibson played a terrific part in this movie and he was brilliant in every scene. Cinematography is nice. Country was a better take on this topic of the early 80's-people losing their family farms to the banks. Country had some show stopping moments of dialog delivered by Jessica Lange. Jessica seemed less a victim than the two main characters here. There is little triumph in the survival of Mel and Sissy.Jessica was more Joan of Arc than merely a survivor. The movie has a lot to do with the 1980's recession that is plaguing farms throughout the state of Tennessee, not to mention the constant flooding of the river that is threatening to wash away everything that the farmers worked hard for.Overall rating: 7 out of 10. Overall rating: 7 out of 10.
tieman64
"I saw the weary farmer, plowing sod and loam. I heard the auction hammer, knocking down his home. But the banks are made of marble, with a guard at every door, and the vaults are stuffed with silver, that the farmer sweated for." - Pete Seeger Mark Rydell's "The River" stars Mel Gibson and Sissy Spacek as a pair of struggling farmers. Combating floodwaters, bankers, scheming capitalists and angry unionists, the duo desperately attempt to keep the family farm from foreclosure.John Steinbeck published "Grapes of Wrath" in 1939, turned into a film one year later by John Ford. In many ways, Rydell's film plays like a 1980s update of the aforementioned works. At its best, it conveys the insensitivity of power brokers and landowners, tests the assumptions about private property and class difference upon which our social order rests, and details the ease at which humans (with common interests and shared grievances) are divided into subsets and pitted against one another. Not as sophisticated as Elia Kazan's similarly themed "Wild River", "River" climaxes with our heroes saving their farm and "becoming rich". This hokey climax not only betrays the film's original ethos, but ultimately endorses the problems and pursuits it pretends to denounce. In "River", everything's fine so long as you make a profit at the end.Aesthetically, "River" offers a nice blend of 1980s Hollywood and early 20th century neo-realism. Part of a wave of big-budget "women's picture", and influenced by the ripples of second-wave feminism, the film features another wonderful performance from Spacek. Blending strength with fragility, beauty with plainness, her character endures the labours of motherhood, matrimony and agronomics. Mel Gibson, though photogenic, is miscast as Spacek's husband.7.9/10 – Underrated. See Ford's "Grapes of Wrath" and Ken Loach's "Bread and Roses".
kypioneer
Tom and Mae Garvey (Mel Gibson, Sissy Spacek) are the owners of a small eastern Tennessee farm that has been in the Garvey family for generations. It is the early 1980s, when the staggering U.S. economy threatens the welfare of the American family farm. The Garveys' struggles are compounded by the fact that their property is in a flood plain, and by the enmity of Tom's rival Joe Wade (Scott Glenn), who is a wealthy and powerful foe. This is not lighthearted entertainment.For me, the film's most powerful moments come when cash-strapped Tom has to leave the farm to find work elsewhere. He unknowingly becomes a scab in a factory where the regular labor force is on strike. At least there is a regular paycheck, but the contrast between the man-made hell of a iron foundry/steel mill and the natural beauty of the family farm is compelling, and you can see why the Garveys struggle to hold on to their agricultural way of life, however hard it is. The cinematography for this movie is way above average, a celebration of rural America.Sissy Spacek delivers her usual fine performance. Mel Gibson is very good-- his Tennessee accent quite convincing. The two youngsters who play their children deserve special praise for their natural performances. This is a good, thoughtful movie-- not romantic, thrilling or exciting-- but one the family can watch together and think what sacrifices they would make to keep a heritage and a way of life preserved.
AD
