it could have been one of the best movie ever, not only from the 80s but Crispin Glover totally ruined it. As dad McFly is perfect, but fot this character is just brutal. Funny thing, I liked the idea of this over-the-top very loyal to his freinds guy: probably on paper it worked good. On screen only sucks. It's actually one of the most annoying flaws I know in a movie.
shareThis WAS one the best movies ever.I think he actually had a big hand in making this movie work.I don't know how old you are but i was a teenager in the eighties and i knew guys just like this.The way he dressed,talked everything.
i'm not even supposed to be here!
Crispin Glover was a speed freak and played it amazingly well. This op is a troll.
http://us.imdb.com/name/nm2339870/
Thought he was awesome in it. The movie came out when I was a High Schooler about that age. He reminded me of a guy I knew who was loyal to a fault and whose general behavior was bizarre and over the top eccentric.
My friends and I watched it at a 24 hour movie marathon where we only watch bad movies. It went over well. Crispin Glover is the worst!
share[deleted]
It COULD have been one of the best movies ever if it cut out the painfully obviously unnecessary extensive nudity and if all those people's reactions hadn't been so damn unrealistic. And that little-brother kid was so obnoxious and horrible at acting.
Crispin was the best part of the whole movie, but as a character he was, of course, unrealistic.
I thought Crispin Glover was awesome in it, in my opinion its my favorite role of his except for his brief appearence in David Lynch's Wild At Heart.
.../ `---____________|]
../_==o;;;;;;;;_____.:/
.. ), --.(_((_) /
..//(.)//
.//__//
He was great. It's just a depressing movie.
The dark humor in this was some of the best ever.
How about the teacher going off on the nerd in class?
Second best movie I know of in the "going to see a dead body," genre.
If you are complaining about the 'unrealistic reactions' then you have clearly missed the whole point of the movie. It's not supposed to be a representation of reality, but a comment on the adult view of the teenage world at the time, exaggerated to the point of not caring about the death of a friend.
shareI dont think its unrealistic at all, I remember hangin with my close friends back in the day and the worst thing you could be is a rat, regardless of how awful the situation could be.
.../ `---____________|]
../_==o;;;;;;;;_____.:/
.. ), --.(_((_) /
..//(.)//
.//__//
River's Edge is based on a true story.
shareI think if you look at his performance as comedic relief from a total downer film, you might get from it, a little more perspective.
shareNudity? I don't remember ANY nudity in this film.
shareAre you talking about the dead body ? Because that's the only nudity I remember. It had MAYBE 60 seconds of screen time total
shareI am watching this movie and it is about a serious matter and the plot is interesting but I keep thinking is this supposed to be a comedy? The acting by Crispin Glover is so over the top that it is hilarious. The Little brother is a horrible actor as well. I grew up in the 80's and I don't know one person who acted like these guys. Maybe the kids who were doing drugs acted like that, I don't know.
shareDid you grow up in the eighties in a lower class neighborhood with not a lot of money and *beep* up parents, and you had a lot of drunk/stoner friends who really just did not give a *beep*
In Cali? If so, I promise you you'd recognize the type.
-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch
i liked crispin in this movie. why does everyone complain about his acting in every movie. they even said the same thing about his acting in willard and that role was amazing. i just dont get it. layne was suppose to be over dramanic and annoying. i have seen people act like this before. plus i think the only thing that was off put was his stonner accent but stonner accents in general are off put. it's the same thing like the valley girl accent. the director wanted him to act like that it was just part of his character. if anything the only one who did a bad job of acting in this film was the guy who played john and the guy who played tony. as keunna reeves well his problem is he doesn't show enough emotions to be convincing,his acting is so bland. i just don't understand how people can mistaken crispin acting as over the top. like i have said before it's not just this film. people said crispin was too over the top in willard and claim they never seen anyone who acts like in real life but little do they know that there are people out there that truly behave like that however it not too comment because people like layne or willard are people with personality disorders. their is a difference between over acting and a character that is mellow dramantic. some people in real life are over the top dramanic. most people like that have a hyperactive disorder. i know this because before i was put on conserta i have acted the same way as layne but with out the silly accent. i think one of the reason people wasn't pleased with crispins role because he known as george mcfly so seeing him as a fauwl mouthed stonner was completey off put.
p.s i have a learning disabilty so if there is any spelling or grammar mistakes that why. i tried to spell and correct my comment as much as i can
I also thought that Crispin Glover did a fantastic job, it is my favorite role that he has done. i think he actually MADE the movie. "lane" was a strange character in the story, and Glover portrayed him very well.
sharei love crispin glover in this. there are people like that in high school (and beyond) - unbalanced over the top types. Yes, he's known for that, but i thought that style fit perfectly here.
shareIt seemed real to me. All the characters were completely believable, even Dennis Hopper.
About being a rat, as Matt said, Jamie was their friend too. Why let John get away with killing her?
A poster mentioned "unrealistic" characters. Eh, these were about the most spot-on portrayals of Californian (esp. Northern California) teenagers of the time. These kids were an early representation of grunge kids that were to come in the next few years. Hung with a ton of these bud-smoking types who were so painfully aimless that I always searched my mind as to why they'd want to be around each other at all. No murder-type stuff, sure, but when there was a shooting or a kid beaten at home or a girl rubbed on after getting a spiked drink, there was zero sympathy. Their next thought was always where to score weed or waiting outside a liquor store for some illegal to buy them beer.
"If I had ya where I wanted ya, they'd be pumpin your ass full of formaldehyde!"
I was thinking this is in some ways the first 90s movie in that it shows that dark apathetic streak a lot of us had during the reagan years that came to the mainstream starting in 1991 with grunge. If you didn't know anyone like the people in this film and you grew up in the 80s you must have been rich or something (or you know, not white).
"Kids" today will have a different take on it and any appreciation will most likely be of the ironic type which is how they seem to view almost everything, I hate watching movies with people under 30 they laugh at the most inappropriate *beep*
--
Only living to die
As some have pointed out, he was great in this movie. I grew up in suburban NY, and graduated HS in 1987, so I was the same age as the characters. It took me all this time to finally get around to seeing this movie. I don't know what I would have said 25 or so years ago, but I don't think it'd be that much different than today; it was fking great and completely realistic. The mid to late 80s was the starting point, when teenagers started to be disassociated from events. I could totally see this plot happening back then, as I can see it happening now.
Crispin has always been a godsend of an actor. If people don't appreciate him, that's their right, but to me, they're missing out.
I got you. That's all I want.
I'm not attempting to advocate for or against whatever acting ability Glover has, but I think that if someone wants to criticise this particular performance, then it'd be _far_ more accurate to say that the scriptwriter and director would have to take responsibility for it. What I mean by this is that the role/character has been decided to be an over-reaching drama queen type whose passion (or display of it) far exceeds his actual wisdom/common sense. There's just no way they could have been aiming for something astronomically different out of the character, and then sat through Glover's performance and been ok with it. Clearly it would have been where/how he was instructed to play it. It's hardly like such a performance would have just slipped under the radar.