MovieChat Forums > The River Wild (1994) Discussion > please explain this to me---SPOILER WARN...

please explain this to me---SPOILER WARNING

posted 17 years ago by heidihot
40 replies | jump to latest

I haven't found much mention of this when I read discussions about this movie although I saw one review on here briefly address it. While I do enjoy this movie, I always have the same question when it is over that I have never been able to answer. I just keep thinking that there must be an explanation because it is too big of an error for the writers to overlook.

The family's father is able to escape and follows the rest without them knowing through to the end when he sabotages Wade and his partner's escape after the dangerous ride through the Gauntlet. Before they go through the gauntlet, Meryl Streep's character is describing how deadly the trip will be but Wade is willing to risk his life because he has to get through the gauntlet in order to escape to wherever they were going.

Well, if it is possible to get past the Gauntlet just by walking like the father did, then why did he insist on risking his own life by going via the raft? Didn't anybody know that it was possible to go on foot? If Meryl Streep's character had been a guide and grew up there, she must have been familiar enough to know that and suggest it. Was Wade just sadistic? They weren't delivering anything so heavy that it had to go by raft. What am I missing here?

[–] eo267713 17 years ago

i have no idea

[–] nancyellen_58 17 years ago

Excellent observation. I didn't even think of that!

[–] JamesJDavid 16 years ago

Very good point - I can't explain it myself

[–] gtrpup2 17 years ago

my guess is that maybe maryl streep told them there was no way to walk around it to protect the father. If they had walked around he would of been in danger of being discovered.

[–] mplo (2305) 5 years ago

That sounds about right--and it makes sense, to boot.

[–] BoSoxRule 17 years ago

That is your answer.

[–] sting_757 17 years ago

She didn't know he was alive till they saw the sign on the rocks though. I think its because this a movie based on white water rafting. They shouldn't have to explain why they didn't go on foot.

[–] hereshopin 17 years ago

Of course it added more drama to the movie but I think I see where the original poster was coming from. This was no cheap, no name movie. Meryl Streep, Kevin Bacon, John C Reily?? Big stars for a movie with such a huge hole in the plot.

Yes, they didn't know that the husband had made it on foot until they were through which might explain why the Meryl Streep character hadn't suggested that only if she was unfamiliar with the setting. But didn't she say that she had been that way before and maybe worked there as a guide or something? Not to mention that there really wasn't anything about the terrain that would make it impossible to go by foot. Certainly safer than taking the deadly Gauntlet.

My guess is like was said before, it was added for drama, but I don't think it was a good move. Were they hoping that no one would notice? I just think that writing that part differently could have helped those of us who did to enjoy the movie even more. Some of us don't like to have our intelligence insulted not even by a fictional story.

[–] Komadori 17 years ago

Tom walked, yes, but not the whole way down the river. I think that's why Wade was willing to risk his life. *shrugs*

[–] tomfern 17 years ago

This bothered me through the whole movie..but maybe Meryl Streep's character realized that going by way of the rapids, she actually had some control over the situation, and she told her husband of her plan to capsize the boat while running the rapids when they were in the tent together minutes before he tried to sneak out to get the gun. If she told them about the trail around the river, there would be no reason to keep them alive any more. I guess it was a bid for time..a stall. If this is the case, they should have made it more clear in the movie.

[–] adambikerarmstrong 17 years ago

Gail did say that you could walk out but even if you had the right gear and new what you were doing it would take x number of days, and would still be risky. Plus Tom did have to skale rock faces and swim across the river at parts - maybe adrenaline was supposed to have taken over etc???

[–] MNRebecca (749) 2 years ago

This. It was just a deadly to escape the river at as to raft through the gauntlet.

[–] Artdoag2 17 years ago

Staying on the raft would have been better for the badguys anyway since they could cover more ground and expend less energy. If they had walked on the banks to their destination, they woulda had to carry their (minimal) camping gear, bagga money, and to hike up and down rocks and hills. Plus no one would suspect some guys on a raft, but guys skulking around the woods would look fishy. So since fishy = cops, they had to be able to pass off as regular rafters.

so a) the raft would be the best way to get farther the fastest
b) they were carrying stuff
c) bacon's character also seemed to get a thrill out of Streep, so keeping her around was working for him
d) the land route was more physically demanding

so that's why they stayed on the boat

[–] mplo (2305) 5 years ago

Since Terry and Wade were dangerous fugitives from the law, and they wanted to go to the Canadian border so that they could escape justice, that's why they wanted to go down the river, so they could get there faster.

[–] astrorocket03 17 years ago

The rapids are faster and Wade didn't feel like walking. He's lazy.

[–] gieneh 17 years ago

They needed the rafts after the Gauntlet - that's where they couldn't walk out. They needed to get down river from the Gauntlet to get to a place where they could walk out and get to the vehicle they have waiting. They couldn't hike around the Gauntlet and carry the rafts because they would have had to climb the same cliffs the Dad climbed and they couldn't do that with the raft.

[–] finprw 17 years ago

Okay,

Wade did not think that the Gauntlet was a big deal and thought that once he and his accomplices were through it they would hop in the Car/Jeep/SUV and go. The river part was supposed to buy them 3 to 4 days if people were looking for them at the Canadian border - pay attention to the dialogue, folks.

It's never too late to make a difference.

[–] hereshopin 17 years ago

If going on a boat through the rapids would get them there 3-4 days earlier than how is it that the husband was able to get there at the same time?

That's why it's confusing. Not that it would be shorter to follow the path of the river to avoid capture but that they had to actually go ON THE RIVER instead of walking along the edge like the father.