MovieChat Forums > River (2016) Discussion > Enjoyed the movie River, but didn't like...

Enjoyed the movie River, but didn't like the ending


I wasn't sure what to expect but we all ended up enjoying this movie at the preview. Rossif Sutherland did a great job acting.

But we didn't like the way it ended...I can understand why they chose to end it that way, but it was still frustrating.

reply

I thought it was a wonderful film, very well paced. As for the ending, I'm glad he took the decision he did. It was the right thing to do.

reply

Agree. His conscious would have haunted him forever.

reply

His conscious would have haunted him forever.


Conscience.

Not conscious. Conscience.

reply

Have you never typed a message so fast that you misspelled a word while knowing people would understand what you meant?

reply

Have you never typed a message so fast that you misspelled a word while knowing people would understand what you meant?


Yes.

It never hurts to correct a mistake, though.

reply

It hurt a little.

reply

It hurt a little.


It hurts a little. Not hurt.

reply

past tense.

reply

Frustrating indeed. Most of us would save our own skin but I think few would admit it.

reply

What I didn't understand was why he chose to run in the first place. I don't know the laws of Laos as they compare to Thailand, but is it that BAD in Laos that you should do everything you can to leave the country if you are merely ACCUSED of a crime?

There are no problems that cannot be solved with a can of brake clean and a lighter

reply

I'd imagine that because it involved a politician's son and given the economic nature of the country, John would have been given a sham trial and then suffered an "unfortunate accident" at some point while in prison (or at least that is what he was probably worried about)

reply

Ever been in a Laos or Thai jail?
Not nice!


Its uncle Frank Kirsty!
Its time to play!

reply

I would of preferred my chances in Laos than being caught in Thailand with drugs, although most likely the outcome of either would be the same

reply

In most Asian countries the accused does not enjoy the same right of being innocent until proven guilty that most Western countries afford you.

reply

He was just accused. He DID the crime. Not that it matters that much because yes, just being accused is as good as guilty in those parts. Even Japan, which is supposed to be first world, boasts a 99.97%, yes 99.97%(!) conviction rate. For that to be a real stat, the cops would have to be perfect or the system is rigged and once you're charged you're *beep* Another (unlikely) possibility is that they only go after people once they have incontrovertible evidence with no room for doubt at all. My vote is for rigged (and coerced confessions). So yeah, if you end up killing someone by accident in Asia, you're best bet is problem to GTFO of there.

reply

I hated the ending. He should've just went home.
After all she pushed him acting like he was the one that raped her so F her.

reply

The same can be said for him. He could've stopped hitting the Aussie once he was down, so F him.

They were all wasted and she probably blacked out and didn't know what had happened till she saw her underwear around her ankles. Since he was the first person she saw when she came to so she automatically assumed it was him.

reply

That's ridiculous. She was raped, it was dark and he had the same facial trauma that she apparently inflicted on the actual perp that he also bared resemblance to. I totally understand how she could have mistaken the two.

reply

(Spoiler)

I agree. It would've been way more realistic, and not to mention, way more interesting of a character if he just went back home. We understand he was a good person from the beginning of the film but just not enough for us to believe that he would go back to Laos after all that he went through to get out. Lastly, i definitely didn't expect that ending from an independant film, that ending was one for a Hollywood studio film.

reply

It made sense to me, though I'm not sure how believable I thought it was. John wasn't a terrible person. He got drunk and lost his temper when he saw something horrific happening. Naturally he wanted to get away with it, and I doubt he ever would have killed anyone again. How often is a person in that situation? And the character obviously knew these things about himself. Trying to get away with it didn't feel reprehensible to him (and I didn't think it was either), it was about survival.

But knowing he was consigning someone else to suffer, wrongly, the fate he'd taken such pains to avoid, that, he couldn't accept. That would be a truly evil thing to do. Not stupid, not impulsive, not accidental or semi-accidental, like everything that came before -- deliberate, irrevocable, irredeemable evil.

He couldn't do it.

The reason I have some qualms about its believability is that even though it's understandable he'd feel that way, I think he'd also still be every bit as afraid of the system in Laos as he had been all along, and not without reason. Capital punishment there is carried out by firing squad. A life is an awful lot to sacrifice for someone who was, really, a stranger. It's a lot to sacrifice for anyone. And it would be a particularly terrifying death, at that.

So I expected him to go home and try to mount a defense for her from there. That way he could tell himself he tried to help, regardless of how it turned out, but he wouldn't be risking getting killed himself. And I was so caught up in the movie, I didn't realize there wasn't enough time left for that! That'd be two movies. 

"Look, Alex, we've done a bad thing, okay? Just try and enjoy it."

reply

He shouldn't have turned himself in. He could do alot of good throughout his lifetime as a doctor. He could have also financially taken care of that girl's family. They appreciate that kind of thing. She was a bar girl anyway, probably not too innocent either. He threw his life away from close to nothing.

reply

So your life and the love that family and/or friends may have for you is worth less than someone who is somehow deemed more socio/economically "valuable" than you? Better watch yourself.

reply