The content justifies the frequent title change, for "White River" doesn't know what it wants to be. It starts with a con man Brother Edgar (Bob Hoskins) talking to the camera, telling us how he is travelling around the Deep South, under the disguise of a monk. Before you think about that Bob must be a British actor, he goes on, selling cheap socks, with his Mexican partner Molares (Banderas) who pilfers a law book from a library to study something about getting money from lawsuit. All right.

Then they meet White River Kid (who suddenly appears from the river). Kid hijacks their car, but somehow instead of plenty of chances to leave him behind, they come to travel together with him after incredibly clumsy set of events that happen later, finally picking up a local waitress and Kid's girlfriend Lisa (who looks like an exact copy of Juliette Lewis of "Kalifornia" and "Natural Born Killer"). They go to Lisa's home, and they are happy with the strange but kind members of her family. On the other hand, Brother Edgar meets a blind prostitute Eva (Ellen Barkin), to be drawn to her.

To be fair, there is some quaint feeling of the South in the photography itself, and perhaps with more skills it could be more engaging, but the entire cast looks so awfully miscast and it is so obvious that actors don't know what they are doing, that the result became an utter disaster, without making any point or interest for us. The film just meanders among ludiculous situations that are not so funny, dotted with meaningless violence. I don't write any complaint about the actors, but as for Banderas, who co-executive produced the film, I really want to say: what happened to him!? Where is cool Zorro? He intentionally goes for portraying an unusual character (a con man who turns a murderer ... NO!), but this is not what we want. I really miss him in his splendid Spanish film era, and wish that for once he would go back to his roots with masterful guide of Pedro Almodvar.


Zero Talent for Mimicry Ruins Daft Caper   May 6, 2002
Chris Holmes (Corfu, Greece)
1 out of 4 found this review helpful

As a villain in his native tongue, or your well-meaning slightly gormless, salt-of-the-earth best mate, Bob Hoskins has the roles cornered. But, bless him, he hasn't a bone of mimicry in his cuddly tubby bod.

This is a silly enough story as it is, further bluntened by the sort of genius miscasting that agents and studio hacks usually only dream of.

Unlike their actress sisters, Brit male thespians are not known for convincing American accents. That Branagh fellow in 'Dead Again' defines the malaise. In the flop under discussion, Bob H is meant to be a cheery con-man monk from the deep south.

His inability to hit a single convincing vowel is made further excruciating by the slides into dud South African or, more understandable, his native south London drawl. Painful - and Hoskins being no fool about the roles he can take, the man himself probably chafed and winced just as keenly.


There is More on Heaven and Earth   January 19, 2002
Lorna Pryor (Waco, Texas)
4 out of 6 found this review helpful

I am 48 years old. Had I seen this movie 25 years ago, I would have considered it unforgivably absurd. Today, I welcome it with it's view that takes in the good, the bad, the ugly, and the beautiful, and loves it unconditionally and unreservedly.
Everyone of the characters in this movie reminds me strongly of someone I have personally known (of course, I do live in central Texas). The events are unconventional. This is comforting and reassuring, for as I have lived my life in Texas, there are so many events that I think to myself, "No one would believe this if I told it straight." It is a strain to continually strive to reconstruct and present one's life as being conventional and normal and acceptable. I wonder if it is just me, or just central Texas, or just my socio-economic category ( identical, at this writing to that of the characters in this movie) that makes me feel "not normal." Anyway, at this stage of my life, I am no longer worried about achieving normalcy, although for years it was a prime concern. Enjoy this movie of life, love, death, and grief, and know, that on some level, this is normal.


Horrible!!!   November 27, 2001
Jonathan (Sheridan, Arkansas United States)
1 out of 6 found this review helpful

I really had high hopes for this movie. It was filmed in my hometown and had some really big names in it. But after watching it I can honestly say it is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Please don't waste your money on this piece of trash, and if you see it on cable change the channel quickly!!!


Terrible - simply worthless!   October 30, 2001
Get What We Give (Georgia)
5 out of 11 found this review helpful

Antonio Banderas once again proves that he desperately needs to learn to speak English clearly (I haven't understood but a couple of words the man has said in any of his films - and I speak Spanish and English!) - get a diction teacher, man! Further, Bob Hoskins is a fine actor, but come on Bob - you aren't this desperate for work are you? Ellen Barkin is here looking just like what I've always thought of her: a tough broad, who should be serving truckers meals instead of acting. And Wes Bentley - he was the reason I watched this dreck - I used to know him when he was a community theatre-acting kid with stars in his eyes. He can't really be blamed for being in this (it was his first film) - I mean look at the big names who were too! Regardless, he is really quite miscast (obviously only for his quite naturally sinister looking eyes) and struggles to do much by the part.
I'm not really sure if there was a script. I'm definitely sure that there never should have been.

You know when a movie is made in 1999 and released only in selected European and South African markets, then several years later finally released to cable and video that it must be terrible. This film proves that contention correct.

I'm sure you can think of a better way to waste a couple hours of your life than bothering with this mess. I wish I had.