Minor spoilers in
this section
In The River Murders, Ray Liotta plays a
married police detective who becomes a suspect in a
series of murders in which he is the only connecting
link. The victims are all women and have all slept
with him except for one, and that one is his mother.
To make matters especially baffling, the detective
can't remember ever telling anyone that he slept with
some of these women, so the killer seems to have
access directly into the detective's brain. Given that
the crimes were all obviously committed with a
distinctive signature, therefore by a single person,
and given that they occurred in several states, the
FBI has jurisdiction over the case and their lead
investigator (Christian Slater) is not especially
happy with the co-operation he is receiving from the
local detective.
This premise really had some potential, but
missed the brass ring by turning the hunt immediately
into a "why done it?" and nothing more. Part of the
mystery was spoiled almost immediately by showing us
how the killer could know certain private things that
Liotta thought he never told anyone. The film also
shows us almost immediately who committed the murders,
and then reveals that the FBI was conclusively able to
rule out Liotta as a suspect.
Meh.
Imagine if the plot had taken a slightly
different direction. What if we (and the FBI) could
not rule out Liotta as a suspect, and what if he had
shared some or all of the details of his love life
with his priest, his psychologist, his dad, his
ex-wife or all of the above? Then the film would have
added an extra layer of mystery. Could Liotta be the
murderer? Could the killer be the priest? The shrink?
The dad? Liotta's jealous wife? Somebody with access
to the shrink's files? All of that could have been
added without changing the identity of the actual
murderer, and would have kept us guessing.
Alternatively, what if we could not see the killer,
could not rule out Liotta with DNA or an alibi, and
had not been told how the murderer could know details
that Liotta never told anyone? Then the FBI (and we)
would certainly have had to keep Liotta on the top of
the suspect list, and there would have been far more
tension between the feds and the local cops.
But the author was having none of that.
Everybody knew immediately that Liotta was innocent,
and they soon figured out how the killer got into
Liotta's brain. We know even more than the FBI, since
we can actually see who is committing the crimes. The
only reason for us to keep watching is to find out why
this dude has an axe to grind against Liotta. I didn't
find that to be a very compelling motivation.
Complete spoilers
in this section
The film also had a major plot hole.
We find out in the final moments of the film
that the killer is the detective's biological son. The
details are too complicated to explain here, but
that's supposed to be a big surprise. Here's the
problem: the 11th hour revelation of the son
contradicts something which happens earlier in the
film.
The victims were raped. The FBI was able to
rule out Liotta by taking a DNA sample and matching it
to the rapist's. See my point? Instead of saying,
"Jack didn't commit the crime," the DNA analyst would
have said in the first five minutes of the film,
"Interesting. Jack, didn't commit the crime, but the
DNA similarity shows that the rapist seems to be his
son or father." Knowing that, they would run more
detailed tests, rule out the father, and start looking
for a disgruntled son. They would not necessarily have
found the murderer any faster in those circumstances,
but nobody would have been surprised that it was
Liotta's kid. Of course, I reckon that neither the FBI
nor Liotta should have been surprised even without the
DNA test. It is logical to assume that he could have
sired a child or two, given that his entire life was a
succession of brief affairs and one-night stands.
Here's the greater problem:
* If the DNA test had been realistic, nobody would
have been surprised that the killer was Liotta's kid.
* Discovering that the murderer was Liotta's kid is
the only reason for us to keep watching.
As I pointed out earlier, that connection is
the only part of the puzzle hidden from those of us
watching the film. If it is not a surprise, there is
no movie at all. Knowing every other secret from the
outset, we spend the entire movie watching to find out
how the killer is connected to the detective. Then,
when the big secret is revealed, it turns out to be
something which cannot be true because of the earlier
DNA tests.
Oops!
Having re-read the above, I don't know whether I am
criticizing the movie or myself, for my failure to
appreciate the "why done it?" genre. I guess it's a
bit of both. On the one hand, I clearly don't find
"why?" to be a good enough hook to sit through a
plot-heavy police procedural filled with stock
characters, so I guess I was predestined to write a
negative review. On the other hand, the scriptwriter
should have avoided the mammoth plot hole, and should
have done more with the premise than to produce this
mediocre and derivative straight-to-vid treatment.
