The subject of  a great deal of legal wrangling, The Rivery Why – which has been making the rounds of indie film festivals in search of a distributor – seems to score points for the beautiful scenery, but loses ground when the characters start cluttering the screen:

The River Why Review – Read Variety’s Analysis Of The Movie The River Why

The Pacific Northwest looks spectacular, but nothing else feels organic about “The River Why.” Based on the cultishly beloved 1983 first novel by David James Duncan (who successfully sued to get his name taken off the pic’s credits), writer-director Matthew Leutwyler’s latest reps a step toward the mainstream after several down-and-dirtier genre exercises (“Unearthed,” “Dead and Breakfast,” “Road Kill”). Unfortunately, he fumbles with a mix of choppy narrative, pretentious verbiage, inspirational coming-of-age cliches and one-dimensional characters that an impressive name cast can’t redeem. Still, that roster should smooth the pic’s path to DVD and tube sales; theatrical prospects are iffy.

…

Of course it’s always difficult to convey literature’s more intellectual
or psychological aspects onscreen. But this cinematic “Why” can’t even
convince us that anyone onscreen actually knows how to fish. Virtually
every major actor has done exceptional work elsewhere, but here they run
a gamut from adequate to outright hammy (Hurt, Devane).

If it’s something of a botch as an adaptation, pic nonetheless could score with
undiscriminating audiences looking for outdoorsy, formulaic family fare
(one late, nonexplicit lovemaking scene aside). Even if the lyricism is
sometimes forced, there’s gorgeous widescreen location lensing and solid
additional design contributions down the line.

Frankly, the criticism is in line with other reviews; the movie’s beautifully shot, but the characters are wooden.

No doubt fly fishermen will see it regardless of the reviews (and the reviewer’s later suggestion that Amber Heard’s is too smooth and fit to actually be an outdoor babe suggests he hasn’t spent time around the same outdoorsy types I have), though lacking a distributor, it’s possible they won’t get the chance for some time.

See you in the movie theater, Tom Chandler.

Now, with production beginning on the movie version of David James Duncan’s The River Why, will we see a new boom in fly fishing — and a whole new wave of models throwing tailing loops in SUV/Viagra ads?

Word comes from the Oregon state office of film and television that a movie adaptation of David James Duncan’s “The River Why” is set to start shooting around July 7.

As the film’s Web site describes Duncan’s book: “Set on the banks of a wild river, ‘The River Why’ is the story of 20 year old Gus Orviston, the Mozart of flyfishing, who leaves his big city home in rebellion from his family. In the process he comes in contact with an assortment of eccentric characters who help him in his journey to adulthood. Most of all, The River Why is a love story. The love of a man for the wilderness, and for a beautiful woman who comes to share it with him.”

It’s not like me to claim credit for things I obviously had everything nothing to do with, but clearly, one of Hollywood’s brighter bulbs read the Underground’s massively popular “The Five Fly Fishing Movies That Should be Made Immediately” post, and rather than pay me a percentage of the gross, searched out the one plot that wasn’t already suggested by myself or the Undergrounders.

It’s OK; if our huge monetary sacrifice helps our beleaguered fly fishing industry off its knees and back onto its blistered, unsteady feet, well, I’m glad to once again be of service.

I’m dashing this off just prior to a death march hike into the mountains after brookies, and while the cold, cloudy, threatening weather suggests a stay at home hugging a cup of hot chocolate, I think the Undergrounders should discuss the following talking points in the hopes I might survive and return to discuss it with them:

• Can Hollywood possibly do The River Why (a literate book) justice?
• Will fly fishing enjoy another boom, and will we be subjected to endless “yep, I was there” ramblings about the movie from people who once were employed to buy donuts for the film crew?
• Is this good news, or bad?

I’m sure this will provide fodder for message boards all over the fly fishing universe; naturally, I expect my readers to rise above the obvious gags that I didn’t have time for, instead holding a literate, Algonquin Roundtable level of discussion.

See you in the cold, windy mountains, Tom Chandler.