A young man visiting relatives in rural Nebraska goes into a barn to play a game with a 9 year old cousin. She emerges screaming from the barn with a blood-stained dress and, to put it mildly, things go downhill from there.The strongest element of this film is also the element that makes it the most frustrating as a viewer--namely this is a movie that commits completely to holding the point of view of the main character, Ryder. There are undercurrents of emotion and resentment roiling beneath the setting of a folksy family reunion, in particular some very strained and strange dynamics between Ryder's mother and her brother (the father of the 9 year old girl). Ryder is totally lost at sea because not only is he on unfamiliar ground (a gay, California city boy out in the country), but his parents and especially his mother behave in a seemingly irrational manner as events continue to escalate.By the middle of the movie I was thinking "Will someone just PLEASE explain what is going on here?!?!?!". On the one hand, I appreciate that this is exactly how Ryder himself must feel. But on the other hand, I got anxious and frustrated waiting for the film to reveal the background context needed to understand what was happening--to the point that it was hard to sit through scene after scene of coded conversations and meaningful looks.I thought that the acting was very strong across the board, including the children.Aside from feeling like the limited point-of-view was a double-edged sword, my only other criticism is that there were certain character actions that were just way too illogical or dumb. For example, despite the fact that he was all but accused of molesting his cousin, Ryder several times allows himself to be alone with other young girls without any other adults even in earshot. I just didn't believe it. Why if you had been accused (and also implicitly threatened) would you ever allow yourself to be in a position again where there were no witnesses to your behavior? There were a few character decisions (necessary to move the plot along) that didn't feel like real character choices--and they stand out because for the most part the acting and writing does come across as very realistic.Generally speaking this is one I'd recommend, especially if you can watch it for free on a streaming service as I did.

A film that feels like it's good, but it's really rather insufferable at every turn, with characters doing really stupid, nonsensical things. It feels like a film that the director thought was really something quite special and that feeling makes you dislike it more. I guess it's not awful, and there's something to say for it always kind of remaining interesting, but that also makes you feel more cheated because it feels like it has a lot of things going on under the surface and it really doesn't. Definitely infuriating, no doubt. The acting is solid for the most part, although there is some broad characterization in some of the performances. Just not very recommended, in all honesty.

I always prefer to give a film the benefit of the doubt going into it. When I saw the trailer, I thought I knew exactly what was going to happen and didn't need to see it. But I was still curious and decided "you don't know, you could be wrong. Go see it and find out." So, I saw it. And I can safely say I predicted beat for beat what was going to happen. Now, that is not to say predictability is a bad thing. But this movie seems hellbent on surprising you. Every reveal is treated as a mind blowing revelation, when you've probably already figured it out twenty minutes back. And the movie becomes sterile if you know what's happening. As the film reached its close, I found myself thinking "this can't be the solution, no they're going to pull he rug out from under us. The other shoe has to drop."But sadly it all ends as you thought it would. Which wouldn't be bad, except the line of dialogue which reveals the "big twist" of the movie comes, and I'm not exaggerating, less than ten minutes in. There are many good aspects to the movie, and I must praise those when I see them. The cinematography is gorgeous for the budget the movie has, if it isn't at all too reminiscent of TV in Sobel's point and shoot method. The lack of a score calls to mind No Country For Old Men and definitely creates the atmosphere of mystery and suspense Sobel wants to capture. There is one music cue at the end of the movie I find a little out of place tonally, and admittedly laughed when it occurred, but that's a minor complaint. Where the movie really stands tall is on the shoulders of its actors. Logan Miller, the films lead, once again shines and shows great promise as a young actor as the young gay son of Robin Weigret and Richard Schiff (who both turn in stellar performances). Josh Hamilton makes a thrilling turn as the shifty uncle and father of Molly, the girl with whom the plot revolves around. The other standout in the movie is the young Ursula Parker as Molly, where she shows a naturalism and charm without being an annoying child actor. Matt Sobel has the capacity to make a great movie, but sadly Take Me To The River isn't it.

Before Hollywood gets a chance to remake Thomas Vinterberg's The Hunt word-for-word, independent American cinema can enjoy Matt Sobel's deep south take on how false accusations tear people apart, and ultimately reveal psychosexual secrets. Trading a teacher for gay teenager Ryder, played by The Stanford Prison Experiment's Logan Miller, and a student for a younger female cousin Molly, played by Louie's Ursula Parker. It focuses its story across a pair of days instead of several months. Take Me To The River has an interesting angle as Californian Ryder has been suppressed by his parents to keep his secret in the closet for his conservative Nebraskan family – an otherwise easy answer to explain how he would not have abused Molly, but one with its own dangers as they ostensibly would not accept him.Perhaps Sobel winds his film too tightly as this dilemma unravels before 15 minutes are up and we've had a chance to get under its skin. He demonstrates strong direction and I would've welcomed more patience. Such efficient economy in storytelling leads it to feeling quite contrived and stilted to reach the necessary dramatic assumptions. Although Robin Weigert's performance as Ryder's mother Cindy thrives under the weight of the situation, the bigoted uncle Keith, played by Josh Hamilton, the primary source of aggression here, suffers the most to meet Weigert's calibre. Nevertheless, it's still a compelling sequence to behold, and the film conjures that same boiling frustration of a false accusation that The Hunt achieved through much of its narrative that makes you want to wrestle the ignorant people.It's a shame that the film struggles to establish a single confident tone but could've easily be improved by dipping onto one side. It unfortunately doesn't equate to complex contradictions, but instead indecision. Deeply unsettling or somewhat farcical, richly composed or raw and naturalistic – it drifts somewhere between those tones and results in a film much more lightweight than it could have been, and much less organic than it could have felt. This is especially to its detriment with a shorthand that could have come with more maturity. The supposed flamboyance of Ryder creeps through via his bright red shorts, but outside of the film's hints that doesn't necessarily mean he's gay unless they had prior suspicions, of which don't appear to be shown. Missed opportunities aside, it's a tense film that bubbles with dread right up to its disturbing revelation. It's got very interesting tools to diffuse and raise its tensions.Deadwood's Robin Weigert shines as the frequent voice of reason, filled with nuance and anxiety as she tries to protect her son in both productive and unproductive ways. The West Wing's Richard Schiff, playing Ryder's Dad, doesn't get enough to do and essentially shrugs his way through his performance, but amicably. Miller doesn't quite have the convictions to stand out among his supporting cast and also appears on the fence about the realism and hyperrealism as Sobel does, but he sees his way through the film. It's Ursula Parker who continues to boast her talents she's shown on Louis C.K.'s show, giving an utterly effortless performance. She has a bright, bright future. While not as fully formed as it could be, Take Me To The River is a solid and promising debut that will certainly connect with a passionate niche.7/10Read more @ The Awards Circuit (http://www.awardscircuit.com/)