Film Notes

River: a two-minute time loop traps a group of hospitality workers in this breezy Japanese sci-fi

Director Yamaguchi Junta breathes new life into the time loop movie with an elegant, detailed workplace comedy that rewards repeat viewings.

Among its many qualities, one factor behind the staying power of Harold Ramis’s Groundhog Day (1993) is the relatability of its premise: feeling trapped in relentlessly mundane routines. Monotony can be even more stifling in the hospitality industries, where staff perform the same small talk ad nauseam. In director Yamaguchi Junta’s ingenious comedy River (2023), the Groundhog Day formula gets one of its most compelling reinventions – through both trapping the film’s characters at work and using an even more restrictive window of time.

The film puts us in the tranquil town of Kibune, where Mikoto (Fujitani Riko), an industrious waitress at the Fujiya Inn, has just taken a break beside the Kibune River. A handheld shot tracks her journey back into the inn to clean a room. Two minutes later, the film cuts to Mikoto back at the riverside spot. She and the colleague she’s just seen experience déjà vu as they repeat the same steps as before. And then Mikoto is transported back to the river yet again.

Everyone in town is affected by these recurring loops, retaining their memories and emotional states across each two-minute jump back in time. Dining friends have their bowls constantly replenished, while a writer’s words keep getting erased every two minutes. As they have no idea when this phenomenon will end, the inn staff amusingly try to keep their guests happy above all else. But the chaos of infinite hospitality quickly proves too punishing – workers and visitors team up to determine the cause of the loops and how to stop them.

A different kind of two-minute temporal anomaly drove Yamaguchi’s delightful debut feature Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes (2020), a microbudget time-travel tale that, like River, was written by screenwriter and playwright Ueda Makoto. Dating back to the rollicking slacker-comedy Summer Time Machine Blues (a stage play in 2001, then a film in 2005), Ueda’s scripts have frequently explored the existential and humorous potential of time-travel narratives, in both live-action and animation (The Tatami Galaxy, 2010; Tatami Time Machine Blues, 2022).

As was the case in Yamaguchi and Ueda’s previous collaboration, River maintains a breezy tone throughout its runtime, even with the odd macabre detour reminiscent of the attempted-suicide montage in Groundhog Day. The best time-travel stories reward repeat viewings and to return to this meticulous film is to absorb the beautiful unbroken takes that comprise each two-minute repeat. River is a loop worth getting lost in.

Josh Slater-Williams, Sight & Sound, 16 February 2024.

One of my greatest festival discoveries in the years I have covered Fantasia online and in person was Junta Yamaguchi’s “Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes,” a time-traveling, screen-within-a-screen-within-a-screen odyssey set in more or less one location, made to look like one shot. It’s the kind of work by a filmmaker that instantly makes you a life-long advocate. Yamaguchi returns this year with another nonpareil work, “River,” written by Makoto Ueda, the brilliant screenwriter behind “Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes.” 

Yamaguchi is a storyteller who clearly is interested in coincidences, happenstances, and timelines. Which might explain why his new film is about another infinite two minutes, concerning characters at a Japanese inn who find their lives jumping back to their original starting place every 120 seconds. The focal character for this trippy but sober and light existential crisis is Mikoto (Riko Fujitani), who works at the inn and finds herself staring at the same river. In shots that unfold in single takes before starting at the same place again (with different starting angles), she and other workers try to understand what is going on while caring for the guests. One of the script’s most clever aspects is how everyone’s conscience is linear, meaning that they can learn more about this strange scenario, before resetting. Eventually the torment reduces to a puzzle to be simply solved, although some guests are tired of eating rice every two minutes. 

It almost doesn’t matter that “River” is slightly exhausting, and of course, repetitive. Yamaguchi keeps the story breezy and amusing with gradual developments while working against its conceit—new character problems are brought into the fold, piling onto the overall challenge of how to stop this phenomenon happening on an otherwise calm day. It’s nifty stuff, and far more challenging to explain than to understand as it unfolds scene by scene. Though “River” doesn’t achieve the same level of entertainment as “Beyond the Infinite Two Minutes,” it’s still the work of a filmmaker with an invigorating belief in what entertainment be achieved by thinking outside a linear timeline and using minimal special effects. 

Nick Allen, Roger Ebert.com, August 2, 2023

What you thought about River

Film Responses

Collated Response Comments

100 members and guests attended this screening. The total number of responses received was 51, delivering a film score of 3.76 and a response rate of 51%.

Your comments are collected below.

“Interesting ‘theme’. Brilliant cinematography – lovely scenery and design. Thought the story was rubbish – sorry!”

“A farce on the surface - but one that manages to explore a number of thought-provoking life themes”.

“I don't very much like Far Eastern films, but I thought this was a lot of fun, with a clever idea and execution of that idea worked out and portrayed on film.  The inherent Japanese formality and ritual of daily life was contrasted with the very ordinary way the characters talked amongst themselves, and the subtitling was especially good at bringing this out.  The lead actress was excellent, and the formality was almost hammed up to get the most from the other characters.  A lot of fun, well directed and photographed.  The sound didn't need to be quite so loud, given most will have relied on the subtitles”.

“As it turns out this is mercifully easier to understand on screen than in explanation though the film is a moderately taxing mental experience as the viewer is inevitably speculating on how the narrative will develop and what the possibilities are. Fortunately, the characterisations are bold and simple to the point of cartoonish - indeed there is an element of Tintin's and Dr Who's adventures about the whole. The plot resolves itself satisfyingly and amusingly and the repetition is essential rather than annoying - rather like fighting your way out of a maze. I assume if there is a point it is to ask us to ponder the ruts we fall into in our lives and invite us to challenge them but the film does not require a moral dimension to entertain. Bags of fun”.

“Liked the idea of the time loop being a single shot as a conceit and the developing madness as characters fall in and out of the story. The pace didn't subside either and the various side-stories almost made the whole thing coherent, even though some bits don't wholly make sense. But they shift on so quickly you hardly notice it. Also, a focus on the human elements kept me engaged, with attention paid to how the time loop affects each one individually and collectively. But everyone starts to understandably become increasingly strained with the two-minute timeloop. However, friends have more time to booze, the writer knows his deadline won't come. I chuckled a lot, but found the score almost cutesie, if anyone dares to stop talking. While the pace does work well overall, meant the finale seems to come along accidentally, maybe more an afterthought than a plot twist perhaps to underpin the romantic subplot. A strong premise that didn't seemed to be quite nailed down; likeable and never less than fun”.

“15 minutes in, I was concerned this repetition of frenetic activity would be grating...but happily the film evolved into more intriguing scenarios and interactions, and a much more interesting storyline was revealed. Enjoyable”.

“The cinemaphotography was beautiful. I did get a bit bored with the many deja vu sequences and was pleased that we had been told about that before the film as it helped how it unfolded”.

“Had the potential for being highly irritating with the loop re setting every 2 minutes, but managed not to be and was a very different and enjoyable film in the end. Not quite an excellent but definitely a good. Thanks”.

“Really incentive Japanese farce but quite a distracting watch as result of the two-minute time loops. Ending seemed a bit weak but enjoyable and humorous overall”.

“Never knew the Japanese did slapstick. Some scenes LOL. Resolution perhaps a bit long, but many delightful scenes. Some glorious photographic shots”.

“I hated Groundhog Day, but foolishly hoped that a two-minute time loop might be more challenging and interesting. No. In fact just more frustrating and irritating. Might have been a good film technically but I was too bored to care”.

“A Japanese Fawlty Towers with a twist!”

“Charming and imaginative. Beautifully filmed”.

“Silly but fun. I like weird films”.

“Fresh approach to the loop genre”.

“Most imaginative and well played”.

“Very clever concept and very well filmed”.

“Charming film – ‘be careful what you wish for’”.

“A charming film”.

“Really enjoyed the film. Wasn’t expecting it to be so humorous”.

“Original concept – enjoyed the journey”.

“Enjoyed the traditional costumes and scenery. Interesting concept”.

“Great fun – really enjoyed seeing Japanese humour for a change – crazy but entertaining”.

“Unusual, surprising. Too many repeats before it got more interesting”.

“Funny”. “Fun”. “Funny and interesting”.

“Heartwarming. I love an underlying story about romance”.

“Japanese Groundhog Day”.

“Bit silly in parts but interesting idea and funny”.

“Refreshing and life affirming. Very good first film for us at GFS”.

“Charming? 5 minutes too long”.

“One of the most ridiculous films I have ever seen!!”

“The film improved towards the end – when the time loop stopped”.

“Hard work”. “Bit repetitive”.

“A little too long and repetitive but interestingly different”.

A good idea, but it didn’t quite work. A weak ending”,

“Tedious and trivial – and limited rather than captured time and its potential”.

“Quite funny, couldn’t watch it a second time”.

“Not my kind of film but obviously enjoyed by many”.

“Not enjoyable”.

“Dr Who does it better. Interesting only”.