If at first you don't succeed ... well, in this case, perhaps the SyFy Channel should have just given up. This followup to 2003's atrocious adaptation of Philip Jose Farmer's classic "Riverworld" stories isn't all that much of an improvement. It just doesn't follow the stories all that well, and that's a shame. Farmer's "Riverworld" stories, which eventually were edited and collected in several books, are some of the most fascinating sci-fi ever written. Basically, everyone who has ever lived and died on Earth wakes up on the banks of an endless river on an alien planet. Clearly, someone or something is controlling all of this, but Farmer takes his time in revealing the ultimate puppet master and the purpose f the experiment. As the years go by, we follow the adventures of dozens of these folks, both famous and not so famous, as they strive to make sense of their new home. An interesting twist: when someone dies on Riverworld, they are resurrected along a different stretch of the river. Knowledge of this allows certain drastic actions to be taken, but I will say no more. This new version of the saga appears to be a pilot for a TV series, and was shot in Canada with a no-name cast. It loosely follows Farmer's plot, more so than the 2003 TV movie, and the acting is better. But again, this is not truly Farmer's Riverworld. If only someone had the cojones to faithfully adapt the stories, that would make a heckuva movie. It would also require a decent budget, which this TV effort lacks. Think of the recent SyFy Channel adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars," and how awful that was for want of a decent script and budget. This is only slightly better than that, and that's not saying much. Until someone (like the guy behind "Firefly" and "Serenity") decides to do a big-budget, theatrical version of "Riverworld," you will do better to stick with the books.
37 Reviews
A dog chasing its own tail
MartianOctocretr520 April 2010
A bunch of people get blown up. Then they resurrect. Or not. The film spins around on the alive/dead question so many times you get dizzy. The movie makes a habit of never being clear on anything, an apparent excuse to make up stuff as it goes along. This coyness act to maintain audience interest soon becomes annoying. Random stuff appears. For example, what was up with the TV dinner dispensary?
Making occasional visits are two beings with Avatar Blue Man Group faces and Obie Wan Kanobi style robes. These Jedi Ne'vi, or whoever they are, play hide and go seek, and make lame responses to inquiries. But they love to hang around and bug everybody; it reminded me of that whiny nitwit "Q," from Star Trek Next Gen. There's one fight after another, but the film's own dialog seems to be saying none of these events matter anyway. It carelessly hints at being a conglomeration of philosophy, science, and faith issues, but then never earnestly addresses any of these issues. Characters are drawn to illustrate differing people groups, personality types, and even historic eras; yet they still lack dimension.
It should be noted that the cast are the film's greatest strength, making the most of the weak scripting. Jeananne Goossen as the Xena-type Samurai made this over-the-top caricature believable, and Mark Deklin as Mark Twain was suitably amiable.
The ending? "We don't need no stinking ending!" No, just a deliberate set-up for a sci-fi/soap opera TV series. Sorry SyFy channel; one night of this was enough.
Making occasional visits are two beings with Avatar Blue Man Group faces and Obie Wan Kanobi style robes. These Jedi Ne'vi, or whoever they are, play hide and go seek, and make lame responses to inquiries. But they love to hang around and bug everybody; it reminded me of that whiny nitwit "Q," from Star Trek Next Gen. There's one fight after another, but the film's own dialog seems to be saying none of these events matter anyway. It carelessly hints at being a conglomeration of philosophy, science, and faith issues, but then never earnestly addresses any of these issues. Characters are drawn to illustrate differing people groups, personality types, and even historic eras; yet they still lack dimension.
It should be noted that the cast are the film's greatest strength, making the most of the weak scripting. Jeananne Goossen as the Xena-type Samurai made this over-the-top caricature believable, and Mark Deklin as Mark Twain was suitably amiable.
The ending? "We don't need no stinking ending!" No, just a deliberate set-up for a sci-fi/soap opera TV series. Sorry SyFy channel; one night of this was enough.
Paid Too Much Money
rls081229 July 2011
River World is an interesting movie to say the least. I never read the books, so I'm judging this movie on it's own merits.
The story line of this film is fairly unique, though reminiscent of Matrix in a way.
The plot line is confusing at times, but moves along at a decent pace. I hate all the random "plot conveniences" that happen, it just seems like it cheapens it.
Time it's self can pass oddly, the movie not telling us if days, weeks, months, or years pass in between scenes.
The acting is so - so, performances ranging from good, to deadpan. The characters them selves seem to have some continuity flaws, as certain actions do not fit with the established character.
This film also seems like it trying to compete with "Battle Royale" for the most pointless flashbacks.
Special effects are cheap. Staging and set design are minimalistic, bordering on barren.
The one thing that stuck out the most was the movie's lack of logic. There is 'suspension of disbelief' , and than there is throwing logic out the window.
As the movie progresses, this gets worse and worse. I perfectly well understand they are on an alien planet, and have folks from most time periods present, but that is far from explaining the black holes of thinking.
Our main characters run into the conquistadors, who, 2 years ago, finished building the prominently featured river boat, for Mark Twain. The encampment of the conquistadors seems like it's a in the middle ages, nothing much advanced, not even guns.
The river boat, on the other hand, has all kinds of modern items, including a small bore cannon.
What does Pizarro have? A ballista he incorrectly calls a catapult. Wouldn't he and his men have more modern stuff if they engineered and built the river boat ?
I'm sorry, but that river boat is one large continuity error. There is no way it could have been built the way it was shown, in the amount of time specified ( 3 years ). I was not intentionally looking for logic errors, this stuff just jumped out at me almost instantly.
With out more modern manufacturing facilities, the boat, and what comes later, could have not been made at all.
Some of the stuff the boat had that really bugged me is: 1 modern light bulb, the cannon, rolled steel, stamped steel, welded steel, pressurized pipe ( welded and screwed ) with modern valves, hydraulic hoses, modern nuts and bolts, ** a bench grinder **, plastics, modern dead bolt locks, and a pair of dial calipers.
Two other errors that jumped out at me on the boat were a modern thermostat, and the wrenches on the peg board, had the manufacturer's names stamped on them.
As the movie progresses, we are introduced to more out of place stuff, such as cartridge bullets, mass produced glass, chrome plating, braided steel wire, and RPGs.
If you can over look the sometimes insane character interactions / reactions, repetitive and useless flash backs of the same subject, and massive logic errors, this movie is fairly enjoyable to watch, though the movie store overcharged me for it.
The story line of this film is fairly unique, though reminiscent of Matrix in a way.
The plot line is confusing at times, but moves along at a decent pace. I hate all the random "plot conveniences" that happen, it just seems like it cheapens it.
Time it's self can pass oddly, the movie not telling us if days, weeks, months, or years pass in between scenes.
The acting is so - so, performances ranging from good, to deadpan. The characters them selves seem to have some continuity flaws, as certain actions do not fit with the established character.
This film also seems like it trying to compete with "Battle Royale" for the most pointless flashbacks.
Special effects are cheap. Staging and set design are minimalistic, bordering on barren.
The one thing that stuck out the most was the movie's lack of logic. There is 'suspension of disbelief' , and than there is throwing logic out the window.
As the movie progresses, this gets worse and worse. I perfectly well understand they are on an alien planet, and have folks from most time periods present, but that is far from explaining the black holes of thinking.
Our main characters run into the conquistadors, who, 2 years ago, finished building the prominently featured river boat, for Mark Twain. The encampment of the conquistadors seems like it's a in the middle ages, nothing much advanced, not even guns.
The river boat, on the other hand, has all kinds of modern items, including a small bore cannon.
What does Pizarro have? A ballista he incorrectly calls a catapult. Wouldn't he and his men have more modern stuff if they engineered and built the river boat ?
I'm sorry, but that river boat is one large continuity error. There is no way it could have been built the way it was shown, in the amount of time specified ( 3 years ). I was not intentionally looking for logic errors, this stuff just jumped out at me almost instantly.
With out more modern manufacturing facilities, the boat, and what comes later, could have not been made at all.
Some of the stuff the boat had that really bugged me is: 1 modern light bulb, the cannon, rolled steel, stamped steel, welded steel, pressurized pipe ( welded and screwed ) with modern valves, hydraulic hoses, modern nuts and bolts, ** a bench grinder **, plastics, modern dead bolt locks, and a pair of dial calipers.
Two other errors that jumped out at me on the boat were a modern thermostat, and the wrenches on the peg board, had the manufacturer's names stamped on them.
As the movie progresses, we are introduced to more out of place stuff, such as cartridge bullets, mass produced glass, chrome plating, braided steel wire, and RPGs.
If you can over look the sometimes insane character interactions / reactions, repetitive and useless flash backs of the same subject, and massive logic errors, this movie is fairly enjoyable to watch, though the movie store overcharged me for it.
Nonsensical Crapworld
dalxray17 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, this review doesn't really have any "spoilers" - I could not possibly spoil this film for anyone worse than the makers already have. Although I read the series of novels by Phillip Jose Farmer (the first of which won the Hugo award for best SF novel for 1971) many,many years ago I remember enough to recognize that this film is wholly unfaithful to the books. Basic premises of the novels have changed. The protagonist of the first novel, Sir Richard Burton - an immensely interesting historical figure, has been changed to a villain and the hero is now a modern-day war correspondent named Matt (in an attempt to update the story perhaps?). Unfortunately, I couldn't care less about the new storyline of Matt's struggle to reunite himself with his vacuous blonde girlfriend.
I realize this makes no difference those of you who haven't read the books (you have nothing to compare it to, unless you've had the misfortune to see the 2003 version of Riverworld, which was also friggin' awful). What does matter is that the filmmakers have tried to cram all 5 novels into less than 3 hours of TV, with the result that it's a confusing mess with huge unexplained gaps and blue aliens popping in and out of existence willy-nilly. Also the entire project has that "low-budget Canadian" look to it (yes I am a proud Canadian but let's face it, there's no denying that look of projects filmed entirely in the woods of BC).
P.S. The Riverworld, a rather violent place, has had all the sex and violence Disneyfied - making this film suitable for family viewing, if you don't particularly like your family.
I realize this makes no difference those of you who haven't read the books (you have nothing to compare it to, unless you've had the misfortune to see the 2003 version of Riverworld, which was also friggin' awful). What does matter is that the filmmakers have tried to cram all 5 novels into less than 3 hours of TV, with the result that it's a confusing mess with huge unexplained gaps and blue aliens popping in and out of existence willy-nilly. Also the entire project has that "low-budget Canadian" look to it (yes I am a proud Canadian but let's face it, there's no denying that look of projects filmed entirely in the woods of BC).
P.S. The Riverworld, a rather violent place, has had all the sex and violence Disneyfied - making this film suitable for family viewing, if you don't particularly like your family.
Sci-Fi (OK, "SyFy") Has Done it Again!
gatebanger21 April 2011
What they've done is to take a great story created by a great writer (Philip Jose Farmer) and turn it into an unbelievable mess. To top it off, they did it TWICE. I have to hand it to them, though--this pile of crap is even higher and smellier than the first effort back in 2003. Granted, they had a lot of help from directors and writers and production companies that know nothing about SF, but SyFy gets the bulk of the blame here.
Two of Farmer's short pieces, "The Day of the Great Shout" (1965) and "The Suicide Express" (1966), evolved into a truly wonderful story, published in novel form and entitled "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" (1971).
In Farmer's story, everyone who ever lived on Earth have found themselves resurrected as healthy, young, and naked people on the grassy banks of an enormous river. Given food, but with no clues to the meaning of their strange new afterlife, billions of people from every period of Earth's history--and prehistory--must start again.
Prior to the event that came to be known as "Resurrection Day," Sir Richard Francis Burton gains an unplanned glimpse behind the scenes and is the first to realize that the Riverworld is no traditional afterlife. This forbidden sight would spur the renowned 19th-century explorer to uncover the truth. Along with a remarkable group of compatriots, including Alice Liddell Hargreaves (the Victorian girl who was the inspiration for Alice in Wonderland), an English-speaking Neanderthal, a WWII Holocaust survivor, and a wise extraterrestrial. Burton sets sail on the magnificent river to learn the truth.
Giving the newly resurrected metal, technology, horses and all the rest spoils the whole concept by depriving the viewer of the experience of seeing human beings take the very little they start with and build something wonderful.
Go read the book--this movie is a waste of time.
Two of Farmer's short pieces, "The Day of the Great Shout" (1965) and "The Suicide Express" (1966), evolved into a truly wonderful story, published in novel form and entitled "To Your Scattered Bodies Go" (1971).
In Farmer's story, everyone who ever lived on Earth have found themselves resurrected as healthy, young, and naked people on the grassy banks of an enormous river. Given food, but with no clues to the meaning of their strange new afterlife, billions of people from every period of Earth's history--and prehistory--must start again.
Prior to the event that came to be known as "Resurrection Day," Sir Richard Francis Burton gains an unplanned glimpse behind the scenes and is the first to realize that the Riverworld is no traditional afterlife. This forbidden sight would spur the renowned 19th-century explorer to uncover the truth. Along with a remarkable group of compatriots, including Alice Liddell Hargreaves (the Victorian girl who was the inspiration for Alice in Wonderland), an English-speaking Neanderthal, a WWII Holocaust survivor, and a wise extraterrestrial. Burton sets sail on the magnificent river to learn the truth.
Giving the newly resurrected metal, technology, horses and all the rest spoils the whole concept by depriving the viewer of the experience of seeing human beings take the very little they start with and build something wonderful.
Go read the book--this movie is a waste of time.
Sod the books, let's just use the title on our film
robtclements15 August 2010
Another Syfy channel abomination. Why do they keep making films when they have no feel - or respect - for the genre? I wonder why they didn't put a giant boa in the film & call it Boa vs Riverboat. Maybe they wanted to but thought that it would cheapen the product. Phillip Jose Farmer's Riverworld books (starting with To your scattered bodies go, which this thing palimpsests) are not flawless; but they had stories which made made sense & exotic character details which entertained. They - he - didn't deserve this travesty. It isn't a film: it's a cheat sheet of the least interesting bits mangled through a malfunctioning food processor. & to think that Robert Hewitt Wolfe once wrote some of the best ST:TNG & DS9 episodes. He must'ave had some great EPs at Paramount keeping him in line
Fatally Flawed Garbage
ark30inf18 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It appears that they were told the basic plot outline of the book in about 10 minutes and then tore the books into little pieces and randomly selected some to be included in their treatment.
Evil Burton. Waking up in the river. Waking up at different times. Everyone having clothing, some nicely pressed. Nice lighting, glasses, craps tables, prints of sailing vessels, printed playing cards, keyed doorknobs, magical waterboarding, able to climb the mountains, etc. Yeah, you might build a riverboat...but create a lithography process and crystal goblet industry to decorate it? No.
You could also spare a few bucks for special effects to create shores teaming with people. The visual impression is that about 200 people were resurrected in a wilderness area with no other people.
The ONLY good thing about this movie was the guy who played Samuel Clemens. That is a hard character to play in the best of circumstances, and this was nowhere near a good circumstance. He somehow managed to pull it off and stay pretty true.
All I can say is....read the books.
Evil Burton. Waking up in the river. Waking up at different times. Everyone having clothing, some nicely pressed. Nice lighting, glasses, craps tables, prints of sailing vessels, printed playing cards, keyed doorknobs, magical waterboarding, able to climb the mountains, etc. Yeah, you might build a riverboat...but create a lithography process and crystal goblet industry to decorate it? No.
You could also spare a few bucks for special effects to create shores teaming with people. The visual impression is that about 200 people were resurrected in a wilderness area with no other people.
The ONLY good thing about this movie was the guy who played Samuel Clemens. That is a hard character to play in the best of circumstances, and this was nowhere near a good circumstance. He somehow managed to pull it off and stay pretty true.
All I can say is....read the books.
Only One Reason to Watch This
pbayle322 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
There is really only one reason for anyone but a die-hard Farmer fan to be interested in this series, and if you keep that in mind, you won't be disappointed. And that is to see world- class hunk Tahmoh Penikett in his first starring role. He is handsome, built, a surprisingly good actor and a convincing fighter. The female sidekick has the Susan-Brownmiller's revenge role that we will probably be seeing for the next generation. With an accent that one might imagine used in real life only by Alberto Fujimori, she defeats an entire Spanish regiment with two swords and possesses the power to magically disable all their crossbows. We get a Pizarro and a Mark Twain who do enough mugging to bid for a contract with Starbucks. The hero's inexplicable love interest has a gaze blank and pitiless as Paris Hilton's. These can be seen as unbearably annoying, but do have a certain camp enjoyability. Another plus is the excellent performance by the hero's longtime friend.
Haven't read the books, but it still sucks
klchu8 May 2010
I got sucked into this movie, hoping for some answers, but got none. If it weren't for a few good performances then this movie would have been a complete waste of time.
First, the good: Tahmoh Penikett is okay as the lead, but isn't that different from his other two characters on Dollhouse and BSG. Still, if you like him then there's plenty of him.
Jeananne Goossen as Tomoe Gozen was also a pleasant surprise. Not only is she nice to look at, but she gives a honest performance that saves the movie in many places.
Mark Deklin as Samuel Clemens also gives an interesting performance. It's hard to play a historical figure and he makes every scene he's in worth watching.
Also, a special note to Alex Zahara as Ludwig Durr. Here's a man who really understands the meaning of "there are no small roles, only small actors." He takes his few lines and makes the most of them. Where was he the whole movie? I could have used more of him and less of most everything else.
Now, the bad: Well, pretty much everything else. I wanted answers to what was going on. I didn't get any. In fact, you could take beginning of the movie and add it to the end and create a "mobius strip" of a movie that never ends. Seriously, nothing is answered and everything resets, so it's just a "lather, rinse, repeat" of a movie.
Some of the acting is this movie is also rather poor. It might be the bad dialog, but it the result was like watching the deleted scenes from a DVD.
First, the good: Tahmoh Penikett is okay as the lead, but isn't that different from his other two characters on Dollhouse and BSG. Still, if you like him then there's plenty of him.
Jeananne Goossen as Tomoe Gozen was also a pleasant surprise. Not only is she nice to look at, but she gives a honest performance that saves the movie in many places.
Mark Deklin as Samuel Clemens also gives an interesting performance. It's hard to play a historical figure and he makes every scene he's in worth watching.
Also, a special note to Alex Zahara as Ludwig Durr. Here's a man who really understands the meaning of "there are no small roles, only small actors." He takes his few lines and makes the most of them. Where was he the whole movie? I could have used more of him and less of most everything else.
Now, the bad: Well, pretty much everything else. I wanted answers to what was going on. I didn't get any. In fact, you could take beginning of the movie and add it to the end and create a "mobius strip" of a movie that never ends. Seriously, nothing is answered and everything resets, so it's just a "lather, rinse, repeat" of a movie.
Some of the acting is this movie is also rather poor. It might be the bad dialog, but it the result was like watching the deleted scenes from a DVD.
Not as good as the first!!!
bcliciousus25 March 2013
It wasn't bad, and it did have some outstanding acting. However, the problem I had was with this one versus the original. In the 2003 original, they had less infrastructure, and a better storyline overall. For example, they had to kind of find their own clothes and equipment. In other words; nothing was automatically provided.
Secondly; you mean to tell me that they manufactured a steam boat, and a zeppelin with no manufacturing equipment whatsoever! In the 2003 version, the steam boat was made from 100% wood, a little metal, and there was no paint on the wood. That was very believable!
I mean look at the zeppelin, it had a full bar with dance floor that was fully stocked in every way. What the hell!
Lastly; I really liked Emperor Nero as the bad guy. In the first one, he kicked butt, and made it so believable.
Secondly; you mean to tell me that they manufactured a steam boat, and a zeppelin with no manufacturing equipment whatsoever! In the 2003 version, the steam boat was made from 100% wood, a little metal, and there was no paint on the wood. That was very believable!
I mean look at the zeppelin, it had a full bar with dance floor that was fully stocked in every way. What the hell!
Lastly; I really liked Emperor Nero as the bad guy. In the first one, he kicked butt, and made it so believable.
Cry me a river...
dunmore_ego6 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Philip José Farmer. Look what they did to his Hugo Award-winning story. To Your Scattered Bodies Go is the first of the Riverworld series of novels and winner of the award, which obviously meant nothing to the morons who crushed Farmer's ideas under flatfooted filmic heel in RIVERWORLD.
Stuart Gillard has the audacity to call himself director of this two-part television movie "based on the Riverworld novels," resembling Farmer's story in the sense that a dog turd resembles a sausage; with three spastics who actually thought they could rewrite Philip José Farmer - Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Randall M. Badat and Hans Beimler. TV writers and a TV director. Any wonder this epic tale of an alternate dimension looks so desperately like a car commercial is about to happen.
In Farmer's story, everyone who has died on Earth since the dawn of humankind is resurrected on the banks of a seemingly endless river, naked, hairless, and wondering at their purpose. The hero, Richard Burton, wakes before his resurrection in a bizarre holding area where he floats amongst millions of suspended bodies in rows. On Riverworld, he searches for the source of the river as an answer.
My main complaint with Farmer's story is that it becomes too mundane; that if it all starts to seem too much like Earth, well, why set it in another dimension at all?
This television RIVERWORLD suffers from the same problem as Farmer's book, writ large. Not only has the gutlessness of censorship overtaken Riverworld - people are reborn fully clothed - they must experience a fate worse than death: being reborn into a Renaissance Festival. There is pain, hunger, lust, deceit, there are rulers and followers and everyone speaks English; all their tribulations, feelings and solutions are exactly those they would have experienced on Earth; one dork even gets resurrected wearing the same prescription glasses we presume he wore on Earth... So why not set the story on Earth fer chrissakes? The novelty of dying and rising into another life is wasted if you're going to rise to an unimaginative life exactly like this wretched one.
The cast look like porn actors with their clothes on (which is ironic, considering that everyone should be naked). The hero Matt (Tahmoh Penikett, whose lips make annoying shapes when he speaks) is a character made up by the three numb nuts who rewrote Farmer. And the character of Richard Burton (Peter Wingfield) has been rewritten as a Bond Villain.
Then there's the back-story of Matt's relationship with Jessie (Laura Vandervoort, a dumb blonde whose boob size is inversely proportionate to her acting abilities), also a fabrication and forcing this story's through-line as Matt constantly searching for Jessie. Play the drinking game for every time funny-lips says, "Jessie" and by the end, your sheer quantity of beer-pee will make its own riverworld.
In Riverworld, two factions of magical blue people battle each other for the planet, yet though these blueys can teleport and have telekinetic power and can resurrect people, they somehow need stupid humans to do their espionage for them. The bad bluey is Alan Cumming (in a fruity shade of Nightcrawler lapis lazuli), who wants Burton to blow up Riverworld. The good bluey (Thea Gill, from Showtime's stellar QUEER AS FOLK) wants Matt to stop Burton. Tangled up in blue.
Y'know, I stop paying attention completely when someone who can teleport and has telekinetic power and can resurrect people can be laid out with a Good Old-Fashioned American Right Hook, which Matt employs on Nightcrawler after Nightie shows him visions of his precious Jessie having Sexy Time with Burton.
Suddenly, Samuel Clemens (Mark Deklin) appears with a riverboat and a slut. Then there's a zeppelin. Technology like this can't exist in a vacuum - it sweeps the people around it into its wake. There's even a reincarnation of Conquistador conqueror Pizarro (whose Cheech and Chong impersonations become so bad, Mark Twain shoots him in the back) riding around on a robot horse - yet in a world of rivers, he still hasn't whipped anyone into designing a water craft for him.
A samurai chick (Jeananne Goossen) who makes epicanthic eyes at Matt's cleft lips, keeps saving his bacon in scuffle after scuffle, yet Matt (who uses every opportunity to pose dynamically in that sexy faux vinyl jacket) never takes the hint to mate with her and be done with puling over Jessie.
Meanwhile, Jessie wanders the riverbank in her tight jeans and D-cups looking like she's acting sad over the loss of her man, wondering how she'll ever get by without someone to buy things for her. Burton drops a line on her while eyeing her D-cups - next, they're necking like high school kids from a 50s movie with all their clothes on.
Y'know, all these filmmakers had to do was Follow The Story In The Book and - lame TV effects aside - they might have crafted a reasonable story. Instead, they had to get uppity like the nitwits who rewrote Bradbury's A SOUND OF THUNDER or King's DOLAN'S CADILLAC.
Bluey Thea tells Matt that Jessie is "our only hope," to save the Riverworld civilization, but of course, she isn't. Jessie appears at the climax for some sensational DAYS OF OUR LIVES overacting, followed by a car commercial where we get to see REAL actors.
Stuart Gillard has the audacity to call himself director of this two-part television movie "based on the Riverworld novels," resembling Farmer's story in the sense that a dog turd resembles a sausage; with three spastics who actually thought they could rewrite Philip José Farmer - Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Randall M. Badat and Hans Beimler. TV writers and a TV director. Any wonder this epic tale of an alternate dimension looks so desperately like a car commercial is about to happen.
In Farmer's story, everyone who has died on Earth since the dawn of humankind is resurrected on the banks of a seemingly endless river, naked, hairless, and wondering at their purpose. The hero, Richard Burton, wakes before his resurrection in a bizarre holding area where he floats amongst millions of suspended bodies in rows. On Riverworld, he searches for the source of the river as an answer.
My main complaint with Farmer's story is that it becomes too mundane; that if it all starts to seem too much like Earth, well, why set it in another dimension at all?
This television RIVERWORLD suffers from the same problem as Farmer's book, writ large. Not only has the gutlessness of censorship overtaken Riverworld - people are reborn fully clothed - they must experience a fate worse than death: being reborn into a Renaissance Festival. There is pain, hunger, lust, deceit, there are rulers and followers and everyone speaks English; all their tribulations, feelings and solutions are exactly those they would have experienced on Earth; one dork even gets resurrected wearing the same prescription glasses we presume he wore on Earth... So why not set the story on Earth fer chrissakes? The novelty of dying and rising into another life is wasted if you're going to rise to an unimaginative life exactly like this wretched one.
The cast look like porn actors with their clothes on (which is ironic, considering that everyone should be naked). The hero Matt (Tahmoh Penikett, whose lips make annoying shapes when he speaks) is a character made up by the three numb nuts who rewrote Farmer. And the character of Richard Burton (Peter Wingfield) has been rewritten as a Bond Villain.
Then there's the back-story of Matt's relationship with Jessie (Laura Vandervoort, a dumb blonde whose boob size is inversely proportionate to her acting abilities), also a fabrication and forcing this story's through-line as Matt constantly searching for Jessie. Play the drinking game for every time funny-lips says, "Jessie" and by the end, your sheer quantity of beer-pee will make its own riverworld.
In Riverworld, two factions of magical blue people battle each other for the planet, yet though these blueys can teleport and have telekinetic power and can resurrect people, they somehow need stupid humans to do their espionage for them. The bad bluey is Alan Cumming (in a fruity shade of Nightcrawler lapis lazuli), who wants Burton to blow up Riverworld. The good bluey (Thea Gill, from Showtime's stellar QUEER AS FOLK) wants Matt to stop Burton. Tangled up in blue.
Y'know, I stop paying attention completely when someone who can teleport and has telekinetic power and can resurrect people can be laid out with a Good Old-Fashioned American Right Hook, which Matt employs on Nightcrawler after Nightie shows him visions of his precious Jessie having Sexy Time with Burton.
Suddenly, Samuel Clemens (Mark Deklin) appears with a riverboat and a slut. Then there's a zeppelin. Technology like this can't exist in a vacuum - it sweeps the people around it into its wake. There's even a reincarnation of Conquistador conqueror Pizarro (whose Cheech and Chong impersonations become so bad, Mark Twain shoots him in the back) riding around on a robot horse - yet in a world of rivers, he still hasn't whipped anyone into designing a water craft for him.
A samurai chick (Jeananne Goossen) who makes epicanthic eyes at Matt's cleft lips, keeps saving his bacon in scuffle after scuffle, yet Matt (who uses every opportunity to pose dynamically in that sexy faux vinyl jacket) never takes the hint to mate with her and be done with puling over Jessie.
Meanwhile, Jessie wanders the riverbank in her tight jeans and D-cups looking like she's acting sad over the loss of her man, wondering how she'll ever get by without someone to buy things for her. Burton drops a line on her while eyeing her D-cups - next, they're necking like high school kids from a 50s movie with all their clothes on.
Y'know, all these filmmakers had to do was Follow The Story In The Book and - lame TV effects aside - they might have crafted a reasonable story. Instead, they had to get uppity like the nitwits who rewrote Bradbury's A SOUND OF THUNDER or King's DOLAN'S CADILLAC.
Bluey Thea tells Matt that Jessie is "our only hope," to save the Riverworld civilization, but of course, she isn't. Jessie appears at the climax for some sensational DAYS OF OUR LIVES overacting, followed by a car commercial where we get to see REAL actors.
An Unusual & Thought-provoking Adventure
gemcityblues17 May 2020
Cult classic? Probably not. But having seen the "Riverworld" movie twice, I can say that anyone looking for an adventure with some style and thought behind it should give it a look. Author Phillip Jose Farmer created the Riverworld series in the 1970's, expanding it to 5 novels, although I think he was originally planning a trilogy! In Riverworld, human souls are intercepted on their way to the afterlife, ending up on a giant planet unified by a winding river.
This made for TV movie is from Robert Halmi Sr and Jr. It's not up to the high standards of previous efforts like "The Odyssey" or "Gulliver's Travels," but it's colorful and engrossing nevertheless. The story takes some characters and plot elements from the novels, but introduces new ones as well as it tells its own story that fits the confines of its 175 minute running time.
If you've read the books, you may miss some of the weirder Phil Farmer creations. You'll recognize Sam Clemens, but Tahmoh Penikett's Matt Elman and his lady love, Jessie (Laura Vandervoort) are new. Richard Francis Burton, the famed British explorer, is very different from Farmer's character and lisping neanderthal Joe Miller is absent.
A lot happens during the film, but I thought the directing was pretty crisp throughout. There's some breathing space between action scenes too, which is missing from a lot of 21st century action films along with some humor. Yes, the aliens who are running the show pop in a little too often and fight scenes, while good, are not real pulse-pounders, but those complaints don't break the movie. Tamoh is fine as the lead and Jeananne Goossen is affecting as a resurrected Japanese warrior.
This made for TV movie is from Robert Halmi Sr and Jr. It's not up to the high standards of previous efforts like "The Odyssey" or "Gulliver's Travels," but it's colorful and engrossing nevertheless. The story takes some characters and plot elements from the novels, but introduces new ones as well as it tells its own story that fits the confines of its 175 minute running time.
If you've read the books, you may miss some of the weirder Phil Farmer creations. You'll recognize Sam Clemens, but Tahmoh Penikett's Matt Elman and his lady love, Jessie (Laura Vandervoort) are new. Richard Francis Burton, the famed British explorer, is very different from Farmer's character and lisping neanderthal Joe Miller is absent.
A lot happens during the film, but I thought the directing was pretty crisp throughout. There's some breathing space between action scenes too, which is missing from a lot of 21st century action films along with some humor. Yes, the aliens who are running the show pop in a little too often and fight scenes, while good, are not real pulse-pounders, but those complaints don't break the movie. Tamoh is fine as the lead and Jeananne Goossen is affecting as a resurrected Japanese warrior.
Entertaining, But Routine Sci-Fi Tale Etheric And Astral Planes
johnstonjames29 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
didn't read the Hugo award winning novels this was based on so i cannot really rate this as a adaptation. as a film standing on it's own, it was yet another entertaining diversion from Halmi Sr. and Jr. productions. it's also a fairly good example of the competitive power of television movies versus theatrical ventures which are often more expensively produced.
i've never liked extravagant waste in Hollywood, and a find a lot of Sci-fi fantasy a little silly, so i hardly ever note the difference between big, wasteful productions like 'Avatar', and more modestly produced fare like this. i suppose this seemed a little silly too, like 'Avatar' seems to me, but a lot less money was spent on it, so it feels a little less pointless.
from what i gather from online reviewers, is that it fell far short of portraying and conveying what the books were about. from the descriptions i've read of Phillip Jose Farmer's books, this TV movie bared little resemblance. shame. i think i would have liked to have seen the portrayal of Alice Liddel. still, i thought what made this movie unique, was that it involved Mark Twain (a.k.a Samuel Clemens)and a female samurai as main characters. there was even a reference to Mark Twain's legendary atheism, even though this is a rather hunky portrayal by a handsome leading man type. something Twain wasn't really.
i enjoyed this as a competent television movie. not much more. i didn't get the whole astral and etheric mysticism, but i'm sure the books probably embellished more details than this adaptation does. but i was entertained and hardly found it to be a waste of time or a piece of junk. it was only a mild diversion though and i guess fans of Farmer's books are saying that they are so much more. i mean they won awards for some reason. a reason not really justified or conveyed by this movie experience.
the FX were good and the production looked good despite the cost cutting. ever since 'Next Generation', sci-fi television always portrays other worlds as looking like a forest in Canada. and the blue mystics looked like a Blueman Group version of those blue Avatar aliens. the Samurai warrior also looked like Mulan in her warrior get up. then again i don't think this television production had theatrical ambitious. the very thing it's critics seem to find complaint.
maybe this will inspire a more ambitious theatrical production if enough people take interest. who knows? anyway this television production may have to suffice, and i'll agree, i liked this, but it was hardly David Lynch or Kubrick.
i've never liked extravagant waste in Hollywood, and a find a lot of Sci-fi fantasy a little silly, so i hardly ever note the difference between big, wasteful productions like 'Avatar', and more modestly produced fare like this. i suppose this seemed a little silly too, like 'Avatar' seems to me, but a lot less money was spent on it, so it feels a little less pointless.
from what i gather from online reviewers, is that it fell far short of portraying and conveying what the books were about. from the descriptions i've read of Phillip Jose Farmer's books, this TV movie bared little resemblance. shame. i think i would have liked to have seen the portrayal of Alice Liddel. still, i thought what made this movie unique, was that it involved Mark Twain (a.k.a Samuel Clemens)and a female samurai as main characters. there was even a reference to Mark Twain's legendary atheism, even though this is a rather hunky portrayal by a handsome leading man type. something Twain wasn't really.
i enjoyed this as a competent television movie. not much more. i didn't get the whole astral and etheric mysticism, but i'm sure the books probably embellished more details than this adaptation does. but i was entertained and hardly found it to be a waste of time or a piece of junk. it was only a mild diversion though and i guess fans of Farmer's books are saying that they are so much more. i mean they won awards for some reason. a reason not really justified or conveyed by this movie experience.
the FX were good and the production looked good despite the cost cutting. ever since 'Next Generation', sci-fi television always portrays other worlds as looking like a forest in Canada. and the blue mystics looked like a Blueman Group version of those blue Avatar aliens. the Samurai warrior also looked like Mulan in her warrior get up. then again i don't think this television production had theatrical ambitious. the very thing it's critics seem to find complaint.
maybe this will inspire a more ambitious theatrical production if enough people take interest. who knows? anyway this television production may have to suffice, and i'll agree, i liked this, but it was hardly David Lynch or Kubrick.
River Rubbish
TheLittleSongbird28 March 2012
Despite it coming from SyFy I really wanted to like Riverworld. Although I try not to be a purist, I love the books, and felt that not only Riverworld was a pretty atrocious adaptation but it was awful on its own merits. The special effects are not brilliant by any stretch but they are not as cheap as some of their other efforts, and the lead is pretty good. But they are not enough to make up for the cheesy dialogue, amateurish editing and disjointed and sluggishly-paced story. The characters are nowhere near as easy to empathise with, with the most interesting character of the book now a stereotypical villain, and the acting apart from the lead is roundly poor, either overplaying or struggling with a character that feels superfluous with the story.
In conclusion, although I've seen worse, Riverworld in my view was terrible. 2/10 Bethany Cox
In conclusion, although I've seen worse, Riverworld in my view was terrible. 2/10 Bethany Cox
made me want to read the book
ssto5 April 2010
well, guys, i don't know how to start this one as i wasn't fascinated with this movie, but not entirely disappointed with it either. the main point is that the story got me enough to want to read the books. had i read them beforehand, perhaps i wouldn't have liked the movie, but as i haven't - for me it was an OK movie. the fact that it was made for TV explains a lot about the budget and acting. let me share a few words about that: firstly, i guess - maybe i'm in just a good mood, or maybe i accept that not every movie can have a Transformer/Terminator/StarTrek visuals; in the end, if you're a grownup sci-fi fan and have seen it all, perhaps you can accept the lack of effects. now the acting is somewhat more bitter an issue, irritating at times, but like i said, i'm a forgiver this time and will blame it all on the director and writers. there were a few attempts to create more sensible moments, but they rather failed to touch. i'll stop here and just say - you maybe disappointed, but its not a horrible movie, its made for TV, so the standards are low; the story is developed enough for a person not familiar with the books to get interested and keep watching to the end.
6/10
6/10
Not Good
accountcrapper20 April 2010
A B-Movie in 2 parts. Both parts are bad. I only watched this a few weeks ago but I cannot seem to remember much. It did not leave any impression on me. There is a basic premise that seems good but the development is pretty terrible. Some of the acting was over the top hammy. Watching the film I could imagine the book being better.
There is not much to say. It's is reasonably well filmed, has some cgi, has annoying characters and a plot that moves sluggishly from A to B to predictable ending. The script does offer some excitement but it isn't carried off. It should have been better than it was. As it is it is just boring and as I say in 2 movie long parts.
I wonder would a fan edit be better. You could cut a lot of crap and make it 1.30 or 1.40 mins long and just try to keep it going and maybe kill of some of the hammier accents and actors. Ya I think a fan edit would be better. Couldn't be worse.
There is not much to say. It's is reasonably well filmed, has some cgi, has annoying characters and a plot that moves sluggishly from A to B to predictable ending. The script does offer some excitement but it isn't carried off. It should have been better than it was. As it is it is just boring and as I say in 2 movie long parts.
I wonder would a fan edit be better. You could cut a lot of crap and make it 1.30 or 1.40 mins long and just try to keep it going and maybe kill of some of the hammier accents and actors. Ya I think a fan edit would be better. Couldn't be worse.
Hell ... built and designed by Canadians!
A_Different_Drummer15 November 2015
If you are just visiting from another planet, then you need to know that the the one thing the Canuck film machine loves more than any other project is ... sci fi. Some of the best and the worst sci fi in recent history has come from the Great White North (remember Eureka?). This effort is well-intended but ultimately only for fans of the original author or viewers with eclectic tastes.
For those that stick out this odd 2-parter you will see some of the best and the worst acting you have ever seen in your life.
On the plus side we get to see if pretty-boy Tahmoh Penikett can carry an entire film on his back? The answer is ... yes. Peter Wingfield makes a great villain. Whether this is acting or just being a Brit ... hard to say.
And the beautiful Jeananne Goossen (Olivia Munn's long-lost twin, separated at birth?) is worth the price of admission.
On the downside, and there is lots of downside, much of the remaining cast is just terrible. And the direction is ... bizarre. At the 1:15 mark for example a woman is being burned at the stake (terrible acting ... she deserves it) and the scene takes forever. Clearly to make the drama work the laws of physics were temporarily suspended.
If you suspend critical judgement you may enjoy this. Maybe.
God bless the Canadian tax system.
For those that stick out this odd 2-parter you will see some of the best and the worst acting you have ever seen in your life.
On the plus side we get to see if pretty-boy Tahmoh Penikett can carry an entire film on his back? The answer is ... yes. Peter Wingfield makes a great villain. Whether this is acting or just being a Brit ... hard to say.
And the beautiful Jeananne Goossen (Olivia Munn's long-lost twin, separated at birth?) is worth the price of admission.
On the downside, and there is lots of downside, much of the remaining cast is just terrible. And the direction is ... bizarre. At the 1:15 mark for example a woman is being burned at the stake (terrible acting ... she deserves it) and the scene takes forever. Clearly to make the drama work the laws of physics were temporarily suspended.
If you suspend critical judgement you may enjoy this. Maybe.
God bless the Canadian tax system.
An Insult to a Science Fiction Masterpiece
JohnLeeT31 March 2013
One of the great authors in science fiction history has had what is one of the most imaginative works in the field defiled and diminished for the second time by a "creative" team of goons that should never have been allowed near the source material. In fact, it is doubtful anyone involved with this abominable piece of garbage ever even skimmed through the masterful River World saga. One is tempted for a brief moment to give these fools the benefit of the doubt and consider the limitations of budget imposed upon them but that temptation quickly passes when it becomes clear that those responsible for this film completely lack any talent, imagination, or sense of responsibility for honoring a master's monumental work. Lacking any intellectual motivation at all, they have soiled even the title by attaching it to a corruption of Farmer's series of novels. Anyone familiar with those novels will be sickened and turn away in total disgust after a few minutes viewing of what may be the worst example of cinematic assault ever inflicted on a literate audience approaching this criminal interpretation of a beloved science fiction masterpiece. Those who cower in the shadows and share the shame of what they have done should never be permitted to touch a camera again and apply their energy to destroying all negatives of this and the previous felonious film version of the stunning creative triumph that is Philip Jose Farmer's River World!
Probably meant to be profound but missed the mark
mxw20022 November 2010
I agreed with someone earlier about how SciFi(SyFy-that's a ridiculous alteration) devotees feel the need to watch this due to its conceptual sci-fi/fantasy basis but this film is neither gripping enough nor vexing enough for me to seek out the books to know the "answers." It just filled me with...nothing.
Did anyone who was unfamiliar with the books have their fingers crossed that this film might be some distant cousin of Waterworld? How mistaken I was...
If they wanted to take the concept seriously, then present it seriously with believable dialogue. If it's meant as a comedy, then stop trying to make it serious. This film filled me with a sense of "secondary awkwardness" --the feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for the characters for what they are about to do or say. I love a good campy/family project like 10th Kingdom or an exploratory one like Earthsea but this misstep for SyFy in this day and age really baffles me.
Sadly, I was originally really excited to see Riverworld as I became a huge fan of Tahmoh Penikett after BSG and Dollhouse but even my renewed schoolgirl crush on him could not pull me through this production with delight. We sci-fi audience members would never discount a production because of bad user ratings or low budgets because we want to open ourselves up to new ideas and give more leeway to storytellers than anyone else but this is just offends our open hearts and our curious minds.
Did anyone who was unfamiliar with the books have their fingers crossed that this film might be some distant cousin of Waterworld? How mistaken I was...
If they wanted to take the concept seriously, then present it seriously with believable dialogue. If it's meant as a comedy, then stop trying to make it serious. This film filled me with a sense of "secondary awkwardness" --the feeling you get when you feel embarrassed for the characters for what they are about to do or say. I love a good campy/family project like 10th Kingdom or an exploratory one like Earthsea but this misstep for SyFy in this day and age really baffles me.
Sadly, I was originally really excited to see Riverworld as I became a huge fan of Tahmoh Penikett after BSG and Dollhouse but even my renewed schoolgirl crush on him could not pull me through this production with delight. We sci-fi audience members would never discount a production because of bad user ratings or low budgets because we want to open ourselves up to new ideas and give more leeway to storytellers than anyone else but this is just offends our open hearts and our curious minds.
Jeananne Goossen cute. Film sucks.
anirain24 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
(spoilers below)
When there is low cash for filming, and some dominant percent of movie crew has not power to stir up all around to "make it cool, with all whistles, blackjack and..." Well, we are getting standard low-budget film, and even book source with (maybe) entire world and universe will not save the situation. So we have a situation here: film looks like that trash movies, which come out just before blockbuster (Transormers - TransMOrfers), or some dilettantish stage adaptation. Bad special effect, bad fighting (OK OK, Jeananne Goossen was cute, but choreographer sucks), bad acting, bad film editing. And those dialogs, my god, it's like:
-Why? -Because perpendicular
-And what was then? omg, we have not budget for flash-light anymore, get that steamer here!
Instead of mouse cursor weird blue gamers using person named Jessy, just put it on desk and say to hero - "she is there, go find her, little imp". After hero finds her - repeat. After 2 series of repeating they out of budget (damn flash-lights), so sad.
Some aliens who tired to play simcity and warcraft decided create other game. Doing some calculations they find out that Matrix (TM) is too complex for their processing clusters, so, here is plan B: just do it "in vivo". Put all dying peoples on big planet with damn big river (but no children, old folk and kittens). Then number of subscribers became too much, so they have to blow up Earth, and transfered all people in Riverworld. And also, providing some cloning device - when your pet dying, you can raise him(her) from the dead just for 5000 bukazoids. See all other stuff in user manual and EULA. Well, we are trying to ban all cheaters, but it's hard.
Slavery in the world with documentary confirmed infinite coming back to live after death - it's like players will afraid to play Doom III cause there your character could die.
When there is low cash for filming, and some dominant percent of movie crew has not power to stir up all around to "make it cool, with all whistles, blackjack and..." Well, we are getting standard low-budget film, and even book source with (maybe) entire world and universe will not save the situation. So we have a situation here: film looks like that trash movies, which come out just before blockbuster (Transormers - TransMOrfers), or some dilettantish stage adaptation. Bad special effect, bad fighting (OK OK, Jeananne Goossen was cute, but choreographer sucks), bad acting, bad film editing. And those dialogs, my god, it's like:
-Why? -Because perpendicular
- Who dda hell are you? flash-light - Where is she? flash-flash - ??? flash-flash-flash (director turning to scenarist "-you see, and you was afraid of those dialogs! Thats idea was brilliant!" )
-And what was then? omg, we have not budget for flash-light anymore, get that steamer here!
Instead of mouse cursor weird blue gamers using person named Jessy, just put it on desk and say to hero - "she is there, go find her, little imp". After hero finds her - repeat. After 2 series of repeating they out of budget (damn flash-lights), so sad.
Some aliens who tired to play simcity and warcraft decided create other game. Doing some calculations they find out that Matrix (TM) is too complex for their processing clusters, so, here is plan B: just do it "in vivo". Put all dying peoples on big planet with damn big river (but no children, old folk and kittens). Then number of subscribers became too much, so they have to blow up Earth, and transfered all people in Riverworld. And also, providing some cloning device - when your pet dying, you can raise him(her) from the dead just for 5000 bukazoids. See all other stuff in user manual and EULA. Well, we are trying to ban all cheaters, but it's hard.
Slavery in the world with documentary confirmed infinite coming back to live after death - it's like players will afraid to play Doom III cause there your character could die.
A must See
wilhecomp1 May 2010
All I will Say is that I liked this Mini Series and I hope it will be made into a Series on the SyFy Channel. But, I feel that it won't just like the one made in 2003. Most of the characters were given a limited background make up and it worked. I also liked the in action between Matt Ellman and samurai warrior named Tomoe. It made me wish a little bit that I was Matt Ellman because I could fall for that samurai warrior more than his real Girlfriend Jessie who is now with Burton...
Then there was the interaction between Matt Ellman, the Blue People and Sam Clemments. One of the drawbacks on this and the 2003 movie is that this is suppose to be RIVERWORLD. They spent more on the shores talking and fighting then on the river... Though that was a nice twist at the end of this one...
Then there was the interaction between Matt Ellman, the Blue People and Sam Clemments. One of the drawbacks on this and the 2003 movie is that this is suppose to be RIVERWORLD. They spent more on the shores talking and fighting then on the river... Though that was a nice twist at the end of this one...
Badly written and badly acted
elizium-722-36553414 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly, I have to admit that I didn't watch all of "Riverworld" - I couldn't stomach more than the first part.
I wrote in my summary that this movie had some bad actors. To be fair to the good ones, I'd like to name the exceptions first: Tahmoh Penikett in the lead role may not be an exceptional actor (his repertoire is far too small for that - he essentially almost always acts his roles in a very similar, if not identical fashion), his performance isn't bad and probably the most he could get out of his character. Mark Deklin also managed to win me over.
Other than most reviewers, I found the acting of Jeananne Goossen to be very underwhelming. Sure, she is nice to look at, but her wooden delivery reminded me more of a bored schoolgirl than an actress.
But let's not give the actors all the fault of the disaster that is "Riverworld", because mostly to blame are without doubt the writers: The dialogue made me cringe every few minutes, the actions and reactions of the characters are unnatural and unbelievable more than once and the manner in which the movie denies us every answer by acting mythical is obviously intended as secretive and deep, but comes of as simply lazy writing without any direction.
I do like quite a lot of low budget movies, mainly because when you can't dazzle the audience with great CGI, you have to draw them in with a great plot. The secret of success with this kind of movies is to save money on CGI and invest in good writers. I'm very disappointed that no one told the team behind "Riverworld" that beforehand.
I wrote in my summary that this movie had some bad actors. To be fair to the good ones, I'd like to name the exceptions first: Tahmoh Penikett in the lead role may not be an exceptional actor (his repertoire is far too small for that - he essentially almost always acts his roles in a very similar, if not identical fashion), his performance isn't bad and probably the most he could get out of his character. Mark Deklin also managed to win me over.
Other than most reviewers, I found the acting of Jeananne Goossen to be very underwhelming. Sure, she is nice to look at, but her wooden delivery reminded me more of a bored schoolgirl than an actress.
But let's not give the actors all the fault of the disaster that is "Riverworld", because mostly to blame are without doubt the writers: The dialogue made me cringe every few minutes, the actions and reactions of the characters are unnatural and unbelievable more than once and the manner in which the movie denies us every answer by acting mythical is obviously intended as secretive and deep, but comes of as simply lazy writing without any direction.
I do like quite a lot of low budget movies, mainly because when you can't dazzle the audience with great CGI, you have to draw them in with a great plot. The secret of success with this kind of movies is to save money on CGI and invest in good writers. I'm very disappointed that no one told the team behind "Riverworld" that beforehand.
I read the bashing, watched it anyway, really liked it.
rooprect20 February 2015
Something that all the hated-it reviews have in common is that the reviewers either (a) read the books, or (b) felt the movie had no resolution. Well, I didn't read the books, and I enjoy films without clearcut resolutions (meaning the viewer has to actually think a bit), so I decided to have a go at it. If you're like me then read on.
"Riverworld" is a SciFi Channel production which means you get to see a lot of SciFi veterans gracing the screen (3 from Battlestar Galactica), a lot of Vancouver scenery, and some made-for-TV special effects. Just don't expect a zillion dollar budget and Marlon Brando. You can definitely expect to be entertained in a very creative, action-packed way. By "creative" I mean where else can you see a movie with blue people, samurais, spaceships, Mark Twain, conquistadors, the Chechnyan War, lawyers, crossbows, zeppelins (not the Led kind, but it wouldn't have surprised me), gods, robot horses, and did I mention Vancouver?
Without spoiling the fun, I'll just say the story is about a reluctant hero who gets dropped into a game that will decide the eternal fate of humankind on some alternate world where life & death don't necessarily come in that order. Nothing is really spelled out for us, and that's what keeps things interesting even though the rest seems like a clearcut battle of good guys vs. bad guys. In other words, there are likable characters and loathsome characters, but we don't exactly know who's fighting for which side, nor do we even know exactly what each side wants to accomplish until nearly the end (and even then a lot is up for interpretation). The ambiguity raises the bar from an otherwise ordinary scifi adventure to a moral and philosophical mindbender.
As far as entertainment value, I was impressed with some great swordfighting, a very interesting love mystery, vivid & very human characters, and the whole feel of an epic adventure with no rules. Although it's a futuristic science fiction, it has a lot of throwback elements and a great backstory of warring gods. So in that respect the story is along the lines of the great classics "Stargate" and "The Prophecy".
The scenery is just stunning, an epic journey up an endless river that figures in as prominently as any of the characters. More than once I was reminded of Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo" and "Aguirre, the Wrath of God", two surreal adventures set on the savage, endless Amazon. But in this case the scenery and soothing Pacific Northwest setting contrasts against Herzog's cosmic chaos with nature's tranquility and majesty.
It definitely got me interested in reading the Riverworld novels, but I've been told that's a sure fire way to hate the movie, so maybe I'll just leave well enough alone. If they ever do make this into a regular TV series I'm sure I'll be a fan.
"Riverworld" is a SciFi Channel production which means you get to see a lot of SciFi veterans gracing the screen (3 from Battlestar Galactica), a lot of Vancouver scenery, and some made-for-TV special effects. Just don't expect a zillion dollar budget and Marlon Brando. You can definitely expect to be entertained in a very creative, action-packed way. By "creative" I mean where else can you see a movie with blue people, samurais, spaceships, Mark Twain, conquistadors, the Chechnyan War, lawyers, crossbows, zeppelins (not the Led kind, but it wouldn't have surprised me), gods, robot horses, and did I mention Vancouver?
Without spoiling the fun, I'll just say the story is about a reluctant hero who gets dropped into a game that will decide the eternal fate of humankind on some alternate world where life & death don't necessarily come in that order. Nothing is really spelled out for us, and that's what keeps things interesting even though the rest seems like a clearcut battle of good guys vs. bad guys. In other words, there are likable characters and loathsome characters, but we don't exactly know who's fighting for which side, nor do we even know exactly what each side wants to accomplish until nearly the end (and even then a lot is up for interpretation). The ambiguity raises the bar from an otherwise ordinary scifi adventure to a moral and philosophical mindbender.
As far as entertainment value, I was impressed with some great swordfighting, a very interesting love mystery, vivid & very human characters, and the whole feel of an epic adventure with no rules. Although it's a futuristic science fiction, it has a lot of throwback elements and a great backstory of warring gods. So in that respect the story is along the lines of the great classics "Stargate" and "The Prophecy".
The scenery is just stunning, an epic journey up an endless river that figures in as prominently as any of the characters. More than once I was reminded of Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo" and "Aguirre, the Wrath of God", two surreal adventures set on the savage, endless Amazon. But in this case the scenery and soothing Pacific Northwest setting contrasts against Herzog's cosmic chaos with nature's tranquility and majesty.
It definitely got me interested in reading the Riverworld novels, but I've been told that's a sure fire way to hate the movie, so maybe I'll just leave well enough alone. If they ever do make this into a regular TV series I'm sure I'll be a fan.
Waste of time, OK for SyFyers
jfarms19565 April 2013
I suppose this movie is geared for the SciFi fan and for those over the age of 13. I found the presentation very disjointed and therefore confusing. Maybe it is some parallel world. Maybe it purgatory. It may even be both heaven and hell. What it is not is coherent. The movie does propose philosophical questions about life after death and what is death. The movie has great scenery and an interesting mix of present day and feudal Europe with an South American discoverer, Pizarro. The cast really try to make the movie work. I suppose that the die hard SciFi fans would enjoy it and try to manage some type of theme. It does have a modest entertainment value though. Chew your popcorn and party for no matter how many times you see, you can never understand it. Enjoy it for its entertainment, not logic.
Rip-off of Everwar
adamwhite18 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This two-part TV pilot basically takes the concept from Farmer's novels and fuses them with multiple elements from a movie script that was making the rounds in Hollywood a few years back called "Everwar." The inclusion of a samurai, the warriors from different time periods fighting each other (particularly the overly ambitious general, Spanish here but Italian in the film script), the "ascent" to attack the alternative world's controlling element and put an end to it and several other facets were lifted directly from Everwar; not sure if they bought the rights or not. I really hope that script gets properly made some day, because I read it and its story was far superior to this.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
