Riverworld

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

The books I have no read, but according to the Wiki page for them, this series has almost nothing in common with them. I have seen the 2003 Riverworld film and I vaguely remember that the idea annoyed me, but the movie was reasonable. The 2010 miniseries... it just sucks! People play badly, the scenes are ridiculous in both acting and directing, the script makes no sense and whenever there is a little bit of suspension of disbelief, there comes a sequence of scenes that skip whole portions of the story, like someone was too tired to do the whole film. And the lines... here is an example: "a sequence of choices leads to a consequence". Ugh!

The only good part of the film is Jeananne Goossen. She is just too cute, even if her character makes no sense at all. Bottom line: a sad and horrible thing to watch. Avoid it.

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.

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.

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.