User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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...

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.

If IMDb allowed one word reviews, which they wisely don't, I would leave it at that... cheesy. Cheesy actors, cheesy portrayals and cheesy special effects.

The filming style is very utilitarian with very little thought given to lighting, composition etc. It's tells the story in a very basic method of setting up shots without thought for any cinematic considerations.

It suffers from the same problem as many TV movies of trying to tell as much as possible at the beginning leaving a void of suspense in the storytelling and a plodding step by step approach that dulls the senses and induces apathy.