Riverworld, le fleuve de l'éternité

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.

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.

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.

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

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