Riverworld

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.

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

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.

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.