70 reviews
Oh yeah, you know if you have read the very creative series of books by Mr. Farmer, that there are ideas and story snipets from the book, but I couldn't of imagined that the creators of the TV movie would make it so unwatchable to anyone not looking for a squared jaw man or exotic native women. There is so much imagination in the books, I was hoping that this show being on a Science Fiction Channel would try to appeal to a "sharper" audience. There was nothing memorable about the show. I suggest turning off the TV and reading this in the book.
I do agree that the 2003 Riverworld is a poor adaptation of the books. I don't think however that it was that bad as a standalone. It is vastly superior to the 2010 Riverworld which was a mess both as an adaptation and on its own merits. There are major problems with this Riverworld, the story does read of not just two books condensed into one movie but also of a pilot of a series that never happened. The telling of it suffers from important plot-points changed, skimmed over or cut, incongruous clichés, many predictable scenes and uneven pacing, having moments where it was rushed and others where it plodded. The script is lazy and stilted, the CGI Riverboat was poorly rendered and the characters have little of their interesting or likable traits, coming across as cardboard. However, technically the film doesn't look too bad, unlike the 2010 movie it did have striking sets, had good photography and most of the effects were decent. The music has that fantasy-adventure sort of atmosphere without being over-bearing or generic and the acting from a largely unknown cast is above average. In conclusion, an okay film but leaves much to be desired. 5/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Aug 27, 2012
- Permalink
A law was passed in the 1970s that all fantasy novels had to be franchises, with sequels out the wazoo for time and eternity. Philip Jose Farmer opted not to be a criminal and wrote book after book about a strange world, dominated by an endless river along whose banks everyone who had ever lived on earth was reborn. Food and clothing were supplied, and there were alien observers, whose plan was -- well, that's the plot!
Now the Sci-Fi Channel, abetted by Canada and Australia, has filmed the concept, but be warned, it's not really a movie -- it's the pilot for a series! A 21st century US astronaut, Lewis Carroll's Alice, a riverboat man named Sam, a Holocaust survivor, a strange little girl, a Yoruba princess (whose native dances look suspiciously like standard stripjoint choreo but who also does martial arts like Xena), and the evil Nero, among others, are here, struggling for survival, for power, and to launch an oldfashioned Mississippi steamboat. (So where is Richard F Burton?)
Tech credits are fair for the budget. Except for Emily Lloyd, as Alice, the cast is no-name. There's a higher than expected body count among the extras, which will no doubt be toned down considerably to make sure of a TV PG rating when this goes to weekly, and the gaggle of reborns coming out of the surf during the teaser in flesh-colored G-strings and bras, where appropriate, is probably as close to sensuality as this is going to get.
The ending is as wide-open as the defenses at Basra, with the aliens talking enigmatic foreboding stuff that will make more sense later in the series and a climactic revelation that is no surprise at all and just sets up the conflict for subsequent episodes.
This is going to be a lot like "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World," except that it has a river, not a plateau, where the leads can encounter a new civilization every week while tooling along in that steamboat. If you liked the Lost World series, you may find this worth watching. Odds are they'll be using some leftover scripts from it! On the other hand, if you were a fan of the books, I think you'll regard this as basically an unworthy bastardization for popular consumption of a fascinating idea -- even though Farmer did eventually write it into the ground.
On the IMDb scale, 3 out of 10.
Now the Sci-Fi Channel, abetted by Canada and Australia, has filmed the concept, but be warned, it's not really a movie -- it's the pilot for a series! A 21st century US astronaut, Lewis Carroll's Alice, a riverboat man named Sam, a Holocaust survivor, a strange little girl, a Yoruba princess (whose native dances look suspiciously like standard stripjoint choreo but who also does martial arts like Xena), and the evil Nero, among others, are here, struggling for survival, for power, and to launch an oldfashioned Mississippi steamboat. (So where is Richard F Burton?)
Tech credits are fair for the budget. Except for Emily Lloyd, as Alice, the cast is no-name. There's a higher than expected body count among the extras, which will no doubt be toned down considerably to make sure of a TV PG rating when this goes to weekly, and the gaggle of reborns coming out of the surf during the teaser in flesh-colored G-strings and bras, where appropriate, is probably as close to sensuality as this is going to get.
The ending is as wide-open as the defenses at Basra, with the aliens talking enigmatic foreboding stuff that will make more sense later in the series and a climactic revelation that is no surprise at all and just sets up the conflict for subsequent episodes.
This is going to be a lot like "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World," except that it has a river, not a plateau, where the leads can encounter a new civilization every week while tooling along in that steamboat. If you liked the Lost World series, you may find this worth watching. Odds are they'll be using some leftover scripts from it! On the other hand, if you were a fan of the books, I think you'll regard this as basically an unworthy bastardization for popular consumption of a fascinating idea -- even though Farmer did eventually write it into the ground.
On the IMDb scale, 3 out of 10.
I was looking forward to this one, and was totally disgusted by the results; its like yet another pseudo-scifi "product" extruded from the studios of New Zealand. Except that compared to this thing, Hercules and Xena are highbrow entertainment! Sci-fi for the McDonald's generation. The script includes a jumble of maybe about 15% of the entire original lively and inventive story from the first two books, tosses the other 85%, and replaces it with childish claptrap like evil warlords pursing the virtuous blonde maiden -- and will she escape their clutches??? Yeah, really had me on the edge of my seat. I was expecting the villain to grow a mustache he could twirl, and tie her to some railroad tracks -- spare me! I'd give it a '2' for story, and a '6' for production-values.
... that is, until I read the novel.
While not a great film or a stunning film, it had seemed OK and had potential for sequels. The story seemed interesting enough to prompt me to read the book.
After the book I realized just how far off the mark this adaptation was. I took with a grain of salt the other comments which stated such opinions. I wished to read for myself.
And now I agree. I thought of it as a 5/10 movie before, but in light of how poorly it reflected on the novels, I now give it a 2/10.
While not a great film or a stunning film, it had seemed OK and had potential for sequels. The story seemed interesting enough to prompt me to read the book.
After the book I realized just how far off the mark this adaptation was. I took with a grain of salt the other comments which stated such opinions. I wished to read for myself.
And now I agree. I thought of it as a 5/10 movie before, but in light of how poorly it reflected on the novels, I now give it a 2/10.
- Asteri-Atypical
- Jun 13, 2003
- Permalink
I knew as soon as I saw the ads on TV that this was going to be a gross misinterpretation of my favorite series of books. From the first scene the story veered sharply away from the books, and quickly disintegrated from there. Where shall I start? Bubbles? Where was the pre-resurrection chamber? Hundred-foot tall grailstones? CLOTHING? ONE UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE! I'll stop here because it does get worse. In the books, Sir Richard Burton is the hero. A better action hero was never created, and, best of all, he really existed. Alas, he has become Sir Not Appearing In This Film. Emily Lloyd as Alice Hargreaves was a decent choice, although Lloyd's bleached hair was at odds with Hargreave's famous raven black hair. Hundreds of pages of prose cannot make a two hour movie, and the makers of this film seemingly cut and pasted with great glee. In fact, they seem to have subscribed to the David Lynch school of movie adaptation: Never read the original book. In short, this was two hours of my life that I was robbed of. I expected much more from SciFi Channel.
- allondro-2
- Mar 27, 2003
- Permalink
An obvious "Made For SciFi Channel" movie. Although completely controlled by clichés and incongruous chances, it is a quaint and cute movie. Many of the famous/successful sci-fi writers have used many of the ideas here for basis for their works. Riverworld is a conglomeration of many good stories. It is some what of a shame that many of the main characters (good and bad) had to be formed in such a hurry at the beginning. Most of the characters were performed well by the actors. Some were a bit silly - which only takes from a good story. Luckily the script was OK, scenery was super-excellent (New Zealand I guess), and very good 'store bought' props.
- sculptagain-1
- Jan 13, 2009
- Permalink
The movie does a great disservice to Farmer's series of novels.
The book's interesting story line is morphed into a series of martial arts choreographies for TV - typical 21st century emphasis on cartooning over substance. And how did an 18th century female slave from Africa learn Bruce Lee's moves? Forget the screenplay; read the book.
The book's interesting story line is morphed into a series of martial arts choreographies for TV - typical 21st century emphasis on cartooning over substance. And how did an 18th century female slave from Africa learn Bruce Lee's moves? Forget the screenplay; read the book.
It could mean that I'm a bad person, but I enjoyed this movie.
It probably helped a lot that I didn't read the books when viewing it. Without prior expectations from reading the book this is a good adventure story with a very interesting premise, good plot-turns and the usual weaknesses: the mandatory love-story (if you can call it that) is off-the-peg, and the hero is so bland and all-American that the only explanation is a file marked "all-purpose hero" which US film-makers get first day in their "shouting at actors 101" course. (But hey, if it works for 300 million movies, why not use it for another one.)
And of course a couple of logic-holes, but all of that is too common for made-for-TV fantasy movies to really complain about it.
But the supporting casts is, in my opinion, a joy: I love Sam, and the alien, and of course the main baddie. In the case of the baddie because I'm just a sucker for athletic evil bad guys making moves on the damsel in distress, extra bonus if the villain knows how to handle a sword.
Sam, because he is everything an interesting hero should be: you get to learn his whole story only after a while, and he has the doubts and weaknesses and moments of indecisiveness that the first-billed character lacks.
And the female lead is pretty good, too.
Compared to the books or to recent LotR-movies this certainly is disappointing. Viewed as a made-for-TV movie, it's entertaining, uses original ideas and is clearly above the average. Pity the series was never made/aired.
**For those who read the book before:**
The movie doesn't follow the books, and for good reasons. The books were award-winning, not bestselling because they were too realistic, too thought-provoking. Too many things in them would blow the chances of a TV series pilot to smithereens. Using some dead European guy most US-Americans never heard of as a protagonist wasn't half of the problem, but keep in mind how irreligious and pragmatic he was (remember his idea on how to get strips for binding material? See what I mean?) and the occurrence of drugs, sex and violence and it should be clear that changes had to be made. I prefer whole-hearted changes that create new heroes and situations to half-hearted ones which leave a shell of the book-character.
As it is, the movie isn't retelling the book, it's just loosely based on it. It uses the settings and some plot ideas of the book, but with changes to make sure that main stream audiences won't be put off. If that's acceptable to you, this might be an interesting movie for you.
It probably helped a lot that I didn't read the books when viewing it. Without prior expectations from reading the book this is a good adventure story with a very interesting premise, good plot-turns and the usual weaknesses: the mandatory love-story (if you can call it that) is off-the-peg, and the hero is so bland and all-American that the only explanation is a file marked "all-purpose hero" which US film-makers get first day in their "shouting at actors 101" course. (But hey, if it works for 300 million movies, why not use it for another one.)
And of course a couple of logic-holes, but all of that is too common for made-for-TV fantasy movies to really complain about it.
But the supporting casts is, in my opinion, a joy: I love Sam, and the alien, and of course the main baddie. In the case of the baddie because I'm just a sucker for athletic evil bad guys making moves on the damsel in distress, extra bonus if the villain knows how to handle a sword.
Sam, because he is everything an interesting hero should be: you get to learn his whole story only after a while, and he has the doubts and weaknesses and moments of indecisiveness that the first-billed character lacks.
And the female lead is pretty good, too.
Compared to the books or to recent LotR-movies this certainly is disappointing. Viewed as a made-for-TV movie, it's entertaining, uses original ideas and is clearly above the average. Pity the series was never made/aired.
**For those who read the book before:**
The movie doesn't follow the books, and for good reasons. The books were award-winning, not bestselling because they were too realistic, too thought-provoking. Too many things in them would blow the chances of a TV series pilot to smithereens. Using some dead European guy most US-Americans never heard of as a protagonist wasn't half of the problem, but keep in mind how irreligious and pragmatic he was (remember his idea on how to get strips for binding material? See what I mean?) and the occurrence of drugs, sex and violence and it should be clear that changes had to be made. I prefer whole-hearted changes that create new heroes and situations to half-hearted ones which leave a shell of the book-character.
As it is, the movie isn't retelling the book, it's just loosely based on it. It uses the settings and some plot ideas of the book, but with changes to make sure that main stream audiences won't be put off. If that's acceptable to you, this might be an interesting movie for you.
Fans of Farmer's remarkable novels will be sickened by the butcher job done by the producers of this turkey. Outside of borrowing a few character names and the basic premise of the world-girdling river, the movie has practically nothing in common with the books. Every important story development concept is thrown away in favor of seemingly endless violence. And what isn't gory is one stale cliché after another. (The engine room scene near the end is taken lock, stock and barrel from at least a dozen Star Trek episodes). The ending obviously left itself open for a sequel or two. God, I hope not! A tragedy second only to Hollywood's rendering of Asimov's "Nightfall".
If you start to watch this movie in the light hearted sense it was directed and shot in, you will really enjoy it.
I started thinking that this movie was going to be really bad, but for some reason felt compelled to watch through, to my benifit, the end indicates there will be more in the series, as they begin to head up river to the source.
Me, I can't wait for the next one!
**Note if you don't like Xena Warrior princess, this movie reaks of it.
I started thinking that this movie was going to be really bad, but for some reason felt compelled to watch through, to my benifit, the end indicates there will be more in the series, as they begin to head up river to the source.
Me, I can't wait for the next one!
**Note if you don't like Xena Warrior princess, this movie reaks of it.
- Robert_duder
- Feb 22, 2005
- Permalink
- CaballoVerde
- Mar 21, 2005
- Permalink
- Rob_Taylor
- Jan 30, 2005
- Permalink
Though clearly in the minority in this forum, I liked the movie.
Entertainment is successful when it stirs us (usually emotionally). Books do that by tickling our imagination and letting our minds fill in the blanks with whatever we choose. Cinematography stimulates us with (ever improving) visuals and still lets our minds fill in the blanks.
It seems that Riverworld did just that for me. The movie provided two hours of entertainment and stimulation that left me wanting to see more. Exactly what I want in a movie.
The movie ended with only part of the story having been told. Just like the Star Wars and LOTR movies, the story finds a natural break but doesn't complete. I doubt that a second movie will be made, but I'd like to see The SciFi Channel pick it up as an abbreviated series much like they did we The Dead Zone, Grey's Anatomy, etc. The real test will be if they can produce a series that earns a second season.
As far as the variance from the books, I don't care. That's inevitable.
Entertainment is successful when it stirs us (usually emotionally). Books do that by tickling our imagination and letting our minds fill in the blanks with whatever we choose. Cinematography stimulates us with (ever improving) visuals and still lets our minds fill in the blanks.
It seems that Riverworld did just that for me. The movie provided two hours of entertainment and stimulation that left me wanting to see more. Exactly what I want in a movie.
The movie ended with only part of the story having been told. Just like the Star Wars and LOTR movies, the story finds a natural break but doesn't complete. I doubt that a second movie will be made, but I'd like to see The SciFi Channel pick it up as an abbreviated series much like they did we The Dead Zone, Grey's Anatomy, etc. The real test will be if they can produce a series that earns a second season.
As far as the variance from the books, I don't care. That's inevitable.
- BassFantasizer
- Jul 16, 2005
- Permalink
When I wrote my IMDb review of the TV film IT 'adapted' from Stephen King's magnificent novel, my 'one line summary' was: 'The worst book/film translation ever?'
I wrote that because, at the time, I believed it *was* the worst adaptation I had ever witnessed.
But now I find I have to review and redefine what I think about poor adaptations because, surely, THIS one is the worst ever.
BY FAR!
I gave this movie every chance. I watched it (*suffered* it, more like) in the hope that at some point it would begin to bear more resemblance to Farmer's brilliant series of novels other than that there was a river in the movie, other than there was a boat, an alien, a Neanderthal type, a blonde (*BLONDE?!?*) Alice Hargreaves . . .
But I watched only to be increasingly disappointed.
I do so hope that when someone decides to adapt Arthur C. Clarke's *Rama Saga* for the big (or little) screen that it's not the Sci-Fi Channel who get the rights because if this adaptation of *Riverworld* is the general way they go about translating book to screen, I'll . . . well, I don't know - it doesn't bare thinking about.
My IMDb vote for this appalling adaptation is 1 out of 10. And I voted that ONLY because 0 (zero) isn't available.
My advice to anyone considering watching this movie is GIVE IT A MISS!
I wrote that because, at the time, I believed it *was* the worst adaptation I had ever witnessed.
But now I find I have to review and redefine what I think about poor adaptations because, surely, THIS one is the worst ever.
BY FAR!
I gave this movie every chance. I watched it (*suffered* it, more like) in the hope that at some point it would begin to bear more resemblance to Farmer's brilliant series of novels other than that there was a river in the movie, other than there was a boat, an alien, a Neanderthal type, a blonde (*BLONDE?!?*) Alice Hargreaves . . .
But I watched only to be increasingly disappointed.
I do so hope that when someone decides to adapt Arthur C. Clarke's *Rama Saga* for the big (or little) screen that it's not the Sci-Fi Channel who get the rights because if this adaptation of *Riverworld* is the general way they go about translating book to screen, I'll . . . well, I don't know - it doesn't bare thinking about.
My IMDb vote for this appalling adaptation is 1 out of 10. And I voted that ONLY because 0 (zero) isn't available.
My advice to anyone considering watching this movie is GIVE IT A MISS!
I read one of the books some 20-25 years ago, I think. My memory of it is a little hazy, but I know I loved it. What an awesome idea: The entire human race, every saint and sinner who ever lived, all 36 billion of us, spewed out all at once, randomly along the shores of an alien planet.
I expected this TV adaptation to be trash, but to my surprise I actually sat through the whole thing while defragging my computer.
Sure, there were a lot of cheap TV-movie qualities. I didn't remember this apple-pie Captain Kirk American astronaut from the book. (Fellow IMDb commentators remind me that in the book he was the complex Romantic English adventurer Burton.) And the African priestess was awfully cheesy and inauthentic for our sensitive and politically correct age. (She's a cross between a corny "native" of 1930's jungle flicks and a more modern stereotypical angry black woman. But she's easy on the eyes, and maybe that's all that really matters.) And the whole Valdemar thing was your standard "Xena-like" action fare, as other commentators have so aptly put it.
But the main idea of Riverworld remains powerful. The actors are quite good. The gorges and beaches of New Zealand are stunning. The special effects and the riverboat are more than adequate. All-in-all, better than average TV fantasy adventure.
I expected this TV adaptation to be trash, but to my surprise I actually sat through the whole thing while defragging my computer.
Sure, there were a lot of cheap TV-movie qualities. I didn't remember this apple-pie Captain Kirk American astronaut from the book. (Fellow IMDb commentators remind me that in the book he was the complex Romantic English adventurer Burton.) And the African priestess was awfully cheesy and inauthentic for our sensitive and politically correct age. (She's a cross between a corny "native" of 1930's jungle flicks and a more modern stereotypical angry black woman. But she's easy on the eyes, and maybe that's all that really matters.) And the whole Valdemar thing was your standard "Xena-like" action fare, as other commentators have so aptly put it.
But the main idea of Riverworld remains powerful. The actors are quite good. The gorges and beaches of New Zealand are stunning. The special effects and the riverboat are more than adequate. All-in-all, better than average TV fantasy adventure.
- AbandonedRailroadGrade
- Jul 26, 2003
- Permalink
- nickdgreen
- Jun 28, 2020
- Permalink
I read the first couple of books 20 years ago, so I was a bit hazy on some things, but it seemed to be a very accurate translation from book to film. I was taken aback by Kevin Smith's appearance since I've been a fan from Xena and Hercules. I swear I thought he had a brother because the film is marked 2003. I think it's a worthy tribute to him. Realize that this movie is only the beginning. Farmer wrote many short stories and books about Riverworld. Give them and the movie a shot. You might enjoy them.
I re-watched this today, and still like it. Phillip Jose Farmer's works were always fun but no great classics, so I don't mind that the movie deviated a lot from any of the books. Books is books, movies is movies. The scenery of New Zealand is almost worth watching just to see it - it is truly spectacular. The story is the expected thud and blunder of folks showing up nekkid on a new world, so I was willing to put up with that just to get the riverboat launched. Hale, Sam Clements, and Nero seem interesting enough and good enough; with this kind of movie, the plot and the effects are mostly what matters. Of course, with Sam Clements on board, we could expect more inventions with the flavor of the "Connecticut Yankee ...". I hope that they make more of these -- c
- chazzchezz
- Jul 16, 2005
- Permalink
Whilst writing this review I am wiping the tears of shock and horror from my eyes, what have they done???
Emily Lloyd with a Perm as Alice Liddell.AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH Richard Burton missing King John missing. Sam Clemems AAGGHHHHHHHHH. Underwater Bubbles, ridiculous 100 ft grailstones, the riverboat finished by the time the main character appears. All these add up to something put together over someones breakfast whilst they had a hangover.
Please don't try any adaptations of any more PJ Farmer novels, please stay away from Dayworld, I don't think I could take it.
By far the worst adaptation since ever. I am now going to carry on weeping.
Read the novels
Emily Lloyd with a Perm as Alice Liddell.AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH Richard Burton missing King John missing. Sam Clemems AAGGHHHHHHHHH. Underwater Bubbles, ridiculous 100 ft grailstones, the riverboat finished by the time the main character appears. All these add up to something put together over someones breakfast whilst they had a hangover.
Please don't try any adaptations of any more PJ Farmer novels, please stay away from Dayworld, I don't think I could take it.
By far the worst adaptation since ever. I am now going to carry on weeping.
Read the novels
- chriskerfoot
- May 25, 2003
- Permalink