Riverworld

source: Riverworld

Moviecut—Riverworld

Riverworld

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

This movie sucks all the fun out of what fans of Farmer's series might expect. All is dreadfully serious (Sam Clemens, of all people, is boring...), the absurdity & whimsicality is sadly missing, and (just for instance) the ingenious "grails" have become mundane "canisters" (Does the sci-fi channel think we'll need a dictionary, or are they just afraid we'd be tempted to throw it at them if we had to get it out?) This last aspect is just one facet of a general tendency the picture has to take what it finds in the novels, dumb it all down to the level of a person who cannot read a novel, 7 go on from there. Plus the censors seem to have clipped the joints & dreamgum out of things (I may be wrong about this--there was a small part of this film I missed). Capital B Bleahh.

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.

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".

This was the most disappointing adaptations of a novel to film/video that I've ever seen. Most of the points that made the novel so interesting were completely changed or glossed over. While the movie was entertaining enough in its own right, it totally missed most of the essential points in Farmer's works. The fact that they tried to condense two novels ("To Your Scattered Bodies Go" & "The Fabulous Riverboat") into a two hour (with commercials!) production made it even worse.

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.

... 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.