Alien Planet (TV Movie 2005) Poster

(2005 TV Movie)

User Reviews

Review this title
24 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Barlow's book brought to life.
doktorf19 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Some spoilers in the following text.

For years I have been trying to get people to read Wayne Barlowe's EXPEDITION as an imaginative and entertaining view of what an alien world's ecosystem might be like. In the book there were actual human explorers. I thought that the use of robots was both more interesting and more realistic. The commentary from scientists, artists and film makes was interesting, but lacked depth. I don't think George Lucas, talented as he may be, is an expert on anything involving the hard sciences. The program needed to be at least twice as long as it was. There was a wealth of material in Barlowe's book that wasn't even touched in the show. The amazing Butcher Tree was shown briefly but not discussed at all. The icecrawlers and rimrunners were among my favorite of Barlowe's creations, but they went unmentioned in the show. The Floaters were not shown or discussed at all thus making the Eosapiens seem less obviously related to other life forms on the planet. The brevity of the presentation left the creators less able to paint a picture of a vast and complex biosphere. Perhaps this material might have been better presented in a mini series as was The Future Is Wild.

By all means get the DVD of this program, but also get the book. Check it out at: http://heh.pl/&1yk
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
i liked it a lot
starrborrn19 August 2006
this is the first time i have seen a show that actually depicts what could be out there in a scientific fashion.

The way we can calculate the possibility of life is by the Drake Equation, created by Frank Drake in the early 1960s. It states: N= (r* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc) L where:

N= number of possible civilizations to communicate with

R* = is the rate at which stars capable of sustaining like are formed

fp = the fraction of these stars which have planets

ne = the number of planets similar to Earth in the planetary system

fl = the fraction of the Earth-like planets that hold life

fi = the fraction of life that becomes an intelligent civilization

fc = the fraction intelligent civilizations that attempt to communicate

L= the number of years the civilization remains able to communicate.

When these numbers are taken into consideration, we realize that there is a great possibility of life out there. There are about 400 billion stars in our galaxy, so there could be life right next door (relatively speaking, since that may be hundreds of thousands of light years away). Even if there is no life in the Milky Way, there are billions of other galaxies to turn to. We likely will not contact such civilizations in our lifetime, but it gives us a new kind of hope and dream for the future of our planet and the future of mankind.

so Darwin 4 could actually exist out there somewhere.
18 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Alien Planet!
Movie Nuttball15 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very good program that aired on the Discovery Channel on 05/14/05 and I think that this program was very interesting and informal one with theories and it is narrated very good by John C. McGinley. It shows many incredible and bizarre alien-like animals that vary in size from the size of small frog to the size of a large skyscraper building! The CGI is excellent! James Garvin, Stephen Hawking, Jack Horner, Michio Kaku, George Lucas, and J. Craig Venter give their insights to possible like of other planets! In My opinion are are probably similar like these creature featured here plus much more! If you can watch this on TV and like the subject and like to see theories of what could be out there and to know their possible origins then check out this amazing feature today or buy it on DVD! Strongly Recommended!
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Great fun of the imagination
Scarlata196619 March 2008
I just love this program and watch it quite a bit. Not only is it full of very imaginative creatures, but it does so logically. The makers realize that a biosphere of a planet must follow the rules of evolutionary descent and unity of common body plans. Things like bipedalism, bioluminescence and facial shape are kept consistent through all of Darwin IV's creatures. Their oddly shaped "eyes" are really creepy looking, kinda looks like the thing that Alec Baldwin turned himself into in BEETLEJUICE. Some of the creatures are bordering on the far-fetched, but they're so well-conceived and fun, who cares. My only criticism would be the name Darwin IV. It just seemed a little too obvious.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Great Film
percyld5 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure if my previous review was submitted so I'll try again. I disagree with those who found fault with Alien Planet. I thought the creatures and environments were well realized. No one does aliens better than Barlowe. He invests a lot of energy in thinking about how his creations would actually interact with their world. With all the cookie cutter stuff out there it's great to see someone try something different. I would love to see more programming of this type that combines visionary science fiction with scientific speculation. Traditional science fiction films tend to focus on what would happen if aliens came to earth. It was nice to see that reversed a bit for a change.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Galactic Mind Trip
RiffRaffMcKinley24 August 2007
Ordinarily, I hate documentaries. And I mean *hate*. So why is it that I love "Alien Planet"?

Simple. Using cutting-edge animation technology and fascinating (not mind-bogglingly boring), jargon-filled interviews with experts in various fields, the makers of this real winner have successfully created an interesting testament to the fact that mankind is not even a drop in the bucket, cosmically speaking. This fantastically done doc almost plays out like a motion picture as it interweaves the documentary with pieces of interstellar adventure and drama. Particularly interesting is the segment featuring an alien life form called a "groveback."

Take it from someone who is usually bored stiff by documentaries-- one look at this astounding, mind blowing extravaganza, and you want more. Immediately.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Alien is right
Slopmaster400115 May 2005
This show ranks right up there with "The Future Is Wild" in that it presents some very intriguing ideas with very nice CGI. But unlike TFIW they are showing us a not to distant future, one that may be possible with my life time. I also thought the comments from various scientist was a nice touch since these are the best people to comment on a future mission to another planet. And on a final note, the planet depicted in the show, Darwin IV was a very alien place while yet being similar to earth but seeing what life is like on that planet makes me appreciate our own little blue marble even more. Also, speaking of the name Darwin IV, I would have preferred a name from popular science fiction, possible Hal IV.
23 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A real flight of fancy - with an achilles heal
tauceti9615 May 2005
An intriguing and engaging exploration of an alien world. The CGI was excellent all around with some breathtaking views of the flora and fauna of Darwin IV, a world about 6 light years from earth. It really was fun to watch. The achilles heal alluded to in the summary is the overly optimistic view of our ability to build the software necessary to carry out this venture. I'm a programmer with 12 years experience and I can tell you in no uncertain terms we are not even close to being able to program an AI like Leo. Every "breakthrough" in software development productivity since the move from assembly to C in the early 1970s has been a big gimmick. We need at least one and probably two massive breakthroughs on the same order to pull it off and I gotta tell you, I haven't seen any sign of it even on the distant horizon. Maybe someday this trip will be feasible, but not until software construction is as second nature as bridge building.

Still, all in all, definitely worth watching.
19 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fascinating Warning: Spoilers
"Alien Planet" is a CGI speculative fiction documentary, made in the same way than excellent series as "Walking with Dinosaurs". As you could expect, the premise is very interesting, the animation is incredibly good (Some of the creatures that appear here seem like an inspiration for the beings from Planet Pandora in "Avatar" of James Cameron) Even when this is not as great as "Walking with Dinosaurs" it is still pretty enjoyable and interesting. If you like speculative fiction, or are interested in the life in other planets, you shouldn't miss this film. I also recommend "The Future is Wild" an incredible series with a notable use of computer animation and unique and fascinating creatures.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's Wayne Douglas Barlowe's world, and we...
ThurstonHunger16 May 2009
...just don't live in it. Yet?

The film may not be for self-proclaimed serious scientists....or for "serious creationists"...but for curious six year olds this was more than watchable and raised interesting questions in the xenobiological realm. So for me, as their Dad it was a success.

But even for all those serious science fans, with the commentary of Hawking, Kaku, Venter...what is the quibble about? Admittedly we are talking about something that if it happens will happen well after my children's children are dead, but trying to estimate what might be still is fun, and ideally incentive enough to continue to search the stars. Kaku works in a message of how rare and treasured life should be, even here on our own planet. Have any of the participating scientists rebuked this film?

As for all the "serious creationists", I still think this movie is more captivating than a discussion of how many angels could dance on the head of a pinhead.

The probes, with their wide eyes and narrow dots inside, gave a nice illusion of shock as each new creature was unfurled. The DVD came packaged for the sake of TV with commercial inserts, and sneak previews for something coming in the next three seconds. I found that a bit annoying.

Anyways, I can see some of the criticism, overly sleek animation leaves the creatures devoid of texture...more insight into the animals behavior (eating, socialization)...but I think this was mostly a chance to introduce the basic concept of life on another planet (hence disappointing to the two groups above) and a chance to display Wayne Douglas Barlowe's artwork...with whom I was regrettably unfamiliar, so I'll look forward to sharing some of his library books with the boys.

Not sure if he has done illustrations for the Book of Revelation, but that might appeal to some.

Yours for heresy and fantasy,

Thurston Hunger

7/10
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dubious assumptions about alien biology
Aetius15 May 2005
This show looks sexy and is presented as such, but is rife with dubious and questionable assumptions on biology, ecology and zoology of the alien planet. While intriguing on the surface, the descriptions of alien animals are poorly thought through and do not match the stipulated physical conditions on the alien planet. In addition to other scientific errors, this is obvious and annoying enough to completely kill my enjoyment of the show.

It seems to me as if the show wavers between a science-fiction-like narrative and a more documentary attitude. This does not work well, and one or the other should have been used, rather than a poor amalgam of both.

Points given for trying though.

EDIT: Having seen the program once again, I find that I have to amend my initial comments somewhat. Points previously given in a gesture of reluctant goodwill are hereby removed. This show is utter bollicks, and the only positive thing I can say about it is that it just might inspire people to look into the possibility of alien life in a more serious way. It is, however, obvious that this show was designed and written by people with a severely limited grasp of science and scientific theory, and an obviously insufficient grasp of fundamental logic. There are hundreds of truly excellent science-fiction books out there which treat this subject not only more seriously, but also more logically and more spectacularly.

In short, the dumbing-down of TV has staggered me once again, and I am truly grateful that I didn't pay to watch this program.
23 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Disappointing Fantasy
kervina3 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The CG work for the show was nice, and the engineering of the mission seemed plausible.

Upon arrival at Darwin IV, however, everything started to go wrong. Wayne Barlowe is a talented illustrator, but he is not a scientist. He understands joints, skin, muscle, tendons, and the other things that make up an animal, but he doesn't appear to understand how animals come to be or the limitations imposed on them.

A simple example is the amoebic sea, which is composed of single-celled animals far too large for reasonable nutrition/waste transport across the boundary membrane.

Another example is that one of the simplest sensory adaptations - eyes, or even eyespots - does not show up on any of the animals. There is nothing so special about the ability to sense light that it should evolve on at least 8 independent occasions on Sol III, yet not at all on Darwin IV.

The requirements of food chains are also completely ignored. Big animals need to eat something, either plants or smaller animals, and the amount of vegetation in evidence would not support enough prey animals to feed the number of large predators shown.

The program is a showcase for Barlowe's ideas of some "cool" aliens, rather than an example of what trained scientists might come up with when they let their imaginations loose and speculate what might be.

The process followed seems to be Barlowe sitting down and drawing an interesting looking critter, then trying to rationalize its existence, rather than looking at the environment and speculating how an animal might meet the challenges posed by that environment.

I was struck by the fact that all of the scientists interviewed made a point of mentioning how "unexpected" and "odd" the animals seemed. Those scientists didn't seem fascinated by the ideas, they sounded to me like they were trying to distance themselves from appearing to have had anything to do with the creature design, because it would be a professional embarrassment.

A program that could have been speculative science fiction was instead science fantasy.

I give the program a few points for being pretty, but none for content.
7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Way more flaws than qualities
voyou-703-65535020 August 2013
The good part is simply the idea of exploring an alien planet, and the graphic result is correct. Just correct, technically; nothing great, as every occurrence of life is well isolated in its environment, so that there is always only one thing worth watching at once in any given picture.

Now for the many wrongs, in no particular order: The comment is awful; almost complete garbage in terms of content. It is either pure speculation presented as fact, biologists talking as if they actually studied the fake alien species, or useless clichés of point of views such as that it would be great/awesome/a breakthrough/major to discover life elsewhere. Thanks for the insights, guys. It may be the reason why I fell asleep in the middle and had to watch the rest the next day.

While a couple of comments are actually useful in their context, the narrated exploration / pseudo-scientific comment duality of the treatment deserves the movie. The visual part, good enough to keep you watching in hope that it will get better - the fiction is properly treated in crescendo, promising to be more eventful as time passes - is constantly interrupted by these boring people with their empty words. Some of them are just famous people, without the smallest spark of a reason to be there in the first place. Except to entrap some fans of theirs into watching. Beware George Lucas or Stephen Hawkins lovers: your idol will only appear for 3 seconds at the very beginning and 3 more at the very end of the thing, while the rest of us just get annoyed.

Talking about annoying, here is how you recognise a USA documentary from, for example, a European one: before every commercial break - and not only are there commercial breaks, but there are an incredible amount of them - they give you a sneak preview of what's going to happen. Ouch! Makes you wonder why bother to build some suspense in the first place. Or, more relevantly, why they were not simply taken out of the DVD version.

Now, the main disappointment for me is actually such a common rule that I shouldn't call it disappointing. It is the simple fact that every single time I see or hear something about exotic life, well, it's not exotic at all. It ends up being unimaginative parallels of Earth's most visible lifeforms. In that regard, Alien Planet falls particularly low. It starts with trees - complete with trunks, branches, leaves and sap - going to mushrooms, pack animals, running predators, all tagged with comments on their very terrestrial behaviours, be it deer duels, wolf pack hunting tactics, and so on. What a bore! I don't want to write pages on the subject but, for example, it's land exploration only, yet no thoughts are put into geology, very little into the weather, almost none into the notion of ecosystem... The objective is not to make us think about life, what it means, what it could be, how really alien it could be; it's all about trying to impress us with big critters 3D models on dull backgrounds.

It doesn't matter from which angle, either science or fantasy, such a world could be built. Imagination was not much put to use here. The only part which begins to be interesting, as in alien, is the amoebic sea. Put more stuff like this, alter your building blocks, populate your world with small and interacting creatures, natural hazards, exotic landscapes, remove all the talking people, then we'll talk again. In the meantime, when I want to be mesmerized by a strange and fascinating e.t. world, I'll go back to watching Dark Crystal.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Aliens are awesome
haterofcrap25 September 2010
I'm not very much into animated films (In fact, I hated most animated films) or documentaries, but I love anything related with aliens, and that's why I liked this movie so much. This documentary was pretty interesting, from beginning to end. The CGI was pretty impressive, it wasn't so good as the incredible CGI used by James Cameron, but it was pretty good anyway.

This was one of the best documentaries that I've seen in the recent years. I wish there were more documentaries like this (Yeah, I know that there are some series made with the same style of this movie, like "Walking with Dinosaurs" or "The Future is Wild", but "Alien Planet" was better than those series)

However, it is an awesome movie, with some awesome CGI and about awesome aliens. A combination like that just cannot fail.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Alien Planet- A bit wasteful of my time
Stan168516 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It seemed very interesting to me upon first glance, previous "documentaries" shown on Discovery had some scientific background...but this one seem to be mostly fictional...The whole time I was watching, I was hoping "so is there actually something factual we discovered that led them to make these surreal creatures? like they found some sort of tracks, or remains, etc(kind of like the shows they did on raptors- they had more proof... or are these just figments of imagination?" I was hoping for a better conclusion than "ooo, there's more possibilities to life in other planets than we first thought"...Watching it was interesting, but the fact that it was based on wild guesses and creations of mind without any actual findings is simply a turn off ... I believe there's extraterrestrial life too, but I didn't need to waste 2 hours to see a "documentary" to convince me, I could've just gone renting a Sci-fi movie if I wanted to be intrigued... The delivery of the story was good, the graphics were fantastic, but the realism, un-realism rather, is a major negative blow to the show...
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So. Very. Bad.
randipoet5 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I had to watch "Alien Planet" for my Introduction to Science Fiction class and let me tell you, I paid for that grade with bits of soul that I can never get back. The real crime is that this might have somehow worked if they had just made it into a film about space exploration, but as a "documentary" it plods along infinitely and mercilessly. There are only so many stories-tall aliens I'm willing to believe in, even in science fiction. There are only so many robo-life threatening situations that I'm willing to choke down. The real problem here is that there isn't ever a point that is being made. There is nothing to care about and there's no reason to watch. The protagonists are emotionless droids and the creatures encountered on the planet are silly to shark-jumpingly implausible. They're so implausible that they jump the shark, bite it in half, fly into the sky, reverse time by flying around the sun, and then coast lightly into theater seating where they eat Twizzlers at a Van Halen concert.

I feel bad for the real people that appeared on the screen during this project, some of whom might previously have been considered respectable. It can only make them look one way to have appeared in this mess, and that way, my friends, is bad.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Meh....pales in comparison to the book, but for what it's worth it's alright.
nrice-0760429 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'll start with the positives: The CGI that the creatures are made from (as well as the robots and the rest of the backgrounds) is amazing and looks super close-to-life. The array of scientists who intervene every now and then and discuss the previous events that just took place are all very well credited, and all very believable and intelligent people.

However, the positives sadly end there. Aside from the creatures, the documentary really has nothing to do with the book. It has very wonky plot structure, and I was quite confused with what was going on at some points. The pacing is also off, as sometimes each scene seems like an eternity. The creatures are next. The creatures' habits, size, etc are all highly warped around. Some examples: .the documentary gets the height wrong. The documentary insists that the Gyrosprinter is about the size of an antelope, whereas the book says it's much larger. While an accurate size estimate isn't included, the creature's tongue alone is around 2 meters long...that's as long as the documentary version's entire body! Meaning that the book gyrosprinter is nearly triple the documentary version's size. .Body shape and habit changes. The Eosapiens' changes really bugged me. In the book they look primitive and savage, yet intelligent and wise. They regard the spaceship before them with an intense curiosity, never once showing any hostility to any of the expedition members. Alien Planet's Eosapiens are the exact opposite-the tiniest intrusion causes them to enter a fit of rage and destroy everything. Also, the Griveback is mentioned to be a filter feeder, sucking up tiny floating creatures, whereas the alien planet version absorbs water through its body to feed trees growing on its back. Ironically, the book version doesn't do anything to support the trees on its back, and they die within a week. .the noises. Sure, they were all cool, but grossly inaccurate. Most of the Darwin IV inhabitants (with the exception of the Bladderhorn) communicate with sonar, inaudible to human or robot ears. Yet every single inhabitant in Alien Planet communicates with some loud, eerie shriek. It sounds cool no doubt, but it's inaccurate.

My third problem is the overuse of CGI. Kinda like the star wars prequel trilogy, they didn't make any effort to ue practical effects or props in any way-everything was computer-generated. Don't get me wrong, it all looks very believable, but it just makes the production team seem lazy and not willing to do anything special-which i'm sure they're not.

The final nail in the coffin of this documentary is that the narrators and guest scientists treat the events of the documentary like they could really happen, and try to make it believable. Wayne Barlowe's original book was meant to be science fiction, and science fiction only-he never tried to convince people something like that could actually exist. Steven Hawking and others' interventions are all very believable, and all supported by real scientific facts, but when you take those and compare them to the animal they're trying to get you to believe exists, you just laugh and pass it off as stupid. I had the same problem with the documentary of The Future Is Wild.

But you know what? There's one thing that's important-they TRIED. They made a conscious effort to make an obscure piece of literature into something bigger. They tried to take something already existing and remake it for a more modern audience. But that just poorly reflects when you look at all the problems with it. There really wasn't a demand for a cinematic version of Expedition, then, and there really isn't one now. It was a fantastic book, but not one you'd expect to be remade into a movie like a bajillion times.

So that's my honest review of Alien Planet, a solid five stars. I wish I could rate it higher-I really do. But inconsistencies in the plot, creatures, etc etc etc really weigh it down. Its creators tried-they really did-and it's a shame all their effort formed this.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Between fiction and reality
tankace18 May 2016
Alien Planet is a great documentary about life in other planets.It is the adaptation of the scientific theorist Barlowe ,who makes assumption about what life on other planet may look like based of facts that we know. Although it is more that a decade old this TV movie is great and it reminded me When Dinosaurs Roamed America, a documentary about dinosaurs which has been unjustly forgotten by the general public ,like with this gem. The story goes like that, we send a spacecraft to the fictional planet of Darwin IV ,in which there are signs that, maybe life has evolved and there , the reconnaissance robots meet the inhabitants of this weird place. To the creatures, dispute the fact that are literally out of this world, they have some characteristics which are surprisingly similar to the animal with whom we sear Earth. Bonus fact is the cameos by people of science like Steven Hawkings and many more, who explain why the animals we see on screen look like that. In conclusion this Documentary made me want to visit this planet and examine its lifeforms and see with my own eyes how different they are from us and yet still as alive as us. For real if you like aliens and you want to see them be scientifically accurate go want it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Fascinating
noyfb552 March 2014
The way this show is presented is very clever. The slightly outdated animation shows its age; otherwise, if you were to tune in half-way through, you might think "oh my god! did they find life on another planet?!"

That's the way I felt, at least, when I tuned in almost 10 years ago. Soon enough, you realize "ok this is some kind of documentary", but the way the scientists talk when interviewed, it sounds like they're explaining something that has _actually_ happened; like they're talking about life that _does_ exist beyond Earth.

It gave it a real "war of the worlds"-radio-broadcast vibe.

I liked the show so much at the time that I ordered the DVD so I could view the start that I missed.

Ten years later, I decided to dig up this DVD and pop it in when my 11-year old daughter said she's really enjoying the "space" unit her class is studying in science.

When I came to IMDb to look up the narrator's voice (which I recognized but could not identify), I was surprised to see this has an average review of 7.1.

This show is way more deserving than that, so I registered an account just help bump up that average.

THAT'S how entertaining and fascinating I think this show is!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
What fun!
grnhair20013 May 2012
I felt like a kid again watching this flight of fancy. I liked the interspersed animations and real world interviews of some top scientists, making it feel real though of course (and alas) it is pure invention.

How could someone watch this and not be enthralled, not wish for us to support pure science and space exploration? It makes me want to run right out and do something to further the possibility that such a mission might one day be undertaken.

I don't care if the biology is imperfect; I do care that it's a dozen times better than the typical Hollywood s-f flick that has all its creatures looking like they evolved on earth. Still too many pairs of eyes over mouths here, but a distinct improvement over big-eyed gray aliens.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
This science fiction flick has nothing to do with science
sundman9 September 2005
Already 10 minutes into the movie the viewers have been bombarded with such amounts of factual errors, physical impossibilities and unscientific nonsense that it is obvious that the target audience is mainly people with half a brain or less. Some of the absurdities are obvious, such as when Dr. Michio Kaku says that it takes 42 years for a vehicle to travel 4 light years at 0.2 c. (Obviously 4ly/0.2c = 20 years. In fact it takes exactly twice as long if the start and end velocities are 0 m/s, the maximum velocity is 0.2 c and the acceleration is constant but shifts to the opposite direction at halfway.) Others are less obvious, such as when Stephen Hawkings concludes that if life has spontaneously generated itself on earth then it must be possible for that to have happened elsewhere, too. (OK, the illogicality of that statement is somewhat obvious, too.)

The format of the movie is the only thing that is realistic. Although this is a fictional "documentary" it is very much like today's documentaries on BBC and elsewhere, in that the viewers are shown so called experts who proclaim more or less wild speculation as fact.

Some of the CGI is nice, though, and because of that I gave this movie a 2/10.
10 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not interesting.
jpfr-17 June 2008
I was waiting for something better. What is the point in waisting my time watching a documentary of something that doesn't exist? They are not even close to being able to have such technologies they should have just made a sci fi movie and saved some money.

Lot of people say it's genius but I think this is awful most of the creatures look like they came out of a video game and there is no way that most of them could exist.

The cgi is poor I could make that with my own personal comupter within a week don't know why other people are like wow such good cgi (Now days it's so easy to make better cgi the people that don't know how are incompetent like a lot of movie producers).

Like I read this is pure fantasy and in my opinion quite a waste of time. If you got time to waste go watch a documentary on animal that live on our planet at least you would learn something.

This documentary was fully made by dreamers and not people that want to make the world advance.
2 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A "documentary" gone wrong
fisken_com12 April 2006
In this film/documentary we get to follow a hypothetical future space probe on its journey to a distant planet to explore and examine if the planet is inhabited (from bacteria to beasts).

If you actually manage to watch this without throwing your television through countless windows you'll get to see a carefully scripted series of events, loads of horrible bulldozer-sized animals Do not forget to look for the jet-propelled "bats" the size of aeroplanes who use their "hollow trunks that are harder than titanium" to penetrate and suck the juice out of their victims.

The film (for a lack of better words to describe it) starts out with a lot of potential, potential that is later violated and stomped upon numerous times. The thing that you'll probably think about whilst watching this abomination will be "Who, IN THE NAME OF GOD, gave the concept artists that much freedom?!" Everything on the planet in question either has areas shining as if they were some kind of decorative lightning, or have no organ capable of absorbing enough energy to live through the day.

I would recommend this if you want to get angry at most things alive today, otherwise: STAY AWAY FROM THIS PIECE OF BATSHIT!
1 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Utter fantasy
pcrause23 August 2007
This "movie" is purely a flight of fancy of some "scientists" with nothing better to do than fantasize what they would "create" if they were God. The fanciful "beasts" they conjured up have no parallel in reality and truly demonstrate their warped "evolutionary" minds. The scripture says: "Declaring themselves to be wise they became fools" - that's God's opinion and mine.

Accept it a pure fantasy and not having the remotest possibility of reality, then the "movie" is well done - the commentators speak as if it was an already accomplished fact and is misleading to the ignorant and openly rebellious to our Creator.
0 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed