ann-sophie-76672 I can't recall how often I watched this as a child. On rewatch last year (over a decade later) I still remembered about 90 percent of it - even the narration!Childhood memories aside, this "documentary" still looks amazing thanks to the practical effects and models in closer shots.

grizzledgeezer I'd like to give this outstanding series a 10, but two things hold me back.One is that the animals' behavior -- including how they hunt, and their social organization -- are portrayed as facts. This is no disclaimer of "we think this is the way it might have been". This is bad science.The other is a horrendous error that I see over and over again in nature programs (regardless of their source). Pit vipers have two organs especially sensitive to infrared that help them locate warm-blooded prey. Yet every nature program portrays them as actual eyes that render what's in front of the snake as a false-color infrared image! Apparently, the scientific advisers didn't catch this, or didn't care.There are other minor points, such as the failure to explain why dinosaurs -- though reptiles -- could be warm-blooded, or how scientists know that a skeleton is of a mammal, not a reptile.With these two qualifications, the series is strongly recommended.

RoboKorp When i was small, i just loved dinosaurs (who didn't?). When this series aired in Finland, we recorded every episode on VHS. Then i watched them over and over again. Now, more than 11 years later, i found those old recordings. After watching a few episodes I was surprised about two things: firstly, i'm still very fascinated about those creatures, and secondly the computer animation still looks amazing, the dinosaurs look real and very much alive (and i might add: thirdly, rewinding a VHS still isn't much fun...)So if you have even the slightest interest in dinosaurs (or computer animation?), "walking with dinosaurs" is a must-see.

Christian Baer (Gullytrotter) For some time there has been this new word: "edutainment". The basic idea is to combine entertainment with making the people learn something. It has changed the way documentations are made and presented completely. The problem is what sort of trade-off you want to make. Something with pure information isn't usually that entertaining anymore ('Life on Earth' probably wouldn't sell too well today), but some information SHOULD still be included.The BBC have found an acceptable balance here. The series is a lot of fun to watch and you do get some insights into the world of the dinosaurs. The special effects and animations are very good. Too bad the scenes with puppets (especially when the dinosaurs are eating) look very unreal. Some of the scenes are also repeated frequently which doesn't matter much when you see the documentation for the first time but tends to annoy later on.The biggest problem with "Walking with Dinosaurs" is the fact that it is built upon speculation. No one knows how the Dinosaurs lived for sure, if they traveled in herds or hunted in packs or not. We can only guess if a diplodocus wagged its tail to help others in the herd see it - not that the pure bulk of more that 10t in an adult would probably do that more effectively than a wagging tail."Walking with Dinosaurs" leaves this fact nearly completely in the dark. The viewer never really gets to know that this interpretation of the fossil clues is just one of many. To make matters worse, in many cases the story-telling style of the series (like the life of a diplodocus in "Time of the Titans") drops some of the facts we really DO know. Only in the special with "Big Al" some of the facts are even mentioned.In the end we have to admit that information doesn't sell that well and this product fits just fine into modern times.