SnoopyStyle Brian Cox opens the series by asking "Why are we here? Where do we come from?" This is a wide-ranging show of 4 hour-long episodes examining big fundamental concepts. The first "Destiny" examines time, entropy, and the eventual heat death of the universe. The second "Stardust" examines the creation and composition of material of the universe. The third "Falling" examines gravity and black holes. The fourth "Messengers" examines light and sound. The show can float from one subject to another. I like his explanation of entropy. The other concepts are fairly basic. The show can be jumpy. In general, the big concepts are compelling and understandable. The questions are so big that the answers can be uncontained.

Nickijah Some reviews on here are either woefully stupid or they just don't understand the reason for this program.Now bear with me here: this is a prime time show on mainstream television. Did you understand that? No? Well just to clarify: the program doesn't assume we are all scholars in the fields of cosmology, particle physics, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. This is a TV show, not a lecture. Although one reviewer seems to think that gravity is not a force (it is), so would have been utterly confounded by a proper lecture.As someone who does know a fair bit about cosmology I watched this show with high hopes, as I very much enjoyed the previous series Solar System. It certainly lived up to my expectations. I watched it with my mother, who previously had little interest in the subjects covered, and she became more and more fascinated as the series progressed. This, I suspect, is the whole reason for the show: to bring science to the masses, rather than keep the knowledge within a group of people who already know it. So to summarise: if you are well versed in physics and want to learn something new then you should probably avoid this show. However if you are merely interested in astronomy, cosmology et al and want a plain, easy to understand welcome to the field then I very much recommend this show.Very well done BBC!

Eddie Burdak Fascinating subject. But instead of having a bright Astronomer do the presentation we get a particle physicist instead? :( Going off to some of the most exotic places on Earth - generally to do some seriously poor metaphor and generally loose the plot.There are some excellent bits in the middle but there really is some serious doggy pooh to wade through to get there.Professor Brina Cox has serious problems in presenting. From misunderstanding gravity (and calling it a force) to failing to comprehend that time is a man made construct and the universe doesn't care what time it is. And to try and claim during free fall he's experiencing zero gravity when he is still in the gravity field of the Earth - just free falling - well that's was just very poorly done and explained.But the worse, the absolute worse moment for me has to be when he talks about Einstein's equations of relativity and he Cox wants to make a contribution that would result in a change in those formulations - an improvement in the equations First thing to do Bri is pack up your Projector and Holiday slides and for good sake stop looking down at the camera and the audience - and actually learn to make a clear concise non confusing presentation.Poor effort BBC - poor Effort

screenman This is a classic example of modern TV and documentaries in general. It is dumbed-down supreme. For the first episode, enough information that could be communicated by Patrick Moore in 15 minutes was strung-out and sometimes repeated for what seemed like 2 hours. Whilst - endorsing the current obsession with yoof - new-found favourite of the moment, Professor Brian Cox, brought his boyish enthusiasms and his bucket-and-spade to bear upon the cosmos and all things within. I don't mean to appear unkind or - heaven forbid - counter-ageist, but Coxy doesn't look old enough to be an undergraduate let alone a fully-fledged Emeritus. To hear this cherub-cheeked academic reiterate the mechanisms of the universe was as jarring as political comment from a pram. The only time he seemed to fit the picture was when he was making sand-castles. Prodigy he may be, but plausible he ain't. This job needs a Time-Lord, or at least somebody who'd pass for one.Sadly, the only really informative content of the program was provided by his narration. And this often fronted a backdrop of largely computer-generated 'wonder'-ful imagery that bore little or no cogent association with what our boy-genius was actually saying.Worse still, those production chuckle-heads at the dear old BBC had incorporated a music track that practically drowned out his piping little voice with crashing cords of heavenly bombast. In order to avoid an evening of tinnitus it became necessary to turn the volume down to a level that rendered his narration almost inaudible. I gather The Firm received so many complaints about this particular issue that they actually intend to pump down the jam for future episodes. That in itself is a 'universal wonder', because if there's one thing the Wizards of Wood Lane are usually deaf to, it's the tastes of their viewers.The BBC can make absolutely top-drawer documentaries. They recently produced to little popular acclaim, a short series called 'Indian Hill Railways' which was an absolute corker. There wasn't a single wasted second. I've bought the DVD. 'Wonders Of The Universe' was as near to being the opposite as could be. It was ill-conceived, cheap, and as vacuous as deep space itself. It was a video coffee-table-book, with lots of startling, artistic imagery abutted by short captions of general information. It's the universe for kids. Meantime, grown-ups should stick with 'The Sky At Night'. It'll easily outlive this pap.