nrice-07604 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.

ThurstonHunger ...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 Hunger7/10

percyld 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.

Movie Nuttball 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!