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.

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.

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!

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