British author Arthur C. Clarke's sci-fi is especially interested in humans evolving in response to meetings with alien intelligences and this story is no exception. It bears some resemblance to "2001" and those other "Odyssey" stories. I have not read the book (and surprise myself by being unaware of it), but it should be noted that this is another of those Clarke short story then long story issues, which means that the first ideas behind what we see here emerged as long ago as in 1946. That's obviously an interesting date, and one in which the potential of the human species to generate extreme misery was writ large. In this TV version, we move forward to the present day, but the world of 2015 is no picnic either, is it?From what I see of the descriptions of Clarke's novel, this 2015 Syfy offering from Brit Matthew Graham seems reasonably faithful to it, so in some sense we can rest assured that we are looking at high-quality science-fiction ideas actually originating from that genre's golden age. So how then do the makers manage with bringing it to the screen?Those watching the three-part miniseries will first and foremost note how everything keeps changing in it. The timespan covered here is a long one, and the three episodes witness the coming and going of key characters and - in keeping with the "evolutionary" theme - our ideas about what we're witnessing are entirely different by the time the curtain falls - as it were. Wonderfully, by the way, we Brits who love our great national composer Ralph Vaughan Williams to bits get to see just how much store should be set by his wonderful piece "The Lark Ascending" - a genius choice that matches with where the plot has come to in every possible way! Presume this is a directorial touch - and many thanks for it, Matthew!The series also ends where it begins, so in some sense is one giant flashback - though happily we are pretty much unaware of that for the entire time.Definitely, the peak achievement comes with the end of episode 1, when our unending misgivings about how utopian the utopia being shaped on Earth really is, seem to get their full vindication, and give specific corporeal form to what has so far only been the (often witty as well as calm, seductive and wise) voice of Charles Dance's Karellen. This is by far the best-known face here (in a way!), and this was an inspired choice. Other actors are mainly unknowns and their achievements here are more limited than that of Dance, and varied. One of those many aforementioned important-but-in-fact-entirely-expendable characters is that of Hugo Wainwright, as played by Colm Meaney, who narrowly avoids caricature to have his character do the necessary from the point of view of the story ... before being finished off.The lead roles played by Mike Vogel and Osy Ikhile are a bit forgettable, but that is inevitable in a film (and previous book?) whose idea is stronger than any of its characters - except Karellen, of course. This kind of approach gives the series a very specific feel of shifting sands that is entirely personified by our feelings (and those of the Earth) for Overlord (in fact one of many Overlords) Karellen. First we fear him, then welcome him, then are terrified of him, then think he's better than he looks, then fear again, then feel somehow happy when a human being abandons his own life to save the all-too-mortal alien, who later appears less and less all-powerful, and is ultimately seen to be in a less favourable position than members of the human species (or at least the children there of). It's a kind of rollercoaster that has its charms, and most of them I'm not spoiling here at all.In filming, we see homage paid to Close Encounters, Independence Day, Children of Men, The Midwich Cuckoos, Falling Skies and a great many more, and it's quite possible that newish watchers in 2015 will have no awareness of that heritage. For me it was OK, though some might be critical. In story terms, you may well end up thinking - oh no, not that idea again! Indeed, Star Trek for one drew on several of the key concepts here (e.g. about how perfect worlds might be too perfect), but Clarke's 1946 obviously predated that, as it predated a great many now-familiar sci-fi steadfasts. And any threads that we followed with foreboding - that this is not right, that humankind was not supposed to be like this - eventually get written over, as - in true Clarke style - the ending is actually optimistic as much as pessimistic, though it requires the abandonment of all we know and hold dear - except of course "The Lark Ascending", a reminder that our crude, rough-and-ready world of war and greed also creates beautiful things that presumably touch and inspire even the universal consciousness of the cosmos, should this creation of the book and film actually exist out there anywhere. The irony is of course that we would take the beauty we do create and have for granted, were it not so strongly contrasted with humankind's capacity for messing things up. Below us the chimps, above us the angels and - as Star Trek made clear - what we have is something special, however bad it may look. But Arthur C. Clarke got to this idea first, and those who watch this worthwhile version of "Childhood's End" should bear that heritage in mind.

If you read the novel (I've done it three times) and you expect the miniseries to be a fair adaptation, by all means skip it --or maybe watch it with a null expectation of accuracy. The series goes from good to mediocre to bad and, at the very end, good again. The characters are much more developed than the ones in the novel as the screenwriter gave them plausible lives, not the cardboard hulls in the novel. The love stories, though kitsch, are moving enogh to be justified, even if only as filler stuff as they add little to the plot. The acting and direction are above mid-level and -last but not least, the CGI is very good. On the minus side, it's a pale shadow of the original tale and -as many have said- completely off from the premises and arguments of it. ¬¬¬¬¬¬ OTOH, if you haven't read the novel, jump into the miniseries with a clean slate and I'm sure you won't consider it a waste of time. Then you can read the novel and enjoyi it immensely, having a vivid image of some of the descriptions that Clarke left vague. I got it on a DVD and helped me through a boring home-locked sunday. I'm glad I did it even if many things deviate from the novel, which I last read some six years ago and still have fresh.

The beginning is pretty good as the alien invasion is visually quite impressive. But then the talking begins and goes on and on and on without saying anything. And then it goes on some more.SciFy took a 225 page paperback and blew it up into a three-part, five and a half hour miniseries. Heavy portentous music plays throughout letting us know something BIG is about to happen. But it's not until nearly 4 hours in before anything does.Whether you think the ending is profound or jejune will depend upon your worldview. For me, it just showed the utter emptiness facing mankind without a Creator who loves and sustains them...

...transformed into a mind numbing series of epic proportions!What a mess, what a train wreck of a TV series!To start with, Clarke's book is one of those overrated books. I never understood why so much fuss about it. The book starts with a bang and then fizzles slowly up to one of the most anti-climatic endings in Scifi history, it is meandering story with some stupid things thrown into the story (e.g. the Ouija board).The series, on the other hand is simply tedious, boring with as little scifi as possible. It is too talky, too focused on interpersonal relationships, on the "human side" of things and all that usual blablabla about uninteresting humans and their uninteresting lives.Watching it is the equivalent of a very very heavy Thanksgiving meal followed by your Uncle Bob and the slide show of his latest vacation in Cleveland, Ohio.One episode of Childhood's End is a perfect cure for insomnia, three of them is a life-threatening central nervous system depressant.