Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Memorable, crazy movie

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

they did obviously not choose the stories for their content, but for their ability to be filmed in not much more than one room and without any special effects. virtually every outer limits episode is more interesting than any of these. also every science fiction short story i ever read (and they are not a few) was better than these episodes.grabbing any random science fiction anthology and converting it into to a mini series of this kind would have given a much much better result.what was stephen hawking thinking? i consider him intelligent. probably mo-ney mo-ney mo-ney.

There is a reason why 'Masters of Science Fiction' didn't last a full season when first trotted out on ABC.There's nothing in the collection of short stories badly translated to television that the original 'Outer Limits' and scant few Sci-Fi oriented episodes of 'Twilight Zone' from the 1960s didn't deliver with infinitely better precision.'Masters of Science Fiction' more closely resembled the consistently bleak and down beat, over all inferior episodes of the re-vamped 1995 'Outer Limits'.Though 'Masters of Science Fiction' no doubt boasts better talent and larger budgets. The screen writers, directors and cast should remember that when trying to deliver a 'message'. The subtlety of a feather works far more favorably than bludgeoning with a brick!

OK then... it says "hosted by professor stephen hawking" and then hawking says the following thing i'd like to quote; "From the very beginning, we have wondered how life began, what our purpose is and where we are headed.We have struggled to understand time, matter, the infinite universe, who we are and if we are alone. Great minds have imagined the most wonderful and the most terrifying answers to these questions.We invite you to join us on this great expedition" sounds promising, no? when it comes from hawking? well, not. first episode is a memento rip off, you know the movie right? second episode is about some alien cocoon which at the end of the thing grows wings and flies away? yeah, that's what i call science fiction. then third episode is about this bio-robot of sorts designed to walk on landmines miraculously begin to like Christmas songs for no reason or whatsoever. your usual robots are people too thing if you ask me...hawking calling these stuff "wonderful and the most terrifying" ? boy, maybe i was thinking a bit too highly about him.

It's not different by much, except it's not nearly as good. The pre-show hype from ABC was that it was the best series since the TWILIGHT ZONE. They must have been writing that hyperbole with their heads in the Twilight Zone.The narrator is Stephen Hawking, using his quasi-mechanical voice, but otherwise just like an Outer Limits episode. That isn't terrible in itself, but certainly not original.The opening and titles sequences are modernized with fancy graphics, etc, otherwise they are similar. Narration ends with a warning or social observation, similar to Outer Limits, yet more heavy-handed.The first episode shown was obviously the program's producers and writers attempt at topical political statement, and as such it was ham-fisted and preachy, and ludicrous as well, and about as topical as the Berlin wall. The recent Outer Limits series also had a political bent, yet was often more subtle and earnest in presentation.This initial episode quickly became predictable, and ultimately boring, and showed a surprisingly limited range for actor Sam Waterston, who easily can be much better. Judy Davis was good here yet not nearly as good as she can be.Don't believe the ABC promo baloney, and remind yourself that this is the same network that trashed Kolchak:The Night Stalker with that loser remake of a fine series.Episode 2: Viewing of the second episode ultimately left the same impression as the first. While initially promising, and a much better use of actors and a wider, a more involved setting, this episode succumbed to the same preachy, heavy-handed political dogma that marred the first one. In fact, this episode was less subtle, more absurd and more strident in it's denouncement of US policy, as well as naive and unrealistic about other nations' motives. (My more detailed commentary is available under the specific episode title, and those who wish to vote negatively for political reasons should do so there)Episode 3: A social statement of intrinsic value, yet not truly interesting nor captivating. Did not dislike it, but did not find that it really captured effectively the modern pop-culture mentality it mocked. The same material has been handled better in other series, but of episodes 1, 2 and 3, this one had more worthiness. Unfortunately, a great Twilight Zone was being shown on another channel about a man who is becoming "nobody" to all around him, and that amplified the weaknesses of this series.Episode 4: The best of the four episodes takes the series to 'where it has not been before', meaning a decent and above average effort. Maintains the emphasis on commentary, this time it is more social than political, and is much less strident and dogmatic, and hence plays well. This rather thoughtful and well-acted episode causes me to raise my overall vote by two points. The only problem is that the ending is rather vague, and could have been more distinct, but it's a satisfactory episode regardless. The best was saved for last.