Really Surprised!

A lot of fun.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

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.

If you love the typical Hollywood liberal agenda then this is a sci-fi series for you. Includes all the typical non-sense. America is bad, the president are corrupt despots who want to destroy the world.If you would like something new and refreshing and thinking outside the box, then pass on it.Stephen Hawking may be a brilliant scientist and that may be because he doesn't watch any TV. If he did he would know that this type of material has done before a thousand times and there is nothing about it that is masterful. This serious could of had great potential if the America bashing was left out of it. Shame on you Dr.

Masters of Science Fiction, now showing on ABC, takes short stories from award-winning Sci-Fi authors and adapts them into hour-long television episodes. It advertises itself as a successor to The Twilight Zone.Twilight Zone and Outer Limits, in their day, had a similar format, but I'm not sure how devoted they were to using pre-existing material. It seems to me that many of the episodes for TZ or OL were written _for_ the show rather than _before_ the show. Herein lies what may be the problem for this series: Adaptation. Think of the problems people have when their favorite novels get turned into horrid screenplays, and make those problems TV-sized.I happen to actually know the author of the first episode's short story (John Kessel, one of my professors), and I have not had a chance to hear his take on it. But from someone who is familiar with his writing style (although I had not read this particular story), I can say honestly that I saw traces of Kessel's style here. I imagine that the story he wrote was quite good; after all, the _story_ of the first episode was quite good.But the lens of adaptation botched it for me. Acting was heavy-handed. Background music was over-dramatic and annoying. The teleplay made the "BIG SECRET" try and shock the audience, rather than letting the truths of the setting become a course of discovery.On a side note, as much as Stephen Hawking is a genius, he would be a much more comprehensible narrator if his narration were subtitled. He is an appropriate choice, but his mechatronic voice is terribly difficult to understand.If my fellow commenters happen to view this episode again, I would encourage them to not see it in a political lens. I don't want to give away any spoilers, but what is shown in "A Clean Escape" is not a Liberal/Conservative issue, but a Moral one. Don't assume that this is some ABC Liberal propaganda or nonsense of that kind.I reserve some hope for the rest of this series. The first episode disappointed me, but ABC can make excellent shows. They can also make terrible shows.6/10

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.