It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I've been a fan of Gerry Anderson for many years. And while I didn't appreciate the subtleties of UFO until I was an adult, Space:1999 was just a bad show from beginning to end. I blame the American end for this. Had the Anderson's retained full control as they did previously, it might have been watchable. The first season has bland, overthought stories (although the one with Christopher Lee is the best of the series), while the second put all logic aside for action and making Maya the main character, her shape-shifting abilities nearly always saving the day. While Landau and Bain are decent actors, they both seemed to phone in their performances. This show is just all SFX, and very rarely story.

Summer 1975, Sac State, otherwise known as CSU or "College Greens", the second of Sacramento's Star Trek conventions is held, and I'm there. I sit up in the theatre and witness the blooper reel, the costume contest, the trivia show challenge.Then the MC says that there was a Space 1999 convention next door, and there are lots of "boos", at which point the MC then states that all of six people showed up, at which point the theatre erupts in laughter.I only knew Space 1999 by reputation, but I tried to watch it a few years after that convention, and I really couldn't get into it. I tried several times more, but in spite of what I would characterize as better special effects and very high production values in terms of costumes, sets and so forth (acting still sides with Trek), the show didn't grab me like Trek, even though the show was in sync stylistically with the 1970s. I tried watching it again and again, but it never grabbed my attention, and after all these years I finally know why. The show, for all of the money ITC and the BBC dumped into it, because the sets and SFX are really top notch for the period, there is a lack of scientific voracity that Star Trek had that Space 1999 lacked. Trek really attempted to explain what it was that Kirk and crew were facing by way of the characters talking and discovering the nature of the challenge or threat. Space 1999 has some of that, but is not as thorough, and even though Biehn as the doctor, Landau as the Commander, and the science head Victor, give us an audience friendly experience, we're still left wondering about the pragmatic details of the base, and to this end how the stories will be resolved with the base's capabilities (of which we are ignorant).And watching the series again the writing isn't quite complete. There are some loopholes in the plots. In short, the show is not as smart as it could have been.This is really puzzling because Doctor Who, another British sci-fi show that was campy in both the SFX and overall production values department, had extremely strong stories that made sense and were well vetted. The drama in Space 1999 assumes that all of mankind's problems are psychological, and I think most people, including very smart sci-fi TV viewing audience, know that that just isn't so.Still, the show is a solid production. I really hated to bring in the classic Trek-ver-Space1999 rivalry in this review, but I believe it important to point out why it was that Space 1999 never reached the kind of legendary status that Trek did. Space 1999's issues stem from the start; there's little to no explanation of how the moon-base is going to survive and thrive; no explanation of industry; no explanation of how food is generated, no explanation of how they keep themselves stocked with a seemingly endless supply of Eagles (spacecraft). The idea being that the presentation will outweigh the plot and story shortcomings.They don't, and so the Trek snobbery pervaded for many many years.Again, re-watching it in my middle aged years, I'm still not as forgiving as I was way back in 1975. And the reason is that where Doctor Who was written by people with a science and criminology or law enforcement background (same for classic Star Trek), this show was written strictly by psychologists, again with the idea that all our problems are "within ourselves". Again, that's not so, QED, and as such Space 1999 falls a few shades of being a really good sci-fi program.As such, in my opinion, this does make it a bit of a chore to watch. It's interesting as a nostalgia blast, and it is interesting to look at, but the writing hasn't changed any.Make of that what you will.

"Space: 1999" could best be described as a British version of "Star Trek." It was comparable to "Star Trek" in that it featured a crew which visited different worlds each week and experienced various adventures along the way. However, it differed from "Star Trek" in terms of premise. In "Star Trek," the crew traveled to different worlds in a ship which traveled faster than the speed of light because of warp drive. In "Space: 1999," the crew of Moonbase Alpha traveled to different star systems as a consequence of the moon having been blasted out of Earth orbit because of an accidental explosion."Space: 1999" was easily one of the most visually impressive science fiction series from the 1970's. The special effects were far above average by 1970's standards. The sets and costumes were among the best to be featured in a science fiction series. Overall, the series' visuals appeared to have been inspired by the movie, "2001: A Space Odyssey," which had been released only a few years prior to the launch of this series.One of the show's frequent shortcomings was its weak science. For example, the explosion in the first episode explained the moon's departure from Earth orbit; but in some respects, the series never fully explained how the moon and Moonbase Alpha were able to reach other star systems within short time periods without exceeding the speed of light. In another example, Maya's shape-shifting abilities introduced a number of science and logic issues. Weak science was common in 1970's science fiction television shows.The show underwent a few changes between seasons one and two. The show's atmosphere in season one was often much darker compared to that of season two. The costumes and sets were also slightly different between the two seasons. In some regards, the show's execution seemed to be stronger in season one than in season two.Overall, "Space: 1999" was an enjoyable series to watch. Although the show's science might not have always withstood close scrutiny, the show was still filled with memorable moments and unforgettable imagery. When the show's science failed, style generally triumphed over substance. "Space: 1999" was a fun and atmospheric science fiction series.

On September 13th, 1999, the Earth has stored nuclear waste on the Moon. Moonbase Alpha with a colony of over 300 is placed in grave danger. Magnetic radiation builds up on the base causing the Moon to blast out of the Earth's orbit, flying out into deep space. The moon colony is forced to face the unknown adventures in space on their moon, coming across strange new life forms and strange civilizations.Silly science inaccuracies aside, the acting is better than average for any series in that era. The effects are also quite better than most offered on television in that whole decade. Even "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", that came out a years after this one, didn't have much better effects or plots. If you are not all discriminating about pseudo science, watch some Space:1999. I consider some of the episodes such as "Earthbound" to be a lot better than most of the original "Star Trek" series. The other space operas I equate this show with would be "Battlestar Galactica", "Lost in Space", "UFO" (same creator), and "Farscape". All held their fair share of viewers back in the day.