the audience applauded

So much average

Crappy film

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Trying to watch this TV show was like trying to watch a bad Christian rock video. There were tons of lingering shots of Brian Cox staring off into the distance looking at some "majestic" scenery, a lot of silhouettes of him posing as the sun or stars rise above him, multiple shots of him contemplating the universe or absorbing in some "fantastic" sight--all of this accompanied by horrible, drowning music. Half the time I was left wondering if it was actually a science show or not because of how little information was actually given. If you can stomach watching what I have just described, or know very little about the solar system or basic physics, then this show is for you; otherwise, stay clear or prepare to be both bewildered and angered by the fact that the BBC has produced such a mind-boggling awful show.

This extraordinary subject is made unpalatable by the grinning presenter Brian Cox. Brian Cox is annoying, unengaging and lacks the authority this subject needs.The production itself seems very excessive with Cox being flown to remote locations probably at very high expense to expound upon time and the universe. Every second shot seems to be a close-up or long-shot of the presenter. It is almost unbelievable that such a wondrous subject could be made so boring because of inept presentation, writing, editing and clichéd post-production sound design.

i haven't logged into IMDb for years but i thought i'd make a special exception to say how far off the mark i felt you (cinemapassion) were with you're wonders.. review. i think that you completely missed the point, you have reviewed it from a standpoint pointing out things that were missing from it but not really ever understanding what the program was. it seems you've reviewed it as if this were an essay or a report on new discoveries in the solar system which it isn't, it's a bbc production telling the vast majority of people in Britain a bit of information they probably didn't know about the solar system (our solar system which is why it didn't mention neighboring solar systems).in summary:1- most bbc factual entertainment programs are only commissioned for 5 shows which is why there is only a limited number of things covered, also brian cox chose to write what he wanted to make a program about, it's your subjectivity which is the problem if you were't happy with what you learned, and if you already knew it why bother watching the program?2- the lack of graphics was probably due to budgetary constraints or a creative choice, there wasn't really any massive need for more graphics and the fact things were shot on location (i feel was a good thing), was to show the massive similarities there are even on alien worlds!3- again it is your subjectivity which is the problem, i personally like brian cox, i think he's quite funny.4- i personally didn't have a problem with the editing, it was a documentary ON TV so why would images stay on the screen for prolonged times for someone to study them, read a book or watch it on DVD and discover the wonders of the pause button.5- that's just a mean comment and not objective critical analysis of the program, maybe a poor attempt at humour?in detail-1- there is some repetition but mainly between episodes or you may be confused with what the function of an introduction and credits are.in David attenborough documentaries the information is much more easy to grasp and doesn't require massive knowledge of physics and other subjects the majority of Britain has not much grasp of, that is why if you want to learn about the science become a scientist, not watch a bbc TV program.i've already covered why he didn't cover what you wanted him to cover so i will also point out that you didn't make the television program which is probably another reason why he didn't cover everything you wanted him to cover.and why didn't he cover any complex physics... (BBC PRIME TIME)2- well you've explained to yourself that it is because of the similarities why he travelled to look at similarities between alien worlds so again; your subjectivity = the problem and if you want to continue to complain about the lack of graphics why don't you go live in tron?3- this reader feels the reviewer may be a jilted ex the way they continue to attack the presenter and has still no grasp of the function of an informative program as opposed to a space probe.4- & 5- not a book, jilted lover.something on the oort cloud would have been good though..

I had high hopes for this series as it's been quite a while since I've seen a series with astronomy as its focus. Unfortunately I'm finding it tough going. I'm sure Brian Cox is a highly qualified scientist with a bunch of letters after his name, but he is definitely no David Attenborough. He does, however seem to think he is.Every second shot is of Cox in a new location, which probably cost the BBC a small fortune. All this in aid of presenting a documentary about .... the solar system.I found this distracting, excessive and indulgent. It makes Cox seem to be on a world tour financed by BBC. His style of speaking and delivery jar with the subject matter being presented.Ultimately I wish that the BBC had spent more on some nice CGI and the services of someone like Patrick Stewart, or any other actor with a good voice for narration to present this off camera rather than visiting deserts, waterfalls and the arctic circle.Having said that, the CGI used is very pretty. The science, while fairly basic, is explained well, though would have taken half the time had we not been looking at location shots instead of diagrams.