Wonders of the Universe (2011)

Such a frustrating disappointment

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Blistering performances.

In the same scope as Carl Sagan's Cosmos (1980), although not quite as comprehensive, Brian Cox's Wonders of the Universe (2011) along with Wonders of the Solar System (2010) attempt to place humankind in the scale of the universe and explore some of physical science's more meaningful discoveries. Cox actually gives homage to science vulgarization pioneer, Sagan, in Wonders of the Universe which I will review here. Although Cox does not tackle subjects like time travel in a daring and direct way like Sagan, he is an eager, likable, scientist who engages and teaches with appropriate awe and metaphors.This time Cox is aided by breathtaking HD cinematography, coupled with the technical prowess of eye-candy CGI and post-production, but the soul-searching subject remains as the core of the text to leave us in admiration, wonder and understandably a little perplexed. He explains the content and the context well and builds the viewer's knowledge along the way.The series as a whole is a success and perhaps bridges the 30-year gap since Sagan's landmark 13-part series. Episode 1 "Destiny" defines time and describes the beginning and the end of the universe in a near- complete and cathartic way. It explains entropy, puts our existence in perspective and sets the stage for further topics and questions of the series. The second episode "Stardust" deals with chemistry from its origin to the complex carbon-based human beings that we are and the wondrously diverse world around us. It explains stellar evolution and the births and deaths of stars. It shows how everything is connected and creates a case for the continuous recycling of matter in the Universe.Episode 3 "Falling" examines gravity, but is the lesser of the series. It does not fall completely short, but is bogged down by two experiments (weightlessness - or so-called zero g - airplane and g force accelerator) and less compelling screenplay and source material. "Messengers" ends the series on a high note and looks at light as a property, but also as a code for the history and intricacies of the universe. It also relates space and time, the Big Bang and present day quite harmoniously. It demystifies myths, shows infra-red, radio and micro waves as extensions of the light spectrum smoothly, examines the importance and apparition of eyes in evolution and leaves us with a sense of unity with the universe and ongoing inquisitiveness into our nature.All in all, the series succeeds in promoting science, awakening curiosity and giving deeper meaning to things we may take for granted. It is beautiful and thoughtful. It lacks perhaps some of the detailed observations a more science savvy audience may expect, but it gives an accessible solid foundation for one to build further knowledge and explore on his own.Wonders of Life (2013) will complete the "Wonders Of" series in a BBC co-production with China's CCTV. Also, Sagan's widow and co-writer will be involved in a new Fox version of Cosmos called "Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey" to be aired in 2014.May science live long and prosper.

I was shocked to find this "documentary" has almost 9 points on IMDb. This show is watchable if you have never seen any documentary about our universe before. In that case I can understand how this show got 9 points, its strong points are; beautiful scenery and space CGI mixed together with some jaw dropping numbers.If however you have seen ANY previous documentaries about space, you will be greatly disappointed. 70 percent of the screen time is taken up by our presenter Brian Cox, who for some reason thinks its a good idea to grin and walk around in slow motion in front of the sunlight. All the while talking about some of the most obvious scenarios in space.So if you have never seen a documentary about space before, this could be worth a watch. If however you are even MILDLY educated in physics/cosmology all this show has to offer is beautifully shot scenery (space and nature) with a very annoying commentator. The information was so stretched out, that I think they could have done a single episode instead of 4.

looks like the science guru's have decided to write reviews for this and slammed it. personally i have enjoyed the series. Yes it has fantastic vista's and glorious visuals , and probably not enough content for the want-to-be or actual geologists within each episode. It does however bring a visual feast and captures the feel of how i certainly used to look out at the stars at night as a child. Its warm, educational, and puts hair on the back of your neck. Brian Cox has a wonderful way of making you understand everything he is explaining (for us mortals that is)In my opinion i appreciate, to "aficionado's" this is child's play, but for the rest of us bored with reality TV , this is compulsive viewing.

This is a classic example of modern TV and documentaries in general. It is dumbed-down supreme. For the first episode, enough information that could be communicated by Patrick Moore in 15 minutes was strung-out and sometimes repeated for what seemed like 2 hours. Whilst - endorsing the current obsession with yoof - new-found favourite of the moment, Professor Brian Cox, brought his boyish enthusiasms and his bucket-and-spade to bear upon the cosmos and all things within. I don't mean to appear unkind or - heaven forbid - counter-ageist, but Coxy doesn't look old enough to be an undergraduate let alone a fully-fledged Emeritus. To hear this cherub-cheeked academic reiterate the mechanisms of the universe was as jarring as political comment from a pram. The only time he seemed to fit the picture was when he was making sand-castles. Prodigy he may be, but plausible he ain't. This job needs a Time-Lord, or at least somebody who'd pass for one.Sadly, the only really informative content of the program was provided by his narration. And this often fronted a backdrop of largely computer-generated 'wonder'-ful imagery that bore little or no cogent association with what our boy-genius was actually saying.Worse still, those production chuckle-heads at the dear old BBC had incorporated a music track that practically drowned out his piping little voice with crashing cords of heavenly bombast. In order to avoid an evening of tinnitus it became necessary to turn the volume down to a level that rendered his narration almost inaudible. I gather The Firm received so many complaints about this particular issue that they actually intend to pump down the jam for future episodes. That in itself is a 'universal wonder', because if there's one thing the Wizards of Wood Lane are usually deaf to, it's the tastes of their viewers.The BBC can make absolutely top-drawer documentaries. They recently produced to little popular acclaim, a short series called 'Indian Hill Railways' which was an absolute corker. There wasn't a single wasted second. I've bought the DVD. 'Wonders Of The Universe' was as near to being the opposite as could be. It was ill-conceived, cheap, and as vacuous as deep space itself. It was a video coffee-table-book, with lots of startling, artistic imagery abutted by short captions of general information. It's the universe for kids. Meantime, grown-ups should stick with 'The Sky At Night'. It'll easily outlive this pap.