Customer Reviews:
 The Monsters look real October 13, 2006
6 out of 6 found this review helpful
This may be the shortest chapter of the walking with... series, but it shows very good how life was before the dinosaurs. The animals seem here, look more realistic than in any other part of the series. I will liked more if the program lasted more than three chapters; but I still liked the way it was done, so I can't give this program less than five stars.
 Very Good but Very Brief January 16, 2006
26 out of 27 found this review helpful
Tim Haines and BBC have really spoiled us with their work on Earth’s prehistoric life. Both “Walking with Dinosaurs” and “Walking with Beasts” were models of an almost perfect balance between hard science and popular entertainment. With the bar set that high, a minor disappointment is inevitable, regarding this latest forage into the planet’s evolutionary past.
Let’s put the record straight: the “Monsters” series enjoys the same high standards of craftsmanship and educating-entertaining value as its predecessors. The species chosen to illustrate the drama of life’s evolution, are quite representative of the surrounding fauna, the “stars” of their time. Their stories are well constructed and develop in a seamless manner from one period to the next. And the “intermissions” with the time-clock ticking and the species changing before our eyes, give a very good picture of life’s continuity and the marvels of evolution.
But we would like to have more, much more. Why not having a six-episode series for the six periods of the palaeozoic era? The answer is obvious: costs constraints. That realization does nothing to allay our hunger. Sure there are enough scientific data to enable the series’ creators to construct complex and marvelous stories for each period. And to prehistoric life enthusiasts, Cambrian arthropods and Devonian fish (where is Dunkleosteus?) are as fascinating as Permian mammal-like reptiles.
Furthermore, the series, following the tradition of the “Walking with...” sagas, creates dramatic stories by presenting fascinating animal behaviors which I suspect lack solid scientific justification. Educated guesses, an indispensable part of paleontology, can push the “poetic license” card a bit too far, even for non-scientists. I understand of course the principles of inference, but I think that they overdid it this time
Despite the above grudges, the series manages in three episodes to convey the richness and fascination of life’s evolution on Earth, for the first 300 million years of its existence. The animals’ CGI are usually of the highest quality, but unfortunately for the computer guys, they already have spoiled us and we expect nothing less. And a measly 90 minutes of material manages to create many regrets for what might have been, if the BBC people gave it the time and money necessary.
 Nice idea but.... January 12, 2006
5 out of 12 found this review helpful
It is a good idea to look at life on Earth before the dinosaurs, however, I am not so sure that having Kenneth Brannagh deliver the narration in the style of 'The fight for the domination of the Earth had begun' was an entirely good idea. I did not feel that this was up to the standard of 'Beasts' and 'Dinosaurs', although the special effects were as you might expect, very good.
An impressive lay view of prehistoric life. January 5, 2006
8 out of 10 found this review helpful
It is the case with all natural history programming that an element of "sexing-up" will always take palce. If a triceratops for instance was shown eating all day instead of fighting for territory, nobody would watch. The BBC is usually quite good at avoiding this angle as much as possible and in this case seems to strike the same good, tried and tested balance. As usual the visual effecs are stunning and the information delivered well. In regards to the earlier comment, I didn't get the impression from my university that thsi was ever designed to be a voyage thorough history overlooking the evolution of vertebrates, simply an eye-opener on what was previously tought to be less exciting than the more obvious choice of dinosaurs. I would recommend this to any young palaeontologist's out there or anyone even faintly interested in the amazing world that existed millions of years before the dinosaurs came along.
Good but disappointing December 11, 2005
27 out of 29 found this review helpful
After the excellent 'Walking with Dinosaurs' and 'Walking with Beasts', I hoped that the BBC would make a follow up series regarding the period in history before the dinosaurs. Hence I was pleased to see 'Walking with Monsters' coming to our screens. Although previous entries in the 'Walking with...' series and Nigel Marven's entries have come under a fair amount of speculation and criticism, I do think that overall they are good productions. To be frank, 'Walking with Monsters' lets the side down. My complaint about the show is not the special effects; as usual they are great. What I do think is very wrong about this series is the fact that it misses out completely a few key events in the evolution of vertebrate life which are crying out to be mentioned. The first being the origin of all vertebrate life. All we see to start off with is the so-called first fish. Where did he come from??? Secondly and, personally from my point of view most crucially, there is no mention of the evolutuion of fish into tetrapods. We just see the fish grow legs and become an early amphibian and that's it. Surely this is worth talking about!!! Next what about the plants. The previous shows did make small comments concerning the evolution of plant life. Here they don't really get a look in. One of the ways the BBC could have got around some of these issues would have been to make a longer series. Previous outings have had a six episode run. Why is 'Walking with Monsters' only a three episode run? Surely this series deserved a longer run, especially considering the immense time scale, the longest of all the 'Walking with...' series so far, that it covers. For example the first episode is the worst; covering about 200 million years in 30 minutes!!!! Overall good in places and entertaining but on the other hand also very disappointing too.
|
