Childhood's End (2015) User Reviews

Great Start, OK Finish

[christian94 · 7/10 · 17 January 2018]

I have read and loved the book long time ago so was excited to see this production. It is uneven and has a bit of missed potential but still worth a viewing.

Part 1 - 8/10 Has all the elements of good sci-fi and took a decent take on the marvelous Arthur C Clarke novel. It had philosophical issues, clever dialogue ("you are my world'), situations and good visual effects. It had both emotional resonance and distance

Part 2 - 7/10 Starts brilliantly with the boy now being an astrophysicist and the appropriately chosen Imagine song (Eva Cassiy version of John Lennon masterpiece) with the visual montage and narration at the beginning that are as idyllic as the utopia it portrays. It falters with the introduction of a new family and their problem child. It focuses too much on religion and starts to become too much like the Exorcist, Stigmata, Da Vinci Code or any movie too focused on Devil/Evil parables and paranormal. The bond between the astrophysicist and his friend is great and their acting. The setting in he South Africa party is also a good ambiance. The Overlord powers are downplayed here versus part 1 when their power is almost infinite. The line that humans are deceiving themselves (in answer to the part 2 title) is priceless! Some good moments to be had with a few faux pas.

Part 3 - 7/10 Has a good relationship angle between the astrophysicist and his girlfriend as well as his/their journey. The love triangle with the main character continues to be well written and acted. The ending is strong in the way that it is daring and unexpected, however the whole children aspect is played out rather poorly in my view. A fitting ending but that could have been done much better with more dramatic tension and better screenplay. The last video-recording of the scientist feels out of place and scope. Pop tarts? Pop art?

Almost.

Two things

[petermason-30023 · 7/10 · 22 December 2015]

Two things: 1. The weird hallucinatory sequence in the hotel for the dying "prophet/hero" was a shout-out to Kubrick's 2001. Am I the only person that saw this? It was the same deal of a guy looking at himself, as he was dying. That was for me the creepiest (Kubrick was always creepy) and most effective part of 2001.

2. I am old. I read the book when I was young. It was great, but now the meaning has changed. The theme of children evolving and surpassing their parents is much more relevant to me now as my daughter reaches adulthood, and nonchalantly kicks my ass, as well she should. As our technology evolves to the point that our youngsters really could blow us geezers off and go wild with a person/machine evolution, don't you wish that Charles Dance (or Tywin Lannister) was around to help us to deal with it?

Forget the aliens. We have met the enemy, or friend, you decide. It is us. I have to think that Clarke was thinking about this.

This was from SyFy Channel?

[NavyOrion · 8/10 · 24 December 2015]

Not a perfect adaptation by any means, but this is head and shoulders above the "Sharknado"-type schlock that the SyFy Channel usually produces.

It's been decades since I read the source novel, so I cannot speak to a lot of specifics, but the changes I did notice seemed unimportant, if a bit arbitrary; the human representative is now a random farmer, rather than the UN Secretary General, for example. However, I do know that this adaptation evokes much the same "feel" that I recall from Clarke's famous novel.

Those who have not read the book may think that one infamous "surprise" (the appearance of the aliens, which I won't spoil here) is typical of SyFy cheesiness, but you have to recall that in 1958, when the novel was published, this would have been a relatively original twist, especially in a society that was much more religious than our current one. (Incidentally: kudos to the makeup man.)

The criticism some have made about the slow pacing of the story is valid; however, I would prefer to think of it more as "patient" than simply slow. This certainly COULD have been tightened up to two episodes, but losing some of the emotional scenes (not to mention the gorgeous music with which they were scored) would have been a shame.

This is not "Independence Day" or "Star Wars." When you are in the mood for that kind of escapist sci-fi, "Childhood's End" will not satisfy you. But it was very well done for what it is: a thoughtful reverie from the mind of one of the golden-age masters.

I like a good monster-of the week movie as much as the next guy (maybe more) but this new mature side also looks good on you, SyFy Channel. Congrats, and keep it up.

This is a vision of first encounter.

[robertemerald · 7/10 · 2 April 2017]

This is a vision of a first encounter. In that the show succeeds brilliantly. If one were only to watch the first episode then one could be quite satisfied. I was. It was foolish of me to want the second episode so soon afterward. The second episode starts meandering into the realms of predictable, that is, all is not what it seems. The third episode does not satisfy. The viewer is left wondering why all sorts of things are happening and it's a huge why all the way to the end. It needed science to back the fiction, to join the dots, and for me, as a lover of science fiction, it fell short.

I think it's an important compliment to the overall canon of science fiction shows out there, after all, it was originally quite a good book. The photography, editing, acting and so forth, including the effects, all are done extremely well. There is a love story as well but we never understand how that is relevant except in a very loose way if one compares the fate of the lovers to the fate of the world. Again, a huge why? In fact fate, as a theme, seems here to be very close to what others would see as plot holes. I understand the higher message the show is aiming for and it's OK as science fiction, but it was cruel to expand what is basically a poetic idea suitable for a paperback into over three hours of visual drama. Two hours with less irrelevant flashbacks and a brave stab at an evolutionary science explanation for that 'why' would have improved everything.

I'm not in agreement with those that say this show didn't follow the book and that is what is missing. I read the book at least forty years ago but it couldn't have been all that bright as I only remembered the initial theme, the arrival.

It's definitely not a rip off, but I think there are lessons here. It's not far off the mark and if the people behind this production move on to another science fiction theme then I certainly will want to see it .

Thought provoking mini-series from a book that deserved to see the screen

[hyprsleepy · 5 January 2016]

This mini-series by the SyFy channel is from the book Childhood's End by Author C. Clarke. I have never read the book and I think that's why I liked the show so much. I LOVED it. (Most of the negative reviews are from those who read the book.)

Once I heard of the changes I realized why they occurred. They had Ricky be a humble farmer instead of a big shot diplomat because it would make him seem more like a Jesus like character. The emotional mining and discovery that Ricky did about himself and his feelings over his ex were incredibly intense and well done and not delved into in the book. Presumably this was because Clarke wasn't very good with the ladies and didn't care much for romance nor feelings and was more of a technical details kind of guy. The reasons why the children evolved in the book are stupid and make no sense. I know I might catch some flak for that but I'm sorry fanboys. What we know about evolution and diet and adaptation just come together to disprove his theory. I'm glad the show writers didn't go with what was in the book because it would have made everything laughable.

Right before I watched this I was talking to my friends about the validity of communism. Questions arose as to what would be the purpose of life without a way to feel progress? If you are always in one class and there's no going up or down forever, how would that make people feel? If they didn't have to work, would they? Would people go crazy? How would this affect our creativity in terms of art or science? Pain and suffering are necessary parts of the puzzle when driving creativity and efficiency and growth. If you're happy and content why change anything?

These questions are all discussed in the show and more.

I freaking loved Charles Dance as Karellen. He was amazing and always is. The effects for him were mostly make-up and not special effects which I found impressive and made his facial expressions much more realistic looking and expressive.

This goes in my Top 10 of the Best Science Fiction shows/movies I've ever seen. You need to see this. Caution: It is depressing and the scene at the end with the song made my heart want to break into a million pieces while I silently cried inside, but it is so good.

One of my favorite scenes was where the head of the Freedom League scoffs and accuses the aliens of pretending they want to "Buy the World a Coke". I think of that now every time I see a Coke ad.

The use of a Twitter campaign and TV ads that comically resemble political smear campaigns were hilarious and awesome. If you like dark humor and have sado-masochistic tenancies in your TV viewing then you need to check this out!

Missed opportunity to be a masterpiece.

[icouldbetheone-17685 · 6/10 · 16 December 2015]

I've read Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's end so many years ago that I've managed to forget about it till this show came out. I was excited to see how this novel will be converted to television, but i've managed to contain my excitement, because the producing network was Syfy, a network known to me for it's mediocre half baked endeavours.

Alas, I was not wrong. It's like the producers were afraid of taking risks, so they used a well tested formula to generate a bunch of generic characters with generic backstories. Resulting in a parade of melodrama infused into Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's end universe, it almost feels like a soap opera with spaceships.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh, it's a decent enough show, if it weren't an interpretation of a beloved novel, I might have even thought it was pretty good. Unfortunately the producer's lack of creativity made it hard for me to enjoy.

Good but could have been much better

[fsvids · 8/10 · 22 December 2015]

I loved the book back then when I first read it, and still remember how impressed I was. So was looking forward to watching the series.

My overall impression is - it should have been a movie. The first episode works, next two seem a bit dragged out.

Whoever wrote the plot didn't make a good job out of it because everything is patchy and I think for those who are not familiar with the book it may be hard to follow what is going on. Main negative is unnecessary romantic lines that are done just to fill time. And the message the book tries to send get lost somewhere in the process...

At the plus side, cast is great, visual effects are OK, there are many wonderful moments, 'Imagine' sequence is wonderfully done, and soundtrack is good all around. It's obvious filmmakers put a lot of thought in it and it shows.

So overall I recommend to watch it, but probably read the book first. It's better anyway.

interesting ideas but lacks realism

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 16 December 2015]

It's a 3-part mini-series on Syfy of Arthur C. Clarke's novel. Aliens have arrived on earth. They compel worldwide peace and a new world order while keeping their identity a secret. Ricky Stormgren (Mike Vogel) is taken onto the spaceship to become the human liaison to Karellen, the alien Supervisor for Earth. Others more concerned call them the Overlords. Finally Karellen reveals himself to be a Satan lookalike. The second part has human submitting to a Golden Age of carefree living. The third part has the world taking strange turns.

Part of the problem is the epic scale of the story. It is so vast with ideas so big that it doesn't always feel human size. The characters are sometimes overwhelmed. Any narrative is subjugated by the need to hit the plot points. There is a simplification of human nature in this story which leaves this world feeling a bit fake. It still has the interesting ideas and it is executed with competence.

Wow.

[lmahesa · 9/10 · 15 December 2015]

I just watched the first episode, and, all I can say is 'Wow'.

First of all, the story is sixty years old. Many of the 'tropes' came from this story, so accusing it of being a blatant ripoff of x, y and z isn't going to work.

Second of all, Syfy made this. I had to double check. Seriously. This combined with "The Expanse" hopefully marks a shift towards good... no, great, content in Syfy's future.

As for the story? Epic, heartwarming, goosebump raising. Think back fifty years to a time of optimism for the future. Put yourself in that mindset, leave your jaded selves at the door and enjoy yourself for a short time.

A very watchable story

[peterfmodel · 7/10 · 19 August 2019]

This is a good adaptation of Arthur C. Clarke Childhood's End. Any flaws need to be placed at the feel of the original book as this mini-series attempts to follow the main points of the novel with reasonable accuracy. There are some changes, but it takes a re-read of the novel to confirm them and I must say the changes did not add anything to the story. But as I last read the novel in the late 70's, this did not bother me so much when I watched it. Now I have re-read the novel my opinion may be different, so my advice is don't read the novel until after you have seen this. My only major grip is with the original story as this evolution of the species does not feel right, especially he way it occurs. I understand the point Clarke was making and he was attempting to push the concept of change for the good of the species, but it jarred with me when I read the book and the same when I viewed this series. But putting that aside this series has great special effects and good acting and the wonderful dialog of Clarke, with that combination nothing could go wrong.

Arthur C. Clarke rewritten for the Lifetime channel

[Deep-Thought · 1/10 · 23 December 2015]

Old Arthur must be retching in his grave. They've taken his good hard science fiction and turned it into mush and ooey-gooey. But then, I should have known better than to expect Syfy would do justice to Childhood's End. Why did they EVEN bother? The original novel was published in 1953. Would younger viewers who haven't read it even be interested in a TV version? Because readers of the book, who would welcome one, may suffer severe intestinal distress watching this massive disappointment.

Clarke's original story is really unfilmable without modern CGI. You couldn't do justice to the Overlords and their home planet without it. So great, is this a miniseries using the latest CGI to be true to the story? No siree, bob. We want to make Childhood's End, but we're SYFY. So it'll be just like the book, but completely different.

Brilliant as the novel is, it was published in 1953, and so any adaptation for the screen would need a lot of updating. That's fine, but that's not what's happened here. The original plot has been mangled beyond recognition. The novel's characters are people of all ages and several nationalities, including Finnish, French, Scottish, Trinidadian, and South African. No, that won't do; our viewers won't IDENTIFY. So let's change ALL the characters into the demographic we're targeting: Earnest young and youngish Americans with personal problems, angst, and RELATIONSHIPS. We GOTTA give them RELATIONSHIPS. So we introduce a whole slew of touchy-feely subplots inhabited by new characters (all women, see below) and furthermore, they've gotta SUFFER, or it's boring. Never mind that this pushes Clarke's grand story of alien arrival and human transformation into the background while characters are busy emoting in the foreground. This is Arthur C. Clarke as rewritten by Shonda Rimes. Steak has been turned into Jello.

Clarke wrote "hard" science fiction. And his readers know that, for better or worse, practically all his stories are about men; women are usually subordinate characters, rarely of major importance. Clarke was great at the "beyond the infinite" stuff, but touchy-feely he most definitely was not. RELATIONSHIPS almost never advance Clarke's plots. If the producers wanted to introduce female characters into the story, they should have made some of the male characters women. That would have worked just fine. A principal character in the book, Rikki Stormgren, the 60-year-old Finnish Secretary General of the UN, is transformed into Ricky Stormgren, a 35-year-old Missouri farmer. Why? 'Cause 60-year-old Finns aren't sexy, that's why. The writers also gift Ricky with a dead first wife who comes back to him in Overlord-created visions, a live second wife who's not happy with the situation, infertility, and a fatal disease caused by exposure to Overlord technology. And when comes at last the death scene and you think that the maudlin is maxed out, they pile on more: Karellen suspends Ricky at the moment of death, and the whole thing drags on for minutes longer, so Ricky can mourn his dead wife all over again and have a last chat with Karellen, while ethereal Vienna Boys' Choir-type music plays. It really is that bad.

There is a lot of really annoying agonizing by people of faith that wasn't in the book; that's bad; but one of the female agonizers actually SHOOTS AND KILLS an Overlord; that's worse. And THEN, the Overlord is brought back to life through an act of sacrifice by one of the humans. Another character is brought back to life as well, AND healed of his paraplegia, in another treacly backstory that wasn't in the book. That character was at least in the original story, although again, he's almost unrecognizable, and of course in the film, he has a RELATIONSHIP. Just like Clarke's original novel, only completely different.

The Overlords do a lot of "Close Encounters" stuff that they never did in the book, where the manifestations of their power are much subtler and more interesting. Clarke's Overlords are much bigger than humans, at least 9 or 10 feet tall, black not red, and they have small wings because their home planet has much lower gravity than Earth (hence the remark about CGI above). In the book, we meet several Overlords; but in this TV version, there are only two: Karellen on Earth and Vindarten on the Overlord homeworld, because they couldn't get away with just one Overlord (if they could've, they would've). When you see the actors in full Overlord regalia, you know why: Making up and costuming more than two actors like that wasn't in the budget. Clarke brilliantly portrays Karellen as a being whose full mental powers are beyond human comprehension. He is wise, noble and always master of every situation. He never makes mistakes, never visits anyone in a barn, never says anything as stupid as "My bad," and never puts himself in physical jeopardy. On Syfy, Karellen doesn't act like a superbeing whose gifts approach the divine; as played by Charles Dance, he acts and talks like a weary English professor who has seen and heard everything and is just trying to hang on until retirement.

The climax and anticlimax are as badly botched as the rest of the piece, with the entire sequence on the Overlord homeworld – which admittedly would have been tough to do under any circumstances, but not impossible – cut out and replaced by a quick tete-a-tete with the Overmind, which is something that could never happen in the original. And the writers have replaced Clarke's words with some of the most banal dialogue you will ever hear on TV, and that's saying something.

This miniseries misses being a successful adaptation of Childhood's End by several light-years. Clarke aficionados must face the likelihood that no one will ever have both the will and the means to bring the real thing to any screen, large or small.

Science fiction meets religion meets the universe in an unlikely tale....

[s3276169 · 8/10 · 18 December 2015]

Science fiction meets religion meets the universe in an unlikely tale that is Childhoods End.

Based on the work of science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke this mini series melds notions of science and religion in a clever apocalyptic tale of human evolution.

Irrespective of whether you like Clarke's work (I personally find him a little too abstract at times) or not, this is a polished series. The premise is well established and the narrative, for the most part faithfully follows Clarke's imaginings.

I personally found this series oddly touching. It taps into the essence of what it means to be human. To be loved, to be remembered, to exist. The choice of cast is spot on. There are some very good actors who commit their talents to this series.

Is there a downside? This is one of those instances where it really depends who much you like or dislike Clarke's work. Unlike 2001 A Space Odyssey, which bored me to tears, this series kept my attention and held it. Its a very human drama as much as its science fiction.

I give this series an eight out of ten. You can make up your own mind.

A Slightly Better Than Average, "Dumbed-Down" Version of a Classic

[speedy-droid · 7/10 · 7 March 2016]

I had very high expectations for this movie/film/mini-series. I am a huge fan of "Classic" Science Fiction, and "Childhood's End" is my favorite Sci-Fi novel, Ever. I've been waiting 40 years to see this movie. I'm very pleased to have finally seen this story made into a film, and I did enjoy most of it. I found the first part/episode (of three parts/episodes) to be the most true to the original story. After that, the movie slid backwards a little, but not terribly so.

If you've read the book, and especially if you do enjoy the classic, more cerebral style of science fiction, you'll probably have mixed emotions about the movie. The film remains very true (not completely true) to the concept and basic plot of the movie. That was very important to me. I haven't watched a film adaptation of a classic Sci-Fi novel in almost 20 years... ever since I saw that ridiculous abomination, "Starship Troopers." I remember thinking, "I don't think the screenwriters or the director read the book"... and I was right. The director openly admitted that he never read the book. Other than ripping off the title and the names of the characters, "Starship Troopers" is completely unrelated to anything in the book. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when I quickly realized that "Childhood's End" was not similarly written and produced by individuals with IQs smaller than their shoe sizes.

If you watch this film thinking it's going to be "Star Wars" or post-Original Series "Star Trek", you're going to be severely disappointed. There's not a single Death Star, Laser, or Photon Torpedo in this movie. Go watch "Transformers 9, the Quest for More Explosions", instead.

The major differences, in my opinion, between the movie and the book are:

1) Personal/Romantic/Family relationships are more detailed in the film, and get a lot of "screen time." Clarke was never particularly good at character development... or maybe he just didn't think that it was necessary to his stories. In the film, there's a lot of time spent on relationship stuff, which is supposed to enhance the dramatic impact of the climax of the story, when the secret of the alien "invasion" is revealed.

2) A lot more attention is given to the Religious aspect of the story. Although the Christian God and The Devil are important concepts in the book, the movie ramps it up a bit.

3) Although it's only for a few moments, the movie gives the impression that the Overlords are directly involved in the evolution of Humanity. The book depicts them as observers and caretakers only. In the book, Humanity is ready to evolve, and the Overlords are on Earth simply to prevent Humanity from interfering with its own evolution, and to observe the process of that evolution. The Overlords, in the book, are essentially Cosmic Guardians and Librarians. They take a more active role in the film.

4) A lot of things are "Dumbed Down" in the film, I suppose to attract at least a few more viewers -- those who like everything to be explained to them. For example, in the film, the only mention made of Why the Overlords appear to be Devils or Demons is one character's statement, "They've been here before." The book's explanation is a bit more intricate... Humans have a "Racial or Species Memory" of the Overlords, and associate that memory with the end of the Human Race. Therefore, Humanity associates the physical appearance of the Overlords as the image of Ultimate Evil. Since Humanity does evolve beyond its 4-dimensional existence, time is meaningless for those "Racial/Species Memories." Humanity, as a Species, subconsciously remembers the Overlords from its own "Future", and the arrival of the Overlords heralds the end of Humanity and the destruction of Earth. It's worth noting that no religious text describes the Devil's physical appearance... that's entirely a construct of writers of fiction.

There are several scenes in the movie which appear to me to be blatant attempts to increase the drama, which is unnecessary, in my opinion.

My personal vote for Best Actor in this film goes to Charles Dance (Karellen). His portrayal of a sad, yet comforting Overlord is very convincing and adds a lot to the story. If you don't really keep up with the story, you'll miss the significance of this. The Overlords are little more than Slaves, who are forever forbidden/prevented from evolving to a higher state of existence. They exist only to serve a higher power, and seem to experience great despair in witnessing the pain and eventual destruction of species like their own -- those who "cannot follow" their children in that higher state. Charles Dance does an exceptional job of expressing this... even his smiles (rare) are somehow sad. He's like a doctor witnessing the last days of a dying cancer patient.

Barely similar to the novel....

[mge20156 · 3/10 · 20 December 2015]

I read the novel in the summer of 1968, right after seeing '2001: A Space Odyssey'; its story was far superior to the '2001' tale. After reading, I figured this novel could not, or would not, ever be made into a movie. It was just too vast and took place over such a long period of time. Over the years, I have read numerous articles that a movie was being pondered or whatever, and finally, after 47 years, we have this movie. Only problem, it was so disappointing. What was 'wrong' with the movie? Here are some examples: 1. Way too much time focused on the central character and his problems/memories/suffering. No hint of this 'misery' anywhere in the novel. A BIG waste of time. 2. Too much 'poetic license' from the actual novel; the main character was entirely different, with a different background, age, etc. The Overlords, while being definitely satanic in appearance, were not written with the outlandish 'ram horns'; they were supposed to be small 'satan' horns. These horns made the Overlords look ridiculous. But, the other aspects, such as the wings, tail, red skin, etc., were spot on. 3. Way too much emphasis on the 'anti-religion' theme. This was hinted in the novel, but was never splashed across the entire novel as it was in the movie. 4. The fifteen year time period before seeing the Overlords was actually 50 years in the novel: one generation as Sir Clarke wrote it. 5. The A-bomb church scene was not in the novel; this was a really dumb scene, with a very dumb premise. 6. Most importantly, the 'feel', as several other reviewers have noted, was totally different between the novel and the movie. If you read the novel, it is not depressing or fatalistic like the movie. After reading the book, I felt a sense of wonder, awe, contentment, and yes, satisfaction, which is no way what I felt after watching the three movies. If you didn't like the movie, read the book; you will NOT be disappointed! Maybe, someday, someone will make a movie which will do this great novel justice. We can only hope, and I just hope I live long enough!

Worth Viewing

[drjgardner · 6/10 · 22 December 2015]

This 3 part series Childhood's End follows more or less the 3 parts in the Arthur C. Clarke 1953 novel of the same name. There are a few changes in characters and in subplots, but anyone familiar with the novel will recognize the series.

The novel was Clarke's first big success and well regarded at the time. Despite many attempts it failed to make it to the big or small screen due to the complexity of the narrative, although other projects did succeed ("2001", "Dune").

The existing series has a lot to recommend it, especially considering that it's not from one of the top studios but rather the SyFy network. The acting is uniformly excellent and the special effects are pretty good. But the direction seems lacking. The series jumps around and never seems to settle down, giving us brief glimpses of the main characters but very little chance to get to know them. "New Athens" is short changed more than any other element, and the final hours of one key character seem to have been badly edited. Some scenes appear over and over again, but other scenes are merely glimpsed.

Bottom line – it' a pretty good effort from the SyFy network, but it's not up to the book itself, nor is it among the pantheon of sci fi productions. But I think it I worth viewing.

What will be the outcome of humanity?

[SoverniX · 7/10 · 23 August 2021]

A distinctive feature of this miniseries, which tells about the invasion of an alien mind, is the measured and calm development of the plot. There are no bursts and fire conflicts. All relations are at the level of fairly peaceful negotiations... Humanity has doomed itself to destruction, and the question remains unresolved: was it possible to somehow avoid such an outcome? Are we really doomed under this scenario?

Captivating Sci-Fi Classic

[atlasmb · 8/10 · 17 December 2015]

Now that the Syfy Channel has released Arthur C. Clarke's "Childhood's End" as a six hour miniseries, it is fair to compare it to the classic novel, but it should be judged on its own merits. I am pleased to say that all but one half hour is quite exciting and suspenseful. That half hour, which is near the end, suffers from bad editing.

The story combines science fiction with what could be called elements of supernaturalism, depending up on how you interpret it. Regardless, the story is captivating. With every revelation, there are even greater mysteries to be revealed--something that is unusual in fiction.

I don't want to reveal much of the story and rob anyone of the powerful surprises in "Childhood's End" and the thrill of living the story through the characters, but the story starts with occurrences that affect the lives of everyone on Earth. The narrative follows the lives of a small number of people, showing how their lives are changed and the challenges they face. Clarke's story is rife with religious imagery and symbolism. While he was an atheist, his earlier stories are filled with supernatural elements. "Childhood's End" includes some that are reminiscent of "2001: A Space Odyssey"--the work he is best known for.

How does one grade a work that is 85% awesome? That's a matter of opinion. But I hope the show gets plenty of viewers, because it is provocative--even sixty years after it was written. And it might encourage some to read about Clarke's notable career as a writer.

A very lovely shadow of the novel

[MesoMorph · 6/10 · 31 January 2019]

"Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other." -Matthew 24:30-31

having known the original story, it seems quite a pity that it could not be made into a longer series that is more loyal to the author's work. a story which should have spanned for generations have been shortened, and the difference shows. while it is a gorgeous piece in it's visual splendor of the aliens and their home world, and with Charles Dance wonderful performance, the change to the plot is too great and loses it's prowess. can still be seen as more than a loose adaptation to something that deserve a greater insight

A very pleasant surprise

[sscheiber · 8/10 · 18 December 2015]

I will try very hard not to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the first episode. (Incidentally, the introduction in the Kindle version of Childhood's end -- and probably the latest print edition as well -- includes a major spoiler, which is a criminal act. Should you buy the book, skip the introduction until AFTER you've read the book and/or seen the series.) As other people have said, the premise revolves around some apparently benevolent aliens who invade, declaring an end of war, hunger, climate change, hatred, and the other banes of 21st century society. Most people love the idea, but pockets of opposition rise up from people who feel threatened in one way or another.

The twists and turns in the plot are complex, complicated, and often subtle. The surprise is that the series manages them very well.

The script was quite remarkable, adapting the 60-year-old novel and weaving its complexities more deftly than I had expected. The romantic aspects were largely invented for the series. Like most of Clarke's science fiction contemporaries, 20-something "boys" in the science fiction world were geeks (we called them nerds) who had little understanding and less experience with "girls". Simple ignorance explains why they had so few strong women characters. The film version brings the story into the present and at least attempts to restore the balance.

Many factors worked against this film. The film is visual to some degree, but it is mostly dialog and atmosphere. For some of us, it was an amazing novel that raised some provocative questions and didn't answer them. For me, when I heard that someone was turning the long-loved book into a movie, I reacted with skepticism, uttering my mantra over such things. It would be good or it would be terrible. It was unlikely to fall anywhere in between.

I suspect it was a difficult film to sell to advertisers -- the lifeblood of the industry. There was a lot of mystery and adventure, but little or no pyrotechnics. It might not draw a sufficient audience to justify such ambitious projects. I noticed a large number of house ads and station promos in the breaks instead of paying commercials. To the credit of the producers, writers, and director, they didn't compromise the material to draw a bigger audience. As a result, the story takes time to unfold, and some audience members might not be patient enough to stick it out. But if you want to see a genuine attempt to put a seminal and unconventional novel on the home screen, give this a try. It isn't perfect, but it was well worth the effort -- and it's well worth your time.

What happens if we stop fighting.

[lu_silvestri · 13 October 2018]

This is what a song from the band "Ultima frontiera" defined well, slave of freedom. It is also said in Mussolini's book "The Doctrine of Fascism" that the human being must have a life based on duty, have purposes, and not only grow fat like pigs and live from pleasure.

In this series it was shown what happened to humanity when we became weak, we abandoned our nature of conflicts and constant struggle for a utopia, we exchanged our freedom and sovereignty for a life without obstacles, a world in which the human ceased to be human , where science was no longer important because we had no problem to solve, where fighting lost meaning because there were no more reasons for this. Thus, the human being ceased to be human, we became pigs in fattening waiting for slaughter, and we paid the price for being so submissive, passive, and think that life is reduced to living of own pleasures without sacrificing for a greater good , the price was the extinction of our species.

If man had stayed in paradise he would have rotted, what makes a man strong is not to live in a perfect world, but rather our daily struggle to achieve perfection is an endless path, but if we stop walking, everything loses its meaning.

The day these aliens came to tell us how we should live should have been the day our armies banished them forever from the planet, better to die standing than to live on our knees.

But now speaking of criticism, the ending does not make sense, why the hell did they travel from planet to planet, abduct all childhood and then kill the planet? Much was confused and poorly explained, the series had a bad and meaningless ending.

Could not finish it

[10basetom · 6/10 · 17 December 2015]

I have not read the book, but it must be better than the movie because I could get to the end of every Arthur C. Clarke book I ever started, but I was not able to finish watching the first TV installment. The best part of the show was the opening scene that drew me in, and then it went downhill from there. I could not take it anymore and stopped watching when the alien pod takes the charismatic farmer back to Earth: as soon as the pod lands, the fiancée walks up to it and knocks on the door; then it cuts to a vignette of them discussing his encounter with the aliens as if they were discussing a PTA meeting. Ridiculous!

This mini-series reminds me a bit of Steven Spielberg's Taken, but at least Taken didn't take itself as seriously.

Not true to the novel

[petrillijack1 · 2/10 · 25 December 2015]

Warning: contains spoilers.

This was a terrible adaptation of a classic novel.The directing was so bad that my wife who had never read the novel had a hard time following story despite the fact that she has a high IQ.

I can certainly understand that changes have to be made when you're creating a screenplay from a novel. What I can't understand is the rationale behind completely changing the dominant philosophy of the original novel.For those of you who have not read the novel, the screenwriters have needlessly demonized the overlords. The overlords were not responsible for changing the children. That was going to happen as a cataclysmic evolutionary event (Clark's words) whether the overlords came or not. They were merely following orders from the over mind not to allow this change to destroy humanity or damage the over mind.

The overlords did not sterilize anyone in the novel. They also did not cause the children to leave. The children left on their own volition.And it was the children who destroyed Earth in the end, not the overlords.

The overlords home planet did not look like hell.And no one in the novel hated the overlords. Most realized by the end that the overlords were merely safeguarding an evolutionary event, and were doing so under orders. In fact, sympathy was expressed for the overlords because they could not evolve in the way humanity was.

Finally, the movie's final message was a sad and bitter one: the end of humanity mostly aided by the overlords. In contrast, while the novel expresses a bit of sadness for the end of humanity, our evolutionary descendants are seen as joining a vast and powerful over mind which controls most of our galaxy.

I was so looking forward to this TV series and was so bitterly disappointed in it. And as someone else on this message board commented, there were far too many commercials. I understand that money has to be made but this should be balanced with some consideration for the viewer.

wow

[danduarte · 10/10 · 15 December 2015]

I have never been a Syfy channel lover, they have rarely come up to anything "good" within the sci-fi genre.... but this show! First episode was better than half the films i've seen this year and i can't wait for the next one. The big reveal of the alien was something i saw coming from a mile away even without reading the book or anything but still a little suspense was held until the reveal so nothing i can mark down on it plus the actors are great which may surprise you for a Syfy series. all and all i'd recommend this to anyone whether you like sci-fi or not its still a great show, this is my first ever review so yeah sorry about the vagueness or whatever.. beginner here

The SyFy Channel finally comes of age with this rather good adaptation of a great book.

[t-dooley-69-386916 · 7/10 · 23 June 2016]

This SyFy Channel offering is all about when nice aliens come to Earth, they are non violent, non threatening and see us as children who need to be guided to get along better. So they offer us the deal of a lifetime, just let them rule and they will end poverty, inequality, illness, war, intolerance and make Earth an actual Utopia.

The 'Earth Supervisor' is Karellen played with imperialistic understatement by Charles Dance, he selects one farmer to be the spokes person and his mouth piece and this is Rick Stormgren (Mike Vogel – 'Under The Dome') and he is used to convey to the World what our dear Overlords want us to do and what they are going to do in return. It seems too good to be true but when you have got it so good why bother rocking the boat. Some obviously do and that is covered too and includes a feisty part for Colm Meaney.

This is really well made, the SFX are incredibly good and the acting all rather top form too, the real strength is the story and how it weaves so many things into the plot but does it both subtly and 'in your face'. I thought it was great and just flew by. Just to note if you were looking for a final denouement, then be prepared there will have to be a season 2 and that is no bad thing with TV of this calibre – recommended.

horrible

[davidwthompson · 1/10 · 5 January 2016]

SyFy has turned a great science fiction book into trash! There was no love story associated with Ricci in the novel! SyFy fabricated a love story and used what seemed like an hour or two to expound upon it. Total waste of air time. In my opinion this SyFy trash is less plausible than the book. Ricci, a farmer, chosen instead of the head of the UN? Enemies suddenly becoming friends? When I read the book I felt uplifted--happy. When we watched the TV series we were left totally depressed! Arthur C Clarke is throwing a fit in his grave! This series is a dis-service to Clarke and the whole segment of science fiction literature in my opinion. Please do not let SyFy anywhere near the Rama series--my all time favorite.