Manthast Absolutely amazing

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Bruce Wilner I used to love this show. It revealed fascinating developments at the forefront of neuroscience, genetics, exobiology, and so forth.It has degenerated to nearly useless. I shall provide an example drawn from this evening's new episode, "Do We Live in the Matrix?" whereby it is opined--and, ostensibly, justified--that we could very well be living in a computer simulation.We meet a renowned Swiss AI expert. He tells us there's no need to express pi in so many zillions of digits that wrap around the globe ad infinitum: we can just put "C/d"--where, of course, C is circumference and d is diameter.Uh . . . the difference is that the first one is practical (I can measure off 3.14159... inches.) The other is purely notational (I cannot measure off C/d inches.)The same expert tells us that, "I can express the entire universe in ten lines of code," and beams with pride as he presents an extremely vague and general algorithm in an ALGOL-like PDL.Uh . . . in a suitably high-level language, I can express the entire universe in ONE SYMBOL of code. SO WHAT: what PRACTICAL, IMPLEMENTABLE purpose is accomplished?Another scientist shows some symmetric matrices to mathematicians without any commentary and is disappointed that they don't get excited. When he builds corresponding models of atomic structures, then everyone's excited.Perhaps if he had TOLD them they were looking at symmetric spin tensors within a Lie algebra, they would have achieved a meaningful apotheosis. Instead, we hear snippets of some meaningless argument about bits and bytes and shmits.(I recall from a previous episode--although it's in the same vein--that some physicist claimed that, if he builds such and such a fiber optic circuit, he can go backwards in time by 10 to the -18 seconds. I presume that even a physicist realizes that this is completely unmeasurable and thus unverifiable: sending the data from the measuring device to the managing computer takes literally billions of times longer than the 10 to the -18 seconds putatively recovered. I know, I know, physicists pooh-pooh anything that isn't physics as beneath them, but I don't think that's the issue here.)I SEE WHAT THE PROBLEM IS HERE: the producers of the show have ZERO understanding of the concepts being discussed, Morgan Freeman's golden throat notwithstanding. This, combined with the PERPETUAL problem that participating experts in TV shows experience, viz., that pieces and snippets of their cogent essays are quoted out of context, results in a stream of meaningless dribble that endeavors to sound technical in its misapplied terminological splendor but ends up delivering just so much imbecility in sheep's clothing, albeit dressy and richly ornamented.What a PROFOUND disappointment!(FYI, the popular go-back-in-time theme is utterly impossible. This is trivially easy to demonstrate. Suppose I set a box on my kitchen table and send it into the past. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE YESTERDAY! Case closed.)

Mark Fitzgibbon Circular reasoning, tautologies, you name it - all in the name of walking 'a line between' science and religion.The claims, suppositions and assumptions of the scriptwriters are puerile to say the least.The entire series pushes people towards the possibility of the 'intelligent design' theory of creationism rather than expressing the wonder of the universe through truth - scientific progress and knowledge from the ancient Greks and Egyptians, through Copernicus and Newton to Einstein and Hawking.It was definitely scared of offending those whose minds are hobbled by religion - so much so that it makes no mention of the fact that basic evolutionary theory and proof (e.g. the evolution of the eye) destroys the creation and the intelligent design fallacies.Also it avoids the destruction of creationism (a universe <7000 years old) through basic astronomy, the visible universe and the nature of light and its speed.All of these are irrefutable but the entire series avoids anything like this in favor of puerile Disneyland New Age mysticism, intellectual cowardice and pseudoscience.The graphics were nice and that is the only thing that got it 1 mark out of 10 - otherwise it would be a zero.With TV science programs like this I can now understand why evolution is not taught in American schools - pathetic.

martijn-56 This wonderful show is on a par with, or better than Carl Sagan's Cosmos and I never thought that could happen. I love Through The Wormhole for both the wonderful scope, the neutral way the information and theories etc are given from all kinds of angles and perspectives, and of course for the authoritative and best storytelling voice of our time: Morgan Freeman's. So it is a pleasure to look at, to learn from and to listen to. All possible subjects you might think of in this kind of documentaries are dealt with; God, the beginning of the universe, life, consciousness, Black Holes, String Theory, time, space, And of course extraterrestrial life and wormholes! I highly recommend this series for it is so educational and highly entertaining! Super quality TV, thank you especially Morgan Freeman!

verticalgain1 I have seen both the first and second seasons of this excellent series. It explores topics ranging from eternal life to multiple dimensions, with host Morgan Freeman clearly both interested and knowledgeable in the topic he is discussing. The scientists who appear throughout the show are a mix of the current leaders and some of the up-and-comers in quantum theory and astrophysics.The common thread running through virtually every episode is the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, and this series will be all the more interesting to you if you have some idea of how modern science works. A Scientific Theory is not a "guess," an "assumption," or a "belief." Theories are based on hard evidence, and are put to the test every day by a world full of scientists who would love to prove one of the big ones wrong. Keep in mind that Gravity is still only a Theory because we can only observe its effects on other things; you still can't see it or directly measure it, even with our high technology.Quantum mechanics is the dominant theory in modern science because it has been validated by every test thrown at it so far. What this series covers are those many tests and trials, as well as the ideas on the horizon, with each hour long episode dedicated to a particular deep philosophical question. Scientists with competing ideas are allowed to explain their work, and cover many of the new frontiers such as String Theory, Nanotechnology, Multidimensionality, the Multiverse, and even what Consciousness truly is.Typically science documentaries made in America are not as good as those from the BBC, Europe, or Japan because American shows have to cater to a majority that sadly still fails to accept even evolution. Despite my reservations, Through The Wormhole is bar none the best science documentary series I have seen, as well as the most current in terms of the cutting-edge scientific community. The production value is very high, with many stunning visual representations of the concepts being discussed. The video is HD and scenes are framed and shot more like a film than a standard television documentary. It even has its own original music rather than stock. They clearly went all out in making this the best it could be.If you have an open and curious mind I can't think of a better series to recommend. This is a show for people who aren't afraid to ask the big questions, and who are willing to be left with even bigger ones after watching the series. Through the Wormhole will certainly broaden your horizons.