Reviews

The documentary is almost faultless; its editing and concept make it one of the best documentaries I have watched. Paul's story is told and weaved within a contemporary narrative as he works on his new album, 7 Psalms. There are no talking heads, all the voice overs or narration is done with people that are introduced through archival footage and it is seamless. The documentary ends with him and Edie (his wife) ,in his studio, singing a couple of verses of a song from his 7 Psalms album. This sets up a sense that he realizes that he may be reaching the end of his creative journey, and then it fades to the credits. But if you wait until just after the credits roll on episode 2, you are treated to a haunting version of Sound of Silence, recorded during a rehearsal. It is slow and very moving and neatly provides a bookend to an amazing career as it was that song that launched his career all those years ago. The versions are worlds apart, the version that launched his career a driving folk rock version with twanging guitars and drums, this one, just reflecting where he is now.

I am a huge fan of Paul's and he has been part of my life since almost the beginning. I learnt to play the guitar by emulating his style and have memories of spending many, many hours trying to master songs like Kathy's Song, and this documentary is an is an absolute enjoyment from start to finish.

This is so bad and I am not exaggerating. It is hard to put a finger on how to describe it, but I kept looking at the actors waiting them to look to camera and say something like "What do you think of this farce?" - to somehow break the spell. The comical expressions of Sam Neil , in order to feign guilt (I assume that is what he was trying to do) are odd to say the least, especially when being subtly accused of his wife's disappearance.

And another thing - Sam Neil says in almost the opening scene that he is from Queensland, and then puts on an American accent that sounds so fake it makes you cringe with every utterance. Why he could not have just used his NZ/Oz accent to at least help with the show's authenticity is beyond me.

Apart from the abuse of creative license and Netflix doing its best not to stay within the bounds of knowns, there are other factors that make this series intolerable. Primarily, it is the mindlessness of using talking heads in a series that just did not need them.

We have to find a way of getting rid of talking heads that just spoil any historical docu-series with continual and incessant breaks in the visual experience and the narrative. The series opens with a narrator and on screen actress playing the role of an oracle, which I think was a clever idea, and would have been a perfect method for the whole series, but in no more than a minute, we get our first two talking heads, one in Egypt and one in London. After putting up with the Egyptian lady, we then have a guy in London stating (with a bit of mumbling and hesitancy), "Alexander was the greatest general of all time". All well and good but what in the name of all things sensible was the narrator not able to say that, but no, we cut from ancient Greece to a guy sitting in a lounge chair in London pontificating; for what reason?

It is incomprehensible how Netflix can spend all this money on developing the series and then saying well, I don't think we can write a narration script, so we are going to get all these authors and commentators to come in and give their ad-lib opinions and then we see if we can stich something together. And, Oh - let's interrupt the visual experience by halting the documentary and inserting a talking head.

I could not stand it, and after 10 or so minutes turned it off. It may have got better, but from the reviews I have read it looks like that is not the case.

Look, if you, Netflix have figured out through some mystical means that we must have talking heads, then do us a favour and place them at the end of the series so we can decide if we want to watch them. This is what the Chris Packham BBC Earth series did , and it worked and demonstrated the contrast between a professional presenter and those who are less adept. Anyway, if you want to watch a first class documentary, and to see how it is done without a single talking head, find the documentary "Apollo 11". With the "Apollo 11" it is done so cleverly that you actually feel that you are reliving it. Hardly a statement that can be made for this Netflix effort.

Also, a great documentary by Michael Wood, "In the Footsteps of Alexander" is the best place to start for an authentic documentary on Alexander.

I often lamented how the demise of BBC's Horizon represented an inability and lack of confidence in the BBC to aim high when considering how to present a documentary. Well, perhaps there is a resurgence on the way. I binged all 6 episodes.

This series is presented in a logical mature style where the story of the earth unfolds 6 episode, with each episode covering the essential elements that supported the creation of Life. From the atmosphere , to the evolution of plants and humans. There are gaps in the narrative and a few leaps of faith, but the story is well presented by Chris Packham in a personal but still scientific manner.

Now what is absolutely surprising, and a credit to the BBC, is that it was co-produced by US based NOVA and GBH-Boston and does not suffer from being dumbed down but most importantly there are no talking heads interfering with the narrative. The producers have sensibly pushed them to the end of each episode, so that if you want to listen to them if you want to get some further background you can or not. Thank goodness they were not part of the main episode, their style of of presentation would have detracted from the integrity of the Packham's delivery.

I know not why Americans insist on this mania for just inserting talking heads into their documentaries. In the first few minutes of the first episode on Alexander we had a sequence of 5 talking heads each uttering sentence or half a sentence and then passing onto another talking head which just plain spoiled the whole show. The intro could could easily have been done by the narrator or even better, if you must, have the guest expert just talk his lines and bring up his name and use the time to show images of the land, maps, monuments or whatever-we just don't need to see these half baked "experts", a lot of the time giving social commentary.

So, the narrative is completely spoiled because you with each talking head you have a different presentation and set of mannerisms that should not be in play during a documentary. We should be watching the footage related to Alexander and the history not trying to interpret what each talking head is saying.

And if you think I am exaggerating, have a look at the list of "selfs" in the cast list on IMDB. There are over 40 - really???

To see how it's done the directors or producers look no further than Apollo 11. A monumental documentary told without a single talking head and it was an outstanding and one to best documentaries I have ever seen - you almost felt that you were reliving the moon landing.

Anyway, back to this awful thing - I gave up about 10 minutes in and have not been back to it. The review could have been "How to take a great subject and tear it to shreds..."

When anticipating what the title "Life on our Planet" would mean in terms of a story line I naturally expected it to start from the beginning and take us to where we are now, much like the BBC series, "Life on Earth" but that is not what you get. And with modern CGI, you would think it should be better than the BBC "Life on Earth". But not on your life - what you get a series that appears to think that the dinosaurs in one form or another were always there. Well maybe not, but the way the show jumps around (in order to feature dinosaurs) you could be forgiven for thinking that was the case. But what it does do is get you annoyed and frustrated because it is totally at odds with you would normally expect from a show that wants to tell you a story about life on earth and how it evolved. So it really does make the whole thing confusing.

Also, I anticipated that in 2023, with CGI advances, that this would be better than what is being served up. I think I could live with the sub-standard CGI rendering but what I could not come to grips with was the lack of a coherent story line.

Morgan Freeman has a great voice, but something was just wrong and it doesn't work. So all in all, it was just not convincing enough for me to keep watching.

This is a rather silly presentation style, which has been perfected by the Americans - but it is an intriguing idea. Apart from Robin's poor acting and frivolous presentation it is highly repetitious and is fragmented insofar as it jumps all over the place and has been edited in a style that the transition between so called facts and a follow-up comment or justification(sometimes absent) are marked by a blank screen which leads you to expect a new section to the story, but results in a juxtaposition of stills with some silly woman, ringing bells all the time down in the lower right hand corner of the screen.

Apart from that the pronunciation of the same word can change over and over again, making the whole thing poorly acted and superficial with factual errors - I can assure Robin that Cambridge is not in Oxford - an unforgivable sin if one is trying establish credibility. All the flaws just point to poor research and adds to the overall implausibility of this whole documentary - it is just superficial with a lot of hand waving and pathetic bell ringing.

I love aussie dramas and tv films - and so I rushed to see this. What a let down.

For some reason I can tolerate farce and overplayed behaviour as comedy in Utopia, but it does not work here. I was not able to get more than 20 minutes in before I had to give it the flick. Kate Box as the lead is very good and I don't understand why most of her other characters (Abby Matsuda is especially bad) could not be funny without needing overplay the characters to a point where it just becomes unbelievable silly and simply not funny .

Black comedy is possible, the Aussie series, Jack Irish, and Mr InBetween, and possibly Rake are very good examples where comedy can be made to work without the characters behaving like nincompoops.

The good thing is that Prime is investing in Aussie TV production but alas I doubt if this one will be a hit.

In order to get immersed into a film you need for it to be believably set in the right era without modern idiom, woke ideologies being overlaid with text and imagery. This series suffers from this and it becomes very difficult to settle into watching it without cringing.

If I had to identify the styling I would say it looks like a Baz Luhrmann surrealist film with little substance, lots of foul language which appears to be introduced and forced to make these actors sound tough, but all it does is make it all very clownish.

And then there is the awful music or sound track that is completely at odds with the narrative and superficiality of the whole think. This is not worth it, and I have drawn a line under this series at episode 1.

Who, really cares whether his thesis is correct, but if could have been much more entertaining, and possibly plausible if it did not rely of the god awful visual effects that are a complete distraction.

I doesn't need all the gee-wiz, flash, zooming , and sound effects to tell the story. It is childish and stopped me from going to sleep. Maybe that is going to far, but why did such a potentially interesting story - I suppose if you like the Discovery Channel type of presentation then you will probably like this. It is nothing like a British documentary and certain not an Attenborough type telling.

If you have ever had some annoying person talking in the seat behind you in a film, and they just won't stop? Well that's exactly what it is like watching this film with all the flashbacks. It is so annoying you just wish that they would stop.

The real story here is the melodramatic back story that just gets totally in the way of what should have been the main story and that is the struggle for survival after a crash landing of an aircraft..

It is not clear which story was supposed to be the main story but one this is for certain, the potential of this film is totally undermined by the misplaced flash backs that banal and annoying and interfere with the story to such an extent that I came close to abandoning the film, but I did fast forward some of the flash back nonsense.

If they ripped out all the physiological stuff it may have been a passable story but as it is, it is close to unwatchable.

It really is a pity this programme was cancelled, it was reasonably historically accurate and is probably a show that can be watched where the history of this momentous period can be truly absorbed. For example the story of Catherine Parr was very intriguing and for me at least shone a new light of my understanding of her and here true love Thomas Seymour. Also, the interpretation of the intrigued that must have existed between Mary and Edward and his ministers must have been just as intriguing as this show interpreted it.

Unfortunately it probably gave into so much woke agenda that certain parts of the story were contrived and inaccurate because of this need and perhaps this was partly responsible for its cancellation.

To be fair, I could not get through even the first episode. I tried and it might have been watchable and much shorter (to the good) except for continual interruption of people giving their opinions every few seconds. Some dialogue snatches last no more that a few words and provide no value that a voice over could not achieve and are often opinion rather than fact like telling us what Lincoln was thinking.

This method of documentary making seems to be the the norm with The History Channel.

I think it would be much more beneficial to just watch a Abraham Lincoln film or read the wiki articles on his life story.

The way that Ethan Hawke has weaved this story together is without doubt outstanding and it easily serve as the benchmark on how to tackle a many threaded and complex story. They made 16 films together and as a couple their relationship was often captured in their films and Hawke uses this to entertaining effect. In effect it is a 6 hour documentary, but there is nothing boring in it, we see home movies, previously unseen footage of interviews on the set of their films.

His use of actors taking the part of the characters reading their diaries and notes is quite unique and the way he focuses on the point and once made allows it to fade off as a sequence of overlays is rather clever. Most directors would just cut and paste with abrupt beginnings and end but his technique really makes the whole documentary seamless and one wishes there were more episodes.

Thank goodness he did not introduce unnecessary and irrelevant taking heads that would have spoilt it.

Superb and Intimate Story of the Rolling Stones, I thoroughly enjoyed it especially because the normal annoying "talking heads" are used in narration voice over and don't interrupt the images. You are told who is providing the insight with a side graphic displaying the name of the voice over.

The only thing I would have liked was more discussion regarding their songs and their writing. This is a sad omission and surprising given that the narrator and the beginning makes a point that if it wasn't for their songs they would have sunk without a trace. There is a poignent moment where the appearing on a show and the host walks up to Brian Jones and makes the statement, "So you are the writer of all the songs" and he just says "not really" and the host ignores him and starts talking to Jagger and Richards.

The story is framed within a court-room setting with the judge being the primary protagonist. In essences it is a simple film about an opportunistic re-meeting between the judge and one of his jureres and the judge wanting to pick up where their nascent relationship stalled years earlier.

The awkwardness of the situation is beautifully captured and at the end you feel you have watched a simple story that makes you feel good.

This is really rubbish. The story is flimsy and does a poor job at propping up a woke production need. This coupled with poor acting and poorly developed characters ( in part due to the large number) makes it nigh impossible to become engaged. It is just not convincing. Everything appears contrived and you are left wondering what the point is of all these relationships are between all these people that appear to be so angry.

Absolutely absorbing and on par with the best David Attenborough documentaries. Willem Dafoe does a superb job at pacing the narration to the incredible imagery and proves that well written and narrated documentaries do not need the distraction of talking heads.

I think that I would prefer to see the "Authorised Biography" of Carbon!

This is awful and I believe that the producers should have looked at the documentary "Rivers" to get an idea how to convey the harrowing message of what damage we are causing.

While the premise to this programme is unquestionably important its delivery suggests that we have lost the ability to, in some cases, to present a gripping documentary without the need to see silly presenters behaving like they are talking to 2 year olds at kindergarten. And please tell me how social, family diversity and virtue signalling helps in getting the message across into what is a very important topic.

I can't believe that this method of delivery will have any impact on anyone capable of making a change in the world and the only time we almost got onto the right path with this programme was when the Australian entrepreneur began talking (in a adult manner) about the importance of renewables and how they will change the world. He is absolutely right, and it makes me think that this documentary would have been far better if it was kept within the confines of local scientists talking in a plain manner about a both serious and interesting problem that we have created for ourselves.

I think I could have liked this, but after the first episode I gave up. The series is, even with the subtitles on, it was very difficult to follow what was being said, let alone understanding what the hell was going on.

Very unfortunate.

I tried to keep and open mind, but this is a silly plot in just cannot draw you in. Its main failing is that is that it appears so contrived that its implausibility just does not allow you to become immersed.

Ultimately it is not even funny...it is just plain nonsense.

If you like to view inarticulate people expressing their views in coarse infantile language, then this show is for you.

The female presenter is obviously pandering and preening to the camera so her over excited gibberish and swear beeping along with the cutting in and out of the narrator's voice between cuts makes this a head spinning immersion in to children's tv and does not constitute a documentary to anyone over 5 years old.

Everything about this series is stunning and the message is very clear on the effects we are having on our planet. Best of all no talking heads - just David.

What will we do if we ever lose Dave Attenborough?

This documentary is entirely spoilt by the fact that there are too many talking heads, often saying the same thing and the only continuity comes when the narrator is introduced. This is a real shame that we can't have a narrated script tell the story with the actors, it would really help the telling of the story.

This is almost unbearable to watch, and I could not get through the first episode. The talking heads are completely unnecessary and offer no insight at all, delivery trite social comments that are hardly considered opinion. I do begin to wonder about the worth of these programmes in capturing the historical fact ; it would be far better to have a miniseries , like the White Queen that blended historical fact with creative licence - but heck at least it was interesting. This dribble is unwatchable.