User reviews

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

A lot of generic characters, love story of Ricky for wide audience, etc.

Choosing a farmer instead of UN secretary is a nonsense, nobody would listen to such emissary. And Palestinians and Israelis hugging immediately after alien's arrival is utopia at it's best.

Saving a single piece of music in the end, and that's after they spent decades on Earth. I think anybody would use all these years to make records of species doomed to extinction. We would be saved for some museum for sure, no need for dramatic last second appeals.

Other than that, it's a decent movie, comparing to some other SF.

First off i want to say that this is my first review EVER on IMDb. Just felt i needed to say what i thought when seeing the 1 star review.

Second i just want to say that i've only watched episodes 1 and 2 and yeah my English is not as good as it should.

The director have chosen a "modern" view of the vision of the author from 1954 and I was very afraid that it would ruin everything, but the series is actually pretty excellent to watch. Its fun to see how the director and actors interpreted the book and made it into the great series that its been so far. It do head into a weird direction in episode 2, but i feel i know whats going to happen next even tho most of it is not from the book.

All in all i give it a 8 out of 10 for the story, acting and CGI(AND its a SYFY series).

PS remember folks, enjoy the show and enjoy the visions you had when reading the book, together it will be an amazing journey in your mind:)

PS will update when i've seen the whole thing.

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.