Alien Planet (2005)

Good concept, poorly executed.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I'll start with the positives: The CGI that the creatures are made from (as well as the robots and the rest of the backgrounds) is amazing and looks super close-to-life. The array of scientists who intervene every now and then and discuss the previous events that just took place are all very well credited, and all very believable and intelligent people.However, the positives sadly end there. Aside from the creatures, the documentary really has nothing to do with the book. It has very wonky plot structure, and I was quite confused with what was going on at some points. The pacing is also off, as sometimes each scene seems like an eternity. The creatures are next. The creatures' habits, size, etc are all highly warped around. Some examples: .the documentary gets the height wrong. The documentary insists that the Gyrosprinter is about the size of an antelope, whereas the book says it's much larger. While an accurate size estimate isn't included, the creature's tongue alone is around 2 meters long...that's as long as the documentary version's entire body! Meaning that the book gyrosprinter is nearly triple the documentary version's size. .Body shape and habit changes. The Eosapiens' changes really bugged me. In the book they look primitive and savage, yet intelligent and wise. They regard the spaceship before them with an intense curiosity, never once showing any hostility to any of the expedition members. Alien Planet's Eosapiens are the exact opposite-the tiniest intrusion causes them to enter a fit of rage and destroy everything. Also, the Griveback is mentioned to be a filter feeder, sucking up tiny floating creatures, whereas the alien planet version absorbs water through its body to feed trees growing on its back. Ironically, the book version doesn't do anything to support the trees on its back, and they die within a week. .the noises. Sure, they were all cool, but grossly inaccurate. Most of the Darwin IV inhabitants (with the exception of the Bladderhorn) communicate with sonar, inaudible to human or robot ears. Yet every single inhabitant in Alien Planet communicates with some loud, eerie shriek. It sounds cool no doubt, but it's inaccurate.My third problem is the overuse of CGI. Kinda like the star wars prequel trilogy, they didn't make any effort to ue practical effects or props in any way-everything was computer-generated. Don't get me wrong, it all looks very believable, but it just makes the production team seem lazy and not willing to do anything special-which i'm sure they're not. The final nail in the coffin of this documentary is that the narrators and guest scientists treat the events of the documentary like they could really happen, and try to make it believable. Wayne Barlowe's original book was meant to be science fiction, and science fiction only-he never tried to convince people something like that could actually exist. Steven Hawking and others' interventions are all very believable, and all supported by real scientific facts, but when you take those and compare them to the animal they're trying to get you to believe exists, you just laugh and pass it off as stupid. I had the same problem with the documentary of The Future Is Wild. But you know what? There's one thing that's important-they TRIED. They made a conscious effort to make an obscure piece of literature into something bigger. They tried to take something already existing and remake it for a more modern audience. But that just poorly reflects when you look at all the problems with it. There really wasn't a demand for a cinematic version of Expedition, then, and there really isn't one now. It was a fantastic book, but not one you'd expect to be remade into a movie like a bajillion times.So that's my honest review of Alien Planet, a solid five stars. I wish I could rate it higher-I really do. But inconsistencies in the plot, creatures, etc etc etc really weigh it down. Its creators tried-they really did-and it's a shame all their effort formed this.

Ordinarily, I hate documentaries. And I mean *hate*. So why is it that I love "Alien Planet"?Simple. Using cutting-edge animation technology and fascinating (not mind-bogglingly boring), jargon-filled interviews with experts in various fields, the makers of this real winner have successfully created an interesting testament to the fact that mankind is not even a drop in the bucket, cosmically speaking. This fantastically done doc almost plays out like a motion picture as it interweaves the documentary with pieces of interstellar adventure and drama. Particularly interesting is the segment featuring an alien life form called a "groveback."Take it from someone who is usually bored stiff by documentaries-- one look at this astounding, mind blowing extravaganza, and you want more. Immediately.

I'm not sure if my previous review was submitted so I'll try again. I disagree with those who found fault with Alien Planet. I thought the creatures and environments were well realized. No one does aliens better than Barlowe. He invests a lot of energy in thinking about how his creations would actually interact with their world. With all the cookie cutter stuff out there it's great to see someone try something different. I would love to see more programming of this type that combines visionary science fiction with scientific speculation. Traditional science fiction films tend to focus on what would happen if aliens came to earth. It was nice to see that reversed a bit for a change.

An intriguing and engaging exploration of an alien world. The CGI was excellent all around with some breathtaking views of the flora and fauna of Darwin IV, a world about 6 light years from earth. It really was fun to watch. The achilles heal alluded to in the summary is the overly optimistic view of our ability to build the software necessary to carry out this venture. I'm a programmer with 12 years experience and I can tell you in no uncertain terms we are not even close to being able to program an AI like Leo. Every "breakthrough" in software development productivity since the move from assembly to C in the early 1970s has been a big gimmick. We need at least one and probably two massive breakthroughs on the same order to pull it off and I gotta tell you, I haven't seen any sign of it even on the distant horizon. Maybe someday this trip will be feasible, but not until software construction is as second nature as bridge building.Still, all in all, definitely worth watching.