FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

splumer Pretty cinematography and impressive-looking interviews mask what is, at its heart, typical intelligent design propaganda. The main premise, that the fact that conditions on Earth allowed life to form is too unlikely to have occurred by chance, is simply wrong. Life evolved on Earth BECAUSE the conditions were good. Organic molecule abound in the universe, but its only here that they were able to gain a foothold and eventually evolve into humans. Specious reasoning is not a good basis for a documentary that purports to be scientific. Next, let's examine the two men primarily responsible for the film's content. Jay Richards does indeed hold a PhD, but it's in theology. He has no science degree. It's in Wikipedia. Look him up. Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State for his support of intelligent design. Not exactly neutral scientific opinions, are they? Other comments are cherry-picked to support the ID hypothesis, and some scientific information is presented in a misleading fashion. For example, the film states that the portion of the electro magnetic spectrum we call "visible light" is only a tiny portion of the overall spectrum, and its miraculously situated where we can see it! No mention is made of animals that can see outside the human visible light spectrum, nor is it said that if humans were able to see, say, in the ultraviolet, that we would call THAT "visible light" and the current visible spectrum something else. And again, visible light is useful to life on Earth BECAUSE we evolved to use it. Organisms that use other types of waves wouldn't last long on Earth. I could go on, but there's only so much room to refute all the deliberate misinformation in this film.Pleas, do yourself a favor and watch a REAL documentary on the origins of life. Real scientists don't need to make excuses or misinform. The truth is out there.

ken-teaff Told from a creationist point of view, Privileged Planet nonetheless uses science to show that Earth occupies a place in the cosmos that is perfectly suited for not only life, but discovery. Considering that the vast majority of the universe cannot support life because of excessive gravity, heat, cold, etc, it should be awe-inspiring to realize that we sit in one of the very few places where all the right conditions exist.Is this an accident, or pure chance? We'll all know someday. Certainly doesn't appear that way.Privileged Planet is superbly produced, using John Rhys-Davies' wonderful voice in the narration. It focuses on the life's work of two distinguished scholars and the conclusions they have reached. Adaptation of a book by those two authors/scholars.

brian_griffith This documentary was excellent! It never ceases to amaze me how wonderfully complex and finely tuned our universe is ... and how unlikely it is that it would provide the conditions necessary in which complex life could arise. To those who reduce this documentary, as well as the Intelligent Design movement, down to nothing more than a pseudo science ... please provide your arguments AGAINST the observations/claims in this documentary ... rather than merely cutting it down in your language. The various scientists and scholars that were interviewed throughout the course of this documentary (Guillermo Gonzalez - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Jay W. Richards - Ph.D., Dennis Danielson - Ph.D., Seth Shostak - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Charles A. Beichman - Ph.D.'s in Physics and Astronomy, Bijan Nemati - Ph.D. in Physics, Kevin Grazier - Ph.D. in Physics, Don Brownlee - Ph.D. in Astronomy, Paul Davies - Ph.D. in Physics, Robin Collins - Ph.D. in Philosophy) gave scientific facts, as well as their interpretation of those scientific facts, to produce their conclusions. Please leave a detailed rebuttal to their conclusions or your empty criticisms of their conclusions will be reduced to nothing more than anger and contempt towards the possibility that the Intelligent Design movement might be right after all. Thank you.

Dere33 It is a film that tries to come off as scientific, but really should just be muted and used for amazing images. Throughout the film, it tries to convince the viewer that intelligent design is more than an unscientific conjecture by making enough small leaps of logic that it sounds on the surface as plausible. Beware of the misinformation in this movie, because while it never asks you to believe in a god, it flatly rejects any real science in an effort to leave you at an intelligent design conjecture, and allows you to assume the intelligent design-er. Suggestible for a logic class however, as it would be a great exercise in circular logic and factual fallacies.