Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

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.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

RagingR2 From the first episode I found the narration of this series slightly irritating. Excuse my European point of view, but after watching numerous other nature series (mostly by David Attenborough) I was really disappointed with the level of ignorance and misplaced pseudo-nationalism here. Granted, officially the series is about North America as a continent and not about the USA as a country, but every time the narrator said " 'Murica..." I couldn't help but feel the narrator wanted to convey his pride of the U.S.A. 'Muricans are tough, and so are it's animals -- or something like that. I really felt disgusted how they managed to turn an otherwise beautiful nature series into what felt like right wing propaganda 101. How do you turn footage of a rodent gathering flowers to survive winter into a piece of right-wing propaganda? Watch "North America", and Tom Selleck will show you!Halfway through the second episode I found myself thinking: seriously, if that guy is going to mention "only the strongest/toughest" one more time, I think I'm gonna break something.After a quick Google search I found that the series is narrated by Tom Selleck, who in completely unrelated news is a right-wing NRA-member, and I found myself thinking: geee.... why the heck am I not surprised?Not only do his cheesy one-liners give you an atmosphere of misplaced nationalism that really doesn't belong in a series about a subject so politically neutral as 'wildlife'; it is also filled with blatant lies. "Only the toughest survive." ...? and "Only the strongest deserve the right to call 'Murica HOME." ...? Apparently someone did an excellent job at misunderstanding how nature works, and raping Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" at the same time. For those of you who don't know: FYI, that is NOT what "survival of the fittest" means, or in any case not how modern day biologists would explain evolution or the way competition and survival in nature work. Not EVERYTHING in nature is about strength, toughness, physical power, or even absurd notions such as "courage".Because the way the narrator 'personifies' animals with human character traits is another thing that started to irritate me more and more. Seriously, couldn't they have found a narrator who could bring a little more scientific neutrality into this? This kind of human projection on a 'tough' animal of your liking, is the kind of propaganda that would put the USSR to shame. The fact that the USA has chosen the bald eagle as it's symbol, does NOT mean that the bald eagle also chose America as it's home because it liked that particular country's "tough guy" image. But that is the kind of bullshit thing that you constantly get the feeling Tom Selleck wants to make you believe.Newsflash: other countries in the world are ALSO home to supposedly 'tough' animals like mountain goats, eagles, bears, etc. But Tom Selleck wants you to believe that the 'magnificent' continent of North America is the only place where these "champions of nature" live, and so much as makes the claim that North America is the toughest natural environment on earth, which creates the toughest animals anywhere. While I think that claim is highly debatable, most of all I think: what a disgusting thing to turn a nature show into a schoolyard 'toughness' contest. Instead of using nature to teach people as a species some humbleness, here it is used the opposite way and nature is abused as the supposed background that your imaginary god must have created to illustrate (North American) people's awesomeness? If you think I am exaggerating, watch two episodes of this series and see what you think of the commentary...The imagery is beautiful, and the things you see are of course value- free; they are factual things that are actually happening in nature, simply captured on film for us to see. But the narrator does a perfect job of showing how a little narration can steer this value-free content into a certain direction. His narration forces you into a stunningly one-dimensional understanding of nature. And that may be the greatest flaw of all in this series that would otherwise be a beautiful and educational show. So purely based on the stunning footage, I would give this show an 8 out of 10, but because of the way the narration ruins the entire thing, I really can't give it more than a 6. If you really want to learn something while you are looking at stunning imagery (instead of loosing 5 IQ points with every episode), I would recommend watching something from David Attenborough's huge oeuvre.

wiyosaya I am not going to say much about this except that since the show was filmed by the same company that filmed such great shows like Planet Earth, Life, and Blue Planet. Anyone who watches this miniseries should expect spectacular visuals that include some amazing, never before filmed animal behavior.However, unlike the aforementioned Planet Earth, Life, and Blue Planet miniseries, it seems like there will not be a version of this that assumes the viewers have an intelligence beyond that of a simple watermelon. Unfortunately, it seems like The Discovery Channel thinks its American viewers are a lot that has a very low level of intelligence. If you have seen the BBC edition of any of the other series I mentioned and have contrasted them against the Discovery Channel's Americanized versions, then you will understand what I am saying as this series' narration once again falls into the very dumbed-down category.As an example, and possible spoiler, I was left wondering why does the tide in the Bay of Fundy behave as it does? If there were a "smart" version of this series, my bet is that that question would have been covered.Nevertheless, the visuals are spectacular. Next time, Discovery Channel, how about giving your American audience the respect they deserve and giving them something that is on par with BBC versions of these shows. Americans are not just watermelons.

Max Lewis For a series called North America, it seemed too focused to the US market and called some places that were Canadian, American, and some Canadian inhabitants, American. I'd like to see a more continental and balanced viewpoint in some terminology in the narration. OK, that's my only gripe really here.Photography and production were first rate and I do recommend this. Shows of this calibre deserves a good reception because we need to see more stuff like this and take better pride of our great continent. The BBC sets the benchmark for this type of documentary, but this is a very worthy contender and I will definitely be watching all of this series. The cinematography is stunning and it's a definite must see.

ibn-1 The photography is fantastic, however the narration is exceedingly poor. A curious melange; assuming your audience is a naive eight year old whose never experienced nature, coupled to a especially bold level of American Jingoism. I've never heard such chauvinistic patriotism in a Nature Documentary.It comes across as Americana delirium mated to beautiful visuals, like a pet propaganda project. The Music is often misplaced and overwrought as well... when they shut up and just show the wonderful visuals it's a striking meditation on Nature, but those moments are few. It's a shame that visual genius was coupled to written lunacy.