Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

pt100 *** This comment may contain spoilers ***I won't go into all the details of why this simplistic movie is just another example of the Intelligent Design (ID) camp's attempt to mislead the relatively uneducated and those who may be desperate to believe in a personal god/creator. I'll just point readers to a couple of objective information sources and then mention only one or two general fallacies in the film that are typical of the ID movement's pseudo-scientific approach.First, the biggest and most overarching flaw is the simplistic reliance on the anthropic principle: that there must be a purposeful reason why we are here to observe and contemplate the universe. Basically, anthropic reasoning says that we are here because we're special (in the eyes of God?). Whereas a more scientific approach would say that we're special because we're here. (A subtle but crucial distinction.) I.e., we could just as easily not have been here; in which case this would all be moot.For more on the anthropic principle, just Google it and read a few of the more scientific descriptions. Secondly, the ID proponents take scraps of "evidence" very selectively and then just ignore the huge amount of counter evidence that goes against their view.A couple of examples of this are their assumption that all life forms in the universe must be based on the particular combination of conditions found on earth (atmospheric composition, temperature, amount of water, carbon-based life, etc.); and the misleading commentary on how the size and distance of the moon from the earth and sun are just right to allow a total eclipse of the sun. Re: the latter point, the ID folks seem either to ignore or not even be aware of the simple fact that the moon is gradually moving away from the earth's gravitational field. It used to be much closer to earth; and it will eventually escape the earth's gravitation altogether, leaving us with no moon whatsoever. That future situation may be extremely disruptive to life on earth (no tides, on which many organisms depend, as the movie itself points out), if not totally disastrous. Ironically, survival under those future circumstances will probably depend on successful evolution of species due to natural selection pressure. So much for "intelligent" design.There's a lot more I could say. But maybe this is enough to get some of the more critical, objective proponents at least to view the movie again with a more skeptical eye next time. If you really want to take a cold, hard look at the ID arguments vs. real science when it comes to evolution specifically, I suggest you read the excellent, objective book "Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design" by Michael Shermer, who is famous for carefully and logically debunking lots of pseudo-science. Another excellent book is "Why Intelligent Design Fails" which also carefully dissects and debunks the ID arguments.And for more discussion about the "specialness" of our universe and how the laws of physics are tuned precisely to allow us to exist and observe it, read, in addition to the anthropic principle material, a book called "Before the Beginning" by Martin Rees, which discusses the concept of the "multiverse".Here is the key difference between the ID crowd and real science: while the latter try to remain objective and to derive and test theories based on evidence from the natural world, the former start with a religious belief about what they want to be true, and then use selective evidence and false logic to try to "prove" it. Unfortunately, those who do not have a strong education in science, logic, etc., can fall easy prey to such nonsense.

Will Crawford Yes, it is an intelligent design film and it makes no pretenses about it. If it were trying to be deceptive or misleading, it would not be named after the book, nor would it feature the author! Production value? It was non-profit. Read the label.Yes, it has an agenda. Films with an agenda are not a bad thing! Pro-evolution films push an atheist agenda. ID films push a creationist (though not necessarily Christian) agenda. Michael Moore films push an anti-Bush agenda. Get over it; the filmmakers hold beliefs. It's within in their right to showcase them. Go make your own "Case for Cro-Magnon" if it bothers you that much.And please use spell check before posting, kids. Most everything great about the film has been highlighted by other reviewers, so I won't parrot them. Some of the animations were repeated, and the music got a bit repetitive after a while. But I'm being nit picky. It was a great educational film, made by some very intelligent people.

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.

danp123 When I first watched this, I didn't know of the anti-science organization behind this. It was quite obvious something was very wrong with the science and logic about halfway through. No legitimate science writer would be so incompetent, especially with the apparent high production values. Usually with so much money too burn you only hire the best writers and scientific advisor's. Alas when I did some research it turned out too be INTENTIONAL.Now a lot of science programs tries too replace Sagan's presence and prose with flashy graphics and music and even succeed. But one essential ingredient is the awe and wonder of accurately portrayed modern science, so predictably this fells flat, there really is no awe and wonder in mysticism and pseudo-science.Also the narration by John Rhys-Davies is quite pleasant and quite apt, he is famous for his roles in fantasy and sci-fi films, which this film is just one of many.This will get only one star if it wasn't for the eye-candy CGI and John Rhys-Davies.