Childhood's End

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'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.

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.

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.