leo-budima

I just watched the movie for the second time (first was many years ago), and came to see the comments...It seems there are mostly 2 sides: one that got deeply moved and thought-provoked by it, and others who watched it only to see what the hype is about and find flaws...

For me, this is one of the movies that influences your perspective on life and through which you uncover another small bit of realization about the human nature...

If you're looking for an action, war movie, you won't find it here - it will be too long and too philosophical. If you're looking for something "deep" but which will be fully defined, chewed up and served to you, you'll probably find it "pretentious and egoistical" like some of the comments here.

But if you let yourself into it without pre-set expectations and opinion, take in all that is going on and let your thoughts dig a bit into some of the directions, you'll find a masterfully created art that takes a period of time and a location and just shows it to you, along with people in it, from multiple angles, not telling you what to think. Then you are, at the same time, exposed to the beauty and duality of nature (tranquility and violence), men which are a part of it, that are conflicted by that same duality, to their (most often) disconnected thoughts while they are trying to make sense of things that are happening and the essence of it ("What is killing us?", "What's keepin' us from reaching out, touching the glory?")...

There are no good guys or bad guys, no heros nor villains, no conclusions or answers, no story (in traditional sense) - and it's still one of the most effective, daring and influential anti-war movies ever...

If you want to, you will find plenty of topics in the movie (nature, temporality and relative insignificance of man and his conflict's and goals, free will, love, morality, idealism, death, God, goodness, survival...) and lots of symbolism, but never forced upon you...

If you want to see a movie primarily as form of entertainment, this is probably not the best choice. But if you want to be exposed to art, as in - a creation that will provoke heavier emotions, change your mood, make you think your own thoughts and keep you "submerged" in it for a bit longer - this is one of those that truly belongs in that category.

First, I wanted to address other people's ratings: I've learned on IMDb that anything that has ratings of either 10 or 1, with basically no area between, is almost always really good, with only the nonobjective people, hungry for attention, rushing to give it a 1 because they know better. If you claim to be so well-informed about the subject, of academic background, a scientist or a scholar - then how can you be so primitive to give 1 out of 10 to something based on 1 or 2 or 3 things you don't like about it? No matter how good your arguments are, how about being useful to others and as fair as possible while writing a review that should help people decide whether to watch it or not - and then giving it a 3, or 5, or 6? It's an option, you know.

Most of the people rating it badly don't accept this *show* for what it is. And it is not scientific-grade material, made for scrutinized review of the scientific community, nor an all- encompassing summary of the academic knowledge about the universe, including all intricate details.

What it is, is an amazing, awe-inspiring, life-changing and even tear-provoking experience for the mass audience - young kids whom this will inspire to learn, question and discover, and push boundaries; grown-ups who will be introduced to a world they never knew before and make them show it to their kids and think about their ability to answer questions about the world and universe, and support the kids in learning. As well as the elderly, who will be able to get a view on how far have we come, and hopefully recognize their, even remotely supporting, role in all of it and be happier or more fulfilled for it.

I don't care if it's better or worse than the original series - there are now 2 really great ones and that's all that matters - the amount of content of this type is so small, and making these subjects at least a bit more appealing by the show being new and visually attractive, is so valuable, given the noise and the lowliest garbage that consists the most of the consumed content nowadays.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the best possible host for the show. You can question his scientific achievements all you want, but he is the person who is giving science a much-needed face, in formats that matter today - social media especially. And deservedly so. He is liked and followed and considered cool by the younger population, and that enables the substance of science, scientific approach, curiosity and ever-expanding hunger for knowledge to permeate the wall of slur generated by the Kim Kardashians of this world and alike...He has presence, charm, wits and consistency - I loved his work as a host and am rather sure that he will not be a reason for a lot of (normal, mass audience) people to dislike the series, quite the contrary.

Some of the arguments against the series are understandable and respectable - but, in my view, there should primarily be support for this kind of engaging, life-enriching and truly cherish-worthy content, so that, hopefully, there can be more of it, and our children can be exposed to it as much as possible...Criticism can help make it be the best as it can be, but needs to be secondary - thus my resentment for people giving it 1 based on it "not going in enough details", "not mentioning the latest theory XYZ", "copying the original show", or whatever...

Even if I watched the original series and have yet to watch "Through the wormhole", I am so grateful for the opportunity to watch something like this in my life, and the way the show promotes hard work, curiosity, structured approach, but also kindness and awareness that each person can change the world if we help them to, brought tears to my eyes through the show. Can't wait to watch it again with my (now a baby) daughter in a few years...

I love Star Wars - the basic premise of an epic universe, battle of good vs evil, classic take on characters and their traits and promoting clean and pure values...Most of us love (or have loved) Star Wars for those reasons.

Now, do you think kids and younger teenagers will want to watch 30 year old movies and will be susceptible to the story and its values despite the "prehistoric" graphics and effects? Unfortunately, most of them won't be attracted and will watch it if you make them and look at it through that lens to some extent - and that is reality.

So if you look at "Rebels" as a new branch in that universe, fresh content promoting the same types of characters, similar story lines and the same values - can it not be only positive that it exists? To attract today's kids and to provide content of this kind to them, instead of them watching Game of Thrones, Dexter and alike?

I understand that, as a die-hard Star Wars fan of 30 or 40, you can disprove the lack of originality, the relative crudeness of animation and what not - but, hey - this is Star Wars, just the same as it always has been - if you loved it before, there is no reason to hate it now, in this form.

So I would understand reviews of 6+, but 1? That's just lame.

As a 31 year old, I found it interesting and entertaining and a nice watch. Worth my time and certainly worth your kid's time. Of course, some criticism stands - i.e. recycling Alladin and alike - but we have new SW content for new generations and it's good.