hyped garbage

Absolutely brilliant

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

I love this series. I love Morgan Freeman - he is one of the best narrators in the business. The series has something for everyone. It is provocative,informative, and mesmerizing.It includes new scientific information, some hard facts, some budding theories, and ideas from a variety of perspectives about every subject it approaches. I know there are some very valid criticisms from subscribers who would like to see only strict proved scientific content, but I find the format intriguing. I especially like that it recognizes that there are other perspectives - from spiritual to science fiction - without assigning any degree of validation, asking "what if?" I leave each episode with things to ponder about "the deepest mysteries of existence" as the series promises.

I started watching this show expecting to find something along the lines of Sagan's Cosmos, or other documentaries by Brian Cox, Neil Tyson.Instead, I was treated to wildly hyperbolic interpretations of scientific theories, constant religious references, and a general mind- so-open-your-brain-falls-out mentality.For instance, the show seems to imply that the LHC was built in order to find God, and that all scientists are motivated by religious reasons.It also presents hypothesis after hypothesis, without questioning any of the claims being made. It is the least skeptical 'science' documentary I've ever seen.The visuals are good, but excessively cheesy. I feel like this show is all flash but no substance.

I love science shows and watch them whenever my wife isn't around (she'll allow me Mythbusters, so I'm good). I also love Morgan Freeman, and wanted to love this show, but no dice.I found myself yelling back at the TV during the episode I watched and when this happens with a science show there's got to be something wrong.What I saw was an uncritical eye allowing often questionable cutting edge hypotheses to pass without applying appropriate skepticism. I had to change the channel as I was getting so annoyed, the first time this has ever happened to me with a science show.I'd go into detail, but I've apparently scrubbed my mind of the all too painful memory.I'll stick with Neil deGrasse Tyson, thanks. I just want to give that guy a hug every time he's on TV.

All series on the topic of astronomy and cosmology must and will be measured to that watershed event of the early eighties, "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan, which left me with clarity of what we knew, and the relevant questions yet to be answered at the time.A magisterial Morgan Freeman guides each episode by asking fascinating and timely questions, then allowing experts to answer them.The result feels too all-over-the-map, sometimes patronizingly simple, then suddenly, as if taken for granted, skipping over crucial logical stepping stones in the explanation process. "Through The Wormhole" suffers from too many people with different verbal styles (and varying verbal skills) to follow a coherent thread of an idea from beginning to end, the way Mr Sagan did so masterfully back in the day.Then there's a certain something Discovery Channel Influence, with episodes titled along the lines of "Is There A God?", which Mr Sagan would have found sensationalistic. And I agree with Mr Sagan.Bottom line: As a passionate follower of astronomy since the early eighties, I watch "Through The Wormhole", but in 2012 I prefer my astrophysics/cosmology shows hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or Brian Cox.