What a waste of my time!!!

The greatest movie ever made..!

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

I always like watching these dramatisations (when they're welldone and don't dump the equivalent of Raquel Welch in a fur bikiniinto the mix) because attempting to portray these animals ingraphic, moving form according to a present theory can give onenew ideas about that theory. I have to say that I enjoyed this seriesmore than the original Walking with Dinosaurs. Maybe it's thenovelty value. After Jurassic Park it's a bit hard to make dinos lookfresh with the same cgi tech.Turning the cgi on animals with some living analogues, but thatdon't often get covered, was quite fascinating, though. Yes, theypicked and chose which palaeontological theories they wanted toshow, but I thought they did well, overall. The first episode wasespecially good, and I also liked the Ice Age sections. The whaleep was compelling, too, though I ultimately found it a touch toodepressing. They were able to get across some very telling pointswith a few images. One of the most striking for me came from thePleistocene ep where some wolves are feeding on an old, frozencarcass--which turns out to be a Human who had straggled too farfrom the group. That really brought home the idea that, until veryrecently, Humans were not the top predators in the food chain.Finally, for some reason, one of my cats found this seriesabsolutely fascinating. Being a cat, he of course has the attentionspan of a fruit fly and ordinarily ignores the tv (unless a WildDiscovery show is on--"'Cops' for Cats", I like to call that one). Butwhenever I put this series on, he sits there, six inches in front ofthe tube, for an entire 30 minute segment. I think it must havesomething to do with the sounds, since the only ep he ignores isthe whale one. I have no idea what he thinks of it all, but I dowonder if the makers of the show may have hit on something intheir recreation of the possible sounds these animals made.

In terms of the age of our planet and in relation to 'Walking with Dinosaurs' set in Earth's distant past, 'Walking With Prehistoric Beasts' happened only last week so to speak. The series starts off with one of the first Mammals then finishing with Humans and the Giant Mammoths, with carnivorous Wolf like animals who's nearest modern day relative are Sheep! this is one big freak show from start to finish.'Walking With Prehistoric Beasts' tells the story of how Mammals have come to dominate this planet we call home, with each part a different story about an individual, family or group and how they survive and cope in the harsh new Post-Dino worldIf you enjoyed 'Walking with Dinosaurs' (it's predecessor) you're love this, the narration, models, FX & CGI have all improved greatly, with some of the `Beasts' in parts even interacting with the camera that is suppose to be filming them.Great viewing for young and old

Considering how many dinosaur documentaries have been made it is good to see the BBC filling the 65 Million year gap since the end of those big lizards.Each episode is made in the form of a story as we follow a particular animal or group in its fight for survival. The science and behaviour of the animals is introduced as it intersects with the story.I don't agree with one poster who commented that too much of the documentary is speculation. In fact if you check the BBC website, you can see that all claims are based on some evidence. Clearly it cannot claim to be completely accurate, and some compromises must be made. Many things, such as the colours and markings of the animals have to be guessed. However even then there are plenty of cases where there is good evidence such as cave paintings and fossilised skin. This includes Megaloceros and the Mammoth. We know so much more about mammals than dinosaurs that educated guesses about can be made using our knowledge of the appearance and behaviour of modern animals.In most case the computer based rendering of the animals is utterly convincing. The filmmakers went to considerable trouble to integrate real locations with computer rendered animals. Real scenes with leaves rustling, splashes in the water and footprints in the snow were filmed leaving a space for the computer generated beasts afterwards. There are some less convincing ones such as the Australopithecines, which is a pity because the origin of mankind is one of the most important points on the timeline. One minor criticism is that occasionally the animals' movements look repetitive and unnatural. This is a small flaw and doesn't get in the way of the story.Overall this is a highly enjoyable and well put together series.

Even has some humans in it, but none resembling Raquel Welch, nor the phony language.It's a live-action documentary in six parts, ranging from the meteor that extirpated the dinosaurs up to the Ice Ages. The Cenozoic Era, largely overlooked, but most important in shaping today's fauna (including us!)--much more relevant than The Big Show that was the dinosaur period.The most interesting sequences are on the giant animals of South America, the development of whales, and the battles for control of land between the survivors of the apocalypse at the end of the Cretaceous period (parts 5, 2, and 1, if I remember correctly).This was produced by the BBC, following its big success with Walking with Dinosaurs. It's got the same mix of imagined local filmed drama, a la Wild Kingdom, with some basic paleontological exposition. The live action stuff is mostly realistic and there seems to have been considerable research on the backdrop. Each part is based on the fossil records of a particular location. I doubt this sequel was such a big hit, but for the reasons I've suggested above (and the general unfamiliarity of what you'll see), probably more valuable and educational.