Steineded How sad is this?

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

PyTom83 I watched it when it first aired and It was really interesting and fairly awesome. I think the entire thing kind of reinforces my not being religious. I mean 10,000 years after we all die all of our buildings fall down, all of our paper rots away, and the entire place is all grass again. Plus, from the documentary, if you took the entire history of planet Earth and made it into a 24 hour day humans would only make up 30 seconds of that day. Our entire human existence is 30 seconds out of a full 24 hour day yet the world is here for us and made for us? Please.We're just not that special or important. Probably the creatures with the highest intelligence that will ever walk the face of the planet but that's about it. The world wasn't designed for us, we're just here.

verbusen OK I am a nuke war movie buff, mainly for the human drama I now realize but this one caught my eye when the History Channel advertised it so I watched it. It's kind of cool but the thing is I was wondering what the motivation was to even make this? I said to myself immediately it was made for tree hugger/human haters, and we al;l know there are a bunch of them out there now. Looking at the sparse comments here on IMDb.com AFTER my deduction, I nailed it. A place I'd l;ike to visit, good riddance, lol, bunch of human haters are into this show. I also thought who would really be into this show? Civil Engineers must love watching this, I bet they are saying to themselves yeah I earn my government pay keeping your city livable! Anyway, if your in any of those three groups (post apocalyptic movie buff's/human haters/civil engineer's) you will be interested, if you are not in any of those groups, this is pretty pointless viewing. I did have a comical thought, in this make believe world there were three people that were left, Burgess Meredith (Time Enough to Read-Twilight Zone), Bruce Willis (Twelve Monkeys), and Peter Ustinov (Logan's Run), I don't know what happens when they all get together but that would have have been a lot more fun to watch then to see building's crumble, lol. I guess you could have thrown in Robert Duvall (THX 1138 ending) and Rod Taylor (The Time Machine), and a couple of women from Roger Corman end of the world films to spice it up more, maybe not. 3 of 10, maybe more if your really bored with what's on TV.

bob the moo You can see this coming a mile away in the TV guide and, even when I watched it hoping for more, it did just what it suggested it would. There are lots of "what if" films out there and some of them are genuinely interesting and informative, however Life After People is not one of them. Instead it goes down the road of so many of them and just focuses on the special effects of the "what if" rather than the substance. This approach makes for a good 30 minute long programme, I'll give you that, but here the idea is stretched out to 90 minutes, with plenty of advert breaks to help you along.The effects are pretty good though; not Hollywood standards by any means but for the minute they are pretty good and reasonably imaginative. It doesn't help to be shown the same shots over and over again though because it does make the viewer realise just how much padding there is throughout. The experts are all on hand to provide justification and explanation but none of them can get passed the problem that it is not that interesting a question in the first place due to its lack of relevance. They all take about how quickly nature will come back in etc but nobody can make it important or interesting beyond the "oh, that's nice" level of interest. I know there is debate about how quickly things would really happen versus what was said in this film but for me the bigger thing to work out is why it manages to make me care so little? Life after People provides effect shots of buildings falling and cities overgrown. As such it is already competing with Hollywood sci-fi's with much bigger budgets to play with. It does an OK job with this but has nowhere near enough to show or talk about to fill even half of the running time and just gets repetitive and dull long before it is over. A shame really, because it would be a better film had the pressure not been on to fill space as much as possible whether the film merited it or not.

screenman A post-apocalyptic documentary with a surprisingly up-beat subtext. I enjoyed it very much.It was definitely far too long, and slack space was in-filled by repeated use of CGI effects. This was a shame, and down-valued what I thought was an intelligent, entertaining and well-crafted feature.I have become weary of dumumentaries that appear to suppose a typical audience IQ in double figures. This one was hardly rocket science, but a sufficient sprinkling of informative worthies were courted for their opinions. And this, a well-paced narration, excellent CGI effects mingled with real-life photography resulted in a superior docu-drama. It was timely as well, because it is becoming increasingly evident that we lack the behavioural and political wherewithal to constrain our excesses and that nature must inevitably intercede.The uplifting - and at the same time, humbling - element of the programme was the finiteness of our artifacts and the ephemeral nature our all the things we hold in such high esteem and pride. Ten millennia and we're indistinguishable from the dust. Ashes to ashes, and all that.