Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Roman Sampson One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

steve As one reviewer wrote, he/she thought that negative reviewers were people that didn't get the validation from this show they hoped for. I am not one of those. I am a skeptic, I demand proof before I believe anything. but the first episode I saw of this new version, Time Travel, two photos of "time travelers" are shown, and both photos have already thoroughly been debunked. if the show is going to use shoddy research and debunked information, why should I waste my time?

chibberts-97124 In your skydive test it has a flaw. You used the same images that you already had memory of, making it that much easier to remember rhe other 5 you missed. The sky dive test should have had 10 different objects to make the test, a true memory test.

yaroslavc An extremely disappointing revival of the original. Zachary Quinto's attempt at Leonard Nemoy delivery seems stunted and devoid of any authenticity. Much of the "insightful" demonstrations and testimonies come off as trite and/or cartoonish. The episode on AI had a ridiculous portion at a sex doll manufacturer attempting to ignore the fact that the dolls were not being made for any legit AI uses but rather for people to use to have sex with. This show is beyond bad!

generationofswine I guess it's cute that Zachary Quinto is hosting the new in search of given that he also played Spock. But, that doesn't mean it has the same heart.The first "In Search Of..." the real Spock's series, had a lot more heart to it and seemed more inquisitive than this one.At least it, the original, seemed like it had a thesis but was considering evidence about the thesis. It didn't seem to walk in with the clear assumption that they were right and then only look for the evidence that backs it up.This one seems that it's only going to accept the evidence that fits the thesis and throw everything else out. It doesn't even really emphasis that it's based on "theory and conjuncture" like the first one did, that was the draw to it, the appeal.This comes across more like Ancient Aliens, where everything BUT the thesis is discounted and they don't really want to entertain how much of it is just speculative theories to entertain and titillate.Really it's more History Channel Junk. The title makes you miss the Josh Bernstein era where, when they went for speculation and conjuncture and pure titillation, at least it felt like they were being honest about the conclusions.This just feels like Ancient Alien conspiracy crap with no real effort to be anything more than speculation past off as total truth.