Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

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

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

geordiesdad When I write this review I try to take into account that the original Star Trek was produced 7 years earlier than this. In light of that fact and the studio awareness of what the then 'modern' viewer expected in their 'future' it falls VERY short in production values. The acting is, as well, quite dreadful and the writing is no better. The scenarios are childish and fit for audiences in the 50's. All in all, it is what Britain was capable of producing at that time...given a few more years they went on to make some absolutely splendid shows but sadly, this is a poor throwback to the paper rockets of years ago. Don't waste your time unless you want to see how they were UNABLE to reach the heights Star Trek met.

delltarrant Very nearly lost forever as a result of the BBC's mass clear out of tapes in the 1970's, this gritty and claustrophobic sci fi series was only recently rediscovered in the vaults of a Canadian TV station.This is a long forgotten example of how much more interesting sci fi used to be be pre George Lucas. The BBC never had the budget for whiz bang special effects and so concentrated on characters, story lines and heavyweight theatrical actors. Check out Blakes'7 or Star Cops for other more popular examples of this.Moonbase 3 also contains that other classic BBC sci fi trait, realism, both in characters and settings.The characters here are not Star Trek goody two shoes types who all get along and can be guaranteed to do whatever is morally right, their team includes a manic depressive, an egotist and many other fascinatingly real characters. Some are manipulative and many are suspicious and distrustful of each others motives. The base itself is understaffed and under pressure to deliver value for money,as the base commander says "I can't produce the results without the funding but they won't give me the funding because I can't produce the results!"This sort of bureaucratic nonsense is in stark contrast with the very real dangers and practical hardships faced with living on the moon.In an enclosed society (of sometimes unstable personalities) living under the constant threats of a hostile environment, moonbase 3 is a powerfully written and tension filled sci fi series. Perhaps the most depressingly accurate glimpse into the future of space exploration

junk-monkey moon base 3 breaks one of the first rules of TV SF and at first I didn't spot it. I took me some time to work out what was so peculiar about this show. I knew, from a few minutes into the first episode, there was something profoundly odd going on but couldn't put my finger on it.At first I thought it might have been the flashing "Artificial Gravity is ON" signs that seem to litter the corridors - They are there more a sop to the nit-pickers in the audience rather than serving any internal logic to the story - surely even the densest of Astronauts would be able to tell the difference between 1/6 and a full 1 G. (though, to be fair to the show, it DOES attempt to simulate 1/6 G whenever anyone stepped outside the base by use of slow motion filming and bouncy, slow motion "I'm in space" acting).Then I thought it might be the ropey camera work: this show seems to have been performed like a stage show, the actors doing long scenes with 2 or three cameras shooting simultaneously; the editor then cutting between the various angles. Obviously, as in all live performances, people didn't hit their marks exactly and the cameramen have to re-frame constantly to get people's heads in. This looks pretty amateur by today's standards but I'm not a connoisseur of 70s TV so don't have much to compare it with - I guess at the time it must have looked OK.Then it might have been the downright dodgy accents. The European's moon base is populated by RADA (Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts) trained actors assuming variable "French", "Spanish" and the standard "All purpose Eastern European" accents. Even Donal Houston's Welsh accent (and the man IS Welsh) sounds weirdly fake - (what is it by the way, that made the BBC at this time think the future would be populated by dynamic Welshmen? Blake of "Blake's Seven" was played by Welshman Gareth Thomas) - the only American on view (in at least the first 2 shows) has an accent that is totally bizarre: sort of constipated West Indian - sort of not.Then I finally realised what it was that was so unsettling... the Door Handles! The doors on moon base 3 open like regular doors in houses! Hinged Doors in Space? Everyone knows that in the future all doors will slide into the wall as soon as anyone approaches them. Star Trek, Babylon 5, Space 1999, you name it, doors slide... ever since Buster Crabbe played "Buck Rodgers" way back in the 1930s, doors in the future slide... but not in the cash strapped BBC of the 1970s they didn't. Why pay 2 props guys to pull doors open when you've got an actor who will do it on cue for half the price?All in all, this show is of historical interest but not worth getting excited over.

CharlesD-2 I watched this series on the sci-fi channel and it was quite a pleasant surprise. I'd never heard of this 70s sci-fi series before but it was british and done by some of the same people who also worked on Doctor Who. This series was most definitely influenced by Doctor Who and other films and tv series but it was unique in it's own vision of the future and man's future of the colonization of space. The series ended on a wonderful episode and should have been brought back for at least another. This is definitely a massively underestimated classic.