ScoobyWell Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

imdb-8006 This series should have gone on. There's a lot about it that's high quality, great production values, terrific long shots of empty cities. The storyline was really barely touched- besides the evil island machinations, there's a whole planet empty and going primitive not just a small piece of English countryside. I particularly liked the character who's so certain she's the government, and seeing it her way is magically always best for everybody. Her patronizing line of bull remains what we hear on the news from our officials every day. I'd like to especially praise the casting in this show-- the faces really fit the character. It's easy to imagine an actor willing to play a weasel like Dexter but to look so genuinely despicable, I do wonder where they get these very unlovely guys. It's not characterization by makeup in this show, it's a casting director with a great sense of face. All in all, it's a mystery to me why this was canceled, I think the decision was a bad mistake.

Caps Fan If you're old enough, you might remember the BBC's original series "Survivors", broadcast in the 1970s. The world is devastated by an artificial plague released in an accident memorably portrayed in the opening credits. A handful are left behind to find each other and try to start again.So, in 2008, the BBC gave us a re-imagining of the scenario. This time, a flu-like illness does much the same as its counterpart did in the 1970s.Some have quibbled about the "politically correct" nature of the new series. One of the protagonists, named Greg Preston (Paterson Joseph) is black, which a character of the same name was not in the earlier version. Two more are Muslims, one of them a lapsed one. Another might be a lesbian. And why shouldn't they be? The demographics and attitudes of British society have changed in the last 30 years. There is nothing wrong with that being reflected in a television series.But there are problems with the series, as there were with the 1970s one. The scenario is chillingly set up in the first episode, but then what? As time goes on, the script falls back on the bickering, backstabbing, having sex with each other, and so on, that are the staple of any soap opera. Once the disease has done its worst, there is nothing here you couldn't see on Lifetime.Worse, in the second season, Greg Preston, supposedly one of the heroes, seems to delight in getting the group he is with into trouble. He pompously insists that Tom Price (Max Beesley), who has a violent criminal background but a firm handle on how to survive in the new conditions, leaves the group. He then twice lands some members of the group in the clutches of former-government-minister-turned-local-megalomaniac Samantha Willis (Nikki Amuka-Bird) when he has the means to prevent it. At times, I was just screaming at the screen.The performances are much better than the material deserves and the production values, as you'd expect of the BBC, are excellent. But there's no getting around the plot flaws and I was not surprised when it was announced there would be no third season.Rating: 4/10.

PippinInOz because: look, I am currently in the middle of Episode 4, Season 2 so clearly there are numerous things about this programme that are enjoyable to me, however - and it is a big HOWEVER:The Good: Great premise and was too young to watch the original in the 1970s so cannot make comparisons. I am a sucker for 'end of the world dystopian futures' films and books, probably because when they are done well they turn a microscope on human beings as a mob. How do different people respond? This interests me and at times scares me. There are plenty of scenarios here to give you nightmares. I like the character development of the core group of survivors - they act well even though at times the script does fail them. But as actors they do their best. The pace is go go go, which, funnily enough is also The Bad: Yep, okay I know a television programme needs plenty of pace to keep the viewer interested, but bloomin' 'eck - the non-stop 'Someone missing! Someone rescued! Someone fighting their way out while the others are coming to their rescue! Car chases! ....and so on and so on......keep hearing that Benny Hill chase music at times, which can't be good can it?? I can't give this a rating out of 10 because some of it is worth an 8, while some of it is worth about 3. Just wish (and as always, this is a personal view - so sure plenty here will see it differently) that the scriptwriters had not felt quite so compelled to keep the escape, missing, rescue, loud frantic music (and Benny Hill music in my head) quite so much. More confidence was needed with a story which does not need this repetition to keep the viewer engrossed.There have been moments during yet another frantic chase when the Fast forward button has been pressed. Which is a shame, because there is much to like about this programme. Give it a go and see what you think!P.S. 17 May 2011 Had to come back and add something, after seeing the final episode last week: JUST when this programme finally seemed to find it's feet - they axe it?????? The pace, while still exciting, seemed to calm down a bit in the final few episodes and the whole thing really worked. Genuinely moving at times, which, with the strong characters, it was always threatening to be. .....and yes, would love to see another season. Just to see what these characters do next.

ardee00 I know that BBC has decided against a third season, and nothing a viewer in the USA says will likely change that, but here goes anyway: My wife and I watch a lot of programs, both British and American. We were completely sucked in by Survivors and are continually impressed by how unpredictable and exciting each episode is. We watch "24" and have enjoyed other edge-of-your-seat shows like "Alias" and "Prison Break" in the past, but we agree that Survivors is usually more entertaining than any of them.Perhaps the total number of viewers in the UK hasn't been up to hopes, but maybe if demographics (average income, education level, etc.) are taken into account, PLUS you add in American viewers (via BBC America), the BBC should reconsider its decision and renew this riveting program for a third season (or "third series," as they call it) and beyond.The premise of the show seemed fairly mundane: a virus wipes out most of humanity and we view the struggles of a ragtag bunch of survivors. But, despite a few logical lapses, the execution is excellent and the program is exciting to watch. Most of the characters are very well realized and acted, and the plot (episode-by-episode and ongoing too) is much better than one would expect. We look forward to watching the program every week.They brought Doctor Who back (and we love it). Survivors deserves at least another few seasons -- especially given the miniscule 6-episode British seasons, which are about 1/4 as long as seasons of most American programs!