User Reviews (191)

  • BalconySeats8 July 2015
    8/10
    Without Apology: Just Fun
    We are experiencing a New Golden Age of Television. But, relax, "Zoo" is not part of that renaissance… you will not be vexed by conflicted characters, charged with remembering convoluted back-stories, or tortured by the moral ambiguity of the main plot. Consider "Zoo" an absolution, a get out of high-minded television free card. In other words, bring a bowl of popcorn or a package of Twizzlers: this is "B" television at its best: nature gone wild on a global stage (without much gore, thus far), attractive actors, plot holes big enough to swallow a rampaging giraffe, and just enough suspense to bring you back. Having come to "Zoo" without any expectations, I'm giving this high marks for being just entertaining. I imagine it will tell its tale and disappear from our memories like those Saturday afternoon serials of long ago – in that regard, it will be very successful.
  • bsmithgal30 June 2016
    1/10
    Beyond ridiculous
    Warning: Spoilers
    I watched season 1 because the shows were available online for so long. Episode 2 of season 2 prompted me to write a review since there are many reviews saying this is a great show. LMAO!! Grate? Yes. Great? Absolutely NOT! The scripts / plots are just plain awful if you are a logical person with common sense.

    Do believe all of the negative reviews. The supposedly smart characters frequently do the dumbest things. And they managed to increase the stupidity in Season 2 so maybe the writers should be applauded for doing something I didn't think was possible. The writers are lazy, budget conscious, or stupid. Maybe all three.

    In case the high ratings aren't from people associated with the show, let me give you some advice for real life. Do not do anything you see in Zoo. Don't go into the woods or a cave with nothing but your thoughts for protection. Don't study a large, strong, unpredictable creature in an open room with basic restraints. If you're running from a charging elephant, do NOT stop for any reason. If others stop running, keep going, and use the time the to get away instead of watching and grimacing as the inevitable happens. If in doubt, think what would they do on Zoo and do the opposite.
  • sfmurphy-5997430 December 2015
    1/10
    absolute rubbish
    Warning: Spoilers
    Inconsistent and highly ill informed plot. Suggest the directors at least talk to someone who has some idea of what the animals are capable of. Leopards carrying human bodies away faster than a motor vehicle. There's the bad naughty chemical company that caused everything to go wrong of course all multinationals are bad and will cause the end of the human race because lets face it that's their aim because they will be able to sell their products to the animals, silly but predictable plot line. Pride of male lions what? Say that again. Silly. The wolves kill everyone in a prison yes that's right all those secure doors and gates and isolation areas and the wolves get to every single person in the prison even the armed guards who don't seem able to shoot the wolves. Beyond silly. Oh they started a fire in a store room that opens all the doors. Very secure prison, not. The cast run all around the world collecting samples but wait they don't need those samples just one in Africa. Then the good guys who set up the team are now the bad guys but wait the head bad guy is now the head good guy come to save the team. What? Could have been a good story but the plot lines are beyond ridiculous and highly inconsistent.
  • dfdrmrezes25 July 2015
    2/10
    Unbelievably DUMB writing
    First off Love the cast they are the only thing believable, I give the cast 10 plus for putting up with the poor script.... As for the writers shame on you!!! Episode 1 you've two supposed experienced African guides, who go out into the WILD were there are KILLER LIONS and one of them can't shot a rifle with a scope on it and the other who foolishly goes walking through very high grass when it would have been safer to DRIVE the Landrover through the tall grass(dumb) Now tonight's episode the same two "experienced guides" go into the woods hunting KILLER WOLVES and no one brings a gun except the lady french detective!!! And then bats in Antarctica really??? Only an uneducated idiot could be gullible enough to believe that a bat with almost NO Body fat or Fur could survive for more than a few minutes outside in Antarctica. Oh, then what about those darned solar panels. Hey Dumb writers, solar cells are used to make electricity and it's stored in BATTERIES the power would not go off instantly. Please hire someone to do just a little research or is this supposed to be a comedy of errors
  • almirr-294-5023401 July 2015
    2/10
    If you keep beating the audiences with bad writing eventually they will succumb
    Warning: Spoilers
    SPOILERS!

    But don't worry, this thing is already spoiled... So when a soon-to-be couple survives a lion attack in Africa and finally reaches safety, the second thing they do is call the authorities to report missing and dead people. That's right, that's the second thing they do. First they chat about his dad who seemingly out of the blue came up with a theory that animals might one day decide to take global warming into their own hands by ridding the planet of the human parasite -- or something like that -- which is made to look like animals always had this level of intelligence but up until late June 2015 had no reason to use it. How do we know which animals got "activated?" Well, you see they get this thing called the Defiant Eye (really?), which we learn about when the couple is literally at the edge of a drop-off, surrounded by lions who are 3 feet in front of them, and the guy takes the time to notice that one of the lions has a deformed eye. Of course, the lions wait for the guy to calmly explain what we are looking at and only then they charge at the couple.

    Meanwhile in an American city a bunch of kittens go missing and a journalist/animal pathologist soon-to-be couple goes looking for them. This is after zoo lions escape and kill people out of the blue, but that's just a side story.

    Terrible script, terribly acted and disjointed. I honestly don't think even top actors could have turned this into decent performances. Kind of like how Tom Hanks simply does not belong in the DaVinci Code. We are talking PVC characters who feel like they are forced to fit into stereotypes, but no one told them which stereotypes exactly.

    The only people I can imagine will watch this is those who read the book(s) just so they can brag about having read them and how they were better than the show -- which I don't doubt.
  • ragedub2 December 2015
    1/10
    Animal fringe
    Warning: Spoilers
    I wasn't surprised to read here that one of the producers behind the masterpiece of sh1t, Fringe, was behind Zoo. Idiotic nonsense, pseudo science that a sixth grader wouldn't buy: seriously, the lines explaining what is the mother was so stupid it made me laugh for hours. Actors are bad, really awful. I was wondering why they bother picking a French actress and other actors that speak French like a Spanish cow to realize it was just another out of fashion French bashing: The team was set up by the bad guys... If U like stupid comedy, re watch Friends 'cause zoo is plain stupid. Sine IMDb tells me my review is too short another lines. The z-team keep traveling around the world but most location must be settings and streets of Canada and it shows...
  • wildsparrow168 July 2015
    9/10
    I find myself addicted to this one - something different, something GOOD!
    I was shocked by all the bad reviews, but to each his/her own. First, I just love the very premise of this - that after years of torture and abuse they have had enough. However, unlike Planet of the Apes, this goes on a much greater scale as they cannot speak, but can communicate. It also involves numerous species on a global scale, from our beloved house cats to lions in Africa. These animals are thinking, plotting, strategizing - and the theories behind it are not so far-fetched.

    I love the acting. The only reason I gave it nine stars is I do not like the young journalist. She is sarcastic and mean to every person she has ever met. But I suppose I will put up with her since I doubt she will be eaten by lions, at least not any time soon. I like the Parisian woman, she has a much more sense of vulnerability to her and I would like to see more of her character.

    Jackson Oz is too cool for words, and Billy Burke's character most endearing ("I prefer pizza to most people".)

    It is riveting, thought-provoking and I like the characters. So there! And of course the animals are not acting "normally"! That is what it is all about! And yes...lions can and do climb trees. They are not as adept as leopards at it, but they can do it.

    Paws up for this one....
  • Boneshaker231 July 2015
    5/10
    What?
    Warning: Spoilers
    spoiler alert...So they went to a village that was attacked... went into the jungle and got attacked..were tracked by lions... returned to the previous village, didn't pick up any weapons or set up a barricade but instead made bad coffee while they waited to be rescued... come on CBS just how little respect do you have for your audience. Why is a guy who has a rifle with a scope on it such a terrible shot and will you just go ahead and kill some of the animals that are attacking the humans or are you worried about a boycott from PETA? Who set up a rule that a review has to have ten lines at a minimum? My review of anything could be that "it stinks" that s my review. I understand keeping it short but to require more words than necessary to get your point across is ridiculous
  • quincytheodore1 July 2015
    5/10
    The idea might have worked, but both the fauna and humans are far from engaging
    Zoo has a simple concept of animals rebelling against humans. Enough is enough for them as they randomly converge on some tree or attack random passerby. It has merit since with both viewpoints from savanna and urban locales simultaneously detect anomalies. Unfortunately, there's not much interest sparked by the human characters while the animals certainly can't carry the show by themselves.

    Its most problematic issue is the awkward writing. None of the personalities are fascinating, in fact nearly everyone is either showing exaggerated emotions or lack of urgency. For the city perspective, we have the story of a journalist who writes blog of preserving animal rights. She's meant to be a strong female lead, but sadly she just seems preachy and unapproachable.

    The savanna cast is very elementary, they even react very stiff in face of danger, bantering about theory while the animals literally just attacked them. I reckon it could be better if presentation could resemble Jurassic Park or Planet of the Apes, but such caliber is not within the Zoo's grasp.

    Ultimately, the show sounds rather tediously pretentious and nonsensical. It could build tension, but it would be a long trek for audience to follow since there's no character, walking with paws or feet, is worthy on investing time on.
  • agnieszka784 September 2015
    1/10
    After 9 episodes- no more please, this is the worst acting cast, horrible writing, and bad directing
    Warning: Spoilers
    This show would have had some potential if it wasn't for the constant coincidental ability of the 5 main characters to always somehow know the answer all the time to every problem they encounter. And they all start the same, when I was somewhere at some point in the past I heard about .... (which guess what? Is the right solution to their investigation) every time.

    Aside from bad writing they picked the 5 biggest dorks to try to convince us that people like that would be capable to head a worldwide investigation into bizarre animal attacks against humans with the dangerous situations they encounter. The French woman Chloe is the worse. Maybe this is how they act in France but I expect something more than using her bulging eyes to act everything out. Jamie is just as bad, she has one facial expression that of a confused shocked dumb blond and again those bulging eyes. Does anyone find those two's features repulsive and completely unattractive or is it just me. The 3 male actors are just as bad with Mitch at the top of a list (how is he even an actor, he isn't convincing at all, he struggles in ever scene to appear realistic but he fails).

    They can't act or maybe the director has low expectations/standards or he thinks it's good which would explain this disaster of a show, the writing is bad, the storyline/plot with each episode gets worse and more far fetched.

    Spoiler alert: for example in the 9th episode Mitch escapes a top level secure facility with the mother cell because he pushed all the buttons on the elevator he was on and they didn't know where he got off even though common sense would tell any person that he is heading for the 1st floor with the exit to the outside, am I right?

    Also, in the same episode Chloe falls out of the back of an airplane which wasn't going more then 5 mph but doesn't try to get up and try to get back on it even though a few seconds before it's clear that they jumped over a 15 foot wall to get to the airport runway and ran for at least a mile to get on the plane, but she was incapable of getting up and pretty much sprinting back onto it but instead she remains on the ground and is apprehended by the police and yet again uses the sad bulging eyes to convey disappointment this time because she got left behind especially now since jack and her kissed a minute before and from one kiss she's in love with him and can't seem to be able to live without him now.

    The only reason i lasted until the 9th episode is because I was hoping this show would get better but unfortunately it's the opposite. What a waist of air time.

    For those of you who claim this show is entertaining and good must have low standards and believe in everything you see and hear without one own though of opposition. This show won't get past season 2- which is a good thing.
  • smudgensmokeysmom30 September 2015
    9/10
    What is wrong with everybody?
    What is wrong with everybody? The majority of the reviews that I have read are complaining and criticizing everything about this show, recommending that no one watch. It's FICTION. So, yes, there will be factual inaccuracies and the "science" won't be possible in real life. It's not a documentary. It's not reality TV. If you expect everything to be spot on, then you clearly do not understand the concept of "entertainment." When I'm watching educational programming, I expect the writers and the producers to check their facts. They SHOULD make sure the scenery matches the supposed location, for example. This is NOT educational television. Watch some classic black and white shows and you'll see what entertainment is supposed to look like.

    I, for one, have been thoroughly entertained and I'm on Episode 10. In previous episodes there have been a couple of plot twists that I didn't see coming, which was fun. I really like Abraham and Chloe and always look forward to hearing them speak. One reason is that I know Abraham's dialogue is going to be sneakily humorous.

    While this show is not believable in the realm of true-to-life, the characters may not be developed enough for some viewers, and the writing might be weak for other viewers, I find the whole package a delightful way to spend an hour....bubblegum for the brain. Not too heavy, not requiring much analysis, just entertaining. If that's what you're looking for, too, then this is a show for you. If you're looking for a NatGeo-esque venture into the Wild Kingdom, stay away.
  • chiluvr122820 September 2015
    1/10
    Truly the worst show ever
    Warning: Spoilers
    I read the book by the same name and thoroughly enjoyed it. From the very first page it had me hooked. The plot was at least plausible so when I heard there was going to be a TV series based on the book I was pleased to have something to watch over the summer that wasn't a reality show.

    While this show has the title "Zoo" and two of the characters were in the book that is where the similarity ends. In the book the animals (only mammals if I remember correctly) start attacking people and Jackson Oz finally figures out it is because of plastics and cell phones messing with the animals' pheromones. Plausible to a certain extent because mankind is destroying the earth and who knows what will happen 1000 years from now. However this show is blaming the strange attacks on something called "The Mother Cell" which apparently is in all of Reiden Global products that they produced. I'm still not sure what this Mother Cell is, why it is in their products or what Reiden was trying to accomplish by putting this Mother Cell into their products.

    Well the plot is ridiculous, the acting is atrocious and the whole thing is one unbelievable mess. Take the bats traveling to Antartica to kill the two women scientists (who just happen to be lesbians to satisfy the liberal audience) by laying on their solar panels which shuts of the electricity to the research station to the prison scene where none of the guards have a clue as to handle a crisis situation.

    Bats in Antartica? Really? The "Defiant Pupil"? A bear walking into an apartment in Paris without the resident smelling it or hearing it? Rats with a "queen rat"? Honestly who wrote this? Save your time and read the book because I don't think there has been a worse TV show ever with the exception of the latest Masada massacre on NBC at Easter.
  • Johan R1 August 2017
    1/10
    Should be re-titled to; Zoo - Turkey season
    Warning: Spoilers
    How this show has a 7 star rating is beyond me.

    This is hands down one of the worst shows I have seen in recent years. In mere minutes you start to drift away from watching the show, and instead question facts, decisions and the obvious plot holes. This show should be considered a crime against humanity.

    Moving on if you succeed in the extreme mental challenge of getting past season 1 in hopes that season two will redeem the show you will quickly learn that this show knows no rock bottom.

    How this show could make it past its pilot is a bigger mystery than what happened to Amelia Earhart.... that is how bad it is.

    The show is so bad you cant stop watching, and it is also so bad that to give it a proper description we need to create a new word that describes how awful it truly is, hence I give you Zoourkey.

    Zoourkey |zu:ɝːki| noun - When a television show displays unprecedented deficiency in direction, script, characters, facts, plot.
  • jonnithomas27 June 2016
    1/10
    Is it worth watching ?
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is hopefully a children's program.

    If it isn't it is a program for people of very very low standards.

    It pretends to show animals in behaviour which is very divorced from their actual behaviour.

    Now this would be OK if it was them coordinating their behaviour against humans because they have had 'enough'.

    OK ,let's assume that it is possible. let's assume they can coordinate themselves.

    lions do not drag their pray up into trees.

    ever, doesn't and couldn't happen.

    so I suggest watching an episode and walk away, laughing.

    how this has got a second series I have no idea.
  • turk195428 September 2015
    2/10
    Amazingly Bad
    What can I say? The first episode started with kind of an interesting bang. Unfortunately the series just went downhill from there. The writing/dialogue is childish and delivered by the 3rd rate cast like a bad melodrama...the acting is simply dreadful. The directing is, well, your typical bad television directing. HOWEVER, there is a silver lining to this...like another recent, extremely bad show, "The Witches of the East End", Zoo is so outrageously BAD that it is incredibly entertaining. You sit glued to your seat with cocktail in hand (which you kind of need to get through and episode) and waiting for the next hokey situation so you can be stunned by how ridiculously it's resolved.

    In this modern day melodrama the heroes are definitely the evolving, predatory animals. You cheer them on through each vicious attack waiting for them, no, PRAYING for them to wipe out the entire cast and take over the world.
  • gilligan196513 July 2015
    8/10
    Interesting and enjoyable series.
    Warning: Spoilers
    I just watched the third episode of this series and I'm finding it to be very interesting and enjoyable...and, it's moving forward very quickly without any boring moments.

    I've always liked television series (and, movies) that deal with strange phenomena ("The Twilight Zone"); horror ("Tales From The Crypt"); science fiction ("Jurassic Park"); and, adventure ("Life of Pi")...and, this has a little bit of all of those elements.

    According to another reviewer, the African (Botswana) locations are in a different location(s). However, that's the same for other productions such as "Doctor Zhivago" (1965) - the Russia locations were actually filmed in Finland, Canada, and, Spain; "The Sand Pebbles" (1966) - the China locations were actually filmed in Texas, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and, California; and, "Kelly's Heroes" (1970) - the France locations were actually filmed in 'old' Yugoslavia. My point being...who cares? Of course, people who are native to a certain region will sometimes notice these discrepancies, just as a policeman notices discrepancies in cop shows, but...who cares?

    This is a good show with much promise, and, I hope it keeps going in the same positive and uphill direction.
  • jamesplegg6 August 2015
    1/10
    The worst TV series opener I can ever remember seeing
    The reviews of Zoo on IMDb raised my curiosity about the series, as it was obvious that some people really loved it, whilst others hated it with a passion. So I decided to check it out. Unfortunately, it turned out to be an unmitigated disaster. For me, since I live in Africa, the most disappointing this was that the portrayal of the apparent location (Botswana) was sad, laughable, embarrassing and abhorrent all rolled in to one. I just checked through previous reviews and noticed that others picked up on the same thing. The producers are clearly not bothered enough even to make the slightest effort to make things make sense. I get it that this is fiction - great. Still, as others have pointed out, you would never even dream of having an American-based series where you announce in bold letters - Mexico - to highlight the location, and then show a picture of the Empire State building and have the rest of the scene in NYC. It's crass ignorant rubbish. You wouldn't accept it in North American. Don't allow it to be acceptable elsewhere. Although I just go to the first episode, I see that there is a similar issue with the Slovenia scene. Please, people watching these programmes have gone through Kindergarten level geography, and these kinds of gross misrepresentations just go to spoil what would otherwise be a really interesting fiction tale. For Africa, just do it in Kenya, call it Kenya and use Kenya actors for the required characters. Duhhhh! As it is, we have BOTSWANA highlighted as the location, pictures of hunting on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro (in Tanzania, but also seen from neighbouring Kenya), and a West African (probably Nigerian) actor with a strong West African accent speaking broken Swahili. Honestly, it was just laughable. Of course, the bad guy hunting the rhino is an Asian (in cahoots with the bad guy African cops!). Ironic that the real hunters, such as the guy that slaughtered Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe, are mostly from the US.

    There are so many great series coming out of the US at the moment. This is absolutely not one of them. If you like brainless, stereotyped, prejudiced and ignorant action - this could be your thing!
  • Diane Ruth5 July 2015
    1/10
    Patterson Laughs All the Way to the Bank & He Doesn't Even Write this Trash
    James Patterson no longer writes novels and he is no longer an "author." He is now a producer of books who hires people to write them for him. He isn't a good producer, however, because the hacks he pays are unimaginative and untalented. All this applies to Zoo the novel and Zoo the television experience. Ridiculous plot, bad writing, absurd action, and silly all around. Not one character in this trash behaves as if they were remotely familiar with Africa, animals, or common sense. Not only does this horrific bomb insult the viewers' intelligence, it shocks them senseless with its utter absurdity. James Patterson is just the head of a book factory, so we don't really expect much from him anymore. The days of Alex Cross are over. But CBS? The executives there must hope Patterson's name alone will attract ratings even if the awful source material they paid big bucks for has resulted in a show that's complete garbage. Patterson must laugh hysterically on the way to the bank every time one of the books he ordered written hits the bestseller list. When CBS bought this, he must have split a gut laughing. Oh, well, the chumps keep buying bad books he didn't write and will most likely send the numbers through the roof watching this, CBS' very own version of Masterpiece Theater.
  • dwaynemayo6016 July 2015
    2/10
    Bad bad science
    Warning: Spoilers
    I really wanted to like this, in fact I am still trying but it seems like they have taken a bunch of cookie cutter molds and stuck them in a story. Lots of cliché relationships, secret government organizations, big bad chem corporation, Obsessive journalist. unassuming skeptical animal doctor who starts to believe, etc.

    The science is awful, Animals "realizing" they don't have to be afraid of humans. Really? Maybe not your average tourist but if lions started attacking and killing the populace the human race would exterminate them as well as any other species that posed a threat.

    In fact, that's what we do. You don't have mountain lions roaming NYC because we would kill them. Now if the lions got some thumbs and some military factories to produce weapons, well then you might have a fair fight but come on we wouldn't let the animals kill us all. At best there would be some incidents of people being killed until we stupid humans got a clue and then it would be game over and once again the only predators left would be the ones who WERE afraid of us.

    In fact that's what we did already. We used to be mainly food for the big predators then we developed spears and bows and BOOM we were king of the hill. Most predators stay away and fear humans because the ones that don't GET KILLED.

    The problem is this show just ignores all that. The real fear here is that we would have to kill every species on the planet that decided to go evil animal crazy. Which would be the predators, and we'd be over run with deer and rabbits and all the plant eaters.

    Look there are 6 BILLION of us on the planet. How many lions are there? How many Tigers? Leopards? wolves, bears, etc?

    The whole premise is just not mathematically sound. And please would somebody just shoot a few lion's for heaven's sake. They killed 22 people and no one does anything, Trust me ask somebody from areas in Africa where this might occur what would happen. Please! They'd hunt down and kill or capture everyone of those lions in a blink.

    The book was a little loose on the science to but an okay read/listen but it seems the people responsible for this show did little if any research before doing it. But I will endeavor to persevere
  • Fred W15 February 2016
    1/10
    How can this have such a high rating?
    I just registered an account to write this review. The first episode was 40 minutes of my life I will never get back, so I chose to spend some more time warning anyone else who might consider giving this a chance given the relatively high IMDb score.

    The plot is my main problem, but even if the plot was plausible (which it's absolutely not) this series should be a 4-5 at best. The acting is horrible, CGI sub par and the writing is seemingly a Hollywood mass production with zero depth or cleverness.

    My patience for bullshit decisions from the main characters is pretty high, but just after the first episode I sincerely hoped the main character would be killed off as a result of his poor decisions.

    I always try to give a new show the benefit of the doubt at least for the first 4-5 episodes, but this time I wont. I could probably tell you how the entire first seasons is going to pan out from just watching the first episode, and I could honestly be okay with that, had the plot not been so ridiculously dumb.

    Steer away.
  • alexyp2 July 2015
    1/10
    Awful, in every sense of the word.
    Warning: Spoilers
    Looks like someone took all of the pseudo-science fiction tropes and threw them into a blender. But this is based off of a book from the CEO of schlock "co-authoured" Inc., James Patterson, so we shouldn't be surprised. But despite being badly directed, badly acted, and with an effects budget that limits the production to a handful of cats and one lion, there is a racist undercurrent that is most insulting. In Africa, Africa, who are our heroes? The functioning alcoholic Bostonian with Daddy issues and a blonde Frenchwoman who just happens to be on her safari honeymoon, sans finance because (gasp!) he cheated on her! Gosh, I wonder if our grizzled Zac Efron clone and Ms. Really- Bad-Accent will become an item? And will she tell us how she was able to put on her makeup with such precision after swigging half a flask of bourbon, falling down an embankment, and being nearly eaten by lions? Did I mention the plucky reporter who was just fired from her job because of her blog? And the misanthropic animal scientist with the heart of gold?

    Yeah, this is what will be playing on re-runs in the third ring of Hell.
  • antosiro7 July 2015
    2/10
    Inaccurate and plain insulting
    Good idea for a show, but as an African was disappointed that the show perpetuates the assumption that Africa is just one huge ass country. From the Savannah scenes its clear that this was shot somewhere in Tanzania yet they keep showing 'Botswana" at the beginning of each scene (these two are thousands of miles apart). With the little Swahili used in the show this area cannot be Botswana, they don't speak it there. At the end, on the credits pages, one of the extras is listed as a "Kenyan Policeman". So technically the scene is in Botswana with a Kenyan policeman but shot in Tanzania?? Would you have a Florida scene, shot in Michigan with an NYPD cop? Doesn't make sense at all! A little research (that you can find even on Wikipedia) would have gone a long way. Very inaccurate!
  • James Clay27 September 2015
    1/10
    Not sure how this got 7 stars (at the time of this review)
    We could only make it through two episodes of this show. The concept was interesting but the writing and execution sub par. Everything about the production felt extremely low budget, especially the writing.

    I gave it two stars because...well I was being kind, I just changed it to one. (realized there really wasn't a reason to give it 2)

    There really isn't a good reason to watch this unless you want to study bad story telling, directing, casting, lighting, and acting.

    Apparently IMDb requires 10 lines of text for a review to be accepted so I'll elaborate on why this sucks.

    The premise is that the animals are done with us being the top of the food chain and are taking back their place on the planet. Somehow they magically communicate with each other (Bluetooth?) to coordinate ambushes on the silly humans. It's like taking Hitcock's 'Birds' to the next level. However to make it even more sinister, there is an evil corporation putting something in the food that may be causing this revolt....so who gave the Lions in Africa those tender vittles?

    That should be enough filler for IMDb. If you decide to watch this show, the animals have won.
  • primacag-219-4777828 March 2017
    1/10
    Might be entertaining, but sure ain't science, just really dumb plots of convenience
    You know, they actors are great. The plot isn't. It presents science as something that is arbitrary. It presents scientific ideas as stupid. It presents things as true that demonstrably aren't. In the minds of some people this might be fun, but others don't know how to distinguish these stupidities as truth, which devalues science as a source of truth about how the world actually works. There are many films and books that use science as a background that don't need to present things we actually know about as stupid or wrong. The writers of this show apparently think we are all 12 years old in free play, in which anything can be anything, rather than living in a world where some things really are the way they are. This is a bad remake of the Birds, or Frogs, or Swamp Thing, or Shrews, or the Island of Doctor Moreax. These produced a vision of doing harm to our understanding of how this one works, without making light of the real one, without treating us as stupid. This makes no pretensions about knowing anything, or producing a vision of something possible. It does actual harm to our understanding of science by making it seem that science is whatever we want without evidence. All we have to do is have a strong feeling and it is true, as if we could nullify gravity by thinking. Shame on whoever produced this piece of trash. If I could give a negative rating I would. Phah. I don't even fart in your general direction. Idiotic drivel only for those who failed 4th grade. Worse than a c movie which we would only watch for the bodies of the actors. Filth. But with good actors. Nice babies, bad bathwater.
  • entzerospawn22 July 2015
    2/10
    This is getting worse, do they even do a little google search?
    Warning: Spoilers
    So I have tried giving it a fair chance, but now they show that animals also get superpowers, yes that's true superpowers. We see 2 people on a base in Antarctica, why is there only 2 I don't know, what are they doing there maybe on a vacation, we are not told. But this must be the worst equipped bases ever it runs solely on solar panels with no battery or diesel generator as back up, because Antarctica is know for its sunny weather (there are weeks without sunrises there). But along comes these bats from Japan where they took down and airplane in the last episode, which means they have travel around 13000 km in a couple of days, an since the average distance they fly in a night is normally max 80-100 km the most be super fast, or these bats took of over 150 days ago and took a trip with no sleep to Antarctica to kill to females that where there for some reason, by cutting there power of by sitting on the solar panels ?, really And how are these super bats surviving the temperature I do't know, even in the summer time on the warmest part of Antarctica its still only 15 Celsius, and if two humans indoors in arctic gear froze to death why did these bat not die ?, not to mention that there wings would dried up, put hey they could have come in the summer but thanks to all that ice that reflects the sun Antarctica is pretty much the worst place for an nocturnal species ever to be in when there is sun light.
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.