BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

superbhyll Just watched this show for I think the 3rd time and it just gets better. I first saw the UK one when first aired and was so impressed I told my son (Who was a police officer at the time) - he showed some of the recordings to colleagues who said it brought back memories of the old ways of doing things. Now I don't know if the yank's did the things like that, but whatever - this is a wonderful transition from UK to USA. Every part seemed played to perfection and the "Americanized" plots just added to it - just so sad that it never made season 2. Sequels or re-makes seldom manage to equal , but this one surpasses - if you have not seen it -0 you should !

Adam Brown If you think of a very successful British show like Life on Mars, it was only a matter of time before some network in America adapts it for American audience. My initial impressions before seeing this show was it was going to be no where near a good as the original British version. While I have to say that this show is not as good as the UK version,it is however a very enjoyable and entertaining show.The show does do a very good job at recreating 1970s New York with many cultural references which occurred around the time, such as the anti war protests and the Irish gangs. In addition, the acting from everyone is very good, especially from Jason O' Mara and Michael Imperiolli (who plays a drastically depiction of Ray Carling, as opposed to Dean Andrews portrayal in the original series). The story lines are also inventive in how the writers have taking story lines and plot elements from the UK version and added their own twists and ideas to the series, which helps give the show its own identity.Despite this, the show does have some flaws. Like I have previously mentioned, the show is not as good as the original. Another one of these flaws is Harvey Keitel as Gene Hunt. While Keitel is a good actor and his acting credit is seen here, I felt he was miscast as Gene. While he does display the same brutish attitude, he is unable to deliver the same tongue and cheek humour that the original character (played by Phil Glenister)had. Furthermore, the ending to the series is very poor and one of the main reasons why this remake is inferior to the original.Overall, Life on Mars USA is an enjoyable, if not flawed remake. If you look at it as a show on its own, it is pretty descent, however if you compare it to the original UK version, it is simply not as good. Anyone that is a fan of the original series should definitely give this a look, and even if you haven't seen the original, its still worth watching

elshikh4 It's an old-fashioned TV show, namely something so missed in these days, with a police officer chasing the criminals, solving the crimes, passing more time in the street than his office, yet all of that mixed with the irony of someone from the 2000s living the 1970s, or in another word; a time travel matter.The way how the lead did travel was hasty and forced. The writers tried to philosophize it, but with results, I think, assure the pure desire of doing something just new. (John Simm) as the lead is blank. More than once I asked for what he was chosen, else being tall and blond, to find no answer. While (Harvey Keitel) handles a real enjoyable character enjoyably, he looks so old to be a police officer, being 69-year-old in real life, and 77-year-old on screen ! The direction isn't that distinguished; ahh, imagine this work as a Blaxploitation's big homage. WAW. That could have been more attractive and 70s I can tell you that !Still, my heaviest problem with this show is its YELLOW color. OK, I'll try to be as quiet as I can be. So…WHY THE HECK IS THAT??!! Is it a way that saves time and money that may be spent for giving the sets, the clothes,…etc. any harmony? So is it a way to shoot faster while no effort would be done for directing the image colorfully? Whatever the reason is, it is a way to damage my nerves!Maybe someday I would make a list of the yellow TV shows; where all the images of all the scenes during all the episodes have JUST ONE COLOR. (Relic Hunter – 1999) comes to my mind powerfully, with its repulsive, unjustified and forever reddish yellow. At any cost, it's certainly a move that only happened during the end of the 1990s and the whole 2000s; the age of (CSI : Crime Scene Investigation) along with its many brothers and sisters of other Crimes; The age of how to annoy the viewer!Anyway, it's ugly to unbearable extent despite any stupid allegation that it's done for artistic purpose or special atmosphere. Well, yellow can't be the color of the 1970s. I'm damn sure that nearly 90 % of the world is with me on that. The 1970s rather defines gaudiness, as the era of ALL the colors ! The writing is better than the rest, all the rest. It brought back the old days, of the 1970s in America and the 1980s in The TV of America, altogether. Its directing just missed the artistic qualities of both. For me, it deserved more than 17 episodes, if only was cured of the yellow fever it had !

steve e Having never heard of this show prior to its debut on ABC, I absolutely loved the American version. After a few episodes, the characters really developed, and the actors seemed to gel more than in the start. A lot of humor involved Michael Imperioli and Keitel condescending women's rights and confused by 'Spaceman's' current attitudes that we take as common sense.The British version is obviously amazing, but it's two separate countries, so the issues and slang used (along with the scenery), are very different. To be honest, I didn't understand a lot of the references in the British version. I wasn't even alive in the 70s. I am almost positive a lot went over my head in the American version as well. The basic premise, the hallucinations, and character names are really the few things both have in common. The idea of a re-make is to improve something that was done poorly yet remained popular (usually a cult classic) or alter a successful idea to reach new audiences, not produce a carbon copy. Ricky Gervais understood that concept when bringing us the Office. Even today, his characters evolve yet maintain his original, core personalities, yet that may be due to his current involvement as producer and writer.From reading the other reviews, I believe it was impossible for fans of the original to view the American version as something attuned to our history. The anger seemed more directed at Americans for even attempting this version, not its content, the sharp, sarcastic dialog (after the growing pains), or the humor in the ideals held a mere thirty years ago. Be that as it may, the outcry was heard and new fans of the series were stripped of a potential classic before it had a chance to develop into its beautiful and savvy predecessor. Sometimes the translation is lost on its way overseas (like Coupling), but I do not think that was the case here. Every week I was eager for a new episode. Every week I laughed and got more involved with the growing complexities within each character. Due to this, the final episode will infuriate just about everyone. It was an idea meant to be led to slowly and with a lot of misdirection, yet the cancellation sped us to the "wow" moment too quickly. It became a moment of confusion, instead of revelation.I would advise purchasing either version and cranking the volume. Otherwise, you're not going to hear the music over your own laughing and voiced epiphanies. Both soundtracks are stellar, and half the fun is guessing at the end of the series like with Lost, and I promise, you will fail as soon as you start trying.Both versions have a place in my heart. Enjoy them!