Watch Battlestar Galactica For Free

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

The original 'Battlestar Galactica' series from the 70s was, and still is, a lot of fun to watch and has a lot of great things, such as most of the production values, the music and the cast (especially loved Adama and Starbuck). Flaws and all, there is still a soft spot for the show.At the same time, it was a long way from a flawless show, with the problems more noticeable to an adult audience, such as annoying child actors, the character of Muffit II, the tone not always being focused and too many homages that distracted from the main plot-line. When 'Battlestar Galactica' was good, it was great, as seen with "War of the Gods" which took a darker and bolder approach and ended up epitomising what the show is all about. When the show was not good, like with "The Young Lords", it was cringe-worthy.There was the worry that this mini-series, or pilot to the 2004 re-boot, would be another 'Galactica 1980', which had one great episode in the final episode "The Return of Starbuck" and one great scene in the attack of the Cylons on Los Angeles but is down there as one of the most pointless and unnecessary shows ever made, not only making the mistakes as the original 'Battlestar Galactica' did but amplifying them and making more on the way.No fear of that. For a pilot mini-series, 'Battlestar Galactica' (2003) was pretty darn good, honestly was not expecting it to be this good. Whereas pilots tend to have a shaky finding-its-feet vibe, while still with things that could have been done better, 'Battlestar Galactica' (2003) is enough to make one feel excited, rather than apprehensive, for what was to follow. Am going to go on a limb here, for me this was an improvement on the original 'Battlestar Galactica' and while clearly for an older and perhaps more adult audience perhaps a little more accessible.In 'Battlestar Galactica' (2003) the tone is much more consistent. It's dark, bold, moody and sombre compared to the more light-hearted and admittedly sometimes cheesy tone of the original, and while it was different it was interesting and avoided generally being clinical and cold (though it was occasionally in the early scenes). It clearly knows what tone it's trying to take, without trying to be too many things all at once which would fall into the traps of being bloated and under-explored, and what target audience it's aiming to appease to, without trying too hard to appeal to them. The characters have much more depth, with complex and nuanced personalities (the heroes have flaws as well as strengths, while the more villainous characters are more than standard villains with a sympathetic and humane edge while also being a threat). Only Tigh is a little flat.The Cylons are more consistently characterised, being more of a threat rather than being indecisively written, and there are no annoying child actors or any character down there with the likes of Muffit II or Doctor Zee from 'Galactica 1980'.Apart from some camera work that comes over as gimmicky and excessive, the production values are top notch, so much so that it felt out of place when it was aired on the Sci-Fi Channel with most of its output (more its movies than the long-running shows that aired) looking like direct to video fodder, and that's being kind. Mostly it's stylishly and atmospherically shot, the settings are more expansive and leaves one in awe and the special effects are not cheap and not repetitive or recycled. The music is haunting and moody with also with melancholy and nuanced pathos without being overly-bombastic or sappy, approaches that would have sounded wrong within the show.Writing is as layered and complex as the characters, as well as being more focused tonally and the story-lines more consistent. It's very insightful and thought-provoking, and resists going into overload of cheese or mawkish sentimentality. While taking its time to develop, the story is still incredibly compelling with a lot going on while still being very much cohesive. There is no padding and the concept is always obvious with little getting in the way. The acting is very good, especially from dignified and authoritative Edward James Olmos and a heartfelt Mary McDonnell. A female and more abrasive Starbuck did take getting used to at first and did need toning down at first, but generally the sass and toughness of the character was entertaining and Katee Sackoff did very well bringing that out.Overall, fans of the original show will be, and have been, put off by the wildly different feel of the show. But for other people who either liked the original while also acknowledging its flaws (like me) or didn't care for it, the different feel was, or will be, a welcome change due to having more depth and a more focused tone.9/10 Bethany Cox

Yes, indeedy, this is one of those IMDb "re-reviews" written, as it were, "from the future" in that the reviewer already knows how the aforesaid mini-series begat a regular TV series; which begat several TV movies; which begat several webisodes; which begat great viewer joy. Did not mean to go all Biblical on you but, kindly note, (a) the storyline in BSG (both the original, and the reboot) is itself biblical, in that the characters follow an arc dictated by "prophecy"; and (b) this is generally believed to be the second-most addictive series in TV history, Joss Whedon's Buffy, of course, being the first. Other reviewers (100s here on the miniseries' page, 100s on the TV series' IMDb page) have already talked about the finer points, so let's get to the meat, the addiction. I have a theory. Buffy was addictive because somewhere in the early first season viewers went, OMG, this innocent teenage girl is hooking up with the hunky 1000 year old vampire and, OMG, they spent one night together and now he is trying to kill her. Literally. And over in BSG, aside from the super writing, the super acting, the wonderful blend of action and melodrama, you have (TA-DUH! ... my hypothesis) something just as visceral and unexpected happening; just as with Buffy, something that hooks you and keeps you hooked before you even realize you have been caught like a flounder. OMG, you say to yourself, that whiny, wingey, sciencey guy has hooked up with a babe who looks like she is "out of his league" by several big-city franchises at least; and, OMG, to stay hooked up with her it seems HE IS WILLING TO BETRAY THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. I mean, we have seen guys do foolish things to "get the girl" before, things they regret the next day, but we have never seen a guy betray HIS ENTIRE SPECIES ...? And (my favourite, the twist of the knife) just in case there were, maybe, 4 viewers left on the planet who did not "get" this -- in case it was just too subtle for them -- by the time the series cranks up, WE HAVE A REPEAT OF THE VERY SAME THEME ON THE BSG itself -- the Master Chief (the ship's mechanic) is having an affair with a junior officer who (once again!) is "out of his league," and EVEN THOUGH HE SUSPECTS THERE IS SOMETHING ODD ABOUT HER, that she may actually be a Cylon, he is generally willing to look the other way just to keep the relationship going. (Yes, yes, I know, the fact that these two key roles were portrayed by Tricia Helfer and Grace Park only makes these themes carry that much more impact). So there you have it. Two addictive shows. Two story arcs that, from the getgo, grab your attention with the issue of just how far we humans will go to pursue a relationship, whether it's healthy or not. Is that the real reason for the staying power of these shows? I really don't know, but I imagine this review will be here long after this reviewer has gone, so I will leave it to viewers of the "further future" to decide...

I believe this show is a great example of how acting and story come first, and not special effects. The story is superb along with the acting. Cylons mimicing humans is nothing new to the sci fi genre (Terminator) but still the way this tactic is interwoven into the human drama is what draws my attention.Unfortunately, at least for season 1, the special effects aren't too great. That shot of the Cylons during the title sequence marching through the door looks so pixelated, it's a wonder why the producers allowed that clip to be released. And this is after watching the entire season blu ray.I look forward to watching season 2, already on my Netflix waiting list.

Sad to see Glen A. Larson producing shows like this. The main issue is, what is with the Laura Roslin character? She seems like a man in a woman's body and viewers find this appealing? Also the entire show seems to be about interrogations and more interrogations. The plot seems banal and always week after week the same things are shown. Some conspiracy abounds and this is supposed to be the new great twist every episode. There is hardly any action and the drama is based entirely on having some sort of stale friction between the characters. I highly recommend watching Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: The Original series if one wants good science fiction episodes. This show isn't science fiction. It's junk.