blanche-2 Continuum is a show about time travel -- a woman from 2077 is inadvertently sent back to our present. In the future, the corporations run the world, and she's one of their soldiers.Okay, corporate rule is part of the definition of Fascism; and truly, the world she lives in with her family seems Big Brother-ish, intrusive, and restrictive.On the basis of this, a bunch of people on IMDb decided to write off the show, sometimes as early as the first episode, because the lead character, Keira (Rachel Nichols) is on the wrong side.The wrong side. I really don't know what that means. First of all, I was intrigued that she was a soldier in the future and wondered if, seeing the seeds of the future planted now in the past, if she would change sides.I'm now watching season 4. While I'm not big on sci fi, I am enjoying "Continuum". The acting is a little all over the place - Victor Webster was a soap star known as a young man for being drop- dead gorgeous and unable to act. He gets by. Rachel Nichols is better. I also like Erik Knudson, Ian Tracey, Stephen Lobo, Luvia Peterson, and Omari Newton. It's a young, attractive cast.I can understand giving up on a show after the first season, the first ten episodes, but come on -- the first episode? Must everything be pegged right or left wing? I guess so. Today a woman is sexually assaulted and it's politicized. So I'm not surprised.

johnpendarvis Possibly the worst of a horrific lot of ScFy channel "original" series, a contrived mess that is lifeless, repetitive, and just deadly boring. It also has the distinction of featuring the worst protagonist in recent memory, Rachel Nichols. She has two expressions- one of forced defiance, and a totally blank one that she uses about 90% of the time. Possibly the worst actress on a channel that features Tara Reid, no small accomplishment.

bryangl I must admit I'm only just through season 2, and I take the point that this is more a cop show than Sci-Fi, but I do like the concept. Time travel is always fun to play with, and those critics who dismiss the series saying time travel is impossible, don't know their theoretical physics. It ain't possible now, nor in the immediate future, but ultimately, almost anything is possible,However, attractive leads don't compensate for uneven acting, I suspect mainly due to the direction rather than the actors (although Rachel Nichols' (Kiera) mind frequently seems to be somewhere else, and that's not looking 'back' on her lost future!). Intonation of some of the actors sounds as if they are speaking to a blank wall rather than another character, and some dialog is overly close-miked, giving an incorrect audio perspective.Back and forth dialog between two characters often seems as if each person's lines were delivered in isolation and later cut together; they appear not to have been shot in real time and so the actors don't quite sound as if they are really talking to each other. Knudsen (Alec) is one of the actors who avoids this and to my mind is the best actor in the cast. Dialog writing is a common problem, giving actors phrasings that don't sit naturally and are difficult to act convincingly. Why more dialog was not rewritten on set is beyond me (or it was done, but poorly). The uneven acting becomes very obvious if you watch this after watching any of "Eureka", "Fringe", "Sanctuary" or go back further to the stunning performances in "Babylon 5".In a few places editing is a little sloppy with action not cutting quite as it should, and some of the big set scenes are far too extended. It seems the director wanted to push the mileage out of these scenes and was reluctant to lose treasured footage. The cinematography is generally fine, as is most of the lighting (but not all).Finally, the music scoring is terrible. Uninspired and often in conflict with the action. Again, watch any of the series mentioned above, all with different musical styles, but all with scores that both compliment and enhance the scenes. (The "Babylon 5" score is a bit dated now, but still works well, and the scoring for "Sanctuary" is probably the best of all.)To summarize: (First, I'm not just an armchair critic but have professional experience in acting and directing. Also a lifetime semi-pro musician with a love of film music.) So; the concept and story-lines generally are fine, but execution suggests the budget didn't allow adequate time for shooting, editing or scoring. And the overall style is 'off' somehow. Definitely not up with the usual high standard expected from Canada. I persevered into series 3 ep 2, then, in disgust, threw the lot into the garbage!

Sailinship I'm only writing this review because I want the execs and writers to hear the voice of a Sci-Fi fan. This show sucks. It's another drama/cop show with boring plots. All the stories I've watched so far play out just like every cop drama and I HATE cop dramas, I don't hate cops, just the way they are portrayed on Television, and that includes detectives in CSI and all that other baloney. They never get to the heart of how complicated most cases and people are. And this show suffers from that as well. It's an hour long episode of people bickering, little lies, confrontations that rarely ever end in any form of real resolution.As far as the plot holes, here's one, it's supposed to be sci-fi but there isn't any. Having a few gadgets does not make it sci-fi.And there are so many of these shows, Defiance, The 100, Falling skies, Revolution, and more I'm sure. They all build there stories upon conflicts that are rooted in the characters having poor logic skills or poor lines of communication. Then there's the constant gun play, so many shoot outs, with so little resolution.You know what made Star Trek so great? They found ways to tell stories that didn't revolve around people arguing. Sure, some of the episodes were more boring than others, but not as boring as watching fake gun battles.Please, if you're reading this and you're a writer or a T.V. exec, just know that this kind of schlock has go to stop.