User Reviews

It's the year 2076. After a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions in 2059, brought about with the help of technology, science and technology were banned. Dr. Theresa Givens has been sentenced to death because she traveled from the 1990s to the future and brought both her time machine and other technical equipment to the year 2076. She says that she took this equipment to the future and gave it to a rebel group because technology is - in her opinion - vital to averting another catastrophe that she witnessed when she traveled even further into the future. So not only Theresa's life is at stake in the appeal proceedings. The judges will have to decide if the anti-technology laws will be kept or abolished - and thus they will influence the fate of the whole human race - their decision could mean survival or it could mean death.

This episode has two parts, so it has double the length of the other episodes (about 90 minutes, or two hours if you include the commercials). There's also another episode about Dr. Theresa Givens, 'A Stitch in Time' (season 2, episode 1), but I can't say anything about it because I haven't seen it.

The discussions about the advantages vs. the dangers of science and technology in this episode are really interesting in my opinion. For example, in one passage they discuss if science is as dangerous as the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (which meant the loss of Paradise) or if science should not (or cannot) be suppressed forever anyway because curiosity is one of the basic human qualities (given to man by God). But the discussions are also repetitive, so some passages are dragging a bit. There's only little action and most of it is supplied by short clips from previous episodes (shown as examples for the dangers or the advantages of technology, respectively). But it has a twist ending that I liked. And the cast is really good, especially Charlton Heston and Amanda Plummer (who you will probably remember as 'Honey Bunny' in 'Pulp Fiction').

I think it should have been less repetitive, but it's a really interesting and good episode in my opinion.

I have seen Part II but not Part I. I was about to turn off the TV as this SciFi Channel rerun was put on the air and there was Hal Holbrook. What? The camera pans back and seated beside him are Charlton Heston, Cecily Tyson, Swoosie Kurtz, and Robert Loggia. They are apparently members of a court. At that point I decided to see what was coming on and it was certainly worth my time. The cast was phenomenal being rounded out by Amanda Plummer as a scientist whose life is on the line and who is appealing her conviction, Michael Moriarty who is arguing for the state that her conviction must be upheld by the court, and Kelly McGillis who is arguing for the defendant that the conviction must be overturned.

The court was debating science as a producer of good versus science as a producer of evil. Plummer's character had violated a law banning certain forms of scientific research and as a result had been sentenced to death. The script is excellent. My guess is that the cast was recruited to work for scale by being shown the script. I feel that I have not done justice to the incredible quality of this production so I will say that this is about as good as gets on an intellectual playing field.

If I were teaching a course in scientific ethics I would obtain a copy of both parts of this drama and show it to the class. Excellent all the way around. One of the best episodes of probably the best science fiction series ever put on TV.

Amanda Plummer, a time traveling scientist faces the Supreme Court of the 2070's, in an America that has outlawed technology.

Michael Moriarty for the prosecution, Kelly McGillis for the defense.

Chief justice: Charlton Heston. Associates: Cicely Tyson, Robert Loggia, Hal Holbrook, Swoosie Kurtz.

Strange-looking observer in the back of the courtroom: Wallace Langham.

All sorts of issues and possible futures get discussed as history and shown in dystopian vignettes.

This cast and their script really pulled me in, and just when I'm expecting Big Chuck to hand down a decision-- --a twist from left field, and a razza-frazzin' CLIFFHANGER!!! Oh boy, I wish I could cuss on IMDb...

Now, I just finished watching this in weekend syndication, so I don't know if this is a Sundays only, weekend days, or 7-days-a-week. Will the conclusion be aired tomorrow, next Saturday, or next Sunday? Sigh.

If I catch it, I'll come back to pen an addendum this review...

Wallace Langham, of CSI: Las Vegas, is front and center in this second part to the previous Outer Limits episode, "Final Appeal". He has a cold fusion bomb strapped to him and plans to blow up the court house, the judges, and presiding counsel if his needs aren't met. Plummer, for whom Langham was a colleague before the two had a falling out, is still on trial for using technology in her time travel. Langham wants to be heard and speak his cause *against* technology yet use the time travel device to go wherever he wants. He is talking out both ends of his mouth here, and the long-winded script debates and debates and debates with the producers saving some coin by throwing in more flashbacks from previous episodes (as "evidence" spoken by the cast to support or critique technology's help and/or danger). There is a good interrogation scene where Langham "calls out" Heston (one of the tribunal court's judges) for resorting to "the technological underground" to try and save his cancer-stricken wife. The judges include Hal Holbrook (who is anti-technology, using the example of his dead family as a result of the "new holocaust" to support his stance), Cicely Tyson (who has a neat sparring debate with Swoosie Kurtz), Robert Loggia (who sees advantage in technology and is moved by closing arguments from Plummer and McGillis), and Swoozie Kurtz (who is the most vocal supporter of the defendants). Langham calls himself Ezekiel and noises his cause until he gets his wish…Plummer is granted the ability by the tribunal to allow him time travel in order to save themselves, realizing that do so was at to their own possible peril. The episode ends in 1776 with Langham all smiles after one last statement against those in 2076. The results of the episode are mindboggling as one has to wonder why the court would allow Langham to leave. Sure their lives meant something to them, but letting him go into the time travel vortex sets up any type of frightening possibility…which does happen thanks to a message from a holographic simulation and trigger mechanism. Seeing Plummer debate her tech cause right after Langham proves how tech could be a significant danger seems rather weak, but she issues her plea just the same. Moriarty's counter-argument, though, is quite prescient and valid. Again, a ton of talk in this episode. Two episodes of the debate is a bit too much. As good a cast as you could ask for, though.

Amanda Plummer's time traveling scientist is on trial for using technology, forbidden in a future after a "new holocaust" was caused by science's "inventions". A tribunal ("the highest court") is over her case. They include such greats as Charlton Heston, Hal Holbrook, Robert Loggia, Cicely Tyson, and Swoosie Kurtz. Michael Moriarty argues against Plummer and technology while Kelly McGillis defends its acceptance in order for a future brighter than what seems to currently exist in 2076 where society has returned to farming the ground and living an existence away from computers and the like. Time travel is a device used to explore technology's potential...and its danger to others. Plummer has seen the future, and *without* technology, a virus could spell disaster for those of 2076.

The debate on technology—does this future rule in favor of Plummer or sentence her to capital punishment for using tech when the law says it is outlawed?—is preached long-windedly for not just this episode but the *next* episode, too! This is as fine a cast assembled that I could possibly think of. And what does the producers do: waste their time with flashbacks to previous episodes to work as pros and cons to the tech argument. There's a ton of dialogue, though. Does this new society continue to live a simpler existence or allow technology to once again service their future? Arguments on both sides produce their own evidence to support their cause.