Mankind: The Story of All of Us

:

Season 1
User Score
4.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 16 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 16
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 16
  3. Negative: 8 out of 16

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. Observer2
    Dec 12, 2012
    1
    I've watched this series and saved the episodes for possible watching by visiting grandchildren. Having seen all the episodes through episode 15, my wife and I have decided that we wouldn't want our grandchildren to watch the series. Much of the photography is well done and the series is fairly entertaining, but we are dumbfounded by the number of historical factual inaccuracies and theI've watched this series and saved the episodes for possible watching by visiting grandchildren. Having seen all the episodes through episode 15, my wife and I have decided that we wouldn't want our grandchildren to watch the series. Much of the photography is well done and the series is fairly entertaining, but we are dumbfounded by the number of historical factual inaccuracies and the burdensome biased political philosophy that is stated as historical fact. The writing is so bad, I tried to find out who the writers were. I discovered that no names are credited for the series, and I understand as I would want to hide my name as well. My wife and I have just deleted the series from my DVD.… Expand
  2. hobbesdj
    Dec 22, 2012
    1
    This series has great visuals, but other than that it is downright terrible. First, It completely skips over ancient Indian civilization (mohenjo-daro anyone?), an ancient people that every ancient historian considers vital to the development of world civilization. I was also equally amazed that the series skipped over the transformation of Rome from a Republic to an Empire (JuliusThis series has great visuals, but other than that it is downright terrible. First, It completely skips over ancient Indian civilization (mohenjo-daro anyone?), an ancient people that every ancient historian considers vital to the development of world civilization. I was also equally amazed that the series skipped over the transformation of Rome from a Republic to an Empire (Julius Caesar and Augustus anyone?). Rulers have been calling themselves Caesars/Czars/Kaisers for thousands of years, but no mention of Caesar? Incredibly, the series also omits Charlemagne and the Franks (the group who would lay the foundations for France and Germany), the Byzantine Empire, and perhaps most incredibly of all, Napoleon. I find it absolutely mind-blowing that these subjects wouldn't be included in a history of the world. World War I and II were glossed over, and far too much time is spent on less important events like the invention of the crossbow. The American Revolution and Civil War are similar overblown in their effect on the world. Last but not least, many of the 'facts' presented are either untrue or simply opinions that would be ignored in the academic community. An example of this is the coverage of the American revolution - the involvement of the French is left out and the documentary describes the British surrendering solely to the rebels at Yorktown. In reality, the British surrendered to a mixed army of American rebels and the French army - a victory mde possible by the naval victory of the French over the British off the coast of Virginia. I had really hoped to show this series to my students but instead I will tell them that this is simply an entertainment show that is not to be taken seriously as a historical documentary. Other than Mike Loades I have never even heard of any of these 'historical experts'. I have absolutely no idea why Brian Williams from NBC, a news commentator, is featured in a historical documentary series. There is a plethora of respected historians who could have been consulted for this series - but instead the history channel decides to settle with Brian Williams and a few unknown authors. They should have consulted historians such as Kelly DeVries (UMD) as they did in other more serious historical documentaries. Stay away from this one if you want a serious historical overview of human history.… Expand
  3. nashnewa
    Jul 21, 2013
    3
    Story of us all? Really? Looks to me the only story about the Americans and English inventors, explorers and revolutionaries. The film barely even touches on the Age of Enlightenment or the Renaissance, or the contributions by Japan, India, Russia, Germany, French and all other great nations. Thanks to the China Wall and their invention of gunpowder, the Chinese gets some mention. There isStory of us all? Really? Looks to me the only story about the Americans and English inventors, explorers and revolutionaries. The film barely even touches on the Age of Enlightenment or the Renaissance, or the contributions by Japan, India, Russia, Germany, French and all other great nations. Thanks to the China Wall and their invention of gunpowder, the Chinese gets some mention. There is really no mention of music and literature. And hello, there are also other significant religions like Buddhism and Hinduism that deserve mention. Do Asians, Africans, Australians (oh yes, they mentioned the Aboriginals!), Russians, Scandinavians (yes, they mention the Vikings!) count at all because it sounds like they didn't contribute much to human kind. I just hope whoever wrote the script and directed the film will never be world history teachers of our children. Just watch this as entertainment. And seriously, why do they have some TV news reader among the experts to talk about history when he has no expertise at all. But I like the ex Navy Seals guy among the interviewees who says the most obvious things. I like the way he is dramatic. Humorous. I would rate this 3 out of 10 but thanks to the great graphics, animations and photography, the saviours of this awful show… Expand
  4. oldbrit
    Dec 12, 2012
    2
    the show is entertaining but its history is flawed and revisionist . It is full of self loathing for the west, portraying the crusades as an evil conquest of muslim lands instead of an attempt to stem islamic expansion into the west . It was a response to muslim attempts at world domination . It then went on to perpetuate the myth of islamic science and tolerance . The renaisance inthe show is entertaining but its history is flawed and revisionist . It is full of self loathing for the west, portraying the crusades as an evil conquest of muslim lands instead of an attempt to stem islamic expansion into the west . It was a response to muslim attempts at world domination . It then went on to perpetuate the myth of islamic science and tolerance . The renaisance in Europe was a direct result of a christian and jewish brain drain from islamic tyrany . Who put up the money for this show , Saudi Arabia?… Expand
  5. Mckenzie21
    Aug 4, 2017
    0
    I got this series as a gift. I could only enjoy it as historical fiction though as there was sadly no proof to any of the assertions that the History Channel was trying to pass off as fact.
    Actors, celebrity chefs and news anchors are not credible sources for citing historical facts. Where were the archaeologists? The anthropologists? Where were any of the academics one could trust to    I got this series as a gift. I could only enjoy it as historical fiction though as there was sadly no proof to any of the assertions that the History Channel was trying to pass off as fact.
    Actors, celebrity chefs and news anchors are not credible sources for citing historical facts. Where were the archaeologists? The anthropologists? Where were any of the academics one could trust to talk about human history? No evidence was shown at any point to provide back up for baseless claims. Farming Mother? Show me the bones, the location, the proof that this individual actually existed. Let me see how this hypothesis was reached.
    Randomly inserting "Scientists say...." is not a way to make this a trust worthy documentary.
    The History channel is failing at an ever increasing rate.
    This is not a documentary. This is Historical fiction, Story telling.
    I'm debating whether to purchase anything with the History Channel logo ever again.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

58
#58 Best TV Season of 2012
86
#86 Most Discussed TV Season of 2012
52
#52 Most Shared TV Season of 2012

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 14 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 9 out of 14
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 14
  3. Negative: 0 out of 14
  1. New York Magazine (Vulture)
    Reviewed by: Matt Zoller Seitz
    Nov 13, 2012
    60
    The series' bludgeoning aesthetic is silly, but it works. Much of History's programming aims to intrigue viewers who might never crack open a book, while assuring literate history buffs that the filmmakers know what they're talking about.
    Read full review
  2. Boston Herald
    Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Nov 13, 2012
    75
    Mankind: The Story of All of Us is that college freshman survey course, a buffet of tasty data, a little bit about a lot. It might leave you hungry for more.
    Read full review
  3. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Mary McNamara
    Nov 13, 2012
    50
    If this seems a hodgepodge of ideas, well, that is the general feel of Mankind--a scattershot catalog of man's greatest hits, lovingly enacted by a cast of grim and grimy thousands and propelled ever forward by a relentless soundtrack and urgent narration by Josh Brolin.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »