Recensioni degli utenti

To those who have noted that this series focuses much on wars and battles; step back and take a look - it's what we've done - above all else. Nothing much has changed.

I see all the reviews which criticize this series. If you are looking for hard core, detailed documentaries you probably should have abandoned the history channel about 10 years ago. As a vehicle to spark the interest high-school kids and provide images and concepts for discussion, this series has worked very well in my classroom. Biases and inaccuracies serve as the seeds for deeper dialogue about cultural perspectives and historicity. Indeed, the reputations of some of the talking heads have evolved over the years. It's colorful, its loud, and it keeps the kids' attention better than the stuff that came before.

I concede that there are better series out there for serious folks who like a deeper dive.

Not everything is correct and the fact about history is some of it is based on opinions which obviously will have bias. It's very entertaining that covers a lot. It's heavily US biased which is expected when watching that is US produced

Unlike some other harsh fake name critics and spotty reviews posted already, i give this series two thumbs up for interesting story and video, maybe some facts are not 100% accurate or shown in a different light, at least these people took the time and money to tell those of us who haven't had our noses glued to history books some interesting details of our past, there will always be those critics who will slash through others hard work in five minutes to try and undo what many have spent a good part of their lives investigating to bring us something tangible, i for one thank them in making this extraordinary piece of work and allowing us to view it.

Although I don't believe this is a perfect 10, I thought I'd rate it as such to offset the low ratings from other users. It seems that the majority of reviewers are most upset about events that were left out of 'The Story of All of Us' than the actual events portrayed. In actuality, this miniseries attempts to showcase several milestones in human history. Keyword: milestones. You can't expect the entire history of mankind to be told in 12 hours. I congratulate the show on its ability to give small snippets of history through individual accounts. On the other hand, take the historical 'facts' with a grain of salt, as you should get any information you receive from multiple sources anyways, especially from the History Channel.

Yes, they did not mention a lot of things, I miss Roman Republic, Caesar, Augustus, Napoleon, French revolution, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Reformation but overall it is not bad and I learned or review a lot. It is also entertaining, sure, they might include more facts and less drama but it should not only show the history but also be entertaining.

Keep in mind that it is 12-episode show, altogether it is cca 550 minutes, it would take a couple of more seasons to cover all of the important history. I also liked America, the story of the US and they also failed to mention for example gangs, new music culture (jazz, soul, rap, etc.), so imagine if it is not possible to cover all of the important history about the state which is only cca 200 years old, how they can put history of the mankind in such a short series?

Interesting summary of the history of mankind and worth watching if you don't mind the annoying electronic or techno music with drums at time to gamer type music catered to that generation that might rather be gaming. Even the characters are introduced as if they are characters in some video game with quick cuts and God that background music gets old. Perhaps it's to keep one awake for the boring and monotonous sounding narrator. Overall it is "fun" to watch" but one does get the feeling it's for a juvenile crowd from the simplicity to the rhetoric and the the way a that this is shot. Funny how they decided to show the buildings that seem to build themselves to show how some of these great wonders were built using CJI to reconstruct them. Interesting take but again a bit annoying with that background score. Have I reached a thousand words yet to get my thought across? Anyway worth a watch if you do love history but do wish they would elaborate a bit more. A for effort on behalf of the producers and directors though.

Compare it to Spark Notes or the Civilization video games.

At it's core it is basic periodization covering just before the copper age and advancing all the way to the modern day. The show highlights specific events that allowed the majority of human civilizations to shift from one era to the next.

Throw away the concepts of racism, propaganda, and agenda. The show talks about everything from the big bang, Jesus Christ, Chinese inventing gun powder, Rome founding democracy, early Americans founding liberty, The silk Road, Taj Mahal, Teotihuacan, and much more...

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

It was very enjoyable to watch.

I always had a weakness for this kind of documentaries, I liked it very much.

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 (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 made 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.

Of all the epic History serials I've seen so far, I liked this one the least. It is a daunting task to retell the entire history of human civilization, but a lot of the potential is destroyed through a very unsympathetic presentation.

It begins with the tediously dramatic narrator, who puts so much emphasis on every single sentence that before long you wish you could tune him out. It doesn't help that most sentences are kept extremely short, which is at first irritating, then starts to feel condescending. You'll wish the narrator back, though, once you start to meet the interviewees featured. Not only are many of them completely absurd picks for the topics at hand (a Navy SEAL? A writer? A news anchor?), but a couple of them are downright annoying to watch and listen to. They couldn't find any historians, archaeologists or anthropologists who could give well-founded information—without all the theatrics?

The parts I disliked the least are, surprisingly, those I usually hate most in documentaries: the CGI scenes and reenactments. The reenactments work remarkably well because they're not overstated and, funnily, not overly dramatized. At least their pathos fades in comparison to that of the narrator and "experts". While reenactments usually feel like a very cheap and childish part of a serious documentary, those in Mankind were not at all bad. Similarly for the CGI scenes, which somehow seemed way less cheesy than the usual fare. They're allowed to be dramatic, and there's a few ridiculous ones, like for instance the Sphinx at the end of the first part, but overall they knew their place and were pretty well done.

The story is, no doubt, a fascinating one. What might be a matter of personal preference is that I felt the series spent too much time on the latter stages. I would have preferred the final 4 parts compressed into 2, leaving more room for detail in the earlier chapters. But all in all, if you're not just looking for the next History box-set but have an actual interest in the topic, and considering that this 9-hour behemoth is a considerable time investment, there are many better alternatives out there.

I did enjoy watching an episode of "Mankind: The Story of All of Us" titled "The Invention of Gunpowder". It allowed me to learn more about what we had previously learned about in AP World History class. While it was a lot of repetition of the same information we have been learning, it was personally helpful for me to see it demonstrated/explained in a different way. Watching something instead of just hearing/reading about it, allowed me to make more connections that "stick" in my brain better. So, I believe that this activity would be beneficial to an AP World History student because it gives more insight about the invention and importance of gunpowder.

I enjoyed this tv show, but I can't believe you have not mentioned the Great Hungarian Empire once right after the Mongolians. They were great explorers, inventors, bloody rulers.

The huge part of the tv shows just as in reality huge part of history we can see through wars, inventions and even myself who thought knows what needs to be known learned new information.

The visuals were great, they invested time, money and paid attention to historically accurate costumes and languages. Worth your time. Especially if you are a history lover. Very detailed documentary with great commentaries from famous and not so famous people.

OK so here's the positive. The pseudo-history channel is slowly becoming the History Channel again. After giving a platform to fringe B.S. like the holy grail in America (really?) and Ancient Aliens I was genuinely excited for a sweeping epic about actual history. I was in for disappointment.

It's full of gross historical inaccuracies and in all the episodes I've seen I've yet to see an actual professional historian or archaeologist among their "experts".

In lieu of analysis they rely instead on vague generalities and dramatic presentation, which failed to be dramatic and utterly succeeded at being annoying. Epic 300 slo-mo isn't appropriate for everything, especially not farming.

In the end it's a superficial history show for people who are only superficially interested in history. If you've ever actually bothered to read a history book you are not missing anything by missing this.

But at least it's not another HC show about Nostradamus or 2012. I'll give it a star for that.

A collection of cuts and pieces from everything and yet nothing. Basically they try to summarize human achievement in 12 episodes. Resulting in a rather biased detailed depiction of the west and ignore most of the east. Plus, everything is crammed in and really the details are left out. Even if this is heavily aimed towards a western audience, so much are just completely omitted. And I just have to ask myself, did a high school student do this the night before it's due? Leaves an unsatisfying tastes in the viewer after watching. Overall an ambiguous and not well planned out project. And finally, did they REALLY try to summarize the human civilization in 12 episodes?

Watched this after viewing the not so bad America: the story of US. Apparently the History channel (in the US) can only handle some very short and simple, straight forward history like the one in the US. Mankind: the story of all of US is very shallow, narrow, biased, ignorant, and poorly made (yes, there are lots of reenactment, but there is no real experts in any aspect), the same as all US made "history" stuff, everything about Europeans, and throw in a little bit Egyptians, Persians, ... this and that for exotic decorations, as if the rest of the world, "all of us", as the title called, are either dead or aliens. In fact, this is so bad, that this prompts me to write my first written review on IMDb. I really think people should not waste their time on this, and this can just worsen the already bad enough ignorant misunderstanding and lack of understanding in real mankind history.

Watched the first 20 minutes of this and was horrified, behind the great CGI was the most factually inaccurate documentary I have ever seen. Weapons used before we know existed, earliest cave paintings in France? No Spain, the United Kingdom shown as a separate island when in fact it was still connected to mainland Europe, Stonehenge showing only a fraction of its construction. I stopped watching when the Architect of the great pyramid was depicted as a great innovator, what about the architect of the pyramid of Djoser 850 years earlier? A pile of glorified crap that I found frankly insulting. Most humankind changing history happened well before the dawn of the USA so it would be nice to see Americans learning and teaching truths of our origins. That's if your not too busy clinging on to an archaic constitution enabling you to carry guns and shoot each other.

This show should actually be called The Story of All of US because it only includes world history that, in some way, has affected the USA.

I wrote that previous sentence before I learned that there already was a previous series titled America: The Story of the US. I haven't seen that series, but I honestly have no idea what the difference is between these two shows. The most absurd example I can remember is that, while discussing the first time mass production was ever used, it is interrupted by a lengthy American Civil War segment talking about how America perfected mass production centuries later and how the original version was far inferior. It was completely uncalled for and seemed very out of place.

Speaking of absurdity, the segment discussing the Chinese invention and militarization of GUNPOWDER ends with a stereotyped Kung Fu fist fight. Why?

Another poor point is that the "experts" they bring in for discussion are typically not experts. There are a couple of ex-soldiers and Dr. Oz. No respectable doctors or historians. No high ranking military officers. Everything they said sounded just as generic and common knowledge as Brolin's narration.

Despite all of that, it's hard to blame them for directing the narrative when you're only given 9 hours to tell the entirety of human history. The show does still give a good, brief summary of an American world history course. People who would like a refresher on that information will probably enjoy this show, but don't watch it expecting it to teach you anything you haven't heard before.

This is not so much a history of us all as it is a history of Europe and China. The History Channel somehow manages to spend several minutes discussing the achievements of the sub-Saharan African Kingdoms of Mali, Great Zimbabwe, and Ethiopia without showing any dark-skinned faces. Bustling marketplaces, students studying in universities, individuals mining for gold, impressive architectural constructions but amazingly not one black African is shown in ancient Mali, Zimbabwe, or Ethiopia. That takes real, concerted effort on someone's part. No mentions of Kush, the 25th dynasty of Egypt, etc. I would have expected this in the 1950s but not in 2012.