Human

BBC's documentary series "Human" attempts to chronicle the evolution and history of Homo sapiens but ultimately falls short of what could have been a definitive modern exploration of our species' journey. While the series touches on the major milestones of human evolution, it suffers from a frustratingly superficial treatment of its subject matter.

The series opens with the claim that humans are "the most dominant form of life on the planet". That immediately raised a red flag for me because bacteria certainly would take that title. This sets the tone for a series filled with sweeping generalizations that prioritize dramatic statements over accuracy.

The documentary style employed here feels dated and reminiscent of a documentary style formula that BBC has been using for at least two decades. While this approach can work when backed by substantial content, "Human" lacks the depth and detail that would justify its conventional presentation. Most disappointingly, the series fails to capitalize on recent scientific discoveries from the past few years, particularly in the realms of DNA analysis. For a subject that has seen significant advances through genetic research, this omission feels like a major oversight.

The presenter's delivery, characterized by slow pacing and generic platitudes, becomes grating over time. However, this seems less a personal failing of the presenter and more a symptom of poor direction and production choices. The series is plagued by vague, redundant information that makes following the timeline confusing rather than illuminating.

One of the most glaring oversights is the series' treatment of Africa. While much attention is given to Homo sapiens' journey out of Africa, there's virtually no exploration of migrations within the continent itself over the last 200,000 years. Africa is 30 million square kilometers and home to over 1.5 billion people today yet intra-African migration of homo sapiens is always ignored in these documentaries. The documentary jumps haphazardly between East Africa and southern Africa without acknowledging the vast geographical and historical complexity of human movement within Africa. This view of human migration feels particularly outdated in 2025.

The handling of specific topics like Denisovans exemplifies the series' problems. Rather than delving into the fascinating details of Denisovan and Homo Sapien/Neanderthal interactions or their genetic legacy in modern populations, the documentary reduces them yet again to simplistic "hobbit" comparisons.

For viewers with no prior knowledge of human evolution, "Human" might serve as a basic primer. However, for those seeking substantive information or updates on recent discoveries, the series is a disappointment. Given the BBC's resources and reputation for quality documentaries, this feels like a significant missed opportunity. The subject of human evolution deserves better than this surface level treatment, it needs producers and directors willing to trust their audience with complexity and nuance rather than settling for oversimplified narratives.

For those like myself that found this a bit slow, it's worth sticking with. If you're not into the sweeping slo-mo landscapes and dramatic music, and just want to get to the bones (excuse the pun) of the matter, I would suggest the following:

• fast forward until the presenter is holding something to show you, or is speaking to someone.

• fast forward until a map or artifact is on screen.

This moves the viewing from wondering and questioning and repeating narrative to the actual information you're watching this for. Yes, you might lose a bit in the storytelling and the overall information, but there's enough there, and there's generally a quick summary of what a discovery means after it's shown. So I'm only really missing the questions and wondering, as the answers are summarised after the showing!

Hope this helps. I find this fascinating, but like others, I really struggled to watch with the slow pacing of this. The landscapes and cinematography are stunning though.

Most series about human civilisation skip lightly over pre-history in a single epidsode. There is something welcome, therefore, about a programme that concentrates on the story of the earliest humans. Unfortunately, 'Human' just isn't very good. The visuals are spectacular, but that's because it shows us sand dunes and glaciers when talking about how humans once lived in hostile environments, rather than the less extreme places they actually lived. Much of the commentary has a vauge "feel the wonder" vibe as opposed to the more educational content of someone like Jacob Boronwoski. Most annoyingly, presenter Ella ah-Shamahi talks endless about our relatioship with "other species of human", without once defining what she means by the terms "human" and "species". She is thus particuarly unelightening when discussing interbreeding. Ultimately, what we get here is a lot of pretty pictures; but not much to truly enlighten us.

I was curious to check out this series and ended up binge watching over 2 days. As yo be expected from the BBC production unit, the quality of the cinematography is breathtaking. The big discovery - beyond all the amazing factual content - is Ella Al-Shamahi, who as a presenter and educator, draws you into the world of complex paleontological research and discovery, without ever making you feel patronised.

Ella is a great find for the future of great science documentary making, and the story and her presentation - and utter excitement and glee in her specialist subject - is utterly infectious. A must watch.

This series is a triumph of style over substance, which is to say that it's pretty poor.

Long drawn out scenes, backed with dramatic musical accompaniment, appear designed to emphasise the importance of the subject, but actually do the opposite by detracting from it. Ella Al-Shamahi's commentary is slow and boring. Clearly she is fascinated by her subject, but as a presenter she lacks any of the necessary charisma. It seems that she may be trying to copy the delivery of David Attenborough but, if this is the case, she's a dismal failure. The quite irrelevant background noise adds nothing and is wholly out of place in what claims to be a scientific series. Scenes of the presenter standing in a desert or walking through forests are equally irrelevant.

The substance of the series could easily have been covered in no more than 2 episodes; 5 is simply far too many. Having sat through the first 2, I find myself bored and falling asleep. There is undoubtedly a lot of very good science buried in the series, but that's the problem. It's buried in a vast load of overly dramatic nonsense. Whether this Is the fault of the writers, presenter, director or producer is unknown, but whoever is at fault needs to take a few lessons in how to create a first class science documentary.