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 This view of human migration feels particularly outdated in 2025.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.

Dreadful. Truly dreadful. The narrative is not consistent. That is the biggest gripe. Inaccurate presentation of information is unforgivable.

At one point I thought this was a parody and had to check. Is not, apparently.

You could make three very nicely paced 20 mins pieces, that could include far more information and data, and be far more enjoyable to watch.

The host has potential, but the producer and director have done her no favours whatsoever.

It is such a shame but this is an opportunity lost.

How people have rated this 10/10?!? I can only imagine that they have been paid for or are friends and family of those involved.

A real shame :(

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.

Okay Ella Al-Shamahi is not new to this kind of documentary - she's done a few series for the BBC since 2018.

Wat strikes me with "Human" is the dramatic repetitions. I get it, we need to fill five episodes and there is only so much to tell.

Paleoarcheology is making headway, pushed forward by recent finds. The theory, like the early humans, evolves into more refined ideas. It still remains mostly speculation and interpretation though.

The images are pleasing. Lots of shots of African "primitive" tribes as it looks. The landscape is very much connected with the story so we get to see a lot of it and it is spectacular.

It's not bad at all. Just one thing: the overly dramatic writing. At some points there are repetitions; then, there's some excessive drama and inflation even. Just read this line a couple of times: "this failed migration was a stark reminder of our fragility". Okay, but to whom? To them? That would be a rather silly way of putting it. Really, they were dead and it's not like they sent a messenger back to whence they came from, to let them know that they kind of died out. To us then? Ok let's try that. So maybe it reminded the archologists and scientists of human fragility. I bet it did. But clearly that's not the intended meaning of this line of text. It is just weird - the next bit doesn't continue to clarify that one overdramatic line. It just leaves me as the viewer hanging, wondering. And not in a good way - but I guess that's just me.

The thought occurred to me that this sounds a lot like something chatgpt would write. And I wouldn't even blame her for doing that. After all, it's five episodes she had to fill.

I felt enriched by watching this series, but also it felt like it could and perhaps should have been a lot shorter and less dramatic.

I would like to see the entire series fit in a feature of an hour - hour and a half. Without the inflated drama and repetitions. Then I would gladly have given 10 stars.