The aftermath of the first American presidential assassination and the fight to preserve and protect the ideals that were the foundation of Lincoln's Reconstruction plans.The aftermath of the first American presidential assassination and the fight to preserve and protect the ideals that were the foundation of Lincoln's Reconstruction plans.The aftermath of the first American presidential assassination and the fight to preserve and protect the ideals that were the foundation of Lincoln's Reconstruction plans.
- Awards
- 4 nominations total
Browse episodes
Featured reviews
The title might refer to the manhunt for Booth after Lincoln's assassination but the miniseries covers a lot more than just that narrow scope.
It encompasses the aftermath of the Civil War from many angles: Jefferson Davis was still on the run, Confederates were planning their revenge, foreign countries were giving aid and comfort to fleeing rebels, former slaves were adjusting to their new status and the government was planning radical steps for reconstructing the south into a more equitable society, a goal pushed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton but undermined by the new President, Andrew Johnson.
From that perspective, there are many parallels to modern times, which the writers sometimes call out a bit too clumsily. Sometimes the plotline, dialogue and acting is also clumsy. The big scope means the story is at risk of going off the rails. But in the end they tie it all together.
Standout performances from Tobias Menzies as Edwin Stanton; Anthony Boyle, believably creepy and hateful as John Wilkes Booth; and Hamish Linklater as Abraham Lincoln.
I would have liked the writers to pay more attention to scrubbing anachronisms from the dialogue. It happened over and over. It may be amusing to think that John Wilkes Booth knew about the theatrical superstition, "break a leg," when he really did break his leg on stage, but there's no evidence of that superstition existing till the 1920s and most likely it developed no earlier than the early 20th Century. There are many more examples like that, far too many.
Still, it's a competent and often well-acted production of historical events with modern relevance. Recommended.
Apple really should consider continuing the saga with a new story, covering Johnson's fraught one-term Presidency and the very different administration of his successor, Ulysses S. Grant, who was serious about Reconstruction and went to war with the KKK.
It encompasses the aftermath of the Civil War from many angles: Jefferson Davis was still on the run, Confederates were planning their revenge, foreign countries were giving aid and comfort to fleeing rebels, former slaves were adjusting to their new status and the government was planning radical steps for reconstructing the south into a more equitable society, a goal pushed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton but undermined by the new President, Andrew Johnson.
From that perspective, there are many parallels to modern times, which the writers sometimes call out a bit too clumsily. Sometimes the plotline, dialogue and acting is also clumsy. The big scope means the story is at risk of going off the rails. But in the end they tie it all together.
Standout performances from Tobias Menzies as Edwin Stanton; Anthony Boyle, believably creepy and hateful as John Wilkes Booth; and Hamish Linklater as Abraham Lincoln.
I would have liked the writers to pay more attention to scrubbing anachronisms from the dialogue. It happened over and over. It may be amusing to think that John Wilkes Booth knew about the theatrical superstition, "break a leg," when he really did break his leg on stage, but there's no evidence of that superstition existing till the 1920s and most likely it developed no earlier than the early 20th Century. There are many more examples like that, far too many.
Still, it's a competent and often well-acted production of historical events with modern relevance. Recommended.
Apple really should consider continuing the saga with a new story, covering Johnson's fraught one-term Presidency and the very different administration of his successor, Ulysses S. Grant, who was serious about Reconstruction and went to war with the KKK.
Despite the poor ratings from some I watched show with an open mind and was suitably rewarded
Very good acting in main . Perhaps upping pace at times could have reduced show to fewer episodes? Stopped me giving it perhaps another star
It took awhile to get accustomed to time switches but generally found them illuminating
Decent sets, costumes and settings - not sure why some reviewers are upset about beards though - surely a minor irritation at best
Also I can't understand preoccupation of some reviewers with moaning about casting as I found all characters relatable with good acting from all
Tobias Menzies and Anthony Boyle in particular are always watchable and the scenes they are involved in are usually the best of show
I also found the involvement of Reconstruction issues interesting and worthwhile as an English viewer as it wasn't something I was as aware of from across the pond.
As a historical drama with probably some minor inaccuracies ( as all are bound to have) I found the show to be far better than the negative off-putting reviews would have you believe.
I consequently found myself wondering was there not another agenda at play here?
Very good acting in main . Perhaps upping pace at times could have reduced show to fewer episodes? Stopped me giving it perhaps another star
It took awhile to get accustomed to time switches but generally found them illuminating
Decent sets, costumes and settings - not sure why some reviewers are upset about beards though - surely a minor irritation at best
Also I can't understand preoccupation of some reviewers with moaning about casting as I found all characters relatable with good acting from all
Tobias Menzies and Anthony Boyle in particular are always watchable and the scenes they are involved in are usually the best of show
I also found the involvement of Reconstruction issues interesting and worthwhile as an English viewer as it wasn't something I was as aware of from across the pond.
As a historical drama with probably some minor inaccuracies ( as all are bound to have) I found the show to be far better than the negative off-putting reviews would have you believe.
I consequently found myself wondering was there not another agenda at play here?
Man, this show about tracking down Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth was kind of a snoozefest. You'd think with such a dramatic historical event as the backdrop, they could've cooked up a more exciting cat-and-mouse chase. But instead, Manhunt feels super drawn out and sluggish.
If you're a hardcore history buff who geeks out on the Lincoln assassination, maybe you'll like all the period minutiae. For the rest of us, Manhunt is just a plodding, tedious missed opportunity to really dramatize and modernize this famous pursuit for the TV audience. Not the worst show ever, but definitely a bit of a snoozer.
If you're a hardcore history buff who geeks out on the Lincoln assassination, maybe you'll like all the period minutiae. For the rest of us, Manhunt is just a plodding, tedious missed opportunity to really dramatize and modernize this famous pursuit for the TV audience. Not the worst show ever, but definitely a bit of a snoozer.
I am five episodes in and hooked. I have no quibbles with the casting, I think it is excellent. Especially Lincoln. Not the stereotypical choice, which I find refreshing. The cat and mouse between Stanton and the cabal around Booth, plus the shenanigans of Johnson and the Wall Street Crowd are fascinating. The time jumping of scenes is a but off-putting, but I think it serves the story well. There were so many facets to this story that a linear telling would lose a lot of context that helps to illuminate the characters and their motivations. Sets, costumes, and scenery seem authentic. One of the best historical depictions in recent memory.
I do not get the bad reviews? It's a good show! Might there be some racism rife amongst the reviewers? It's the only reason I can come up with as to why people are trashing this series.
The whole series has a play-like feel to it, with beautiful sets, costumes and lighting. Its exploration into emancipation and the difficulties faced by Lincoln's government are unsettling. I couldn't help but feel sickened and frustrated by the people of the era - more so as the echoes of the time can still be seen in present day America. It's not as horrendous and gut-wrenching to watch as 12 Years a Slave, but it's enough to make your blood boil. The show strikes a balance between exploring the political and ideological upheaval of the era, and the human trauma and cost of such change.
The acting is great, but I agree that the plot is a bit slow. I think it depends on what you are expecting. If you are interested in seeing the politics and changes of the era, around the story of the capture of Booth, then you'll enjoy it. If you are looking to watch a literal 'manhunt' then you'll be disappointed.
Perhaps the shows name is really the problem?!
The main complaint from other reviewers seems to be that the actors don't look/sound like the real life people. 'Stanton had a beard!' 'Lincoln didn't sound like that.' Which, in my opinion, are ridiculous condemnations. The show is broadly historically accurate, but it is also a TV show adaptation. If you want to get a 100% factual version - read a history book.
The whole series has a play-like feel to it, with beautiful sets, costumes and lighting. Its exploration into emancipation and the difficulties faced by Lincoln's government are unsettling. I couldn't help but feel sickened and frustrated by the people of the era - more so as the echoes of the time can still be seen in present day America. It's not as horrendous and gut-wrenching to watch as 12 Years a Slave, but it's enough to make your blood boil. The show strikes a balance between exploring the political and ideological upheaval of the era, and the human trauma and cost of such change.
The acting is great, but I agree that the plot is a bit slow. I think it depends on what you are expecting. If you are interested in seeing the politics and changes of the era, around the story of the capture of Booth, then you'll enjoy it. If you are looking to watch a literal 'manhunt' then you'll be disappointed.
Perhaps the shows name is really the problem?!
The main complaint from other reviewers seems to be that the actors don't look/sound like the real life people. 'Stanton had a beard!' 'Lincoln didn't sound like that.' Which, in my opinion, are ridiculous condemnations. The show is broadly historically accurate, but it is also a TV show adaptation. If you want to get a 100% factual version - read a history book.
Did you know
- TriviaContemporary newspaper reports after Lincoln's Gettysburg Address describe his speaking voice as high-pitched and sometimes "scratchy", not the booming voice of an accomplished orator one would expect. The Lincoln portrayed in this series by Hamish Linklater is accurate as to the President's speaking voice.
- GoofsEdwin M. Stanton had a long, gray beard at the time of the assassination and thereafter. He also bore a heavy build. However, some historical films are known for having 'non-impersonations' of a figure's appearance, they don't always have to be accurate with the appearance.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 TV Shows of 2024 (So Far) (2024)
- How many seasons does Manhunt have?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Полювання на вбивцю
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime51 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content