Steineded How sad is this?

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Nooshin Navidi As much as I enjoyed this film, my enthusiasm was dampened by the fact that most of Diamond's revelations are ideas that were in circulation as far back as a hundred years ago.I couldn't help but wonder why someone so well-versed in history & anthropology would be triumphant about the "discovery" that Europeans used smallpox to wipe out Native Americans, that guns helped Europeans conquer Africa, or that malaria made it impossible for Europeans to migrate into the center of Africa in large numbers.Furthermore, his explanation ignores the social, economic & political dimensions of world conquest by Europeans, not to mention the ethical & religious implications of past and present conquests and inequalities, chalking it all up to the impersonal forces of luck and "geography".His reaction to witnessing the horrors of disease-ridden African children is startlingly naive, leaving one with the question: Why did Europeans set out to conquer Africa, killing hundreds of millions of people in order to spread out & enrich its economies, rather than do the same thing to China?? The Chinese invented gunpowder and had cannons before Europeans even heard of guns. Furthermore, they had a far greater population, a more advanced technology, & more efficient agriculture.The answer lies in certain structures within European society. Until we figure out what this is and how it still manifests itself in our world, we will never be able to understand why inequality still exists in our world. Nevertheless, Jarred Diamond's optimistic conclusion is sincere. One can see how much he wants a better world.~NN

gray4 I came to this with great expectations as a long-time admirer of Jared Diamond and his books, including 'Guns, Germs and Steel'. It was shown on UK TV as a 2+ hour documentary but it was painfully obvious that it originated as a 30-minute series. The result was that every half-hour or so the continuity was punctured by long and tedious repetitions of what had gone before - a real spoiler! The main themes of the book came across clearly and it was good to see Jared Diamond's personal first-hand responses to world events that he had previously only studied from a distance as an academic. But overall the programme was unbalanced, with far too much time devoted to Pizarro and the conquest of Peru (in the book only 15 pages out of 450) and nothing at all to his chapters on China and Polynesia.Yes, I know that I was expecting too much and it was great to see such important ideas about "a short history of everybody for the last 300 years" (his subtitle) popularised via television. But by the end I felt that it could have been so much better.

mmcloughlin Don't know if this contains any spoilers or not, but I don't want to risk being blacklisted until the year 3462.I disagree entirely with the viewer comments that have described *Guns, Germs and Steel* as "politically correct" and "neo-Marxist." They cannot have watched the same series that *I* did.The series *I* watched depicted the history of European colonisation in the Americas and southern Africa with no particular inaccuracies. I saw nothing in the series that portrayed Europeans as bad people who happened to be lucky, though Europeans often *were* lucky - and there's nothing wrong with luck. Neither did I see native peoples portrayed as poor little innocent things. If anything, the Inca was rather arrogant - as you would expect any leader would be when dealing with foreigners, if his country has not been conquered in living memory by any other world power. I certainly saw nothing that could be construed as Marxist or Neo-Marxist, except by the most incredibly elastic of imaginations.Otherwise, many African peoples *do* have a built-in immunity to malaria and other tropical diseases that Europeans lack. At the time they were at the height of their successes, the Aztec, Maya and Inca civilisations *were* as advanced as any other in the world - and as wealthy; sometimes more so. Aboriginal American and Khoi-San populations *were* decimated by smallpox and other diseases introduced by Europeans; just as European colonists were decimated by tropical diseases like malaria. (NOTE: The Khoi-San peoples are completely different from all other sub-Saharan African peoples.) So, I don't see what some of the other commentators are complaining about. The only thing *I* can find to complain about is that the series doesn't tell me anything I did not know by the time I finished seventh grade. There's really nothing new in the way of historical information in this film. It does, however, present some nice dramatisations of events, such as the conquest of the Incas; the production values are very high; and it fills in a few holes here and there that didn't get covered in Mrs. Gruber's Sixth Hour Social Studies Class at Milan Middle School.If you rent or buy this, assuming you had a decent primary and/or secondary school education, you won't learn anything new, but you will have an enjoyable and entertaining time reviewing what you already learned (or should have learned) by the time you hit high school.

Brian Bagnall Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history? He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.