User Reviews

It's not all bad. I watched it all and thought it would be as funny as the first one. It was not. There are some funny scenes to make you laugh a little but it's not often. It's worth a watch if you are a fan of Mel Brooke's but I can't believe he wrote any of this. The easily offended are ruining everything and now what could have been an amazing series has been toned down to, well what it is. I am really hoping Hollywood begins to go back to cater for the masses and not the small community which is woke and easily offended. It's a comedy and comedy is suppose to offend and make people laugh. Jokes don't represent beliefs they are joke.

Being a life long MB fan, this has glimpses of the old days, but current societal trends steer this series into a dull, unfunny direction. Reminds me of post 2000's SNL. Tries to be funny, is trying to be trendy, but it does not translate well into Mel Brooks humor. If the effort was to try to "tune up" the traditional Mel Brooks style of writing, Bring it into a new era, It faceplanted. It felt like younger writers were whispering in Mel's ear, "no no... this is funny stuff, it will play!" Mel "Are you sure??? This just doesn't make sense to me... but if you think so..." Don't get me wrong, I see some comic genius for sure. Noah, Alexander Bell, 1 of the Lincoln bits, the underground railroad were quite funny. Unfortunately the rest felt as if they were trying to grow a batch of Mel brooks humor in their cinematic garden and it was choked out by weeds, mired in fields of boring, ugly kudzu.

If you're looking for the hilarious kind of stuff Mel Brooks did back in the 1970s, you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for actual history, you won't find it here. There are a few hilarious moments - if you understand the context - and there is also a lot of just really dumb stuff here.

If you're familiar with Curb Your Enthusiasm, then you might get a kick out of the Curb Your Judaism sketch. It doesn't have Larry David, but J. B. Smoove is on hand and it's still pretty hilarious. (It helps if you know something about the story of Jesus, which, even if you're not a Christian, is still a pretty fascinating story in itself.)

"The Last Sermon" sketch is a funny satire of the Beatles "Get Back" documentary. I think it may be only funny if you know something about the Beatles to begin with. And the story of Jesus. And the infamous quote John Lennon said about the Beatles and Jesus.

"The Civil War" sketch is just plain dumb. We know in real life U. S. Grant drank a lot. But a sketch in which that is pretty much the entire joke, well, it's just not that funny. West Virginia, in real life, remained loyal to the Union. So why are West Virginians depicted as Southerners? It's just dumb.

Wanda Sykes as Shirley Chisholm is a silly, sometimes mildly amusing satire of 70s sitcoms.

Most of the sketches are just kind of forgettable. The one about Kublai Khan meeting Marco Polo is actually pretty funny, but the rest of that one just didn't do anything for me. A lot of this stuff is the kind of thing where you're waiting for it to get funny, waiting for the punch line, it just doesn't happen.

What an embarrassment!

Hammy improv-style acting of unfunny scripts depicting various moments in history

A few name actors ... Danny DeVito, Wanda Sykes, Marla Gibbs, Kym Whitley, Rob Corddry ... get stuck in this mess but most of the cast are a bunch of nobodies who likely have Youtube shows or something of that ilk.

While Mel Brooks' original 1981 movie was one of his worst, this TV series makes that film look like a masterpiece.

I barely made it through the first episode. Schmucky schtick about Abraham Lincoln, Rasputin, Shakespeare and a Russian shtetl (with inane musical numbers) make this just about unwatchable.

So there's something that's always been great about Mel Brooks comedy, and that is the ability to use pop culture and relevant information in such a goofy way.

That being said this does that but it's not in full Mel fashion but in Nick Kroll fashion. I didn't realize he was a director on this till I started watching it and it was quite obvious whose style it was. But that's not a bad thing. I think it's funny and in various moments quite clever.

It was slightly disappointing in that I don't feel like at any point the attention to detail in the set pieces were anything more than a poor MadTV set.

Overall more enjoyable than I was expecting and I'm glad that Mel Brooks was at least able to be attached and did participate in the writing. It's there and you can feel it.

I loved all the cameos as well. It's just loaded but I enjoyed it very much. So check it out if you just need some goofy laughs.

Listen, I love Mel Brooks. Love his humor, his zingers and bluntness. But this was not funny and I don't blame Mr. Brooks for that at all. If you're a fan of Ike Barinholtz, Nick Kroll and Wanda Sykes then this show is for you because they are the main characters and in every episode (Sykes being in only 7 of the 8 episodes). They also direct and write episodes. If you're looking for laughs, this isn't the show for you. I'm seriously hoping they don't make a season 2 because it was so boring and there was too much of Krull and Barinholtz that just killed it for me. Some of the bits went on too long and you just lose interest. Took me way too long to finish the last 2 episodes because I just didn't want to do it.

It has its enjoyable moments and some laughs but it's hardly up to par.

The biggest issue is it's too scattered/there's a lack of cohesion. It would have benefited from some streamlining - there are too many sketches per episode. Jumping around in time instead of going chronologically is weird. Also, it would have been better without trying to include modern references (not crazy about Anastasia live-streaming).

A nice effort but only rarely does it capture what we all love about classic Mel. If you go into it with an open mind though, without expecting it to be Part I, you might at least get a few laughs out of it.

Wow, what a waste of talent. As someone who has loved Mel Brooks for decades (and quoted "Blazing Saddles" on practically a weekly basis for just as long), this was a crushing disappointment.

Clumsy, forced jokes that would embarrass your average middle-schooler combined with just flat-out unfunny writing make a cringeworthy, discombobulated mess. This is also the first time I've ever seen Wanda Sykes NOT be funny. And the D-Day scene at the beginning of episode 2 was just a foul, disgusting mess. Somebody obviously thought that just having people fire stupid lines at each other quickly would somehow be funny - it's not.

Madeline Kahn is spinning in her grave.

Yes, I'm a HUGE Mel Brooks fan!

Yes, some of the skits land a little flat (The Shirley skit doesn't fit..)

BUT, this show is very entertaining! Everyone needs to come off their high horse, and enjoy some low brow, slapstick, raunchy comedy!

Nick Kroll does a lot of heavy lifting in this show, and he does a fantastic job! Lots of calls back to shows/movies, these skits are over the top, AND THAT'S THE POINT. I know comedy has taken a hit the past 5 years, but it's time people relax, take a look ourselves, and laugh!

Really enjoyed the Jesus Christ skits, perfect simile of the Curb your Enthusiasm. I'm enjoying the Civil war skit. The Russian Revolution was pretty funny. I think you need to do two things. One, remember this is Mel Brooks, his comedy is always in your face, so let it be and enjoy it. And two, you got to know your references and pop culture, or some callbacks/jokes won't land. That's the name of the game.

Is it as good as part I, no, but I'm enjoying the insanity of it all, and so should you!

This is not Mel Brooks Humor.

This is a reboot of The Kroll Show with special guest Wanda Sykes.

There is WAY too much Nick Kroll here.. way, way, way way too much... and I have never found Nick Kroll funny. He just does some silly accent and thinks THAT makes a bit funny.. it doesn't.

The Sykes sketches are far more political in nature than they are funny. Sykes brought her soapbox to the set....

The Bariholtz sketches are okay.. but only because they are OFTEN merely trying to mimic the atmosphere of Blazing Saddles in some way. Several aspects are direct, uhmm, "homages" to Blazing Saddles.

Every single actor in this is also a producer...

I imagine Mel Brooks just "trusting" these people to write what's (permissibly) funny today. After all, MOST of Mel Brooks's films would NEVER be made today because they would be seen as too offensive.

Unfortunately, this series just isn't funny..

.... the Jackass/Johnny Knoxville/Rasputin bits are the only okay aspect throughout the ENTIRE series.. and they are only 2 minutes in length, if that.

If you like Nick Kroll.. you may love this series. If, like me, you find Nick Kroll more annoying than funny, you may hate this series.

I see a lot of bad reviews, but it made me laugh *shrugs* I expected silly comedy and silly comedy is what I got. I feel like people put Mel Brooks on a huge pedestal and forget how truly silly some of his jokes are. He's always had a healthy mix of silly childish jokes and clever intelligent jokes. This show definitely lines up with that style in my opinion. Some jokes are clever and others are silly. I wonder why there are so many people on here saying it was terrible. Then again, maybe I'm just more of a Nick Kroll fan than the other reviewers. Either way, I think that anyone who truly loves comedy should give this show a chance. If you're anything like me, you won't be let down.

Just like anything Mel Brooks ever did this show is very hit and miss with its sketches. The pacing is just so quick and silly that the bad sketches tend to feel inconsequential.

That being said. This is clearly NOT made by Brooks. But, I do think it embraces much of his spirit.

This is not high art, and doesn't have as much to say as Mel might have. But it's irreverent and fun, and hearing his voice, however briefly is a lot of fun.

If there is a season 2, hopefully they can trim the fat on some of the sketches. Some of the sketches don't feel like they need to be continued each episode. A one off is fine, and often preferred.

If you combined drunk history with rejected bad SNL skits, you get History of the world part 2. There are a few funny parts to it, and some stuff may be funny to a younger crowd, but the majority of this could have done with some better editing of the jokes.

The entire thing felt like a pitch meeting where Mel Brooks wasn't able to say no to anybody's ideas. It lacks the charm and cohesiveness of the original and practically everything else Brooks has done. They traded out the usually clever humor and satire Brooks is known for and instead get a bunch of dress up where everyone just plays a vulgar or stupid version of themselves or their stand-up persona or some parody of a modern pop culture reference while dressed as the character.

There were some funny bits that I liked, but overall it felt dumbed down and more miss than hit.

Tried watching the third episode. Lowering my rating. This show is an abomination. Someone should check if Mel Brooks even knows what he attached his name to and narrated. Awful show.

Not only does History of the World Part II feature a murderers row of comedy and improv titans, (Nick Kroll, Wanda Sykes, Ike Barinholtz, Gil Ozeri, Lisa Gilroy, JB Smoove, Danny DeVito, Pamela Adlon Jack Black, Rob Corrdry, Will Sasso, Josh Gad, Lauren Lapkus, Guy Branum, and about 30 other huge names, including a delightful Mary Magdalene played by Zazie Beetz and hilariously relaxed Jesus Christ played by Jay Ellis), but it also features Mel Brooks' signature absurdist, ridiculous style - from jokes like "have it delivered by Putz Mates" or two twins named "The Property Brothers Karamazhov"; the puns, wordplay and subtle social satire from Brooks' best work, (Blazing Saddles, History of the World Part I, Spaceballs, Young Frankenstein), is all here. At 96, Brooks is still as sharp as ever; with the help of some of the best comedians working today, History of the World Part II is a laugh a minute dive headfirst into the absurdity of the human condition, done in only the way Mel Brooks can do. For comedy, improv, and comedy writing fans, this is a master class. For everyone else? It's a riot. I've been a Brooks fan since I watched Spaceballs in grade three. That was twenty odd years ago. He's still making me laugh, and as an adult - I'm laughing even harder.

We live in a weird world that can be scary at times, especially in 2023. Yet, seeing so many people come together all in the name of being goofballs and trying to make us all laugh is a refreshing beacon of light and a breath of fresh air in a world that takes itself far too seriously. Bravo Mel; you've done it again.

History of the World part 1 is not only a great Mel Brooks masterpeice, but in my opinion one of the funniest films in history.. of the world... in general.

Now 40 odd years later, he's back presenting a sequel in 8 episodes.

I'm not sure if Mel actually had much hands on with the making of this, as he is part of the writing credits, but may have actually had as much to do with it as he did with Get Smart? The original, not that remake abomination.

First seeing the trailer, I thought everyone was gonna be in this, modern day actors I mean, but surprisingly it's mostly around 4 or 5 actors with various roles, to which at first thought I thought was stupid, but then I remembered, Mel himself did that too in the original. Speaking of, Mel does the intro to the show, then just voice over work throught the series as the narrator, but does appear in the final scene... sort of lol. So those expecting Mel to be IN this series, you gotta remember, he's getting on quite a bit, and we should be thankful we got this at all!

Being such a fan of the original, I was comparing a lot of this to the original, but got used to it kind of bring the same episodes continuing each episode. Infact, I don't know if it's just coincidence? But, IF Mel picked these actors, it wouldn't surprise me if he was a fan of Mad TV and Drunk History. As quite a few cast members in this played in both, and HOTW2 is made in very simmilar ways to Drunk History and presented in a Mad TVish style in parts.

There is quite a few moments i was laughing at, but questioned if it was Melz writing or not? But I must say, I'm by far any fan of Jason Alexander, but he presented a very Mel style scene that was perfect Brooks humor! The other suprising actor, or actress i should say, was Wanda Sykes. I've never liked her, only ever tolerated her in Crank Yankers, but she's actually very tolerable here! She's not her overly too loud self, she's quite calm and softer spoken for the most part, and I don't know why? But, if that was Mels influence, great job!

I dunno why so many people are showing hate towards this. I guess they expected Mel to reprise his role and they'd bring back all the deceased cast of part 1?! But this cast has done a great job, for the most part, and I'm satisfied that Mel has returned and made parody and slapstick watchable again. No thanks to those two guts who killed the genre after having nothing actually making it into the final script of Scary Movie, yet using that credit to destroy the genre by fluffing out all those terrible "(insert title) Movie" disasters.

Thank you for coming back Mel. No, it's not as good as part 1, but it's a sequel I'm thankful Mel has given us, which sadly may be the last, but let's hope Mel lives to 200 and we get 100 season of History of the World!

I saw the part 1 in the late 1980s as a teenager. I absolutely loved it! For me, this was the first time to see this genre of comedy.

When at the end of the movie they showed what I thought were previews of part 2, I was excited and couldn't wait for it to come out... But it never happened. But I didn't give up hope because the talks about part 2 never died out.

When I heard that part 2 was going to be a TV show, I got excited. I thought- that's even better - a longer version.

But instead, I got a low quality, low budget looking, poorly acted out and excessively, unnecessarily crude trash of a show. Worse than the worst of SNL. Total disappointment.

I've been waiting for a new Mel Brooks comedy for decades and, as likely the youngest age one could be and still be directly influenced by Mel Brooks 90's material when it first ran, I feel like I'm coming from an interesting old world-new world cross. The good news is the show doesn't feel like it's letting down the good name of Mel Brooks or History of the World Part 1 (I event rewatched the film just to be sure). I fully believe that Mel Brooks spent quite a bit of time not only approving but even directly shaping the content here. I can also see that through all the casting choices and filming quality that the younger generations tasked with living up to Mel Brooks amazing casts of characters are trying, some harder than I've seen try in a while, just because of the name behind what they are doing. A lot of jokes zing just the same way Mel Brooks always has & hit at a higher brow of humor, with more effort put into the subtext and double entendres. Now for the bad news: whether it comes from Mel Brooks or not, is unclear, but there are also a lot of jokes and even whole sketches that fall very flat for which Brooks in his prime would have trimmed out and tried again I think (or more classic stars would have talked him out of in the moment). Though I believe I heard be butted heads with Gene Wilder, it's clear Wilder's instincts enriched Brooks ideas more than harmed. Now, though the cast has the potential to do something similar (and maybe did resulting in the good that is here) likely the lesser involvement of Brooks, the faster filming speed of tv verses 1980's film and possibly some bad give and take with other collaborators means that sometimes an idea gets through that really bombs. In between smart social commentary & clever sexual humor you also have entire sequences of vomiting that is meant to carry the comedy for an entire scene much like Family Guy would have done. Sometimes the sketch is barely getting going and stops short to make a cheap joke more like it was on a sketch show on Comedy Central, not the grandiose genius that Brooks should always push forward. Granted, I also recently rewatched Dracula: Dead & Loving It, Brooks last major project he was majorly involved in (director, writer & producer of a screenplay concept, not remaking his own work) & I realized it did show signs of a slightly out of touch comedic touch. Most filmmakers would have just kept going and found their groove once again such as Woody Allen did or Steven Spielberg, reinventing themselves... but Brooks seemed less interested if he couldn't work with his cadre of talent that he obviously loved and appreciated. I want to like History of the World: Part 2 and, don't get me wrong it is occasionally getting me to giggle, but 4 episodes in I have yet to have a single moment where I've lost my air laughing. Even Dracula had a couple moments that did so & most Brooks films had several. One problem is that the show seems unconfident in its own material, rushing to the next joke or cutting the next scene before you can realize it wasn't funny or something. This does soften jokes that don't land but it also dulls sharp jokes that could really be milked for its comedic potential. I keep thinking even Marty Feldman would only be amusing here at this this speed, rather it needs a director like Brooks who would actually slow it down when the gag really really lands. I'd much rather have one memorable moment than 100 mediocre ones. The format of the show switching back and forth to the same concept multiple times gets a little annoying. Could they just have had 3 sketches per show and really got them to their natural conclusion. The show is always taking you out of the universe by reminding you there's more to come, keep watching, here's what happened last time... guys it's Hulu, if you didn't slow release the shows I'd have already watched the whole season by now. Previews and repeats are unnecessary. Plus, the plots are rarely deep enough to need reminding anyway. I think back to the muppets repeated sketches, which went at a similar pace, and they just assumed the audience was in on the joke and wasted no time explaining why they were suddenly in the civil war era... if it's funny it shouldn't need much more explanation or backstory. Anyway, I'm glad Mel Brooks got the new Hollywood pull of talented young people such as Nick Kroll & the always great Wanda Sykes, because sadly otherwise the appreciation of Brooks alone might not have been enough to get the show greenlit. There is a lot to like here and I hope it leads to a resurgence of Brooks wit on new projects for years to come. Maybe one more witty comedic foil, Mr Brooks? You're obviously up for it & a lot of people have missed your voice. Comedy needs picking up now more than ever.

I'm furious. This should have been so much better. Every time you hope there will be a scene without Nick Kroll, he shows up with less charisma than a herpes flare-up. His attempt at a Larry David impression was an embarrassment. I really like how every episodes starts with a commercial for the very show you're about to watch. Did they do this to mess with us? Mel Brooks deserves better than this hot garbage. The writing was a remarkable collaboration between a high school history teacher and the comedy sports team he tutors after school. Whomever green lit this at Hulu didn't bother to do the required reading, which in this case was the script.

Absurd multi-dimensional comedy as always from one of the greats and a wonderful cast. Love seeing all these folks in a Mel Brooks universe taking risks that pay off in surprising ways but also a warmth that resonates with decades of output from Mel and his cronies.

It's a gift to get to be experiencing a Mel Brook's comedy again and, as always, I will savor every attempt to make us giggle and guffaw at the absurdity of the human experience.

If you can't find joy in this series, you must be a lot of fun at parties.

Btw, for the miserable critics, parties are these gatherings where good natured people connect and inspire with conversation, performances, & other general silliness. Sometimes there's drugs and even sex! If you lighten up and become more fun, you may get invited to one someday!

. I've enjoyed Mel Brooks since the first episode of Get Smart. There have however been time that he goes too far. An example of that was "The 2030-year-old man in the year 2000. I remember thinking as I listening to it, that he went way too far with his cursing. There was time today that the same thought came my mind. This started to be very promising. However, none of the skits grow.. The ideas that created these parodies were very clever, but too often that is where it ended. .

It is an unusual comic or comedy that I enjoy when the comedian relies upon shocking his or her audience, I always found that Robin Williams was funnier on Mork and Mindy than he was on stage. I had a similar reaction to Eddie Murphy, who was much better on SNL than he was on stage.

This was not true all comics. Redd Foxx, Lenny Bruce and Moms Mabley used cursing to shock their audience and it worked. George Carlin was the natural successor as a social commentator to Mort Sahl and because of the era that he became that social commentator it fit like a glove. Bill Maher is arguably to Carlin what Carlin was to Sahl. Chris Rock has somehow made it work.

The best of all of this genre of comics was of course, Richard Pryor. Pryor was also the man mostly responsible for script on " Blazing Saddles."

After having been disappointed with the 2030-year-old man, I shyed away from Mel Brooks. Although Ienjoyed this appearances on "Mad About You," and laughed as hard as I did when I first saw " Young Frankenstein". Good parodies often find an absurdity and stretch it, as far as it is still funny. Past that point it becomes silly.

As he aged and took his place gracefully as the well-respected sage of comedy, his humor got better again and he also showed a warmth that was obviously so sincere that it impossible not to smile from just hearing his name.

I cautiously anticipated this series . At one point I was disappointed until I caught on to what he doing. He was doing the perfect parody of Larry David in "Curb Your Enthusiasm". The parody would not have been successful without the language of the show. As I watched more carefully I realized that he wasvbrippiantlyswitching from one parody to another Every skit would be a parody of a comic that I had no doubt that that he has a great deal of respect for. .But, there were a few times that I thought the language was unnecessary and not funny.

Vulgar language in a comedy is a method to get a cheap laugh. Mel Brooks does not need to resort to looking for a cheap laugh.

It wasn't the worst that he has done, but it was far from the best

All that I can say is "Thank you, Mel Brooks."

Just not funny.

Love Mel Brooks stuff. But this. I'm not sure what they were thinking. The jokes are just not funny. It seems forced humour. So far I've only laughed once at one skit involving the Jackass guys.

What comes to mind is Movie 43 from back 2013. Another what were the actors and comedians thinking vehicle. Skits that seem to try and push the comedy with not just stupid jokes. But idiotic characters..

Comedy sequel for the sake of comedy. Not sure I'll bother with last four episodes. Just not funny at all. Seeing other reviews. I'm glad I'm not only one having same feelings. One to avoid.

Nick Kroll is not a funny actor, nor is he a funny writer.

He is the child of a multibillion dollar family, and boy does it show in this series.

Clearly, Mel Brooks was paid a lot of money in his advanced years in order to get this made with his approval, and his only real involvement was as narrator.

Since all the heavy lifting with a show like this is done thru it's comedic writing, the absence of Mel's writing is sorely felt here. Just not a funny moment to be had.

Yet another IP squeezed to the bone for the sake of nostalgia. This should have been made 30 years ago with much more involvement from Mel Brooks and much less from Nick Kroll.

The end of Mel Brooks's 1981 comedy "History of the World Part 1" featured a mock ad for a sequel. Since the movie was a joke, no one actually expected a sequel.

Well, now we have one. "History of the World: Part II" has Brooks as the narrator, with segments focusing on assorted events from the past few thousand years. This miniseries incorporates things that didn't exist when the original movie got made (i.e., social media).

A previous review complained that the movie didn't have enough of Mel Brooks's humor, instead letting Nick Kroll and Wanda Sykes be the stars. I should probably remind people that Brooks himself didn't star in "The Producers" or "Young Frankenstein". Brooks no doubt understands that he needs to pass the torch to the next generation of comics.

All in all, I liked it, especially the parts with Princess Anastasia, and the parts where Jesus and the apostles start to get on each other's nerves (you can bet money that this miniseries will piss off the Bible-thumpers). Good times.