Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

David Marchesi i came to this web page expecting to be able to re-watch this BBC produced TV series only to find that the only video content available were other individuals from around the world attempts to highlight the main shortcoming of the original series by visiting new places or revisiting sites in the original series and by implication showing the real cultures and natural beauty that Dan Cruickshank had missed in his journey, i must say that i find this fact disappointing because the original was designed as a small snapshot of the many cultural and artistic marvels that exist in our world according to one mans (highly qualified) opinions, OK so Dan Cruickshank may take up too much screen space during the episodes and maybe his whispering was annoying to some viewers(Perhaps, it was just Dan showing his reverence in his own 'Little englander' way, although the bare handed handling of 2000 year old manuscripts is unforgivable) but overall this is a great introduction to the treasures that exist in our world and if as another reviewer stated you have no knowledge of this worlds varied artistic and architectural treasures then this is a great place to start! Dan Cruickshank is obviously not popular with our Australian brethren but perhaps if they weren't so caught up in being so anti English culturally they would be able to forgive him of being English, sounding English, working for a British company, breathing etc etc. OK so the BBC may have fallen from its once envied position of documentary excellence but at least my nation hasn't made 25 years of 'Home and Away'. Now available for all those unable to forgive the nasty British imperialist pigs - Bindy Urwins - Around the world in 80 treasures.

jonrichco Watched "Around the World in 80 Treasures" for the first time tonight - as I am just back from Cambodia, and heading for Tajikistan. Dan Cruikshank seems to me to be a complete charlatan. While he picks some interesting places for his 80 treasures (eg, this evening Samarkand and Bukhara), I was appalled at his treatment of the scripts and artifacts of the sites he visited in Iran. Hasn't anyone told him that it is totally unacceptable for him to rub his greasy fingers over the 2000 year-old scripts? What sort of model is this for the rest of us? In Cambodia, the restoration of Angkor Wat is proceeding well. They now have rope barriers to keep people half a metre back from the hieroglyphs etc. In the main Angkor, I saw not one person reach over to touch the carvings. How come 10,000 tourists at Angkor Wat are more culturally aware than Mr Criukshank?

margp I have visited many of the places in 'Around the world in 80 treasures' and really loved my travels. However, Dan Cruikshank has trivialized the history, culture social systems and architecture of these places to present an imperialist, pompous 'search for treasure' -(whatever that is supposed to mean). The idea of a treasure (in mysterious places, like the East) is a totally Victorian imperialist British concept and completely inappropriate for discussing the cultures of the places that this idiot visits.He is an ill-informed waffler and a complete opportunist who hasn't even bothered to do adequate research into the places he visits - I doubt if he has much interest in knowing about these places. Rather the program is just about him and with his dramatics and animations he steals from these extremely interesting places to direct attention to himself. For example there is no need to emphasize the drama of the markets area of Calcutta through dramatic gestures, there is enough going on there already. So why doesn't he just let us enjoy seeing the place and tell us a few well researched facts, instead of forcing us to look at him? I think Dan Cruikshank is shameful and should be an embarrassment to the BBC - and to the ABC who present his antics. The only way I can bear to view this program is to turn the sound off - even then I'm forced to see his ridiculous gestures as he dominates the screen. Watching this program is an exercise of frustration and I won't be punishing myself again.

LFTSmith Visually, the series was very impressive. But sadly, it was let down by the choice of presenter, whose over-affable, opinionated and affected style (reminiscent of Peter Snow) seems a good example of the BBC's dumbing down of otherwise interesting programmes.given the limited time devoted to the subject matter, there was a little too much padding in the form of self-praise for embarking om such an enterprise. Constant stressing of time constraints seemed to ignore the fact that these were largely self-imposed. Better preparation by the BBC's own staff on the spot might haver avoided embarrassing gaps like the treasures of the Forbidden Palace. But turn the sound down and you have a visual feast.