On Hannibal's Trail (2010– ) User Reviews

Why is Football given more airtime than History?

[ant501 · 11 March 2011]

Another user disputed my previous review in which I complained that episode two's content skipped through Tarragona, barely giving it a mention. I got my dates wrong but one can't deny that these types of 'road trip' documentary series tend to give far more airtime to shots of the presenter(s) and less time to the subject matter.

One type of documentary uses the subject matter as a loose way of pinning together all the sequences of transport problems / bad weather / officialdom faced by the personalities involved. In the production world it's called "jeopardy". An emerging documentary subtype is the "Wonders of the Universe" style, which seems to be mostly shots of an enraptured Professor Brian Cox gazing up at the heavens in awe.

My original point was that both before and after Hannibal's crossing of the area, Tarragona was of strategic importance; surely worth more of a mention than the rush to get to some football game.

Enjoyable and right on with the historical facts

[painfulcharacter · 9/10 · 28 March 2011]

I enjoyed the show. The history is pretty much dead on, which is rare. The fact that they are cycling makes it interesting to watch and the fact that they aren't celebs means it's more about the history and the journey. A bit more accessible when normal people do these things.

Ant, Tarragona wasn't Roman when Hannibal marched by. At least get your facts right before having a go! Tarragona was Iberian when Hannibal passed it on his way to Italy. Publius Scipio and Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus (Africanus' father and Uncle) were on their way to Spain when they caught wind of Hannibal in southern France soon after he crossed the Rhone. It was only after this that first Gnaeus then Publius went to Tarragona and established a Roman presence there.

So as the show is about following Hannibal's Trail it seems fair enough that Tarragona didn't get a huge mention.

An ordinary road-trip... with an arbitrary historical angle

[CherryBlossomBoy · 4/10 · 15 October 2013]

I'm both a history buff and an avid touring biker, so why didn't this show spark my imagination and glue me to the TV-screen as it was supposed to?

Maybe because it was neither a very good road-trip documentary, nor a history documentary. Sorry, but it wasn't. Perhaps had it been done by one single person as a presenter it might have been really good. This way it was hardly bearable - three brothers, none of them very interesting, and the oldest one downright annoying with his mugging for the camera.

It was a show about the three brothers trailing the arbitrary historical path through Europe which just so happened to be Hannibal's. Why am I saying "arbitrary"? Because it was probably an angle to attract sponsors to have them pay for a rather expensive trip and the logistics. It seems they might have trailed any given historical route with the same superficiality. It may be down to the director, but I learned more about contrived brotherly camaraderie and rivalry between the three than the actual trip or history.

The way they did the "reenactment" of crossing the Rhone river had me in stitches. It was reminiscent of "The Batley Townswomen's Guild" from Monty Python. I'm sure the humor wasn't intentional because they are not very funny otherwise, but crossing the river in three kayaks, pretending they are three parts of an army cannot be taken for anything else. And what was that business of unnecessary shaving of legs before the big climb and devoting an extended airtime to that? And when they were crossing the passes in the Alps, what was the point of having a guide on foot? Shouldn't he also be on the bike? That part seemed totally degrading to the whole effort of crossing a difficult terrain on the bike. Made me quit watching. From another review I see there have been silly bits like that throughout the series.

I must mention editing as well. It also falls into "annoying bits" category. While it was technically decent, the editors had an ungrateful task of balancing the screen-time between the three. So we constantly have shots jumping from one brother to the next, each of them delivering only parts of the story, complementing each other's sentences. At first it seems like a nice interplay but soon it loses its charm.

Of redeeming things there is, of course, the effort itself. The 3500 km of biking across the Pyrennes, the Alps and the Appenines is always, always worth the praise! Then there is the camera work. The beautiful shots of the Alps are always breathtaking, no matter the context. I wish they concentrated on that more. And the shots of bikers from distance, peacefully traveling through the landscape - also always look good. If you can't bring that splendor on the screen, without all the contrivances to make it "more interesting", maybe you need to find another job.

Too much focus on presenters

[earthcomedy · 4/10 · 20 January 2015]

This documentary could have been so much better. As a reference, I've seen numerous documentaries on Hannibal from NatGeo and BBC among others, but they didn't specifically focus on the trail itself that Hannibal took.

The premise for this doc is intriguing, but poorly executed. There are way too many closeups of any of the (3) brothers, and their banter and musing gets tiring - the focus is supposed to be about the TRAIL not the presenters! Too many camera angles and quick changes distracted from understanding the march into Italy.

The HD video is very clear, and the narration - when it does concern Hannibal's assault - is good. The references to Polybius and Livy are great. The maps that are presented of the route are excellent.

More panorama shots of the brothers riding amongst the scenery is better than mere closeups of them, which does not tell one anything (visually) about the trail, rather it is more a form of self-glorification. But then, maybe one or all of these brothers were part of this march in a past life...and war was glory for many back then...