It is a performances centric movie

best movie i've ever seen.

Absolutely the worst movie.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Highly recommended if you are not an art expert and want an entertaining introduction. These are not dull descriptions of piece after piece and esoteric opinions and pontificating. Schama attempts to liven things up and to set context by describing the artist and their environment as well as the art. He also tends to focus on a small number of pieces, which I think is a good idea. If he tried to cover the entirety of Picasso's or Van Gogh's work in an hour he'd put us to sleep. If you are someone highly educated on art, these are NOT for you. And judging from a couple of the reviews, some people have a serious problem with the erotic descriptions in the Bernini show...guess they don't like the association with the Roman Catholic church or something. I would ignore them. Worth your time, especially if you are trying to get someone interested in art without boring the ___ out of them.

This is a fake series on several levels. It features Simon Schama, whose credentials as an historian have been long suspect, and who has no credentials at all as an art critic with any aesthetic sensitivity. Instead he has a substantiated record as a propagandist, for modern western establishment and regimes, especially as a war mongering one. As for the content, series has less to do with works of art themselves, but is more concerned with retelling of anecdotes, of very doubtful veracity, about artists, their patrons, and rivals. These anecdotes, some of them entertaining, were obviously selected to prejudice the viewer favorably, or unfavorably, according to views of Schama or his producers. Anecdotes are illustrated with badly acted reenactments. In contrast, artworks themselves are shown only in badly lighted very short cuts. As an example, take episode on Bernini and 'Ecstasy of St Theresa'. It has lots of ad hominem attacks against the sculptor (and his patron popes and cardinals) through unsubstantiated anecdotes, but sculpture (which is a whole chapel in fact) is never shown in full on location. Its relations to other art works at the time or before (word 'baroque' is never used even to discard it), its composition from variety of media and materials, and its methods and techniques of creation, are barely referred to, if at all. While reference is made to St Theresa's own words which inspired the work, Schama seems to be unaware of the long tradition in Roman Catholic Church (and outside) of equating physical ecstasy and sexual union, with Divine Love. St. Theresa's words, while better expressed, are in line with that tradition, and with words of other saints, but this episode erroneously paint them as exceptional, and even unique.

Watching a documentary like this one you can't help but think of Schama as a sort of English version of "Carl Sagan" for the artistically curious. Although shot on a relatively big budget for this kind of documentary with an impressive BBC collaboration of cinematography, editing,and writing, subjectivity permeates the entire film. The choice of works is compelling and to his credit Schama does offer deep and powerful insights into the artists and art itself, but his own tastes and biases become apparent the longer you watch. He seems to have a slight disdain for the Italians and the French, and the portrayal of Caravaggio was laughable, thrusting swords repeatedly into the camera like a drugged, hippie freak. And calling Bernini a "bastard" for avenging his mistress and brother without fully explaining the context of the period he lived in is not exactly the professional tone of an art historian. Schama then seems to gush over British Turner and American Rothco unapologetically.The re-enactments were very melodramatic (especially the music) and other performances that were over the top were Van Gogh in particular. All art is indeed subjective but when Schama tries to balance populism and academics the result can sometimes be a little shaky. He glosses over many important stories and works of the artists' lives confidently in search for a truth without admitting the art historian cannot accurately know everything about events that happened long ago. Art doesn't need to necessarily be political or propaganda-driven to be powerful, and anyone who watches this believing these eight works of art are the the most 'powerful' in history (according to Schama) would be hopelessly mistaken. But it is worth watching.

If there is such a thing as popular science probably the best name one can give to the genre this series belongs to is popular art. Simon Schama's series of commentary on eight masters and their masterpieces in the history of art have a uniting theme - how art can influenced by power and how power influences art - but yet seems to address mostly the non-initiated audience. The language of the series is sometimes the one of an specialist but no deep aesthetic lessons are given, and the central thread of the commentaries in most of the episodes is around the anectdotic explanation of the works, combined with actors rendering the central figures, in many cases with a very thick palette to use a plastic arts term.The best moments of the series are in my opinion when the commentary raises atop the banal to create a real and veridical connection between works and times as in the episode about Picasso, or when the camera work of the director fits well the painters style as in the Van Gogh's episode. Yet some contemporary hints could have been avoided in the first, and the acted scene of Van Gogh's folly from the second. Schama is eloquent and catches the attention. Each episode in itself seems to have its better and its worse moments. As such series build in time, eight episodes may not be enough for a definitive conclusion, and the overall impression can improve if further artists and masterpieces will be explored in follow-up seasons.