Perhaps National Geographic did not have the budget of e.g. the BBC, at least as far as this documentary was concerned... Unfortunately, the documentary comes off somewhat as a montage, with quite a bit of "copy-pasta"--including older (seemingly stock?!?) footage. Some of the footage is high quality, but most of it does not appear to have been shot for any coherent documentary. Such is life with a shrinking budget, perhaps. At any rate, it is nice to see some of the included content. On the other hand, since 2012, HD and documentary technology (high-speed, remote cams, etc.) has come a long way--and might be why this documentary looks relatively poor.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews