User reviews

If you enjoy period pieces and/or procedural dramas and you don't mind a bit of a slow burn, you'll probably enjoy this series. Tobias Menzies is excellent (and does a really good American accent), even if he doesn't have the truly glorious beard the real Edwin Stanton had. Anthony Boyle is absolutely despicable as Booth, as he should be. Every scene with Lovie Simone is so tense and beautifully acted that I can't really take my eyes off the screen when she's on it.

As other reviewers have mentioned, there are of course historical inaccuracies. Duh. Every movie or series based on historical events has inaccuracies. If that bothers you to the point of distraction, then perhaps you should stick to documentaries. As for Lincoln's voice, which a lot of reviewers seem to find downright offensive, historian and Lincoln-enthusiast Harold Holzer has said that Lincoln was almost certainly a tenor based on contemporary accounts. Some who heard Abe speak even described his voice as high and shrill. It may be a bit jarring the first time you hear it, but Linklater's voice at least is consistent with contemporary descriptions of Lincoln's.

I also just genuinely don't know what the complaint about casting is. So what if some of these actors are better known for comic roles? They're definitely not playing their roles comically here. I don't find anyone particularly miscast.

This show is fine. It's not going to go down in the books as the greatest series ever, or even one of my favorites. But holy canoli, it's so much better than the majority of reviews are giving it credit for.

Menzies, as always, is excellent, as are most of the cast. But as much as I love Patton Oswalt, he isn't well suited to a historical drama. A couple of other minor character actors similarly detracted.

Many of the expressions used in the writing ("consider me Switzerland," "don't get me wrong," as just two examples) and open discussion of a homosexual relationship in court were wholly out of place for a dramatization of historical events from the 1860s. I found it distracting, and fairly surprising that a production of this caliber hadn't had a better copy editor.

Side note: great costuming.

Despite the poor ratings from some I watched show with an open mind and was suitably rewarded

Very good acting in main . Perhaps upping pace at times could have reduced show to fewer episodes? Stopped me giving it perhaps another star

It took awhile to get accustomed to time switches but generally found them illuminating

Decent sets, costumes and settings - not sure why some reviewers are upset about beards though - surely a minor irritation at best

Also I can't understand preoccupation of some reviewers with moaning about casting as I found all characters relatable with good acting from all

Tobias Menzies and Anthony Boyle in particular are always watchable and the scenes they are involved in are usually the best of show

I also found the involvement of Reconstruction issues interesting and worthwhile as an English viewer as it wasn't something I was as aware of from across the pond.

As a historical drama with probably some minor inaccuracies ( as all are bound to have) I found the show to be far better than the negative off-putting reviews would have you believe.

I consequently found myself wondering was there not another agenda at play here?

I read the book the show is based on, and though there are some questionable casting decisions made, particularly Lincoln, I'll continue watching.

Tobias Menzies is always excellent, and though he's portrayed as the Melvin Purvis of the hunt, I'm fine with that choice for artistic reasoning. Lili Taylor is good, though of course most of us continue to see Sally Field and DDL as Mary Todd and Lincoln. Anthony Boyle is doing well with the loathsome Booth, and I like the actress portraying Mary. I'm a little baffled by Patton Oswalt here, though I like him in other things. Lincoln, though, was the truly odd choice. It looked like his chest was waxed in one of the death scenes, lol. The voice was so grating that i looked forward to his coming end, which is really not the way I want to feel about an Abe portrayal.

Costumes, set design are very well done and I look forward to the rest of the series, despite some odd choices.

I am five episodes in and hooked. I have no quibbles with the casting, I think it is excellent. Especially Lincoln. Not the stereotypical choice, which I find refreshing. The cat and mouse between Stanton and the cabal around Booth, plus the shenanigans of Johnson and the Wall Street Crowd are fascinating. The time jumping of scenes is a but off-putting, but I think it serves the story well. There were so many facets to this story that a linear telling would lose a lot of context that helps to illuminate the characters and their motivations. Sets, costumes, and scenery seem authentic. One of the best historical depictions in recent memory.

I've been waiting for this miniseries for years going back to when Harrison Ford was attached. I like how they spared no expense and hired good actors (all except for Lincoln). Booth character is true to form and is well acted very much encompassing what Booth was probably like personality (vain and self involved). As a historian I'm disappointed because they changed the story when the story itself was so interesting & would have been captivating if they just stayed true to it. For starters how they approach Spangler and Mudd (neither of them knew what Booth was up to when they first helped him) & Stanton: they portrayed not as his extremely flawed self who Lincoln had many run ins with. He never called him "Abe" nobody did everyone called him Mr President or Lincoln (Lincoln did not like to be called "Abe" and only his stepmother was the one who "Abraham"). This just could have been so much better considering they turned it into a miniseries which does give me hope because it would have been a perfect place to start is talking and show the kidnapping plot and how Booth recruited has Conspiracy Band. Also how the band broke up when the war ended and also I don't like how they portrayed David Harold (they made him out to be more self confident and competent than he really was; in real life he was kinda of seen as not that bright and did whatever Booth said). Again I'm hoping it gets better.

I don't know much about this historical event which is why I'm not picking apart the historical inaccuracies like many reviewers but I do know a lot about horse drawn vehicles and noticed a few mistakes like driving on the wrong sides of the road and using the wrong type vehicle for the weather and occasion but other than that I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I can't understand why so many people are criticizing the casting. I find it interesting because instead of choosing actors who might "suit" the characters better, they seemed to have purposefully avoided those stereotypes allowing the characters to be much more human and easy to empathize with. Great costumes!! As for the dialogue, once again, it is more contemporary but allows us to relate to the story instead of being distracted but the unfamiliar speech patterns and mid 19th century vocabulary.

Man, this show about tracking down Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth was kind of a snoozefest. You'd think with such a dramatic historical event as the backdrop, they could've cooked up a more exciting cat-and-mouse chase. But instead, Manhunt feels super drawn out and sluggish.

If you're a hardcore history buff who geeks out on the Lincoln assassination, maybe you'll like all the period minutiae. For the rest of us, Manhunt is just a plodding, tedious missed opportunity to really dramatize and modernize this famous pursuit for the TV audience. Not the worst show ever, but definitely a bit of a snoozer.

I'm a big fan of period dramas and historical series. But I usually shy away from Americana, particularly early American history. I gave this a chance and really got hooked! I think the casting is great. It feels slightly modern in tone and nature while also being clearly appropriate for its setting.

Growing up, tou learn the basics of Lincoln's assassination. This tells a great "behind the scenes" story and weaves in the lives of others.

For anyone upset about casting - I like that it isn't all heavy-drama actors. It beings a sense of reality. A vibrant fabric of personalities that make it feel "real".

It's watchable but disappointing so far. There seems to be an agenda but its not in pursuit of accuracy or balance.

For instance: Stanton is well known to anyone with a passing interest in the civil war. His relationship with Lincoln was...complicated. Frosty at times. Sure, he went after the conspirators with a vengeance. But his motives for doing it were probably more political than emotional.

In Manhunt (2eps in) he comes across as a lugubrious fan boy to his slain idol. It's weird.

The showrunner supposedly did some research for this project. I'm really wondering what she read. A broad knowledge of the subject is not apparent yet.

Here's hoping for some nuance in the depiction of Edwin Stanton and a more accurate and balanced treatment of the time period in the later episodes.

I do not get the bad reviews? It's a good show! Might there be some racism rife amongst the reviewers? It's the only reason I can come up with as to why people are trashing this series.

The whole series has a play-like feel to it, with beautiful sets, costumes and lighting. Its exploration into emancipation and the difficulties faced by Lincoln's government are unsettling. I couldn't help but feel sickened and frustrated by the people of the era - more so as the echoes of the time can still be seen in present day America. It's not as horrendous and gut-wrenching to watch as 12 Years a Slave, but it's enough to make your blood boil. The show strikes a balance between exploring the political and ideological upheaval of the era, and the human trauma and cost of such change.

The acting is great, but I agree that the plot is a bit slow. I think it depends on what you are expecting. If you are interested in seeing the politics and changes of the era, around the story of the capture of Booth, then you'll enjoy it. If you are looking to watch a literal 'manhunt' then you'll be disappointed.

Perhaps the shows name is really the problem?!

The main complaint from other reviewers seems to be that the actors don't look/sound like the real life people. 'Stanton had a beard!' 'Lincoln didn't sound like that.' Which, in my opinion, are ridiculous condemnations. The show is broadly historically accurate, but it is also a TV show adaptation. If you want to get a 100% factual version - read a history book.

I must agree with the fellow reviewers who have MAJOR problems with the casting. If you are familiar with this story , either by reading the book , or by various 10 star documentaries or dramas.,you just can't get by the casting. It's not fair to expect this series to have blockbuster Hollywood talent...but come on...casting comedy actors in pivotal roles ??? 40ish Hamish Linkleter playing Lincoln ? Matt Walsh from VEEP in a pivotal role as Dr. Mudd , and stunningly Patton Oswald who's greatest line from King of Queens was " MY TIVO THINKS I'M GAY !!" As Union spy Lafayette Baker. All we needed was Keenan Thompson as Fredrick Douglass and Kate McKinnon as Mary Todd Lincoln.

Even the excellent Tobias Menzies, would have been better cast as Lincoln as opposed to Stanton. Also the always sinister Josh Stewart would have been better in a conspirator role than the reporter/spy role given.

I still give it an above average grade because of the can't miss subject, adapted from the award winning book by James L. Swanson ....but man ,this could have been a home run !

There was so much potential for this series to be a thriller with a conscience - but in spite of its profound historical significance, topical relevance, and the always-excellent Tobias Menzies ... Manhunt quickly became unwatchable. How did 19th-century characters end up sounding like their 21st-century audience? Lines including, "If you hear something, say something," and "My 'stache is my signature look," were bad enough, but then, decades before the First World War, we hear "Consider me Switzerland"?

We need intelligent television more than we need more television. With so many tragic parallels between the US of 1865 and the US today, there were countless opportunities to deliver nuanced lessons about equality, and in Lincoln's own words. No need to pander to an incurious audience here.

Manhunt offers a fresh perspective on the Lincoln assassination in large part through the lens of Lincoln's Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, magnificently played by Tobias Menzies.

As a history buff (and especially a Civil War period history buff), I liked this series. In broad strokes, it deserves commendation for its overall accuracy, staying faithful to the facts that matter the most. There are a lot of complaints about the historical inaccuracies and I did see some as well, but let's remember that like nearly all scripted productions that Hollywood creates, many nuances are fictionalized to tell a better story.

Regarding casting, while I initially had reservations about the choice of Hamish Linklater for Abe Lincoln, ultimately, I believe the casting directors got it right. Not only is Linklater an incredibly talented versatile actor, but also the on-air bromantic chemistry between Menzies and Linklater is undeniable. Additionally, the strong performances by Anthony Boyle, Lovie Simone, and the amazing Lili Taylor leave little room for complaint.

For me, the crux of any TV series or movie is the story. It's clear that showrunner Monica Beletsky is a crafty storyteller, making for a very watchable and entertaining series. So, if you like good storytelling, then this series is for you.

I'm giving this TV series a 7 only because about mid-way through the series I got bored, yet it had a strong start and a very strong finish. I also think directionally there were too many moments that felt just a bit too surface-level, lackluster, and contemporary for what could have been a more powerful historical piece. The overabundance of flashbacks also made it a bit challenging to keep track of the storyline. That said, I'd hate to end this review on a negative note because I do think this was a well-crafted nonfiction mini-series that is worthwhile watching with good actors and a good story. So, just watch and enjoy. Cheers!

The stakes in Manhunt couldn't be higher. Within minutes, the central characters question if the republic is being overthrown. Not just any republic. Our republic. The writing is taut and merciless, subtle, and if you know your Reconstruction history and beyond, brimming with exactitude. Each episode feels like justice more than a long time coming. In many ways, it is an expression of an American ideal that was crushed in part because of enduring and unfortunate myths - the Lost Cause - monuments built to honor insurrectionists - the rise of supremacist hate groups in the north - and one of Hollywood's first true sins - Birth of a Nation - the abysmal glorification of lynching and paranoia. What Manhunt does, through Tobias Menzies' masterful, bass-voice authority as Edwin Stanton, is take on the ghosts of a past. Ghosts who rewrote Civil War history to elevate the side who defined freedom as being free to enslave who they wish. The series takes on this national divide head on: the definition of freedom is at stake, the meaning of the pursuit of happiness, of equality, and ultimately, of justice. Andrew Johnson, played by Glen Morshower, receives an overdue pillory in Manhunt. Johnson murdered Lincoln as much as Booth did - in the redaction of Reconstruction policies - and by doing so - setting our nation up for a one hundred year delay in enacting American Civil Rights. The entire cast is fully committed, brilliant and present at every turn, and led by a showrunner who clearly wields the power of the pen among the best in television. Monica Beletsky never falls into the trap of dehumanizing the killer and his accomplices. In fact, the writer's gift comes in humanizing a narcissist in Booth - played with unforgettable nuance by Anthony Boyle- not in reviling him - but in threading a narrative needle - revealing a delusional young man who could have chosen a better path. Manhunt is a timely story in that it illustrates the delicacy of preserving our Union at any time, preserving and building our liberty - through characterization and screen-craft that should be studied in film schools: the writer makes human relationships and connections count at every seemingly expositional turn. It's a marvel. The dream / nightmare sequences are effective and human - it's a wonder Beletsky hasn't been given the reigns to show-run before. There are many ways to divide a nation. Manhunt explores why the Union is worth fighting for - and that committing civil violence against ourselves - in a fort, or a battlefield, or a theater - is an act of cowardice and familial betrayal. The final episode of Manhunt will take place in a courtroom. The justice long sought by Stanton may or may not come. But justice has been served in the writing and telling of this American story.

Though well-done and well-acted, this loose adaptation of the James Swanson book of the same name suffers from over length, forced drama, hyperinflation of Edwin Stanton's* role, and too much departure from facts established by Swanson to be useful as history. Still, Tobias Menzies* is a treat as always, Anthony Boyle and Will Harrison resonate as the doomed assassins of Abraham Lincoln, and Roger Payano delivers a brief but telling performance as John Wilkes Booth's hard-headed guide. Fans of period pieces should enjoy Manhunt.

* The real-life Stanton had a chest-length beard; the Stanton of Manhunt is oddly clean-shaven.

Contemporary accounts describe his voice as "high-pitched, almost scratchy." It would be nice if those who object to this portrayal would do a bit of fact-checking. That said, Mars Stanton's character seems a bit too extreme, the constant use of modern figures of speech is jarring and the attempted link to modern times (e.g. By references to shooting someone in the middle of a crowded street) are somewhat ham-fisted and entirely unnecessary. Still, the story is nicely nuanced and varied and the treatment of some characters to whom history has been unkind, like Mary Todd, is sympathetic, credible and adds to the engaging feeling of the whole.

I watched all seven episodes so I feel okay to admit I really did not like this.

I'm a history and docudrama buff. I watch all kinds of documentaries.

So you'd think I'd like this. I have not read the book.

It was awful. My main problem is that there are no sympathetic characters. Everyone is just nasty.

In the last couple eps I started fast forwarding thru the scenes with Booth.

This problem of the nasty characters overshadows everything else. I hated the actors. I hated the writing. I hated the production.

I can't explain why I stuck with it to the end. Maybe I thought something would happen that redeemed it. But no. In fact the ending is jarring. You're left thinking "Is that it?"

What a waste of time. I give it two stars because, you know, people expended energy making it and so they should be at least rewarded for that.

Enjoyable watch, liked much, great scenes, feel, clothes, acting all came together well.

Something about the nuance that let it down, a sledgehammer to crack a nut, subtle it was not, complexity possibly a pipedream for a subject that has such deep fissures and fault lines...still!

French movies do this stuff seamless, flowing, implicit and treating the audiences like they know stuff and can join the dots. This effort assumes the watchers are dumb and have empty heads that need filling with explicit messages and perspectives from them that know, whereas, in the real world, murders, wars and political killings tend to be murky, conflicting, confusing and hidden.

A bit of a let down on the writing front, opportunities missed and duck taped over with some arrogant and crass brushstrokes by a very driven mono view of such a terrible , difficult, divided and bloody time in America's history?

If you're in it for the history aspect, it's somewhat enjoyable. They do get some things wrong (some it seems purposely/politically motivated), but most of it is true.

What isn't great is the writing. Half of what the characters say isn't something someone would say in the 1800s.

The show is also all surface level. You go from one event to another, to another period in time, and back enough to make your head spin. Nothing is deep here. A deep show would give us 1 or 2 entire episodes of Booth on the run, showing us how bad of shape he was actually in. A deep show would show us what it was like for Stanton to have to make the journey from DC to Canada. Instead, they give us a 10 second scene of him on the train, and then poof, he's there.

All of these things combined make you feel like this is truly just actors in 2024 acting like they are in the 1800s. A great show actually fools you into the fact they are there. This show fails miserably at that.

With all period pieces you need to convince the viewer that you are in those times and have a storyline to carry the show. They totally nailed it.

The pacing is great. Events unfold at an even pace and capture the tension of the moment. The viewers complaining about inaccuracies are being very nitpicky. They got the most important aspects of the story correct as well as the technology of the day. Yes, horses need feed, you can forage but that slows you down. This is an important detail, it slowed down Boothe's escape. And yes, Boothe did bluff the guard at the bridge to get into Maryland, news of the assassination had not gotten to him yet.

Today, news of the event would be known almost instantly but not then. Arguing about light fixtures is an irrelevant detail.

This felt like a procedural crime drama set in the 19th century. The unfolding of the investigation was very convincing.

First let me just say.. the creators had three absolute must. Make the three recognizable characters recognizable. Lincoln did not look like Lincoln. Stanton looked nothing like the real man and Booth looked like the booth we know... but then they decided to shave off his distinct mustache half way through and I could no longer associate him to the real deal... thought I was looking at a young Al Pacino... saying all that... 70 percent of this adaption was pure made up fiction. Never happened. I would suggest you forget this series and read the greatest book that has ever been written by the author that this incredible 12 day manhunt is based on.

However, I gave this 7 stars because it is doable, but why they chose to have Edwin Stanton portrayed as a Sherlock Holmes who was hot on the trail at ever turn is beyond me. Yes he was in charge of the manhunt but he did so behind a desk back in Washington. It made the chase for booth almost hallmarkish. In spite of the fabricated fiction I thought the series was just OK. The book followed more of Booth and his journey to Garretts farm and this series followed more of the political turmoil in Washington DC. I would have preferred more Booth and all he encountered. To me that's where the excitement was and the compelling captivating aspect of the book by James. L. Swanson.

By all means watch this series but understand for what it is... An embellished made for TV series.

I gave it a try. I enjoyed the book it is based on. I have an MA in history and realize these films are not going to be 100% accurate, but this was just too much. Got through a couple episodes before I hung it up. Too much to really mention here but I have to ask...where is Stanton's beard? And when did Stanton turn into Sherlock Holmes, out there with his gun raiding homes, measuring boot prints etc. Ridiculous. The real guy was a middle aged, bearded dude with a Dad bod. Not an iron jawed, clean shaven Jason Statham wannabe!

As to the acting, it is pretty atrocious! And the sets look like they were built for a high school production of Oliver!

It is really too bad. Really good historical dramas are lacking. Some have been very good (Lincoln, Gangs of New York, Glory, even Braveheart despite the inaccuracies there). The story it is trying to tell is a compelling one and could have been made without introducing so much that was just factually wrong. I mean, it isn't like this incident isn't well documented!