Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds (2010)

TV Mini-Series  -   -  Documentary
Your rating:
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 -/10 X  
Ratings: 8.0/10 from 531 users  
Reviews: 2 user

This documentary features state-of-the-art camera technology used to focus on what humans cannot see with the naked eye.

0Check in

User Lists

Related lists from IMDb users

a list of 366 titles
created 28 Jan 2012
a list of 25 titles
created 24 Aug 2012
a list of 133 titles
created 03 Jan 2013
list image
a list of 39 titles
created 03 Mar 2013
a list of 30 titles
created 5 months ago

Connect with IMDb

Share this Rating

Title: Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds (2010– )

Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds (2010– ) on IMDb 8/10

Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.

Take The Quiz!

Test your knowledge of Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds.




1 win. See more awards »


Series cast summary:
 Himself - Presenter (3 episodes, 2010)


This documentary features state-of-the-art camera technology used to focus on what humans cannot see with the naked eye.

Add Full Plot | Add Synopsis

Plot Keywords:

tv mini series







Release Date:

16 March 2010 (UK)  »

Also Known As:

Richard Hammond's Invisible Worlds  »

Company Credits

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs




See  »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

Too much drama, not enough science
23 September 2011 | by (United States) – See all my reviews

It was good, but just too slow. They over-produced this, with just way too many cut-scenes of people & objects, panning around, that adds absolutely nothing to the 'science & nature' aspect of this.

The first and third episodes were better, the second was nearly unwatchable. It was constantly trying to build suspense to what they were about to show, and spent so much time doing it that it became tedious.

The narration pacing was horrible. The text was fine, but there are constant pauses every half sentence, apparently for dramatic effect and to push in all these barely-related scenes that had no real content. This was probably done because they only had a small amount of significant material and the rest is filler.

Where they actually did display the science and images, it was fantastic, unfortunately I would say that was about 10% of the entire volume of time that you're watching the show. This could have been so much more, or, it could have just been delivered to us in 1/3 the time.

I was left wanting more... not because I wanted more of the same presentation to continue, but because I wanted more 'meat'. I was disappointed in the end.

14 of 27 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Message Boards

Recent Posts
awesome show! deadshaun46

Contribute to This Page