History of the World, Part II – WISE Score & Parent Review | Screenwise

History of the World, Part II

Name: Screenwise
Author: Screenwise

show2023

28%

WISE Score

Avg. Tomatometer

Mel Brooks' belated sequel lands with a thud—critics were polite, but audiences fled faster than the Spanish Inquisition.

75%

→

History of the World, Part II

show

TV-MA, 2023

28%

WISE Score

Avg. Tomatometer

Mel Brooks' belated sequel lands with a thud—critics were polite, but audiences fled faster than the Spanish Inquisition.

75%

Jump to

Also rated on

75%

View →

Where to Watch

Loading streaming options...

Where-to-watch data byJustWatch

Screenwise Verdict

Here's the deal: this is a sequel nobody asked for to a 1981 movie that was already hit-or-miss. Critics were generous (75%), probably out of respect for Brooks' legacy, but actual viewers told the truth—34% on RT, 5.5/10 on IMDb, 2.8/5 on Letterboxd. That's brutal.

The content is adult-only (crude humor, sexual jokes, likely nudity), so it's automatically off-limits for kids. But even for adults, this is a tough sell. The massive critic-audience split tells you everything: it's the kind of show critics appreciate for "trying" but that regular people turn off halfway through.

If you're a Mel Brooks superfan, go ahead and suffer through it. Everyone else? There are about 10,000 better things to watch on Hulu. This is a skip.

Age Fit

This is strictly for adults (18+) who have nostalgia for 1980s Mel Brooks comedy. The 14+ rating is technically accurate for content, but realistically, teens won't find 80-year-old Brooks' humor remotely funny, and the poor reviews suggest even adults should skip it.

WISE Breakdown

Wholesome

Mel Brooks-style comedy typically relies on crude humor, sexual innuendo, and irreverent treatment of historical subjects. While not mean-spirited, the tone is decidedly adult and not modeling prosocial behavior—it's parody and satire aimed at getting laughs through shock value and boundary-pushing.

Imaginative

Sketch comedy format exploring different historical periods shows creative ambition and playful reimagining of history. However, the 34% audience score and 5.5 IMDb rating suggest the execution falls flat—critics appreciated the concept (75% RT) but viewers found it tired and uninspired, likely recycling Brooks' 1981 formula without fresh ideas.

Safe

Common Sense Media rates this 14+, indicating mature content. Mel Brooks comedy traditionally includes sexual humor, nudity, crude jokes, and irreverent treatment of sensitive topics. The low safety score reflects that this is explicitly adult comedy that would be inappropriate for younger viewers to stumble upon, with content parents wouldn't want kids seeing unexpectedly.

Enriching

While historical parody can spark interest in actual history, the extremely poor audience reception (34% RT audience, 5.5 IMDb, 2.8/5 Letterboxd) suggests this is more tedious than entertaining. Comedy that doesn't land offers minimal enrichment—it's neither funny enough to provide joy nor substantive enough to teach. The critic-audience split indicates it's a slog to watch.

Parent Info

✓

Why It Might Be Great

If you're a die-hard Mel Brooks completist, you'll want to see what he cooked up 42 years after Part I
Sketch format means if one bit bombs, another's coming in 3 minutes—though based on ratings, most bits bomb
Historical parody can occasionally spark curiosity about actual history (if you can stay awake)
Critics gave it 75%, so there's something here for comedy nerds who appreciate the attempt

⚠

What to Watch For

Mature content throughout—sexual humor, crude jokes, likely nudity—this is firmly 14+ territory
The 34% audience score and 5.5 IMDb rating aren't typos—most viewers found this painfully unfunny
Irreverent treatment of historical events and religious topics may not land well with all families
At 42 years after the original, the humor style feels dated and the jokes feel recycled

Conversation Starters

"What historical periods do you actually want to learn about after seeing this?"
"Why do you think critics liked this but regular viewers didn't?"
"What makes comedy funny versus just trying too hard to be shocking?"

Ask Anything

Get a personalized guide on any topic