This was a DVD lecture series that I watched. I took longer to get through it than I probably should have, which is part of why I ended up giving it a low rating; I think there were some interesting myths and stories that were explored in this series, but aside from the well-worn ones from Greek or Norse myth, I recall relatively few of them.
But a bigger part of the problem is that the lecturer used outdated theoretical frameworks for major sections of the series, in particular theories about the Goddess and the monomyth. Actual historical and anthropological studies have pretty thoroughly debunked the idea of prehistoric matriarchal, female focused cultures; there is certainly evidence that hunter-gatherer cultures tend to be more egalitarian in various ways, but that isn't the same thing. And the theory as presented in the lectures isn't even internally coherent: it is claimed that there were once goddess worshiping cultures, that then were invaded by male sky-god worshiping peoples, with the movements of Semitic peoples and speakers of Proto-Indo-European cited as proof. But that only works if you assume the thoroughly incorrect idea of civilization as a single, linear development growing out of the Middle East. And the first example myths that are presented as proof of this changeover, of earlier female goddesses of great importance being downplayed in favor of invading male sky gods, come from Africa and China, which don't fit that narrative at all, and have no similar pattern of settled people invaded by outsiders to build from.
The monomyth idea is just bunk. The fact that the theories rely so heavily on the work of Freud and Jung should be the first clue; while their ideas called attention to the workings of the mind in innovative ways, there is no scientific basis to their thoughts, and no modern psychology builds from their theories. Another major problem with the monomyth idea is that it over-emphasizes commonality; in focusing so much attention on how you can distort a given story into the template(s) they provide, it ignores all of the interesting details of stories and what they say about the concerns and interests of the cultures they come from. Frustratingly, the lecturer acknowledges that the monomyth theory is controversial, but in giving it so much attention and referencing it so often, he gives it implicit validity. The monomyth frameworks can be used as tools for analyzing myths, and especially for providing a point of comparison between myths, but asserting that they are depict a single underlying narrative to all myths is on oversimplification.
I also take issue with the idea of psychological interpretations of myths. I think you can do psychological readings of myths in perfectly valid ways, as long as it is properly framed as a way to read the myth in a way relevant to modern society. Asserting that it is somehow the "true" meaning of a myth ignores the fact that these readings are build from a conceptual framework and are concerned with issues that would have been almost entirely alien to the originators of the myths.