Most critics come away impressed, and the praise gathers around the same things: the scale, the visuals and the fact that Benioff, Weiss and Woo have made a famously dense set of novels followable without a reading list. The reviews credit the show with ambition first and coherence second, and several single out the virtual-reality game sequences as the point where the spectacle works best. The core cast gets steady if not ecstatic notice.
The reservations are about people rather than physics. Several critics find the characters thin and the drama emotionally distant, a series of puzzles with nobody to root for, and one or two think the streamlining that makes it accessible also makes it flat. The spread is wide: Radio Times gives it full marks, IndieWire calls it a dud on the strength of the performances, and Den of Geek thinks it takes too long to get to the hard science it does best.
R
Radio Times
9 March 2024 · ★★★★★ · Louise Griffin
100
The series is a bold, flawless masterclass in high-concept sci-fi that nails pacing, visuals, story, and an excellent ensemble cast while staying true to the novel's essence without requiring prior reading. It represents a welcome risk for Netflix and succeeds where the adaptation seemed impossible.
Read the full review →T
The Times
22 March 2024 · Hugo Rifkind
80*
Complicated and chaotic but ultimately brilliant television that delivers a grand, visionary scope despite its messiness and frequent incomprehensibility.
Read the full review →V
Variety
8 March 2024 · festival review · Alison Herman
80*
Benioff, Weiss and Woo prove themselves master adaptors by streamlining the esoteric source material into an accessible, epic series with strong character anchors and impressive visuals. Some structural strains remain, but it successfully balances cerebral ideas with geeky grandeur.
Read the full review →E
Empire
21 March 2024 · John Nugent
78*
The adaptation is a hugely ambitious and accessible take on the dense source material, blending multiple genres into coherent giant-scale television with strong performances from the core cast. It excels in scope and themes but ends on a muted note as setup for potential future seasons.
Read the full review →The critic views the series as a treat for embracing traditional TV qualities like shagginess and risk-taking despite imperfections. They single out the effective VR game sequences and visual spectacle for praise.
Read the full review →E
Evening Standard
17 April 2024 · Vicky Jessop
70*
A glossy, slick production with strong central performances and flair that redeems its overly complex plotting and excess of characters through fascinating themes.
Read the full review →G
The Guardian
21 March 2024
67*
The adaptation impresses with its visuals, pacing, and handling of complex source material but remains emotionally distant, offering puzzles without characters to root for.
Read the full review →T
The Telegraph
21 March 2024 · ★★★ · Chris Bennion
60
An ambitious but messy series with thin characterisation and odd casting choices that undercuts the spectacle, though it delivers bracing plot and impressive scale.
Read the full review →H
The Hollywood Reporter
8 March 2024 · festival review · Daniel Fienberg
50*
The ambitious adaptation errs on the side of accessibility, delivering serviceable sci-fi spectacle and some strong moments but feeling flat overall with uneven characterizations and a lack of memorable performances beyond a few standouts. It may satisfy viewers seeking moderate spectacle and ideas without excessive rigor.
Read the full review →I
IndieWire
9 March 2024 · Ben Travers
20*
The critic finds the Netflix adaptation a brutal dud that fails to capture the novel's essence. They single out the weak performances and lackluster human drama among the scientists as major shortcomings.
Read the full review →R
The Ringer
21 March 2024 · Rob Harvilla
85*
The series is too unapologetically weird to fail and captures the dense, dazzling, goofy spirit of the source novels. Harvilla singles out the hard sci-fi wonkery and the Game of Thrones creators' take on astrophysics and aliens for praise.
Read the full review →C
Collider
21 March 2024 · 8/10 · Therese Lacson
80
Benioff, Weiss, and Woo prove that adapting the unadaptable is possible and improve on the original by blending books, simplifying concepts, and fleshing out characters for stronger emotional connection. It has the potential to be Netflix’s next flagship series thanks to its cast, visuals, and foundation for a brilliant show.
Read the full review →/
/Film
9 March 2024 · 8/10 · Jeremy Mathai
80
The adaptation is a faithful yet improved take that sets a new standard for sci-fi on screen through its unabashed nerdiness and visceral entertainment. It excels in blending big ideas, visuals, and character development while embracing the spirit of the books without rigid adherence.
Read the full review →N
NME
21 March 2024 · Nick Levine
75*
The series is a bewilderingly ambitious sci-fi saga that is visually lavish and narratively rich, overcoming its moments of coldness to be compelling. It succeeds in adding relatable humanity through new characters while tackling complex ideas from the source novel.
Read the full review →C
Consequence
9 March 2024 · B- · Clint Worthington
70
The show shoots for the stars but stays depressingly earthbound, losing its humanity amid sci-fi calculations despite impressive visuals and ambitious concepts. It is more interested in scientific ideas than the people exploring them, resulting in a largely talky story that mixes successes and aggravations.
Read the full review →D
Den of Geek
21 March 2024 · ★★★ · Alec Bojalad
60
The critic calls it a satisfying physics lesson that takes too long to embrace its hard sci-fi elements. They single out the strong later episodes featuring complex scientific concepts for praise.
Read the full review →Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate