Critics’ reviews

Better Call Saul (2015)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 77: 6 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Better Call Saul

77
Positive
6
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics welcome Better Call Saul as a confident prequel, with praise centred on Bob Odenkirk’s ability to make Jimmy McGill funny, wounded and sympathetic without softening his defects. The reviews find plenty to enjoy in the dark comedy and the small, pathetic details of Jimmy’s working life. Direction and editing also draw praise, while the gentler tone and attention to character give the series enough of its own identity to avoid depending entirely on Breaking Bad.

The main reservation concerns how much these opening episodes deliver beyond a promising introduction. The Hollywood Reporter treats the slow start as grounds for patience, whereas Variety finds the pilot short of an emotional core and questions whether its origin story is compelling enough yet. The spread is otherwise fairly narrow: enthusiasm varies, but the dissent concerns dramatic substance rather than Odenkirk’s performance or the assurance of the filmmaking.

Radio Times
9 February 2015 · Jonathan Holmes
85*

The first episode meticulously builds Jimmy McGill's quirks and defects while delivering real laughs and Kermit-faced pathos from Odenkirk; it is better and more easily enjoyable than Breaking Bad was at this stage, with the return of Jonathan Banks as Mike offering classic double-act potential.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
21 January 2015 · Tim Goodman
80*

Spin-offs are tricky, but Gilligan has earned the right to extend the franchise with a drama that starts with a slow burn but is full of promise and potential. It is very much its own beast, stylistically distinct from Breaking Bad, with Odenkirk superb as the introspective Jimmy McGill.

Read the full review →
The Times
10 February 2015 · ★★★★ · Alex Hardy
80

The prequel feels like Breaking Bad but rewards newcomers too, with crisp visuals, dark comic sensibilities, and Bob Odenkirk's entertaining performance as the lead.

Read the full review →
Vulture
6 February 2015 · Matt Zoller Seitz
80*

The series is a slightly gentler prequel to Breaking Bad with a sad-sack charm, featuring capers, conversations, and character portraits spaced by bursts of viciousness. It stands out for its hilarious yet pathetic details of Jimmy's life and strong cinematic direction and editing.

Read the full review →
Variety
21 January 2015 · Brian Lowry
60*

The critic views the pilot as an extended origin story possessing Breaking Bad's flavor and black comedy but initially lacking its emotional core, resulting in a mixed verdict. The creative team is praised, but the series requires faith that it will build into something more compelling.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
15 February 2015 · Sam Wollaston

The critic finds Better Call Saul compelling and not underwhelming despite high expectations as a Breaking Bad prequel. They single out Bob Odenkirk's performance as Jimmy McGill and Vince Gilligan's distinctive style for praise.

Read the full review →
Paste
10 February 2015 · Shane Ryan and Josh Jackson
80*

The critics praise the show's focus on Jimmy McGill obeying his natural instincts as Slippin' Jimmy rather than a respectable lawyer, seeing it as the opposite of Breaking Bad's arc. They highlight Bob Odenkirk's performance as bringing humanity and a wounded idealism to the character, a scammer with a heart of gold.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
9 February 2015 · ★★★½ · Nick Harley
70

The pilot goes down easy thanks to Gilligan’s direction and Odenkirk’s performance, with the show already feeling confident and practiced. It excels at keeping things light and fun while introducing new elements like the nail salon office and Mike’s presence.

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