Critics’ reviews

Breaking Bad (2008)

8 reviews from 8 publications. Critics’ score 76: 8 positive, 0 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Breaking Bad

76
Positive
8
Mixed
0
Negative
0

The reviews are unanimous in their approval, and nearly all of them arrive at the same place: Bryan Cranston. Reviewing the pilot in 2008 or looking back years later, critics single out his performance as the mild-mannered chemistry teacher who starts cooking meth after a cancer diagnosis. Vince Gilligan’s writing draws the next most praise for mixing desperation, dark comedy and suspense without settling on one. The later pieces, written on a rewatch, add that the series plans ahead carefully and rewards a second viewing.

The reservations are small and scattered rather than shared. The Hollywood Reporter finds the early episodes too relaxed about the drug at their centre. Variety worries the series is front-loaded and may play like a little-seen indie film stretched across television. The Guardian, otherwise admiring, notes the female characters are thinly drawn. The spread of scores is narrow, from warm to warmer, and nobody dissents from the whole.

The AV Club
22 January 2008 · A- · Donna Bowman
90

The pilot shows strong promise thanks to Bryan Cranston's mesmerizing performance as a high-school teacher entering the drug trade and Vince Gilligan's raw screenplay. It is rough, ugly, and sometimes nauseating but leaves the critic eager for more.

Read the full review →
Empire
18 December 2009
80*

The series is a dark comedy feast about a high-school teacher who becomes a gun-toting drug dealer after learning he has cancer. Bryan Cranston delivers a standout performance as the chemistry professor cooking meth to provide for his family.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
17 January 2008 · Barry Garron
75*

The pilot presents an odd-couple dramedy where a mild-mannered teacher partners with a former student to cook meth after a terminal cancer diagnosis, blending desperation, dark humor, and suspense. Cranston is fun to watch and the strong supporting cast suggests room to grow, though the laissez-faire attitude toward meth is somewhat problematic.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
5 December 2013 · Sam Wollaston
70*

The critic calls the series an epic tragedy charting Walter White's ascent to drug lord and descent into moral depravity, hailing Bryan Cranston's performance as extraordinary and comparing the show to Dostoevsky. They single out the central teacher-pupil relationship with Jesse and the New Mexico desert setting for praise while noting some flaws like underdeveloped female characters.

Read the full review →
The i Paper
19 January 2018 · Mark Butler
70*

The critic finds that rewatching the series reveals Walter White's darker, more self-serving nature much earlier than first impressions suggested. The piece singles out the central performance and writing for making viewers root for an increasingly flawed protagonist.

Read the full review →
Variety
17 January 2008 · Brian Lowry
70*

The series offers a breakout role for Bryan Cranston as a chemistry teacher turned meth cook after a cancer diagnosis, with a quirky sensibility and moral dilemmas that keep it absorbing yet front-loaded. It is a worthy addition to cable dramas but risks feeling like TV's version of a little-seen indie film.

Read the full review →
Vulture
25 July 2013 · Matt Zoller Seitz
70*

The rewatch highlights how the emotional weight of Walter White's cancer diagnosis and early choices lands harder on second viewing, crediting the show's craft in characterization, symbolism, and atmosphere. It praises the deliberate visual and narrative planning that rewards revisiting.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
20 January 2023
90*

The article celebrates the pilot as one of the best series introductions, establishing the protagonist's framework and Bryan Cranston's mesmerizing character work while hooking viewers on the high-stakes premise. It singles out the episode's ability to promise a rewarding payoff for investing in the story.

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