The Witcher (2019)

The review finds the series improves after an overly grim opening episode that apes Game of Thrones, becoming more engaging when its protagonists interact and it leans into fairy-tale elements rather than grimdark posturing. The critic praises the chemistry between leads and the show's embrace of its fantastical tropes once the structure settles.

A rewarding, if convoluted, fantasy romp with a memorable hero and a vivid, grimdark world. Cavill is delightfully gruff in the lead, and the bleak, morally bankrupt world is unflinching with gore and rich in challenging themes.

The critic suggests the show is for those who like this sort of thing, describing it as a Tolkienesque effects-heavy fantasy epic about monster-hunter Geralt of Rivia played by Henry Cavill. They highlight the toxic masculinity theme and note the convoluted names and wigs but acknowledge the appeal for fans of the genre.

The series is flawed but ultimately lovable, with plenty of issues around dense backstory and focus, yet the critic completely and unironically enjoyed watching the whole thing. Cavill is a gift in the gruff, taciturn role of Geralt, with standout combat scenes.

The opening episode is a little confusing but handsomely mounted, with Henry Cavill's Geralt looking every inch the sword and sorcery hero. Battle scenes, special effects, and locations are impressive, though the dialogue can veer into the silly.

The review calls the Netflix adaptation a missed opportunity that lacks Game of Thrones' grandeur and politicking, feeling muddled and more like a mindless fantasy rollercoaster. It praises Henry Cavill as the best thing about it and notes strong action sequences amid convoluted subplots and YA-tinged secondary stories.

The show lacks tonal consistency and feels overlong and centerless, with moments of drama and violence undercut by misplaced humor. The appeal may be limited to those already under the spell of the source material.

The piece uses a list of things absent from the show to highlight its dense, confusing mythology, lack of clear exposition, and surprising elements that defy expectations for a fantasy adaptation. It conveys a sense of the series being visually striking and eventful but hampered by restrictions and narrative opacity.

The series is mostly for pre-existing fans; when it takes itself seriously it is fairly bad with endless exposition, but when it doesn't it is reasonably fun thanks to cheeky elements and action. A curious neophyte may need patience.

The critic describes the show as ripe for mockery, oozing with incel testosterone and lacking inventive wit, precisely the kind of fantasy those who disliked Game of Thrones expected. They note watching multiple episodes despite the flaws and that some will love it while others will loathe it.

The critic praises the series as a wildly entertaining high fantasy treat that brings D&D-style fun with excellent fights, body horror, and performances, rewarding viewers who stick with the narrative. They single out Cavill’s deadpan delivery, the tone balancing goofy and grim, and Jaskier’s exuberance for praise.

The critic calls the series entertaining high fantasy for adults that is well-constructed, well-acted, and refreshingly straightforward, creating a believable world on par with early Game of Thrones. They single out the impressive scale, production values, swordplay, and Cavill’s charming performance for praise.

The critic describes the series as a fun, often thrilling romp that fills the void left by Game of Thrones with its bloodthirsty fantasy elements, sex, monsters, and comedy. They single out the lighter, cartoonish tone and strong comedy thread, particularly Joey Batey’s Jaskier, for praise.

The review likens the series to a flawed hybrid of Game of Thrones and The Mandalorian, praising Henry Cavill’s committed performance and the strong fight choreography while noting its potential as a fully realized fantasy world. It criticizes the pacing, the absence of the lead for long stretches, and the sense that season one functions mainly as an extended prologue.

The critic questions whether the show aims to be more than a source of ironic screenshots, framing the review as a list of interrogations about its bizarre elements rather than a standard analysis. She singles out the show's convoluted world-building, multiple timelines, and lack of clear explanations as central issues.

The adaptation is criticized for aiming low and still missing, delivering caricatures instead of compelling characters, weak stories that lean on clichés, nudity, and violence, and serviceable but uninspired production values. It singles out the bard character’s unfunny jokes and the overall failure to capture the source material’s depth as major flaws.