I've only watched two episodes so far. It's good but not great. I'll likely stick with it and finish the remaining 6 episodes.

I saw the first episode of The Witcher - not for me. I'm not into fantasy nor the gore but I gave it a view. It's okay but not my thing.

I find Henry Cavill a rather one note delivery kind of actor. Seemed he was trying to do Dirty Harry type impression! All deep husky voice, monosyllabic delivery. I don't think Henry is a very competent actor although he has a fanbase of admirers. But I think he wouldn't have got that far in acting without his looks. Just my honest opinion.

He always seems to be holding back. Imagine if he played a role like The Mask or The Joker! Something when he can let go and just act without any restraint! That would prove how good he might be but these hero roles seem to limit any potential he might have. I can't see him working as Bond neither. Unless he has an inner swagger he won't pull off a credible Bond. Just my opinion.

@fan_of_films said:

I saw the first episode of The Witcher - not for me. I'm not into fantasy nor the gore but I gave it a view. It's okay but not my thing.

It seems to be lacking something. In some ways, it appears as if the show is airing different movies in an episode.

I find Henry Cavill a rather one note delivery kind of actor. Seemed he was trying to do Dirty Harry type impression! All deep husky voice, monosyllabic delivery. I don't think Henry is a very competent actor .

That deep husky voice seems as if it was helped along in the studio. It didn't seem natural. Plus, I agree. It seems as if he was doing a Dirty Harry impression with the one or two words he had to deliver. I've seen 2 1/2 episodes, and I swear the most he ever uttered was one sentence.

@Poetist said:

It seems to be lacking something. In some ways, it appears as if the show is airing different movies in an episode.

That's one of my major complaints about this. The three main focuses (Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri) not only show the lives of different people, but of different times. Ciri's story is in the far future from Geralts (15-20 years ahead), and until they come together Yennefer's story is far in the past (30 years back it appears). I wish they hadn't played with time like this, it was really confusing for a while (until the 4th and 5th episode) especially since they only gave subtle clues what was happening.

@Innovator said:

That's one of my major complaints about this. The three main focuses (Geralt, Yennefer, and Ciri) not only show the lives of different people, but of different times. Ciri's story is in the far future from Geralts (15-20 years ahead), and until they come together Yennefer's story is far in the past (30 years back it appears). I wish they hadn't played with time like this, it was really confusing for a while (until the 4th and 5th episode) especially since they only gave subtle clues what was happening.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to finish the 3rd episode, but I still don't get all the hoopla.

I finished watching all the episodes (and rewatched episodes 1-5), I have to say I really love it. The non-linear story-telling of the earlier episodes didn't fully come together till episode 7, but I was glad I was fully rewarded for sticking through it. Henry Cavil also go better as the episodes went along (or at least I got used to him), but I was also glad a lot less focus was placed on Geralt throughout the season (I know, it's weird to say that about the main character of the games and book), as we got to see the stories of Ciri and Yennefer much more expanded upon. The finale episode...well...let's just say it's unconventional. It was grand and spectacular of course, but not one would expect as two of the three main characters are largely absent in it, including the aforementioned Geralt. Also I found myself questioning some of the decisions of the characters and the showrunners. Overall, I'd recommend the series, it was a lot of fun to watch, and am excited for the season 2, which has already been greenlit.

Lastly, Entertainment Weekly's review is more worthless than the paper they wrote it on. How a respected outlet like that would publish such a scathing review from people who only watched less than 50% of a series (2-3 episodes that they admittedly skipped around)? It's just unprofessional

@Innovator said:

I finished watching all the episodes (and rewatched episodes 1-5), I have to say I really love it. The non-linear story-telling of the earlier episodes didn't fully come together till episode 7, but I was glad I was fully rewarded for sticking through it.

I have just come to the conclusion that this show isn't for me. I am in part 5, but I might not finish it.

Lastly, Entertainment Weekly's review is more worthless than the paper they wrote it on. How a respected outlet like that would publish such a scathing review from people who only watched less than 50% of a series (2-3 episodes that they admittedly skipped around)?

Is it? If this were a traditional series on regular TV, a reviewer would only watch one episode -- maybe two. It's only to get a flavor of the show. Watching 8 hours is pushing it, so I personally don't see it as being a problem.

It's just unprofessional

So was the showrunners' response to their review.

@Poetist said:

@Innovator said: Lastly, Entertainment Weekly's review is more worthless than the paper they wrote it on. How a respected outlet like that would publish such a scathing review from people who only watched less than 50% of a series (2-3 episodes that they admittedly skipped around)?

Is it? If this were a traditional series on regular TV, a reviewer would only watch one episode -- maybe two. It's only to get a flavor of the show. Watching 8 hours is pushing it, so I personally don't see it as being a problem.

If you were a blogger or a poster on forums sure, but not if it's your job to watch the show, and especially not if you work for one of the most trusted entertainment sources in the world. Then you're expected to watch all the footage you are provided (Netflix gave access to every episode early to the reviewers) before giving your assessment.

@Innovator said:

@Poetist said:

@Innovator said: Lastly, Entertainment Weekly's review is more worthless than the paper they wrote it on. How a respected outlet like that would publish such a scathing review from people who only watched less than 50% of a series (2-3 episodes that they admittedly skipped around)?

Is it? If this were a traditional series on regular TV, a reviewer would only watch one episode -- maybe two. It's only to get a flavor of the show. Watching 8 hours is pushing it, so I personally don't see it as being a problem.

If you were a blogger or a poster on forums sure, but not if it's your job to watch the show, and especially not if you work for one of the most trusted entertainment sources in the world. Then you're expected to watch all the footage you are provided (Netflix gave access to every episode early to the reviewers) before giving your assessment.

Still, it doesn't mean they have to watch the whole series to give their review. That's a lot of footage for a reviewer if they have to watch all of Netflix's series of shows. However, they are expected to give a review of the show. It doesn't mean they have to watch each and every episode of the series.

They could comment on the first episode and let people know whether or not it is worth exploring. They did that, of course, with a little of gasoline added to the fire.

@Poetist said:

@Innovator said:

@Poetist said:

@Innovator said: Lastly, Entertainment Weekly's review is more worthless than the paper they wrote it on. How a respected outlet like that would publish such a scathing review from people who only watched less than 50% of a series (2-3 episodes that they admittedly skipped around)?

Is it? If this were a traditional series on regular TV, a reviewer would only watch one episode -- maybe two. It's only to get a flavor of the show. Watching 8 hours is pushing it, so I personally don't see it as being a problem.

If you were a blogger or a poster on forums sure, but not if it's your job to watch the show, and especially not if you work for one of the most trusted entertainment sources in the world. Then you're expected to watch all the footage you are provided (Netflix gave access to every episode early to the reviewers) before giving your assessment.

Still, it doesn't mean they have to watch the whole series to give their review. That's a lot of footage for a reviewer if they have to watch all of Netflix's series of shows. However, they are expected to give a review of the show. It doesn't mean they have to watch each and every episode of the series.

They could comment on the first episode and let people know whether or not it is worth exploring. They did that, of course, with a little of gasoline added to the fire.

They're PAID reviewers from a highly trusted source. They should do their job correctly. If they went to a movie and watched the first 30 minutes of it, or watch only a trailer and decide rate a movie from that (like some bloggers/posters do), then the readers would have issues with that also. Professional reviews from only 1 or 2 shows typically come from weeklies that only give 1 or 2 shows for them to review. Netflix gave them full access to the season.

I saw all 8 just right now. And i must it was confusing like half the season because the whole season wasn’t in chronological order and i didnt know smfh

@TheRealKhan said:

I saw all 8 just right now. And i must it was confusing like half the season because the whole season wasn’t in chronological order and i didnt know smfh

Yep. It's the one thing most people complained about, even those that loved the show.

@TheRealKhan said:

I saw all 8 just right now. And i must it was confusing like half the season because the whole season wasn’t in chronological order and i didnt know smfh

Not only that, there were so many characters and I didn't know their motives. For example, why did the king want Ciri? I can assume he wanted her to gain power, but that's just an assumption. I think the show would have been better if they started in chronological order and if they cut off the first two and maybe another episode.

@Innovator said:

They're PAID reviewers from a highly trusted source. They should do their job correctly. If they went to a movie and watched the first 30 minutes of it, or watch only a trailer and decide rate a movie from that (like some bloggers/posters do), then the readers would have issues with that also. Professional reviews from only 1 or 2 shows typically come from weeklies that only give 1 or 2 shows for them to review. Netflix gave them full access to the season.

Well, it seems as if Variety did something similar in that the reveiwer reviewed 5 episodes.

https://variety.com/2019/tv/reviews/witcher-netflix-1203434525/

@Poetist said:

@TheRealKhan said:

I saw all 8 just right now. And i must it was confusing like half the season because the whole season wasn’t in chronological order and i didnt know smfh

Not only that, there were so many characters and I didn't know their motives. For example, why did the king want Ciri? I can assume he wanted her to gain power, but that's just an assumption. I think the show would have been better if they started in chronological order and if they cut off the first two and maybe another episode.

I did research on it based on the games and it said Ciri has the Elder blood in her which gave her time traveling abilities.