Devs

Obvious and subtle, intriguing and tiring, icy and sentimental, “Devs” has the flavor of a late-night dorm room conversation: excited, searching and a little sophomoric. ... The action often proceeds with the ritual slowness of Noh theater or a Robert Wilson opera, if you like, or with frustrating lethargy, if you don’t. It does give you plenty of time to think about things, and to see where Garland might be going before he gets there.

It showcases what Garland does well — ideas and atmosphere — while amplifying his weaknesses in character and plot. As the techies say, it scales — for better and for worse.

Garland’s singular vision is in full effect — Devs contains some of the most stunning imagery I’ve seen on TV in recent years — but unfortunately, the story gets stuck at the starting gate, bogged down by dense tech jargon and a frustratingly cryptic conspiracy plot.

At first, Devs’s straightforward murder mystery and broader philosophical questions dovetail seamlessly. ... Devs frustratingly comes too sharply into focus at the expense of leaving some of its more evocative ideas unsaid. The story’s metaphors become increasingly obvious.

Garland, who wrote and directed all eight episodes of the miniseries, takes an approach that’s restrained, deliberate, and more concerned with what the characters do and think than what they’re like. Those latter three qualities, however, stand out more clearly as flaws in the television world, which demands a narrative that can go deep, with characters we care about, and stay compelling over an extended runtime. Devs struggles on that front. ... That said, I was intrigued just enough to want to keep watching, partly because I was invested in the story but even more because I was impressed by certain elements of the series.

Garland’s vision is in the forefront here, and the result is a limited series with a frosty emotional tone, and a story heavy on cutting-edge techno-speak, but skimpy when it comes to characterization.