Devs

HULU | Release Date: March 5, 2020

7.2	USER SCORE Generally favorable reviews based on 91 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this TV Series

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

adamcsorJul 14, 2020

It's pretty to look at and the performances are mostly very good, but it can't quite stick the landing and winds up feeling a piffle.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

AlphaRebelMar 28, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Bit of a rough start with cringe worthy forced dialogue over the merits of block ciphers in a bit of wang waving to establish the two leads are smart but it just comes off as completely unnatural, it gets better but rapidly settles back into the usual, well worn tropes of the genre, borrowing ideas from many sources and more then it's fair share from Alex Garland's work when he wrote for Danny Boyle and a great deal from his own Ex Machina to the extent that you could just swap Oscar Issac's Nathen over instead of Nick Offerman's Forrest and *NOTHING* would change. (That's not a slight on the performances of either actor, just the character is a direct transplant)
Speaking of Recycled material; Why does Alison Pill's character literally have the exact same twitches and mannerisms of her character in Picard???

So other then the psychotic "driven to extreme" CEO who's obsessing over something, we have the Mild mannered but murderous henchman / fixer / head of security with more the a little resemblance to Mike Ehrmantraut

We have a lead character who's deep in trouble but no one believes and thinks she's being paranoid (although in this case it seems she is pretty irrational at times, not to mention deeply annoying).

And the mcguffin, that drives all the drama seem to be a world changing device that can see around time.... so yeah the lens machine from Paycheck....

So much potential and it just seems to pedestrian, oh and the soundtrack / music pulls you out instead of complimenting the story.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

thunderboltwayApr 28, 2020

Something's way off. If I had to diagnose it, I would say it would be the script, full of characters *telling* us how strong, clever, and funny the protagonist is, all while *showing* us a protagonist who is clearly a wet noodle. With such aSomething's way off. If I had to diagnose it, I would say it would be the script, full of characters *telling* us how strong, clever, and funny the protagonist is, all while *showing* us a protagonist who is clearly a wet noodle. With such a dud of a lead, it feels like watching a series where perhaps in another universe, DEVS was originally shot to prominently feature a now-disgraced lead actor who was digitally removed from the entire series after their scandal. An odd feeling. |

I don't get why someone would cast the actress who was perfect as "creepy, wooden, emotionless sex doll" in their previous project as the lead in a thriller about industrial espionage, but she's got a terminal case of the blahs, for when she speaks, she's got about as much charisma as a shopping cart wheel with a stringy bit of mop stuck in it. It'd be one thing if her instance was the only case of the hollows here, but additionally, both of the central protagonist's love interests are bland and generic, too, and honestly, it's hard to not want to see everyone we're supposed to care about here be severely abused, post-haste. To wit, episode six features perhaps the cringiest, wimpiest delivery of the line **** off" you could ever hope to hear from a leading man, and seven features enough magical negro prophecies to make Bagger Vance blush.

Contrasting DEV's hipster cast with something like this year's "Emma," the pretty, rich, young characters on display here simply can't elicit an ounce of sympathy from the audience for all their first-world problems.

Among these casting and writing head-scratchers, it also seems like Garland seems intent to bring every song from CSN's debut album to screen one project a time, puzzlingly. And speaking of needle-drops, episode 7 opens with perhaps the worst I've ever heard. I *love* some Alex Garland, and I rock Beak's entire discography, but this project reeks of nepotism and ill-advised creative freedom. If you took Ex Machina and made it sloppy and gaudy, then took Annihilation and removed all the bits in the "reach," leaving only the navel-gazing treatise on marriage and fidelity that comprises Natalie Portman's back-story...you have some idea of what this show is like. Hats off to the bad guys in this show, who light up the screen menacingly and pull the entire operation away from its focus on Mary and Gary Sue's bumbling, window-hopping emo romance, seemingly devoid of chemistry, consequence, or charm. My advice for Garland would be to have a beer, get laid, and get over his stupid fixation with household drama. He's not Noah Baumbach, he's Stanley Kubrick. He seems to be stuck in a desperately feminist mode, where you get the sense he deeply wants to impress his wife / girlfriend but can't quite figure out how. The production has this air of righteous self-importance that doesn't always translate to coherent ( or at least compelling ) storytelling.

It's a very bad sign when the only interesting character on the side of the "good guys" is a homeless man who lives in front of their building.

Plot's not bad in and of itself, and that goes without saying in a Garland work. Apparently, a bulk of the show's flaws were all intentional, but Garland overreaches -- he can do hipster romance, and he can do cerebral sci-fi thriller, but stretch his scripts to eight hours and tack on the added weight of directing actors (and especially actors playing characters on the spectrum) and the whole machine breaks down and spits out pure caca… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

tonyGreenMay 21, 2020

I feel like the series didn't quite know what it was. The elements of crime / conspiracy thriller really worked for me. However the Sci-Fi / metaphysical aspects didn't quite convince me. Nevertheless the production is flawless, the actingI feel like the series didn't quite know what it was. The elements of crime / conspiracy thriller really worked for me. However the Sci-Fi / metaphysical aspects didn't quite convince me. Nevertheless the production is flawless, the acting very good and the effects very well done… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

TVJerryJun 11, 2020

This is another series in the new trend of low-key, intellectual sci-fi shows. The mysterious titular organization is working with quantum theory on time travel, until a young coder gets in the way (after her boyfriend is murdered). This wasThis is another series in the new trend of low-key, intellectual sci-fi shows. The mysterious titular organization is working with quantum theory on time travel, until a young coder gets in the way (after her boyfriend is murdered). This was created by Alex Garland, who's responsible for Ex Machina (my review) and Annihilation (my review) and this series features many of the hallmarks from those films: Glacial pacing, ominous creepiness and promising tech. To drag out the drama, the inventor (Nick Offerman) is struggling with the loss of his family (one of the tiredest tropes in tragedy). Most of the time is spent in low-key dialogue with sprinklings of special effects and mild violence to keep us hoping for a payoff. Sadly, there aren't any revelations til Episode 6 and even then, it isn't really worth it. The disruptive discordant sound design just adds to the flailing suspense.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

dangerfarApr 19, 2020

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Garland needs to start partnering with writers and better editors. DEVS, like Ex Machina and Annihilation, has a wonderful air about it, sonically and visually a pleasure to behold, and has an intriguing central premise. But like those movies it squanders these tastier morsels with bad writing, and in this case truly terrible writing. It also shows that this "slow burn" Garland so adores is far too sparse for a long format like television. This is about 4 episodes of content in a package twice that size. Excellent performances here from Nick Offerman and the Zach Grenier, others range from serviceable to bad. The central protagonist, Lily, is terribly written and mostly poorly acted (though there are some moments where the acting breaks through). We're left hearing from these other characters talking to her about how brave, strong, and intelligent she is while she continually makes stupid, cowardly, and frankly bizarre decisions to move the plot along. She's impossible to root for, and even more difficult to believe. The central story fares no better. It lays out an interesting premise with determinism as a centerpiece and even flirts with real science before going completely off the rails and in a truly unsatisfying manner. Characters spend most of their time with long gazes and few, poorly chosen words, and have virtually inscrutable motives even as they're brandished in the most clumsy of ways. Forrest just wants his wife and daughter back, which is fine enough but for the extremely simple-minded reduction of goals for such a device. Kenton is the only one who has interesting/believable motives, though his rampage at the end is fairly hard to understand. And good god the ending. Lily breaking through to make a "choice" (with yet another chance for someone to tell her how special she is), just completely shatters any good-will earned during the build up of the premise. Neither the lack of free will nor the sudden appearance of it are done in a way that makes sense. In a word, disappointing.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

NikitaKuzhelMay 3, 2020

Лично для меня интерес пропал окончательно когда начали обьяснять принцип работы компьютера. Мол "история уже известна", вот только наша история это всего лишь размышление на тему, что было раньше и чем дальше углубляться, тем сложнееЛично для меня интерес пропал окончательно когда начали обьяснять принцип работы компьютера. Мол "история уже известна", вот только наша история это всего лишь размышление на тему, что было раньше и чем дальше углубляться, тем сложнее доказать истину. Для христиан Исуса распяли, для атеистов Исуса не существовало, для другой религии была своя история и так далее. Каким образом копьютер может основываясь на догадках выбрать правильный вариант мне не понятно. Если записать физ свойства в комп, он этого не выдаст, тут как минимум психология людей должна быть изучена так сильно, чтобы предсказывать любое поведение человека, но в сериале она явно так не изучена. Я понимаю, что все это очень сложно даже нафантазировать, но зачем тогда с серьезными лицами в течении 8 часов так поверхностно и неправдоподобно все расказывать? Не скажу что сериа прям не понравился, чувства скорее смешанные, но говорить, что это умный сериал и превозносить его за это как то странно.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

MeadowsJun 1, 2020

A good idea by Garland that never becomes a great series as unfortunately it has a weak script, with frequently excruciating dialogue and pretty wooden acting.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Current TV Shows

By MetascoreBy User Score

1 92 The Pitt: Season 2

2 90 The Celebrity Traitors UK: Season 1

3 87 Hacks: Season 5

4 87 Industry: Season 4

5 87 Genndy Tartakovsky's Primal:...

6 85 The Beatles Anthology

7 85 The Traitors [UK]: Season 4

8 85 Bait: Season 1