• Network: NBC
  • Series Premiere Date: Jan 6, 2017
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 31 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 31
  2. Negative: 10 out of 31
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand

Critic Reviews

  1. Reviewed by: Allison Keene
    Jan 6, 2017
    60
    It remains to be seen if viewers latch on to a visually sumptuous but narratively messy take on an old story. In the meantime, enjoy the insanity of the ride, if you can make any sense of it.
  2. Reviewed by: Sophie Gilbert
    Jan 5, 2017
    60
    Emerald City is a sometimes chaotic cocktail of familiar characters, fairytale elements, sex and drugs, and a hero’s journey that doesn’t ever feel totally cohesive. But its visuals, crafted by the director Tarsem Singh, are endlessly creative, and the weaker primary cast members are buffeted by an array of gifted supporting actors.
  3. Reviewed by: Kevin Fallon
    Jan 6, 2017
    50
    It’s all very big and bold, and boring.
  4. Reviewed by: Emily VanDerWerff
    Jan 6, 2017
    50
    When Emerald City builds much of its narrative around how weird and edgy the place is, it just feels tired. You’ve seen this take on Oz before--and done better.
  5. Reviewed by: Vicki Hyman
    Jan 6, 2017
    50
    It's just as muddled as "Once" often is, and too ridiculous to be taken seriously as an epic as "Thrones," which is not surprising, given the show's long stay in development purgatory.
  6. Reviewed by: Mitchel Broussard
    Jan 4, 2017
    50
    Emerald City is trying to be both, and also be better and different than the Once Upon A Times and Game of Thrones of the world, but despite some memorable visuals, it’s a master of none of its tricks.
  7. Reviewed by: Jeff Jensen
    Jan 4, 2017
    50
    Director Tarsem Singh produces dazzling visuals and an invigorating weirdness in all 10 eps. But the storytelling is too disjointed and the drama is too symbolic. The performances range from spirited to adequate to Dorothy. [30 Dec 2016 - 6 Jan 2017, p.108]
  8. Reviewed by: Erik Adams
    Jan 6, 2017
    42
    So much of Emerald City reads like a paint-by-numbers grim-and-gritty update of The Wonderful Wizard Of Oz and its abundant sequels, it borders on self-parody. ... And yet Emerald City is too singularly bonkers, too gorgeously assembled, to dismiss out of hand.
  9. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Jan 4, 2017
    42
    A grim grind of a trip down that emblematic yellow road.
  10. Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Jan 8, 2017
    40
    Practically all this ill-conceived series has going for it is spotting the mutations in plot and characters brought on by the conversion from fairytale to cheerless sword-and-sorcery epic.
  11. Reviewed by: Tim Goodman
    Jan 6, 2017
    40
    It's kind of a mess but your mileage may vary, especially since the first few hours are enough to keep you trying to figure out the mysterious direction Shaun Cassidy, David Shulner, Matthew Arnold and Josh Friedman--who developed the 10-hour series--are going in, led there by director Tarsem Singh (Mirror Mirror).
  12. Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Jan 5, 2017
    40
    The visual qualities that make Emerald City so intriguing can’t make up for a meandering narrative that chugs and sputters along, with no one to really root for. The characters are flat, and the actors playing them seem as befuddled as the viewer about the ambiguous shades of good and evil from one scene to the next.
  13. Reviewed by: Maureen Ryan
    Jan 5, 2017
    40
    With more complicated characters and relationships and a livelier sense of momentum, it might have been a more artful meditation on the use of power and the costs of loyalty. But, echoing the fate of those grounded monkeys, the plight of these travelers never really takes flight.
  14. TV Guide Magazine
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Jan 3, 2017
    40
    Emerald City's ambitious pretensions of being the next great adult dark fantasy keeps colliding with childish, clumsy tendency toward unpleasant shock value. [2-15 Jan 2017, p.19]
User Score
6.7

Generally favorable reviews- based on 102 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 67 out of 102
  2. Negative: 24 out of 102
  1. Jan 11, 2017
    10
    I loved this show. It's visually rich, with a strong cast, great performances and informed, nuanced writing. While it's being sold as aI loved this show. It's visually rich, with a strong cast, great performances and informed, nuanced writing. While it's being sold as a 'reinvention' it actually has more in common with the original Frank Baum books than Garland's 'Wizard of Oz'. The original books are dark and creepy and set a tone of uncertainty, unfairness and unexpectedness that this TV show mines well. You don't truly know what will happen next, in Frank Baum's original books or this retelling.

    Ignore the Hollywood pundits on this show. Some creep in NBC clearly has it out for this show and is using a game of Chinese whispers to kill it.

    Ignore those critics or TV watchers who compare this show to the Wizard of Oz. This show has nothing to do with that movie and that movie had little to do with Frank Baum's books: very little, in tone, content or theme. This show is more in keeping with Baum's vision, than MGM's silly movie ever tried to do.

    I thank the producers for updating the story (making Dorothy a Latina, for starters), because a great story should not be trapped by the blinkered bigotries of the past. It should evolve as we do. I think they did a great job of keeping it creepy, making every plot turn unexpected and painting such a beautiful visual fantasy landscape to work with. The cast is strong, the colors are rich and the modernizing touches only enhance the thematic ambitions of the original WRITTEN work. Normally, I'd give this show a 9, but since someone in Hollywood has it out for this show, I'll give it a 10 and hope it lives long enough to earn that last point. The script and performances show a nuanced understanding of their subject and the leads carry their roles far better than most of the dreck on TV.

    Forget the Wizard of Oz. Explore this show's universe as if it were written today. I think you will really enjoy it. If you actually read Baum's work, you won't be disappointed either...............................
    Full Review »
  2. Jan 8, 2017
    8
    Well, I liked it. Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect, but it is entertaining. I definitely think it's better than Tin Man. The visuals areWell, I liked it. Don't get me wrong, it's not perfect, but it is entertaining. I definitely think it's better than Tin Man. The visuals are excellent, the structure of the fantasy world is distinctive, and I thought the characters drew you in. Personally, I'm interested in seeing where this goes. Also, as a fan of the original books, its nice to see them use elements from the other books rather than get all their inspiration from the movie. Full Review »
  3. Jan 8, 2017
    2
    "Listen, we need a Game of Thrones show"
    "No problem!"
    "But like Once Upon A Time..." "No problem!" "...with some LOST quirks and
    "Listen, we need a Game of Thrones show"
    "No problem!"
    "But like Once Upon A Time..."
    "No problem!"
    "...with some LOST quirks and questions...."
    "No problem!"
    "...an make it disjointed and boring...this is NBC after-all."
    "No problem!"
    Full Review »