Mindhunter

:

Season 1
  • Network: Netflix
  • Series Premiere Date: Oct 13, 2017
Season #: 2, 1
User Score
8.4

Universal acclaim- based on 436 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 394 out of 436
  2. Mixed: 16 out of 436
  3. Negative: 26 out of 436
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. Jumpingfrog
    Oct 16, 2017
    6
    This review is based only on the first two episodes.
    The first impression was that this series is somewhat falsely advertised. The trailer signaled a dark, gritty, tense thriller, but the feel of the two first episodes - at least the first 1 1/2 - is more like "Masters of sex". It's more a historical theater play than a modern thriller. The theme is interesting and I'm going to keep    This review is based only on the first two episodes.
    The first impression was that this series is somewhat falsely advertised. The trailer signaled a dark, gritty, tense thriller, but the feel of the two first episodes - at least the first 1 1/2 - is more like "Masters of sex". It's more a historical theater play than a modern thriller. The theme is interesting and I'm going to keep watching - for now - but I'm still a bit disappointed. At least the first 1,5 episode is very talky - instead of "show, don't tell" the actors actually TELL you everything. And it's obvious that the director was aware of this, since scene after scene consists of people talking to eachother for a few minutes, then walk a few steps somewhere in order for SOMETHING to happen, while continuing to talk, and then talk some more. Now, there are lots of series and movies that depend on talking to a large extent - Oliver Stone's "JFK", for example - but if you are going to do it that way, you need actors (and direction) that fill the conversations with drama through their voices and physical expression. During the whole first episode, the whole cast seemed to have one neutral expression all the time, regardless of context and content. This made the essentially thrilling serial-killer-theme about as exciting as a discussion about city planning. There was simply no DRAMA, just information. My main impression was that this was not just a series set at the end of the 1970s - it felt like a series MADE in th 70s. If the first two episodes had been a (good) 2 hour Fincher movie, everything essential in the first two episodes would have been told during the first 20-30 minutes. Yes, the series probably aims to tell the history of how knowledge about serial killers came about, but since a lot of that knowledge is, well, common knowledge today, it could be much more fast-paced. A lot of the dialogue feels like a (very basic) textbook text about serial killers. Not a lot actually HAPPENS, and when it does, it's not very dramatic.
    Still, it's interesting, and I want to see where it leads. But if the show doesn't pick up the pace and, most of all, manages to be more tense and exciting in the next one or two episodes, I don't think I'll bother finishing it.    … Expand
  2. almircampos
    Nov 25, 2017
    4
    This is my original review at Netflix:
    What??? Two stars only??? Yes, that's my final rating for this series, where *final* is the keyword.
    Actually, I started with five stars for similar reasons as other reviewers. However, after three or four episodes the behavior of the characters became very repetitive and predictable, but I was able to have some moments of joy because of the    This is my original review at Netflix:
    What??? Two stars only??? Yes, that's my final rating for this series, where *final* is the keyword.

    Actually, I started with five stars for similar reasons as other reviewers. However, after three or four episodes the behavior of the characters became very repetitive and predictable, but I was able to have some moments of joy because of the successes they were achieving. So, I dropped only one star.

    The real problem started when, aside from repetitive and negative (sometimes nonsense) behavior, even the successes became predictable and boring. So, by episode 7 I had dropped one more star from my rating.

    Finally, in the episodes 8 and 9, the script used the same formula 'ad nauseam' and, worse, no significant steps on the research, and several loose ends. I could only hope that in a magical movement the loose ends would be tied in the last episode of the season. So, one star was gone.

    At this point, I was giving only two stars. During the last (10th) episode I was ready to get rid of one more star. I didn't - as an act of charity - because the last 10 or 15 minutes could lead to more interesting things in the next season.

    Sincerely, I felt kind of betrayed by the director after the 6th or 7th episode, when the series became closer to a soap-opera than to a crime series that catches you. I have no intention of waiting about 10 to 12 months to see the continuation of the story.

    In sum: the story didn't close any important point, it carries you through a lot of predictable frustrations in the last three episodes, and you have only a vague idea of when or if the writers are going to be interested in catching you again.

    So, I hope you can read some other bad and good reviews and find for yourself what's important to you in this type of series. For me, it didn't work well.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

46
#46 Best TV Season of 2017
16
#16 Most Discussed TV Season of 2017
14
#14 Most Shared TV Season of 2017

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
79

Generally favorable reviews - based on 25 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 24 out of 25
  2. Mixed: 1 out of 25
  3. Negative: 0 out of 25
  1. The New Yorker
    Reviewed by: Troy Patterson
    Dec 15, 2017
    80
    “All the world is not, of course, a stage, but the crucial ways in which it isn’t are not easy to specify.” The writers (led by Penhall) and the directors (who include David Fincher) of “Mindhunter” play with this and related ideas about masks, frames, screens, and true selves in a distinct tone. As the show flows from mode to mode--slow-burn horror, arch workplace comedy, buddy-cop road movie--it returns its attention to performers, and to the daily problem of giving an audience what it wants.
    Read full review
  2. Slant Magazine
    Reviewed by: Chuck Bowen
    Oct 23, 2017
    88
    Mindhunter is addictive and resonant for its mining of two evocative forms of social contrast. The terrific cast informs Fincher and creator Joe Penhall's sociological schematic with a human element that's unusual for a crime procedural, and the series has a piercing sense of how macro influences micro culture.
    Read full review
  3. Slate
    Reviewed by: Willa Paskin
    Oct 20, 2017
    80
    It’s a head trip, a cerebral consideration of all the terrifying things that can go wrong inside the minds of murderers and men. ... Mindhunter locates its drama in interrogations. The show is, in essence, a string of short plays, two- and three-handers featuring Ford, Tench, and a vile murderer in a room.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »