• Network: HBO
  • Series Premiere Date: Jun 10, 2007
  • Season #: 1
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 253 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 57 out of 253

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
  1. Jan 25, 2012
    No description of this series makes it sound at all appealing. In fact, despite my enthusiasm for surfing, Zen, and Garrett Dillahunt, I didn't watch it until last year, not just because of the bad reviews, but because even the good ones made "John from Cincinnati" sound about as alluring as listening to Cyndi Lauper read the Manhattan Phone Directory through a bullhorn while Dick Cheney cleaned my teeth with a hunting rifle. And I'm not the only viewer the series failed to attract. Recently, I read that less than a quarter of the audience who watched the finale of "The Sopranos" stuck around to check out "John." In other words, the show never had a chance. And that was a shame of the first order, because "John" turns out to be one of the most original, profound, and moving series I've ever seen. Not only is there nothing like it, there's nothing even close enough to allow a cautious, qualified comparison--a descriptive comparison, that is. Even a non-descriptive comparison is hard. I could think for hours and then finally stammer, "John from Cincinnati" is to "Deadwood" as "The Tempest" is to "1 Henry IV," but,despite struggling to find the most apt analogy possible, all I have done is tell you "It's really different" and "It's really good." So, though I normally condemn unsubstantiated value judgments, I think it's essential to make one here, because anything I could say is as likely to make you shun "John from Cincinnati" as to make you want to watch it. If you think I'm just being lazy, look at some of my other reviews; all I'm trying to avoid is turning another potential viewer OFF. I will qualify my approbation a bit, however. "John" is not a show for fools, nor for people who just want to power down their brains after work and settle into a stupor. I'm not saying that the series requires effort to watch--it doesn't--but it will stimulate brains that are not already dead, and the questions it will raise are exciting. So viewers who mind being stimulated, mentally, should probably choose another series. "John" is also not a show for rigid people. If, for you, rules and categories and formulae are ends in themselves (rather than means of achieving certain ends), you will not like this series, as it consistently breaks generic and other boundaries. If characters must adhere to familiar types; if, for you, mothers must be nurturing and children lovable and junkies loathsome and surfers moronic and avatars eloquent, then, no, you will not like this series. If, however, you have an open, active mind and your sympathies extend to people unlike yourself and you've occasionally asked a question or two about what it might mean to be human and, most importantly, you really enjoy seeing something you've never seen before, especially if it's beautiful, then check out "John from Cincinnati." I have a feeling that your great-great grandchildren will be proud to tell their friends that you were among the very few who realized way back in 2012 that this series was a classic. Expand
  2. Jul 24, 2011
    Cin-Cin-Cin skinny as a pin skinny as a fatty spells cincinnati..John,
    Enjoyed your dialogue withDavid Milch. However, it just amazes me that he just recites dialogue and can recall paragraphs back for revisions. He has a strong mind. I did watch all of Deadwood in 1 week.
    Will watch for your next creative effort.
    Friend of Jerry S in Chicago.

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 24
  2. Negative: 7 out of 24
  1. 50
    It's only June,? but I can confidently state that you won’t see a weirder show than "John From Cincinnati" all year long.
  2. Intriguing but not entirely satisfying.
  3. 70
    Mesmerizing and entertainingly confounding.