Revolution : Season 1

  • Network: NBC
  • Series Premiere Date: Sep 17, 2012
Season #: 1, 2
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 32 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 32
  2. Negative: 0 out of 32

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Sep 17, 2012
    83
    The pilot, directed by co--executive producer Jon Favreau ("Iron Man"), poses numerous questions, and to the credit of everyone involved, delivers some surprising payoffs that other shows would hold for weeks, if not seasons.
  2. Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Sep 12, 2012
    83
    Revolution, which has the overall look and feel of a big budget feature, delivers some consistently terrific action scenes.
  3. Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Sep 17, 2012
    80
    Revolution is big, bold and brassy adventure, a cowboys-and-Indians story for end times.
  4. Reviewed by: Dorothy Rabinowitz
    Sep 14, 2012
    80
    If the quality of this one, so irresistible in its vitality and suspense, does fail to hold up, its creators will have delivered, at the least, one remarkably fine hour.
  5. Reviewed by: Hank Stuever
    Sep 14, 2012
    80
    The mind reels with possibility, and even hope, which is why we keep coming back to stories like these.
  6. Reviewed by: Linda Stasi
    Sep 17, 2012
    75
    If you loved Spielberg's "Terra Nova," you'll love Revolution.
  7. Reviewed by: Gail Pennington
    Sep 17, 2012
    75
    It's worth giving Revolution a shot for its surprising imagery (wait till you see what's become of the Gateway Arch in an early scene), strong adult characters and fascinating possibilities.
  8. Reviewed by: David Wiegand
    Sep 14, 2012
    75
    Yes, Revolution is a good adventure yarn, but the other reason we're likely to watch future episodes is that it grounds the action in thought-provoking themes.
  9. Reviewed by: Alessandra Stanley
    Sep 17, 2012
    70
    Ambitious setups like this don't always hold up, but Revolution has the potential to be a more disciplined "Lost"--not necessarily more plausible but with any luck less preposterous and pretentious.
  10. Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Sep 17, 2012
    70
    The pilot is a pretty solid hour of television, setting up the show's premise and in several instances defying TV norms with plot twists viewers won't see coming.
  11. Reviewed by: Joanne Ostrow
    Sep 14, 2012
    70
    If you like dark action-adventure with a deep mythology, you may enjoy this suspenseful hour, intended to perplex as it entertains. For some viewers, however, the questions will get in the way.
  12. Reviewed by: Tim Goodman
    Sep 12, 2012
    70
    Does that make sense? If not, well, Revolution doesn't make a lot of sense, but it's a lot of fun.
  13. Reviewed by: Robert Bianco
    Sep 17, 2012
    63
    The less you think about Revolution the more apt you are to like it.
  14. Reviewed by: Lori Rackl
    Sep 14, 2012
    63
    It's already clear, however, that the writing can be a bit corny, the action sequences a tad ridiculous and the plot prone to nit-picking.
  15. You get sort of an odd, been-there-done-that feeling when watching the pilot, which contains, to varying degrees, traces of "The Hunger Games," "The Walking Dead," "FlashForward," "Jericho," "Lost" (Elizabeth Mitchell is in the cast) and other dystopian fare.
User Score
5.8

Mixed or average reviews- based on 371 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 39 out of 127
  2. Negative: 62 out of 127
  1. Sep 18, 2012
    0
    I am simply amazed how it was possible to deconstruct the entire concept of the setting within barely 15 minutes. It is an insult to theI am simply amazed how it was possible to deconstruct the entire concept of the setting within barely 15 minutes. It is an insult to the viewer to just claim "physics went insane" and then just a few minutes down the road we are shown that most of the quintessential parts of technology are not also perfectly functional, but also that the characters are obviously too stupid to realize. If semi-automatic firearms work, engines work. Simple as that. Boiled down to the basics, an engine is nothing but a self-repeating series of controlled explosions. The simplest designs do not even need electricity to work, if you'd be forced to build them without. But all that does not even matter, because everything else is just as bad and inconsistent as the setting. The art department did a horrible job and most important items and settings do not look real and lived in at all. They look like a badly done set for a soap commercial. Wear and tear of 15 years forced partial neglect is used so badly and inconsistently on everything, that they might not have bothered with it at all. It is clear that the people responsible for the visual design have no talent of observation. That is quite common and always a problem, because who cannot observe and comprehend are doomed to get everything wrong. When you do not know how to look at things, you are missing all vital questions. Say there is an object. Say an airplane. Parked in exactly one spot for 15 years. If you have never seen anything similar, you will mess it up. And they did. Not just this but everything you actually pay attention to. Look too hard and it falls apart. Last but not least, the show suffers from a disease that is an increasing problem these days: Character lobotomy syndrome. The people inside the fictional word are so incredibly stupid and make such incredibly unacceptable and horrid mistakes in the most basic department, that it is implausible that they are alive at all. So the world is dangerous? Really? A lot?! So you fenced in a village but nobody was smart enough ever to bother with any actual kind of sentries or a solid defense? Why are they still there? Did they get overlooked by everything bad for more than a decade? Simply impossible. They are either too stupid to still exist like they allegedly do, or everyone else who might have posed a problem is. Both ways, it adds up to a lot of stupid and incompetence for the setting. The show is a mess. Full Review »
  2. Oct 30, 2012
    2
    I have given this show a fair shake but too much is too much -- or should I say too little is too little.

    First, as has been noted, the
    I have given this show a fair shake but too much is too much -- or should I say too little is too little.

    First, as has been noted, the acting leaves much to be desired. When the star, Tracy Spiridakos, has only two poses -- wooden Indian or stunned teenager, you are in trouble. I thought she might improve as she got accustomed to the role but no such luck.

    Second, even if one could buy the basic premise about a sudden world-wide loss of power, it would be impossible to believe the lack of progress 15 years after the blackout. Power "disappeared" but the scientists didn't.

    Third, as has been noted, there are too many ridiculous incongruities, as has been mentioned, like the permed hair and makeup.
    Full Review »
  3. Sep 17, 2012
    2
    The premise is fairly original and had intrigued me from the start and the sets, costumes, and lighting all looked wonderful! The show fellThe premise is fairly original and had intrigued me from the start and the sets, costumes, and lighting all looked wonderful! The show fell apart for me with the plot and acting. The characters were especially unbelievable, their motives were inconsistent and the acting was ridiculous. All-in-all it might have made a good book and it would have made a great show with different actors and better dialogue but this isn't a show I will be looking forward to. Full Review »