Under the Dome : Season 1

  • Network: CBS
  • Series Premiere Date: Jun 24, 2013
Season #: 1, 2, 3
User Score
5.9

Mixed or average reviews- based on 428 Ratings

User score distribution:

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
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

  1. Jun 26, 2015
    3
    If you have ever wondered what it looks like when a cow is separated perfectly in half through the median plane, Under the Dome will show you. Over and over again.

    The pilot kind of draws you in, but don't be deceived. The characters and plot "twists" are frustrating to watch and also terribly predictable. The mysterious stranger from out of town starts out fairly compelling but then
    If you have ever wondered what it looks like when a cow is separated perfectly in half through the median plane, Under the Dome will show you. Over and over again.

    The pilot kind of draws you in, but don't be deceived. The characters and plot "twists" are frustrating to watch and also terribly predictable. The mysterious stranger from out of town starts out fairly compelling but then proceeds to deer-in-headlights himself through every crisis the town faces, while the one-dimensional journalist stubbornly and brazenly follows every lead she stumbles across because hey, she's just got to clumsily get to the bottom of things like any imaginary stubborn journalist would!
    Expand
  2. Jul 23, 2014
    3
    The first episodes where great, after that it kept the tension up for the rest of season 1.

    But, enter season two. That was the great decline into product placement and worse storylines. It became barely tolerable to watch, but the episode that did it for me was the one in which the cast chased some magic 3G/wi-fi signal, that somehow penetrated the dome (even when a MOAB bomb
    The first episodes where great, after that it kept the tension up for the rest of season 1.

    But, enter season two. That was the great decline into product placement and worse storylines.

    It became barely tolerable to watch, but the episode that did it for me was the one in which the cast chased some magic 3G/wi-fi signal, that somehow penetrated the dome (even when a MOAB bomb couldn't get trough in season one), with their Windows (tm) 8 (c) tablets, and spending close to 5 minutes of screentime showing off how awesome those tablets are, and how nice and easy it is to read e-mails on them!

    Another series that seems to think it's viewers are mindless zombie-consumers.

    Shame on you, Stephen King.
    Expand
  3. Aug 10, 2013
    3
    The series could have been so successful, but I never though it will turn out this bad! Under the Dome's only positive points are the fact that its premise is interesting and intriguing and that there are some interesting plot points that have appeared in what I have seen in the series. But sadly, the series is filled with utterly annoying and unlikable characters that are extremelyThe series could have been so successful, but I never though it will turn out this bad! Under the Dome's only positive points are the fact that its premise is interesting and intriguing and that there are some interesting plot points that have appeared in what I have seen in the series. But sadly, the series is filled with utterly annoying and unlikable characters that are extremely annoying and lack in any sort of logic. In television shows, audiences are supposed to care about the characters, but no care is given here. The dialogue is both corny and horrible and the CG is pretty damn terrible as well. As much as I wanted to continue watching the series, I kept getting constantly frustrated and annoying by the characters and there decisions and dialogue, the subplots and other things. A high concept drama gone wrong. Expand
  4. Jul 5, 2013
    3
    I read the book, I am a big Stephen King, and there have been the occasional King book that has been translated effectively to film but rarely. I still held out hopes for this project, since it had the length to tell the story in detail, and CBS clearly lavished funds toward it. But I was surprised by the inferiority and mediocrity of the project, from casting to camerawork to script.I read the book, I am a big Stephen King, and there have been the occasional King book that has been translated effectively to film but rarely. I still held out hopes for this project, since it had the length to tell the story in detail, and CBS clearly lavished funds toward it. But I was surprised by the inferiority and mediocrity of the project, from casting to camerawork to script. It had such a B quality about it, from the first frame and that surprised me most. It's not that the actors weren't familiar to me, or that they weren't major names, but their characterizations were so flat and generic, like soap opera characters. Additionally, as the intersection of actor and scripted character, they were also unsympathetic and unappealing. When I considered giving the second episode a shot, part of what deterred me is that I didn't like the characters enough to care. They were abrasive, unlikeable, unappealing, unsympathetic, opaque. I just didn't really care. They weren't real people, but caricatures "tough female reporter" "hunky troubled stubbled lead" "snarly older town boss" "Latina woman cop" etc. The camerawork was cheese. All the formulaic pans and closeups, and whatever else network TV does. Network cinematographers must do these camera maneuvers in their sleep, and dream of breaking free of the cliches. The script was flat and obvious pulling what I imagine were the most obvious plot-forwarding lines, or condensing into cliches. Stephen King is a brilliant underrated writer. The lines were soap-opera level. Ultimately, what was tense and atmospheric and quirky in print was mediocre soap-opera with network pacing leading to commercial breaks. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. For a superior small-screen adaptation of Stephen King's vision, check out "The Mist." Expand
  5. Aug 5, 2013
    3
    I have never read a Stephen King book and therefore when friends told me about the show I kept an open mind.
    7 episodes in and not much has happened its very boring and the long scenes seem to be padding out a very empty story. Shame as the idea is good in theory but I a not being entertained. So Im done with it now.
  6. Aug 20, 2013
    3
    This is one of those instances where a show gets worse episode by episode. It suffers from two common network TV flaws: 1) the premise demands resolution but the series is open-ended. So you get episode after episode with teasing plot threads that go nowhere. 2) the writing is mediocre. Standard melodrama stuff. Under the Dome would have made a much better miniseries.
  7. Aug 28, 2013
    3
    After a reasonable start to a summer mini, based on a great book by King, now by episode 10, the show has been reduced to drivel, completely disjointed and going nowhere. New characters from out of the woodwork. Even though a sci-fi premise exists, no one is really seeking solution or talking (in print or on screens) with the outside world and demanding action, To think that this townAfter a reasonable start to a summer mini, based on a great book by King, now by episode 10, the show has been reduced to drivel, completely disjointed and going nowhere. New characters from out of the woodwork. Even though a sci-fi premise exists, no one is really seeking solution or talking (in print or on screens) with the outside world and demanding action, To think that this town allows Junior to run around with a badge and a gun is actually silly. Enough. Oh, by the way, they blew up a well so that the town could get some water, and last night "Big Jim" is drowning people in a lake the size of Erie, in a 25' power boat, huh. Expand
  8. Sep 3, 2013
    3
    Good sci-fi is very hard to come by. Whenever something new comes along, I get my hopes up. Considering that the "Under the Dome" TV series is based on Stephen King's novel, my hopes were high. Unfortunately, the quality of the show is not nearly as good as what I've come to expect from King's work.

    Episode 1 was just good and unique enough to intrigue (cow scene was great), but
    Good sci-fi is very hard to come by. Whenever something new comes along, I get my hopes up. Considering that the "Under the Dome" TV series is based on Stephen King's novel, my hopes were high. Unfortunately, the quality of the show is not nearly as good as what I've come to expect from King's work.

    Episode 1 was just good and unique enough to intrigue (cow scene was great), but after that, it has steadily gone downhill. As a show for thinking adults, much of the writing and acting is very flat, obvious, and painfully dumbed-down. As a show for older children, some subject matter might be inappropriate. It doesn't seem appropriate for any particular audience.

    While I have not read the novel that its based on, I cannot imagine that the show gets its bad writing from there. I wish it was much better. Think I'll try the book.
    Expand
  9. Sep 16, 2013
    3
    Show started off with potential then finished with the most disappointing and aggravating season finale i've ever witnessed. I give this show a 3/10 for wasting my time
  10. Nov 17, 2013
    3
    The show was very promising at the first two or three episodes, but went downhill on later episodes to the finale. It's just so ridiculous. The only good actor in the show is Mike Vogel. The rest of the cast are making the show looks like a comedy to me. A total mess.
  11. Mar 15, 2014
    3
    The concept and idea behind the show is exciting and interesting which gave me high hopes for this show, but the writing is terrible and so is some of the acting. Some of the writing is so bad that I almost feel sorry for the people writing this dribble (why wast such a good idea?) and a few of the characters are so excruciating to watch that I don't know if I'll ever bother with seasonThe concept and idea behind the show is exciting and interesting which gave me high hopes for this show, but the writing is terrible and so is some of the acting. Some of the writing is so bad that I almost feel sorry for the people writing this dribble (why wast such a good idea?) and a few of the characters are so excruciating to watch that I don't know if I'll ever bother with season two. i'll just buy the book it's based on instead! Expand
  12. Oct 1, 2015
    3
    First season is not very bad. Second season is bad. I started to watch third season then my cat ran away from the house and it took me 3 days to find her. My cat has since never been the same. UNDER THE DOME BROKE MY CAT. Would no re-watch.
  13. Aug 4, 2014
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The 5,9 score may be a product of mixing Season 1 and 2. Season 1 was not bad. Season 2 started out OK, but rapidly plunged into an abyss. My wife is a big sci-fi fan, but by the middle of the episode where the food warehouse blows up, she was ready to turn it off. Is it the writing? The directing? Can none of the kids act? Dean Norris was good in "Breaking Bad." What went wrong here?

    I have not done the math, but my guess is that the reviews here will skew much lower for Season 2 than for Season 1, probably around a 3.
    Expand
  14. Aug 21, 2013
    2
    This show is not very good. If i didn't see Breaking Bad i wouldn't know how great of an actor Dean Norris is. Rachelle Lefevre is from Revolution and plays pretty much the same type of character she did in that show and its very generic so i have no idea how much she can bring to her work. All the other actors seemingly do their jobs as best they can with a really terrible script. TheThis show is not very good. If i didn't see Breaking Bad i wouldn't know how great of an actor Dean Norris is. Rachelle Lefevre is from Revolution and plays pretty much the same type of character she did in that show and its very generic so i have no idea how much she can bring to her work. All the other actors seemingly do their jobs as best they can with a really terrible script. The problem with "under the Dome" is not the ideas for the world they exist in or the relationships and character choices but how quickly the characters are forced to service the next plot point without really being affected by the last drama they just experienced. Its like the show is going through a checklist of moments they have to hit for drama's sake. So the result is a seemingly very stupid script that doesn't even hold as much logic as a night time soap like "Revenge". Its like a series of short video clips of characters dealing with a bunch of writer's ideas for drama inside this domed town.
    What they should have done (regardless of the book's plot points which i never read) is let the character's choices affect the characters and develop in the character's relationship to how they deal with a few simple choices. There are way way way too many crazy plot developments for each character and the story lines are abandoned by the writing by the end of two episodes. It's as if it all didn't matter because now we are on to the next thing. Its like its written by a twelve year old. This show makes me yell at the screen "really? you just did that and now your going to just move on as if it never happened?"
    Expand
  15. Jul 1, 2013
    2
    I think I have finally reached my limit of dystopian/apocalyptic survival premises in which Conrad's Heart of Darkness is played over and over again. The only thing that's missing here is cannibalism, but maybe if I stick around long enough (fat chance), someone will dine on another. Enough already.
  16. Jul 18, 2013
    2
    After watching the first two episodes I couldn't understand how Stephen King who I believe is an above average author would create such a simplistic and silly plot. King usually creates quite lifelike and vivid characters, not the kid's play that I saw on television.

    So I bought the book...and I can tell you that the series is a not even close to what I've read until now. Well, there's
    After watching the first two episodes I couldn't understand how Stephen King who I believe is an above average author would create such a simplistic and silly plot. King usually creates quite lifelike and vivid characters, not the kid's play that I saw on television.

    So I bought the book...and I can tell you that the series is a not even close to what I've read until now. Well, there's a dome, yep, they got that one right. And some of the character names are the same. But that's basically it.

    It's exactly what one would expect from network television these days. A water-downed plot, a few pretty faces and over 10 million people tuning in every week...
    Expand
  17. Dec 28, 2013
    2
    I was excited to see this show based but it ended up a huge disappointment and no better than Harper's Island (itself an atrocious TV serial). The characters in Under The Dome are paper thin to match the story. It is larded with cliche and contrived plot points, things like the following: Person A: "I wonder what the old sheriff was up to" Person B: "Well, he never walked around withoutI was excited to see this show based but it ended up a huge disappointment and no better than Harper's Island (itself an atrocious TV serial). The characters in Under The Dome are paper thin to match the story. It is larded with cliche and contrived plot points, things like the following: Person A: "I wonder what the old sheriff was up to" Person B: "Well, he never walked around without his hat." Person B then takes his hat from the coat rack and looks inside. "Hey, here's a key hidden in his brim." Person A: "I have one just like it, it opens a safety deposit box!" Person B: "Let's go!"
    I'm paraphrasing here, but not by much. This is just about the complexity of the story that runs throughout the entire series. I haven't even finished the final disc...I'm painstakingly making my way through the last few episodes.
    Another example is the town psycho is deputized after performing one nice deed. It makes absolutely no sense. The entire town knows he's a nutter! And there are so many contrived instances of drama, such as one of the police officer's pulling his gun on a crowd because he can't handle the pressure of the Dome. It makes absolutely zero sense, and there's no way a trained officer would crack like that. It's the type of shoe-horned drama that falls so flat it turns the desired moment laughable.
    There are also many "As you know Bob" moments, which is to say that a character says something that would never be said, but only to 'educate' the audience. An early example is how electronics stopped working and one character questions why his watch still works, and the female officer glances over at his watch and 2 seconds later says "I can see that watch is a windup...this must only effect battery operated devices" or some such nonsense that is telegraphed as information for the audience but in fact makes you feel like you're watching a teaching moment on par with Sesame Street.
    These ratings are certainly arbitrary. I gave it a 2. It could be a 1 or a 3 or some variant in-between. The point to bring home is it is very bad television.
    If you are a fan of mindlessly contrived auctioneers such as the aforementioned Harper's Island, or Prison Break, or 24 (though even 24 had some fun moments in the early seasons), then this would be right up your alley. But if you like smart television (the things you would see on HBO, AMC, Showtime), then this program is NOT for you.
    The fact that the critics have rated this a higher score than the users is, in fact, mind boggling. Normally I find that the critics have an eye for quality, at least more so than the masses. Here, inexplicably, the lower user score is the more reliable number (though still far too high, IMRO).
    Expand
  18. Oct 3, 2013
    2
    Stephen King's book wasn't great and was definitely overblown, but the story was sound even if the style wasn't. This rather insulting adaptation which takes many a liberty with the original is full of cliches, irritating characterisations and cloying sentimentality. In all fairness episode 1 worked really well and the one thing that the show excels at is the special effects. It's allStephen King's book wasn't great and was definitely overblown, but the story was sound even if the style wasn't. This rather insulting adaptation which takes many a liberty with the original is full of cliches, irritating characterisations and cloying sentimentality. In all fairness episode 1 worked really well and the one thing that the show excels at is the special effects. It's all watch ably bad, but tiresomely predictable and oh so p c. Occasionally it even remembers to resemble the book. Expand
  19. Aug 10, 2013
    2
    As much as I wanted to enjoy this, with Jack Bender's directing credentials and being an adaptation of a Steven King novel, it does disappoint. Although some of the performances from the veteran actors were okay, the younger and inexperienced actors come off as cliched and 1 dimensional. Although I mentioned Jack Bender earlier, he did not direct the season premiere, which is unfortunateAs much as I wanted to enjoy this, with Jack Bender's directing credentials and being an adaptation of a Steven King novel, it does disappoint. Although some of the performances from the veteran actors were okay, the younger and inexperienced actors come off as cliched and 1 dimensional. Although I mentioned Jack Bender earlier, he did not direct the season premiere, which is unfortunate seeming as the directing was distinctly average. I also mentioned Steven King, whose adaptations usually result in stellar pieces of writing, here, it falls short. The special effects were also off and detracted from the overall experience. I barely finished the pilot episode and would recommend that you avoid this show. Expand
  20. Jul 31, 2013
    2
    I'm not interested in the pyhco boyfriend or whose hoarding gas or junk, is this a sci fi or what? The only way i can stand watching this show is recording it and fast forwarding to the interesting bits which are not many. Where is this story going anyway.
  21. Jun 30, 2013
    2
    I have tried to come up with a reasonable review but the only thing I can think of is disappointment. Read the book, the acting is much better and the scenery is superior too.
  22. Jul 9, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. You Stephen King fans out there: "Under The Dome" Spoiler Alert! Don't expect the excellent translation to the small screen like they did with "The Stand" or even "Salem's Lot". Hollywood took this masterwork of Mr. King's (his best next to "The Stand" and shoved it through the shredder. Then they patched up all of the holes with new characters and added a completely altered story-line. They basically just kept the title. Why tamper with perfection? SKIP THE TV!!! READ THE BOOK! Expand
  23. Aug 8, 2013
    2
    The only time You care about a character is when you want them to die, so you don't have to watch them anymore. Other than the 2 main male actors, it feels like we are watching extras reading terrible dialogue.

    The biggest mystery in the dome is actually the Lesbian family... 3 hard-to-look-at females. You immediately assume that what they lack in looks will be made up for in talent..
    The only time You care about a character is when you want them to die, so you don't have to watch them anymore. Other than the 2 main male actors, it feels like we are watching extras reading terrible dialogue.

    The biggest mystery in the dome is actually the Lesbian family... 3 hard-to-look-at females. You immediately assume that what they lack in looks will be made up for in talent.. but no. Well, at least the same sex family will have an interesting story when isolated in this traditional small town... right? ...WRONG.

    If the concept seems intriguing, i strongly suggest reading (or listening) to the book. The show turns a good story into a high school play.
    Expand
  24. Aug 22, 2013
    2
    I wanted to like this show... But like so many before it in this genre (Jericho, Revolution, Defiance, et al) it was a complete fail. Characters making irrational choices, forced uninspired and uninteresting crisis moments, trope after trope, one dimensional characters, HORRIBLE acting (even by historically good actors), poor CGI, and awful dialogue. The premise is the only potentiallyI wanted to like this show... But like so many before it in this genre (Jericho, Revolution, Defiance, et al) it was a complete fail. Characters making irrational choices, forced uninspired and uninteresting crisis moments, trope after trope, one dimensional characters, HORRIBLE acting (even by historically good actors), poor CGI, and awful dialogue. The premise is the only potentially exciting aspect of the show. How do these writers, directors, and producers get their jobs? Have they ever watched Game of Thrones or Walking Dead to see how it SHOULD be done? They would have done better giving a first year film class the project. Waste of time. So sad-- it's my favorite genre. Expand
  25. Aug 31, 2013
    2
    Very disappointed that this turned out to be a melodramatic 'people are horrible when cut off from society' show, as opposed to a science fiction show. I thought it would be a loaded with surprizes, mystery, and great characters but in fact became predictable, barely about the mystery and I wasn't cheering for anyone. What kept me watching was that there was some really good acting, IVery disappointed that this turned out to be a melodramatic 'people are horrible when cut off from society' show, as opposed to a science fiction show. I thought it would be a loaded with surprizes, mystery, and great characters but in fact became predictable, barely about the mystery and I wasn't cheering for anyone. What kept me watching was that there was some really good acting, I thought both Britt Robertson (as Angie) and Alexander Koch (as the very disturbing Junior) were very good. I tried to keep it on my schedule, but decided to stop watching after Episode 6 because it just got too disturbing. Expand
  26. Sep 4, 2013
    2
    I admit, there's a certain satisfaction in watching this series disintegrate over the last few months. The initial premise was more than interesting enough to make up for the deficiencies, but over time as essentially nothing happens to advance the plot--and it's taken 11 episodes to get 8 days into the story--you can no longer ignore the problems. I'm not on set, of course, but you haveI admit, there's a certain satisfaction in watching this series disintegrate over the last few months. The initial premise was more than interesting enough to make up for the deficiencies, but over time as essentially nothing happens to advance the plot--and it's taken 11 episodes to get 8 days into the story--you can no longer ignore the problems. I'm not on set, of course, but you have to lay blame at the feet of the director.

    The worst problem is probably the wooden acting. Even the kids, for whom this could be a breakout performance, are so clearly phoning it in that it's laughable. But without any acting to distract you, the innumerable issues with the plot and continuity are just that much easier to notice. It's just full of fundamental logistical and environmental inconsistencies which you could ignore, except they supposedly play a role in the plot. Where is the water coming from? Why is the power still on? Remember the giant bomb? Were there no consequences? Aren't there like 5,000 people in this town? Where are they all? Do their toilets still flush?

    It's a complete train wreck, almost unbearable to watch as it progresses.
    Expand
  27. Sep 14, 2013
    2
    Well, it started dubiously, but with Stephen King source material, there was a little hope for a good series.

    8 episodes in, it has descended into the worst kind of fickle, soapy melodrama you could imagine. We are past car crash TV now, and I want those 8 hours back. Quite how Spielberg allows his name to feature in the credits is beyond me. If I was him I would kill the project and
    Well, it started dubiously, but with Stephen King source material, there was a little hope for a good series.

    8 episodes in, it has descended into the worst kind of fickle, soapy melodrama you could imagine. We are past car crash TV now, and I want those 8 hours back. Quite how Spielberg allows his name to feature in the credits is beyond me. If I was him I would kill the project and issue a public apology. Seriously, this makes Falling Skies look like BSG, which as we all know, it isn't... Give this a miss for your own sanity.
    Expand
  28. Sep 16, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was hoping this show would have more action. A lot of fake drama and buildup during the episodes. I could care less about the characters and the finale was dull... The finale, with the changing of the color of the dome and the revelation that the dome was created by some supernatural, or alien, force was boring and uninteresting. Who is the Monarch? What is the Monarch? Why do I care? I don't.

    Should have stuck with a single season.
    Expand
  29. mam
    Sep 17, 2013
    2
    Started out loving this show, it got stranger and stranger but still couldn't wait for each new show. The final episode was more than awful, it made no sense and was a waste of my time.
  30. May 4, 2014
    2
    First of all: I think Steven Spielberg is not always great. For my taste, most of Spielberg 's family stuff. His tendency to put children and young people make to the forefront of almost all children's programs. As is true of Cowboys vs. Aliens , Real Steel , ... Third Child tec. If it's not funny is that it is eternal whining , drama, whining , drama ... etc. He makes blockbusters for theFirst of all: I think Steven Spielberg is not always great. For my taste, most of Spielberg 's family stuff. His tendency to put children and young people make to the forefront of almost all children's programs. As is true of Cowboys vs. Aliens , Real Steel , ... Third Child tec. If it's not funny is that it is eternal whining , drama, whining , drama ... etc. He makes blockbusters for the mainstream. But those were also the Waltons and Little House on the Prairie and just like this , most of Spielberg a vale of tears and glop from soppiness .

    Steven King is also not a great writer in the sense of literature. But success in terms of spirit of the age . Filmizations more B-movies ( maybe excludet Shining and Misery ), but he is probably a member of the Hollywood club.

    Nevertheless, I expected in Tension " Under the Dome " in Germany and yesterday I watched all the episodes of the first season. It started not bad. But minimalism was noticed already . Poor or immature GFX / VFX . A half a cow only in the formation of the dome, extremely unspectacular, here one would have liked a little more devotion, a Demonstartion a force of nature, a spectacle. Even here a wasted potenial ! Even later, the butterflies are poorly made. But actually typical Spielberg. Should that be " spielberg cuteness " when a bad- made ​​butterfly unrealistic totter through the image , or inability of the special effects team? Then you should start looking for much better amateurs in the field of Blender 3D . This is generally meant for the special effects.

    Maybe it is all so in the book by King, no idea, i did not read ( never read King, except " the Mist " short story) , but for a movie / series at the present time (American Horror Story , Salem, Breaking Bad , SoA etc. ) effeminate and out of place. Overall, I find the serial character and also immature and too quickly dealt with . One could list many details of the superficiality here. The more episodes the more it is likely a soap.

    J. J. Abrams is also not good for everything. But the implementation would certainly become mystical and exciting. Or Lindelof. Apparently it can but some men do their "producer / editor-experiments" to continue. They love each other and is very very great friend. Under the Dome is a good example of such Hollywood "incest". In the main, you have done something together, squandered millions as others (ordinary people) cook or bake together on Fridays. So it makes it seem.

    Would " Hank " not there ( Dean Norris ), I would not have looked further from the 7 episode.

    I am very disappointed on the one hand . On the other hand , it is still typical. Spielberg was in his time the opponent by Carpenter ( Hollywood Goodboy vs. Hollywood Badboy. Had his own right to life in the eighties. But today? Only tearjerker!). In the eighties! Spielberg may still be a crowd-pleaser, I find it boring. ( Did I ever ). It has not changed . He reached it, to turn a good idea into a great sappy mass product.

    Pity!

    Whether I look at the next season? I do not know. Maybe it's because other brilliant series just have a break.
    Expand
Metascore
72

Generally favorable reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 35
  2. Negative: 1 out of 35
  1. Reviewed by: Joanne Ostrow
    Jun 24, 2013
    80
    Not only is it creepy, suspenseful and full of splendid special effects, veteran actors and fresh young faces, but it's laced with big thoughts about environmentalism and the future of the planet.
  2. 70
    You don't immediately sense how all of the characters are connected or how they might eventually become connected--most of the pilot is scene-setting and mood-building--but what's onscreen is compelling.
  3. Reviewed by: Willa Paskin
    Jun 24, 2013
    70
    Based on just one episode, it’s hard to tell how the series will unfold, but the mood, threatening, uneasy, a little kinky, is there, and that just might be enough.