Devs (2020)

It’s an engrossing series, using Garland’s trademark affinities for blending cerebral cautionary tales with emotional beliefs about empathy and, in this case, the intellectually flawed designs behind trying to play god. Yet, “Devs” isn’t at all rarefied, challenging brain texture—though it’s there if you want to engage with it—and functions as a captivating thriller with the hint of both sinister menace and mysterious unknowingness.

This page-turner of a miniseries may not be predicting our future, but it sure leaves you wondering if somewhere inside a Big Tech compound there's a roomful of coders working on it.

Whether Devs feels like a revelatory piece of intellectual science fiction or another droning, navel-gazing prestige drama is in the eye of the beholder. But for those who can get past the slow pace, some dodgy Russian accents (sorry, Brian d’Arcy James, but you know it’s true) and the occasional forays into House of Cards-level psychodrama, Garland’s latest feels like the kind of thought-provoking science fiction that no longer has a home at the cineplex.

The stunningly ambitious “Devs,” a great show that’s almost impossible to write about in a review. ... It’s ultimately an unforgettable and rewarding experience, and one that I really hope people are talking about and writing about once everything has been put on the table. ... One of the best new shows in a long time.

It’s a deep dive into the twilight zone and at times I had to work hard to keep a grip on certain plot machinations — but Garland has a keen sense of timing when it comes to providing the answers to nagging questions just as we’re getting close to the point of frustration. By the time the finale wraps up, no major mysteries remain.

Devs is a very intellectually heavy piece, and one which Garland has done a fantastic job of breaking down into true episodes.

It's haunting and hypnotic, a show of marrow-seeping mood and a unity of vision that carries through every frame. If it also turns a corner from entrancingly opaque to a bit on-the-nose by the end, for fans of Garland's Ex Machina and Annihilation, chances are that you'll be too absorbed to be bothered.

Garland uses his time wisely, and his beautiful vision of a ghastly future is undeniably insightful. Some of its ideas may not be welcome — they sure as shit aren’t comforting — but “Devs” sticks with you, whether you want it to or not.

If you want to take a hell of a head-trip, Devs is just the ticket.

Fans of Ex Machina and Annihilation will easily recognize the landscapes and tenor of FX's Devs as Alex Garland's creation without his name even scrolling across the screen. The show exists in the same state of elegant modernity as his movies, and the mystery-building is just as intense, if unhurried.

Devs is certainly an unusual series. In general, you don't expect anything else from Alexander Garland. This is how his projects attract their attention. But Devs starts as a very interesting Sci-Fi with a philosophical subtext, and immediately fascinates. And it ends with the fact that you, as a viewer who came here for Sci-Fi, is betrayed. The last 8th episode completely destroys all the logic. As if they wanted to squeeze the viewer with the idea of determinism, and then suddenly throw a philosophical melodrama into the final. That's the difference between Devs and Dark. Devs merges and falls apart because of such a finale as an integral work, and Dark goes to the end into a solid Sci-Fi and gives the best and most thoughtful finale in Sci-Fi series. The first 4 episodes are top, but then less and less logic and consistency and more and more chatter and philosophical subtext. As a result, it turns out that Devs almost perfectly asks the main question, what torments a person. But I'm afraid to give him an honest answer.

I loved this. Great sci fi, in that it has one big banger technology and then explores the impact on people. The last couple episodes especially really make you feel what the actors are feeling. Amazing cinematic photography and sound, I loved the atmosphere and slow burn and I didn’t mind all the casting. Good acting all round, especially the kid who plays the young genius programmer, amazingly natural. Only thing that i didn't like was the whole violent storyline with Kenton - I just hate how everything from America has to have murders going on - it’s an obsession. If you like seeing people being hurt and murdered then it was done well, I guess.

Started off strong but quickly lost **** concept of the show had potential, and I genuinely liked the core idea, but the execution fell short. As the episodes went on, the story became less engaging and more drawn out. The lead actress delivered a weak performance, and unfortunately, the same goes for the supporting Asian actor—both of whom made it hard to stay invested.Several scenes dragged on unnecessarily, making the pacing feel sluggish and, at times, downright boring. It felt like they were just stretching the runtime without adding any real value. The ending was also underwhelming and didn’t tie things up in a satisfying **** a positive note, the cinematography was impressive—but great visuals alone aren’t enough to carry a show. This could’ve worked much better as a short, tight three-episode mini-series.

Within the genre of films based on the nature of reality - this is probably one of the best efforts. The casting was weak, in my opinion. Zach Grenier who plays the role of Head of Security is the most recognizable and generally the most highly regarded actor - but, I'm not thinking that role was cast as well as it should have been - and the rest of the casting was no better. Alison Pill performing the role of the Lead Designer was interesting. Most individuals watching the film will struggle with the way philosophical and scientific issues are portrayed. If you happen to be someone with like a PhD in physics - well, you'll just have to suspend your intellect.

Great quality, good acting. Suberb start (1-3 episodes). Great atmosphere. Too bad that the story is more of less a half baked idea. Somewhere near the last episodes the logic started to collapse, the characters became disillusioned simpletons and the grand finale was a complete shipwreck. It's hard being a science fiction writer AND a good director. The problem with the story was that after the whole mess with the spies and killings was done there wasn't much of a story left. So they clumsily mixed up Lilly with the end of the projections in order to have some kind of climax. Anyway , this (quantum computing and chaos theory) could have been a good subject to explore .

A very clever sci-fi series. I enjoyed it a lot. The ending is a bit disappointing because the whole series has been spent on hyping the ending. But of course it had to be that way, no ending could live up to the levels of mystery and hype that was built up.

A slow start, but worth the pay off and a must watch for psy fi. Truly thought provoking.

It's pretty to look at and the performances are mostly very good, but it can't quite stick the landing and winds up feeling a piffle.

This is another series in the new trend of low-key, intellectual sci-fi shows. The mysterious titular organization is working with quantum theory on time travel, until a young coder gets in the way (after her boyfriend is murdered). This was created by Alex Garland, who's responsible for Ex Machina (my review) and Annihilation (my review) and this series features many of the hallmarks from those films: Glacial pacing, ominous creepiness and promising tech. To drag out the drama, the inventor (Nick Offerman) is struggling with the loss of his family (one of the tiredest tropes in tragedy). Most of the time is spent in low-key dialogue with sprinklings of special effects and mild violence to keep us hoping for a payoff. Sadly, there aren't any revelations til Episode 6 and even then, it isn't really worth it. The disruptive discordant sound design just adds to the flailing suspense.

A good idea by Garland that never becomes a great series as unfortunately it has a weak script, with frequently excruciating dialogue and pretty wooden acting.

Good Science Fiction, good Philosophy Fiction and good Thriller. The music is strange but I like the atmosphere. Good visual design. And scenes of disturbing violence in the style of Alex Garland: violence without decorative choreography, without disguises, only direct and raw violence. This has impressed me as the scene of the slow stabbing in Ex Machina.

I feel like the series didn't quite know what it was. The elements of crime / conspiracy thriller really worked for me. However the Sci-Fi / metaphysical aspects didn't quite convince me. Nevertheless the production is flawless, the acting very good and the effects very well done

DEVS was great, a return to form from Alex Garland for me after the confusing and completely unsatisfying ANNIHILATION. This is top notch SciFi, it doesn't get much better than this. I don't feel as if they stuck the landing 100% so I'm giving it a 9, but it earned all of that. Was transfixed from start to finish. I highly recommend this, and hope for more form Garland soon.

Devs would be much better if it didn't take itself way too seriously about the sci part of sci-fi. It would be much better if it left it more vague in terms of answers or at least keep it more logical but instead for the last few hours of the show it devolved into a rampage of utter nonsense regarding how quantum mechanics and even basic logic works that it make it a passable fantasy-fiction story but absolutely horrible sci-fi. At the end of the day the show is not bad and it deserves a generous 7/10 but it could be so much more if it could at least take itself less seriously it terms of giving explicit answers to its enormous question because the actual execution of the production from acting to fimmaking while not the best it was decent.

Лично для меня интерес пропал окончательно когда начали обьяснять принцип работы компьютера. Мол "история уже известна", вот только наша история это всего лишь размышление на тему, что было раньше и чем дальше углубляться, тем сложнее доказать истину. Для христиан Исуса распяли, для атеистов Исуса не существовало, для другой религии была своя история и так далее. Каким образом копьютер может основываясь на догадках выбрать правильный вариант мне не понятно. Если записать физ свойства в комп, он этого не выдаст, тут как минимум психология людей должна быть изучена так сильно, чтобы предсказывать любое поведение человека, но в сериале она явно так не изучена. Я понимаю, что все это очень сложно даже нафантазировать, но зачем тогда с серьезными лицами в течении 8 часов так поверхностно и неправдоподобно все расказывать? Не скажу что сериа прям не понравился, чувства скорее смешанные, но говорить, что это умный сериал и превозносить его за это как то странно.

Something's way off. If I had to diagnose it, I would say it would be the script, full of characters *telling* us how strong, clever, and funny the protagonist is, all while *showing* us a protagonist who is clearly a wet noodle. With such a dud of a lead, it feels like watching a series where perhaps in another universe, DEVS was originally shot to prominently feature a now-disgraced lead actor who was digitally removed from the entire series after their scandal. An odd feeling. | I don't get why someone would cast the actress who was perfect as "creepy, wooden, emotionless sex doll" in their previous project as the lead in a thriller about industrial espionage, but she's got a terminal case of the blahs, for when she speaks, she's got about as much charisma as a shopping cart wheel with a stringy bit of mop stuck in it. It'd be one thing if her instance was the only case of the hollows here, but additionally, both of the central protagonist's love interests are bland and generic, too, and honestly, it's hard to not want to see everyone we're supposed to care about here be severely abused, post-haste. To wit, episode six features perhaps the cringiest, wimpiest delivery of the line **** off" you could ever hope to hear from a leading man, and seven features enough magical negro prophecies to make Bagger Vance blush. Contrasting DEV's hipster cast with something like this year's "Emma," the pretty, rich, young characters on display here simply can't elicit an ounce of sympathy from the audience for all their first-world problems. Among these casting and writing head-scratchers, it also seems like Garland seems intent to bring every song from CSN's debut album to screen one project a time, puzzlingly. And speaking of needle-drops, episode 7 opens with perhaps the worst I've ever heard. I *love* some Alex Garland, and I rock Beak's entire discography, but this project reeks of nepotism and ill-advised creative freedom. If you took Ex Machina and made it sloppy and gaudy, then took Annihilation and removed all the bits in the "reach," leaving only the navel-gazing treatise on marriage and fidelity that comprises Natalie Portman's **** have some idea of what this show is like. Hats off to the bad guys in this show, who light up the screen menacingly and pull the entire operation away from its focus on Mary and Gary Sue's bumbling, window-hopping emo romance, seemingly devoid of chemistry, consequence, or charm. My advice for Garland would be to have a beer, get laid, and get over his stupid fixation with household drama. He's not Noah Baumbach, he's Stanley Kubrick. He seems to be stuck in a desperately feminist mode, where you get the sense he deeply wants to impress his wife / girlfriend but can't quite figure out how. The production has this air of righteous self-importance that doesn't always translate to coherent ( or at least compelling ) storytelling. It's a very bad sign when the only interesting character on the side of the "good guys" is a homeless man who lives in front of their building. Plot's not bad in and of itself, and that goes without saying in a Garland work. Apparently, a bulk of the show's flaws were all intentional, but Garland overreaches -- he can do hipster romance, and he can do cerebral sci-fi thriller, but stretch his scripts to eight hours and tack on the added weight of directing actors (and especially actors playing characters on the spectrum) and the whole machine breaks down and spits out pure caca

Garland needs to start partnering with writers and better editors. DEVS, like Ex Machina and Annihilation, has a wonderful air about it, sonically and visually a pleasure to behold, and has an intriguing central premise. But like those movies it squanders these tastier morsels with bad writing, and in this case truly terrible writing. It also shows that this "slow burn" Garland so adores is far too sparse for a long format like television. This is about 4 episodes of content in a package twice that size. Excellent performances here from Nick Offerman and the Zach Grenier, others range from serviceable to bad. The central protagonist, Lily, is terribly written and mostly poorly acted (though there are some moments where the acting breaks through). We're left hearing from these other characters talking to her about how brave, strong, and intelligent she is while she continually makes stupid, cowardly, and frankly bizarre decisions to move the plot along. She's impossible to root for, and even more difficult to believe. The central story fares no better. It lays out an interesting premise with determinism as a centerpiece and even flirts with real science before going completely off the rails and in a truly unsatisfying manner. Characters spend most of their time with long gazes and few, poorly chosen words, and have virtually inscrutable motives even as they're brandished in the most clumsy of ways. Forrest just wants his wife and daughter back, which is fine enough but for the extremely simple-minded reduction of goals for such a device. Kenton is the only one who has interesting/believable motives, though his rampage at the end is fairly hard to understand. And good god the ending. Lily breaking through to make a "choice" (with yet another chance for someone to tell her how special she is), just completely **** any good-will earned during the build up of the premise. Neither the lack of free will nor the sudden appearance of it are done in a way that makes sense. In a word, disappointing.

Garland leading us up the garden path to nowhere again. Unconvincing characters in unrealistic locations with an incoherent story line. It went entirely down hill 40 minutes in.

Best part is the photography, it's gorgeous in every frame. production values are top notch-editing, sound, acting, sets all are perfect. Nick Offerman is the best actor and carries the show, I don't know how he does it with such a monotone. I read he is a carpenter, like Harrison Ford, who he reminds me of in ways. Alex Garland always does an excellent job.

I love this show! It should have a better rating, the way they explore determinism and free will is super interesting if not a little confusing. But some shows should be a little confusing, having to do some research to understand all the shows themes is probably a deterrent for some but I salute the fact that the show isn’t dumbed down. Learning something isn’t so terrible! Kudos to Alex Garland for making a unique, fascinating and suspenseful show.