GrimPrecise I'll tell you why so serious

Platicsco Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

michael_georgiev An interesting and intriguing storyline with many twists and turns built on a great and unique idea. You can feel a connection with a lot of the characters and can feel the struggles they have had and how they still affect them. Sad this show never continued for a third season as the build up and the cliffhanger it was left on were on a Game of Thrones level! Makes me wish I had the ability to fund a third season all by myself! The ratings do not do it justice and yes there are plot holes, however maybe the reason humans can still function in the story is because the robots do not "suck in" electricity that has been generated by an organic source? Maybe if this was added to the story people would not be so upset by this massive "plot hole", or maybe they could get some imagination and find a reason for themselves as to why the world of revolution is as it is? This is much better than some mindless drama as it gets you to think about why things are as they are in the show and about what would happen in reality if this scenario, or something similar were to occur today!

acluyou Disingenuous Ridiculous Entertainment Causing Kitsch Or, by acronym, this is pure D R E C K Yes, it could be entertaining if it did not insult one's intelligence. Too many flaws in presentation of environment, therefore the mythology of story is lost. And nothing original in soap opera of personalities. Some people will write, produce or act in something just to make a buck. If you create a premise, even a total fantasy, make it entertain by staying within that premise once established. But if you stretch that premise with contradictory elements, then you are just dumping on your audience. There is no accounting for taste, so you may enjoy it. On the other hand, perhaps better to invest your time in consuming wine and cheese while listening to classical music.

jonsmal I'm late to the party, but what the hell! I agree with a lot (if not most) of the reviews, in that the central set up for there being no electricity is just nonsense...particularly when the components to generate electricity still exist. I also agree with the many criticisms about the clothing, hunger, disease, munitions etc. But I think there are a couple of things that save 'Revolution' from being devoured by its ludicrous plot.Firstly, the acting, which I found to be of a higher standard than one normally finds in this kind of fare. Billy Burke, Giancarlo Esposito, David Lyons and Elizabeth Mitchell all largely put in fine performances.The 'theme' which most commentators seem to have overlooked and which for me is the most important aspect of the show; is would you sacrifice your friends/family for the opportunity to create a better world? This question is asked over and over again during season 1 (I have not seen season 2), often with the same character answering in opposite ways due to particular circumstances. There is no right/wrong answer, but the point of this question is for the viewer to consider whether their moral certainty is built on concrete or shifting sand.Whilst not quite achieving a real 'edge of your seat' moment, I found that each episode had at least 2 moments of great suspense.Finally what I found refreshing was the shows willingness to engage with ugly politics. In other post apocalyptic dramas...the Road, Mad Max, Walking Dead etc., there is a reluctance to acknowledge the political...the fight for land and power. 'Revolution' shows us that the real threats are not external but internal. It shows us how fragile the status-quo really is, and how easily it all could fall apart. I enjoyed 'Revolution'. It reminded me of the 'Watchmen' movie. Firstly because it often poses the very simple question; Do the ends justify the means? Secondly, because it is deeply flawed but often brilliant. Much like we are...

melcher-2001 This show has the formulaic mark of a J.J. Abrams piece, with lots of flashbacks (think: "Lost") revealing the back stories of every character, showing us why they've become the cold blooded killer appears to be the only key to survival in the world that's portrayed. It has an enormous cast list, mainly because most of the cast are essentially canon fodder to be eliminated shortly along the way. This is possibly the most kill-crazy show on television. At least in the "Walking Dead" most of the people being killed are already dead. Billy Burke's lead character is mostly being dragged along for a ride that he finds extremely unpleasant. Tracy Spiridakos' 'Charlie' portrays someone who turns into one of the most unpleasant creatures around (she kills with a smile). Giancarlo Esposito gets to briefly exhibit a wide range of expressive talent, but finally becomes so 'bad' that he comes off as a caricature of himself. Zak Orth as the bumbling computer geek Aaron Pittman is the single interesting character who exhibits any real warmth as he gets to reveal parts of the subplot (also a familiar J.J. Abrams trope) involving mysterious nanites. David Lyons adds a bit of life to the ensemble as someone who actually exhibits feelings while Elizabeth Mitchell plays Rachel Matheson as kind of a weirdly detached sociopath. Like the show "Lost" I wasn't able to make it past the middle of the second season, when I realized that I really didn't like or care about a any of these people. The only characters even mildly interesting were effectively buried among the heaps of accumulating corpses. And I certainly wasn't about to sit through watching more of their pasts revealed, until I sometimes think I'm watching a show in reverse. A waste of good talent and some pretty good production values on a show that has an interesting premise and does very little with it.