Alex Garland built Devs around a question that has no clean answer, and then had the nerve to let it run for eight episodes without blinking. The miniseries premiered March 5, 2020, on FX on Hulu, created, written and directed by Garland in a single sustained pass. It follows Lily Chan, a software engineer at Amaya, a quantum computing company in San Francisco, after her boyfriend dies on the first day of his new job on the Devs team. She does not accept the explanation she is handed.
Trailer, via TV Promos.
Lily Chan and the Death at Amaya
Sonoya Mizuno plays Lily, and the show hands her the hardest job in the cast: she is the one person on screen who still believes the world runs on cause and effect in the ordinary way. Her investigation into Amaya’s secretive development division is the engine of the plot. Nick Offerman plays Forest, the company’s founder, a man with money, grief and a machine.
The supporting cast is deep. Jin Ha is Jamie. Cailee Spaeny is Lyndon. Stephen McKinley Henderson is Stewart. Alison Pill is Katie. Zach Grenier is Kenton. Each of them gets a real function rather than a decorative one.
Garland wrote and directed every episode. That is the fact that explains the show’s texture. There is no seam between installments, no tonal drift, no episode that belongs to a different hand. The eight episodes run from March 5 to April 16, 2020, and they read as one object.
Free Will, Determinism and the Machine
Devs is a science fiction thriller, but its real subject is determinism. If a computer can model everything that has happened and everything that will happen, what is left of choice? The show asks this without hedging, and it lets the answer stay uncomfortable.
The Silicon Valley setting is not wallpaper. Amaya is a quantum computing company, and Garland treats the campus and its culture as material, not scenery. The show is about a company that believes it can see the future, run by a man who wants to.
Themes of free will and determinism sit alongside the Valley itself, and the series does not pretend the two are separate questions. They are the same question wearing different clothes.
This is where Devs earns its running time.
What the Reviews Got Right
Devs drew generally positive reviews. Critics singled out its imagination, its cinematography, its acting and its soundtrack. That list is accurate, and it is also revealing, because three of those four are craft categories. The show’s reputation rests on how it looks and sounds as much as on what it argues.
Here is how the pieces of Devs compare on the things the show is actually judged by.
| Element | What Devs does | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Structure | One season, 8 episodes, single writer-director | No drift, no filler, no second-hand episodes |
| Lead performance | Sonoya Mizuno as Lily Chan | Carries the investigation and the disbelief |
| Central figure | Nick Offerman as Forest | Founder, mourner, believer in the machine |
| Core theme | Free will and determinism | Asked directly, answered uneasily |
| Setting | Amaya, a quantum computing company | Silicon Valley as subject, not backdrop |
| Critical score | 7.1/10 | Metacritic 71/100 |
The table shows a show with no weak flank. It also shows where the ceiling is. Devs is excellent at atmosphere and argument, and it is a miniseries that knows exactly how long it should be.
Why 7.1 Is the Honest Number
The score is 7.1/10, matching the published critical figure of 7.1/10 and a Metacritic score of 71/100. That is the right neighborhood. Devs is a serious, controlled, beautifully made piece of television, and it is not a great one, because the ideas arrive faster than the people do. Lily’s grief drives the plot, but the show is more interested in what the machine proves than in what her loss costs her.
That is a real limitation, not a quibble. A thriller about determinism needs a human being at the center who can push back against the argument, and Mizuno is given a mystery to solve rather than a self to defend. Forest gets the philosophy. Lily gets the legwork. The imbalance is the show’s one structural flaw, and it never corrects.
What Devs does better than almost anything else in its year is refuse to soften. It does not turn determinism into a twist, and it does not hand the audience a comforting reading of the ending. Garland commits to the premise for all eight episodes, and the commitment is the point. The cinematography and soundtrack that critics praised are not decoration on top of the idea. They are how the idea is delivered.
Eight episodes, one season, no continuation. Devs is worth the time precisely because it does not ask for more of it. It says what it came to say, and then it stops.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.