Hunters is a show about Nazis, and it wants you to feel uncomfortable. That is the whole pitch. It is also a show about a group of retired Jewish assassins who hunt down former SS officers living quietly in America. It wants you to care about both sides at once, and that is the problem.
The premise is clever. A retired couple in Los Angeles discovers that their elderly neighbor is a former SS officer. They call in a secret network of Jewish assassins who have spent decades living normal lives while tracking Nazi war criminals. The show spends its first season building tension between the moral high ground of revenge and the practical mess of killing old men in their sleep.
It is a good idea. It is not a good execution.
Trailer, via Prime Video.
The Premise Works
The setup is simple. Jonah Heidelbaum and Alice Sax are a retired couple who find out their neighbor is a former SS officer. They contact the Hunters, a secret organization of Jewish assassins who have lived ordinary lives while hunting Nazi war criminals. The show builds tension between the moral high ground of revenge and the practical mess of killing old men in their sleep.
The characters are well-drawn. Al Pacino plays Dietrich Weiss, a former SS officer hiding in America. Logan Lerman plays Jonah, a young man who becomes involved with the Hunters. The chemistry between the two leads carries the early episodes.
The show also benefits from a strong supporting cast. Carol Kane plays Gertrude, a Hunter who is Jonah’s grandmother. Michael Cerveris plays a former SS officer with a complicated past. Josh Radnor plays a CIA agent who complicates the picture. The ensemble gives the show a sense of history and weight.
The Problem With Revenge
Where Hunters stumbles is in its handling of revenge. The show wants you to cheer for the Hunters, but it also wants you to see the cost of their actions. This creates a tension that the show cannot resolve. The result is a show that feels less like a thriller and more like a lecture.
The show’s central question is whether revenge is justified. The Hunters believe it is. The show suggests otherwise. This is a heavy-handed approach. The show is trying to make a point about morality, but it does so in a way that feels more like a sermon than a story.
The show also struggles with its pacing. The first season is slow in the middle, with long stretches of exposition and character-building that drag. The final episodes pick up, but by then the show has lost some of its momentum. The slow middle is a real issue. It is the kind of pacing problem that can sink a show, even one with a strong premise.
The Slow Middle
The middle of the first season drags. There are long stretches of exposition and character-building that feel unnecessary. The show spends too much time telling you about the Hunters’ past and their methods. It spends less time showing you why you should care about them.
The show also suffers from a lack of stakes. The Hunters are chasing Nazis, but the threat they pose feels abstract. The show does not make you feel the danger. It tells you the danger, but it does not show it. This is a structural problem. A show about hunting Nazis should be tense. This one is not.
The show also has a problem with its villains. Dietrich Weiss is supposed to be a sympathetic character, but he is not. He is a former SS officer who has done terrible things. The show tries to humanize him, but it fails. The result is a villain who is neither threatening nor compelling. The show’s attempt to make him relatable falls flat.
The Final Stretch
The final episodes of the first season pick up. The show shifts focus from the Hunters’ methodical planning to the consequences of their actions. The tension between revenge and justice comes to a head. The finale delivers a payoff that is emotionally resonant.
The show also introduces new threats. A terrorist group emerges, and the Hunters find themselves fighting for their lives. The action scenes are well-choreographed, and the tension is palpable. This is the best the show gets.
The show’s final episode raises questions about the legacy of the past. It asks whether the Hunters have done more harm than good. It is a bold move, and it pays off. The show ends on a note of ambiguity, which is rare in a network series. It is a strong finish, but it is not enough to save the show.
The Ensemble Cast
The cast is the show’s strongest asset. Al Pacino brings gravitas to Dietrich Weiss. Logan Lerman brings energy to Jonah. The supporting cast is uniformly excellent. Carol Kane is a scene-stealer as Gertrude. Michael Cerveris is a standout as a former SS officer with a complicated past. Josh Radnor adds depth as a CIA agent who complicates the picture.
The show also benefits from its writers. David Weil created the show, and his writing is sharp. The dialogue is witty, and the character interactions are well-written. The show also has a strong director in David Frankel, who brings a cinematic sensibility to the proceedings.
The show’s visual style is also noteworthy. It is shot on a variety of locations, and the production design is excellent. The show has a distinct look that sets it apart from other network series. It is a visually engaging show, even when the plot sags.
The Network Problem
The show is broadcast on CBS. That is a problem. CBS is not known for edgy programming. The show’s subject matter is mature, and it deals with difficult topics. The network’s conservative reputation means that the show has to navigate censorship and ratings concerns.
The show also has to compete with other shows on the network. It has to hold its own against procedurals and sitcoms. That is a tall order. The show is a prestige drama, and it has to prove itself in a crowded field.
The show also has to deal with the network’s expectations. The network wants the show to be popular. The show’s creators want it to be meaningful. These two goals are often at odds. The show has to balance accessibility with artistry. That is a delicate task.
The Comparison
Here is how Hunters compares to other shows in its genre:
| Show | Genre | Tone | Lead Actor | Critical Reception |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hunters | Drama | Dark | Al Pacino | 5.4/10 |
| The Night Manager | Thriller | Suspenseful | Tom Hiddleston | 8.2/10 |
| True Detective | Crime Drama | Mysterious | Matthew McConaughey | 8.9/10 |
The comparison is stark. Hunters is not in the same league as The Night Manager or True Detective. Those shows are critically acclaimed and commercially successful. Hunters is neither. The show is ambitious, but it falls short of its goals.
The show’s ambitions are clear. It wants to be a serious drama about the legacy of the Holocaust. It wants to explore the psychology of revenge. It wants to ask difficult questions about morality. The show is not able to deliver on all of those promises. It is a flawed, but occasionally brilliant, attempt at something ambitious.
The Final Word
Hunters is a show with a good idea and a bad execution. It is a show that tries to do something ambitious, but it fails to deliver. The show is not a failure, but it is not a success either. It is a show that deserves attention, but it does not deserve the praise it has received.
The show has its moments. The finale is a strong episode. The action scenes are well-choreographed. The cast is excellent. The show has a lot going for it. The problem is that the show’s flaws are too numerous to ignore. The slow middle, the weak villains, the heavy-handed morality, and the network constraints all weigh it down.
The show is worth watching, but it is not worth praising. It is a show that is better than its reputation, but worse than it should be. It is a show that is worth a second chance, but it is not worth a full endorsement. The show is a mixed bag, and it should be treated as such.
The show’s final episode is a strong note to end on. It raises questions about the past and the present. It asks whether the Hunters have done more harm than good. It is a bold move, and it pays off. The show ends on a note of ambiguity, which is rare in a network series. It is a strong finish, but it is not enough to save the show.
The show is a flawed masterpiece. It is a show that is better than it looks, but worse than it should be. It is a show that is worth watching, but not worth recommending. It is a show that deserves a second chance, but it is not worth a full endorsement. The show is a mixed bag, and it should be treated as such.
5.4 of 10.
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.
