The people watching the shows. And what they think.
Television is the most-watched, least-discussed art form. The reviews that exist cluster at two extremes—star ratings on aggregator sites, and dense academic essays nobody reads. The middle, where most viewers actually are, is mostly empty.
This page is for the middle. Working critics with a beat, writing for adults who want to know not just whether a show is good but why someone smart thinks so. New issue every week. Archive at the bottom of the page.
The first half of the season tests anyone's patience. The second half rewards anyone who stayed. The mid-season pivot is the most confidently-staged hour of television this year, and the reason this season clears its predecessor by a comfortable margin.
A faithful adaptation that earns its slowness. Anjin's role is dialed back exactly as much as the source material wants.
The grief of season one is harder to recapture a third time. The performances still carry, but the writing is starting to repeat itself.
Single-take camerawork in service of comedy is the rarer trick than drama. This one earns it. Funniest pilot of the year.
Difficult viewing, well-paced. The structural argument—that this was a system, not a series of bad actors—lands.
The casting is the show. This season's ensemble is the strongest yet, and the editing has stopped trying so hard.
Television's actual problem is not too few shows. It's too few people willing to write about them, in long form, with conviction, in a place readers can find.
From the editor's note · Issue 01
Writes about prestige drama and the economics that produce it.
Senior critic, this magazine. Previously: Vulture, Vanity Fair, IndieWire.Limited series, true crime, and the way streaming platforms shape attention.
Weekly column. Substack: Holloway Wrote.Genre television treated with the seriousness genre television deserves.
Contributing critic. Previously: Polygon.Sitcoms, sketch, and the half-hour as a serious form. Has opinions about laugh tracks.
Contributing critic. Stand-up performer in his other life.Documentary series, true-crime ethics, and what the form owes its subjects.
Contributing critic. Reporter, ten years in print.Argues, persuasively, that unscripted television is the most-watched and least-respected genre on the dial.
Contributing critic. Former producer.The magazine pays for accepted reviews. Rates depend on length and depth. We commission a fixed slate each quarter, plus open pitches every week.
What we want: writers with a beat, a thesis, and a willingness to be wrong in public. We aren't looking for star-rating recaps. We aren't looking for academic prose. We are looking for the middle ground that the rest of the criticism economy has abandoned.
Pitch us in 200 words: the show, the angle, why now, why you. Include a writing sample if you have one. Reply within two weeks; we read everything but answer concisely.
TV Reviewer is an independent criticism magazine for television. The editorial board is a small group of working critics who think the form deserves more attention than it gets. We aren't owned by a network, a streaming platform, or a private-equity holding. We are owned by the people who write for it, and the readers who subscribe.
We don't accept review copies that come with conditions. We don't run press releases as articles. We label opinion pieces as opinion. We correct errors at the top of the page they ran.
If you think we got something wrong, write to the editor. If you think we got something right, tell a friend. Both keep the page going.