I'm trying really hard to get through season 1. It starts off well but it's becoming so repetitive and boring. It's not the actors' fault but the terrible writing. This show could be great but the writing kills it. It's true that Mac does come off as smug and Jack just has ridiculous dialogue. Also it's really hard to take Mac seriously because he is too young looking for the character. I have rolled my eyes at least five times when they say "for years" or "years ago". When he was twelve? In diapers? We're expected to believe that this guy who barely looks 21 has been to MIT and in the military and working with secret government agencies "for years". He's not a bad actor just too young for the part. I'll keep going to see how the show plays out but I might need a paperclip and piece of tape to make it work.
Add a Review
-
mccullinlacy13 April 2022
-
bitbucketchip25 October 2022I never watched the original MacGyver, so can't compare the two programs. My understanding is most of what MacGyver did in the original was at least theoretically possible.
Not so this show. This show has MacGyver fashioning a thermal lance from rust and seat rail scrapings. It's fresh out of Gillian's Island, where the Professor would make a nuclear reactor from a couple coconuts.
With the trademark skill of MacGyver reduced to caricature the show is just another team action series like Hawaii Five-O. On that criteria the show is watchable but nothing special. Certainly not up to the standard of Hawaii Five-O with uniquely likable characters and quality actors.
While the acting overall is pretty good, none of the leads are believable in their assigned roles. Mac looks and moves like a fashion model. His bodyguard is supposed to be a special forces guy yet holds a weapon wrong. The hacker girl Riley is more focused on fashion than computer skills. And the leader lacks any leadership characteristics and also doesn't seem to know which way the bullets emerge from.
The plots are the typical James Bond take over the world style cartoony bad guys.
Five stars for a watchable time filler. Riley is likable but the others are lacking the charisma needed for a higher rating. Five stars. -
Perhaps this revival of MacGyver was made for folks like me that never watched the original series which, apparently, had quite a following. That would be fine if it was somehow compelling, it's not. Three in and I'm thinking this is a sinking ship
First, there's the cast who I'm not rooting for early on. No big charisma here, anywhere. Second, there's the first three episodes stories. They're as simple as someone like me could concoct. It's like someone who'd barely written a script and had just watched a cadre of C-movies lifted ideas and thought this is good. Third, it's the writing which attempts regular insertions of humor and the absurd idea to just plop in a MacGyver moment of using paperclips and a assortment of everyday items in order to either extract our protagonists or save someone. The lack of vision and creativity is mind blogging.
I take it the new MacGyver seeks to reinvent the character with some computerized updating. While this could have, possibly, worked the execution fails so regularly that after three episodes I'm done. This show, by most reviews I've read, will infuriate those thinking it will be a faithful, but modernized, reboot. Others, which I count myself a member of, will, likely, be bored or have that feeling of contempt for an idea squandered. Even though some money has been thrown at the new series it has the feel of something less than half-baked. Unless you are supremely curious I'd say don't bother. -
Wizard-824 September 2016When I was a teenager, the original "MacGyver" was one of my favorite TV series. So you may think that when I first heard they were rebooting the series I was pumped. Actually, my first thought was, "Uh... I'm not sure about this." That's because I have found reboots and remakes overwhelmingly are greatly inferior to the originals. But when I found that key people from the original series (like series creator Lee David Zlotoff and executive producer Henry Winkler) were returning, a little hope sprung in me.
Well, I watched the pilot episode. I admit it wasn't without merit; the action and stuntwork was fairly well done. But for the most part, I was very disappointed with what I watched. I could make a list of a number of things of what I didn't like about what I saw, but I'll stick with the two biggest beefs I had:
(1) In the original series, MacGyver was a very likable guy. He was smart, but he always remained humble with his abilities to make gizmos and get out of tight situations. However, in this remake, MacGyver is a real turn-off for the most part. His annoying narration and his brash attitude in almost every situation makes him an irritating braggart. There is precious little warmth and humanity in this guy. I don't really blame the actor playing this new MacGyver for this - he is playing MacGyver as dictated by the script and the direction, and when he's given a quieter moment he does come off in an okay fashion. But as I said, the direction and writing for the most part do him no favors.
(2) In the original series, when MacGyver got to work making a homemade gizmo or thinking out of a bad situation, the show took the time for him to go step by step with this. This technique built some compelling mystery, making viewers think while this was going on, "What is MacGyver pulling off?" Then when MacGyver pulled it off, it was a satisfying payoff. In this reboot, however, MacGyver pulls off his gizmos and escapes from bad situations in just a few seconds! No suspense, no mystery, no interest.
Look, I understand that a good reboot (if there is such a thing) will put its own spin on things. But at the same time, you should not destroy the core of the concept that made the original popular in the first place. This is the main flaw of this reboot.
It's possible that things will improve in the next few episodes. More than one TV show has improved over time. So I will watch the next few episodes. Though I'm not getting my hopes up too much. -
This was such a heartbreaking disappointment. This young dude uses guns! MacGyver HATES guns! And they don't explain ANY of the science like they did in the original series.
This is NOT a reboot. This is just another junkie show stealing the creds from a former hit. Blah. -
irevah12 November 2018It's not as bad as the reviews says. It's a funny cool silly action show. Fun to watch
-
s327616924 September 2016Retreads seem to be the "thing to do" as of late. Studio's who seem to be out of ideas, visiting the past for inspiration.
Sad fact is, most of the retreads are "second rate" and MacGyver is no exception. The word that another reviewer used to describe this retread is the same one I would choose, "tiresome".
The original MacGyver worked because it had a fresh and different message. That science "not" violence can be used to peacefully resolve threatening situations. The original Macyver was very much an anti war figure.
By contrast, the retread MacGyver, is a poster boy for "mainstream" values, including, the US military. He's also smug, over confident, a womanizer and frankly, a throughly unlikable jerk. Its tiresome stuff, that in many ways is the complete anti-thesis of the original series. There's no sense of hope and inspiration, as found in Richard Dean Anderson's character.
All in all, a BORE FEST. If you have not seen MacGyver before, my advice, take a look at the original series, it wont disappoint. Two out of ten from me. -
katstudio8884 April 2019Lucas Till has the MacGyver torch passed to him and he fits the role brilliantly. I grew up loving the classic series with Richard Dean Anderson but this fresh, modern reboot has my happy approval! It's a show the whole family can watch together, emphasizing intelligence, optimism and practical science instead of guns and gratuitous violence. WIN.
-
csgollum9 May 2018Most of the reviews here compare this version (inevitably) to the one starring Richard Dean Anderson. Now I've seen only a few episodes of the original and, although there are a few differences, the character itself hasn't changed much. It's like Smallville rather than Superman, a much younger version of the same character.
RDA's MacGyver was quiet and modest and mild-manner, but so is this one. He is as staunchly loyal to his friends as RDA's version. Granted, he frequently breaks the fourth wall, but that only makes the show more believable (at least, to me). Most of the actual 'macgyverings' too are almost equally surprising and awesome. This version does use more chemicals, but then there are more chemicals around us nowadays.
So, for all those comparing this version with the old, just relax and give in to the fun! This is entertainment, after all. My rating: 7 stars. -
madameminty6 December 2021They turned my boy into an arrogant jerk, made him into an annoying narrator, added NCIS hacking scenes, clichés, bad dialogue, shallow characters, childish comedy bits, cheerful music while the protagonists are being shot at and jokes while a character is dying... at them dying, causing them to come closer to death. The entire thing is not nearly as suspenseful, memorable, intelligent as the original. It's almost a parody.
I'd think it's for kids, but there's also sex to fuel a cliché.
So, who is this for? Definitely not MacGyver fans... -
erink19839 November 2018Forget the original. Take that off the table. This show is actually pretty good. Great cast that work well off each other. Great chemistry. First season was a bit slow. Second season was great and continues. Couple episodes I teared up. Every episode I enjoy. Give it a go again people!
-
jazzfi17 July 2022This ain't McGyver. Maybe McGyver in name only. MINO. Richard Dean Anderson was McGyver. The reason we liked McGyver was because he was a.devout bachelor, free and independent, and worked alone. The girls watched him weekly because he was forever available, the guys because he was a crime fighting superhero. It was a formula that worked. (Remember Knight Rider with David Hasselhoff?) With the exception of the name, and the little narrations, this rehashing of the old show bears little resemblance to the original. RD Anderson's McGyver was humble, down to earth, gracious, polite and likable, and the show was not just another "A-Team, Mission:Impossible, Leverage" team collaboration.
Today they are equipped with the latest and greatest crime fighting, detecting, technological, face recognition computer devices imaginable, which I find fascinating, but all in all, they really should have named it something else. -
Dr_Sagan24 September 2016I used to watch the original series back in the 80s so it is unavoidable to compare that series with its 2016 reboot.
80s Macgyver was a secret agent with a difference! He was quiet, modest, mild mannered, deeply principled and refused to carry a gun on his missions.
2016's MacGyver is more like a caricature of 007 and Mission Impossible.
The pilot episode starts ridiculously: "Here's my assistant Nikki. She has 156 science awards from MIT and NASA. 50 companies including Google, Apple, SpaceX, Samsung and PepsiCo offered her a gazillion dollars to work for them but she refused, so to work for $200/week in my secret organization. Did I mention she is 25 y.o. and smokin' hot? Oh, Yes she is! and I bone her over some fake computers we have in this series as props!".
"And here is my other friend Johnny Rambo. He saved my life in Algeria, Angola, Liberia, Djibouti, Burundi, Malaysia, Bangladesh but please...please DO NOT talk to him about that time in Cairo."
"And this other smoking hot woman, tall and exotic and super-duper top secret spy, that you never heard of, is my ...boss".
"And who am I, you ask? Well, most certainly I'M NOT Angus Macgyver."
Honestly, I can't believe the writers. Are they idiots? Have they ever saw the original series?
And what about the Cast. I'm thinking of the charismatic Richard Dean Anderson with nostalgia right now.
Overall: A totally generic sub-par TV series for its own shake, but a total disgrace for baring the name of one of the most iconic heroes on TV. -
jarrettcdunn27 September 2016Sorry, but I can't get how ANYONE can say they like this show. I'm not expecting Richard Dean Anderson or anything, but the only thing the show is about is the 'cliche's of MacGyver, not the actual story, Opening Gambit or challenge of the week. Yes, the original MacGyver has voice overs, short voice overs explaining either why he was doing something or where he was to set the stage. It seems over half of the episode is voice over though.
Also the updating it of him being a 'ladies' man so destroys the whole personality of him. He was a ladies man in the original and has girls falling over him not because he was smoking hot and buff (as he is in this) but rather because he was a genuinely good guy. He was an intelligent, modest individual that felt anything could be overcome if one just put some thought into it, and dealt with people with genuine fore thought instead of acting like a bull in a chine closet (see the original's 'Trumbo's World' episode for a perfect example). This MacGyver is a loud mouthed 'bro' vs a soft spoken man with charisma who approaches things with an open mind.
But basically they took all the ancillary parts of the original series and made the new series all about those while throwing out everything that made the original so charming. Instead of it being about story development and slowly learning more and more about the main character it is in your face constant bludgeoning over the head of how smart he is and how he is the most awesome dude ever. Neither of which are MacGyver traits.
All in all don't waste your time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, and the show runners have no idea what made MacGyver episodes so great. You'll just wish you had that part of your life back. -
henrik15069325 September 2016Almost cried cause it was so bad. Downplaying the audience like we're stupid. Guess target is 13 year old, but that's really stupid when the fact is that the high ratings come from nostalgic grown ups.
I was really excited. that died fast. you know its bad withing first 30 sec. Will not recommend any friends. Will not see next episode. They didn't even keep the whole soundtrack which is 33% of macgyver 33% is his charm (which he has 50% of). 33% is the clever macgyverness (50% again). 1% is "well that was just stupid" which it has 100% of..
Dialog: horrible Actors: poor Plot: horrible Reboot: too much bling MacGyverness: poor
They really made no effort making this good, so it's a bigger disappointment than the last Godzilla movie.
Kill it before it lays eggs. -
lmcnary-3299918 February 2017This is not the original MacGyver and Lucas Gill is not Richard Dean Anderson. That said, the show is not bad and, now that the writers have stopped trying to make sure that everyone from the original show gets a mention, I think it's getting better. The characters are showing depth; they're more real. The family-ensemble sense is growing. I love what George Eads brings to the show. At this point, my major complaint is the change to the score; that, I continue to thoroughly dislike.
-
Man9920423 September 2016Angus MacGuyver is one of the most beloved TV characters from the 1980s. This is not the prequel that devoted fans were hoping to see.
It appears that no one connected with the new version has ever seen the classic programs - they totally ignore the established characters. They totally ignore all the endearing quirks that made us want to watch the series.
Sadly, no matter how much he tries, Lucas Til is simply NOT a young Richard Dean Anderson. He is far too bland and lacking in personality to play this character.
The plot of the pilot seemed very "recycled".Nothing was new. Nothing was innovative. -
Xander_Angell16 November 2018Although most people complain about the pilot episode and however many ways it strays away from the original. Here's a few things to keep in mind. I've been watching this show for three seasons now, and let me tell you it strays far away from mac's, uh, "lust". In fact, I don't think they've even mentioned his make out partner (can't even remember her name) from the pilot since season 1. He still finds a girlfriend in season 3, but it's toned way down from what was shown in the pilot. I personally enjoy both versions of Mac. My only wish is that the original theme was kept in the reboot. I really like that song. Other than that, I really think this show deserves more appreciation. It's managed to come back from the flop that was the pilot, and I still enjoy it despite it's differences from the original.
-
jimjames13 November 2018It is similar to the original but other than MacGyver, the rest of the characters seem to be way over the top. His buddy who tries to save him and thinks with his fists instead of his head (reminds me of "Danny" in the new Hawaii Five O). And having the little person as the boss does not seem feasible although I have seen this actress in other roles on other TV shows. I liked her better in the other shows (Boston Legal) than in MacGyver. I will give this show a chance because I like the main character. I hope the supporting actors do not bring the show down.
-
shamimislam-669935 October 2016Really? REALLY? Who writes this crap? Spoiler alert!!!!
1. The hairpin/paperclip handcuff trick gets old really fast 2. The tray as a Frisbee to knock out the guard - stupid? 3. The guard shoots directly at the tray and not the exposed knees of the target 4. Borrowed glasses from Mission Impossible and Person of Interest 5. All these stupid references to Cairo - if you're not going to tell the story, don't tell the story 6. Thornton as a woman just doesn't work - she's not enough of an asshole 7. Nikki escapes from custody in a moving vehicle - REALLY? And she fakes her death but never gets picked up on a camera? 8. The plane landing gear does not go up at all even though the plane is clearly high enough 9. The boat was going straight as it hit the bad guys even though Macgyver set the steering wheel to turn 10. The thing with the camera search and the ex-con was just too much. It doesn't work that way - and facial recognition TAKES HOURS!!!!!! 11. AND THE WORST OF ALL:
WE DO NOT HAVE LOGIC BOMBS in 2016. That was 1985 with Wargames and 1995 with Hackers. Magnetic disks do not have LOGIC BOMBS. Logic bombs do not exist on magnetic disks. Only in firmware. We have encryption in 2016 on hard drives. And booby-traps. And shredders. Not logic bombs. That's insane.
And the creme de la creme: She CRACKED OPEN a magnetic hard drive with a hammer. First, you can't crack it open - it has 5 screws. Second, if you try to crack it open with a hammer, you could scratch the platters. And THIRD but most significant - if you want to prevent data loss, you do NOT expose the disks outside a clean room. And lastly, if Nikki was as an expert like she said she was, it would have been an SSD - in which case, using a hammer would have broken the transistors inside.
Who writes this crap!!!!!!
I am SO HAPPY RICHARD DEAN ANDERSON declined to participate in this trash. -
marymurban1 March 2017All these people trying to compare the two MacGuyvers. I am 68 years old and like both of them. The times they are a changing. I just want a show that is interesting and relaxing. And I think the 2016 MacGuyver has done that. If you want the original then watch the repeats. I love the new cast and I think they do a good job. I just like to watch him figure out ingenious ways to solve problems. I like the story lines. And I like the "family" connection with his co-workers/friends. So all you vitriolic people it must be difficult to live in the past and not appreciate the present shows. I feel sorry for you.
-
patrickwaters-045745 February 2019Macgyver is an 80s icon and this reboot is interesting, but 80s still wins. This Macgyver is basically like Hawaii Five O, just the stories are not as amazing. The cast all do a good job George Eads is an impressive choice for Jack Dalton as he was a quick witted hotshot, but the standout is definitely Lucas Till as the infamous scout/agent Angus Macgyver, he somehow captures Richard Dean Anderson's performance and mannerisms while at the same time making the part his own. Worth your time and while, just keep in mind that this isn't your childhood MacGyver series.
-
gs2023 September 2016If you were going to produce a show that was as uninteresting as say, Hawaii Five O, you could not do any better than this mess. The frenetic action is almost laughable in as much as the the completely unknown pig eyed hero "star" has absolutely none of the grace of the original Richard Dean Anderson. Sometimes no matter how much money one spends the result may still be crap. Poorly directed, poorly written, it is a total mess. Don't waste your time. It will, I predict, not last more than a season. Boring beyond belief. I suggest you turn your attention to British cop shows. At least they know how to develop a character. I think it's sad that George Eads thought he would do better here than with CSI ...... An astonishing miscalculation on his part.
-
ScoreArtist26 June 2021Just tried watching the pilot and it was terrible. What the hell is going on? I grew up loving the original and would never miss an episode. Richard Dean Anderson will always be MacGyver.... not this MacGruber-esc abortion.
The beginning is awful and where is the target audience range? CrapGuyver is banging his super IQ hobag on a fake computer. While making us aware she turned down million dollar jobs so she could work in a van and get shot. CrapGuyver's "friend" is like old enough to be his dad but he had his back in all these wars he wasn't even born to fight in? Also, that isn't how a hand scanner works so now let's just make up fake crap because who cares right?! -
jonnithomas24 September 2016for children of around 12. however that may be an insult to some 12 years olds.
it's poorly written, badly acted and so false and glitzy it goes totally beyond any form of reality or belief.
I really couldn't watch a whole episode as it was totally cringe worthy.
if you want characters and realism don't really don't watch this.
anyone think it will get a second series ???? I would rather walk home in a blizzard than watch this fiasco.
well the issue is that I have to write ten lines about this rubbish. so how do I say it in a different way ?
it is bad, so bad really bad. trust me Jason borne it is not.