It’s no surprise that Pablo Escobar’s decades-long rise from petty street crime to the “The King of Cocaine” has inspired more than a dozen iterations on screen. Beyond the varied TV documentaries, his persona has loomed large in cinema and the small screen ever since his inspiration for Paul Shenar’s Sosa character in 1983’s “Scarface”; Cliff Curtis’ brief but effective turn in “Blow”; last year’s “Escobar: Paradise Lost” starring Benicio del Toro; and the fantastic documentary “The Two Escobars.” The list of upcoming and recent failed attempts at telling Escobar’s story is nearly as long (Oliver Stone and Joe Carnahan each tried, unsuccessfully, to mount a film), and while the kingpin is clearly attractive to Hollywood and beyond, one constant remains — he’s yet to be the lead character in his own story. And it’s an unfortunate fact that continues with “Narcos,” the latest Netflix original series that purports to tell the epic tale of El Patrón but for some awful, misguided reason filters it all through the perspective of a bland gringo DEA agent.
READ MORE: Watch: Wagner Moura Is Pablo Escobar In Full Length Trailer For Netflix’s ‘Narcos’
Let’s start with the voiceover, as it’s the single most glaring flaw in this new series. The painfully miscast Boyd Holbrook (“Run All Night”) plays DEA agent Steve Murphy, tasked with taking down Escobar and the Medellín Cartel, who at one point were responsible for more than 80% of the cocaine smuggled into the US. In the first episode, which breathlessly sets up a lot of the players and setting, Murphy is established as our window into this story, but his perspective as an all-seeing omniscient narrator doesn’t make much sense. Even worse are the inane words he’s forced to utter, often just explaining what’s literally happening onscreen or reiterating something that was just said. It’s a curious misstep, constantly at odds with several themes in “Narcos.” Imagine watching “The Wire” with McNulty narrating every episode. It wouldn’t work, nor is it necessary to follow the incredibly complex world and characters of that show.
Creators Chris Brancato, Carlo Bernard and Doug Miro don’t have the confidence in their audience like David Simon did, and they pay for their lack of trust with a first season that, on paper, should’ve been a home run but instead is something of a bloop single. It’s a goddamn shame, really. Escobar remains an immensely fascinating subject, and there’s more than enough material from his end of things to fill out several seasons of television. As commendable as it is that Netflix clearly put a lot of money into a series with a heavy reliance on subtitles, one can’t help but feel the desperation to force an American perspective onto the show. When you have one of the most fascinating and dramatic criminal life stories ever lived for source material, why burden the narrative with elements that only take away from the man and his empire we really want to watch?
I’m surprised the epic sprawl and dense narrative in this debut season was another major weakness; it’s overstuffed yet not long enough. And it’s not clear yet what the future holds for the show, except where it will almost definitely go if Netflix renews it for a second go-round. While the finale reaches heights rarely hit in the prior episodes (at times it has the immediacy and raw, manhunting thrills of “Zero Dark Thirty”), it is nothing if not disappointingly anticlimactic. The writers of the show struggled to condense nearly two decades of story into these first ten episodes, but for anyone who knows the real-life spoilers for Escobar’s fate, there’s not much left to tell. Season one ends up feeling like one long, digressive origin story for the real manhunt, teased in the final (cheesy voiceover) line. If more episodes are coming, the filmmakers behind them will be wise to keep things more focused. 
It’s too bad, because there’s a great show waiting to be found in all this rubble. Director José Padilha (the recent “Robocop” remake) was a smart choice to helm the first two episodes, as his prior Brazilian films “Bus 174” (a brilliant documentary), plus “Elite Squad” and its sequel, are all evidence of a gifted, confrontational, visual storyteller, and his style carries over well to “Narcos,” laying the groundwork for other talented South American filmmakers to step in (Guillermo Navarro, Oscar-winning DP for “Pan’s Labyrinth,” directs a few episodes as well). The visuals are jaw-dropping, especially when the three credited cinematographers take advantage of shooting in actual locations. Colombia in all its urban decay, high society mansions, political turmoil, and lush jungles never looked so good. There’s no shortage of stylish, Scorsese-esque visual tricks employed — freeze frames, constantly moving cameras, long unbroken shots, neon lighting, drone photography and the like — but what a shame it is when they’re ruined by that inescapable narration, like a perfectly cooked piece of steak slathered in ketchup.
READ MORE: Watch: Money Brings Violence In New Trailer For Netflix’s Drug Drama ‘Narcos’
There is one clear MVP involved: Wagner Moura. The immensely talented Brazilian leading man (he was in both “Elite Squad” movies and also “Elysium”) completely immerses himself in the part of Escobar, and gives one of the best performances in TV this year. Like Benicio del Toro before him, he is a perfect choice to portray the man, the myth and the legend, all in one. The silver lining in the disappointing ending this season is that Moura will be back if there’s more episodes. I can see why that decision was made (producers we’re probably scared of losing their top asset), even if it ultimately hurt this first season to not properly finish its story.
When you consider the promise of the subject matter, the large canvas granted by TV to tell a big story, and Netflix putting real money behind this project, it’s hard to think of “Narcos” as anything but a big letdown. For all the fleeting moments that work so well, there’s twice as many that fall flat or left me wanting more. There’s no denying Netflix has entered the big leagues with their original content, but failures like “Narcos” only highlight how desperate they are to be the next HBO (I counted five perfunctory sex scenes plus one rape in episode two alone). They’d be better served executing the story better than just dumping a bunch of blood, drugs and nudity all over the screen with little purpose.
For all the talent that was there behind and, for the most part, in front of, the camera, the result is so muddled that I have to wonder if there was too many cooks in this kitchen. Perhaps a more creative route would work better for this grand crime tale. After all, Netflix isn’t bound by the typical rules/structure of traditional TV. Why not make duel mini-series, one from the US side and the other focusing on Colombia? Or just focus strictly on Escobar and go from there. It’s hopefully not too late to right this ship if we get more episodes. But one thing is certain: great crime tales are all about immersing the viewer in the world of the characters, and “Narcos” never stuck its hooks in me. It even became a slog to finish about midway through. But, if this show can’t do it, maybe the next film about Escobar will let the man be at the center of his own story. [C-]
Oh hey, bet you loved star wars, no white male POV. It had hints at biracial romance, a strong female protagonist AND antagonist. I guess these are plot points that somehow substitute for quality, this is why I am hyper selective about what I watch, you can\’t even trust the reviewers in this day and age. 11/10 clickb8 m8
Two more corrections to point out, both in the final paragraph: "I have to wonder if there *were too many cooks in the kitchen" and "*dual mini-series". That said, I agree with you about the annoying gringo framing and narration choice that was made.
I meant So Brilliant and I love it
Wagner Moura is so so brilliant, love it, love it.
Wagner Moura is rather bland, and does not make a great role. Also, myself as a spanish speaking guy, find his inevitable brazilian accent extremely weird. Just think about a french dude portraying Al Capone, he could make a great role, but his sound makes his performance very dubious.
Also, the whole back-statement of "we america will rescue the poor LatAm country" is pity and basic. The way the screenwriter changed the whole story to showcase the americans as the saviors is ridiculous, great for the improvement of Netflix\’s target market tho
As a big fan of the Adjust Your Tracking school of thought, I\’m now far more apprehensive about this series. I\’ll still give it a shot, because I loved Padihila\’s work on the "Elite Squad 2: I Heard You Didn\’t Need to See the First One" and "Bus 174," as well as the cinematographer from "Pan\’s Labyrinth."
But I\’m only going to give it a few episodes. And after I\’ve just seen how "Hannibal" can turn an awful sounding police procedural into a shocking and sensuous Giallo arthouse masterpiece, I know I\’ll have a short fuse for this show if it starts falling into generic crime drama and biopic conventions. If a TV show can the budget to do new things and be exciting, it should take that expanded canvas and use it to move in new directions, not see it as a chance to ape the once original lurid digressions other shows did before in a new and pioneering way.
Sorry but I disagree with your views compleywlyy other than the fact that Wagner was brilliant. The direction,the acting,the cut scenes and even the soundtrack were flawless…as for the narration..I enjoyed it thoroughly as it helped settle me as a viewer into a series which for the large part was filmed in Spanish,not to mention explaining the back ground and history.
I just finished watching the series and loved it.I\’m not sure know if you\’ve watched the series because your review is wrong and
misguided. When it comes to the narration it was helpful due to the fact that the show is mostly in spanish language. And I believed they did to stay as accurate as possible to the historical facts and make the show believable. And it is helpful to a non-spanish speaking audience..
I am very disappointed with INDIEWIRE and their lack of culture on time to write a review about a series like NARCOS. I don\’t even want to think about the first review comparing NARCOS to ENTOURAGE. I agree with you M MUTH MARTINEZ. In my opinion is one of the best TV SHOWS of the year. It was like a kind of docu drama. And RANDY you are right about not glorifying him. I don\’t think nobody wants to watch HITLER or BIN LADEN as the hero of the film, and Pablo Escobar is not Walter White. I see this review and I can imagine ERIK as one of the journalist from "DRONEZ" in DOCUMENTARY NOW !on IFC, please watch it, I am sure your you will see yourself there : ) and watch NARCOS again or talk to colombians, specially people from Medellin and Bogota and ask them about it.
Good review, I like Narcos but it had potential to be a masterpiece.
P.S.: Fernando Coimbra directed episodes 7 & 8, I recommend you to see his movie: "O lobo atrás da porta."
Forced American perspective? Inescapable narration? Inauthentic portrayal of Colombia? This, in my opinion, is a terrible review. Narcos is an AMAZING show.. Anyone who possesses even a vague understanding of Latin America should be able to recognize that. It may be narrated via the perspective of a DEA agent, but you don\’t have too listen too closely to understand that he is simply a conveyor of simple/obvious information and untainted history (hence why he 1) critiques both the U.S. AND Colombian governments, AND the cartels, and 2) speaks with a dull, somewhat apathetic voice). Besides.. The intensity of this show is honestly on par with that of Breaking Bad. So please watch again and reconsider.
I actually like the show and the DEA angle. It adds to the mystery of Escobar the man and keeps you guessing at what he might do next. Also it allows Escobar to be a larger-than-life character without glorifying him, because you get to see the real damage be causes and get a glimpse inside the often desperate effort to take him down. I\’m not sure if Amerocan audiences would go for an entire series with English subtitles over Spanish dialogue. The show could be better but overall it\’s a good show.
Erik, the hostility is aimed more at this site and its constant stream of errors than it is your particular piece. also, not a good idea to insult your readers, mate. see, a journalist could have told you that. it\’s a basic tenet of the trade. you and your co-writers, as well as those occupying the upper wrungs, are fair game b/c you compose articles to be read and commented upon.
what am I missing? Narcos is tremendous. The audience is English speaking. The protagonist is English because of that. I\’m bilingual so I can keep up with the Spanish and avoid relying on the subtitles but the target market cannot. This is basic service to the audience, and the story of Escobar is central. I think this is fantastic narrative. The criticism is formalistic and callow. Watch the series instead of relying on this rehash. It will be more entertaining, and it\’s also hilarious in the right moments.
This dude acts nothing like the real Pablo.
Pablo: El Patron del Mal. – that guy acts like pablo
Great review Erik! Very disappointed that you didn\’t like this show since I was looking forward to it. We mostly agree on movies but when it comes to Netflix stuff, you\’re my barometer (You recommended Bojack Horseman and that turned out to be one of the best shows of last year) so I\’ll be skipping this one. Also, I don\’t remember you calling yourself a journalist anywhere, I don\’t think you\’re "not even on the bottom of the ladder haha blogger". You\’re just a great film and TV critic. I guess that\’ll have to do.
Peter are you that stupid? The country is spelt C O L O M B I A.
Guys, I understand and even appreciate the corrections on errors. Mistakes happen, and we want to catch them here. So thanks. But jeez, why the hostility? I may be bottom of the ladder in your opinion, but what does that make the commentors on an enterianment blog? And thanks for the clicks, you helped us out there.
stop confusing bloggers for journalists, Peter. bloggers are bottom wrung and entertainment bloggers? they\’re not even on the ladder.
At least get the name of the country right, Columbia? You\’re a journalist? This review is literally copied from the Atlantic. And you call yourself a journalist?