Taylor Sheridan’s “1923” had all the makings of a hit. A high-profile cast, sweeping Montana landscapes, and the legacy of “Yellowstone” behind it. But as with many big productions, critical applause and audience approval don’t always walk hand in hand. So, is “1923” actually entertaining—or does it drag its boots in the dust?
Let’s break down what critics and viewers are saying to answer the big question: Is “1923” boring?
What Works: 3 Key Positives
Critics and industry voices have pointed out some undeniable strengths in the show. These are the elements where “1923” hits the mark.
- Exceptional Acting Performances The casting of Helen Mirren and Harrison Ford brings star power and credibility. Their seasoned portrayals have added depth and tension to the narrative. Critics praise the realism and emotional pull they bring.
- Stunning Cinematography and Production Design The series doesn’t just tell a story—it shows one. The direction, camera work, and set designs create an immersive historical world. From sun-drenched plains to gritty frontier towns, it looks like a big-budget film.
- Compelling and Layered Plotlines Critics note that “1923” handles its multiple story arcs with ambition. From ranch feuds to colonial trauma, the story covers a lot of ground. When it works, it draws you in and makes you care.
These strengths help keep the audience engaged, especially those who value depth, artistry, and character-driven stories.
Where It Stumbles: 3 Key Negatives
Yet despite the praise, not everyone finds “1923” a breeze to watch. Some viewers and reviewers have strong reservations.
- Uneven Pacing and Slow Burns One major complaint is the pacing. Episodes sometimes feel sluggish, especially when action takes a backseat. This slow rhythm may frustrate viewers expecting more momentum or constant tension.
- Excessive Violence and Graphic Scenes Several scenes sparked backlash due to their brutality. While some argue they add realism, others call them unnecessarily harsh. These moments can feel jarring, and for some, outright repulsive.
- Complexity That Borders on Confusion The show tries to juggle multiple narratives—from Africa to Montana to boarding schools. While ambitious, this approach sometimes feels tangled. Without full attention, you might lose track or lose interest.
These issues make the show a tougher sell for those looking for lighter or more direct storytelling.
Verdict: Is “1923” BRNG?
So, after weighing the highs and lows, where does “1923” really land?
It depends heavily on what kind of viewer you are. If you’re into rich character work, sweeping visuals, and long-haul storytelling, you’ll probably appreciate it. But if you lean toward fast-moving plots or clean-cut action, you may end up disappointed.
The performances and production value alone keep it from being boring. However, the pacing and heavy content weigh it down for many.
Final Score: 6.8/10
Not boring, but not thrilling either. “1923” is best suited for viewers with patience—and a taste for gritty, deliberate drama.
