IMDb > "MacGyver" (2016) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"MacGyver"
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"MacGyver" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 17:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 161 reviews in total 

161 out of 184 people found the following review useful:

This is definitely NOT MacGyver...

1/10
Author: Dr_Sagan from the Edge of the Cosmos
24 September 2016

I 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

124 out of 166 people found the following review useful:

Nothing is sacred

1/10
Author: Perry Bee from On a distant star
23 September 2016

I grew up watching the original Mac and as much as it was soft viewing added with a small dose of make believe, the original series is part of TV history in a good way! Well some one in Hollywood land just had to rape my childhood memories!

I just think a geeky metro sexual vegan type in the role of Mac is just not right, but hey at least the producers went with the times! I think if you are from the WIFI gen than yeah you might think it's great.

The supporting cast is all wrong as well, why cast that dude from CSI? He is just so typecast it ain't funny, and I stopped viewing this when Vinny showed his face.

And again take a look at the ratings, so many paid for 10 out of 10 votes, IMDb come on, it's way overdue for you lot to do something about fake votes.

Anyway, give it a go as we all have different needs in life, but this is not something I will need in a hurry, rubbish is the best I can come up with without using profanity.

Big fat 0 (1 for awful) for me! And I really hope other will vote this rubbish into forgotten history as this program needs to be canned!

Was the above review useful to you?

83 out of 97 people found the following review useful:

Yet another second rate retread......

2/10
Author: s3276169
24 September 2016

Retreads 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

85 out of 106 people found the following review useful:

This show is unadulterated crap

1/10
Author: Nicki Fellenzer from United States
25 September 2016

Five minutes into the show, I wanted to throat punch the arrogant, millennial twerp in the title role. Painfully bad. Horrible writing. Horrible acting. Hackneyed plot. Predictable dialogue. Assumes audience consists of morons. And anyone who continues to watch this probably lives up to that assumption.

The stupid super spy schtick is SO bad!

It's like the writers decided to make a MacGyver for dumb millennials who are unfamiliar with the US government, with foreign policy, with anything resembling the intelligence community!

Make it go away!

Was the above review useful to you?

73 out of 84 people found the following review useful:

Mucked-Gyver

Author: Wizard-8 from Victoria, BC
24 September 2016

When 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

94 out of 130 people found the following review useful:

Tiresome beyond belief.

1/10
Author: gs20 from United States
23 September 2016

If 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

75 out of 102 people found the following review useful:

VERY Disappointing

3/10
Author: Man99204 from United States
23 September 2016

Angus 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

61 out of 79 people found the following review useful:

It's a thriller/ detective/ james bondesque mishmash

1/10
Author: jonnithomas from London
24 September 2016

for 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

51 out of 65 people found the following review useful:

Please, god, No!

3/10
Author: henrik150693 from norway
25 September 2016

Almost 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

Worst Reboot in History

1/10
Author: jarrettcdunn
27 September 2016

Sorry, 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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 17:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history