A Discovery of Witches (TV Series) Episode #1.1 (2018) User Reviews

Not that bad actually

[skahtten · 8/10 · 19 September 2018]

Honestly, I wasn't certain that this series should have been made in to a series since the movie/series format rarely does it justice...however, I think this first episode was quite good. It didnt follow the book to the letter, but I didnt expect it to since the book is so rich in details...aaaand we can debate about the casting of the different characters, but all in all, a fair start to something that could end up being great.

I get it...

[W011y4m5 · 7/10 · 5 January 2021]

From first impressions, "A Discovery of Witches" is essentially the British Twilight. There are less American accents; more tea & scones, featuring characters tutting with caviar.

A Discovery of Witches - First Episode

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 29 April 2019]

Dr. Diana Bishop (Teresa Palmer), Yale grad, author, and witch, returns to Oxford, perhaps up for a professorship, is granted access to the Ashmore manuscript 782, never seen by vampires, of definite interest by them because the words might hold the key to their origin and could even help them if discovered. When Bishop opens it up at the Bodleian library, although not apparent initially on each page, soon she can see hidden words that move from the parchment "into her". Something about this exchange from page to Bishop has witches and vampires alike very interested in learning more about why she had access to the manuscript (we see that the book isn't available when the librarian first looks for it, later finding it in its missing slot upon return). Vampire Matthew Clairmont (Matthew Goode) begins to take great interest in her, confronting her about the manuscript, with Diana making it clear (as she does to her aunt (Alex Kingston) and friend, Gillian (Louise Brealey)) she doesn't have any desire to pursue magic available to her as a witch. Peter Knox (Owen Teale; formerly Alliser Thorne of "Game of Thrones") is head of a particular alchemical sect who question Gillian about the manuscript he has been trying to find for quite a long time (as Clairmont also indicated to Bishop) as well. So the first episode of the series, "A Discovery of Witches", sets up the existence of vampires and witches and how a particular manuscript "chooses" Bishop as its carrier. So she's central in the story, the figure that is the gravitational pull of every supernatural event and character introduced. Vampires realize they can't use their blood to turn others and can tell something's "off" since Bishop held and researched that manuscript. It is also established that witches and vampires are seemingly adversarial but try to conduct a truce against waging war against each other unless provoked. We don't see a vampire necessarily predatorily besiege a human and kill him or her, but Matthew gets a good nose full of Bishop's scent from a jacket and barely contains his urge to attack her. We see a witch also burn alive a human hunter nudged by Knox into hunting her. So provocation can lure out the dark side of witches and vampires. Although, so far, the overall Gothic horror plot isn't overwhelmingly original, with even "The Vampire Diaries" dabbling in a lot of what this series' plot does, I'm willing to give it a shot all the same. Palmer's blond, blue eyed beauty gets plenty of the camera's close-ups (and why not?) while Goode's handsome vampire is her male equal. While the episode serves as an introduction to the characters and British backdrop, it does feature the unease for which witches and vampires harbor, underlying a tension that clearly calls to attention that danger possibly awaits at any moment. The words leaving the page of the book, "merging" with Palmer is quite a highlight. Not a lot of witchcraft and vampire bad behavior as of yet, but previews do offer some exhilarating delights to come.

Intense and suspenseful

[wilma_b · 10/10 · 14 September 2018]

The first episode did not disappoint. Keeps very close to the book and all characters played true to how I envisioned when reading. Looking forward to the rest of the series.

Books and movie great'

[audyeddy · 10/10 · 25 November 2019]

Read book 1 and the book and the movie are close enough for avid fans to enjoy! Great casting and beautiful venues for the show! Matthew and Diana are better than expected but the supporting cast is well done too. Worth the watch and want to see what they do with book 2!

Excellent adaptation

[dbaro-28426 · 10/10 · 15 April 2021]

I'm the odd person out who simply could not get through these books, and I tried. I really tried. The material is rich but the books are unwieldy with too much stuff and an almost inchoate narrative. Never in my wildest dreams did I think such a perfectly written adaptation could be assembled from these books. And this is one perfectly written adaptation. I've seen both seasons way too many times. The writing and scene locations are magnificent. And Mathew Goode is a perfect Mathew de Clermont. Talk about sexy and ruggedly imperturbable. Teresa Palmer is wonderful as Diana Bishop, breathtakingly beautiful but typically academic, no manicured nails or exotic outfits. The dialogue is terrific, and most of the contributors are correct in that the series is pared down to the essence of these books. Thank God.

Finally, a vampire series for adults!

[agami-86778 · 10/10 · 4 April 2019]

I'm not into vampire themed shows or books usually, but this is great. I only wish they'd had at least 10 episodes for S1 to do it justice. Any shortcomings can be traced to a lack of time. Matthew Goode was born to play Matthew Claimont (hot as hell) and Teresa Palmer is very engaging as Diana. It just gets better and better as the series goes on. Books are a must read.

Immersive

[caroline-s-hansson · 9/10 · 18 February 2020]

I enjoy when the first episode does not drown you in explanations, but rather lets you imagine the world yourself. The chemistry between actors is spot-on, and I absolutely want to watch the next episode immediately.

Dire dialogue and wooden acting.

[lynchiefromsc · 3/10 · 19 September 2018]

The dialogue is clunky and the acting is so wooden it's an embarrassment to furniture. But, of course, the folk who think Oxford University is like Hogwarts and that witches, vampires and other supernatural beings are everywhere will swallow it up and vote it as a top show. Getting really fed up of this same old rubbish filling up my TV screen, but it seems to be what the majority of viewers want, so I guess we're stuck with it.

Utter destruction of a truly well crafted novel series! If you've read the books DO NOT bother watching this muck.

[nealvan557 · 2/10 · 14 March 2019]

Only the names of the characters are the same to the novels. Everything else other than one view of sculling on the Thames is all twisted up, moved around in time according The the source material. And those characters were sadly poorly cast for their roles except one 'bad guy' character. For example that won't give anything away.... in the very first episode there are scenes taking place in Venice with counsel members. Anyone familiar with the novels knows how much must take place before we are even told such a counsel exists and then where they have their court. I saw three episodes before I stopped. I watch everything for free since I stream, so seeing this listing as a premiere caught me off guard. I can only presume the first season ran in GB as stated but never showed here in the USA until now. I can think the reason must be that either the BG audience hated it or loved it not knowing about the novel series. Deborah Harkness who crafted this entire world and all the characters in it did a terrific job. I shudder to guess why she permitted this abomination of her work to be shown. But if she has the same attitude Stephen King does as he said himself in an interview decades ago..."Once I'm paid what I ask for my story, I don't care what is done to it. If people are upset with the TV or movie version of a story of mine they've read, I can only suggest they don't watch the live action version and reread my story. I consider these two mediums to be completely different arenas which is why I feel as I do about my work that is purchased from me. I wouldn't buy something from anyone then allow them to tell me how I should use it. I think of my works in this same manner. But I can understand why readers can be disappointed or even upset when something live action doesn't match what they've enjoyed reading. I won't get into the practical financial realities of the costs or what technologies were available at the time except this one. When DePalma bought the rights to do my first published novel Carrie, I was so thrilled and felt like I had really hit the jackpot with a very lucky break. Then after the movie came out many people were disappointed although the acting was never criticized, nor the directing. The biggest criticism was how many things and situations that were missing. Mr. DePalma told me that he wanted to have Carrie doing to the town exactly the same as I wrote it, but the budget would not allow it. So is that anyone's fault? Was it done differently on purpose? Yes, but in this case, budget was the very simple reason. I hope people wil, understand." He said this decades ago and I was willing to accept this answer since it seemed quite fair and reasonable plus I think the movie captured the mood perfectly to the novel. However, king selling the right to his Dark Tower 7 novel lifetimes worth of work series to not care what a POS that thing was is inexcusable. No reasoning in the world would cause me to feel it was nothing more than quick money for doing nothing AND worst of all obviously NOT A CARE how it turned out. If this is true for Ms. Harkness, I'm very sad for her to need money that badly to pimp out such a fine body of work.