According to some viewers, the female characters of 1923 are little more than caricatures—blonde, wild, and far too silly to be taken seriously.

If you’ve ever found yourself watching a show and thinking, “What in the world did I just watch?”—congratulations, you might be one of the many viewers who think 1923 is more style than substance. Sure, the series has been draped in praise by some, but it also has its share of critics, and they’re not afraid to rattle a few cages. Surprisingly, the star of the show, Harrison Ford, is not the one taking the heat. Nope, it’s the show itself that has some folks seeing red.

According to a few critics, the female characters are painted with a broad brush—blonde, wild, and acting in ways that seem more silly than convincing. They’ve been swimming against a current of endless praise for the show and felt the need to speak up. Their plea? To find others who share their perspective on 1923 as a high-budget show, more concerned with dramatic flair than delivering a truly believable story.

Taylor Sheridan’s $200 million 1923: Critics’ review that’ll make you rethink the hype?

As much as Taylor Sheridan’s 1923 flaunts its star-studded cast and jaw-dropping budget, there’s a growing chorus of critics who are not shy about saying that the show isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Let’s be real for a second—sometimes, the bigger the budget, the bigger the letdown. 1923, starring Harrison Ford, is a lavish production, no doubt, but for many fans, its $200 million price tag feels like an overblown spectacle that’s a little short on substance.

Some fans, like one particularly outspoken critic, have called it one of the “soapiest most unrealistic shows” they’ve seen in a long time.

Let’s break it down. For this fan, the women of 1923 are painted in broad strokes, almost like caricatures. Blonde, wild, and acting in ways that come across as more silly than serious, they argue. And it’s not just the women who are under fire. The romantic subplot, particularly one set in Africa, is a tough pill to swallow. “It doesn’t even make sense,” said the viewer, pointing out how the relationship feels forced into the narrative without any substance behind it.

These moments not only jar viewers out of the drama but detract from the overall authenticity of the show. “All the women leads were terrible,” one fan stated, adding that the British girl was especially “annoying”:

They loved 1883 for its grit and powerful storytelling, but 1923 has left them scratching their heads. “Where is this show going, and what points is it trying to make?” one asked. Let’s read a few comments:

In the eyes of many viewers, 1923 feels like a ship lost at sea, drifting aimlessly without any discernible destination in sight. The show meanders, failing to find its footing or maintain a sense of direction, which leaves audiences adrift in a sea of confusion. The pacing, too, has become a thorn in the side of many.

Taylor Sheridan’s 1923 is redefining what TV can achieve?

With the power duo of Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren at the helm, this Yellowstone prequel, 1923, isn’t merely another television series—it’s a behemoth in the making, and the ambition is palpable. Taylor Sheridan didn’t hold back when speaking to Deadline, revealing that each episode of 1923 costs anywhere from $30 to $35 million.

That’s the kind of budget that would make most film directors drool, as Sheridan himself noted:

To put it into perspective, according to the Wall Street Journal, the first season of 1923 itself cost the studio a whopping $200 million to produce, a staggering figure for a television series. This budget rivals the production costs of major blockbuster series, such as The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, which is no small feat by any measure. Yet, as Sheridan points out, the sheer scale and ambition of 1923 justify the hefty price tag (via Deadline):

This isn’t just about money; it’s about creating an experience that pushes the boundaries of what TV can be.