Reception
Upon the release of its first season, Hunters received mixed reviews, with praise for its premise, messages, action sequences, and performances, but criticism for its story-telling, inconsistent tone, pacing, historical inaccuracies, and conclusion. A favorable review summarized the show as "audacious, tonally complex, not always in control of its message, visually arresting, and, particularly in its grim flashbacks to the brutalities and the courage in the death camps, moving," while one of its harshest detractors labeled it "uneven, awkward...often dull," and "sort of yucky."
The first season has a 65% approval rating with 112 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 6.1/10 and the following critical consensus: "Propelled by a strong cast and even stronger sense of justice, Hunters' stylish first season doesn't always hit the mark, but when it does, it strikes pulpy paydirt." Metacritic gave the first season a score of 54 out of 100 based on 41 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Most of the initial reviews were for the first five episodes.
The second season has a 75% approval rating with 20 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, with an average rating of 6.6/10 and the following critical consensus: "While it never realizes its full potential as a revenge fantasy for real historical atrocity, Hunters tracks down a satisfying enough conclusion in this second and final season." Metacritic gave the second season a score of 68 out of 100 based on 6 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
The lack of development of the Hunters was a frequent criticism. Wrote Tom Long of The Detroit News, "we’re introduced to our heroes — who inexplicably include an Asian man and black women — at which point we wait around to see their super-skills. Never happens. Five episodes in none of these people seem all that good at anything." Srihari criticized Biff Simpson not being the main antagonist instead of the Colonel, "who is more Cruella de Vil than exceptionally evil, despite the season-ending pay-off," while Rivera criticized the character of Jonah, feeling that all his conflicts, such as those in his personal life, are only to serve the story: "This makes all of his big moments feel like they occur in a vacuum — especially when he’s paired up with the other Hunters."
A common praise was the cast, including for actors like Pacino, Kane and Rubinek and Olin. Travers praised the performers of the hunters, highlighting Rubinek and Kane, as well as Hinton, Baker, Olin, and the "affecting and fun" Pacino, but called Lerman and his character Jonah nothing more than an "audience stand-in" that "occasionally forgets to get off the couch and move around." Gilbert found Berlin's presence memorable and highlighted the restraint of Pacino: "He brings a lovely gentleness to the role, too, most evident in the fatherly attentions he gives to the confused, grieving, and newly mobilized Jonah. He sees generational wrath in the young man’s fury, and he fosters it." He also called Lerman "good enough if somewhat one-dimensional as Jonah."
The tonal dissonance and mashing of styles turned off some reviewers. Wrote Gilbert, "the leaps from the kitschy shag-carpeted world of bell-bottoms to the spare cruelties of the camps, and from action comedy to human tragedy, are a lot." Verne Gay of Newsday opined that while Hunters was successful as a genre show, it was an "impossible balancing act" to make it both that and a "personal tribute" to those who died in the Nazi camps with its flashback sequences. Tom Long of The Detroit News wrote that, "Tonally it careens madly from sincere to silly, gory to glib," and when it came to its use of pastiche styles, "It’s as if someone took notes while watching a marathon of Quentin Tarantino movies, getting all the bits and pieces without understanding why they worked." ArtsATL was disgusted by the use of comic book references and cliches in a show with "the genocide of 6 million people in World War II" as one of its major themes.
Reviews debated Hunters' revenge fantasy premise and Nazi subject matter, specifically, in 3AW 's words, "the oft-raised issue about exploiting one of the most horrific man-made events in history for our entertainment. Can the show be seen as an indirect tribute to the work of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal? Or is it just bad taste? Can it be both?" Gilbert was appreciative of the "bold" inclusion of "Nazis into a broad genre-tinged entertainment," as it's also "part of the origin story of Golden Age superhero comic books themselves," and suggested it would start conversation between viewers. Other critics, even those who were engaged with the content, unfavorably opined its premise and revenge message made it a B-grade series; Srihari, in particular, categorized it as "an exploitation film that has invaded an overlong comic book movie" and that "the violence brings together the victimiser and victimised in a punishing embrace." Film Inquiry's "Does that make it right? Of course not. Is it fun to watch? In all honesty, not really. It is, however, extremely aware and extremely responsive in how it tinkers with history by adding a fair amount of pathos."
A positive review by Travers, who stated that the show's violence and "[allow] for a fanciful level of wish fulfillment, as well as a compelling action narrative," claimed they led the serious themes to feel non-relevant. Long dismissed Hunters as "a wildly uneven, superficial, comic book-type treatment" of the "particularly sick and unfortunately still-relevant dynamic" of American Nazism, attributing the problem to the writing being "black-and-white" and filled with stereotypes.
Srihari suggested that the series should have used "subtle and subversive" methods of dehumanizing Nazis, such as in the flashback scene where the Jewish prisoners play the Jewish folk song "Hava Nagila" instead of music by composer Richard Wagner as a Nazi officer commands them to. He also argued the comical torturing devices of the officers, such as the human chess board and the singing competition, "stops being disturbing after a while as the mayhem turns into monotony." Stover similarly opined that "the series wallows in its own jarring material to the point of lassitude."
Rivera named the show's straightforward moments its best, such as the flashbacks in the fourth episode of a couple trying to escape the camp. Long was harsh on the flashbacks, however, suggesting that they're "supposed to provide motivation but often just [look] like Jews being tortured in concentration camps." The Mary Sue's Sara Clements, although agreeing with the criticisms of the flashbacks, also stated that they are essential, as "they emphasize a simple fact: We must know and must not forget what happened during the Holocaust. Even when there are no survivors left to tell their stories, we must continue in their place."
The series has received some criticism from the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum due to inaccurate use of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp. The scene depicting prisoners being forced to participate in a game of human chess was called out as "dangerous foolishness and caricature". The museum was also concerned that the show "welcomes future deniers". Director of the USC Shoah Foundation Stephen D. Smith heavily criticized the show and concluded that "Amazon must not renew it for a second season."
In a statement, series creator David Weil, the grandson of Holocaust survivors, responded to the criticism and spoke to wanting to tell a story about the Holocaust without borrowing from a specific survivor's real life or experience without their permission. He said, "It is true that Nazis perpetrated widespread and extreme acts of sadism and torture – and even incidents of cruel 'games' – against their victims. I simply did not want to depict those specific, real acts of trauma ... I did not want to misrepresent a real person or borrow from a specific moment in an actual person’s life. That was the responsibility that weighed on me every night and every morning for years, while writing, producing, and editing this show."
Rubinek also responded to criticisms about the show's violence, explaining that it was warning the viewers about the negative consequences of revenge violence, not promoting it: "If the theme of the show was just violence – yes, maybe they'd have a point... But it's not just about that. It's about the consequences of it."