Critical response
Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, surveyed 50 reviews and judged 78% to be positive. The site reads, "Narcos lacks sympathetic characters, but pulls in the viewer with solid acting and a story that's fast-paced enough to distract from its familiar outline." On Metacritic, season one holds a weighted average score of 77 out of 100, based on 43 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
IGN gave the first season a 7.8 out of 10 score, saying: "It's a true-to-life account, sometimes to a fault, of the rise of Pablo Escobar and the hunt that brought him down laced with stellar performances and tension-filled stand-offs. Its blend of archival footage reminds us that the horrors depicted really happened, but also manage to present an Escobar that is indefensible but frighteningly sympathetic." Writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, Tirdad Derakhshani reviewed the season positively, calling it, "Intense, enlightening, brilliant, unnerving, and addictive, Narcos is high-concept drama at its finest." Television critic Tim Goodman of The Hollywood Reporter also reviewed the series positively, saying, "The series begins to find its pacing not long after, and we see the strength of Moura's acting, which to his credit never races, in the early going, toward over-the-top menace or the drug-lord cliches we're all used to at this point. Credit also the fact that Padilha brings a documentary feel to Narcos." Nancy deWolf Smith of The Wall Street Journal wrote, "The omniscient-narrator device works very well for a complex story spanning many years and varied sets of players." Critic Neil Genzlinger of The New York Times said, "It's built on sharp writing and equally sharp acting, as any good series needs to be." However, chief television critic Mary McNamara of Los Angeles Times wrote, "It's a grand if inconsistent experiment that, from the moment it opens with a definition of magic realism, wears its considerable ambitions on its sleeve." Writing for IndieWire, Liz Shannon Miller said, "An unlikeable character, no matter the circumstances, remains unlikeable, but an unlikeable character trumps a bland blonde man whose position of authority appears to be his only really interesting character trait, no matter how much voice-over he utters."
The show received criticism for the quality of the spoken Spanish. Dr. Alister Ramírez-Márquez, a member of the North American Academy of the Spanish Language, faulted the accents, pronunciation, intonation, and incorrect use of Paisa colloquialisms. Speaking of the show's reception in Colombia, Sibylla Brodzinsky of The Guardian stated, "audiences have been bemused by the stars' ropey accents, irritated by its portrayal of the country's recent history, and – in some cases – simply bored by yet another narco-drama." The Brazilian accent of Wagner Moura was particularly criticized for being incongruent with Escobar's Paisa background. Gisela Orozco of the Chicago Tribune said the show would not engross Latinos due to the mishmash of accents and contrasted Narcos with Pablo Escobar: El Patrón del Mal. In his review of the show, Colombian TV critic Omar Rincón wrote in El Tiempo, "Narcos is the Miami and US vision of NarColombia – something like Trump's idea of us: the good guys are the gringos ... and the narcos are comically dysfunctional or primitives with bad taste ... Narcos may do well outside Colombia, but here it produces anger and laughter."
Rotten Tomatoes gives the second season an approval rating of 93% based on 28 reviews and an average rating of 7.6/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Narcos' sophomore season manages to elevate the stakes to a gut-wrenching degree in what continues to be a magnificent account of Pablo Escobar's life." On Metacritic, season two holds a score of 76 out of 100, based on 13 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
IGN gave the second season a score of 7.4 out of 10, calling it "Good" and wrote "It may go overboard with its love of Pablo Escobar, but I can't truly fault the show for taking advantage of its best performer and character – or for scrambling to find an emotional core on a show that can feel rather clinical." Joshua Alston of The A.V. Club lauded Moura's performance and said, "While the show never soft-pedals the havoc Escobar created, it makes him surprisingly sympathetic, thanks in part to Moura's shrewd, affecting performance." Critic Neil Genzlinger of The New York Times said, "Mr. Moura is inscrutably brilliant at the center of it all." Entertainment Weekly's Jeff Jensen also reviewed the series positively, saying, "Where season 1 spanned 10 years, season 2 captures Escobar's last days on the loose. Each tightly packed episode moves quickly without sacrificing richness, chronicling the uneasy alliances and gross tactics employed to snare Escobar." Tim Goodman of The Hollywood Reporter said, "What works in the early going of season two is that the fall is almost always more thrilling, if not engaging, than the buildup. Escobar senses the loss of power and Moura does some of his best work as viewers read the worry and interior thinking on his face."
On Rotten Tomatoes, the third season holds an approval rating of 97% based on 33 reviews and an average rating of 7.46/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Narcos continues to evolve in its third season, drawing on historical details to take viewers on a thoroughly gripping – and unsettlingly timely – journey into darkness." On Metacritic, season 3 holds a weighted average score of 78 out of 100, based on 9 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".
IGN gave the third season a score of 8.0 out of 10, calling it "a flawed-but-thrilling improvement over its first two seasons". Critics praised the show for its ability to still be engaging after moving on from the Pablo Escobar storyline. Liz Shannon Miller of IndieWire said, "Outside of the overhanging threat of [Pablo] Escobar, 'Narcos' proves its ability to excel as an ongoing drama by not just introducing new members of these syndicates, but giving them real, fleshed-out lives beyond basic confrontations." Writing for The Telegraph, Ed Power called the show "A sweltering thrill ride you'll want to stay with all the way until the end." Critics praised Pedro Pascal's performance of DEA agent Javier Peña, who became the main protagonist after the departure of Boyd Holbrook, who played Steve Murphy. Kevin Yeoman of Screen Rant wrote, "The charismatic actor is finally offered a chance to lead the semi-anthological series." Writing for Collider, Chris Cabin said, "Pascal carries the series admirably, expanding the scope of his character through Peña's relationship with his father." Despite the positive reviews, some critics said the show got off to a slow start in the first few episodes. Critic Scott Tobias of The New York Times wrote, "Setting aside the 'Goodfellas' narration, the earliest episodes of 'Narcos' were distinguished by a meat-and-potatoes approach to the crime genre that rebuffed the slickness that usually comes with the territory." Some critics acknowledged the expository flaws while praising the last sequence of episodes. Daniel Fienberg of The Hollywood Reporter wrote, "After a slow start to its third season, Netflix's cartel drama proves that it's able to be gripping TV even without Wagner Moura's Pablo Escobar." Writing for Entertainment Weekly, James Hibberd said, "The narrative picks up its pace as the season progresses into a final run of episodes that feature the most suspenseful sequences Narcos has ever had."
