Netflix’s coastal creature thriller has earned early critical support—but the number tells only part of the story.
Quick answer: Below earned an 82% Tomatometer snapshot in Rotten Tomatoes’ October 9, 2026 first-reviews roundup. Critics have praised its bleak Newfoundland atmosphere, committed performances from Josh Hartnett and Charlie Heaton, and its mix of creature horror with community and climate themes. The reservations are just as important: some reviewers find the story overstuffed, the pacing uneven, and the local accents distracting. In short, the series is worth a look for viewers who prefer character-driven coastal horror to nonstop monster action.
Updated October 11, 2026 · By Shivam Das · Spoiler-light review
Netflix’s Below arrives with a wonderfully simple horror premise: a remote Newfoundland fishing community is already struggling to hold on to its way of life when something enormous begins stirring beneath the water. The series then complicates that setup with family grief, a corporate buyout threat, local folklore, and the environmental consequences of a changing ocean. That ambitious blend helps explain why early critics are responding positively—even when they don’t agree on whether every piece fits together.
What does the 82% Rotten Tomatoes score actually mean?
Rotten Tomatoes’ first-reviews roundup, published October 9, displayed an 82% Tomatometer for Below. That figure is a snapshot of the critics’ reviews counted at that moment—not a grade out of 100, and not an audience score. The Tomatometer measures the share of counted reviews that are classified as positive; it does not mean critics collectively rated the show 8.2 out of 10.
There is a second caveat for readers checking the score later: Rotten Tomatoes pages can change as more reviews are added or the listing is updated. Its live series page may not display the same review count or percentage as an earlier editorial roundup. The most accurate way to read the 82% figure is as an early critical snapshot, not a permanent verdict.
Why critics are responding to Below
1. Newfoundland feels like a character, not just a backdrop
The show’s strongest asset may be its setting. The gray water, working boats, weather-beaten buildings, and feeling of geographic isolation give the danger a tangible shape before the creature even appears. A fishing town depends on the sea for its livelihood, so the ocean is both the community’s lifeline and the source of its nightmare. That contradiction gives Below a more specific identity than a generic monster story.
Netflix filmed the limited series in Newfoundland and Labrador, and the production’s sense of place is central to its appeal. In its review, TheWrap describes a show balancing small-town family drama with a monstrous threat, while The Guardian notes its unusual blend of horror, nostalgia, comedy, and ecological unease.
2. Josh Hartnett keeps the human story grounded
Hartnett plays Calvin Penney, a fisherman carrying old grief while trying to protect his family and the place he calls home. The role works best when Calvin’s stubbornness reads as a survival strategy rather than simple hero posturing. He is not an all-knowing action lead; he is a man whose history makes every new threat feel personal.
That emotional center matters because the series keeps widening its scope. Alongside the sea-creature mystery, Calvin must navigate the possibility that outsiders will buy out the community and force residents to leave. Hartnett gives those quieter scenes enough weight to stop the show from becoming only a sequence of scares.
3. Charlie Heaton adds volatility and dark humor
Charlie Heaton’s Wade brings a different energy to the family dynamic. He is unsettled, unpredictable, and often funny in ways that don’t cancel out the character’s pain. That contrast is useful in a series that can veer from unsettling mystery to eccentric small-town behavior within the same episode.
Rotten Tomatoes’ roundup highlighted a range of critical reactions rather than universal praise. One positive response singled out Heaton’s performance, while other reviews argued that the show’s many side stories sometimes dilute the central monster narrative. That tension is a fair description of Below: the ensemble gives the town texture, but not every subplot receives the same amount of development.
Where the reviews are less enthusiastic
The biggest criticism is not that Below lacks ideas. It is that it has so many. The creature mystery, Calvin’s childhood trauma, family reconciliation, a town buyout, local legends, and environmental anxiety all compete for space across a six-episode limited series. For some critics, the extra threads make the world feel rich; for others, they interrupt the forward momentum of the central horror story.
Pacing is another point of disagreement. The premise could easily sustain a tightly wound feature film, but television gives the writers room to follow more residents and community conflicts. That broader canvas is a strength when the character work lands and a weakness when scenes feel like detours. If you want a relentless sequence of attacks and reveals, Below may feel slower than its premise promises.
The Newfoundland accent has also become a talking point. The dialect is a meaningful part of the show’s regional identity, but some reviewers have found the performances uneven or distracting. The distinction is worth making: a specific accent can help a fictional community feel lived-in, but it has to sound natural enough that viewers remain inside the drama instead of noticing the performance.
Is Below actually scary?
Yes—but its most effective fear comes from atmosphere and uncertainty more than constant jump scares. The ocean is vast, the community is isolated, and the characters cannot easily tell whether a strange event is folklore, a natural phenomenon, or evidence of something more dangerous. That uncertainty lets ordinary details—a boat returning late, an unfamiliar iceberg, a change in the water—carry an uneasy charge.
The creature itself is only one layer of the threat. The series also treats economic pressure and environmental change as forces that can make a community vulnerable before any monster arrives. The fishing industry is under strain, the town’s future is being negotiated by people with more money and power, and the sea that sustains residents is becoming unpredictable. Those themes give the horror a reason to linger after a scare ends.
Still, the show’s tone will not work for everyone. It mixes grim suspense with eccentric humor and occasionally grotesque imagery. Viewers looking for serious, grounded drama from beginning to end may find the tonal shifts awkward; fans of oddball genre television may see them as part of the charm.
How Below compares with other Netflix creature thrillers
Below is less interested in turning its monster into a simple target than in asking what the creature means to the town—and what the town has done to make itself fragile. That makes it a different kind of watch from a straightforward survival thriller. It borrows the familiar pleasure of a hidden threat in coastal waters, but adds a family story and a dispute over who gets to remain on the land.
The result is imperfect but distinctive. The setting and performances give it personality; the crowded plot and uneven pacing keep it from being a universal recommendation. The 82% early Tomatometer snapshot is best understood in that context: critics largely saw enough craft and originality to recommend it, even when they had reservations about the execution.
Should you watch Below?
Watch it if you like atmospheric horror, isolated coastal settings, ensemble dramas, environmental subtext, and monster stories that make room for grief and community politics. It is especially appealing if you prefer suspense that builds through mood and character rather than a scare every few minutes.
Consider skipping it if you need a lean, fast-moving creature feature, realistic dialogue in every scene, or a single plot line that never wanders. The show’s ambition is part of its appeal, but it is also the reason some reviews are more qualified than celebratory.
My verdict: Below is worth streaming for its sense of place and its willingness to make a sea-monster story about more than the monster. It does not always balance its many ideas, and the pacing can drift, but the strongest scenes have a cold, mournful atmosphere that stays with you. The early 82% score reflects a generally positive critical response—not a claim that the series is flawless.
Frequently asked questions
What is Below’s Rotten Tomatoes score?
Rotten Tomatoes’ October 9, 2026 first-reviews roundup displayed an 82% Tomatometer snapshot. Scores and review counts can change as the site adds or updates reviews, so check the live series page for the current listing.
Is 82% on Rotten Tomatoes a good score?
Generally, yes: it means 82% of the counted critic reviews were classified as positive at the time of that snapshot. It is not the same as an average rating of 8.2 out of 10.
What do critics like most about Below?
Early reviews highlight the Newfoundland setting, Josh Hartnett’s grounded lead performance, Charlie Heaton’s volatile supporting turn, and the mix of creature horror with family and environmental themes.
What are the main criticisms of Below?
Some critics say the plot has too many subplots, the pacing becomes uneven, and certain performances’ Newfoundland accents can be distracting. The tonal mix of horror, humor, and melodrama may also divide viewers.
How many episodes are in Below?
Below is a six-episode Netflix limited series, according to Netflix’s official Media Center listing.
Sources and further reading
- Rotten Tomatoes: Below First Reviews
- TheWrap: Below review
- The Guardian: Below review
- Netflix Media Center: Below
Editorial note: This review summarizes early critical reactions available on October 11, 2026. Rotten Tomatoes scores are dynamic and may change.
