Show Review: Zero Day
A gripping look at the dark future of cyber warfare—undercut by uneven storytelling but still essential viewing (minor spoilers)
Estimated read time is 4 minutes — enjoy!
Netflix’s Zero Day is a political thriller that raises big, unsettling questions about cyber warfare—a subject that most of us know exists but haven’t thought about deeply. We understand that cyberattacks happen, but because they’ve mostly involved things like hacked emails, financial fraud, or corporate espionage, the stakes have felt relatively low for the average person.
This show challenges that perception by exploring how cyber warfare could escalate into full-scale societal collapse. It demonstrates how attacks on key physical and financial infrastructure—power grids, communications networks, banking systems—could bring a country to its knees without a single shot being fired. We’ve spent decades worried about nuclear war, biological weapons, and terrorist bombings, but Zero Day suggests that one of the most dangerous battlefields of the future might be entirely digital.
And it’s not just about great power conflict. The show forces us to consider cyber warfare as a potential tool for terror groups, civil war factions, or even rogue billionaires. After watching, I spent a considerable amount of time thinking about how this could be weaponized domestically. What if an insurgency erupted against the plutocratic forces governing America today? Who would control our digital systems? Zero Day hints at an uncomfortable reality: plutocrats and tech elites—already embedded in the infrastructure of digital security and surveillance—would likely wield far more power than everyday citizens or even the government itself.
That’s a truly disturbing thought for those, like me, who worry that America’s fascist-curious decade could become a permanent political reality.
Thematic depth is where Zero Day shines brightest. It delivers a compelling look at the technological vulnerabilities baked into modern life, forcing viewers to grapple with just how fragile our daily existence truly is.
Political Intrigue and Generational Divides
Beyond its core exploration of cyber warfare, Zero Day also delves into political intrigue, particularly through the strained relationship between former President George Mullen (Robert De Niro) and his daughter, a sitting member of Congress. While George remains deeply committed to the institutions that shaped what he sees as the most peaceful and prosperous period in American history, his daughter—and many younger characters in the show—view those same institutions with skepticism, frustration, and outright distrust.
This generational divide runs throughout the series, with older characters placing their faith in institutions, while younger ones question whether the system is even worth saving. At times, Zero Day forces viewers to consider whether preserving democracy requires bending its rules—or if the system itself is already too broken to fix. It doesn’t fully commit to an ideological debate, but it raises pressing questions about the tension between democracy and authoritarianism—questions that feel quite relevant today.
Where Zero Day Falls Short
For all its strengths, Zero Day is far from perfect. The storytelling is inconsistent, with plot threads that seem critical early on but fizzle out by the final episode. The direction is uneven—some episodes feel expertly crafted, while others rely too heavily on disorienting edits, fragmented flashbacks, and drawn-out sequences that blur reality in ways that feel more confusing than compelling. Given the phenomenal cast—which also includes Joan Allen and Jesse Plemons—you’d expect stellar performances, but the acting is surprisingly uneven, likely due to the inconsistency behind the camera.
For me, the first episode and the final two episodes were the strongest. The middle of the series meanders at times, losing some of the urgency that makes the premise so compelling.
Final Verdict
Despite its flaws, Zero Day succeeds in one crucial way: it makes you think. It forces viewers to confront a real and growing threat—one that isn’t hypothetical but is already happening, just on a smaller scale. The show’s thematic ambition outweighs its narrative shortcomings, making it worth watching for that reason alone.
Would I call it a great show? No. But I would call it an important one.
Thor’s Grade: B+
COMING MONDAY: The Great "General Welfare" Myth—Why Americans Don’t Have It