section_path: Reception
section_name: Reception
paragraph_text: Reception
  
  On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 53% approval rating with an average rating of 5.7/10, based on 79 critic reviews. The website's critics consensus reads, " Zero Day has plenty of gravitas thanks to its all-star cast led by Robert De Niro, but this high-concept series' plotting is a little too goofy for it to take itself so seriously." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 51 out of 100 based on 35 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.
  
  Lucy Mangan of The Guardian described this portrayal of a "good man struggling to do the right thing in a world that offers corruption at worst, and only compromise at best."
  
  The Hollywood Reporter described the series in an unflattering review as " The New York Times opinion section brought to life in its barely left-tilting centrism."
  
  "Tech oligarchs, the gerontocracy, podcasters spouting misinformation and the erosion of civil liberties all blur into a muddy soup that's adjacent to relevancy without ever achieving it", according to a review in Variety.
  
  In a generally favorable review in the New York Times the series is described as "a contemporary update of a ’70s-style political drama that is even more contemporary than anticipated" and is compared with paranoia infused films of that era including The Conversation (1974), Chinatown (1974), The Parallax View (1974) and Three Days of the Condor (1975). Although the review describes some aspects of the plot as "comically tangled", it concludes that the "filmmaking itself is more grounded" and that the ending contains a "sliver of hope".
  
  On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 53% approval rating with an average rating of 5.7/10, based on 79 critic reviews. The website's critics consensus reads, " Zero Day has plenty of gravitas thanks to its all-star cast led by Robert De Niro, but this high-concept series' plotting is a little too goofy for it to take itself so seriously." Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned a score of 51 out of 100 based on 35 critics, indicating "mixed or average" reviews.
  
  Lucy Mangan of The Guardian described this portrayal of a "good man struggling to do the right thing in a world that offers corruption at worst, and only compromise at best."
  
  The Hollywood Reporter described the series in an unflattering review as " The New York Times opinion section brought to life in its barely left-tilting centrism."
  
  "Tech oligarchs, the gerontocracy, podcasters spouting misinformation and the erosion of civil liberties all blur into a muddy soup that's adjacent to relevancy without ever achieving it", according to a review in Variety.
  
  In a generally favorable review in the New York Times the series is described as "a contemporary update of a ’70s-style political drama that is even more contemporary than anticipated" and is compared with paranoia infused films of that era including The Conversation (1974), Chinatown (1974), The Parallax View (1974) and Three Days of the Condor (1975). Although the review describes some aspects of the plot as "comically tangled", it concludes that the "filmmaking itself is more grounded" and that the ending contains a "sliver of hope".