If this show was marketed as a generic fantasy, then I would rate it as 5/10. It has good cinematography and the opening scenes is great. Most fight scenes and CGI vary in quality from mediocre to very poor.

But it was marketed as an adaptation of the books, and as such it is 0/10. People who think otherwise are wearing really thick rose-tinted glasses.

There are reviewers who might say, movies/films can never be as good as the books, so relax and stop nitpicking. I would like to point out that there is a huge difference between a good adaptation and a bad adaptation. A good adaptation hits all (or most) of the story beats of the original story, and sometimes can surpass the original book. A bad adaptation butchers the original story and characters and is missing the most important story beats. Season 1 of The Witcher is an example of a bad adaptation.

Also, Henry Cavil can't act. I am in the minority in that I don't see Geralt when Cavill is on screen. I see a very bad version of a bad impression of the videogame character. A moody 'conan the barbarian' who grunts and swears occasionally, and has really bad line delivery if the speech is longer than 5 syllables. Henry CAvil is miscast. You only have to see how much make-up is needed to make him look like videogame Geralt to see it. Also, there is the fact that he felt the need to bulk up in preparation for the role. Geralt is meant to be sleek in physique, with focus on fighting that relies on speed and agility. That is the opposite of Cavil's 'conan the barbarian' body-mass.

The Showrunner and her writing team do not know how to write GEralt. I see Geralt of Rivia as a monster hunting 'jedi knight' with complex morals. They have reduced his complex character into a generic fantasy "conan the barbarian" moody hero type, and his character is pretty much sidelined to expand Yennefer's invented backstory, and Ciri's "character development". Btw, I don't think Ciri's character developed much beyond being a helpless doll-like child who is able to scream her way out of trouble.

I don't think Season 2 will be any better. From articles I gather that Ciri is going to be in the forefront, and there will absolutely be more Fringilla. And from the imdb page, I see that Francesca is featured in 7 episodes out of 8, so she will have an expanded role. This will mean even less time for Geralt.

Sure, Netflix is going to hire Star War's ILM special effects company, which shows serious commitment to expensive CGI, but when you consider that the writing team is pretty much the same, I am really not sure i want to watch more bad storytelling that makes me upset with what is being done to these iconic characters. I think that if I watch Season 2, it will only be to see how much worse the story adaptation is going to get. That is not really a good reason to watch the show.

Edit 28 august: I just watched the featurette "Making The Witcher", showing behind the scenes, and the writers, cast and directors talk a bit about the making of the witcher. And all I felt was how much I hated what they were doing. so having sat on the fence for a while now about whether or not I would watch season 2, I have decided that, for the same (healthy) reason I refuse to watch Season 8, Game of Thrones, I should not continue watch any more Netflix content in this franchise as long as these writers and this showrunner are at the helm. They clearly don't know how to write character, or to craft satisfying and original fantasy world-building. (Turning failed Aretuza students into eels for shock value?). I did not like what they did to the main characters. I did not like what they did with Eithne, Calanthe, Cahir, Vilgefortz, or Eyck (a noble knight fanatic turned into toilet comic relief that isn't even funny), I did not like what they did to Villentretenmerth. Judging from what they have done to these characters, I don't want to know what they will do to Milva and Regis down the line.