I just finished watching Season 1 Fargo, speaking of the devil.
But does it have to tread the same waters as the film ? As long as it doesn't betray the spirit of the original material (and even that can be an acceptable artistic pursuit). The series is Coen Bros medley, really, the Lorne Malvo character is closer to
No country for old men than the original gangsters from
Fargo and the series draw for some other movies, too. Movies are better at exploring a single or couple themes running through all the characters in some form because of their density, I'm not sure a TV show had had to do though.
By essence fiction tends to create much more ordained stories than the real life it mirrors. What I like about Fargo is that the story design is
seemingly pretty loose : The contrivances are fully accepted if not put to the forefront, for instance with the Milos Stavros conclusion. That the story is not airtight allow for some grey areas. Criminal endeavours going horribly wrong because of dim-witted characters and some mundane wrench is pretty true to the film, all in all. Malvo is indeed vastly superior as a criminal, but that's because he don't have any design in mind, he fancies himself as an animal predator, he rolls with the flow and is pretty content to just quench his sadistical thirst.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Plus in the end he get "bested" by Lester and Gus. There's only so many times you can play with fire.
As to whether it was overrated, I cannot say, as I don't watch enough series to really have an idea as to what the disucssions are in rating them. As you said, it's solid, entertaining and it gave some feels. Good enough for me.