Thursday, August 31, 2006

In 'Justice'

Another night, another new show: I weighed in on "Justice" a couple of days ago, but I'm curious if anyone bothered to watch and what they thought.

I'll say that I thought it was a cop-out that the client in the very first episode had to be innocent, even though the producer insists they will sometimes defend guilty clients, but I liked a lot of the little touches like Victor Garber's bit about kicking the table forward. ("Hey, every little bit helps.")

16 comments:

dez said...

I checked it out and found it to be a bit weak overall (especially the cop-out at the end, like you mentioned). However, I was digging Victor Garber enough to keep watching the show at least until "Lost" starts up again.

Matt Hunter said...

I watched it and liked it enough to watch until Lost starts up. My main reason for watching was Victor Garber and he delivered. The fact that Kevin was actually innocent was fine with me. As soon as they announced that the end of the episode would show what actually happened I figured that people would start thinking, "Well, he must have done it" (my wife certainly did) so when he didn't, that worked for me. I'm fine with them saving the "we saved a guilty person" tactic.

Todd VanDerWerff said...

The "showing what really happened" gambit at the end would work better if there were a twist to it. It would be fine if he were innocent but she died at the hands of her lover or something that hadn't even been considered.

I dunno. . .a "twist" in the end would get old too, but it would be preferable to seeing something we already thought we knew dramatized.

Dark Tyler said...

I would watch a show with Victor Garber reading a cookbook.

I actually liked the fact that there was no forced twist ending-- I suppose it's happening eventually, but it's good to know it is not going to be there every time, you know?

Although I'd like to have a better explanation as to why Trott & Co. were so certain the guy was innocent. Anyways. I'll be watching it.

Kristin said...

It was interesting to see behind the scenes, but I thought the very end--showing how she died--was very weak. It was identical to what the defense had argued. It would have been nice to see it happen a little bit differently than either the defense OR the prosecution was arguing.

I mean, what's the point in watching how it happened if there is nothing new to reveal? Very weak ending. I was disappointed. I rather would have had a sort of 'surprise' type ending with something completely shocking. Especially with a pilot.

Victor Garber was great, though. And the behind the scenes stuff with the 'shadow jury' and the focus group for the tv show was interesting to watch.

Alan Sepinwall said...

I find twists to be pretty cheesy, too. I guess I would just admire the show a little more if it had the guts to come right out of the box showing these people going all-out to defend someone, getting him off, then showing that, as often than not, their client did it. At the same time, if they were going to do that they should have toned down all the scenes where Kerr Smith insists the guy was innocent.

I'm just having a hard time reconciling the Bruckheimer franchise worldview that the system works with a show where the heroes help guilty people go free (or, conversely, don't prevent innocent people from going to jail). Until proven otherwise -- and I probably won't be watching by this point -- I'm thinking the number of guilty and/or wrongfully-convicted clients is going to be really, really tiny.

Also, did anyone hear watch "The Staircase" last year on The Sundance Channel? It was a cool docuseries chronicling the murder trial of Michael Peterson in a case that was nearly identical to the one in the pilot, save that A)It's pretty clear in "The Staircase" that Peterson did it, and B)The client and the wife here were much younger and better looking.

jim treacher said...

Eamonn Walker is the man.

I was really into it right up until the very end, when O'Neil looked back at his wife with that creepy smile. You know, the smile they used in all the promos. The smile that made you think he did it. Except he didn't. Then why was he leering like Peter Lorre? To give the FOX promo dept. something to work with, I guess. Stinky.

That first 10 minutes, though, wow. They did a great job of setting the scene and ramping up the tension. I can't figure out if the name "Suzanne Fulcrum" is brilliant or offensively hamhanded, but I guess "Nancy Grace" was taken.

jim treacher said...

I just IMDb'ed the actress who plays Suzanne Fulcrum, and she used to be married to Dennis Hopper and now she's married to French Stewart. So I think she's earned herself some success here.

dez said...

Aww, Jim, whatchoo got against French?

dez said...

Forgot to ask: Alan, what did you think of the finale of "Who Wants to be a Superhero?" And the rest of the show, for that matter? I agree it was cheesy fun, although there were a few things that bugged me:

1) Stan not getting on Lemuria and Fat Momma for swearing. With all the "Superheroes don't do this and superheroes don't do that" talk, I'm surprised Stan didn't admonish them for their language, especially Lemuria because of that whole "Kiss my natural brown ass" spiel to Fat Momma (which, hello, Fat Momma is naturally browner than you are, ho!);

2) Stan hassling Major Victory for taking off his cape in the superhero version of a man placing his coat over a puddle so a woman can walk over it and not mess up her shoes. I thought that was a silly thing to fuss about since MV was being chivalrous;

3) Iron/Dark Enforcer sucked. He had to be a plant all along, but he was a bad actor. Rotiart was better.

Cell Phone Girl was the blatant famewhore, but Monkey Woman turned out to be the stealth famewhore. And I think Feedback was a bigger comic book geek than Levity and Nitro G. Between he and Fat Momma, he was obviously the better choice to be made into a real comic book character, but I was still rooting for Fat Momma to win because that's a comic I would read. What did you think?

TVG said...

It would have been better if there was less of the two younger attorneys and more of Victor Garber and Eamonn Walker. Garber's scene in the elevator with the client was better than anything the young attorney did over the entire episode. I'll watch until "Criminal Minds" returns (I got into "CM" after "Lost" when off the rails last season) and then catch "Justice" when "CM" is in reruns.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was good enough to keep me entertained until Lost comes back. But it would have been better if they didn't show what happened, and the behind the scenes of a trial might get old fast. But again, entertaining enough for now.

Kjell said...

It's pretty clear the whole pilot story was ripped off The Staircase, and that's why the ending felt so weak, too – as I identified the Michael Peterson connection pretty early on it came as a complete surprise that the wife had died exactly how the defense had claimed. This ending made me feel just as disappointed as I would have felt if Peterson had been acquitted in The Staircase... (If anyone care to see ramblings on this in Swedish, it's on my blog, see link)...

Kjell said...

Ah, and isn't it also interesting to see Justice as the macho companion to the Bruckheimer camp's Close to Home?
In the latter, there was one little "gizmo gimmick" – when the photographs came "alive" when pinned to the wall or laid on the table. In Justice, the graphic FX were all over the place, like a powerpoint presentation on Rohypnol...

Matt said...

I really liked the pilot. Victor Garber chews all of the scenery, and the other actors aren't great, but it's an interesting show. Much better than any of the CSI shows.

tvaddict20.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Justice was just blah. Not bad. Just whatever. Do we need another show like this? the whole FOX line up feels like its from 1995. Standoff. Vanished. Bones. Boring.