(S01E01) This show seems like a regular Jerry Bruckheimer, over-the-top procedural right up until the end, doesn't it? Just like on every version of CSI, the attorneys on Justice have all the coolest bells and whistles to help them do their jobs. Only this time, there's a twist at the end. We spend an hour watching a team of attorneys spin a case in their favor... and then we get to see what really happened. I want to know what evil genius conceived of this show and I want to simultaneously shake his/her hand and slap his/her face for suckering me into an hour of television every Wednesday night. 'Cuz I'm hooked.
This pilot was gripping, wasn't it? Sure, sure... there was a little overacting on the part of, um, everybody. But hopefully they'll sink deeper into their characters as the series charges on. Speaking of the characters, let's critique, shall we?
Ron Trott-T (Victor Garber). I love the idea of a ruthless attorney who can't try cases because juries hate him. I can see something happening in the future where one of his teammates gets caught in traffic or something and he ends up having to address the jury. He's like House, but in a law firm instead of a hospital. And he uses his powers for evil by exploiting the American judicial system. I also like how he assumes the worst about people, for instance, he automatically questions whether his client is on crack.
Tom Nicholson-N (Kerr Smith). It's going to take me a little time to get past Kerr Smith as a high-powered attorney who gets to try major cases. He doesn't look a day older than he did when he played Jack on Dawson's Creek. The man does not age... how does this kid have his name as part of a law firm? Anyway, I like that he's actually a good guy and he has to believe in his client in order to do a good job defending them. And that it's seen as a weakness. Is there a sexual past with him and Alden Tuller? She nodded at him when she mentioned ex-boyfriends.
Alden Tuller-T (Rebecca Mader). I recognize her from somewhere and her IMDB resume isn't helping. I swear I saw her play a vampire in some movie (Bram Stoker's Dracula?). Anyway, she's the accident recreation specialist and she works with kid gloves. She is an expert at making science nerds speak English. She's nice and patient, while Trott is pushy and without tact.
Luther Graves-&G (Eamonn Walker). I get the feeling he likes the challenge of getting a guilty man off. He's pushy just like Trott, but in a much more respectful way. We don't get to know him very well in this episode, but I get the feeling that each of these supporting characters will get their storylines as the series plays on.
The Story. Super smart story to open a series: a wealthy man's wife dies and the media tries and convicts him. Unless you live under a rock, you've seen this happen in many, many forms (sometimes the media is right, sometimes it's wrong). It's so great to be on the other side of the story, isn't it? Coming from someone who has watched a lot of Law & Order, it's nice to see a show where a defense attorney isn't villified and people aren't acting for the good of man. Not sure if that's going to fly with a larger audience since Americans tend to root for the good guys, but we'll see.
I think the extreme tactics employed by the defense attorneys before and during the trial are entertaining. They have all sorts of technology that helps them recreate the accident and scan thousands of pages of paper for key words... but my favorite tactic of theirs was the dummie jury. How can a prosecutor even compete with that? The attorneys change their approach and tidy up their defendant based on comments from a 'jury' of people watching the trial in the law firm. Damn. No wonder these high-powered lawyers are so expensive!
As the attorneys made their way through their own defense case, I started to question whether their defendant was truly innocent. This is some good writing-- there are so many things happening at once here, yet it's all easy to follow. As I mentioned at the beginning, the best part of this show is the end where we get to see what really happened. In this case, the attorneys correctly recreated the accident scene. They were right! I can't wait to see them be way wrong and get a guilty person off or, worse yet, send an innocent person to jail. The last few seconds of the show is worth the hour on the couch.
Other thoughts. I think what's most interesting about this show is that it's not so much an attack on the justice system, as it is an attack on the American media. It seems to take aim at Nancy Grace in particular, by having a younger, less annoying and much more attractive woman anchor a Court show... but with the same guilty-as-charged attitude as Grace. Garber has a great line that (I think) explains this series, "When I started, it was about knowing the law. Now it's about knowing the law and the press. The jury that's going to decide your case is out there and they're watching." Loved the scene where Ron Trott goes on television simply to test their defense with a focus group.
The only complaint I have with this pilot is the opening credits sequence. God, that sucked. It looked like something the editors from CSI threw together at the last minute. I think all the scenes used in the open were from the pilot.
TV Squad Ten: Top Ten ESPN shows from worst to first
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-31-2006 @ 3:07AM
Susan J said...
I loved the show but think that all of the attorneys missed a few points. If the victim was thought by the DA to have been hit a total of 5 times - but everything radiated out of two areas, why not have the defense demonstrate that it is virtually impossible for someone with a golf club to be that accurate? No way you can hit the exact same spot 3 times in a row or even two times in a row to make those wounds, which is what would have had to happen under their theory. Secondly, the husband could have easily pushed her into the pool after she slipped and banged her head - crime of opportunity. Or even pushed her into the walls and edge of the pool. Or just sat and watched and refuse to pull her out. But that would have muddied up the either/or choices for the dramatic effect. And of course, you can't have a guilty client in the pilot episode, can you? I am looking forward to seeing more of the show, though.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 7:57AM
eugene said...
i didn't watch this show, but from the recap, the structure sounds a lot like that show that lasted like 3 eps last year about juries. where you see the trial from the eyes of the jury. you go into their deliberations. then verdict, then the last bit of the show they show if the jury was right or wrong...
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:13AM
BobbyBuz said...
Did anyone catch all the OJ innuendos the defense team spun at the very beginning of the show?
The "show the viewers" segment at the end was basically an exact real life depiction of the CGI re-enactment.
I thought Garber's character was a bit "over the top" with his arrogance and pomposity.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:32AM
will said...
i have to agree that the opening credits looked like something from 1995. didn't like them at all. some things might have been over the top, but i enjoyed it more than I thought i would. maybe it's just that i like victor garber a lot. i know it's another crime drama but i was glad not to have to see a dna test or fingerprint matching in a lab. i'm going to keep watching, hopefully they'll continue to smooth out the rough spots.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:37AM
ryan said...
I was definitely "WTF"'d about the opening credits, but the shows is fast-paced, interesting, overdramatic (but then again, what show isn't?), and interesting. Did I say it was interesting? Garber is a terrific actor; I'm just waiting to see more in-depth looks on the other characters. Another Jerry Buckheimer hit.
Oh, and was anyone else 100% convinced he was guilty?
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:42AM
matt said...
The only saving point for the opening credits was a remixed version of of Warren Zevon's song Lawyers, Guns & Money.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:51AM
Chris said...
I was thinking that there'd be a possibility that he'd get off and then we'd see what really happened is that he did kill his wife. Would have been a twist. Would have been a statement about the judicial system. But it would have pissed too many viewers off too early.
Over the top? I say just right. Telling a story that spans several months in one hour needs to be intense. There shouldn't be anything slow about it. Think about 24... lots of over the top stuff there, but they pull it off quite well.
Good show... makes "Vanished" look like a soap opera...
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:51AM
Chris said...
Oh yeah, and I agree with the opening sequence discussion. How did that thing get past test audiences? Or did it even get shown. Slowed down the show significantly. A show like that needs nothing more than a title against a black background, so they can get back into the show. Did it remind anyone of the 90210 opening?
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 9:52AM
Jake said...
Great show -- but I think its important to note that each episode is self containted -- it's not a continuing story like vanished or kidnapped -- which might interest more people to take a look. Wed at 9 on Fox.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 11:22AM
Misty said...
Garber came off like a comedian impersonating William Shatner. I couldn't take it, and changed over to watch coverage of Ernesto on the Weather Channel.
At least THAT blowhard had a purpose.
:)
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 11:30AM
Greg said...
Garber was way over the top. He actually might be the reason this show flops. He's annoying and really doesn't fit into the team. The other three seem to have the same personalities and then he offsets that bigtime and it doesn't work. He comes off as the blow hard who takes cradit for everyone elses work. I didn't like that.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 12:17PM
Lynda said...
I knew from the ads I had been seeing, leading up to this premiere, I would like this show. After seeing it I Love this show. I am a big fan of the legal type shows and have read authors like John Grisham for years. Way to go Fox on Wednesdays we have Bones(excellent by the way) and now Justice to watch.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 12:27PM
Jimmy said...
I thought the show was great. It would be nice if the networks could come up with something else besides legal-themed dramas, but when their good like Justic I'm OK with it. I agree Kerr Smith is hard to take as a high-priced defense attorney. The show definately has potential and I like that you don't really know the truth of the crime until the end; although, I think this will be the most difficult part of the series to maintain. Sometimes, you just KNOW who the bad guy is. Keeping things jumping and original will not be easy for a weekly show. Here's another question: who's bright idea was it to give Victor Garber the bad die job? I mean, he was totally grey on Alias; now we have black hair with touches of grey? Does not look good on him. Justice is going to have somke stiff competition when all the networks role out their new season, but this is FOX.
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 1:14PM
Steven said...
www.justiceforums.net
Reply
8-31-2006 @ 4:01PM
chris said...
I tuned in because the promos looked interesting. I honestly thought I would be tuning out after 15 minutes because it was goong to be a piece of shit like "Vanished". I was pleasantly surprised how good it was. It was slick, flashy, and the story moved briskly. And I liked Victor Garber. He was a bit over-the-top, but I bet James Woods will chew more scenery when "Shark" premieres.
Reply
9-05-2006 @ 10:37PM
Bruce said...
Since this is a part of what I do for a living - I thought the main weak point was that they tried to show too damn many parts of what we do - all at once. But if the ocus more indepth on the way this new generation of trial prep is fundamentally altering the legal system - it could get very interesting. It's a bout time a show gave me too much - rather than too little - now they just need to tune it a bit.
Reply