I mostly liked it; there were certainly enough telegraphed moments where you knew exactly what the courtroom drama stereotypes/loveable but kooky stereotypes demanded, but Kathy Bates is awfully good at what she does, and I really liked her character. I think I’ll be watching it again. You also have to love a show that starts out with the main character sitting at her corporate desk smoking pot, eating junk food, and watching cartoons. (Plus, she said “asshole” uncensored - woo!)
It wasn’t a great episode, but pilots often aren’t. Everything was a little too quirky, but that feeling will probably fade as I watch subsequent episodes. I actually planned to go to bed early, but found myself watching to the end, so that’s an endorsement.
I was thrown by the unbelievability of the shoes: Both that anyone would abandon tens of thousands of dollars worth of expensive merchandise, and that there’d be a shop for those brands in that neighborhood.
All in all, I’ll watch it again if nothing else is on. But on most Mondays, I’ll watch Castle.
My trusted TV critic (Tim Goodman) absolutely hated it. And he didn’t like Boston Legal (which I also didn’t like) so I’m willing to trust him and wait for a mass of popular support to convince me I should give it a try.
I think it was good enough to watch again. I second the “Kathy Bates is a good actor” comment. I was surprised the judge let Harry and the asshole prosecutor trade barbs for so long in the courtroom. I don’t know how realistic that is. All the other legal dramas I see have the judge put an end to that pretty quickly.
Both of the lawyers getting up on their soapboxes and holding forth about their ideas on legalizing drugs doesn’t seem very likely to me, either, but as with most shows on tv, I consciously suspend my disbelief.
I had to suspend my disbelief about the shoes, too - should we just assume that they are all stolen, and that’s why they were left there?
I mostly liked it. It’s a fun premise, and it’s always great to see Kathy Bates (has she has any other long roles on TV?).
A few rough spots:
It hasn’t quite gelled yet tonally. There are some very very silly moments (cut out Kathy Bates flying through the air) and some very serious or somber moments. Yes, I realize it’s a dramedy, but so far the comedy bits and drama bits are still feeling like parts of two different shows.
It might just be good acting, but Kathy Bates seems a little… worn and tired.
I guess I wasn’t paying enough attention, but I didn’t quite get who the secretary girl was supposed to be. When I first saw her in the hospital I thought she was the nurse. And then suddenly she’s working in the office. Also at the end they said someone was the paralegal - was that the girl, or did she hire the black kid to keep him out of trouble?
[quote=“Cat_Whisperer, post:1, topic:568139”]
(Plus, she said “asshole” uncensored - woo!) /QUOTE]
I know right! Has that been done before on network TV?
Both of those things crossed my mind too.
Have you liked any David E Kelly series? They tend to be somewhat similar. (L.A. Law , Picket Fences, Chicago Hope, The Practic, Ally McBeal, Boston Public)
It played slow. I looked at the clock and thought “well this should be about 5 min left of show” and it was only 25 min into it.
It was ok, so will give it another look at, but if it keeps on being so sanctimonious about everything and having all the clients really have good hearts, I will have to abandon it.
That scene, plus the one later with the young male lawyer going into histrionics, were so completely unrealistic that it pretty much ruined the show for me. I know it’s just tv, and I make allowances for that (I enjoyed Boston Legal, for instance, even though the courtroom scenes there were also not realistic), but the courtroom scenes in Harry’s Law were just absurd. I actually thought this show might be fun, but that’s it for me.
I only watched it because Kathy Bates was in it, and wasn’t reason enough. Mr. Kelley started too early with the Soap boxes and totally unrealistic court room antics. I’ll suspend disbelief if the plot is strong enough and the actors good enough. Even Kathy Bates had a hard time with that terrible script.
What really ticked me off was that it was supposed to be set in Cincinnati. But it turns out he just made up a city and called it Cincinnati (after all, all those cities in flyover country are the same). The neighborhood she’s supposed to be in (Over the Rhine) is not a nice as the set. An empty store front wouldn’t have an intact window let alone furniture and designer shoes. But contrary to the dialog the Cincy PD has no problems going there. Hell that whole area is maybe 30 square blocks. The hookers aren’t that pretty, drug deals are not quiet that obvious, the homeless don’t sleep in the open there and that section of the city is not at all integrated. You’d notice all this in 30 minutes of field research. But he couldn’t even be bothered to check a map for street names. The two he mentions don’t exist. Hell, his stock footage is taken from across the river in Kentucky and its over 5 years old.
From script to the setting Kelly put no work into this. He’s riding on his name, optioned a POS that as a resident of Cincinnati I find insulting. There are plenty of good stories to tell social services have been cut. Businesses are failing. People are falling through the cracks. There are plenty of real world battles to be fought by a tenacious underdog. To bad he couldn’t be bothered.
Maybe I missed something (my wife was watching this show - I was cleaning in the kitchen), but the guy who was offering "protection " later convinced the male lawyer that he (Mr. Protection) actually wanted to save and help the neighborhood, and he had ideals the lawyer should be fighting for.
The trouble is, his racket was presented as a classic protection racket, and there was nothing idealistic about it. Sure, he shot a robber, but people who run real life protection rackets do that because they don’t want it to appear that their protection isn’t worth paying for! I don’t get it - is next week’s show going to show how drug dealers and loan sharks are a benefit to the neighborhood because they are providing a needed service?
I liked it. I don’t expect a ton of realism from my tv, unless it’s a documentary or the news. I’ll watch it again. I’d never even heard of the show until last night btw.
I’ll watch anything with Kathy Bates in it. This show wasn’t great, but it was watchable enough to keep my attention. I wish David Kelley would stay off his soapbox, but that isn’t likely.
I liked the actors and their performances, but some parts made me groan. I think once it settles in, it could be a really great show and I’m going to give it that chance.
David Kelly actually lives on a soap box in a nice neighborhood in Malibu. I doubt he will be getting off it anytime soon, and I sort of like what he does while standing on it. Come on, after all those series you expect him to write differently now?
I thought Harry’s Law was pretty good - love Kathy Bates and, like all pilot episodes, this one needed to set up the characters and premise. We’ll see what happens in upcoming episodes.
The key to all David Kelly shows is “quirky” - you either buy into the premise and enjoy the liberal pontifications (which I do) or you don’t (which is why many of his shows don’t last more than a few seasons).
I gave it a shot last night. If that was the only channel that my TV received, I’d turn it off and pick up my book. Not good, especially from a seasoned TV veteran like David Kelly.
Quality aside, is Kathy Bates sick or something? I was starting to wonder if it’s in her contract that she shouldn’t be required to move very much, as if she has some physical malady. Most of her scenes involved her standing motionless, arms at her sides, or sitting in a chair behind the defense table or her desk. Just curious.
(Plus, she said “asshole” uncensored - woo!)