L'audacieux et séduisant Docteur Bull mêle psychologie, intuition humaine et haute technologie pour comprendre comment pensent les jurés, les avocats, les témoins et les accusés.L'audacieux et séduisant Docteur Bull mêle psychologie, intuition humaine et haute technologie pour comprendre comment pensent les jurés, les avocats, les témoins et les accusés.L'audacieux et séduisant Docteur Bull mêle psychologie, intuition humaine et haute technologie pour comprendre comment pensent les jurés, les avocats, les témoins et les accusés.
- Prix
- 2 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Sommaire
Reviewers say 'Bull' garners mixed sentiments. Many commend Michael Weatherly's performance and the show's unique premise. Positive feedback highlights engaging plots, good writing, and interesting characters. However, some criticize inconsistencies in character development, particularly for Dr. Bull. Complaints also arise about formulaic episodes and unrealistic legal portrayals. Viewers note dissatisfaction with the show's evolving tone and focus, feeling it lost initial charm and became predictable. Despite these issues, many still find 'Bull' enjoyable and worth watching.
Avis en vedette
The show goes on and on about what a genius Dr. Bull is with psychology and jury science and then every single case is won by his investigators finding evidence. It's just another run-of-the-mill court drama show that throws psychology terms around like glitter to make it look flashier.
I watched and somewhat enjoyed this show for the first 3 and a half seasons. The individual episodes are fine. They tell a story, Bull always wins for whichever side hires him, and the following week they start all over again. That's the problem. That and the utter lack of character development. I need the latter to enjoy any show I watch. However, if the former is all you need to enjoy a show, then by all means, enjoy this one. Each episode is a one off and taken individually, they're pretty much 7 star good. It's just not my thing.
8ZinQ
Every other case now deals with a friend or family member. Boring and lazy writing. Basically they are piling up in my recorded file and are going unwatched.
Despite the rush of people on IMDb who seem strangely desperate to trash this new show; I personally, as a fan of procedural crime dramas and team "puzzle of the week" shows like House M.D, really quite enjoy Bull so far. The first episode had an intriguing premise, the second episode built up the team members' characters enough to at least make them likable, and I think Michael Weatherly is enjoying the role massively and it shows in his winning performance. The psychological aspect of the show is something I don't think we see enough of on television in general and even if some of it is pumped up into quick, flashy computer bites, it still aids the story which is really all it's meant to do. As shows in their infancy go, I think this one is off to a promising start. Bull is a well-shot bit of interesting fun and I will definitely keep watching!
''Bull'' doesn't reflect the cynical, violent vibe we usually get in 2010s shows. By its spirit, it belongs to early 00s or late 90s. With the shows of that era, it shares both its strenghts and its weaknesses.
The strenghts are idealism, friendship, romance and heartwarming optimism. And the weaknesses are its overly formulaic episodes and rather simple solutions to complicated problems.
I would say that the strenghts overcome weaknesses. It is a contemporary blast from the past, but one that makes you feel good and think about morality and humanity.
The strenghts are idealism, friendship, romance and heartwarming optimism. And the weaknesses are its overly formulaic episodes and rather simple solutions to complicated problems.
I would say that the strenghts overcome weaknesses. It is a contemporary blast from the past, but one that makes you feel good and think about morality and humanity.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn December 2018, the New York Times reported that Eliza Dushku was allegedly fired from her role on Bull after confronting Michael Weatherly regarding "jokes" about rape, spanking, and threesomes that he told her or directed toward her on the set. His behavior set the tone for other cast and crew members, who also started to make harassing comments to Dushku. Though Dushku cooperated in a mediation process with CBS, the company tried to sabotage her story: Mark Engstrom, the chief compliance officer at CBS, supplied to investigators some filming outtakes that he thought would be damning to Dushku because they showed her using curse words. Instead, this strategy backfired on CBS, because the outtakes clearly showed some of the instances of harassment and verified Dushku's version of events. Engstrom and other CBS executives were unable to recognize what he saw on the outtakes as harassment; the Times reported that the investigation determined that the company's failure to recognize the instances of harassment caught on tape was a symptom of larger problems at CBS. After that, CBS paid Dushku a $9.5 million settlement in return for her silence. Dushku honored that agreement; the New York Times discovered the story not from Dushku but from their research into the larger investigation into CBS's handling of sexual harassment in the wake of Les Moonves's firing.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Bull have?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant