NOTE IMDb
6,6/10
1,5 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA legal drama that rips away the facade of suburbia to reveal that sometimes quiet streets can hide the darkest crimes.A legal drama that rips away the facade of suburbia to reveal that sometimes quiet streets can hide the darkest crimes.A legal drama that rips away the facade of suburbia to reveal that sometimes quiet streets can hide the darkest crimes.
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 3 nominations au total
Parcourir les épisodes
Avis à la une
This show is the most poorly produced/directed program to show up on a major network in years! All the hollow actors speak in monotones and appear to be reading their lines. The script is so dumb as to make you question whether this is not a satire from a certain late Saturday night program.
Our group, who watched it for the first time, endured 30 minutes before deciding it was indeed a serious attempt at entertainment but absolutely unwatchable. Click! How has Close to Home survived this long?
How can a program this bad survive this long? The American public may soon discover that reading books is preferable to this garbage.
Our group, who watched it for the first time, endured 30 minutes before deciding it was indeed a serious attempt at entertainment but absolutely unwatchable. Click! How has Close to Home survived this long?
How can a program this bad survive this long? The American public may soon discover that reading books is preferable to this garbage.
The fatal flaw in this show is that it does not even come close to accurately representing the criminal justice process. "Law & Order" remains the most accurate representation (though not perfect) of the procedural aspects of a criminal investigation and prosecution, albeit abbreviated. The first (and last) episode of "Close to Home" I watched last night (abusive husband who locks family in house) was ridiculously inaccurate.
1. Mom can't refuse to testify; 2. Mom can't prevent kids from testifying; 3. Recalcitrant witness (Mom) would be forced to testify and impeached with her original statements to police and D.A.; 4. Depositions are not taken in criminal proceedings; 5. Witness testimony is not excluded for failure to take deposition (see No. 3 above); 6. Prosecutors do not have perfect records, unless they cherry pick their cases, and even then, not likely; 7. Prosecutors with THAT solid of a case (such as last night's episode) do not plea bargain on threat of appeal by defense attorney; 8. Defense attorneys do not get to decide on whether to accept the plea deal. The defendant is the ONLY party that can accept or reject. Defense attorney is required to relay the offer (whether he/she agrees with it or not) and let the client decide. Last night's episode implied that defendant (husband) was convicted on his attorney's decision.
Yes, I realize it's a television show, but to wholly make up procedures and processes for the sake of drama is not necessary. The story last night was a great idea, and "Law & Order" would have done it justice without all of the fantasy. If this were a fantasy show, then I could accept the premise. However when the premise is "real life," then it falls flat.
1. Mom can't refuse to testify; 2. Mom can't prevent kids from testifying; 3. Recalcitrant witness (Mom) would be forced to testify and impeached with her original statements to police and D.A.; 4. Depositions are not taken in criminal proceedings; 5. Witness testimony is not excluded for failure to take deposition (see No. 3 above); 6. Prosecutors do not have perfect records, unless they cherry pick their cases, and even then, not likely; 7. Prosecutors with THAT solid of a case (such as last night's episode) do not plea bargain on threat of appeal by defense attorney; 8. Defense attorneys do not get to decide on whether to accept the plea deal. The defendant is the ONLY party that can accept or reject. Defense attorney is required to relay the offer (whether he/she agrees with it or not) and let the client decide. Last night's episode implied that defendant (husband) was convicted on his attorney's decision.
Yes, I realize it's a television show, but to wholly make up procedures and processes for the sake of drama is not necessary. The story last night was a great idea, and "Law & Order" would have done it justice without all of the fantasy. If this were a fantasy show, then I could accept the premise. However when the premise is "real life," then it falls flat.
I keep waiting for this show to turn into something worthwhile. It has a fine cast, fairly decent plot ideas, and deals with popular subject matter -- but continues to have no character development, plot holes large enough to drive a Mac truck through, and dialogue that falls flat. Since somebody went to the trouble to move it into a slightly more promising time slot (sure, Friday nights stink -- but not as badly as opposite Law and Order: SVU when you're going for the same audience!), I sure hope they go to the trouble to find some decent writers. It might also behoove them to get some legal advice. There is generally at least one large legal error in each script -- unforgivable, when dealing with an audience that considers itself fairly sophisticated.
This show is designed for a classic CBS audience, the same audience that watched Murder She Wrote and Cold Case. Unfortunately, it will have to improve greatly to maintain that audience.
This show is designed for a classic CBS audience, the same audience that watched Murder She Wrote and Cold Case. Unfortunately, it will have to improve greatly to maintain that audience.
Aren't there any writers out there who can come up with an original thought. This show is a rehash of so many other legal and cop shows using the same old scenarios. Tonight's was really original. A gang leader was on trial and the gang was threatening one of the witnesses. Gee that was really a first. Then the prosecuting attorney's child is missing from the school ground. Did the gang steal her - You think!? Is the "Bad" defending attorney in on the plot to eliminate witnesses? You think!? How boring. An hour I can never get back (actually 45 minutes - I turned it off) I would give this show a couple of more episodes and then it's off to the world of "My Mother, The Car" Look that one up folks. It was almost as plausible as "Close to Home"
Jennifer Finnigan is a good actress, but the banal, phony scripts on this show are way beneath her talent.
This is a show in which the characters don't speak dialogue that is true to their characters. The writers put lines into their mouths that they would never say.
The courtroom scenes are absurd. In a day of unbelievable courtroom testimony, this show is at the nadir. Attorneys sit passively and listen (in rapture?) to Annabel (Finnegan) emote.
What is most galling is that this promising show is failed by its trite writers.
Close to Home is Close to Hokum.
This is a show in which the characters don't speak dialogue that is true to their characters. The writers put lines into their mouths that they would never say.
The courtroom scenes are absurd. In a day of unbelievable courtroom testimony, this show is at the nadir. Attorneys sit passively and listen (in rapture?) to Annabel (Finnegan) emote.
What is most galling is that this promising show is failed by its trite writers.
Close to Home is Close to Hokum.
Le saviez-vous
- Citations
Steve Sharpe: You're taking money from a paralegal?
- ConnexionsReferenced in Les rois du Texas: Lost in MySpace (2008)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How many seasons does Close to Home have?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 16:9 HD
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant