O Acusado

Jimmy McGovern's original series was brilliantly written to expose the vagaries of UK law, where people who didn't fit into societal norms but had no intention to harm found themselves up in court and were sentenced/released due to the strict definitions and sentencing guidelines of a particular crime, whether they deserved it or not

It was a plea for a sense of humanity expected of a legal system which found people guilty or innocent based on what most people would call a technicality.

Technicalities in law can work to vindicate the powerful and to punish the meek, but this US series seems to take the entire concept of justice to a different place where good always triumphs.

It's just not very exciting to watch an episode where the conclusion is so easily predictable.

My advice would be to watch the original BBC series which was far more thought provoking than this.

(This review written after watching the first two episodes, FYI)

This show "Accused" is reminiscent of the television series "Motive" where each episode reveals the killer and the victim at the beginning; and the rest of the episode details the ongoing investigation. In this show we start with an "accused" and then go back in time through the events that lead up to why the person is "accused." The pacing is similar along with limited use of music and the type of camera angles and relatively lengthy film shots.

What it doesn't have is the same detectives investigating and solving the cases so there is no one to relate to as new characters and situations are introduced in each episode.

This new show is an American version of the British TV series that ran from 2010-2012. The stories are so predictable, you can clearly see that they are designed like soap operas, meaning all they do is tug at your emotions and have little realism. Not worth watching. What's more the writers have no idea what takes place in a courtroom. The TV lawyers are dummies and never respond to anything said by the prosecution. You know where each how is going, and the stories are just so over the top ridiculous to believe you have to wonder if a 14-year-old wrote them. Thought this would be a better show, maybe I am better off to watch the original British series because this version is way too stupid for me, and I am sure others will feel the same way.

I love that this show isn't afraid to tackle some controversial topics. The first episode had me interested the entire time. Not once did I check my phone. And I liked that the episode wasn't afraid to talk about the "other side" of a topic that can be very sensitive in nature. I know for myself when something like what's depicted at the end of that show happens, I like a lot of people (I think) automatically express sympathy for the victims and place blame on those responsible. And if the perpetrator is a kid, I automatically want to blame his or her parents. This show depicts the point of view of the parents in that situation and what is like to know that your child could possibly cause that kind of harm. Very interesting. Acting wasn't great and the episode moved way too fast. Could've easily turned this into a movie cause there was a lot of storyline to coed.

So far, so good! I like the time shifting style of storytelling when it's done right and Accused has the right mix of backstory foreshadowing and current trial drama. I've liked Michael Chiklis ever since The Shield so it's good to see him back in the first story.

It begins with Scott's Story. A brain surgeon, Chiklis, suspects his son may be planning a violent school attack. It shows some back story of his son's troubled life and how denial can give way to horrible realizations.

Overall, Accused looks like a good new drama with a formula that works. Every story is different and viewers should enjoy the parade of talented actors chosen to tell the variety of tales that all end up in a courtroom.