Irracional: A Ciência do Crime

I was excited to start watching this new show as the preview clips were pretty good. It started out fine but halfway through seemed to be very predictable as far as the plot goes. Was nice to see Lauren Holly in it but she obviously looks different with all the work she has had.

I was really liking it until the scene where killer and he were outside chatting at their vehicles. When the guy pulled out the gun - it was a bit strange because he hadn't yet been accused. Then they drive around and get in a car crash? I mean c'mon, that's the best the writers could do? I'll watch next episode and see.

It's a standard police procedural case of the week, thin season plot deal.

Jessie of flash fame, plays it straight, this role is a bit different from his joe cop / dad / humble guy.

It's ticking all the boxes of classic tropes and cliches, nothing really new or special but it's off to a good start for watchable police drama that isn't cringe or too dumb.

I would compare this show to will trent with out the darker tone, it's light enough not to be icky but tackles the psycological angle over the tried and tested police / law enforcement.

It's probably could be linked to the other / many non police consultant solves crime shows, but this is show isn't white washed it's taking the minority / black / coloured route.

Review stuff : well acted, well directed, writting is acceptable ( run of the mill ). Edited well, and smooth transitions.

It is always great to see academics utilized for a television show, but this a shallow version compared to Numb3rs. That show had depth in storyline, characters, and overall purposes.. Numb3rs actually educated and presented storylines involving critical thought, philosophy, personal psychological and even spiritual growth. This show barely delivers anything on behavior psychology, the supporting characters drift by , and half way into the show I wasn't really sure what the episode was about.

Jessie Martin does a fine job with what he has to work with, but he is so much better than others that it is notable. Martin has no buddy smart guy to riff off of, and the others mumble their meaningless lines.

Too many tropes in this show to enumerate. There's the brilliant college proffessor who does this crime-fighting thing as a sideline. Of course he has a dark past with some damage, in this rare case visible to the naked eye. He drives an oddball car that stands out. He is well respected by his (naturally) ex-wife and students, but not so much by other professionals in various disciplines. And on, and on, and on.

This thing is kinda predictable, like a not-well-written Columbo episode with the clowns all dropping their hints flat on the floor in front of the audience -- and the coppers. I don't think I'll have the patience to struggle through another episode of this show. The first one was enough to turn me away.

Conclusion: not terrible, but not good either. I just don't have the time in my limited entertainment budget to waste on bland pate like this.

It's predictable, simple and somewhat interesting. The expected jokes and one liners about cops and murder cases done in a light and cheery atmosphere perfectly suited for a television audience.

The characters and actors are generally competent in portraying the subject matter and the baddies are of the usual made for tv genre.

This is the show that could go on for 2-3 seasons, letting out tidbits every now and then in order to solve an underlying case involving the main character. Overall it's just an average show, with no shocking or big reveals.

It is not serious enough of a cop show to hold my interest and this reminds me of the series Unforgettable with a woman and a her photographic memory. The interesting bits just are not enough to carry the entire show.

5/10 as there is little else to go on besides the main character and his story. A one and done for me.

Please don't mention Dan Ariely in your reviews about subjects involving psychology. He is a confirmed fraud, multiple times, with none of his experiments being repeatable. I was a fan; but who knew that in order to have counterintuitive experiment results you had to fudge all the data????