Accused

Having not watched an entire season of a network TV show since Fringe left the airwaves in 2013, I was excited for Accused. I figured that if any show could get me back to the traditional TV dial, it would be one created by Howard Gordon (he of 24 & Homeland fame). After a promising first three episodes (7/8 star quality), however, a slate of four below-5 star episodes by my ranking led me to jump ship and not continue watching.

For a very basic overview, Accused is an anthology show that tells a different court/trial-based story every week. It is not at all serialized (no carry-over from week to week) and features new guest stars every outing.

Like I said, the first three episodes definitely held my interest and had me hoping for continued improvement. Nothing groundbreaking, to be sure, but I could tell they were produced by talent that is largely beyond what is usually glimpsed on the major networks.

Unfortunately, the quality quickly devolved instead of gradually improved. It became readily apparent that each episode was simply picking a "social cause of the week" and sketching out a thinly-constructed court case based on that concept. Pablum for the most generic audience possible, in other words. There is very little intriguing exploration of the topic-at-hand.

I also believe that the 42-minute network window does Accused a great disservice and can potentially explain a lot of the weaknesses. By the time the writers establish a theme and flesh out a whole new set of characters, there is very little time remaining for meaningful thematic or character-driven analysis. In a genre-court-where emotional backstory is everything, this is a glaring weakness week-in and week-out.

So, despite really wanting to like/follow this show, I felt it becoming a chore to watch-the surest sign of needing to find other TV pastures.

This is an anthology series based on the premise of someone being charged with a crime...someone who really meant not to "harm"...but to "help."

The premise is interesting, and so far, I've only watched the first two stories. Now I must say...the first story...the pilot...I really liked. I found it interesting and thought provoking...questioning what a parent should do in such a horrible situation. Okay...so then I progressed onto the second story, and I was sort of "turned off." Without giving away any spoilers, I found the second story to be sort of trite, sappy and stupid. The law is the law. It shouldn't change for certain people just because of stupid dumb emotional reasons. Can you imagine if the law was really that malleable? What would even be the purpose of having it? So yea....second story? I know it's supposed to make viewers all "teary eyed" in a lame Hallmark sort of way, but sorry. It just sort of sucks.

Anyway, that's the deal. I think you'll like some of these stories and dislike others. Overall, though, the show is worth a look. I'm still going to watch the third story, because I'm just curious. Like I said...the show has a really good premise. It's thought- provoking and I applaud that. It's just.... I wish the writing (especially in the courtroom) wouldn't get so sappy and emotional when it is indeed, a show about the LAW. And, the law is the law, right?

I saw this on Hulu with no expectations I just watched it. I think the direction, writing and acting are spot on. I only watched the pilot, but I'm looking forward to new episodes. This is a tough story to digest and I was overwhelmed with emotions. I read reviews afterwards and think the few negative ones are clowns. I think the press reviews are pathetic. There's not a lot of great new movies and tv shows. Maybe this isn't the best, but it's better than a lot of new stuff airing today. Try it... you'll know in the first 10 minutes if you should finish or not. The commish gave a solid performance!

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)

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.