• Network: FOX
  • Series Premiere Date: Sep 13, 2005
Season #: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 29
  2. Negative: 5 out of 29
  1. 88
    Boreanaz and Deschanel stir good chemistry as a crime-fighting duo.
  2. 88
    Bones isn't the riskiest or most ambitious series coming your way this season. But it may turn out to be one of the most satisfying and entertaining.
  3. 80
    The show's witty, inventive writing would be fun even in the hands of a less capable cast.
  4. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    80
    You might think you can't possibly fit one more crime-solving procedural onto an overcrowded calendar, but consider giving Bones a break.
  5. 75
    Besides the nifty, repressed romantic dynamic between Brennan and Booth, "Bones" has some fun with snazzy hologram visualizations of the murder victims in each case.
  6. Like CSI and its offshoots, Bones will take viewers to dark and sometimes disgusting places. So, in one sense, Fox may have come up with a format that will reach both men, who love unappetizing scenes, and women, because of the female heroine.
  7. 75
    Emily Deschanel is well cast as Brennan--she has the right sort of drained, remote presence, as if still working off last night's sleeping pill--and she's also well cast against David Boreanaz. [19 Sep 2005, p.45]
  8. Deschanel, who's believable either serious or perplexed -- and adorable in her quirkiness -- immediately becomes this series' most important ingredient.
  9. 70
    An engaging crime show that borrows plenty from the ''CSI" franchise but adds a layer of light character drama.
  10. While "Bones" has too much "X-Files" and "CSI" going in the pilot to feel completely original, it's nonetheless a taut, well-constructed, character-rich procedural with genuine potential.
  11. As science and as detection, Bones has a way to go before it's more than a bug in Grissom's Vegas eye. But the screwball romance is promising.
  12. If Bones holds up, it'll be because that old Sam-and-Diane, Maddie-and-David, Mulder-and-Scully opposites-attract stuff never feels standard when it's done right.
  13. 63
    In tonight's premiere of "Bones," for example, super-sleuth Temperance concludes from the young victim's bones that she was probably a tennis player -- a nifty conclusion, but one that has no bearing on the case. It's a factoid that leads nowhere, which is kind of where "Bones" goes in its premiere episode.
  14. There's a fine line between clever and labored, and "Bones" sometimes strays over that line with one-liners about skull fragments, blood samples, X-rays and microbes. That's where "see how cleverly we can banter" writing creeps into the otherwise crisp proceedings.
  15. Rather too slick for its own good.
  16. 60
    Deschanel exudes a luminous quality that elevates this grim, conventional show.
  17. The quality of the mystery in the pilot, no better than mediocre, is what keeps this series from starting off with a wider lead at the opening gun.
  18. It could use a little more dramatic meat on its predictable framework.
  19. Boreanaz and Deschanel have nice chemistry... but the script also tends to undermine its brighter moments with dialogue that repeats the exposition and the characters' defining traits over and over again.
  20. 40
    The scientific setup may be intriguing... But the dialogue, including the contrived sexual tension between Temperance and Seeley, is strictly canned and cutesy.
  21. It's an (occasionally) frothy mix -- comedic moments tumble into serious scenes of forensic examination -- that's not altogether terrible, but neither does it beg to be watched on a regular basis.
  22. "Bones" probably will remind more viewers of a cross between "CSI" and "The X-Files," except with more humorous banter than the first, and more romantic heat than the latter.
  23. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    40
    Deschanel comes off a little too much like a sorority girl rather than a scientist with missing-parent issues.
  24. A flimsy little procedural that uses logical and technological leaps of faith to hide its central problem: lack of co-star chemistry.
  25. Reviewed by: Roger Holland
    20
    Bones is a very poor cross between the X-Files and CSI with characters stolen from NCIS, plot devices from Veronica Mars, and topicality from Law & Order.
  26. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    20
    Memo to network execs planning an all-forensics programming slate for fall: Watching attractive people poke at skull fragments is not inherently interesting.
  27. 20
    The heroine, unlikely in every detail including her name, Temperance Brennan, goes about reassembling corpses and then divining how they got to be that way. It's precise, tedious work and so is watching this show.
  28. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    10
    It's as if we've all passed this way (many times) before and could write the dialogue, act the scenes, predict the outcome all in our sleep.
User Score
7.2

Generally favorable reviews- based on 255 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 84 out of 112
  2. Negative: 27 out of 112
  1. ToyB
    Aug 28, 2006
    10
    The character dynamics hook audiences, the dark humor appeals, the cases are well-thought out, and the acting is superb on all aspects.
  2. MargoB
    Aug 28, 2006
    10
    Talented cast, great chemistry, fun dialogue, the inspiration of Reichs, the talents of Hanson, character driven as opposed to the usual Talented cast, great chemistry, fun dialogue, the inspiration of Reichs, the talents of Hanson, character driven as opposed to the usual procedural, and the Boreanaz charm and talent are all the reasons I won't miss an episode! Full Review »
  3. Feb 14, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. This is used to be a show about scientists doing science, and Brennan's character being a believer in facts and evidence over faith in anything supernatural was central to this theme. The so-called epiphany she experiences in the latest episode (Shot in the Dark) along with the precedent of ghosts and psychics being verifiably real (Ghost in the Machine) goes against the every point of her character. More than that, it blatantly perpetrates the worst misconceptions about atheists: That not believing is the result of something 'being wrong' with the person; that atheists are cold, emotionless people who live unfulfilled lives devoid of any kind of warmth or happiness; that Brennan's non-belief has somehow limited her in her life, despite the fact that she's one of the most renowned and successful experts in her field.

    In the end, this episode, like so many before it, was nothing more than sloppy storytelling, lazy writing, and propaganda, plain and simple. And though I'm an atheist, I'm less offended by the (oh-so-common) prejudice against non-believers and more offended by the sheer absence of logical character behavior and progression.
    Full Review »