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

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
    You might think you can't possibly fit one more crime-solving procedural onto an overcrowded calendar, but consider giving Bones a break.
  5. Deschanel, who's believable either serious or perplexed -- and adorable in her quirkiness -- immediately becomes this series' most important ingredient.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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]
  9. 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.
  10. 70
    An engaging crime show that borrows plenty from the ''CSI" franchise but adds a layer of light character drama.
  11. 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.
  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. 60
    Deschanel exudes a luminous quality that elevates this grim, conventional show.
  15. Rather too slick for its own good.
  16. 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.
  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. 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.
  19. It could use a little more dramatic meat on its predictable framework.
  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. "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.
  22. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Deschanel comes off a little too much like a sorority girl rather than a scientist with missing-parent issues.
  23. 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.
  24. Reviewed by: Roger Holland
    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.
  25. Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    Memo to network execs planning an all-forensics programming slate for fall: Watching attractive people poke at skull fragments is not inherently interesting.
  26. 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.
  27. A flimsy little procedural that uses logical and technological leaps of faith to hide its central problem: lack of co-star chemistry.
  28. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    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

Generally favorable reviews- based on 241 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 83 out of 110
  2. Negative: 26 out of 110
  1. Apr 6, 2013
    This program is very good. When i saw this program for the first I was fall in love with it, such a good plot and stuff. Great cast and every time great stories. A must-see program for you and you're children. Full Review »
  2. Feb 27, 2013
    Forensic anthropologist Dr Temperance Brennan (Deschanel) is regularly called in by law enforcement to assist on murder investigations thanks to her ability to find clues left behind in the victims bones. On one such occasion she is teamed with Special Agent Booth (Boreanaz) who quickly releases just how useful her insights can be in helping him solve cases.

    Make no mistake about it Bones falls very much into that most overcrowded of genres, the crime procedural, as each weeks sees the pair solve a new case. The chemistry between the two leads, while not up to that of Castle and Beckett, certainly helps to keep things humorous and generally enjoyable but as is so often happens with this genre the case of the week formula prevents any real plot development over the course of the series. As a result it is difficult to describe Bones as 'must see' TV and, me for at least, will only ever be a show I watch when there is nothing else on.
    Full Review »
  3. Feb 14, 2013
    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 »