• Network: FOX
  • Series Premiere Date: Aug 30, 2006
User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 99 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 87 out of 99
  2. Negative: 9 out of 99

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. BrookS
    Sep 9, 2006
    2
    Slcik but totally empty. I was very put off by the hyperbolic glitz. All surface not substance.
  2. NCoste
    Sep 1, 2006
    3
    With so many forensic holes in the story, it's as if none of the producers ever saw an episode of Bruckhiemer's CSI. The cast is poorly directed, with Graves (the stiff Black lawyer) seems like a Green Beret who is ready, when his "captain" says "Appeal," he answers "How High?" Lastly, the "truth" tag was pedantic at best.
  3. DougS
    Sep 2, 2006
    3
    I felt like someone had hit me over the head with one of those cartoon mallet. Yes, Jerry, we get the point already. Your show is about a LA law firm that employs a "shadow jury" to help direct strategy during a criminal trial. So, how many clients does TNT+G have who (a) are accused of murder (b) can afford millions for legal representation where (c) the evidence is in dispute. I think I felt like someone had hit me over the head with one of those cartoon mallet. Yes, Jerry, we get the point already. Your show is about a LA law firm that employs a "shadow jury" to help direct strategy during a criminal trial. So, how many clients does TNT+G have who (a) are accused of murder (b) can afford millions for legal representation where (c) the evidence is in dispute. I think most multi-millionaires are NOT arresed on criminal charges - which is why the OJ trial was so unique. Who is this law firm going to represent for 22 cases a season, and how much do they really charge? Expand
  4. GordonT
    Sep 7, 2006
    2
    Im not sure why I even gave this show a "2". The acting is so over done and the script so lame a human could not have written it. I forced myself to watch the first show but last night I only lasted 15 minutes. I feel sorry for anyone who liked this garbage.
  5. MaryAliceH
    Sep 1, 2006
    3
    Completely unprofessional and unrealistic courtroom antics, preditable dialog, plus very manipulative emotionality, along with two-dimensional characters, adds up to a show I would not voluntarily watch again. Boston Legal is so much more interesting!! I am pretty disappointed in Bruckheimer - I expected the writing to be much better.
  6. AlanG
    Sep 7, 2006
    1
    The show is nothing more than a cartoonish piece of science fiction with wooden actors. The characters are totally unlikeable, the writing is plastic and all the glitz is a smokescreen for all the unreality the show portrays. Laughable at best. Unfortunately this will probably be hit like that other peice of junk CSI.
  7. StephP
    Sep 7, 2006
    2
    It's as cheesy as CSI Miami for the unreal stories and flashy gadgets, but at least they got Horatio Kane to make it funny and entertaining... Justice has no soul... Thank God Scrubs plays at the same time!! Zach Braff is a genius! Jerry should learn a few things from him in the lost art of TV entertainment!
  8. mayz
    Jan 31, 2007
    0
    Haven't they heard of steady cam. Gave me a rotten headache. Won't be watching this one again
  9. DanielG
    Sep 21, 2006
    0
    Seriously, the OVERacting on this show is terrible. This show tries WAY too hard. Great premise, terrible acting. Good to laugh at.
Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 27 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 27
  2. Negative: 4 out of 27
  1. 70
    At the root, this is essentially Perry Mason redux, only the vibe is less ’50s genteel murder mystery than 21st-century shock and awe.
  2. Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    70
    Jerry Bruckheimer's latest fun-to-watch procedural.
  3. All the bases are covered, and if that doesn't make for the most inventive show, it makes for a quite watchable one. [1 Sep 2006, p.61]