It is bad enough to rip off most of Mark Twain's Prince and the Pauper content, but where Mark Twain was tweaking the noses of the British (a popular theme during his time), the script writer were tweaking the noses of the American viewers. Stereotyping British upper class has become so passe that it has become insulting to viewers on both sides of the "pond," as well as the weak-kneed Willy who can't ask the woman he loves to marry him, whom, by the way, is too caught up with her own world to listen. The dialogue was morose; acting: Connolly was fun to watch; Hewitt needed more cleavage (in both respects); and Meyer's screen time could have been deleted. My children rating: boring.
Reviews
3 Reviews
CSI: NY
(2004–2013)
This spin-off should have been left on the drawing board.
10 August 2005
First, this review is no offense to New Yorkers (the City), for I have had much pleasurable interactions with many New Yorkers. But, New York City has a number of stereotype depictions that seems exasperated by this spin-off.
The cases by themselves are unique and different from the original series. This is the one positive aspect of the show, as the "Metropolis" does offer different crime situations from that of Las Vegas.
But why did the writers deviate from a formula that worked in the original series with the characters? First, they are cast in very wooden roles; they lack that three-dimensional aspect that makes the viewer even care. I have reviewed nearly an entire season, hoping that I would learn something about the two main characters, and I have yet to accept them other than cold and retractable. There is no personal interaction that makes them endearing either to each other or the audience. It's like they go through the motions and end up solving the case. Whoopee! If this series is going to survive, then the writers need to go back to the drawing board and revive the formula that worked originally. In other words, we need to see "feet of clay" that all human beings have and see them other than walking computers programmed with a vast knowledge of forensic science and detective skills.
The cases by themselves are unique and different from the original series. This is the one positive aspect of the show, as the "Metropolis" does offer different crime situations from that of Las Vegas.
But why did the writers deviate from a formula that worked in the original series with the characters? First, they are cast in very wooden roles; they lack that three-dimensional aspect that makes the viewer even care. I have reviewed nearly an entire season, hoping that I would learn something about the two main characters, and I have yet to accept them other than cold and retractable. There is no personal interaction that makes them endearing either to each other or the audience. It's like they go through the motions and end up solving the case. Whoopee! If this series is going to survive, then the writers need to go back to the drawing board and revive the formula that worked originally. In other words, we need to see "feet of clay" that all human beings have and see them other than walking computers programmed with a vast knowledge of forensic science and detective skills.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
(2000–2015)
I was hooked from the first episode.
10 August 2005
Well written, I have followed this series from the first episode and have definitely added it to my library.
What works for this series are the characters. The plots are interesting, but it is the actors who really bring this series across. They are personable; I like checking in with the characters because you want to care. The writers also seem to care: they fleshed out these characters into three-dimensions. Each character has strengths and weaknesses that really make them human, something that the spin-offs have sadly neglected to the point of "Who Cares?" The science behind CSI comes in a close second as I actually learn something as well. I have often felt that the sharing of forensic techniques might complicate future police work (perhaps 15 percent), but deep down, if more people learn about the value of evidence, it may prevent crime (another 15 percent) but also teach people how to preserve evidence from contamination.
What works for this series are the characters. The plots are interesting, but it is the actors who really bring this series across. They are personable; I like checking in with the characters because you want to care. The writers also seem to care: they fleshed out these characters into three-dimensions. Each character has strengths and weaknesses that really make them human, something that the spin-offs have sadly neglected to the point of "Who Cares?" The science behind CSI comes in a close second as I actually learn something as well. I have often felt that the sharing of forensic techniques might complicate future police work (perhaps 15 percent), but deep down, if more people learn about the value of evidence, it may prevent crime (another 15 percent) but also teach people how to preserve evidence from contamination.
Tell Your Friends