"Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" Appearances (TV Episode 2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
Not what it appears
TheLittleSongbird22 October 2020
This was a brave subject to tackle. Of all the subjects of Season 4, "Appearances" has one of the braver and one of the most controversial subjects of a season full of them. 'Law and Order: Special Victims Unit' was no stranger to bold and difficult topics and continued to do tackle plenty long after this. This topic could have gone either way though in execution. It could have been harrowing, gripping and sympathetically done. Or it could have been heavy-handed, too strange and too heavy on the smut.

"Appearances" thankfully is an example of the former. It is not an easy watch, then again when reading the synopsis and if familiar with 'Special Victims Unit' beforehand one expects it to not be an easy watch. It made me very sad. It also made me very angry, not at the quality of the episode but the shocking events that would make anybody sickened. It also educated me, with saying a lot of illuminating things about a subject there was not much prior knowledge about. While not quite as great as the previous episode "Desperate", "Appearances" is nonetheless great with many noteworthy qualities.

Very little to criticise here. While it is very interesting and well done and will evoke much debate, the ending for me was a little on the rushed side.

However, everything else is done brilliantly. The production values, especially the intimate photography, are stylish and slick with a brighter and more refined look, while maintaining the show's grit. The music doesn't overbear and is not overused. The direction keeps things moving well while letting the drama breathe.

Despite the script having, as usual for 'Special Victims Unit' and for the 'Law and Order' franchise, a good deal of talk, it never felt rambling and it was talk that held the attention, made me think hard afterwards, educated me and induced a lot of emotions. The story never felt too simple or confused and handled the subject in a pull no punches, very shocking yet tasteful way, luckily it doesn't get too smutty which it easily could have done considering the sleaziness of the subject. A subject that may be controversial but there shouldn't be much here that would cause controversy. The episode is courtroom heavy, which is not a bad thing as the courtroom scenes in prime-'Special Victims Unit' were done wonderfully.

Characterisation is spot on lead and supporting, with character interaction that is always genuine and never static. Did appreciate that it didn't try to lean too heavily on one side and tried to see it from more than one perspective when talking of the case's moral dilemmas. The performances are very good all round.

Overall, great. 9/10
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Protecting the right to smut
bkoganbing27 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This episode marked the first appearance of Stephanie March's old law professor John Cullum as Barry Moredock who defended some pretty sleazy clients because of First Amendment issues. Later on Cullum was made a judge. In this story he's defending internet smut peddler Brian Kerwin on a charge he facilitated the murder of a young beauty queen.

Not an easy case to prove because Kerwin used virtual images of child porn hence there are no victims involved on his end of it. What he did do was bombard Eric Thal who presumably was chemically castrated until he went off the meds and raped and killed the 9 year old girl.

Does the fact that Thal requested over and over to be dropped from the e-mail list of this company and was still getting the porn constitute responsibility for Kerwin. That's what Cullum will argue when the case comes for appeal. I know I get a lot of spam as I'm sure everyone of you readers do and some of that is sexual in content.

Thal plead guilty and testified at Kerwin's trial. Will the First Amendment allow Kerwin's conviction to stand? One wonders.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed