American cop procedural focus on the glitz action bombast. That's why I usually prefer Brit cop shows for interesting plots. They understate the gore but often have too intricate plots that risk losing the audience without periodic explanations. Not a capital crime but annoying. This one has 1) detectives following emotional hunches and leads instead of procedure, 2) shoddy interview techniques including badgering and leading the interviewees, 3) acting surprised or indignant when the slick defense attorney calls them on it. There are few Aha! Moments for the viewer because we're kept current at every step. No denouement near the end to clear things up.
Reviews
26 Reviews
Formulaic, So Far
17 September 2022
I'm streaming Season 1 in order and this is my first review. There are some consistencies here between episodes 1-4. The storylines are reduced to "Just the facts ma'am," as Sgt Joe Friday used to say. They take a complicated case and reduce it down to a series of clips of evidence revelations, suspect interviews, field actions, witness confrontations. The result is it seems all to fit within a day, two at the max. So far, no tedious shoe leather work or stakeouts, none of the boring but essential police work we've come to expect. Episodes are like the Cliff Notes of the real stories.
Consistency #2. It's never who you think it will be. The stories are so filled with characters - maybe like real life, maybe excessive - that provide a large group of peripheral entanglements. The detectives winnow their way through evidence and suspect accounts and witness accounts and CCTV and forensic reports to give the viewers an ongoing account of the current case status as it evolves. The trail is invariably tangled but our main protagonists muddle through with police experience, and intuition, and dumb luck. And just when the viewer thinks we know the culprit, a revelation takes us in a different direction.
Consistency #3. Those interviews down at the station are rough! The officers get away with a lot more snark and leading questions and badgering than would hold up in the States. And a lot more, "How do you explain THAT?" (bit of incriminating evidence) than any competent attorney would allow. The answer should always be, "It's your job, not mine, to explain the evidence!" BTW - the solicitors seem to be show pieces without any role other than to suggest the interviewees have counsel present. Like Vanna White turning letters only with less action and no letters. Occasionally the barrister will jot a note to show life.
Consistency #4. You cannot escape the long arm of the law. We always get our man or woman. No sense in lying to us or withholding evidence or bits of the story. We'll get you, no matter what. We usually know the answers to our questions and are just trying to catch you in a lie.
Consistency #5. There is no wrap up. No denouement to summarize and clarify for viewers at the end. If you fell asleep for that critical bit, go back and rewatch it. Fade to credits and onto the next episode.
It has a sense of superficiality. That might be a directorial artistic choice. The plot marches along at a rapid pace of inevitability. One final quibble: I'm a yank who fears missing a critical piece due to slang or my own stupidity, so I watch with subtitles. They are slightly delayed from the spoken dialog, which is distracting.
Consistency #2. It's never who you think it will be. The stories are so filled with characters - maybe like real life, maybe excessive - that provide a large group of peripheral entanglements. The detectives winnow their way through evidence and suspect accounts and witness accounts and CCTV and forensic reports to give the viewers an ongoing account of the current case status as it evolves. The trail is invariably tangled but our main protagonists muddle through with police experience, and intuition, and dumb luck. And just when the viewer thinks we know the culprit, a revelation takes us in a different direction.
Consistency #3. Those interviews down at the station are rough! The officers get away with a lot more snark and leading questions and badgering than would hold up in the States. And a lot more, "How do you explain THAT?" (bit of incriminating evidence) than any competent attorney would allow. The answer should always be, "It's your job, not mine, to explain the evidence!" BTW - the solicitors seem to be show pieces without any role other than to suggest the interviewees have counsel present. Like Vanna White turning letters only with less action and no letters. Occasionally the barrister will jot a note to show life.
Consistency #4. You cannot escape the long arm of the law. We always get our man or woman. No sense in lying to us or withholding evidence or bits of the story. We'll get you, no matter what. We usually know the answers to our questions and are just trying to catch you in a lie.
Consistency #5. There is no wrap up. No denouement to summarize and clarify for viewers at the end. If you fell asleep for that critical bit, go back and rewatch it. Fade to credits and onto the next episode.
It has a sense of superficiality. That might be a directorial artistic choice. The plot marches along at a rapid pace of inevitability. One final quibble: I'm a yank who fears missing a critical piece due to slang or my own stupidity, so I watch with subtitles. They are slightly delayed from the spoken dialog, which is distracting.
Van der Valk
(2020–2023)
It's pretty hard to watch
26 August 2022
If I wanted to watch a self-important cop who's always smarter than all coworkers, who berates them for being dull tools (which they're not), who eschews good police protocols in favor of hunches that are never wrong, who always notices an inconspicuous clue that turns out to be important in spite of forensics covering the crime scene, who rarely shares a thought process with the team and leaves them hanging on his every word, and who thinks that bluster substitutes for caution, I could watch "Vera." Van der Valk is the latest male version of Vera, minus calling people "pet"and "dear." The stories are complex with intertwined subplots and many characters designed to confuse viewers and convince us that Smiley is a taciturn genius. If you like that sort of thing, watch this series.
Cute but forced
21 February 2022
It's cute and wholesome, but don't expect a tense police procedural. Too many cutaways for local color and exasperating intrusions by well meaning neighbors. Just too neat to be taken for real. Every episode ends tied up with a bow.
The Chestnut Man
(2021– )
Mediocre
25 October 2021
Lovers of crime dramas and mysteries usually are eager for new recommendations. They're also usually pretty experienced viewers of the genre and appreciate accurate portrayals. That's where I think this series falls down. Lapses in rational police technique annoy me. I understand cops are like the rest of us: they make mistakes. But I resent when an unforced error is an essential device in the plot. With the aid of a stupid mistake, a clue is found or the plot advances where it couldn't have without the error. If the plot relies too much on unbelievable events, that's not good writing. We see it here. This is in the classic noir genre, but does everything need to happen at night or in poorly lit rooms? This is set in the 21st century, not wartime blackouts. I'm also disappointed when things happen like a main character discovers an important clue on a computer (which we don't get to see), then exclaims to another character, "you've got to see this!" (which we don't get to see), so they take it to a 3rd character to show (which we finally get to see). When much of the cinematography is through the first person vision, this is just jerking us around for the sake of suspense. Not appreciated. There are a lot of characters in play, a lot of balls in the air that make it hard to follow. Call me simple, but the added complexity seems like a diversionary tactic to obscure the outcome. Is this supposed to be close-up magic? Which cup hides the ball? A prior reviewer said the plot was obvious and outcome foretold. I didn't feel that way, but felt unnecessarily manipulated. The acting is decent. Advice: put this one down low on your to-watch list.
More plot lines is not always a good substitute for a good plot line
29 September 2021
I liked this story as it began in the first episode and grew. It's getting a little thin now. Lapses in police technique allow things to happen that advance the plot. Deus ex machina. I understand and appreciate the intent to make the main characters 3-D people with depth and lives outside their roles in the main story. But adding complicated family plots to the main crime-stopper story, with an additional set of characters bouncing in and out of the frame, makes for a confusing mess. A flock of similar aged youths, intertwining two distinct storylines is not a good business model. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.
Extremely Disappointing
5 August 2021
No spoilers here, but disappointment that a good underlying plot is left unfulfilled by flaws. Mainly in the writing that puts pathologists in places where they should not - and would not normally - be. This is a long-standing flaw in the writing. There is an admitted close working relationship between forensic pathologists and law enforcement, but there are limits that the writers see as one-way. Do we ever see a cop in the dissection theater? No, and for good reason. But we frequently see pathologists at crime scenes - as they are happening - when this is unbelievable and unlikely in true police work. The writers cannot seem to tell a story about the behind the scenes pathology work without 1) involving a pathologist personally or romantically, or 2) putting an eager pathologist in the thick of police action so the cameras can capture their horror or disbelief at what's happening. Another tiresome plot device is the rookie, or disbelieving, or bent copper needing to be convinced of the true worth of science in the solution of crime mysteries. And lastly - not so evident here but frequently displayed in other episodes - is the interrogation room where police badger the suspect with all manner of leading, biased, unfounded fabrications and suppositions, hoping to break the will of the detainee. Geez, give it up!
Deus ex Machina
29 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I generally like this series and particularly the variety of storylines. Except those where the main characters stray too far into independent police work. That's a minor problem here but what really spoils it for me is when the writers force the pathologists into scenes they have no business being in, and then use an unlikely device to involve them further.
Near the end Nikki accompanies the police detective to a suspect's home to confront him. Nikki stays in the car. The detective rings the doorbell with a uniformed officer close by. Nikki is still in the car. An altercation arises and unbelievably, Nikki exits the parked car, past the uniformed officer, into the house to wrest the detective off the suspect. How that happened when the officer was feet away is just poor storytelling for effect.
Near the end Nikki accompanies the police detective to a suspect's home to confront him. Nikki stays in the car. The detective rings the doorbell with a uniformed officer close by. Nikki is still in the car. An altercation arises and unbelievably, Nikki exits the parked car, past the uniformed officer, into the house to wrest the detective off the suspect. How that happened when the officer was feet away is just poor storytelling for effect.
Good separation between police work and forensics
4 June 2021
I have been critical of past episodes for making the pathologists more like deputized police. Maybe the characters gravitate toward that crime-solving role but there is a line not to be crossed. This episode has found the balance. Forensic pathologists really solving crimes via pathology. Other reviewers have commented on the grim portrayal of gang reality. No argument here, but this episode is staying true to the title, Silent Witness. Previous episode highlighted Creutzfeld-Jacob Disease and this one Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Excellent writing.
Continuing a troublesome pattern
21 May 2021
Once again the pathologists become police investigators, and better at it than some of the police who are portrayed as lugs just trying to close cases by conducting leading interviews and presupposing who's guilty. Also continuing is a storyline of multiple crimes, each involving one of the pathologists and different police staff. Multiple story lines allow the episode pace to keep moving even on thin depth. These stories continue to stray from the initial implied promise of Silent Witnesses.
Disappointing the stories cannot stick to forensic pathology
20 May 2021
This episode is an anomaly, I hope. As earlier in the series, the writers can't seem to stay in their lane. Stick to the Silent Witnesses. Now the pathologists are fully part of police investigations and - worse - interfering in police interrogations. If it wants to be a cop show, fine, but at least draw the lines between roles. This is a mess.
Poor Policing: Watch Instructions Here
22 February 2021
No wonder they named the series "Wallander"
22 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
It's too much about Kurt Wallander. Needs to be more about the police story. The stories are gripping and mysterious. Probably excessively mysterious because we don't get the full disclosure as Kurt begins to understand the clues. Like his staff, we are kept in the dark while he goes off on hunches. If I wanted this self centered stuff I could watch "Vera," only she treats her staff like dummies. Oh, and his annoying phone conveniently rings just in time to advance the story. Too clever. In the end, he treats his girlfriend Vanya like one of his employees; doesn't tell her the counselor they're seeing is the same one he saw with his wife prior to their divorce. He deserves to be alone because that's what he wants, despite all the apparent angst. Give me a break.
Rings Hollow
13 February 2021
I hate plots that rely on coincidences or unrealistic portrayals. In this episode, Wallander is obviously emotionally unfit to return to duty but persuades his chief to allow him to return. Several times she asks him, Are you okay? when we all can see the answer. Not the usual cleverness of a police chief, who returns his badge and weapon.
I'm also put off by impaired characters professing, I can do this! Or, I NEED to do this, it's my case! And being allowed to continue on that strength. We see that several times in this episode when the rational reply is to say, No it's not your case anymore. Thank you, go home.
I believe law enforcement officers are people, with people's problems. I just don't like those problems to dominate the main story. That's what happens here.
I'm also put off by impaired characters professing, I can do this! Or, I NEED to do this, it's my case! And being allowed to continue on that strength. We see that several times in this episode when the rational reply is to say, No it's not your case anymore. Thank you, go home.
I believe law enforcement officers are people, with people's problems. I just don't like those problems to dominate the main story. That's what happens here.
They're stretching it
4 October 2020
The writers are running out of plausible explanations for how and why a forensic pathologist is involved in investigations far beyond her expertise. We've seen her personally known to suspects, she been a confidant of principal characters at the crime scene, she's been serendipitously involved with an associated case.
Too often the plot turns on a telephone tip like, "Meet me here, I can't talk over the phone," which places her at a crime scene. "I can't tell you this, I must show it to you." And then there are the scenes where proper police protocol suggests one action but - oh, no - Dr. Sam Ryan can't do that. She's got to de escalate the tension without backup, or put herself in danger because she "knows" in her heart this character wouldn't do anything unpredictable.
It's just stretching the limits of believability.
Too often the plot turns on a telephone tip like, "Meet me here, I can't talk over the phone," which places her at a crime scene. "I can't tell you this, I must show it to you." And then there are the scenes where proper police protocol suggests one action but - oh, no - Dr. Sam Ryan can't do that. She's got to de escalate the tension without backup, or put herself in danger because she "knows" in her heart this character wouldn't do anything unpredictable.
It's just stretching the limits of believability.
Have you told me everything?
1 August 2020
I can't count how many times that question is asked or implied and the answer is always, "yes," usually with an indignant pose, how could you ask me that? The answer is never the truth and we viewers know it. It's maddening, not satisfying, to be ahead of the characters so often. It's a screenwriting twist we too soon get tired of.
The main characters have flaws and make poor choices that make them not more human, but foolish and aggravating. We don't always know what's going to happen but we are certain it won't be good. The plot and evidence are overtaken by cinematography, which is good but misplaced and distracting. This should be more procedural for my taste, but gets into the weeds of "everybody's got a secret," just waiting to surprise you.
DI Hardy is such a disagreeable person, it's difficult to believe anyone collaborates with him. If I wanted to watch a police detective berate subordinates, go charging in strange directions on strained evidence and intuition, and recognize clues that other trained personnel have overlooked, I would watch reruns of "Vera." This series better get better soon or I'm outta here.
The main characters have flaws and make poor choices that make them not more human, but foolish and aggravating. We don't always know what's going to happen but we are certain it won't be good. The plot and evidence are overtaken by cinematography, which is good but misplaced and distracting. This should be more procedural for my taste, but gets into the weeds of "everybody's got a secret," just waiting to surprise you.
DI Hardy is such a disagreeable person, it's difficult to believe anyone collaborates with him. If I wanted to watch a police detective berate subordinates, go charging in strange directions on strained evidence and intuition, and recognize clues that other trained personnel have overlooked, I would watch reruns of "Vera." This series better get better soon or I'm outta here.
Arrow
(2012–2020)
Fun fiction but don't think too hard about it
12 June 2020
I see reviews panning the later episodes as losing their spark or becoming boring. I haven't finished season 2 and this wearing a little thin. It's pure adolescent formulaic fun and that's not always a bad thing, but I can see how viewers get tired of the unlikely coincidences that are essential to plot movement. If the unlikely thing does not happen, everything else falls apart. Saved by the coincidence!
The basic setup is interesting: spoiled rich boy marooned on an island suffers greatly but learns martial arts and archery. Rescued after 5 years of toil, he returns to his home city to fight corruption and vice as a hooded vigilante, The Arrow. The episodes are spiced with flashbacks to the island life that made him the new person. Both flashbacks and contemporary scenes are filled with a formula of Action -> Resolution -> Revelation -> Soul searching truisms with promises like, "Trust me, I will not let that happen! -> More Action -> Repeat.
Every character has secrets to be revealed only at the most critical time. Villains materialize out of each character's past. No one is completely honest with everyone else and viewers may be the only ones privy to most of the truth.... until there's a plot twist.
I'm not saying it's not fun to watch. I'm not asking anyone to give it more or less credit than a typical super hero show. Just understand what it is. It's eye candy for heroes fans. All the characters are terrific to look at. All of them display traits of unbelievable fortitude and also human frailty. Usually right on cue to keep things moving. Don't expect more depth than adolescent versions of truth, justice, and the American way (to quote an early super hero).
A final note: the sound engineer has set it so in order to clearly hear all the dialog (which can be quite good and usually important to understanding where things are going) you need to crank up the volume. But the following action sequences are so loud you feel the noise. Be prepared for an immersion experience.
The basic setup is interesting: spoiled rich boy marooned on an island suffers greatly but learns martial arts and archery. Rescued after 5 years of toil, he returns to his home city to fight corruption and vice as a hooded vigilante, The Arrow. The episodes are spiced with flashbacks to the island life that made him the new person. Both flashbacks and contemporary scenes are filled with a formula of Action -> Resolution -> Revelation -> Soul searching truisms with promises like, "Trust me, I will not let that happen! -> More Action -> Repeat.
Every character has secrets to be revealed only at the most critical time. Villains materialize out of each character's past. No one is completely honest with everyone else and viewers may be the only ones privy to most of the truth.... until there's a plot twist.
I'm not saying it's not fun to watch. I'm not asking anyone to give it more or less credit than a typical super hero show. Just understand what it is. It's eye candy for heroes fans. All the characters are terrific to look at. All of them display traits of unbelievable fortitude and also human frailty. Usually right on cue to keep things moving. Don't expect more depth than adolescent versions of truth, justice, and the American way (to quote an early super hero).
A final note: the sound engineer has set it so in order to clearly hear all the dialog (which can be quite good and usually important to understanding where things are going) you need to crank up the volume. But the following action sequences are so loud you feel the noise. Be prepared for an immersion experience.
Grant
(2020)
Disappointing Management
26 May 2020
During this time of the pandemic when many of us are streaming commercial-free content, it is a poor decision to load up this first of 3 episodes with commercial breaks. It makes me wonder, "is it worth it for me to watch tomorrow night?" The commercial breaks are that disrupting. Poor management decision for an otherwise good content.
Interesting, but....
16 April 2020
The lapses in credible police protocol are spoiling the rest of the episode. All the "favors" granted to the ex-cop and the illegal access to multiple crime scenes and the bungled chains of evidence custody are essential to moving the plot along. Without these unethical situations, the house of cards tumbles. There is an underlying interesting mystery of repeated "identical" murders, but the on-again off-again good old boy attitude is completely distracting.
The Five
(2016)
You will like it until you don't
5 September 2019
No spoilers here. From the beginning rational viewers will realize this is a story about kid sleuths, now all grown up with marriages and professions and kids of their own. And badges and guns and hidden secrets and weaknesses. But they're still kids with greater allegiance to their chums than to their jobs or spouses or the rule of law. And sometimes they connive against each other. It's maddening to watch the cop who shares official evidence with a friend who plays cop, himself, while withholding what he finds from the real cop. And the lawyer and physician who practice only when it doesn't get in their way chasing the mystery from childhood. Laws are broken, people are killed, but everything gets wrapped up in a final gauzy, slo-mo, feel good scene without connection to reality. If you like this sort of thing, go for it. But if you're betrayed by the individual back-stabbing in the name of the greater good and personal satisfactions, spend these 10 hours of your life elsewhere.
Deep Water
(2016)
Not written, cast, or directed well enough to guide viewers
18 May 2019
I suppose my title is as much a comment on me as the show. Only four episodes long, this series is confusing with multiple similar characters and intertwining subplots. Maybe this just an accurate reflection of true cop cases - many shades of gray and inferential evidence with few clearcut leads - but it doesn't make for good viewing. Maybe it's just my Pooh-brain too dithered to keep track of them all, but not for lack of experience.
Vigilantism is okay?
5 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I like that the story causes the viewer to shift allegiances based on evidence that is revealed. But in the end, the chronic vigilante is patted on the back, meets a new potential love interest and the world goes on. What about the years in prison of his framed victim? Or the others? This episode talks a lot about closure but then offers none for the open questions about the victim/perpetrator.
Disappointing Writing
17 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
One of the things I like best about this series is the relative believability of episodes. OK, not exactly believable but entertaining when I can suspend disbelief. I like the variety of stories and the generally feel-good outcomes. What I never like is when a story's progress depends on a just-in-time rescue. So John Wayne, "Here comes the Cavalry!" It's a smart move to get Finch out of the office, but having to save him (or anyone) with an unbelievable plot twist spoils it for me. The writers have been better than this. I hope we're not seeing a hint of things to come, e.g., ramping up the complexity of plots to stay fresh, but requiring incredible coincidences or twists to make them happen.
Medical truth it ain't
9 April 2019
I'm enjoying every episode of this now 7-year old series. Particularly now that many of the privacy-busting hacks are more relevant, if not more possible in 2019. But medicine is something I know a little about and the errors are shaking my addiction to the Kool Aid. In the emergency hallway the surgeon refers to a patient "swallow(ing) his tongue." Patients don't do that and no medical professional would say it. Later the Brit "Alex" commands the surgeon to give the patient "100 CCs of heparin" during the surgery. Heparin is available in many strengths and is dosed in units, not CCs (cubic centimeters). Later the surgeon surreptitiously draws up a syringe with probably less than 10 CCs of heparin. I'm only 18 minutes in.
Poor Plot Realism
16 March 2019
I like this series for the convoluted, interesting initial plots. But I can't stand it when the writers make the plot hang on unrealistic twists. This episode just goes further down the rabbit hole with the main character making all sorts of wild gambles and errors in police method while following her hunches how to solve the case. She's not using realistic police technique and she's jeopardizing others around her. At this point I'm expecting some fantastic coincidences to allow an outcome where her instincts are "proven" correct.
Tell Your Friends