Tony Petrocelli is an Italian-American Harvard-educated lawyer who gave up the big money and frenetic pace of major-metropolitan life to practice in a sleepy city in the American Southwest.... See full summary »
Kowalski works for a car delivery service. He takes delivery of a 1970 Dodge Challenger to take from Colorado to San Francisco, California. Shortly after pickup, he takes a bet to get the ... See full summary »
Gary and Valene Ewing, relatives of the Ewing clan of Dallas, arrive in Knots Landing to make a new home for themselves. However, scheming Abby Fairgate-Cunningham later breaks up their marriage when she seduces Gary.
Harry Orwell is a world-weary private investigator who was forced to leave the Los Angeles Police Department after a bullet became lodged near his spine. Moving to San Diego, he lived on ... See full summary »
Tony Petrocelli is an Italian-American Harvard-educated lawyer who gave up the big money and frenetic pace of major-metropolitan life to practice in a sleepy city in the American Southwest. He and wife Maggie live in a trailer in the country while waiting for their new house to be built, and travel around in a beat-up old pickup truck. For a quiet rural area, Petrocelli seems to have no trouble running into his share of murderers to defend. Written by
Marty McKee <email@example.com>
During the opening credits, there is a scene showing Petrocelli's office window on the second floor of an old building that says "Navajo Indian Trading Post" on the side. That remodeled building, which was a curio shop, still stands in downtown Tucson, AZ. See more »
This series was excellent in all the primary attributes one looks for in a legal drama: the setting was fresh and new, the characters were interesting, the cast was always on the mark, and the writing was both believable and absorbing. I had a major complaint, however, with the most famous aspect of the show. What "Petrocelli" did different from other courtroom dramas was its dramatization of each witness's account of the crime. Unfortunately, this meant it visually presented false accounts--things that *never happened.* I know how rhetoricians, relativists, and post-modernists of every stripe love to debate the non-existence of objective truth, but prime-time television isn't the forum for such questions. It bothered me every time I watched the show, and every time it came up in discussion with others, they (almost to a one) agreed with me.
10 of 30 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?