IMDb > "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" (2000) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation"
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratings
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips
Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 24:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 234 reviews in total 

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Two things you need to know about C.S.I.

4/10
Author: Movester from Norway
22 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

One: your screen will be filled with beautiful effects and colours. These do nothing for the story, but they will keep your lazy eyes occupied for some 50 minutes. A good example is the eternal use of a computer screen that shows each fingerprint from the database as that print is compared with the one they want to find out about. Yeah, right.

Two: these guys being like real professional Pros, they will engage each other in intriguing Pro talk: "Look, Grissom, these are what we call fingerprints. Everybody has them, and they are different on each person. So, with these fingerprints we can actually find...".

Yup! Exactly like real pros would talk to each other if there wasn't a completely uninformed and stupid audience around.

However, not everything about this show is bad. Some stories work to some degree, and the colours _are_ really beautiful. They use red, blue, green, yellow... all of them colours I've loved since kindergarten.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

Awful and overrated

1/10
Author: nablaquadro from Ravenna, Italy
22 April 2007

First of all, it's not useless confronting X-Files with CSI, but to better understand we have to study the two decades when they've developed their success.

X-Files is the King of crime TV-series in the 90s (until the early 2000s), CSI is the 2000s corresponding. The technical abilities were different 14/15 years ago than now, so a greater dosage of paranormal activities and unsolved cases is justified either for entertainment, and for material difficulties.

Don't we forget the charisma inside the two starring actors. Nobody else could be Mulder and Scully but Duchovny and Anderson.

CSI are lame chronicle of infallible detectives that seem to know IN ADVANCE whatever they carry to the laboratory. Analysises and experiments seem a mere game to demonstrate they were right anyway two hours before and the coldness is punch in the stomach for the audience. Grissom, Willows and the other actors are detestable and quite unpleasant, even because you already know that no case is unsolved for them.

The "dark" atmosphere, the blood profusion, and the gruesome amusement is also something to be deprecated, considering the young audience watching this series. They paint the forensic job as a game, the corpses as a playground and violence as something ordinary. No. These are bad principles to pass at the new generations ! One of the worst TV-series and widely overrated by public.

A super deserved " 1 "

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Concept great, execution not so great

3/10
Author: movietech from United States
9 August 2006

I like the concept of CSI, but the show is spoiled by some seriously wooden acting. The Medical Examiner has the best lines and delivers them in an arch, offhand manner that livens up the story. Unfortunately he has little screen time.

Also, why does Jorja Fox always look and act so utterly unhappy? I know that forensic investigation is a very serious business, but the characters, for the most part, seem to confuse seriousness with humorlessness and a complete lack of personality. I can't imagine dating either Sarah Sidle or Catherine Willows; what would you talk to either one about? I'm waiting for the episode when, at the end of a shift, Catherine picks up a remote control, points it at Grissom, shuts him down, and wheels him into a closet until the next day.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

A great show, but not as good as it used to be

8/10
Author: TheLittleSongbird from United Kingdom
21 April 2010

I love these kinds of shows, so I came across CSI:Crime Scene Inestigation by accident while flicking through channels, and since that moment I have been hooked. I like how each crime is looked at from a different perspective, it offers a whole new slant on things, although some of the more disturbing/graphic images may turn your stomach a little. Also, I love the colours the series is shot in, reds, blues, greens and yellow, really a treat to the eye, and the photography is very impressive. And the music is funky and cool, well the theme song is from The Who, they ooze with coolness. I like the writing, Grissom's dialogue and asides are a joy to behold especially, and the methodical but well structured story lines. The season finales nearly always manage to be gripping and compelling. And the acting is great, William Peterson was wonderful as Grissom, and although I was sad to see him go, the character's departure was handled very well so I was glad of that. The reason why it isn't quite as good as it could have been is because somehow I don't find it as well thought out as the earlier seasons. And while Laurence Fishburne is a great actor and does a good job, I kind of miss Grissom if you get the jist. That said though, this is a great show. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

I know I'm late but WOW

10/10
Author: Josh Shepherd from Monroe NC
11 September 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This show is the greatest show ever created. I mean the second I turned on the T.V. it just threw me in there and made me feel like I was par of the CSI team.

Just the other day I felt behind so I went to Blockbuster and rented Season 1-3 to try and catch up and I didn't go to sleep until I finished watching every episode.

This show has some amazing characters as well: Gil Grissom; great guy but is very hard headed about his science Nick Stokes; gets cocky a lot but is one of the best Sara Sidle; great character she is all business when it come to work but loves to play ;) Greg Sanders; my personal favorite he loves his job while he is in the lab but loves it more when he gets out on the field Warrick Brown; gets in really deep with his cases and makes them personal Catherine Willows; great investigator but has a lot of personal problems The list goes on. This show is just flat out amazing and I would recommend it to anybody my Rating= **********/**********

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Perfect Cast

10/10
Author: bluedragon0110 from United States
4 September 2006

After initially being introduced to this series, I instantly fell in love with the show. I feel that the writing is very inventive and even when the show is based off of something from the news, the writers do an excellent job of putting a unique spin on it to fit the fluidness of the shows style. But what I think makes this show so successful is the characters and the way each of the cast members pull off their character to bring a unique blend of personalities that work perfectly off of each other. The characters of Grissom and Willows, played by William Peterson and Marg Helgenberger, give the show its balance. Then you have characters like Nick Stokes (played by George Eads) who is your typical guy's guy and Warrick Brown (played by Gary Dourdan) who is more level but the two play off of each other very well, as you tend to see them in competition with each other. The writers have also written in a great character named Sara Sidle (played by Jorja Fox) who is portrayed as a confident woman in a manly male dominated cast. Sidle is able to stand her ground and even at times run circles around Stokes and Brown, yet she still has the uncertainties and emotions of a woman, but it is played with an certain grace that makes the audience feel confident in her character. The writers have taken great lengths to make sure that the science, which is also a character in this show, is very accurate, yet easy enough for the audience to understand. It is very easy to see why this show has become such a hit, and its spin off shows (Miami and NY) are becoming just as popular.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

very bad show

1/10
Author: dennis2007 from United States
21 March 2012

when you added Ted Danson and Elizibeth Shue to the show,i don't watch it anymore.it stinks.messed up my Wednesday night.don't know much more too say.why any one would add a comedian in a mystery show is about dumb.you must have fired the better writers.i am not all that smart,but when a show is popular,why change the people that made the show so well liked.i change channels when its on.Danson is so dry and boring,he just doesn't fit the part.Shue's person comes off as a smart ass know it all.she couldn't be on anything that i would watch.Ted needs to go back to tending bar.with the characters you have now,you may as well turn it into a comedy show.if you people were smart,you would put the show back the way it was and quit messing it up.i just don't like it at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Good things don't last, do they?

2/10
Author: Crveni Krst from Serbia
4 November 2010

I used to like "CSI Las Vegas"... used to like i it a lot. Back in 2001. when I saw the first episodes, it was a refreshing TV substance, beside the fact it was based on crime and murder, which I am not a great fan of. Unlike the classic detective series which by the late 90s have become boring as hell with all too predictable plots, CSI brought a fresh insight and opened a new window into TV crime. Although it was only slightly based on science and criminal forensics, CSI was a fun thing to watch... it was indeed.

And, as the good old pattern of profanity goes, so did "CSI Las Vegas" transform into yet another pointless money making program. The forensic detectives, who in real life work in a lab alone, slowly became sheriffs, the scientific methods turned into cyber 3D mumbo jumbo and the crimes became bizarre to the least . I stopped watching after the episode with a stuffed woman's head hanging on the wall, and Grissom in his ever witty manner saying something like "I feel like Marco Polo, It seems I've discovered China", China being the name of woman whose had smiled at us. Just horrible. Then we got the franchise series which wont spend any words at, as they are not worthy of any.

It's pretty sure that CBS makes good cash off the CSI series these days, and I'm so sorry that today's audience can be entertained so easily and tasteless. RIP CSI Las Vegas.

Two stars only for the early shine. The rest is TV sludge.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Watchable, yet too plastic

5/10
Author: Dark_liquid
29 June 2009

I believe that the thing i hate mostly about criminal series is the...perfection. They always solve the cases in that steady rhythm, just like a well trained music band. So nice, so easy, so sci-fi at moments, with everybody doing their job brilliantly, with the help of their uber cool technical equipment; almost iritant. It is somewhat enjoyable, i suppose because of the use of excellent cinematic techniques, but i can never get excited watching it. I can't get in touch with the victim, i can't feel what the killer felt, i can't get upset when some supposedly important twist happens. I'm never surprised. Alright, i know i'm asking for too much out of an hour long episode, but even in such case, i don't think it's impossible do make that level of quality investigation drama happen. In CSI, it just feels like it's all about the looks; the show looks good and it's estheticaly very pleasant, but wait a minute, what about the story?

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

An inconsequential series with classic style over substance

Author: liquidcelluloid-1 from www.liquidcelluloid.blog.com
24 April 2004

Network: CBS; Genre: Crime/Mystery; Average Content Rating: TV-14; Available: on DVD; Classification: Contemporary (star range: 1 - 4);

Season Reviewed: Series (3+ seasons)

Like 'NYPD Blue' before it, 'CSI is a show I've watched several times and have never been able to get into it. The phenomenal success of the show completely mystifies me. I suspect it is in part the audience rebelling against the soap opera turn their old Thursday night drama 'ER' has taken and in part because CSI is the kind of self-contained "procedural show" that networks love to promote the hell out of. It's certainly the hippest thing on CBS. I've generally made it a rule not to discuss a show's success in a review, as it doesn't influence its quality. 'CSI', however, is one of those shows that is mostly known only for it's success. Would a show like this really get Emmy nominations if it wasn't the number 1 show on TV?

Riding the reality show wave where pandering to the lowest common denominator is the new network attitude; action movie maestro Jerry Bruckheimer delivers a show that fits perfectly into all the network specifications. CSI certainly isn't as bad as all that. It has it's moments of atmospheric intensity and a solid amount of twists and turns in its stories. Not to mention more flash and trash gore than your late local news. But it isn't particularly good either. It falls through the same tedious narrative trapdoors of a 'Law & Order' type. The emphasis is on evidence, the self contained story (which, like 'L&O' are "ripped from the headlines" or lazy recreations of real events) and the show's synthetic style. That synthetic style, by the way, so contrasts to it's old fashioned theme music that it is downright jarring. The money-shot gimmick here is a computer generated camera straight out of a David Fincher movie that swoops in and around microscopic evidence. In this type of show developed characters, story arcs and acting are all de-emphasized and, in turn, I feel no reason to tune in every week. It's generally the same stuff week in and week out. The only story arc going on here is watching the many stages of William Peterson's ridiculous beard. It amazes me that people will tune in every week to shows that are designed so they don't have to, but will not tune in to a show that watching it every week would give them a richer storytelling experience. But, hey, if this type of thing floats your boat you should be in inconsequential, crime mystery series heaven.

* * / 4

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 24:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history