IMDb > "CSI: Miami" (2002) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"CSI: Miami"
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"CSI: Miami" More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 23: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 227 reviews in total 

9 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

What Miami is This?

Author: cbtgator from United States
16 October 2007

As CSI series go, this is the worst one. Whereas Miami Vice glamourized South Florida crime, this show doesn't even really capture the feel of the city at all. I suppose that's why the show is filmed in San Diego. The story lines are predictable and silly. The interaction between the characters is virtually non-existent. Sure the characters occasionally have affairs, but you really don't get the sense of friendship between them. For lack of a better expression, the characters are kind of stiff. This is in stark contrast to the characters on CSI (Vegas and New York). As someone from Miami, I would like it if just one of these episodes actually felt like Miami (except of course the flyover and occasional outside scene).

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

The cheesiest of them all

Author: cheflounder77 from United States
21 March 2009

For those who think this is a good show you are wrong. It should be called CSI:No emotion. Not one person shows any emotion for what is going on around them. Caruso was a good actor, but not anymore - I can tell you how he rolls as Horatio. While in interrogation, he whips off his sunglasses, flips his coat back as he puts his hands on his hips, says some smart ass remark to the criminal and then rolls off camera. End Scene. The chick that plays Calliegh is good looking, but I have seen people that have just got botox injections have more facial expressions then she does in one episode. Jonathan Togo looks like a the robotic brother of Gregg of CSI, who is constantly flawed, and the guy who plays Eric has a look on his face like he is constipated. The stories are not that good and the characters are laughable. This show is bad. To say it is better then CSI and CSI:NY someone is smoking something that impares their judgment. Give Gil Grissom, Mac Taylor, or even Ray Langston a try. You will definitely enjoy them much better than this piece of dung.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

A TV show to tape

Author: yana (guitar_flake324) from California, USA
6 April 2003

I love this show, since the premiere episode. I'm pretty sure it's going to stick around for a while. I've heard negative comments about it, but I'm okay with that, because the ratings speak for themselves. The characters are exceptional as are the actors who portray them. it was sad to see Kim Delaney go but her character was only one dimensional so its okay.

David Caruso is amazingly good at playing H, and he just makes you come back for more. Emily Procter is beautiful and intelligent, she shares that with her character Calleigh and that makes it even more fun to watch her. Adam Rodriquez and Khandi Alexander hold their own, but i wish they'd get more on screen action. Eric and Alexx are wonderful characters and should be explored. On to my latest obsession, I watch this show for Rory Cochrane, he's talented, and enigmatic, and Tim Speedle is wonderful at his job. Needless to say I'm CSI:M number 1 fan

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 28 people found the following review useful:

why Horatio sux...

Author: ds_boo2004 from Australia
20 June 2007

I've felt it was important to go through registration just to let the world know that CSI:Miami SUX! How can u even COMPARE Horatio to Grisham?! And how can u NOT be annoyed at Horatio saying something GRAND or DRAMATIC and then the scene switches to where OTHER actors are doing ALL the acting for the episode until Horatio pops up again, says THREE words and disappears again! His role is so simple! The only reason why hes in it is because he might be more famous then the rest of the cast. He waits until his people do all the hard work, point to the criminal and all he has to do is draw the gun and yell freeze! There's no action at all! At least Grisham does the investigation work WITH his people and THATS what makes him AND the whole show better then CSI: Miami. Its the original and its the best!

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Bad acting

Author: Charles Saeger (rasputin-20) from Minneapolis, MN, USA
7 March 2007

Between David Caruso and Emily Proctor, I don't know if I've suffered through a show of such bad acting that didn't understand it was bad. William Shatner, for example, knows who he is and how he comes off and plays it up; Keanu Reeves similarly comes off as if he knows he's just a prop. Not these two. I don't mind the original show (my wife is an addict), but not this one. Caruso delivers his sickening moralizing, Proctor makes Lindsay Lohan seem emotive, and there's this MTV-style perp walk at the end of the show. I root for the perps. None of them are guilty of wooden acting. I also don't get how Caruso gets away with his bad acting while Proctor is lauded. If she is trying to make a character who is colder than Mr. Spock and with whom I cannot sympathize, she's succeeding.

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 80 people found the following review useful:

Terrible acting!

Author: jrjefferis
30 May 2007

Having just watched this show for the first time in May of 2007, I was amazed that it was (is?) so popular. David Caruso is just unbelievably BAD. I'd only seen him in a movie (Proof of Life), in which he also stunk up the place - just really bad, so at least he's consistent. And as bad an "over-actor" Caruso is, Emily Procter under-acts, as if she were sleepwalking through her lines. The story was just plain silly, with a mixture of absurdly contrived situations involving a plane crash, "billions" in checks as cargo, a dead ex-drug addicted girl who ran a charity for other such girls, etc. The "cops" do no real detective work, but simply announce one plot-induced conclusion after another to "solve" the crime, throwing in a little psycho-cop nonsense and sexual harassment to fill in the extra space in this very thin story. This show is a real stinker.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

From Bad to Worse . . . . .

Author: woodchip2 from United States
9 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Well, when the show started I noticed right away the colors were so vivid they were not realistic. NO PLACE on earth has colors of skies, grass & water so vivid and dark! It's FAKE looking! I first thought our TV color levels needed adjusting, it was so obvious, but when the commercial came on, it was normal again. Then I noticed every week, that every show pushed the button on MORE color. I learned to overlook it to watch the show though, for a few years.

BUT, when Ryan Wolf (Jonathan Togo)got more lines, it became nauseating. He is so conceited and overbearing. He is WORSE than Caruso (or is he trying to emulate him?) It's SO obvious he thinks he's HOT STUFF!

My ONLY SPOILER is this, but it's common knowledge: It really made me angry when Jonathan (Ryan Wolf)was arrested for BEATING HIS girlfriend in 2009, IN REAL LIFE, but released after paying $50,000.00 bail! Yet he was STILL allowed to be on CSI Miami! Uh, excuse me, is "HE" above the law, and gets away with beating up a woman because he's a hot shot movie star? It's not right, or fair to his female victim! He should have done some REAL jail time, then removed from the show! There's NO JUSTICE even on CSI Miami, with their own STARS! He used to be the "only" irritation I had with the show, but now they all suck! (Except ONE: Walter Simmons/Omar Bensen Miller; he IS enjoyable and seems to be the only believable human on the show! Kudo's to Omar!)

I agree with another reviewer; Miss Calliegh does NOT look believable or professional when wearing a lab coat, (ha! Joke!) with her pumped up, pushed up boobs, low cut tops, long hair all over the place, tight clothing, and tons of makeup, lipstick always perfect, as all the other women trying to pass themselves off as POLICE or CSI specialists! GIVE ME A BREAK! I know it wouldn't garner as many viewers (....especially "males") if the shows lab rats and squints looked like serious lab professionals, looking more like scientists than hookers! I think it's a bad representation of our professional, scientific specialists that have BRAINS and good looks too. (You don't go to work looking like a hooker to PROVE you're a woman, puh-leeeze! Only in Hollywood!) I doubt women lab professionals wear spike heals, push up bras, and tons of makeup to the labs each day. But, who would watch this unbelievable show if sex wasn't pushed, over and over, and over? (it's all about Ratings, sponsors and viewers!)

I also agree with many other reviewers saying there is NO teamwork noticeable on this show; they're all vying to outdo each other, waiting to deliver their unbelievable lines! The other CSI's work as a team and care for each other, why can't Miami? The other CSI's have better plots and stories too. What's with Miami; the writers out of ideas? Sure seams that way, the scripts are contrived and uninteresting, and D.O.A! Bury it, it stinks!

So "We're" DONE with the Miami version; we just watched "Friendly Fire" and it was the final "BURN" for us! My husband and I kept looking at each other, commenting on dumb lines, bad acting, "over"-acting, and just unbelievable acting, or not acting enough! Weak story lines, same old stuff, it's time to end this pain and suffering and put it out of it's MISERY! An autopsy needs to be done on CSI Miami, to see what caused it's death! The clues are bad writing, directing, and over-bearing acting! Farewell CSI Miami, we're gone......You're dead to us.......

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Is C.S.I.:Miami D.O.A.?

Author: athenapolyboulos
26 September 2002

Although C.S.I.:Miami has the distinguished parentage of the original C.S.I.(Las Vegas) show and the more than able acting ability of such as David Caruso in its cast, this reviewer must say that it desperately needs some structural revision, if it is to succeed in the long run.

Mr.Caruso's character in this show appeared to function mostly as a bureaucratic overseer of the other C.S.I.investigators (do they need a ramrod to make them work?), rather than doing any scientific tests himself, as the Gil Grissom character does in the original C.S.I.. As Horatio Caine has been presented as a policeman and not a scientist, I don't see how they will correct this problem easily. The lab work in the original C.S.I. is always central to the show--in C.S.I.:Miami it's perfunctory, at best. The sense of driving curiosity that powers the original C.S.I. plots and keeps their investigators using scientific methods to nibble at the presented puzzle also seems to be missing. This reviewer isn't opposed to "touchy-feely-I'm-just-going-with-my-intuition" type shows, but those type of police shows abound. That isn't what about.

If, as is customary on TV, the premier episode of this show is the best and strongest one they have to offer, this reviewer is depressed at its limpness. The qualities that functioned well as a single episode of the original C.S.I. have been stretched too thin here to succeed. Most of this can be corrected. The writing needs to be tighter and much more focused. While the cases presented don't have to be as odd as finding scuba divers in trees, more imagination should be shown. Note to the show writers: View past episodes of the original C.S.I.. Get back to your original idea of the show's nature.

If this show lasts long enough, I assume viewers will learn a few personal details about the characters, as we have in the original C.S.I.. This,too,will make the show better, without turning it into a soap opera.

Did anybody but this reviewer notice that this show is top-heavy with executive producers? Seven, as opposed to four (all listed as writers) for the original C.S.I.. Perhaps too many (non-writing) cooks do spoil the broth.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

David Caruso has dragged this show down; it's no longer worth watching

Author: cakyrias from United States
15 March 2011

This is the worst dramatic show on television and I attribute most of that to David Caruso. His stilted line reading in "dramatic whispers", constant posing, and egotistical characterization are just AWFUL! Maybe he's a nice guy, maybe he's easy to work with, maybe he came cheap, there must be SOME reason he was hired because it surely wasn't his acting. I think he may very well be the worst actor to hold a SAG card and have a steady paycheck. His idea of acting is to say every line with a quarter turn to the camera, lift up his chin, spread his legs out overly wide and throw his hands on his hips. I'm serious; EVERY single episode, he uses exactly the same moves over and over. Apparently the directors are powerless to do anything about it. Perhaps he just can't take direction; or the producers are hiring really bad directors every week; or maybe it's in his contract that he doesn't have to listen to directors. No decent director would allow this to go on week after week. (I suspect they just throw up their hands, since Caruso appears to be completely unrepentant.)

It's well known that actors who work together for any length of time rise (or fall) to meet the level of the lead. A really good lead actor makes his/her co-stars look good, too. (A prime example is "The Good Wife," where the secondary actors and their characters have quickly risen to meet the standard set by Julianna Margulies.) David Caruso is so bad that the other actors have no option but to meet him where he works—in the pits. I've seen many of these actors in other roles and they were excellent. Now after several years of having to work with someone who is being rewarded for bad acting, the others are slipping to his level. The line readings have become almost uniformly bad. On one episode, I would sworn that Khandi Alexander was on drugs—her reading was so bad she almost couldn't get the words out. Emily Proctor, whom I've always liked, is practically sleepwalking through her part. She is, and has proved herself, capable of soooo much better than this. As is Adam Rodriguez, who, though enthusiastic, still seems to be phoning in his lines.

In my opinion, writers and camera operators also rise (or fall) to the level of the characters as the actors portray them. And, BTW, does the make-up department on this show hate the actors or are they merely incompetent, too.

A show which wasn't great to start with has gone downhill badly and I blame it directly on David Caruso.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Just Another Cop Show, Not A CSI Show

Author: Bologna King from Backwoods Canada
28 January 2008

CSI:Crime Scene Investigation was a startling and surprising television show that quickly grew a large following, and almost as quickly spawned this, another show with the magic "CSI" at the beginning. But those who might think that the two shows are related by anything more than the words "CSI" and "Bruckheimer" are not watching closely.

CSI starts normally with the discovery of a body. We don't know anything about who the person is or how they got dead. As the song says, "Who are you?". What follows is a voyage of discovery as Grissom and his team carefully examine clues and Brass, the cop, calmly asks for explanations, presenting the witness with the confusing evidence. But sometimes there's a perfectly simple explanation and sometimes the person died due to suicide, or accident or some reason other than deliberate murder.

CSI is a detective show. It is most akin to Sherlock Holmes, and the fun of the story is usually in the explanation of why the person is dead.

CSI:Miami starts normally with the scene of someone getting shot. As often as not we see who is doing the shooting. As soon as possible Horatio Kane will suspect the killer, and, not having any evidence on which he could possibly charge him, interviews him and threatens him that he will "get him" and "make him pay". And sooner and later he does, possibly giving him a well-deserved extra-judicial beating along the way.

Miami is a cop show. It is cops versus robbers (or shooters, usually) and one watches to see that the "good guys" win. It is a classic feature of such shows that the "bad guys" "get off" because of the ineptitude of the justice system, and only the unconventional cop is going to get them by ignoring the rules and trusting his instinct rather than finding evidence that might convince a jury.

I have just heard of a man wrongfully convicted when he confessed to the bloody beating death of his parents after being questioned by a policeman along the lines of Horatio Kane. Unfortunately Gil Grissom wasn't there, since he would have noticed the complete lack of blood evidence on the accused, and would have known that he was innocent.

Now for all of you who have been brought up on cop shows CSI Miami may be just what you want. It's safe and predictable and, incidentally, easier to write. You get the Horatio Kane character who is great fun (and very easy) to parody. You get to know right away who is wearing the black hats and who is wearing the white ones so you don't have to deal with the possibility that things may not be what they seem. To a certain mindset, ambiguity is anathema. This show is for that mind.

The original CSI show on the other hand is full of ambiguity. Evidence that seems to lead one way is subject to another interpretation. One has to reassess one's ideas about what is going on four or five times in a show, and the final result is usually an interesting and well-written tale. Sometimes no crime has been committed; sometimes there just isn't enough to convict even when a crime is involved. It doesn't matter. CSI, unlike Miami, is not about "getting the bad guy" but about finding the truth.

Don't confuse the two.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 23: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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