Bones (TV Series 2005–2017) Poster

(2005–2017)

User Reviews

Add a Review
185 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
1/10
Recently (2013, 12) this has become just plain stupid....
Trent Condellone18 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I wish there was a zero rating.

From Temperance becoming even more mechanical and ignorant of the most basic human interactions, to the ridiculous plot about a super hacker that can hear and see anybody, anywhere - even if the device isn't connected to a computer! - this show has become unwatchable. It's well past science fiction... would be better if they just ditched any pretense of reality, and had her chasing a super villain with super powers.. oh, wait they have.

No, people aren't eager to turn on the a/c when it is full of dead body parts. No, hackers can't see and hear everything, everywhere, 24 hours a day. No, hackers don't have an advanced AI at their control. And on and on....
34 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good blend of character relationship, plot, and occasional humor in horrific situations
blondesis2u20 September 2005
David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel start well with better than two-dimensional characters in a fresh look at a CSI type show. Based on the real-life work of forensic anthropologist and novelist Kathy Reichs, it's fun, kicky, and only occasionally too gruesome to look at. Not quite like one of Ms. Reichs' novels, it is still a pleasure for a fan (me!) to watch. Boreanaz' past work on Buffy and Angel stands in good stead here as he delivers lines that stand up to a strong female role without diminishing it. Also like Buffy, humor lends grace to embarrassing social situations that highlight common human vulnerabilities. Surrounding the 2 major players are other characters who add to the thrust of a character driven show. The writers do good work giving each character unique attributes that have nothing to do with hair color or body measurements. The entire cast does a good job presenting real, quirky individuals who don't have to rely on looks to sell the worth of their character to the viewers. That alone is something new for any CSI show. Still some rough edges in writing and delivery (Tempe's "I wish this was the worst I have seen" was painful for all the wrong reasons),"Bones" has great potential.
141 out of 184 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
TV Entertainment of the Highest Kind
bsmillios1 June 2006
Here is a show that is refreshingly real, from characters to plots, while intellectually stimulating, and willing to tickle our funny bone.

Dr. Temperance 'Bones' Brennan (Emily Deschanel) is a smart, focused, professional woman whose sensitivities are not so far from the surface that she is hard, or hardened by avoiding them, nor so close to the surface that she is weak, or weakened by them. She is serious, candid and forthright. Her ability to "handle" herself stems from confidence and experience, not tragedy or pathology as is so often the case in TV-land female characters.

Special Agent Seeley Booth (David Boreanaz) could be a hardened, tough guy, stereotypical character. He is not. While we are reminded regularly of his past as a military sniper, the sensitivity he brings to his duties as an FBI agent redeem his past actions, as is his hope. Make no mistake, he is a fierce patriot and proud FBI man, yet his character's motives and motivation are clear and noble. They are never fanatically righteous or overbearingly macho.

These two characters are wonderfully balanced with each other: their approach to life, to their work, to the pursuit of this week's mystery. Their relationship rings true. Through agreements, disagreements and the sense of humor it takes to weather both, Deschanel and Boreanaz always deliver the wry portrayal these two staunchly serious, but genuinely human characters deserve. Each character's work is expertly accomplished and equally important to the solutions they unravel together. As audience, we enjoy their working together. Temperance Brennan and Seeley Booth are a great team - as are Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz.

With these two very real 21st Century individuals, and stories that skillfully incorporate forensic anthropology, both as it is used in the discipline of anthropology to understand the most ancient of artifacts, and as it is used in the most modern criminal labs, the foundation is strong for TV entertainment of the highest kind. But, it isn't only the charisma of the two main characters or their portrayers that keeps the show real, believable, compelling. Dr. Brennan's support team at the lab are a fine crew (Michaela Conlin as Angela Montenegro - forensic artist and friend to Dr. Brennan, Eric Millegan as Zack Addy - genius, geeky, naively lovable forensic anthropologist in-training, T.J. Thyne as Dr. Jack Hodgins - soil, bug and all-things-creepy expert, and Jonathan Adams as Dr. Daniel Goodman - administrator/anthropologist and the lab crew's boss). Each has an expertise that is technically viable and each is well portrayed by the actors cast. It all adds up to a TV show you can't wait to see again next week!
127 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
So good that you are going to feel it in the bones
danielagerch16 August 2006
I love this show. I have to say, the pilot is not that good but keep on watching the episodes and I can assure you, you are gonna love it.

The character are really amazing and you can see them dealing with real life and their own "world of bones" at the same time. Zach is one of those character I don't really have much to say. Angie is really nice and at the same time I can't stand how she always seems to connect with the cases they are working on. To emotional. Hodgins has his own view of life and really wants to stay away from his family, so he spends most of the time at work... just like all the characters. Booth and Bones have an amazing chemistry together and exact opposites, but at the same time they are the same. Both of them, you can say, uses their work as a way to "fix" their personals issues.

About the cases, it's amazing how they always seem to solve them in the most amazing and clever ways, LOVE IT.

You have to see it.
105 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This is a GREAT show!
perkapita19 February 2006
The dialogue is sharp, the acting is spot on; the characters are fun and well defined and each episode is worth watching. I mean nobody cheats! Emily Deshawhatever doesn't make her character more "appealing" (more "cute")- thus, making her more appealing!; her being so out of touch with the modern world is so well acted it's believable; and her best friend is hot because she's a perfect foil being so IN the modern world. I'm conflating all of these ideas because i want to cram in every reason why this is one of the 5 best shows on T.V. It is funny and smart and charming and if it is cancelled for some dumb ass executive reason I swear to God I will boycott...uh...whatever network it's on. Fox? Crap. Cause it's got one of the other 5: The Shield. But I will. This is a great show.
131 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Ran out of good stories fast.
Gregory18 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I really liked the show a while ago when it was all about autopsies, a subject I didn't know anything about. The side drama on people interaction was never my thing. But a couple of days ago by chance I saw the first episode of a 3 parter arc, where they blundered with a super hacker. Now that's a subject I know a lot about and my suspension of disbelief is not THAT high to buy this story, to the point it enraged me.

The story arc focuses on how one hacker with no access to a PC at home can break into everything with a microchip in it and then disappear without a trace, while at the same time committing gruesome murders while wearing an ankle bracelet. He ends up ruining every cast members life and in the end gets away scoot free by forging his data.

Highlights of bovine stench mass include coding a virus into bone so that it will write an extra 0 to the heater thermostats in an unknown facility through the special bone visualizer. A hacker, known for advanced hacking skills, getting away from crime investigations only because his ankle bracelet showed he was at home at the time of the murders. Hacking through takeout library books into the library database to create an impossible super hacker network. And lastly said "super" hacker getting away by creating fake Egyptian royalty papers.

The amount of preparations for the story arcs level of hacking would take lifespans to pull of.

So yeah, a show about super smart people where computers science is literally magic and hackers are literal magicians. Drop this when ever you fell like it.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Skeletal on Substance
MVictorPjinsiste3 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is so bad I don't know where to begin.

The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this "chicks with swords" era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.

To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a "Spock") which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is "Star Wars", or "American Idol", but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.

The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house "Watson". In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.

In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.

Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the "squints", lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.
69 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not just for Kathy Reichs fans..
ukxenafan114 September 2005
OK, so I AM a big fan of Kathy Reichs books, and was intrigued to see what this show would be like. The addition of David Boreanaz also was a big draw, as he is a very charismatic actor(and I adored Angel!) For fans of Ms Reichs books, this is a slightly odd amalgam of Kathy herself and her main character Temperance Brennan, who on the show is also a crime author (like Ms Reichs - a top forensic anthropologist and author.)

The characters are all new, apart from Brennan's ex-husband Pete (although we only got a glimpse of him in the season premiere) plus it is set in Washington DC rather than Canada and Virginia as in the books.

Tempe herself is rather different than the book character. Emily Deschanel is fine, but rather young and headstrong compared to the book Tempe. Even in the one episode, we have seen her rushing into things quite recklessly. I guess they wanted to make her a little more dynamic for TV.

The chemistry between Brennan and Booth (Boreanaz) was pretty good from the start, although they need to handle it properly. Maybe the Mulder and Scully reference is a hint of how they might handle things. However, the crime was a little flimsy. This first episode seemed to focus far more on establishing character and tone than on plot. Probably something that will change with future episodes.

On the whole, Riechs fans can have fun being snooty and complaining about Tempe's drinking and the lack of her cat, but I thought the show had definite possibilities. I know I'm keen to see how things unfold.
94 out of 142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Just Hope It Stays On the Air
Alison10714 September 2005
I didn't expect to like it as much as I liked it. In fact, it's a sure sign of cancellation how much I like this show. I never like crime shows. My mom loves them, but I find them dull, because they're about plots not characters. This is a crime show about characters (not as good as "The Closer" -- the crime show I adored this summer -- mind you), and I enjoyed it. At times, it seemed far-fetched, and the whole Senator plot-point in the pilot seemed awful easy, but the dialogue worked, the characters intrigue me, and the chemistry is great. I expect good things from it.

Alison
105 out of 162 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
This show is brilliant
angelscots19829 May 2006
I am a massive fan of David Boreanaz so obviously i started watching this show for him alone, but to my delight this is turning out to be one of the most well-rounded show there has been on television in years. Despite what people might have thought of David Boreanaz's acting abilities, by starring in Bones he has proved that he is a well rounded actor whom can take any role and make it his own. The rest of the cast has been perfectly selected to bounce of David and make the show the best there can be. Also i am impressed with how Emily has turned out as an actor, in the first few episodes i thought she was a bit of a hollow actress, kind of carboardy, but i have since been proved very wrong and feel bad for terrible of how quick i judged her. I can only hope than this show continues to be made for a least another couple of years so we fans can find out as much as there is to know about our beloved characters. P.S To Fox Please please do not be as cruel as the bigwigs at the WB and cancel this show at the prime of it's run as it would be a dying shame and also doing this would grossly reduce your viewers. Thanks Danielle
72 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Far Too Repetitive and Unrelatable
Emil Pan16 July 2015
When I initially began watching this show I found it to be somewhat enjoyable. There were a few funny dynamics and some of the cases encountered were fairly interesting. However, as time went on I found the show to become increasingly more gimmicky and unrelatable. Each new episode involved the team to investigate a murder that occurred in some new niche that was far too extreme, in my opinion. The people didn't feel like real people, they were all defined by a single trait (artisan businesses, mole people, Amish life).

It all felt fake. Especially the "lovable" characters of our investigative team, or "squints." Characters were given specific traits at what was convenient for the writers. Bones will be ultra- competitive, but it will be only noticeable in this episode. Or the death has something to do with something fairly obscure? Don't worry, this character has some background knowledge on this for no reason whatsoever. There just is no consistency in the characters. What made the whole thing worse was the inclusion of the interns in season 3 or 4(?) which only served to be a gimmick. It gives you the depressed one, the cocky one, the country one, the super smart one; extremes that just don't exist in the real world. And each one will have a dark back story for the purpose of drama that will just distance the characters farther and farther from the real world.

After realizing how incredibly ridiculous each character was, I chose to stick it through and just watch this show for what it is; a crime show. Watch the squints as they solve crimes through complex and interesting cases. But then there was an obvious pattern. Unlike most crime shows which shows how a series of events lead to capturing the killer, Bones provides a much simpler solution. Booth and Brennan will investigate and investigate until they find a small detail in the bones (a nick or grooving) that they somehow hadn't noticed until the last ten minutes of the show that miraculously solves the case for them. The first fifty feel pointless because of this.

Suffice it to say, I did not find this show enjoyable and can barely get through an episode anymore without finding it completely ridiculous. Every few seconds I feel myself groaning or laughing at how impossible it is.
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Same/Different
JM Grayvoice14 September 2005
I watched the show and it did feel familiar, yet fresh also. Emily/Temperance is very convincing and the rest of the cast isn't your every day cute side kicks. They seem like real squints, and that is a whole other world they live in. A bit of a stretch on the Holographic skull and body stuff. I'll go with you there, but only if you let the squint out of the lab more.

David B is and always will be Angel to some people, watch this show and you'll come away thinking its more Angelus than Angel, the humor and comic timing between him and Emily has the makings of a Moonlighting relationship if, IF the writers want to play it out that way. All in all, a good show, directing was crisp the photography was also good.
63 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Kind of unrealistic and repeats itself a lot
rrsanchez13 September 2010
Unrealistice?, you might ask. Yeah, that's my impression as I see this department loaded with young, beautiful people (mostly) that are alway so in touch with their feelings, smart dressing, unfailingly witty, women so sharply dressed and made up (with hairstyles to match) that one can't help but wonder if this isn't a fashion show in disguise, and so wise beyond their years. I can't imagine a department that didn't have people who weren't physically unattractive, perhaps not sharp at times, and yes, sometimes at a loss for a witty comeback.

Yes, each episode start with a body discovered in gruesome detail, never a body that isn't in an advanced state of decomposition. I'd love to have the computers these people have with such advance zoom features that enable solving the case.

Don't get me wrong. I watch this show but such beautiful investigators on the scene as they toss their designer hair about. It's a bit much really. Good show at times but in my opinion tailored for people that enjoy predictable scripts showing beautiful people.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Blame it on The X Files !!
ahmed elshikh2 June 2010
Ladies and gentlemen, be sad, or be glad, we are in the disgusting forensic TV series-era !! Now count with me, and anathematize our luck :

"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation", "CSI: Miami", "CSI: NY", "NCIS", "Crossing Jordan", "Da Vinci's Inquest", even "The Cosby Mysteries" !...Didn't we already have ENOUGH ?!

Since the late 1990 till the late 2000s we've got almost the same sick series about the genius criminologist with a partner, or a team, who go to solve crimes by scrutiny the autopsy, and what a nauseating mission to do. So you will have for sure lots and lots of repellent scenes where we see clearly, accurately and awfully the most horrific shots in the history of TV.

OH GOD. Once we had the great days; the good cop (or detective)-era such as Columbo, Kojak, Magnum, and Simon & Simon. Or the good old Sci-Fi-era, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Knight Rider. And oh boy we've got also the hot & sexy-era such : Cover Up, The Love Boat, Baywatch, even a cheesy one as Thunder in Paradise.

All of those was unforgettable, original, had good, real good, thoughts, action, women... Till THE X FILES came. At that point, it was the beginning of the misfortune or to be exact : The Catastrophe!

Undoubtedly The X Files was one of the greatest, but there was a few slight disadvantages; we had agent Dana Scully (medical doctor and FBI agent) in every episode doing an autopsy. And of course her lap - as the series succeeded - became part of our living room. So the thirsty-for-money producers loved it with all the physical terror, and the exciting hunt for the truth. Therefore they tried to repeat it in another, not too far, classification : The Forensic !

But it became so ugly, full of deformation, and very cruddy just like BONES. Plus the unsexy present of Emily Deschanel, bleeder as David Boreanaz (he was much better in angel), and all of these corpses...To the extent that every time I watched it I found myself screaming AAAAHHHHHH !! What a terrible gross !!

Cancel it please. You've canceled before real good shows such as (The Lone Gunmen) or (A Man Called Hawk). Here it's a bad one. So please, little mercy and enough with the Bones-era, or we'll drop dead ourselves out of the nausea and the monotony !!
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Liked it enough to keep watching
Cagey15 September 2005
I found the first 15 minutes or so to be a little "trite". The characters didn't seem to fit comfortably in their skin. But by the end of the pilot I was very much interested, especially in the forensics aspect. I have a friend who is an anthropologist and I'm going to get her opinion about the Dr. Brennan character.

The series has a lot of potential and I especially like that unlike X Files, these characters are dealing with "real life" events rather than other worldly events.

I think the lead actors are good together and am looking forward to the building of their chemistry together. Whether as working partners or romantics, I don't care, I just want there to be a degree of tension between them that will keep things interesting.
63 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Simply irritating
Inkmu26 July 2012
I don't know how could this series go beyond 3seasons. I only watched 1 and a half, and couldn't stand it no more. I actually hate the series since the pilot and it's next 2-3 episodes. But since everyone seems to love it, I tried and watch on for a whole season, got half way or maybe 5 episode into season 2, and I think I have enough of this crappy, contrive show.

The main character is unlikable, she's simply annoying. For someone who is so smart, she is so dump. I don't know this, and I don't know that. Sure it work the first few times, but can't she learn? She kept saying I know I'm social inept and I'm trying to be better, and yet she fail to learn without people spell thing out for her. And why does she has to act like a B to people who she seem lesser intelligent. Being unsympathetic after a while is just irritating, irrational and is plain dump. Seeing her dialog with booth trying to explain social norm to her make you feel like you should hit your head against the wall, pass out so you don't have to suffer this bad series. And what's worse, after 10mins of irritating you with her social inept and refuse to understand other way of thinking, you are being slapped with at least 10mins of her failing to do the normal social thing, + another 10 of apologies for failing to do so, + 10mins of cheesy you get it next time. Just that she doesn't, and the viscous circle repeat. Every episode, she mocks at human being, then she glare or hate you because you laugh at her failure to act accordingly, and she feels no pity for you when she nuke you down with her harsh words. I found her character is such a child, and it irritating, and that child didn't learn, didn't grow up, and that make it hard to shallow. And lot of times, her character changes her personality like 180 degree so quick, that you feel not genuine. Like she dish on your behavior to the ground with her whiny monotone for a good 3mins+, then within 30s, she came and join you and act like it was really fun -.- The plot line is boring, and a few episodes are rip off of other show, without the good bit of it. All the side characters are annoying. They are whiny, not funny in any sense, doesn't have a real personality. Overall, the show is too contrive, the case is way way too boring, and some give you a déjà vu sense, and make you miss how good other show is. I put it on as background noise to see if I will hate it less than when I was watching it seriously, but I just end up found it too hard to stand to even watch it to fall asleep, I got fury up watching this show to be able to sleep. This show is not even worth it as background noise, I rather watch bad infomercial than this crap show, and no, I haven't read the book!i just genuine hate everything about this show!
39 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Oh, no!!
mtreve16 December 2006
What have they done to Kathy Reichs' original Temperance Brennan!!! That's not her! Never ever! Where is the 40 year-old woman with alcohol problems, with her own struggling through life and love? And where the hell is Andrew Ryan??? I am so disappointed, when I saw her doing some sort of Kung Fu I nearly fell out of my chair!! I read all her books, the more I read the more I liked this complicated, but yet so sympathetic woman who lives in two total different states, who herself has so many different faces. And now she is one Hollywood-style, action-loaded, simply ridiculously acting woman with no character. If you read all her books, and if you loved the Temperance Brennan there, do not watch the series! Don't!
43 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Just another bad example of books transformed to TV
xNikishax25 October 2007
I am a huge fan of Kathy Reichs books and was really excited when I heard they were doing a show based on her work.

But I was extremely disappointed when I first watched it. Emily Deschanel does not resemble the Temperance Brennan from the books at all. And where is Ryan? In the books, the dialogues between kind of serious Temperance and funny Ryan were just amazing. And none of that is seen on TV.

It's a good show to watch if you're bored and nothing else is on and if you try to push back everything you know from the books. But don't expect to see what you have imagined while reading.
25 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Massive failure of a show
Chromium_five5 April 2010
Today's featured IMDb user comment, by a Fox marketer posing as an IMDb user, describes "Bones" as "refreshingly real, from characters to plots."

Here's one of these "refreshingly real" plots:

A corpse turns up with a mutilated face that upon computer reconstruction looks like... a chicken's. Also, an autopsy shows that the corpse's neck has been wrung, like a chicken's. Bones and Booth trace the corpse to a chicken farm, which is being picketed by hipster protesters chanting, "Cluck you, cluck you." Here they learn that the victim developed his chicken-like face when the farm's chicken stench caused his nasal passages to become deformed. Then, they probably solve the case. I don't know. I couldn't finish watching. I've never made it more than halfway through an episode. Not for lack of trying.

I don't remember exactly, but the chicken episode may be the same one in which the corpse is found by a troop of girl scouts who carefully preserve it and transport it to the FBI lab on their scout bus, with the consent of their scout leader. And let me tell you, the realism left me feeling refreshed.

The above plot description might make it sound like this is an inspired, surreal parody of cop shows, but it isn't. If this was parody, I'd expect the actors to play it completely deadpan. Instead, they're trying to be so cute and precious that we just want to eat them up.

There's Bones -- whose level of social awkwardness is wildly inconsistent, depending on which writer is phoning in the gags -- and Booth, her thoroughly bland boss, and a group of thirteen year old boys disguised as lab technicians. One of these guys is named "Sweets," which alone is enough to push this show from annoying to intolerable.

There's also a slutty girl (Angela, I think her name is?) who has no identifiable function other than letting us know every six minutes that she's been sleeping around. How this advances the plot in any way is beyond me. Maybe it all comes together in the second half of the episodes, when I'm not watching.

The only unique aspect of "Bones" is the shockingly grotesque corpses. Now, if the rest of the show was as grotesque -- if these corpses were put into any sort of appropriate context, that is -- it would be one of the darkest, most compelling shows on television. Instead, we are treated to the bizarre spectacle of these hideous, decaying bodies that look like they're from the set of a Lucio Fulci movie displayed in brightly-lit rooms while childish actors poke at them and flirt with each other against sparkly background music. It's one of the weirdest things I've ever seen, but it's not funny or interesting at all. It's unwatchable.

0/10.
85 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Been here, Seen this: More proof that there is nothing new on TV
robnels200022 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This show is typical of all the current crime dramas on TV today, dull and predictable. Predictable because the stories are reused from all the crime dramas that came before it.

This show is so predictable you can tell what's going to happen in the first 3 minutes. I was so disappointed by the first show that I stopped watching it for a long time then I caught an episode part way through. In that episode an Arab American was killed when a bomb blew up his SUV and he was thought to be a mad bomber terrorist. I walked in while the main characters where asking the wife questions and a man was pacing nervously behind her in the back ground, it took me 3 seconds to predict the husband was murdered by his wife's lover and frame the dead man as a terrorist. 10 minutes later that was exactly the story.

I wonder how much they paid the critics to like this crap.
25 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
there's potential!
Tina Rasmussen1 October 2005
It has got potential that is for sure. I know there are a lot of forensic shows out there at the moment so what do we need one more for? Well it is always nice to see nerds being portrayed in a positive manner, and if this is how we get David Boreanaz back on our TV-screens on a regular basis then that is fine with me. Yes that was a totally brainless and girly thing for me to say but it is the honest to God truth so there you have it. Also I would like to defend this show for it only being what, 3 or so episodes old and we all know that a show can change quite a bit as it goes. So how does this stand out from all those other forensic show? Well I think it was about time that somebody realized that anthropology is more than just observing people in the rain forest or whatever, but that in fact it is a very useful science. I for one is looking forward to being entertained in the future. Because really is that not what it is all about - entertainment?
48 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Disappointing, bordering on dire
I a essentially a reader who enjoys movies and TV, rather than the other way round, and to see the Temperance Brennan of the admirable thriller series by Kathy Reichs degraded to this asinine bimbette was a disappointment. Emily Deschanel is pretty enough but has none of the intellectual weight needed to carry the role. Little Emmy is only 30 for Christ's sake, she would have just left school and could in no way have qualified for the job she is portrayed doing.

The score is a jarring nightclub shade of bland and the script is banal. It was obviously put together by someone with no real clue what science is all about and who has presumably never read the books.

It's a shame; both Hart Hanson and Kathy Reichs can do much better.

I bet Kathy is pleased that her name isn't prominently featured in the credits.
18 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
At least 5 seasons too long
dinalt1016 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The show was never 100% original, in that odd partners and detective shows are a penny on television.

But it was generally enjoyable, although to be honest the episodes are very similar to one another - can't escape that, in that it's identify cause of death and catch the bad guy/gal every week.

But it should have ended when Bones and Booth became a couple. And given the stretched out will they/won't they story, that was more or less rushed through in a few minutes.

Once together, it became more about babies and family discussions. Not exactly a crime series, and it felt out of place and frankly boring.

The visit to the UK killed it for me more than anything. Stereotyped to high hell, and there's no way you'd get a vintage mini car from a hire firm either (other than those renting classic cars). Cringeworthy television at its worst.

If it had stuck to 5 seasons, I'd have rated it higher. However, Season 6 onward killed it for me.

A shame that shows like this carry on (and on and on and on), yet other shows get cancelled halfway through their first run.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Started off decent, went down hill in a hurry
ashleynallen-430137 September 2017
Where to begin...

When I first started watching this, back in 2010 I believe, it was a decent show. Nothing amazing, nothing to get all hyped up and excited over, but a solidly decent show.

Which, hey... with TV shows being what they have been for the past fifteen years? That's respectable.

The biggest flaws the early seasons had was the technology; everything could be figured out, with amazing, Star Trek-esque technology. Every crime could be solved this way, no matter what.

But the characters were lovable; they were funny, and yeah, maybe a bit cliché, but they had some great points to them, with just enough seriousness and angst thrown in to keep you hooked.

And obviously, Brennan+Booth was a huge thing; everybody was waiting, waiting, waiting for them to get together. To reveal that they truly loved each other, and were meant to be together forever and ever.

Then the producers did it. Brennan and Booth became Brennan/Booth. And the show went downhill fast after that. Everything changed, from the characters themselves, to the settings, to the feel of the show in general. I stopped watching a few months after that, as it literally lost all interest to me. Not that I hated it... I just couldn't care enough to watch it anymore.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
what were guys thinking!
amethystwings3218 May 2012
This show was once upon a time a good drama, but now it is nothing but,a family show.It was a crime drama at first now it is all about marriage and babies.What happened to the crime part of this show.I guess went the way of wedding bells and storks.I can't watch this show anyway because,cable and the digital transition stoled channel 28, from us.But I would not watch it anymore even if we did have 28. I have nothing against marriage or babies it just that a crime show is not meant to be a family show. That is my mom opinion on the show, mine is I have to agree ! It was meant to be a forensic crime drama, with comic undertones. Not a family show where everyone gets married and has a baby, I mean not against the marriage and baby scene. But it needs to be toned down a lot , because it doesn't make good TV! There has to be a balance, somewhere. If one couple had a baby that is one thing but everyone. Instead of calling it Bones you might as well title it Babyboom the series.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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