IMDb > "Fringe" (2008) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"Fringe"
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 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
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"Fringe" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 39: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 382 reviews in total 

14 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Pure entertaining

9/10
Author: casla22 from Argentina
9 March 2010

If we look at the news every day, we see that this world has less and less sense. And if our world has no logic, we can't pretend that have logic a television series that can do with it a worthy entertainment. Fringe takes subjects that have always been present among us: conspiracy theories, weird scientific experiments, parallel universes; and takes us on a walk in surprising situations. Fringe discovered something? No. We can find in the show, elements of many other new and old series, but is that because there is almost nothing to invent, then the important thing is how to combine those things, how to give new twists and new viewpoints. Fringe does so with good pace and interesting characters. Dr. Bishop, brilliantly played by John Noble, who gives the show the mystery, wisdom and a touch of humor fabulous. His son Peter, played by Joshua Jackson, one of those young actors that deserve more and better attention. Finally, the FBI agent Olivia Dunham, played by Anna Torv. And here I pause a moment. After reading a few reviews, I wonder why these comments so upset about her accent? Almost no one notices the Australian accent and if so, what is the problem? There are many ways to talk like people in the world. Her work is impeccable. Nor can I understand those who say it's a bad actress, based on her hard gestures and that almost she no laughs in the series. Hello! Had not realized that she plays a character? We know that Anna Torv is adorable off-screen, but in Fringe, she "must" play a very different woman. In real life many people are expressive and cheerful, and there are also people who are not. Why all the characters have to be happy? Olivia Dunham is hard and very dedicated to her work. That's the character. I can't understand how some people still can't separate the artist from a character. And it bothers me more, people who claim that all the actresses should look like dolls in the series. Thanks to that we have to see and bear all the time, to women without talent, posing for the photo and talking nonsense to get attention. And they say they are actresses. I saw Anna Torv in British series "Mistresses", before convening for Fringe. Also seen in some previous work (Young Lions, McLeod's Daughters, The Book of Revelation); even heard her sing. So I have no problem in saying ¡Wake up America! This Australian girl is SERIOUSLY TALENTED. Has a remarkable presence and her acting range is striking. Anna Torv also has experience in theater, something many fashionable actresses on TV, can't say. Definitely, regardless of what happens with Fringe, I will follow her in its future work.

Thanks to the "logic of the illogical", Fringe has a huge range of possibilities to create stories and interesting twists. If that happens or not is not the responsibility of the actors, but the genius of JJ Abrams and screenwriters (hard to believe they are the same as Transformers). Fringe is fresh, with good pace, intrigue, hooks and interesting secondary characters. It is by far one of the most entertaining television program which is offered recently. I wonder how long it will last the series (considering how bad some television networks are watching their products), but until now, is the only series that after seeing a chapter, makes me want to see the following immediately. Strangely, the ratings do not accompany the show in USA. They seem to prefer TV series boring and linear. Or just settle for such series as Beverly Hills 90210 (again), Gossip Girl and the unbearable teenage vampires. That is a Fringe moment.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

decent production, bad writing

3/10
Author: stenlis
15 October 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Some people go overboard with their critiques. When they don't like a show they will go on to say that everything about it was bad and that is simply not true. While I didn't like this show, I'd like to give a non-exaggerated opinion on it here.

Just like everybody else, I expected to get the same experience from Fringe that I got from the X-Files 15 years ago and I trusted J J Abrams was the man to deliver it. I wanted to like it, in some sense, I tried to force myself into liking it, just to prove to myself I wasn't too old for this kind of story, but it didn't happen.

Most of the people involved in the making of this show did everything to make it happen. The production was generous, the camera work and special effects were excellent, the directors tried their best to infuse the scenes with the right atmosphere but all of this in vain because of terrible writing. Some reviewers put blame on the actors, but I don't see what else they could have done with the script they were given. What a shame. I never cease to wonder how producers are ready to put so much money into every aspect of a show/film but fail to pay for a decent writer.

1st problem - the paranormal: Yes, the phenomena you'll see in the show are ludicrous. They are nowhere near 'fringe' science - they are well outside of it. While this fact severely reduces the sense of mystery in the stories, I don't think that's the biggest problem. It's the reactions of the characters to the phenomena that nail the show. There is no voice of reason, no doubters - no Scully - anywhere in the couple of episodes I saw. There is no ambiguity, no confusion. FBI agents believe the most outrageous claims with little or no resistance. The things the characters see in the show should shatter their world-views but instead their reactions are a mild surprise at most. Can't relate to any of those people.

2nd problem - the normal: The golden rule of science fiction writing is that it's alright to write about something that is impossible, but it's bad to put in something that is improbable. I'm OK with the translucent skin and recovering images from the optical nerves and what not but I can't accept the main character coming out of LSD trance completely lucid and everybody believing what she's saying. I can't believe her boss refused to get her a court order to speak with an incarcerated scientist but he let her fly to Iraq to get the scientist's son so she could do the same... and on and on...

I'm afraid in this case J J Abrams lost his sense of judgment about plots. I hope he recovers.

Was the above review useful to you?

68 out of 129 people found the following review useful:

Almost succeeds at being exciting

6/10
Author: Medacakathareal from Reading, PA
9 September 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I just got done watching the pilot for Fox's new show Fringe. The main reason I was interested in the show is because the commercials made it look a little like X-Files meets the Twilight Zone...

The finished product is something that struggles to get its footing in anyway. They are trying sci-fi but fail to deliver more than little hints and tid-bits at the many fringe science subjects we nerds love. They are trying drama, but our character's acting feels stale and the characters fairly lame. We are introduced to two FBI agents who are having a relationship and are meant to believe this is a very loving and strong relationship despite the fact the two characters are in some cheap sleazy hotel "doing it" (yeah, that sounds like love)...

The plot is promising when the passengers on a plane fall victim to some gruesome contagion and the story could have delivered some creepy horror or at least suspense, but we get none of that, again it fails...

Then, the main male character up till this point gets infected with a similar compound which makes his skin look like ballistics gelatin (if you've seen mythbusters you know what I mean) and looks suspiciously like some gooey bodies we saw back in X-Files... So our main character goes on a wild goose chase to save her boyfriend which was a really boring part of the show, it consisted of her asking for and being denied help by her superior (who apparently has a history with her which is talked about in exposition dialogue) and then going ahead with her plans without his help...

So she manages to save her boyfriend, only to find out he was part of a larger "pattern" which is JJ Abram's mysterious word used to describe an acceleration of strange phenomenon and advanced technology in the world...

The show tries to give mystery, sci-fi, suspense, and human drama but in its attempt to stick its foot into almost every genre it fails to get even one genre right to a satisfactory degree... It was okay, but a far cry from X-Files or even older supernatural/sci-fi shows like Kolchak the Night Stalker...

One of the only good elements is the crazy scientist and his son who are interesting characters and the little hints of bigger things to come (after all, I'm reviewing just the pilot here)... Also, Massive Dynamics, a made-up company reminiscent of Microsoft...

It tries to be more than it is but leaves us with the promise of better episodes in the future, or at least, the ability to hope for better episodes...

Was the above review useful to you?

96 out of 185 people found the following review useful:

It is disappointing

1/10
Author: emailshenjun from United States
19 April 2009

The show started off with a quite interesting idea that someone is experimenting with the world. However the idea is not well delineated through the plot. Neither is it believable nor exciting. The episodes become a collection of fragmented avant-garde scientific hypotheses. Just throwing a bunch of terminology doesn't make a science fiction. Be honest, I am a fan of these theories. As a matter of fact since time traveling was theoretically demonstrated feasible by the physicists in CalTech I have truly believed it will become reality. So will other crazy ideas! Some of the stuff aren't fictions anymore.

I am just tired to watch 45 minute TV starting with a crazy idea leading to a criminal case always solved with a sleazy answer, which is always from the same crazy scientist. How much different research one person can do? From inventing a teleportation device to breeding transgenic animals? Even 100 Einsteins can't do that! The writers obviously have no idea about research. It is not uncommon to take years just to make a cell-culture based experiment work. It doesn't have to be real but at least make it believable! (Drilling a hole on the skull and inserting an electrode (rusty usually) then you can expect to access a living/dead mind? Come on, don't insult our intelligence!) Nonetheless I admire the Hollywood spirit of interrogating government. But don't you think this government or "super-government" conspiracy is a little cliché?

The characters are stereotyped and boring. A smart "bad" boy (seems dispensable), a clever "good" girl. What makes Olivia special? Just to put a woman in the "Tripod"? She can be totally replaced with anyone else from FBI. I can't say her moral values are wrong but boring. She always looks self-righteous. It seems "Save someone" is always the top priority. What makes you think what you believe is always right. Do you give a second thought to what other people believe (even your enemy)? With such a bigoted mind, how could she ever understand what is really going on in these "crazy" cases??? In a sci-fi show I expect to see different and disputable values given the extreme situations.

The performance is not impressed at all.

The show needs to focus to develop the core idea. You don't need too many "cool" ideas! A fictional idea should always be brought up in a "realistic environment" and let the plot and characters develop by themselves. During the process the values are clashing and leave something for audience to ponder. Well, don't overdo it. In this regard, this show is no match to 4400. Currently it is just procrastinating to cover some time. The characters need to be much more convincing and with some CHARACTER!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

55 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

Blatant X-Files knockoff

6/10
Author: gemini2679 from United States
7 April 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Without having viewed the pilot, or the 3 episodes after, I can certainly say that the episodes I have seen are quite reminiscent of episodes of X-Files past...right down to a man who can manipulate electricity to another who is infested with a parasite. Although having a name brand such as Joshua Jackson and Aussie newbie, Anna Torv, the acting is lacking soul as if they were just walking around reciting lines. With the exception of some sarcastic remarks, the script is bland, and despite having the plots basis ripped from X-Files, the plots were substandard and unrealistic. I would be surprised if it came back for another season, and if it does, I can't say that I will watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Best show I never watched...but should have

10/10
Author: (natefishpa@aol.com) from York, PA
24 April 2013

I search for crack-addiction type of shows like "Lost". A few years ago, I saw one of the standalone episodes of "Fringe" and I just didn't understand how this mad scientist had these weird answers to everything. It just seemed far fetched and something a little "out there".

Wow, was I just completely wrong. Big time. This show has replaced my "Lost" and "24" crack addiction to TV.

A few months ago, the Science Channel or the like put Fringe on one night, and I decided I'd give it a shot from the beginning. It changed everything to see it from the start, and potentially why people like myself couldn't really pick it up to start.

I have spent 10 hours straight clearing my DVR of "Fringe" at times, I'm sad to admit. Then, there was a long hiatus on the Science Channel and just recently it came back on, where I quickly devoured all of season 3 in a few days from my DVR. I am frantically searching now how to find season 4. I thought the production would continue on the Science Channel, but it now seems like it was just going there for syndication.

This show I never watched, and is by far one of the greatest shows of my life. I'd like to thank Fox for producing it, but also in the same breath get miffed at them for not packaging this better or putting it on during great time slots, which ultimately can lead to a show's ending...the Friday evening death slot.

Incredible character development, great mystery, high production value, terrific writing...with today's consumer dynamic going towards cheaply produced reality TV, I'm scared that this may be the best, and last, crack addicting show of my lifetime. Great job everyone who put this together, you have a TV junkie here who is grateful for having this art as part of his life.

Was the above review useful to you?

21 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

For people who find "Dr. Who" and "The X-Files" too scientific or too believable

2/10
Author: Rui del-Negro from Portugal
4 June 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I won't bother with a long review; others here have already pointed out the bad acting, the endless stream of clichés, etc.. I'll just quote a couple of lines from episode two (note that this is a DIRECT quote from the show, I'm not paraphrasing or exaggerating in any way):

"The only way that we could see what she saw, even in theory, is if we could recover the electric impulses that were traveling along her optic nerve, which we can't."

"Ah! But we're in luck! This woman was given a muscle relaxant. The drug would have frozen her neural pathways at the moment of death, and the last images she saw with it."

If you don't have a problem with the above (namely the fact that muscles and nerves are different things, that nerve impulses are electricity and can't be "frozen", that the optic nerve doesn't actually carry images, etc.) or with the fact that this kind of voodoo basically replaces all investigation or deduction in Fringe, then you might enjoy the series. It has plenty of explosions and car chases, and an impressive body count. For some people, that's all that matters.

If you prefer a narrative where the characters actually need to investigate, outsmart suspects, etc. (instead of using voodoo pseudoscience to magically get out of every conceivable plot hole the writer dug himself into), then you'll probably find Fringe quite shallow. And if you have at least a highschool-level understanding of physics, biology and chemistry, or if you have any respect for rational thought and scientific procedures, you'll probably find Fringe offensive. The level of scientific illiteracy in a country can probably be measured by how popular "Fringe" is over there.

This isn't science fiction or even "mad science", it's just a random collection of slightly scientific-sounding words thrown together to patch the holes in a very weak plot.

I give it a second star because Dr. Bishop has some funny one-liners.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 45 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing X Files Imitator

1/10
Author: gookooko from United States
12 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Here's the basic premise of the show: the smartest man in the history of the world, a combination of Einstein Cubed/Scott from Star Trek, is left to rot for 17 years in a mental institution, even after he has worked on super duper top secret government experiments. An FBI agent decides she needs him to save her partner/lover and so she walks into the mental institution and he is released on the signature of his son and becomes part of her team, along with his son.

Almost every episode, at least in the first season, then involves this scientist "remembering" some experiment or invention he worked on 17 or 20 years previously which is being used in the present for some nefarious intent.

His son, meanwhile, in almost every episode, says things like, "it's just a dream," "that can't be happening," "think of what your saying," etc. etc.

One episode, late in Season 1, when you would hope the show would be reaching it's potential, will serve as an example. A group of animal lovers break into a lab to free animals used to test shampoo, etc. One of them sees a mysterious "door." He picks the lock on the door, and finds a, unlocked, second, big metal door, which he opens. That big mental door has a big, really big, genetically mutated monster behind it, which is released. The rest of the show is the team hunting down the CGI monster so as to save the human race and also another FBI agent who's been stung and implanted with monster offspring. Very stupid episode.

It all just becomes annoying and stupid.

Was the above review useful to you?

63 out of 121 people found the following review useful:

good but not powerful.............

7/10
Author: lycan_prince from India
17 June 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Just saw the pilot and din't see any comments here. Technically the episode was sound. Good Camera-work. Sharp editing. And a commendable background score though it mostly will be altered for the actual series premiere. The story on the other hand is fairly interesting even if the science involved borders on the ridiculous. As with 'Lost', some scheme of a grand scale is hinted at leaving the writers good room to manoeuver in. The characters, each with his or her own dilemmas and troubles, are likable but the casting looks weak. Anna Trov (a watered down version of Naomi Watts imo) looks more like a lost mother than an FBI agent under stress and Joshua Jackson looks nothing like the eccentric genius he's supposed to be (and I don't mean he should be wearing thick glasses and sport a weird hairdo). All in all Fringe was good but the knockout punch that a series premiere is supposed to deliver (think Prison Break, The Black Donnellys, Life et al) was somehow missing.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Let's talk about Anna Torv's face...

9/10
Author: A_Different_Drummer from North America
9 February 2015

... and with no disrespect to the other reviewers, who I think have already made the following points:

1. This is a JJ Abrams opus, which implies a certain level of quality at all levels of production. Check.

2. The series owes a lot of X-Files and indeed one of the scripts specifically uses the two terms in the same sentence, so the viewer "gets" that X-Files and Fringe Science mean the same thing. Check.

3. The premise is really clever, adding a father and son consultant team where the two have been estranged and the father is recently released from a mental institution, and likes cows. Check

OK. OK. All that has already been covered. But as I write this review in the dead of the winter of 2015, I want to underscore two things about Anna Torv in particular;

1. One of the best American accents EVER, for an Aussie. Wow.

2. While every actress in the entertainment biz lives or dies on her looks -- Duh, this is Hollywood -- Torv may possibly have the most photogenic face in the history of the medium. I do not say this lightly and I am will state upfront I am not taking any medications or other substances which may affect my ability to review. The dictionary definition of "photogenic" includes "aesthetic" qualities which, in turn, are not capable of definition, creating circular reasoning. In any case, as the series progresses, as good as it was (and it was GREAT!) I found myself continually drawn to Torv's face, often to the exclusion of the rest of the scene. On a hunch, I googled "ANNA TORV's FACE" (sic) and sure enough I was not the only one who was hooked. Check it out yourself. Nobody can quite figure out what exactly the reason -- her features on their own remind one of one the smaller characters in Lord of the Rings -- but the draw is almost magnetic.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 39: [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