Bull (2016– )
User ReviewsReview this title
The premise of this show is interesting, trying to get into the minds of people to see how they think and what moves them. This character Dr. Bull (Michael Weatherly) seems to care about these people, the defendant, the jury and everyone in between. He even takes the diamond in the rough, the little guy and even the underdog, and makes them become a little better than they were. Besides, I love how his character seems to take the problems that come before him with a cool and rational angle, even when he goes up against a bad guy. Together with his crew this drama, Bull, shows signs of definite potential. So give it a chance, even with its minor snags, you might just learn something about yourself.
In the beginning, the whole setup, it reminded me of another TV show ("Lie to me") but here the Mumbo-Jumbo pseudoscience is more prominent. Lots of technical data are gathered using "special" cameras and sensors and biometrics, not to mention the psychological profile from browsing habits and social networks, and are used (supposedly) to predict how a juror will vote for a verdict.
Despite all the data though, in the pilot episode, Dr. Bill (played by Michael Weatherly) is ultimately using his gut, to lean the scale in favor of his client.
Anyway. This TV series is faaaar from scientific, and a little bit on the stereotypical side (especially with all these hackers who can penetrate anywhere). And in such cases the question is, if is it really entertaining...
...Well judging by the pilot, not so much. I like Michael Weatherly. I think he could shine in a comedic role but, despite the efforts from the producers (including Steven Spielberg), his character isn't that much interesting. He isn't so sure about himself and it seems like he struggles to find his place in the picture. His actual personality is vague. Not a proper build for a TV hero and a titular character.
Overall: Too soon to tell, but it doesn't look promising. Dr. Bull isn't such a strong character as his producers wanted to be. The (pseudo)science of the show is overwhelming and not up to the hype. Not really a comedy and too light for a serious drama. If you like the premise though, check out "Runaway Jury (2003)".
Like many other drama/crime series the writers tend to draw their audience down a certain emotional path and then in the last 10 minutes of the show (before the last set of another over extended commercial break) they not only show up with the star of the show and save the day by revealing how smart they are to the rest of the TV series cast, they end up showing how stupid they must think their audiences must be to spend the better part of an hour drama series filtering through an endless supply of TV commercials only to witness a very disappointing ending that you will so quickly forget that you won't even be able to repeat the dumb scenario to your friends at work the next day during lunch break.
I will give this series the benefit of the doubt and I will watch a few more episodes in case the scripts improve, but I don't hold out much hope if I have to base my assessment on the pilot episode.
So far I give Bull ** out of **** stars.
The less cerebral types won't get it but if you're a psychology major, like me, you'll love it! Predicting human behavior is usually the focus of most crime shows during the hunt for the killer but this one is during the trial itself. Interesting! I know most of the reviewers wanted blood and guts but not all trials are about that. It's about the jury and the courtroom process.
I gave it a 10. You hear me. a 10!
I hope it stays on a good long time!
The concept of manipulable juries has been around for ages, both in big screen and in TV. It's a stupid concept (the rich and smart get away with anything; the simple and poor get the shaft) and to make a show that uses that as it's only reason for being, now that is really sad.
Just because Weatherly was in the show, I gave it a 4. It should have had a 2.
In the episode I watched about a female pilot sued for crashing a plane, the defense attorney was portrayed as an unscrupulous miscreant who had to be outed and dismissed by Dr. Bull (natch), Bull sat behind counsel table unshaven and with no tie (try doing that in any courtroom in this country), during the trial counsel asked questions of the jury and requested they raise their hands in response (that never happens) and "mirror jurors" sat in the courtroom with biometric watches to evaluate the testimony (like driverless cars, that technology may someday exist but I have never seen it to this day). OK, it's TV, but at least let's get the basics right- there is no "guilty or not guilty" in a civil case. A defendant is "liable" or not liable. I would grant a summary judgment dismissing this show in its entirety.
Oh DiNozzo I miss your wit. Bull, stop posturing, preening and looking so damned pleased with yourself. I do not believe in your expertise. I do not care about your tech.
Certainly nothing innovative here. A rehash with fingers crossed that Weatherly could carry it. He can't. The writing and the premise are simply not good enough. I loved lie to me, until it inevitably became repetitive. Even then though, I'd watch for the chance to see Roth's sneer and follow the longer arc. This is just dull.
At least everyone looks all pretty n shiny. As they say, you can't polish a turd, but you can roll it in glitter.
If you want excellent procedural crime drama, watch Rectify or The Night Of instead. If you're looking for something light-hearted go for Lethal Weapon. It even has a heart - and great acting. I'd even suggest Rosewood before ever offering this. Never watch this.
There was nothing compelling about getting a murder off. It only shows that the rich can afford a jury consultant. I can already predict that the firm will take on a few pro bono cases, but it already feels formulaic and low on substance.
Of course it is just one episode but it shows great promise. There are some broad similarities with other series out there (mentalist and others) but it is has that special spin.
Conclusion: Quite promising if you want to see something that is completely different and is hinged on facts. If you like intellectual intriguing series, this is one for you ( as far as episode one is concerned).
Furthermore the system and data analytics that they employ tend to do most of the work.They just need a tech to read them, instead we get Dr. Bull.
I think this show thought it was going to be like the Mentalist - which I enjoyed watching.
But Michael Weatherly is no Simon Baker.
In this first episode the guy had to keep telling you that he was a Doctor - making me think that "Tony Dinozzo" was in need; of a much needed slap or two from Gibbs.
Original Review: We were sorely disappointed with the first installment of Bull. We actually had to quit after about 20 minutes and it was hard to hold on that long. I'm not sure I will be able to watch any of the second episode. I know new shows often change quite a bit after several episodes and get better, but this is so bad to begin with that improvements would have to be dramatic. I'm not sure who is to blame, the director or the producers.
The lighting is bad, way too many quick jumps from scene to scene, unrealistic characters, no character development, the pace is poor, it was just a mess.
The end came for me when, in a random courtroom case with no background, the jurors began to address the camera and Bull one-by- one right in the middle of the trial; it was like a dream sequence. That was the low point.
The dialog was disconnected and didn't flow.
The story is similar to the movie Runaway Jury but that movie was 10 times better than Bull.
I am not American, but the very last thing I would want to see is how 'the system is rigged', how justice is a science and influenced by third parties. So yes, for me this show started to disgust me from the first moment. What a nasty premise. It is very clear that this script is very weak, it is just another NCIS-like show that will continue dragging on forever. Science + Crime = 1,000 TV Shows. I think this theme/premise has been milked dry by now.
The first actor we meet is the lawyer (I do not know his name) an extremely bad and unconvincing actor, lets hope he doesn't return. Then, we get to meet Dr. Bull, clearly this character is poorly portrayed. Like many other shows the character must be arrogant, confident, pretty and interesting. Unfortunately the ball has been dropped here very badly, it all feels fake, forced and far from natural.
This show really feels like it is a combination of elements of previous shows glued together rather poorly.
I will not watch another episode ever.
Yes, Bull... they know disaster was coming and aptly named the show the first have of what they knew it would be: Bull****
So I have seen another episode and stand by my words. Though truth be told on Steven Colbert it was mentioned this was the new hit-show with over 2 million viewers.
And then the 'flood' of images, the high-tech to confuse the viewers, the pseudo-psychology, and so on.
Somebody wrote that at first it reminded him vaguely of "lie to me". No way, not by far. Just Bull! Nice title choice.
I started to watch episode 2 and really could not go on, I was feeling dizzy with all the screens moving left and right, up and down and DiNozzo - oops! Bull looking too concentrated to be convincing. Overacting.
The first episode was all over the place and it even ended weirdly it didn't make the least bit of sense .
I like Weatherly he has always come across as childlike ,silly,and loves to prank people plus he has a very good heart as well.
But I'm sorry I just do not think this is the appropriate vehicle for his talent .
Not to mention all the supporting characters are as equally dull as Weatherlys character is .
The show just doesn't make sense sadly and the courtroom scenes are bizarre .