Bull (TV Series 2016– ) Poster

(2016– )

User Reviews

Review this title
99 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
So far, so good!
Amy_cosmicchic864 October 2016
Despite the rush of people on IMDb who seem strangely desperate to trash this new show; I personally, as a fan of procedural crime dramas and team "puzzle of the week" shows like House M.D, really quite enjoy Bull so far. The first episode had an intriguing premise, the second episode built up the team members' characters enough to at least make them likable, and I think Michael Weatherly is enjoying the role massively and it shows in his winning performance. The psychological aspect of the show is something I don't think we see enough of on television in general and even if some of it is pumped up into quick, flashy computer bites, it still aids the story which is really all it's meant to do. As shows in their infancy go, I think this one is off to a promising start. Bull is a well-shot bit of interesting fun and I will definitely keep watching!
75 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Trials, Philosophy, and Bad Guys, Oh my!!
jonij-776176 December 2016
Don't listen to the Naysayers, and cynics on this review status. This TV show Bull is good, but like many others along this line, you have to remember it is just getting started. Just like any new product that has problems and kinks, they have to be fixed and then rolled out again. Also, trying to care and mend people is a very well difficult and tasking thing to do, but he does it with a bit of style, grace … and oh, getting up in people's faces that deter him with a calm demeanor. Thus, with his experience, this is something he does to get a better scope or compass about them, trying to capture their character so he will know where to go next. I also like his crew, each one does a good job with all they need to do, and with a bit of spirited confidence and can-do attitude alongside of a small amount of humor and comedy.

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.
19 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bull has an interesting premise
kashmenon16 October 2016
Its more like Person of interest meets Boston Legal. They have started off a great idea. I hope that it will get better as they go. As for now, the story line is acceptable but everyone except Michael Weatherly seems to be a bit lost. If they could change at least a couple of the supporting actors to somebody who can pull the character off that would make a huge difference. For now, i will keep watching the series. This is also the first time i am writing a review on IMDb. I couldn't stand the show being rated really low and a huge effort has been made and it is interesting and not like what people make it out to be. I urge that people take a view before going through the reviews and not watching it. Maybe you will like it, maybe you wont but you wont know unless you actually watch it.
32 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doctor Bull...sit.!
Dr_Sagan21 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a comedy-drama about an expert psychologist and his team of many (including hackers, ex-detectives etc. even fashion stylists) who is specialized in Jury selection.

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)".
63 out of 101 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Smart concepts, strong writing, first-rate casting
northshorehwy128 September 2016
I've watched 'Bull' since the pilot, I'm taking it in as good mind entertainment and enjoying it at that level. I don't need more gore, horror, terror and lots of crime to make for a solid program. I'm enjoying what is clearly a successful jump for Weatherly in character choice, a very tough thing to do after a long star turn in a very successful Bellesario franchise like NCIS. The invitation to do more of the same was, I am sure, the reason Weatherly waited as long as he did to make the jump. I'm taping to zip through the ads to keep the story line clicking along and I only do that for a handful of must-see shows. This one's going to get re-upped for a second season at the least.
30 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
As Jack Nicholson once said......"You can't handle the truth!"
Ed-Shullivan21 September 2016
Although the premise of Bull may have some merit, which is the story of a very good looking Dr. Jason Bull (starring Michael Weatherly) who owns a company named Trial Analysis Corporation, and whose life ambition is to be able to read people, including lawyers, judges, perpetrators but especially prospective jurors so that his clients will win their trials regardless if they are innocent or guilty, there is just a bit too much hocus pocus involved to pique my interest.

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.
49 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Finally something other than NCIS, Law and Order and all the rest
emailstodana-8240123 October 2016
An original series that (at this point and time) is highly underrated. Weatherly proves his excellent acting ability (once again) and makes this show tick. The casting is very good. The show is different than any other, finally a breath of fresh air. Intelligent, well thought out and excellent writing. The show is a drama, not a comedy-drama, which might disappoint some viewers who tune into to see the playful Tony DiNozzo character Weatherly played for so many years on NCIS. A far cry from NCIS, as excellent as that show is, you will not see DiNozzo in this show. Weatherly plays a mega-intelligent psychiatrist who puts together juries to win. Gathering information on each juror from many sources, including social media, to make sure the jury "fits" his client to win their case. Weatherly has the ability to pull off the character with ease. An excellent show, I highly recommend.
41 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An appropriate title
thrall75 October 2016
I was intrigued by this show with the ads that appeared during the summer. I've liked Michael Weatherly, but will admit to not being a fan of Dr. Phil, who is both the inspiration for the title character and was a co-writer of the pilot. Dr. Phil: don't quit your day job. The show is simply unbelievable. A multi-million dollar high-tech office, with dozens of staffers, yet no apparent source of income for any of that. The pilot dialogue, to acknowledge Dave Barry's phrase, seemed to come from the wooden dialogue generator. All of the characters are relentlessly hip: there's the now obligatory knit cap wearing techie; a fabulously dressed wardrobe consultant; Bull relieves tension by hitting a tethered baseball in the office, while replete with his oh-so-cool two or three days' of beard growth. None of the characters are people you feel empathy with or care about. Early on, this show has benefited immensely from the prime time slot following "NCIS." I will be very surprised if it holds the early ratings as the season goes on. Maybe not the best career move for Michael Weatherly.
71 out of 138 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I Love Bull!
fredhead-6024228 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is an awesome show and NOT a Lie to Me knockoff. Before there was Lie to Me, there was Dr. Phil McGraw.

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!
22 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
It grows on you
haarryi17 July 2017
I loved the trailer and decided to catch it as soon as it came out. I ended the first episode disappointed as there was little character development or excitement. From the second episode onward, there was a much harder emphasis on character development and it has worked wonders for the show. As the season progressed, I found myself rather absorbed by the characters and the chemistry between them. Particularly, Dr Bull and his team. It was brilliant to watch. Even though the plot is more in the unbelievable territory most of the time, the characters and their relationships and the great one liners make it a worthy watch. Afterall, those were the things that made the three CSIs and the many NCISs work. Michael Weatherly is practically the same as he was in NCIS and I think for this character, that's exactly what was needed. I loved the first season to a certain extent and am looking forward to the second season. If the quality of the writing does not considerably improve, I believe we won't be getting a season three. Which would be sad.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Intelligent, well paced movie quality
lrsfl21 September 2016
I was sad to hear that Michael Weatherly was leaving NCIS. So much so, as to wonder if I'd watch again. (not really, it's too good). So when it was announced that he was granted his own series, I hoped that it wasn't like so many new series which are just a seeming contract fulfillment to said star. As an unabashed fan of Weatherly, this show was an excellent start to what we can only hope will be a showcase for his talents. The plot was solid,writing first rate, and cinematography first rate, it seemed to me to be movie quality. Stepping into a more serious role was absolutely no issue for Michael. As a matter of fact, I hope the writers will give him some latitude in his 'impressions and one liners'. This is not a 'you have to settle into the characters' to enjoy it kind of series, it's solid from the start. I'm looking forward to next Tuesday. Congrats Michael.
27 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A sad comedown for Michael Weatherly
rotweiler23 September 2016
Michael Weatherly left NCIS for this? It is sad to see him now associated with this really poor quality show - both in the plot itself, and in the writing. Yes, I might understand that Weatherly wanted out of the type-casting that NCIS gave him, but for this?

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.
53 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Fatuous
projosd1 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Dr. Phil's megalomaniacal fantasy about a psychiatrist who can completely control the outcome of a trial by jury selection. The entire premise is false. Jury consultants have limited value because jury selection, in the vast majority of cases, involves a limited amount of time, is based on limited information and each side has the same number of challenges i.e. you don't "select" a jury, you "deselect" one. Neither side can "stack the jury."

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.
22 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Better than I imagined, gotta check it out!
shehall-9180821 September 2016
So being an avid fan of NCIS, I was very skeptical of this show, hard to imagine Tony becoming Dr. Bull. Love the actors chosen in the cast, and a few new faces as well. But was pleasantly surprised in first episode. Started off good and ended even better. Took a few turns, and kept you guessing what would happen, and who did it. Can't wait to tune into the future shows, hope it continues & gets some great reviews. Few jokes in between, which helped lighten the story a bit. Funny to watch jurors look at him & say what they are really thinking. Certainly makes you wonder what kind of cases will evolve in the future episodes. I anticipate watching him & the cast, and have it programmed in my DVR already for the entire season. Congratulations Michael & cast on a new future!!!
22 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Entertaining. Engrossing. Well-written. It's an 8.5 on a 10-scale.
jcadams-327 October 2016
Entertaining. Engrossing. Well-written. The plot portrays seemingly credible situations. I give this show an 8.0 on a 10-scale. And I'll probably rate it higher in a few weeks if they can keep up the quality. And the lead actor --- Michael Weatherly who plays Dr. Bull --- is really excellent. Mr. Weatherly makes Dr. Bull out to be a little cocky but still a very likable person. And let me make it clear that I ain't no fan of the real Dr. Phil who is the actual model for the fictional Dr. Bull. (I find Dr. Phil's overbearing personality a little hard to take.) The sad truth, however, is that real jury consultants and "hired-gun" expert witnesses charge such high fees that they can only work for big corporations and wealthy clients. People who are not nice and have bad stuff to hide. Such as companies that pollute rivers. And nasty banks that cheat plain folks with toxic mortgage deals. Etc.
16 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hold the cheese
careid61 November 2016
Dumbed down cheese fest. Give this a body swerve.

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.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Tries to be like HOUSE, but falls way short
sonjamin21 September 2016
To start with, the concept is great! The problem is that not ONE of the supporting characters is remotely likable. NOT ONE! With House, everyone one of the supporting doctors, administrators and patients was likable to some level. The first episode, the "client" was half likable towards the end of the episode, but by then the show hit the "WHO GIVES A CRAP" territory. The dialog is weak and the acting even weaker.

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.
25 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Refreshing.
sergioschout21 September 2016
The first episode just aired and it was a great one. Throw in Michael Weatherly with Dr Phill and you get a great series. The acting is great with some familiar faces here and there. It is also based on science and that is always nice to see in a series.

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).
30 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Boring a total snooze fest. ~Spoilers
metzen-4547425 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I like Michael Weatherly and I really wanted to like this show, but I found his character bombastic to the point that I just got annoyed. Here we're presented with someone who holds numerous degrees who is supposed to be the smartest person in the room, yet when the guy got shot on the steps of the courthouse he seems to be surprised by it.

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.
28 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Couldn't watch the pilot all the way through.
jdonalds-524 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Sept 27, 2016 Update. Oh great as if the first episode of Bull wasn't bad enough the director of episode 2 decided to inject camera shake. Camera shake is otherwise known as "Change the Channel" in my house.

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.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Another mediocre show
phantomas_tranquility22 September 2016
I like to watch TV shows regardless of their first pilot episodes but this one I will not even consider in doing so, it's another attempt to copy "House M.D", "Mentalist" or "Lie to me" where the main character is a brilliant man who can read people and profit in some way from it. The introduction was dull and started out as a boring show with information that was not entirely right, knowing a person by the choices made in the past does not give you a perspective of what that person will do in the future, more so when that choice is argumentative. The show has potential but from the first look, it just lacks ingenuity.
37 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bull-->sh (they forgot to complete the word)...
matthijsalexander4 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
OMG Another disaster. What is wrong in TV-Land? Did they finally run out of ideas? So many sub-par productions lately.

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****

EDIT:

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.
19 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
What the Law is NOT supposed to be
mozartwwr8 January 2018
Seriously, if you love courtroom dramas like I do, then this show is not for you!!! it has nothing whatsoever to do with the law. Every thing is emotional based. Everything. All you need to know going forward.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Bull-Nozzo ?
nalikoki24 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
After 13 seasons of being DiNozzo, one can understand it's difficult to get off it, which means that Michael might not be other than Tony, with the winks, the posture, the smiles, in short, a 'replicant' of DiNozzo. "Call me boss"? Oh Gibbs! Too stereotypical.

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.
13 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bulls#!$
avalonjoyous8 October 2016
Absolutely awful show and it also makes no sense whatsoever .

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 .
17 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed