Pilot

I can imagine the pitch meeting at CBS -why not resuscitate the old Andy Griffith '80s hit TV series with a new version, after all, so many golden oldies have been resuscitated successfully for perhaps nostalgic Baby Boomers out there in TV land (like "Magnum P. I.", "Quantum Leap"). And how's this for a hook -we'll make the folksy old lawyer a woman this time! My musing was off-target, however, as the original show ran on NBC and later ABC -it wasn't a CBS property at all.

This typical high-concept Hollywood gimmick sounds dumb, but as with most properties, the secret is in the casting. Kathy Bates takes the role and runs with it Her folksiness is disarming and makes the pilot episode of her pulling many a fast one to finagle her way into a leading law firm job so much fun to watch. The twists and turns of the case are delightful, with a solid supporting cast fighting (mainly in vain) to compete with Kathy as center of attention. But that's obviously a lost cause -she completely dominates the screen and that spells HIT.

Watching the sneak peek preview of the pilot I was bowled over by the surprise ending which takes the series in a completely different and satisfying direction from the homespun set-up scenes preceding. And having Kathy herself make a Hitchcock (or William Castle?) styled plea to the audience not to reveal the surprise secret to anyone, as the actual series debut is several weeks away, was priceless.

FINALLY, a show that takes the "old lady as a punch line" and turns it inside out and upside down. Bates just burst through in this one-hour legal drama with wit, charm and a warrior's fierceness. And Hooray!! How wonderful to watch a show that has a lack of cliches. There is humor galore as all the old lady tropes get trotted out and turned into a weapon that opens doors and collects evidence. And the supporting characters are actually drawn as human beings. The abundance of sharp writing and a great story premise of the pilots proves this series has great promise. I can't wait to see the next episode.

Kathy Bates returns to the courtroom in the 2024 reboot of Matlock, and I'm pleased to report: so far, so good.

This isn't just a retread of the Andy Griffith classic; it's a smartly repackaged legal drama with modern sensibilities, a confident tone, and Bates at the helm doing what she does best: commanding every scene with quiet ferocity and zero fuss.

If you've seen her in Harry's Law (and I did, and liked it), you'll feel at home. She brings a sly wit to Madeline Matlock, paired with enough gravity to keep things compelling. Ep 1 walks the fine line between setup and substance... it introduces us to a corporate legal setting, plants a few intriguing side characters, and gives us a decently layered case to chew on.

The writing isn't reinventing the wheel yet, but it's clean and efficient, with hints of richer character arcs down the road. Direction is solid, and the pacing thankfully doesn't drag.

I'd give the premiere a confident 7.5/10 - good, not brilliant - but there's genuine potential here. If the writers dig deeper into the ethical grey zones and give Bates more room to unleash her layered performance, this could grow into something quite special.

For now, it's a welcome return to courtroom drama done with class. Let's hope the show builds its case episode by episode.

A couple of things I think will help this show last longer than many today. Overall the show is interesting and engauging. Character developing is done well as we go but the direction seems turbulant. Perhaps with the hit/miss directors. It messes up the flow of the characters. It's like they have different personalities different directors. I feel that this retards character establishmen. Kat Coiro got it right in the beginning, so just let her take the lead direction. Please!? Also, on some of the episodes without Kat is that the timing is WAY too "on". Character placement within some scenes and dialog seems a bit too coincidental and contrived. But, I do love the show. Look forward to more. :)

The show goes to great pains to tell you that it has nothing to do with Andy Griffith's Matlock. Makes you wonder why the new show is called Matlock.

The legal drama revolves around a case of wrongful imprisonment, with the plaintiff seeking compensation for his years in prison due to police corruption. Thus, it incorporates most every legal trope known, especially the idea that if you hire a new lawyer the day before a trial is to begin you can assign her to that trial team, and even though the trial is going on she and team members can travel to prisons, New Jersey, etc., to develop new evidence because they are not needed in court, because that's how you conduct trials.

The law firm, supposedly one of New York's best, is run by incompetents who hire someone off the street with no background check. Is her license valid? They don't care. Does she have a bad history? Once again, they don't care. They have this thing these days called Google. You can actually find out stuff. This law firm? Nope. It got to the top in New York by being clueless.

The legal issue that got me is that there was some discussion of not putting the plaintiff on the stand to tell his story (how he felt being locked up for a crime he did not commit) out of fear that his prior criminal record would come to light. Hey, producers/writers: this is a civil case. He's the plaintiff. He's been exonerated. The defense (the State of New York? City of New York? NYPD?) would have taken his deposition. They can introduce a copy of his record. The arresting detective (who testifies) can explain what about his prior record made them think he was the perp. He may not even be able to take the Fifth anymore as he has no fear of prosecution. You don't need to be a lawyer to deal with the holes in the story the writers have set up.

Last, the twist ending added to the end felt like after the show wrapped, someone said, this show needs to head in a different direction. So let's slap on a twist.