The Rabbit and the Hawk

This one's got brains, but not much bite. 6.5/10

Ep 4 dives into a weightier legal tangle involving corporate sabotage and blurred moral lines, but the storytelling loses steam somewhere between the conference rooms and case files.

Kathy Bates still delivers the goods, but even her gravitas can't fully rescue an episode that feels more like homework than television. The stakes are high on paper, yet the pacing makes it all feel oddly low-impact. Dialogue-heavy and light on tension, it's an hour that talks big but moves slow.

There are glimpses of something richer (Madeline's ethical tightrope, hints of her past) but they're buried under procedural clutter and a plot that gets tangled in its own cleverness. It's not bad, just oddly joyless.

For a show that started with confidence, this feels like a stumble. A necessary one, maybe, but let's hope it sharpens up before the jury tunes out.

In this episode viewers get further proof that Madeline Matlock is not going to stop until she takes down Olympia Lawrence and her ex-Julian, and Howard Markston for the death of her daughter from opioid addiction.

The A-story of this episode was Robert Walton (John Billingsley) seeking justice for the death of his wife who allegedly died from a bacteria called Legionella, with that bacterium being found in the water of the building she and her husband resided in.

The aforementioned A-story took a back seat to Madeline's continued charge at the law firm she is working/consulting for. That kind of ticks me off because that A-story as well as Olympia and Elijah's complicated "relationship" (an interesting side-story in my book) were afterthoughts on this episode.

I dont think I will be watching any more of the series. There is a too sinister storyline in the background that seems negative and a bit off putting. Everyone has a hidden agenda, everyone has such negative streaks that its become off-putting to me. I guess its part of the storyline that you dont know who does what... Nah! This doesnt have the same charm amd optimism as the original series.

I know this isnt supposed to be the same as the original. I also know its not a continuation of the Andy Griffith series. It should not have been called "Matlock" - it should have a different running title.

I like the pacing of "Matlock": Kathy Bates has to juggle her home life, her quest to get the goods on which of her law firm employers is responsible for the opioids death of her daughter, while we also watch the interesting office politics and of course the major case of the week she's working on.

Guest star John Billingsley (memorable as co-star of the "Star Trek Enterprise" series) brings great warmth and underplaying as the client Bates represents, suing a corporation over the death of his wife due to their negligence. The twists and turns of the case, as the firm sets up a firewall to separate its lawyers as they represent both sides of the litigation at the same time are quite interesting, as is the resolution.

One thing that makes the show different is that while Bates as star naturally brings strong viewer identification and empathy to her lead role, her character is continually deceptive, working like an undercover spy as she strives to find evidence to incriminate which of the three bosses is culpable for her daughter's death. The three of them are quirky but oddly sympathetic too, giving the viewer something to think about, not just a simple "hero versus villain" scenario.