User reviews

FBI agent Don Eppes (Rob Morrow) works out of the L. A. office. He has an extra tool in his toolkit. He gets help from his math genius brother Charlie Eppes (David Krumholtz). Alan Eppes (Judd Hirsch) is their dad. David Sinclair (Alimi Ballard) is a fellow FBI agent. Amita Ramanujan (Navi Rawat) is Charlie's student turned love interest. His friend Dr. Larry Fleinhardt (Peter MacNicol) is also a professor. Terry Lake (Sabrina Lloyd) is an FBI agent for season 1 who transferred to Washington. Megan Reeves (Diane Farr) is the female FBI agent for seasons 2-4.

This is basic network police procedural for the most part with a covering of math. The family part gets the other big slice of the pie. The tone is serious. It's a CBS. I'm not that convinced with the math part of the show, but it's a fine gimmick. It's a waving of the magical math wand. At least, it differentiates this show from all the rest.

Terry Lake had the potential to develop into Don's romantic partner but actress Sabrina Lloyd left the show after one season. Don's romantic storyline remains the show's glaring weak point. It's funny that Larry has a better romance. Amita does start with a problematic issue. The show skips over it a bit. What I really want is that she doesn't become simply Charlie's assistant. She kinda does. Mostly, I like the group.

This is a fine network show. It lasted six seasons. It's a middling Friday night show which never broke top 30, but never decline that much either. It could have gone another season or two, but there's no point.

I like this programme because it makes me laugh. Why? Because the mathematics in it is so clunkingly awful and artificial. Last week we had a series of mathematical formulae to predict whether someone was likely to have committed suicide. Give me a break! One of the other comments points out that if something is not expressed mathematically, then it is not fact but an opinion. Maybe so, but extending that via Numb3rs is like saying that Dan Brown is the leading theologian of his generation.

As I said at the beginning, I quite enjoy this show for its fun and escapism. And let's face it, the CSI franchises make a load of their science up too.

Despite being another police drama (this time it is the FBI), it has several unique elements. I don't think I have ever seen a mathematician as one of the main characters in a TV show. It worked. I liked how he related to those he dealt with. He was able to communicate on a human level. The mystery and suspense aspect of the show was very good. The writing was also very good but it may be difficult for the show to keep up the quality of its writing with its main subject a mathematician. Although it is somewhat unrealistic, I liked the idea of the two brothers working together with a common objective with the father putting his two cents in once in a while. I found the show very entertaining and I hope it lasts.

A series about violent crime that doesn't glorify violence in any way...a show where each episode involves guns and knives, but isn't about them, doesn't focus on them, and even though the graphic violent crimes are shown in action and in photographs isn't out to shock you.

A genius approach to modern television that offends as few people as is possible while managing to attract the largest audience...bravo. I've seen the entire six seasons several times and though i miss the characters i see why it had to end...they were running out of viable scenarios where math and science would be both understandable to the audience, and without rehashing old episode tragedies.

I am jealous of those who haven't seen any of these shows, i would love to see the entire six seasons for the first time, again...

Having only watched a couple of episodes of season one, so I can't comment on the development that the show has probably shown to date, but from what I have seen the show is a pleasant enough twist on the traditional crime show. You've read the synopsis I expect, or seen the show, so I wont bother explaining the premise to you and just focus on the grit.

The characters of the show are pretty basic, save the protagonist mathematician and Dr. Larry, who have the necessary eccentricities of their intellects, if being probably far more socially skilled than their real life counterparts - the main character was intended to be likable so we go the Will Hunting type of extreme genius who is practically fine at interacting with other human beings, sure it probably happens sometimes.

The dynamic between the two brothers does not give off a family vibe in my opinion, but the acting overall is good quality, Peter MacNicol is great to watch as ever and his relationship with the main character is good fun to watch.

My only major criticism is that the show suffers from an overabundance of exposition that makes it even harder to suspend disbelief, it practically slaps you in the face with its cold fish whilst shouting "I am a work of fiction". The cartloads of exposition is to be expected from the parts of the script where mathematics are involved, and even if its fairly rudimentary stuff - we're used to that, we know they're scared of looking too nerdy or cryptic and putting off viewers with all their mathematical gobbledygook. What must have happened is that when writing the script, having to explain all the mathematical jargon has influenced the style of the entire show, and it seems like characters are forever explaining everything to each other, clearly for our benefit. It just makes you want to groan.

Saying all this I still find the show easy watching and relaxing. Its not brilliant in any shape or form but its just original enough and without too many layers of cheese that puts it a cut above a lot of other shows of this type that may have much higher production value.

Its got charm, thats something you cant buy and makes the show appealing despite any shortcomings.

This show has been off the air for several years now and still holds up. This show has staying power and appeals to different generations. I like it and I'm 44. My wife likes it and she's 32. My son likes it and he's 22. We still watch it on a consistent basis. Good plots, solid characters= great show.

Numb3rs is possibly the most testosterone-y intelligent show on television. Unfortunately, it keeps getting more and more testosterone-y and less and less intelligent. It's a shame: it was a way to show that math can be fun and interesting.

The first season was great: a fabulous new premise, lots of family and relationship conflict and soul-searching. But as the years have progressed, the show has become more and more formulaic and dumbed-down. Every time Charlie (David Krumholtz, though an excellent actor) mentions something even remotely mathematical, even something any 12 year old should know, he jumps into an ultra-simplistic metaphor. Perhaps that's necessary but it is presented exactly the same way each time to the point that I cringe each time he pauses and says, "okay, take xxx for example..." Each episode the math seems more and more contrived. Oddly, the one episode that made total sense (the mathematics of music) was the one where everyone on the show doubted it.

Worse, though, is the dearth of regular strong female characters. Of the eight top billed characters each season, only two are ever women. With the notable exception of Amita (Navi Rawat), Charlie's love interest, who is intelligent, strong and funny, the women in the show are either whiny or end up in bed with Don (Rob Morrow). (You would think that someone that high up in the FBI would learn not to sleep with people who report to him. He would have been fired by now.) I have nothing against Diane Farr but her character, Megan, was weak. She's supposed to be a profiler, but unlike the smarties in Criminal Minds, she feels like an armchair psychologist and forget having her in the field. I can only think of one episode where she actively ran down the criminal. Other times she was emotional and drippy.

I really like Liz (Aya Sumika) but she's not in enough episodes and, of course, is a failed love interest of Don's.

The saving grace of the show is Larry (Peter MacNicol). The episodes he wasn't in were almost boring. His character has such an interesting and unusual take on everything and is so believably intelligent, it's a joy to watch. I'm also glad that this season both Alimi Ballard (the token Black, David) and Dylan Bruno (Colby) finally got some real story lines. Colby is the sweetest guy in the world and you just want to take him home and bake him cookies.

Over all, with the exception of Larry, the men are very male and the women very female. The men are much smarter than the women (Amita is brilliant but not as smart as the other two male academics) and very two-dimensional emotionally (again, with the exception of Larry). The women are almost non-existent. A male-oriented show doesn't have to be this way. Supernatural, for example, has only two or three main characters (depending on the season) always male and all kinds of male stereotypes, yet the characters are very three-dimensional, have believable emotional moments, and all the recurring women characters are always very intelligent, strong and kick butt.

By the end of season 4 I was at the point where I wasn't sure I'd even watch season 5. Fortunately, the cast and crew pulled it together for a season finale that made the grade for me, renewing my faith in the series.

It was intelligent and gripping, unpredictable and full of pathos and angst. The issues were real and thought-provoking. Krumholtz's superb acting was given a chance to shine. His character was again three dimensional and the others all played against each other beautifully. Even Farr played her character in a way that was both emotional and strong. (She had been positively drippy lately.) The math wasn't over-explained with silly metaphors and some of it was even believable.

I'm not yet caught up with Season 5 but it's looking better so I haven't given up yet.

Quite entertaining as a detective series. And fun to watch for mathematicians or those who like maths. Still, while the maths holds, its application in relation to the crimes mostly doesn't. It's "mathematical name-dropping".

Also, the computer sciences parts are quite often far off - it seems the (excellent) consultants employed for the series were all pure mathematicians. Take for example the notion, that to delete a hard disk drive, the data bits are repeatedly toggled. That would actually leave the data as is, or easily restorable as its bit-wise complement. Actually, data is overwritten, either with zeroes or - to prevent restoration - alternatingly with zeroes and ones (independent of the original state).

Nevertheless, definitely worth watching.

So far all the possible highlights of the show have been commented on multiple times, therefore I'll not cover them again. Instead, I feel I have to emphasize a hard-to-swallow problem with this show: far-fetchedness.

Come on. If the main point of the show is to show maths as a new, fresh, interesting manner of approaching crime-solving - why did it have to insult mathematicians? As much as most "hacker movies" tend to send any even moderately computer-savvy person rolling on the floor laughing (visual programs operated using long sequences of keystrokes instead of a mouse, typing "OVERRIDE" to override a password, hacking depicted as a sequence of random digits accepted one-by-one, absurd internet address formatting, huge data transfers taking seconds instead of hours, tiny data transfers taking seconds or minutes instead of being almost instant, etc, etc) - this show tries to show mathematicians as "number wizards" while the manner mathematics is depicted is often absurd or intentionally obfuscated. Following the old Latin notion, "quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur", anything said in Latin sounds wise, this show has characters often speak out long wise-sounding sequences of mathematical lingo meaning nothing at all. This is not a direct quote, but think along the lines of "Let's try to use a stochastic algorithm to split the data into discrete subsets, which we will analyze using a probabilistic equation to determine the likelihood of occurrence of the data in the original set", hearing which another character makes a wise nod and everything is clear... Except that what was just said is little more than "we'll try to see if the data appeared in itself", which is plainly silly.

There is a quote of another kind in the quotes list for this show, as I see now (just follow the Memorable Quotes link and search for "Heisenberg"). One character explains the whole Heisenberg electron-locating theory... only to brilliantly point out to the other, that if he was seen by the criminals, they might act upon it - take retaliatory actions or extra effort to conceal their tracks. How something so obvious needed getting poor ol' Heisenberg involved is beyond me.

As much as the CSI series is sometimes criticised for distorting the accuracy of the forensic analysis process, but most of the time keeps it believable even if slightly exaggerated, Numb3rs presents methods either absurdly effective (resulting in perfect guesses using almost no data at all) or involving huge amounts of calculation where the answer is in plain sight requiring a kindergarten-level of deduction.

In other words - watch it if you're treating it lightly and don't try to believe it.

I completely agree with vibeke-2's review, this is an excellent show, refreshingly intelligent and free from gratuitous profanity and gore. David Krumholz and Judd Hirsch are the best, though I think Rob Morrow's part could've been more developed by the writers. That being said, I looked forward to watching this program every week. The interplay of characters, tempo and the inventive lighting (cool blue/gray for the FBI office, warm tones for home and old university math dept office} make for a refreshing hour's time-out each week. I was sorry it ended its run last May. The math-explanation segments can go a bit fast, but are visually illustrated as well, invaluable for non-mathematicians like myself. *I've heard episodes are shown at universities to teach math.

In a time when the TV schedules are abound with detective shows, 'Numb3rs' stands out because of it's unique ingredient of mixing real mathematical equations and calculations in with the action, drama and detective work. The show revolves around Special Agent Don Eppes and his team of highly-trained fellow FBI agents as they solve various crimes plaguing their city of Los Angeles. On hand to consult on the cases is Don's younger brother Charlie, a mathematician who was formerly a child prodigy and is now a university professor who utilises maths to construct equations that can help track down the criminals in the same way that psychologists help draw up a profile of the felon.

The lead actors of Rob Morrow and David Krumholtz are well-cast in their respective roles of Don and Charlie. Morrow perfectly depicts Don's strong-willed, assertive nature yet dropping hints of his character's resentment towards a childhood where he was left in the shadows of his genius brother while Krumholtz is excellent as the softer-natured Charlie who can be as equally as focused as his brother when something has caught his attention. As the brotherly dynamics are a key point to the show, the pair have a rapport with one another (and with Judd Hirsch who plays the brothers' father) and work well to convey the complexities of bonds between adult brothers.

The story lines covered as interesting without skimping on action and drama. The maths isn't laid out in a manner that would confuse Joe Average and instead engages the audience in a manner that is understandable even to those who have scant interest in the subject. There are times when the use of Charlie's maths to solve a case is a tad contrived but it doesn't matter since it is the interaction of the Eppes family that is the focal point of the show.

Great show and I will watch with interest to see where it goes next and how the characters grow as the series goes on.

As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.

But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.

The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.

If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.

Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars

Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.

As opposed to some users that write comments before viewing a new show/film, I just finished watching the first episode and I am so far very impressed. While the show may lose some points for taking the "safe route" of being yet another crime drama, I felt that the show's unique concept of mathematical probability dictating life (a la "Pi") and unconventional lead roles set it apart from its predecessors. I've never even been a big fan of any of the CSI series, but found this show very entertaining and watchable. I'm also happy to see that Sabrina Lloyd (Sliders) is still alive and well on the planet Earth.

Some viewers seem to let prejudices decide whether or not they like a show, but I've taken a look at the evidence, and I happen to be looking forward to the rest of the series.

Numb3rs lives up to its introductory line- we all use maths everyday. From a subject of aversion to true delight on its applicability, i enjoyed this show and the idiosyncrasies of each character. Love Larry and Charlie's scene. A wholesome series with crime solving thrill with love, family friends and surely drama encapsulated in 45 mins A sad part that this show was launched where crime fighting was more attuned with behavioural & forensic. With AI, ML and all the algorithms i am sure this series would hv had more fan following now. Combinatorics as a concept in 2005 was fascinating and now its already wide spread.

It seems that in the 6th and final season, they got lazy or just didn't care about the effects/continuity editing. One episode in particular has close ups of the team going through a building. They are all shown one at a time with their weapons up. They all use the exact same angle and show each moving normally while looking through the gun site hood...unfortunate it's all so obviously fake that it made me freeze it and rewind just to be sure I was actually seeing this. Unlike nearly all the action in this series, even though the agents heads are shown with normal bounce from walking, the portion of the weapon glides on a trolley with no waver or movement whatsoever.!

I didn't watch the first episode but have tried not to miss any other.The passion and energy of David Krumholtz character is very apparent and admirable.This show has made me rethink about my goals in life.I want to become a student of applied mathematics.Peter MacNicol also plays his character well.Rob Morrow is not bad either playing the hotshot FBI agent.Another striking personality is the Lady FBI agent in the second season.She looks good and has a really good physique.Amita looks fat although I shouldn't be telling this because I'm overweight myself.Somebody please write the transcripts for all the episodes of numbers and post it to TWIZ TV database.Please,Please,Please.Thank you.

Love this show! Surprised it stayed on the air as long as it did since it's so intelligently done.

The shows are usually very good but in the UK we are now going through series two. Last night, episode twenty was shown and the last four or five episodes there has been too much kissing and smooching. To me, that is a big turn-off. First it was Charlie, then Don, then their father and low and behold if Larry doesn't ask Megan for a date. For a forty minute show it shouldn't be that difficult to write up an episode without all that lovey-dovey in it. YUK!!!! Why is Don so grumpy. If Charlie says boo to him he usually jumps up like a bottle of pop and also for a FBI office supervisor he is too emotional. I think a better and less emotional supervisor would be better played by David Sinclair who is the best actor,(in my opinion) in the whole cast.

I was so happy to find a show which blends my two favorite past times: watching investigative shows and doing mathematics. There is so much potential to the idea, especially as mathematicians are CRUCIAL to national security and agencies such as the NSA and CIA/FBI for their analyses, especially involving cryptography, cyber crimes, and modeling and sim of terrorist/hostage/other dangerous situations.

This show, however, makes a MOCKERY of mathematics, and thus gets a "1" from this reviewer. Basically some Hollywood director who clearly did not hire one mathematician for his staff to advise him, just makes up some random equations using as many variables and mathematical symbols as they can and peppers the show with cool sound effects as the equations float by in the background or are written on a chalkboard by the main character, usually shown in a stereotypical "genius" daze of not paying attention to anything but math.

Other than the insult this show brings to all people who understand math, even more insulting is that it gives a sense of patently false understanding to those who never felt like they "got" math before.

As for the acting, character development, etc, the premise of this show is so preposterous that for me, it overrides everything else. The actors may be good, the writing may be solid, but I can't even tell, I am too distracted by the mockery that is made out of my main passion and its misapplication.

Numbers premiered on ITV 3 yesterday in the UK.

A terrific first episode...

SPOILER ALERT...

The explosive Act 1 with a HEAT-like shootout outside a bank was an immediate grabber and edge of the seat heart racer.

Definitely a new take on FBI work with a first rate cast, including the great Judd Hirsch. The main lead was bugging me throughout, as I knew him but couldn't for the life of me remember till I checked here.

Northern Exposure guy!!

I'll be watching the series based on this opening and this talent.

After watching a dozen episodes, I decided to give up on this show since it depicts in an unrealistic manner what is mathematical modeling. In the episodes that Charlie would predict the future behavior of individuals using mathematical models, I thought that my profession was being joked about. I am not a mathematician, instead a chemical engineer, but I do work a lot with mathematical models. So I will try to explain to the layman why what is shown is close to "make-believe" of fairy tales.

First, choosing the right model to predict a situation is a demanding task. Charlie Eppes is shown as a genius, but even him would have to spend considerable time researching for a suitable model, specifically for trying to guess what someone will do or where he will be in the near future. Individuals are erratic and haphazard, there is no modeling for them. Isaac Asimov even wrote about that in the 1950's. Even if there were a model for specific kind of individual, it would be a probabilistic (stoichastic) one, meaning it has good chance of making a wrong prediction.

Second, supposing the right model for someone or a situation is found, the model parameters have to be known. These parameters are the constants of the equations, such as the gravity acceleration (9.8 m/s2), and often are not easy to determine. Again, Charlie Eppes would have to be someone beyond genius to know the right parameters for the model he chooses. And after the model and the parameters are chosen, they would have to be tested. Oddly, they are not, and by miracle, they fit exactly the situation that is being predicted.

Third, a very important aspect of modeling is almost always neglected, not only by Numbers, but also by sci-fi movies: the computational effort required for solving these models. Try to make Excel solve a complex model with many equations and variables and one will find doing a Herculean job. Even if Charlie Eppes has the right software to solve his models, he might be stuck with hardware that will be dreadfully slow. And even with the right software/hardware combination, the model solution might well take days to be reached. He solves them immediately! I could use his computer in my research work, I would be very glad.

As a drama, it is far from being the best show. The characters are somewhat stereotyped, but not even remotely funny as those in Big Bang Theory are. The crimes are dull and the way Charlie Eppes solves them sometimes make the FBI look pretty incompetent.

For some layman, the show might work. For others, the way things are handled makes it difficult to swallow!

I like this show a lot. I'm not mathematically gifted, but I appreciate the logic behind it, and the universal applicability. Robert Heinlein said "If it can't be expressed mathematically, it's not a fact, but opinion," and he was right. I enjoy seeing an extremely intelligent person portrayed as a human being. During the last 15 years many popular shows have featured likable but illiterate louts (the characters of Dan Connor, Joey Tribiani, Jerry Seinfeld, and Doug Heffernan have all stated that they don't read,don't want to read, and don't like to read), and I appreciate having both the central- character brothers shown as bright, each in his own way. I also love the cast of this show. The only one with whom I wasn't familiar was David Krumholtz, and he more than holds his own in this group of old pros. I loved Sabrina Lloyd in the sharply-paced "Sports Night," and she's wonderful here as well. Peter MacNicol may be risking being type-cast as Mr. Looney Tunes, with his socially dysfunctional character in this show following his socially dysfunctional character in "Ally McBeal," but he's so good that it's still a pleasure to watch him work. "NUMB3RS" is primarily a good cop show, not an intellectual exercise, so no viewer should skip it because he's afraid it'll be too brainy for him. I'd recommend this show to anyone who isn't afraid to think, and to watch others do it who are better at it than we.

I watched Numbers during its initial run and enjoyed it. I rediscovered it on Prime and I have to say unlike many other shows it has aged very well.