4/10
Another vapid lawyer show
21 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
TV has long ago decided that defense lawyer shows have to involve the same elements: 1. The lawyer has to be involved in some interesting personal life issue. 2. The trials are incidental. 3. The lawyer not only defends the case but solves it and uncovers the real culprit.

Canterbury's law is as lame as it gets. The personal issue is that the lawyer has a missing son, a son who wandered away while she was busy on her cell phone, so she gets to be guilt ridden, and show her "edges" by having an affair with a client, and defending mentally ill clients.

The trials are ludicrous! In the first show the trial of her mentally ill client is pushed through by her,in spite of the dead body being found in the back yard of her suspect, the father. Why? Her client may decompensate into psychosis if not found innocent ASAP, and it would take too long to find out if the body is that of the missing child. So in spite of everyone knowing that the identity of the body is absolutely crucial to the case, the Judge, the Prosecutor act as if it's not! Then she wins because the antagonist lawyer is presented as gullible enough to let the real culprit on the stand, and the real culprit as stupid enough to get on the stand!Oyve! In the second show we dispense with the trial and the culprit is busted in.... deposition! Margullies is an actress of limited emotional range. In this show she gets to look dazed, frazzled, excited, neurotic, and manages to pull it off without a change in expression. TURKEY!
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed