Austin360 blogs > TV Blog > Archives > 2011 > January > 17 > Entry
Preview: ‘Harry’s Law’
Remember last week when I wrote about “Fairly Legal,” USA Network’s fun, quirky dramedy starring Sarah Shahi? I wrote that I was afraid that people were going to avoid watching the new series because we don’t really need another show about lawyers.
“Harry’s Law” is that show. The one we don’t need.
Too cute by a mile, the cloying series finds Kathy Bates as Harry Korn, a patent lawyer who has a late-career epiphany and sets up shop in an abandoned shoe store to practice criminal law. Bates is fine, rising above her homespun, goofy character and annoying supporting cast (including Brittany Snow and “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip’s” Nathan Cordry) but the set-up and plot line is fairly ridiculous.
Creator David E. Kelley has trod this ground before (from “Ally McBeal” to “Boston Legal”) and maybe he’s just out of ideas. Seeing Bates pulling a gun and reversing the threat on a thug who offers “protection” to the storekeepers in the less-than-desireable local where Korn sets up shop is ludicrous. Let’s not even ask why a high-end, designer shoe store was in that area to begin with.
None of it makes sense when you think about it but, unfortunately, there’s nothing interesting enough here to keep one’s mind from wandering. Check out the clip below and tell me you don’t agree.
My grade: D
“Harry’s Law”
9 p.m. Mondays
NBC
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment Categories: Entertainment, Mid-season TV, Review, TV tips
Comments
When commenting, we ask that you keep things civil and abide by our Visitor Agreement. To report comment abuse, click here.
By AC
March 23, 2011 6:11 PM | Link to this
Seriously all, really?? This show is WONDERFUL. Just what we need to remind us how ridiculous the "justice" system can be. I say Well done Kelly, well done Bates and well done cast. May the world evolve to a point where rehabilitation and help are the aim of the game, not mere retribution.
By J.A.
January 24, 2011 11:14 AM | Link to this
I agree with Wayne. I didn't even make to the end of the program and will not bother try it again. I get enough politics with 24/7 news, don't need it in my entertainment. Bye-bye!
By Tim England
January 17, 2011 11:02 PM | Link to this
I agree. The supporting cast, or at least the characters the cast depicts, grated on my nerves big time. I didn't care for Nathan Cordry's youthful sidekick routine, nor could I stand Paul McCrane's (formerly of E.R.) take as a prosecutor. David E. Kelley seems to have a specialty in creating lawyer characters with quirks. This show fits the mold. I don't hold out much hope for long-term survival for Harry's Law. It makes Hawaii 5-0, which it's up against, look even better.
By WAYNE M
January 17, 2011 10:49 PM | Link to this
ANOTHER LIBERAL LEANING SHOW. I WATCHED THE FIRST AND ONLY SHOW THAT ILL WATCH. HARRY HAD TO MAKE HER SPEECH TO THE JURY, WHICH WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ALLOYED AND HAD TO MENTIONED RUCH LIMBAUGH AS BEING AT FAULT FOR NOT WANTING DRUGS TO BE LEGAL. THE ENFORCER WHO SHOT THE ROBBER WAS SHAKING DOWN THE STORES. SAME THING THE MAFIA DID. THE SHOW MAKES THE PROSECUTOR, WHO IS A CONSERVATIVE LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT. THE CRACK HEAD THAT WAS UP FOR THE THIRD FELONY WAS PARTRAYED AS A VICTUM. HE WAS GIVEN TWO CHANCES AND BLEW THEM. HARRY BLAMED HIS PROBLEMS ON NOT HAVING A CLINIC (GOVTS FAULT). THIS COULD HAVE BEEN A PRETTY GOOD SHOW IF THE WRITERS WOULD KEEP THEIR LIBERAL VIEWS OUT OF IT..