BULL SEASON 1: THE FULL COLLECTION, EPISODES 1-22
Bull - 1x01 "The Necklace" (series premiere episode)
"Bull defends the son of a tech entrepreneur from a murder charge, after a girl he had slept with at a party washes up on a shore, strangled."
Where to start with Bull? What a fantastic pilot episode. To say it was well-written would be a gross understatement, but the plot (though it was fantastic) was not the biggest reason Bull was so brilliant. That honour goes to how all-encompassing the show is when it comes to the people in the story. Not only do we see all our main characters - Bull and his staff, the defendant, his family and his lawyers - but we are treated to close examinations of side characters too: the mock jurors, the real jurors and the victim's family, so that even when we're celebrating Bull's hard work exonerating the defendant we viewers know is innocent, we are still brought to focus upon how that decision actually affects the victim's grieving parents.
 |
| L-R: The defendant, Brandon Peters, Dr. Jason Bull & Chunk Palmer |
No matter how small a character is, they all are imperative to the story and the way it is being manipulated to unfold by Bull's predictive algorithm, and that provides us with a look-in to a spectrum of beliefs and personality types (of which we are told much more by Bull's hardworking team) that builds the trivia and the deep understanding of the human psyches I so enjoy in a show. Even the opening scene itself does just that, as a growing collage of videos from people about their faith (or lack thereof) in the justice system reveals from the get-go how this show is all about the differences between each and every one of us.
The show's USP for now is its star name of Michael Weatherly, but I'd like to see more of his staff in the future: I feel particularly like the lawyer, Benny, didn't get much time in the pilot. (It's way too early, however, to criticise that too much.) And with regards to the ending: although, naturally, Bull would probably be able to work out who the real killer was, the final scene where he and the police simply show up to the killer's house was pasted onto the end of the episode with no real explanation, and that was perhaps the one fault of what was a thrilling, complex and fascinating pilot episode.
SIDE NUGGET: Bull's stylist Chunk's surname being Palmer - well, I suppose someone being called Gibbs would have been too much of a stretch!
VIEWERS: 15.56m (Just tens of thousands off NCIS's same-day ratings: will decline as some DiNozzo fans decide this might not be for them, but what a thundering debut)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 2.2 (Right in the 2.0-2.4 ranger I predicted; an instant hit)
VERDICT: I didn't find as many NCIS nuggets as I hoped for, but perhaps they'll come along later. Weatherly proved himself the right man for the job and the writers excelled in setting the tone and style of the show with Bull's sophisticated technological capabilities, while retaining the emotional depth that is so important. 9/10
With each episode that passes, Bull becomes less focused on its case of the week and spends more time shaping its main cast - which is something that, for all the top quality of the first two episodes, is a little overdue. Today, Bull delves a little deeper into the past of the lawyer, Benny, when he comes up against his ex, Amanda, a prosecutor, in the course of the case. Their animosity gives rise to some interesting titbits about why Benny was fired from the DA's office: because he refused to prosecute someone he believed was innocent - and Amanda didn't stand by him.
But that didn't detract from the case of the week, which was sensitively addressed, beautifully acted and brilliantly executed. All the emotional facets that would be drawn out when a rape victim is accused of murder were tenderly portrayed by the actress, Celeste Arias, and Bull's patient coaching of her character showed just how deep his understanding of the human psyche is.
Elsewhere, the episode showed a deeper side to jury selection than before, as this time we understand that finding the perfect jury is not something Bull can simply do himself: he has to make do with the best bunch from the jury pool by striking those who don't fit his needs. Marissa and Danny were marginalised (Danny's use specifically remains unclear), but Cable was given plenty of airtime with heartfelt scenes with the defendant, Reese Burton. The opening credits speech from Michael Weatherly will never be passable.
Bull - 1x02 "The Woman In 8D"
"TAC deals with gender biases towards a female pilot accused of gross negligence."
Bull follows up an incredible (and incredibly Weatherly-focused) premiere with a more balanced and intricate sophomore episode that achieves what I was hoping for: that ensemble feel. I specifically mentioned I wanted to see more of the TAC lawyer Benny, and in his role as the client's lawyer he shone; elsewhere, Chunk provided more support than just wardrobe design and Cable got her fair share of airtime to show her use as the tech geek, too. We also learned insights into Chunk and Bull's lives: Chunk used to be a football (American) player and Bull is a fully qualified pilot - the latter a helpful nugget given the plotline.
 |
| Screenshot of Bull and the pilot entering the flight simulator |
In "The Woman In 8D", a pilot, Captain Taylor Matheson, the sole survivor of a plane crash in which she broke protocol in the middle of a storm and caused 62 deaths, is being sued for gross negligence, and the case is compounded by gender bias because Matheson is female. However, it transpired that she broke protocol because she knew there was nothing she could do to save the lives of everyone on the plane - all she could do was prevent the plane crashing in a populated area and killing more people.
"The Woman In 8D" felt much fuller than the premiere: there was a closer examination of the trial sciences at work, a better balance of the main cast and plenty of heavy, emotional scenes around the female pilot and her personal repercussions.
The opening credits were disappointing, however: Weatherly's words were either a hash of phrases from the actual premiere ("scary in its predictive efficiency") or laughable puns ("the verdict you get depends on me - and that's no bull").
NCIS nugget? #1: Cable, an unapologetic casually-dressed woman great with computers, whose drink and straw is modelled in a similar manner to Abby's Caf-Pows?
VIEWERS: 13.48 (I predicted roughly a 2m hit in this area. Still a cracking turnout)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.9 (Down 3 tenths of a point from last week's overnights. Nothing unexpected or catastrophic here either)
VERDICT: "The Woman In 8D" was emotionally resonant, fair to its main cast and, importantly, more prominently focused on TAC's technological and psychological capabilities. Another winning 9/10
Bull - 1x03 "Unambiguous"
"Bull defends a rape victim, Reese Burton, who, in a sensationalised, viral new podcast is accused of murdering the man who raped her."
With each episode that passes, Bull becomes less focused on its case of the week and spends more time shaping its main cast - which is something that, for all the top quality of the first two episodes, is a little overdue. Today, Bull delves a little deeper into the past of the lawyer, Benny, when he comes up against his ex, Amanda, a prosecutor, in the course of the case. Their animosity gives rise to some interesting titbits about why Benny was fired from the DA's office: because he refused to prosecute someone he believed was innocent - and Amanda didn't stand by him.
But that didn't detract from the case of the week, which was sensitively addressed, beautifully acted and brilliantly executed. All the emotional facets that would be drawn out when a rape victim is accused of murder were tenderly portrayed by the actress, Celeste Arias, and Bull's patient coaching of her character showed just how deep his understanding of the human psyche is.
Elsewhere, the episode showed a deeper side to jury selection than before, as this time we understand that finding the perfect jury is not something Bull can simply do himself: he has to make do with the best bunch from the jury pool by striking those who don't fit his needs. Marissa and Danny were marginalised (Danny's use specifically remains unclear), but Cable was given plenty of airtime with heartfelt scenes with the defendant, Reese Burton. The opening credits speech from Michael Weatherly will never be passable.
VIEWERS: 13.00m (Down a little from episode two, but huge numbers)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.6 (Took a slight hit as expected, as This Is Us entered its 9pm slot alongside Bull)
VERDICT: Some aspects of character balance and writing structure need to be addressed, but the episode itself was an emotionally sound, gripping and complex 40 minutes. 8/10
In "Callisto", everything we have seen about TAC's capabilities with its matrix, its jury selection and its analysis is torn to shreds when their latest case takes them to Texas - where things are done a bit differently. The judge allows the defence and prosecution to select jurors up until he gets bored and then just decides who will make up the numbers; he even promises the case will be finished by the weekend - before the case has even started - so one of the jurors can go fishing. The most technical part of the episode is a video chat between Cable, who stayed behind in New York, and Bull in Callisto, while the only psychological profiling necessary was the "Halo effect", which suggested Bull's team would struggle to win their case simply because everyone in Callisto preferred the local prosecutor, Diana Lindsay (the beautiful Jill Flint, currently starring on NBC's The Night Shift). Her guest star (with that lovely Texan accent) was one of the better parts of an episode that was a far cry from the first three.
Because of the team's problems acclimating, we weren't actually shown what they could do without their technology, since the case was dropped by the plaintiff when he had a change of heart following a conversation with the defendant that Bull engineered. TAC therefore didn't win the case - they just never lost it.
The over-arching issue with "Callisto" was that it just came too early in the show's run, consequently disrupting the flow of the series so far. Meanwhile, most of the show's usual formatting features (including the opening montage of people speaking about judicial systems) were lost. Another issue was that Bull seemed to be following a MacGyver-esque structure, introducing us to one character's past in one episode (Benny had a focus last week like Mac did in the MacGyver premiere) and then another the week after (Bull's previous struggles in Callisto were an underlying concern here where Jack's past was explored in MacGyver's second episode). It's almost as if Bull is now trying too hard to play catch-up with shaping its characters - and still I don't know what Danny's actual use is.
Bull - 1x04 "Callisto"
"TAC travel to the Texas town of Callisto to defend a young scientist accused of ripping off a large pharmaceutical company for a drug that increases clotting factors in haemophiliacs."
In "Callisto", everything we have seen about TAC's capabilities with its matrix, its jury selection and its analysis is torn to shreds when their latest case takes them to Texas - where things are done a bit differently. The judge allows the defence and prosecution to select jurors up until he gets bored and then just decides who will make up the numbers; he even promises the case will be finished by the weekend - before the case has even started - so one of the jurors can go fishing. The most technical part of the episode is a video chat between Cable, who stayed behind in New York, and Bull in Callisto, while the only psychological profiling necessary was the "Halo effect", which suggested Bull's team would struggle to win their case simply because everyone in Callisto preferred the local prosecutor, Diana Lindsay (the beautiful Jill Flint, currently starring on NBC's The Night Shift). Her guest star (with that lovely Texan accent) was one of the better parts of an episode that was a far cry from the first three.
 |
| Bull wakes up in a field in Callisto |
The over-arching issue with "Callisto" was that it just came too early in the show's run, consequently disrupting the flow of the series so far. Meanwhile, most of the show's usual formatting features (including the opening montage of people speaking about judicial systems) were lost. Another issue was that Bull seemed to be following a MacGyver-esque structure, introducing us to one character's past in one episode (Benny had a focus last week like Mac did in the MacGyver premiere) and then another the week after (Bull's previous struggles in Callisto were an underlying concern here where Jack's past was explored in MacGyver's second episode). It's almost as if Bull is now trying too hard to play catch-up with shaping its characters - and still I don't know what Danny's actual use is.
VIEWERS: 12.29m (A tad lower but remains astonishingly high)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.6 (Even with the previous week)
VERDICT: Despite having the most character balance so far it wasn't a good advertisement for the show. Taking the characters out of their depth took the writers out of their depth, and the ending was a testament to their uncertainty. 7.5/10
Bull - 1x05 "Just Tell The Truth"
"TAC are hired by a rich couple to ensure their daughter's fiancé is imprisoned for her murder, but Bull opts to defend the fiancé instead when evidence suggests his confession was forced."
Bull went back to basics after the road trip it took in "Callisto", with TAC taking a case close to their base of operations. That meant the return of all its tech wizardry and the rest of the aesthetically beautiful TAC sets. The show also dropped the jarring spoken-word introduction, which gave way to a five-second burst of music that will fill in as the series theme (it's an improvement, but couldn't we have a full twenty to thirty second tune?)
Skipping to the client, a chef who grew from rags to reasonable financial stability was arrested for the murder of his wealthy fiancée after an argument at a gala, but Bull took the decision to fight for him rather than against him as previously requested because Bull believed the confession was coerced. That meant the clincher for the case would be to ensure the jury was made up of as many easily coerced people as possible, make them understand coercion techniques and coerce them into giving a not guilty verdict. Which was the natural outcome of proceedings. They even managed to figure out the real killer too: the client's best friend, who had served as a waiter at the gala.
The plot was good and it required less airtime to tell, which gave some of the other characters time to do their work. Cable showed how TAC's research capabilities could provide more info on someone's date (this week, Chunk's) than a quick Google search and Danny finally came into her own when she had to liaise with the original police investigators. Benny was the least prominent of our main cast, but I kind of like that he won't take every case on himself and other lawyers will pop in and out. Finally, a word to some of the editing. A scene where Bull was demonstrating to the public defender what questions he needed to put to the police officer Murphy continually cut between that demonstration and the lawyer actually questioning Murphy on the stand. It was slick, solid editing and a clever timesaver.
Bull went back to basics after the road trip it took in "Callisto", with TAC taking a case close to their base of operations. That meant the return of all its tech wizardry and the rest of the aesthetically beautiful TAC sets. The show also dropped the jarring spoken-word introduction, which gave way to a five-second burst of music that will fill in as the series theme (it's an improvement, but couldn't we have a full twenty to thirty second tune?)
Skipping to the client, a chef who grew from rags to reasonable financial stability was arrested for the murder of his wealthy fiancée after an argument at a gala, but Bull took the decision to fight for him rather than against him as previously requested because Bull believed the confession was coerced. That meant the clincher for the case would be to ensure the jury was made up of as many easily coerced people as possible, make them understand coercion techniques and coerce them into giving a not guilty verdict. Which was the natural outcome of proceedings. They even managed to figure out the real killer too: the client's best friend, who had served as a waiter at the gala.The plot was good and it required less airtime to tell, which gave some of the other characters time to do their work. Cable showed how TAC's research capabilities could provide more info on someone's date (this week, Chunk's) than a quick Google search and Danny finally came into her own when she had to liaise with the original police investigators. Benny was the least prominent of our main cast, but I kind of like that he won't take every case on himself and other lawyers will pop in and out. Finally, a word to some of the editing. A scene where Bull was demonstrating to the public defender what questions he needed to put to the police officer Murphy continually cut between that demonstration and the lawyer actually questioning Murphy on the stand. It was slick, solid editing and a clever timesaver.
VIEWERS: 11.61m (A small dip.)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.5 (Ticked down a tenth but superb)
VERDICT: The show is finding a better episode-to-episode balance between plot and character, and the plots remain as interesting and unique as ever. 8.5/10
The best part of "Bedside Manner" wasn't the difficulty created for the viewers in rooting for the overwhelmingly egotistical defendant, Dr. Robison, nor was it the fact that after all this time Cable is growing into quite clearly the best character in the show. It's that we cannot root for Dr. Robison - not because, when stripped of all moral judgement, he was innocent of malpractice - because we still see both sides of the argument, and that's the cleverest thing about Bull. We could root for Dr. Robison - after all, we know he isn't going to be guilty. But in doing so, how do we reconcile that the plaintiff, Emily Provery, a young woman whose fibroid surgery had complications that resulted in a hysterectomy that means she can no longer have kids, is still the victim, a devastated woman caught in the middle of a situation that neither she nor Dr. Robison could control? No amount of egocentricity or otherwise could deflect that.
But as an issue that TAC needed to overcome, egocentricity was a great obstacle. And it proved to be the final hurdle: even after all the evidence that proved Dr. Robison wasn't liable for Emily's hysterectomy, aptly titled "Bedside Manner" came down to jurors who couldn't relate to Dr. Robison because he had no bedside manner. He displayed no empathy, or even sympathy for Emily's predicament. Not because he didn't care - but because he didn't know how. So what would we prefer if we were Emily: a doctor who was our friend, or a doctor who had a near-perfect surgical record that gave us the best chance of a good outcome, but couldn't hold our hand through it?
Bull - 1x06 "Bedside Manner"
"TAC take the case of a surgeon with a giant God complex who is being sued for malpractice."
The best part of "Bedside Manner" wasn't the difficulty created for the viewers in rooting for the overwhelmingly egotistical defendant, Dr. Robison, nor was it the fact that after all this time Cable is growing into quite clearly the best character in the show. It's that we cannot root for Dr. Robison - not because, when stripped of all moral judgement, he was innocent of malpractice - because we still see both sides of the argument, and that's the cleverest thing about Bull. We could root for Dr. Robison - after all, we know he isn't going to be guilty. But in doing so, how do we reconcile that the plaintiff, Emily Provery, a young woman whose fibroid surgery had complications that resulted in a hysterectomy that means she can no longer have kids, is still the victim, a devastated woman caught in the middle of a situation that neither she nor Dr. Robison could control? No amount of egocentricity or otherwise could deflect that.
But as an issue that TAC needed to overcome, egocentricity was a great obstacle. And it proved to be the final hurdle: even after all the evidence that proved Dr. Robison wasn't liable for Emily's hysterectomy, aptly titled "Bedside Manner" came down to jurors who couldn't relate to Dr. Robison because he had no bedside manner. He displayed no empathy, or even sympathy for Emily's predicament. Not because he didn't care - but because he didn't know how. So what would we prefer if we were Emily: a doctor who was our friend, or a doctor who had a near-perfect surgical record that gave us the best chance of a good outcome, but couldn't hold our hand through it?
VIEWERS: 11.87m (Stable in the 11m's)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.5 (Stable)
VERDICT: Asked some great questions of the audience in an episode that really put that audience in a position similar to the jurors: convince us. 8.5/10
Bull went for backstory with "Too Perfect", as Bull's mysterious ex-wife Izzy turned to TAC for help. A young woman following Izzy's healthy lifestyle regimen concocted and drank the healthy smoothie Izzy recommended - but died from an allergic reaction. The lawyers discovered there was pollen in the drink and suspected contamination and tried to pin it on Izzy. I must admit, at first I wasn't convinced of Izzy's innocence and thought this episode was going to lead me into the murky question of should Bull defend his guilty ex-wife or throw her to the wolves? In the end, Izzy wasn't at fault; the guilty party was the dead woman's husband's mistress, who wanted the husband all to herself. And I must again make an admission: I didn't see this one coming. No matter how predictable that should have been, the episode had me so off-guard with all the Bull and Benny background that I forgot there was a reveal to come.
Perhaps that's not a good thing, though, and there's an argument to be made that the episode was overly focused on backstory as the show tried to make up for its lack thereof in the previous 7 episodes. There were much fewer court scenes and again the not guilty verdict scene was omitted (although in fairness mixing up the court scene structure is necessary to keep the show fresh).
Light on the rest of the TAC team, we learned about Izzy and Benny's falling out (because she felt Bull poached Benny for TAC after they divorced just to spite her), and some intimate and saddening details of the Bull-Colón marriage (Izzy miscarried). It was all good stuff, and hopefully we see more of Izzy in the future.
That's a final point that needs to be made: Bull, like MacGyver, is horribly lacking in character arcs and there's a genuine concern that if some don't appear soon, it will affect the show's performance. In that area, the writers need to up their game significantly.
VIEWERS: 11.86m (Back up over 11m)
Bull - 1x07 "Never Saw the Sign"
"TAC defend a man accused of causing the death of his wife in a car accident."
Two of the formatting structures from the opening few episodes returned: the mirror jury selection that I so like was a welcome sight; the return of the shameful and cringe-worthy intro speech ... not so much. The rest of the episode proved the series might chop and change these features with others, as the final "not guilty" verdict scene was cut after the lawyer's closing speech for what was the first time (I believe) this season. I had had my concerns about stale formatting after just the first few episodes (although I chopped the paragraph from my earlier roundup to give the show a chance to prove those concerns were invalid), and I'm glad they were quickly eased.
The case was a good one, too: the father who didn't remember seeing a dot matrix board that said "congestion: slow down" before he crashed. The get-out clause was a bit better here: our father, John Phillips, was being railroaded in the case by a corrupt State Assemblyman named Dorrit, part of whose campaign called for the demolition of a local library, causing a hacker named Austin to hack the sign to make it say "no need to read". The lawyer's clinching argument: to take a sign that had been in the courtroom all through the case and ask jurors to explain what it said. When none of them could, the final concern was abated and John was cleared.
On the subplot side, Marissa's fluctuating attire leads to her revealing she is reconciling with her ex-husband - a tiny deviation from the case as a whole as it probably took up less than 2 minutes. Another thing that needs mentioning: this is now two episodes in a row that public defenders have taken the case to real court instead of Benny; while I like seeing other people drafted in from time to time, it's about time to get Benny back in real court and not just TAC's mirror court.
NCIS nugget: The pronunciation of "David" as "Dah-veed", much like much-loved NCIS Special Agent Ziva David. Was a nice nugget, but a bit forced.
VIEWERS: 10.87m (Slight downtick)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.5 (Equals last week)
VERDICT: A strong episode with a much stronger clinching detail; the corrupt assemblyman was a brilliant foe despite having few scenes. Previous episodes have missed that conflict. 8.5/10
Bull - 1x08 "Too Perfect"
"TAC's next client is Isabella Colón, Bull's ex-wife and Benny's sister, when a young woman following Izzy's healthy lifestyle regimen dies of an allergic reaction."
Bull went for backstory with "Too Perfect", as Bull's mysterious ex-wife Izzy turned to TAC for help. A young woman following Izzy's healthy lifestyle regimen concocted and drank the healthy smoothie Izzy recommended - but died from an allergic reaction. The lawyers discovered there was pollen in the drink and suspected contamination and tried to pin it on Izzy. I must admit, at first I wasn't convinced of Izzy's innocence and thought this episode was going to lead me into the murky question of should Bull defend his guilty ex-wife or throw her to the wolves? In the end, Izzy wasn't at fault; the guilty party was the dead woman's husband's mistress, who wanted the husband all to herself. And I must again make an admission: I didn't see this one coming. No matter how predictable that should have been, the episode had me so off-guard with all the Bull and Benny background that I forgot there was a reveal to come.
 |
| Bull and Izzy stage an argument that will bolster Izzy's defence |
Light on the rest of the TAC team, we learned about Izzy and Benny's falling out (because she felt Bull poached Benny for TAC after they divorced just to spite her), and some intimate and saddening details of the Bull-Colón marriage (Izzy miscarried). It was all good stuff, and hopefully we see more of Izzy in the future.
That's a final point that needs to be made: Bull, like MacGyver, is horribly lacking in character arcs and there's a genuine concern that if some don't appear soon, it will affect the show's performance. In that area, the writers need to up their game significantly.
VIEWERS: 11.86m (Back up over 11m)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.5 (Still equal; fourth week running)
VERDICT: The pendulum swings from heavy in court to heavy on character, but not in a completely satisfying manner. Still hugely enjoyable, and props to the guest star from Person of Interest's Detective Soriano. Worth an 8/10
The last time Bull left New York for a case it took TAC to Callisto, the site of Bull's only defeat, and it was a largely average episode, so to say I was apprehensive going into "Light My Fire" is accurate if a little understated. Here, another arson in a recent spate causes the death of a restaurant diner owner in Kavanaugh, and the potential for the wrongful conviction of a loner blues musician draws TAC away from their weekend plans to help. That's not to say that some of the team don't try to enjoy themselves: indeed one rather huge mishap occurs when Benny and Chunk go fishing and get lost, leading them to miss court where Bull is forced to stand in (and does a remarkable if a little heavy-handed job).
The episode was weighted neatly: it had enough of Bull's backstory about his troubled family life in Kavanaugh with his con man father interspersed with resistance from the Kavanaugh locals because they were prejudiced against the defendant, and the court case was thin enough to give that space to character development whilst also retaining enough edge to keep us watching. It also felt like the episode was over in a flash, which is a greatly positive thing.
Amid clever ruses such as TAC starting rumours to prove the point of unfounded prejudice against the defendant, the usual fun closing-speech analogies from Benny and some cheeky one-liners, the double was done: the defendant cleared and the real arsonist and his benefactor identified and arrested.
*Bull rubs his hands happily and goes home*
Bull - 1x09 "Light My Fire"
"Bull returns to his hometown after a fire at a restaurant diner kills the owner."
The last time Bull left New York for a case it took TAC to Callisto, the site of Bull's only defeat, and it was a largely average episode, so to say I was apprehensive going into "Light My Fire" is accurate if a little understated. Here, another arson in a recent spate causes the death of a restaurant diner owner in Kavanaugh, and the potential for the wrongful conviction of a loner blues musician draws TAC away from their weekend plans to help. That's not to say that some of the team don't try to enjoy themselves: indeed one rather huge mishap occurs when Benny and Chunk go fishing and get lost, leading them to miss court where Bull is forced to stand in (and does a remarkable if a little heavy-handed job).
 |
| A kaleidoscope of Internet responses to the arson |
Amid clever ruses such as TAC starting rumours to prove the point of unfounded prejudice against the defendant, the usual fun closing-speech analogies from Benny and some cheeky one-liners, the double was done: the defendant cleared and the real arsonist and his benefactor identified and arrested.
*Bull rubs his hands happily and goes home*
VIEWERS: 11.56m (Up there and solid)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.4 (Makes its first downtick since episode 4)
VERDICT: A nice balance of everything: character, plot, resistance, fun, humour, technology, psychology and scenic settings. I might also have to start referring to a very influential person as a "sneezer" myself. 9/10
Putting aside the improbability that any current AI could replicate the vast array of human emotions shown by the self-driving car "E.J.", (although perhaps I'm wrong) this was a very good episode. The victim was killed by the self-driving car following his failure to adhere to security protocols when upgrading the car's software, desperate to return home to catch the 1.30am Arsenal v Manchester United football (soccer) match (props to the Bull writers for picking United; also see image because I couldn't resist). And from there the episode follows a natural, if a little uninspired, progression.
First the victim's wife is accusing the CEO, Ginny Bretton, of negligence, a CEO who, for her impressive portfolio, lived in pyjamas in her childhood home. Standard opener. Then there's the suggestion the victim caused the malfunction by ignoring security protocols. Then there's a few questions of duplicity surrounding a couple of other employees, leading to a reveal that one of them caused the malfunction because he was in love with the CEO who didn't love him back; and then there's an end reveal where the CFO manufactured it all for monetary gain. Standard stuff.
But emotional stuff. Ginny's driving motivation (pardon the pun) was to build a car that would reduce crashes and fatalities, which E.J. could do by 90%, because she had lost someone in a car crash. This reveal of Ginny's past (and the reveal that Bull had engineered the malfunction in E.J. to convince Ginny to testify) were unfortunately visible a mile off, and that obviousness, coupled with a frustratingly typical plot progression, didn't make for as good an episode of TV as I had hoped.
VIEWERS: 11.30m (Stable)
Bull - 1x10 "E.J."
"Bull defends the CEO of a tech company whose employee was killed by their self-driving car prototype."
Putting aside the improbability that any current AI could replicate the vast array of human emotions shown by the self-driving car "E.J.", (although perhaps I'm wrong) this was a very good episode. The victim was killed by the self-driving car following his failure to adhere to security protocols when upgrading the car's software, desperate to return home to catch the 1.30am Arsenal v Manchester United football (soccer) match (props to the Bull writers for picking United; also see image because I couldn't resist). And from there the episode follows a natural, if a little uninspired, progression.
 |
| The victim's calendar, in which he had scheduled an Arsenal v Man U match. |
But emotional stuff. Ginny's driving motivation (pardon the pun) was to build a car that would reduce crashes and fatalities, which E.J. could do by 90%, because she had lost someone in a car crash. This reveal of Ginny's past (and the reveal that Bull had engineered the malfunction in E.J. to convince Ginny to testify) were unfortunately visible a mile off, and that obviousness, coupled with a frustratingly typical plot progression, didn't make for as good an episode of TV as I had hoped.
VIEWERS: 11.30m (Stable)
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.5 (Back up to 1.5 is good news)
VERDICT: A good premise, but didn't live up to expectations. Great performances pulled the heartstrings, though. 7.5/10
Fun fact that I didn't know: the age of consent in New York is actually 17, not 18. Where, then, is the wiggle room in "Teacher's Pet" to paint the teacher, Susan Bryant, as a sexual predator when the student was 17? It's a line TAC try to venture down but never quite find anything solid, but they're happy enough to have the jury hear the word paedophile on repeat and associate Susan with it because it will do the damage anyway.
Of course, I understand all of the psychology explained and the emotional effects that Bull laid out from this kind of relationship, and I don't dismiss any of them. But I don't agree with the viewpoint TAC took; I think it's a combination of my own views on the matter and the lack of clarity in US law (clearly it differs state to state like other laws) that made TAC so hard to back. (Which, were I one of the potential jurors, I realise would be why Bull and TAC would strike me, since I wouldn't serve their narrative.)
Worse, the case all came down to the psychology of the teacher/student relationship, which, once Bull had explained it to Susan, opened her eyes to the reality of their situation and led her to end the relationship. That conclusion made the entire court case irrelevant, much like back in 1x05's "Callisto" where Bull faked a hurricane warning in order to get the plaintiff and defendant to duke it out between themselves, effectively rendering the preceding 35 minutes pointless. Of course, these kind of outcomes occur in real life and the Bull writers are smart to include them - but I find that it wastes an episode and it should be used more sparingly.
At least the psychological aspect of a relationship with large age differences had an effect on one of our TAC team: Danny, whose British photographer boyfriend was only 21 (and she is something like 29/30 I believe). So she was rocked by what she felt was a relatable case, but it was implied that she continued with her relationship regardless. I hope it makes her happy.
Nice to see Liberty again, too.
Bull - 1x11 "Teacher's Pet"
"A regular consultant of TAC, attorney Liberty Davis, brings TAC the case of a civil suit against a teacher who had sex with a student."
Fun fact that I didn't know: the age of consent in New York is actually 17, not 18. Where, then, is the wiggle room in "Teacher's Pet" to paint the teacher, Susan Bryant, as a sexual predator when the student was 17? It's a line TAC try to venture down but never quite find anything solid, but they're happy enough to have the jury hear the word paedophile on repeat and associate Susan with it because it will do the damage anyway.
Of course, I understand all of the psychology explained and the emotional effects that Bull laid out from this kind of relationship, and I don't dismiss any of them. But I don't agree with the viewpoint TAC took; I think it's a combination of my own views on the matter and the lack of clarity in US law (clearly it differs state to state like other laws) that made TAC so hard to back. (Which, were I one of the potential jurors, I realise would be why Bull and TAC would strike me, since I wouldn't serve their narrative.)
Worse, the case all came down to the psychology of the teacher/student relationship, which, once Bull had explained it to Susan, opened her eyes to the reality of their situation and led her to end the relationship. That conclusion made the entire court case irrelevant, much like back in 1x05's "Callisto" where Bull faked a hurricane warning in order to get the plaintiff and defendant to duke it out between themselves, effectively rendering the preceding 35 minutes pointless. Of course, these kind of outcomes occur in real life and the Bull writers are smart to include them - but I find that it wastes an episode and it should be used more sparingly.
At least the psychological aspect of a relationship with large age differences had an effect on one of our TAC team: Danny, whose British photographer boyfriend was only 21 (and she is something like 29/30 I believe). So she was rocked by what she felt was a relatable case, but it was implied that she continued with her relationship regardless. I hope it makes her happy.
Nice to see Liberty again, too.
VIEWERS: 11.11m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.5
(An almost unswerving stability for Bull with the all-important demo share)
(An almost unswerving stability for Bull with the all-important demo share)
VERDICT: I've never come an episode I didn't ethically disagree with until now. I like TV to make me think, but is it hypocritical if I didn't like it this time? Either way, settling the case outside of court wasted the episode and there was very little Benny too. 6.5/10
Someone was going to see the use in forcing TAC to run a mock trial for them eventually, and with "Stockholm Syndrome" Laurel Guthrie does. Although the opening sequence is meant to introduce Laurel as a character out of place among other mock jurors, the mock jury orientation actually worked better as a format shift to show exactly how the mock jurors are greeted, treated and even paid ($200 an hour, which Bull tops later with an extra $1000 hazard pay for being caught in Laurel's bomb blast). They even cover themselves with how TAC makes enough money to pay nearly 20 potential jurors upwards of $35,000 for that one day: by taking on cases of egregious CEOs and COOs warring over company rights. And finding out more about how TAC runs was always going to be interesting.
But not as interesting as the Bull and Danny confrontation - which the script eventually got to after 27 minutes of making everyone agreeable to a mock trial held under duress. Bull worked as the prosecution, slamming Danny (the undercover agent who identified Laurel's husband Gordon as the killer five years ago) so that his narrative would convince the jury to find Gordon Guthrie innocent. It fractured Bull and Danny's relationship, but of course with the ending Bull made things right.
Part of this was achieved before their heart-to-heart, however, for after the verdict of not guilty was delivered by the mock jurors, Bull pointed out that he had deliberately told only part of the story to sway the jury in his favour. By then revealing crucial details about Danny's testimony he proved that court cases weren't about truth but narrative (and that Gordon was guilty after all). Little admissions have been made in the previous eleven episodes about the importance of narrative over truth, but this was Bull's way of properly apologising for its deepest flaw: that all it ever does is spin a story to make us feel how it wants us to feel.
VIEWERS: 11.08m
Bull - 1x12 "Stockholm Syndrome"
"A mock juror sets off an explosion in TAC to orchestrate a proper hearing for her husband, who is five years into a fifteen year sentence for murdering a drug lord."
Someone was going to see the use in forcing TAC to run a mock trial for them eventually, and with "Stockholm Syndrome" Laurel Guthrie does. Although the opening sequence is meant to introduce Laurel as a character out of place among other mock jurors, the mock jury orientation actually worked better as a format shift to show exactly how the mock jurors are greeted, treated and even paid ($200 an hour, which Bull tops later with an extra $1000 hazard pay for being caught in Laurel's bomb blast). They even cover themselves with how TAC makes enough money to pay nearly 20 potential jurors upwards of $35,000 for that one day: by taking on cases of egregious CEOs and COOs warring over company rights. And finding out more about how TAC runs was always going to be interesting.
But not as interesting as the Bull and Danny confrontation - which the script eventually got to after 27 minutes of making everyone agreeable to a mock trial held under duress. Bull worked as the prosecution, slamming Danny (the undercover agent who identified Laurel's husband Gordon as the killer five years ago) so that his narrative would convince the jury to find Gordon Guthrie innocent. It fractured Bull and Danny's relationship, but of course with the ending Bull made things right.
Part of this was achieved before their heart-to-heart, however, for after the verdict of not guilty was delivered by the mock jurors, Bull pointed out that he had deliberately told only part of the story to sway the jury in his favour. By then revealing crucial details about Danny's testimony he proved that court cases weren't about truth but narrative (and that Gordon was guilty after all). Little admissions have been made in the previous eleven episodes about the importance of narrative over truth, but this was Bull's way of properly apologising for its deepest flaw: that all it ever does is spin a story to make us feel how it wants us to feel.
VIEWERS: 11.08m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.3
(A series low 1.3 for Bull)
(A series low 1.3 for Bull)
VERDICT: Considering the importance of the case, the trial itself became secondary to the character impacts, and with it we had an opening into Danny's past life. 8/10
Chunk's night out at an e-sports final with Bull leads to an unexpected result as the number one team lose the game - and from there a case is born. A case full of "effects" (such as the "IKEA effect" when a person attributes more value to something they have spent time on, or the "Pinnochio effect" which causes redness and temperature changes around the nose when a person lies), which came full circle when the reason for Jace being unable to perform in the finals was undiagnosed Parkinson's disease.
And at the end of the day, Bull managed to conclude its trial with a non-trial ending when Jace's manager settled outside of court, securing Jace's future in and outside of competitive e-sports and signing a confidentiality agreement to not mention his diagnosis. However, the fact that Bull pushed in another member of the team actually throwing the game seemed excruciatingly forced, however, and was completely unnecessary. Also see the four-man team but only the three we knew as previous team members greeted Jace after the trial (so where was the fourth man then, writers?)
Relationships of one strength or another were hinted at or displayed, too. Danny's FBI contact made some fleeting but intimate contact in the one scene he appeared and was never touched on again (pardon the pun), Bull had some flirtation with Jace's hotshot lawyer and Cable resumed her relationship with Wes who she had originally broken up with for focusing too much on his e-sports games. I'd like to see some semblance of continuation for Cable along these lines, but I won't get my hopes up. If there's one flaw of Bull's, it's that it rarely attempts character arcs at all.
Also the blind voir dire, where the lawyers had to choose in private who to strike rather than asking any forward questions, was an excellent play on format.
Bull - 1x13 "The Fall"
"Jace Rundle, the number one e-sports gamer, is accused of throwing a championship final and defamed by his manager, so TAC take the case to prove he was psychologically incapable of losing."
Chunk's night out at an e-sports final with Bull leads to an unexpected result as the number one team lose the game - and from there a case is born. A case full of "effects" (such as the "IKEA effect" when a person attributes more value to something they have spent time on, or the "Pinnochio effect" which causes redness and temperature changes around the nose when a person lies), which came full circle when the reason for Jace being unable to perform in the finals was undiagnosed Parkinson's disease.
 |
| L-R: Cable, Benny and Chunk play the eSports game as research for their case. |
Relationships of one strength or another were hinted at or displayed, too. Danny's FBI contact made some fleeting but intimate contact in the one scene he appeared and was never touched on again (pardon the pun), Bull had some flirtation with Jace's hotshot lawyer and Cable resumed her relationship with Wes who she had originally broken up with for focusing too much on his e-sports games. I'd like to see some semblance of continuation for Cable along these lines, but I won't get my hopes up. If there's one flaw of Bull's, it's that it rarely attempts character arcs at all.
Also the blind voir dire, where the lawyers had to choose in private who to strike rather than asking any forward questions, was an excellent play on format.
VIEWERS: 10.72m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.3
(Level)
(Level)
VERDICT: The trailer looked good, the plot was good, the subplots good and I just enjoyed the insight into the e-sports culture. A very fresh topic approached and executed superbly. 9/10
Tamsin Dale is TAC's next client: she's a government whistleblower who leaked documents to a leak site named Globespill. Given that TAC are going up against the government in a court-martial, they're low on resources. Their usual hacking capabilities are out of the question (and worse, later hacked to manipulate jury profiles, leading to TAC striking the wrong jurors), and some of the information learned about the leak - like the fact that Tamsin didn't leak the info that actually found its way onto the Globespill website but a redacted version - was classified and couldn't be used in court.
But Benny couldn't let that be: he wanted the jury to know Tamsin wasn't responsible, even at the risk of being arrested himself. With his sacrifice, Tamsin was forced to give the closing statement herself and received a guilty sentence and 12 years imprisonment at Leavenworth; however, thanks to help from Bull, the "convening authority" overruled them and gave Tamsin simply a year's confinement on base instead. And Benny was released when TAC traded info about Chinese hackers (who were in league with Globespill) and that was that. A happy ending all round.
Except for Benny, who received a strange letter at the end from the US Attorney's Public Corruption Unit. Uh-oh. FINALLY. A CHARACTER ARC.
And props to the writers for sneaking in a Westworld reference.
Bull - 1x14 "It's Classified"
"TAC take on the case of a government whistleblower."
Tamsin Dale is TAC's next client: she's a government whistleblower who leaked documents to a leak site named Globespill. Given that TAC are going up against the government in a court-martial, they're low on resources. Their usual hacking capabilities are out of the question (and worse, later hacked to manipulate jury profiles, leading to TAC striking the wrong jurors), and some of the information learned about the leak - like the fact that Tamsin didn't leak the info that actually found its way onto the Globespill website but a redacted version - was classified and couldn't be used in court.
But Benny couldn't let that be: he wanted the jury to know Tamsin wasn't responsible, even at the risk of being arrested himself. With his sacrifice, Tamsin was forced to give the closing statement herself and received a guilty sentence and 12 years imprisonment at Leavenworth; however, thanks to help from Bull, the "convening authority" overruled them and gave Tamsin simply a year's confinement on base instead. And Benny was released when TAC traded info about Chinese hackers (who were in league with Globespill) and that was that. A happy ending all round.
Except for Benny, who received a strange letter at the end from the US Attorney's Public Corruption Unit. Uh-oh. FINALLY. A CHARACTER ARC.
And props to the writers for sneaking in a Westworld reference.
VIEWERS: 10.57m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.3
VERDICT: I do love Benny and a sort-of centric episode is nice, as he has the most interesting background of them all. A well-worked episode outside of the usual conventions and a great cliffhanger. Finally, a character arc. 8.5/10
Tonally, "What's Your Number" was very different from the rest of the season so far in that we watched Bull fight for a guilty verdict rather than his usual shtick of getting people off. Of course, Andrew Withrow deserved the guilty verdict: he decided not to fix the skybridge's faults, since the cost-benefit analysis showed that compensating families of anyone who died would cost less than fixing the problem.
Naturally, Withrow did all he could to disrupt Bull: his company owned the TAC building so he cut the power, whilst he also bought an adjournment of the trial to research Bull and bring his rival Diana up from Callisto to be his defence. On the first point, TAC readjusted by taking their work to Bull's sparsely furnished apartment; on the latter, Diana's return provided a sense of intense rivalry (and lust) - although she dropped the Texas accent. Never have I seen a character drop their accent like this before, and while people can do it easily enough in real life, in television it's just a tad jarring.
TAC work hard to prove Withrow guilty, eventually digging up a chart that listed what Withrow deemed to be the optimal compensation figures for people who might die on the skybridge by their professions. He's not going without a fight though, as Withrow threatens to appeal on the grounds that Bull and his attorney Diana were colluding - but if he does, Diana won't be back to help him as she recuses herself following the verdict.
I'd like to see more of both Diana and Withrow: the former provides a romantic element that could be usefully played as a Person of Interest-esque Reese/Zoe "let's-just-have-a-fling-whenever-we-cross-paths"; the latter provides a nemesis in a show that is begging for story arcs.
Speaking of which, we've gained some clues as to why Benny is being investigated: an old case of his, a murder case 8 years ago to do with a Hayden Watkins, is under review. I hope to see more of that very soon.
Bull - 1x15 "What's Your Number?"
"A skybridge built by developer Andrew Withrow collapses; Bull joins the prosecution to ensure Withrow is imprisoned."
Tonally, "What's Your Number" was very different from the rest of the season so far in that we watched Bull fight for a guilty verdict rather than his usual shtick of getting people off. Of course, Andrew Withrow deserved the guilty verdict: he decided not to fix the skybridge's faults, since the cost-benefit analysis showed that compensating families of anyone who died would cost less than fixing the problem.
 |
| TAC get to work in Bull's apartment |
TAC work hard to prove Withrow guilty, eventually digging up a chart that listed what Withrow deemed to be the optimal compensation figures for people who might die on the skybridge by their professions. He's not going without a fight though, as Withrow threatens to appeal on the grounds that Bull and his attorney Diana were colluding - but if he does, Diana won't be back to help him as she recuses herself following the verdict.
I'd like to see more of both Diana and Withrow: the former provides a romantic element that could be usefully played as a Person of Interest-esque Reese/Zoe "let's-just-have-a-fling-whenever-we-cross-paths"; the latter provides a nemesis in a show that is begging for story arcs.
Speaking of which, we've gained some clues as to why Benny is being investigated: an old case of his, a murder case 8 years ago to do with a Hayden Watkins, is under review. I hope to see more of that very soon.
VIEWERS: 10.56m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.3
VERDICT: Diana's appearance always ups the stakes; have her side with an Australian villain and it's very good TV. 9/10
"Free Fall" was probably one of the better Bull episodes of the season. It was equal measures heartwarming, heartbreaking, funny and quirky. But the most ironic part is that this episode, which transcended from a court case to a murder investigation run by TAC, was better than most police procedural whodunnits. That's most likely due to the stakes being much higher here: any revelation was outed in court not in the field by clever police work, so the impact of such revelations was accordingly huger and, here, once something was out it could not be taken back.
Bull threw most of the punches, in terms of finding and revealing damning evidence, but it was Liberty Davis who had the final say, turning Bull's theory upside down and leading him to realise that Max Hyland, the brother of Walt Hyland, the skydiver who also died trying to save the Governor, had sabotaged Governor Whitfield's parachutes to prevent a new zoning law putting their company out of business. Max Hyland, who had litigated the case himself was, ironically, the killer. That must've hit Bull's ego quite resoundingly.
Liberty's appearance as a rival provided a huge chunk of the drama: she knew TAC's tricks and employed them to manipulate the jury herself, while also being the catalyst for a number of emotional moments, first as she confronted Bull for joining the case to oppose her, and secondly when Bull approached Governor Whitfield's wife and pleaded with her not to ruin the skydiving company and thus the life of Walt's daughter, Dylan.
As a final note, Bull's thus-far inability to conjure proper arcs is starting to subside: the investigation into Benny by the Attorney General for his work prosecuting Hayden Watkins nine years ago was revealed to be because new DNA evidence suggested Watkins was actually innocent, while a "reference arc" in Danny breaking up with her British boyfriend spurred on a fresh romance with an FBI contact. Good stuff - although there was no need to wait this late for this kind of stuff.
Bull - 1x16 "Free Fall"
"Bull defends a skydiving company thought to be at fault for the wrongful death of the Governor of Connecticut after spotting Liberty serving as the plaintiff's lawyer."
"Free Fall" was probably one of the better Bull episodes of the season. It was equal measures heartwarming, heartbreaking, funny and quirky. But the most ironic part is that this episode, which transcended from a court case to a murder investigation run by TAC, was better than most police procedural whodunnits. That's most likely due to the stakes being much higher here: any revelation was outed in court not in the field by clever police work, so the impact of such revelations was accordingly huger and, here, once something was out it could not be taken back.
Liberty's appearance as a rival provided a huge chunk of the drama: she knew TAC's tricks and employed them to manipulate the jury herself, while also being the catalyst for a number of emotional moments, first as she confronted Bull for joining the case to oppose her, and secondly when Bull approached Governor Whitfield's wife and pleaded with her not to ruin the skydiving company and thus the life of Walt's daughter, Dylan.
As a final note, Bull's thus-far inability to conjure proper arcs is starting to subside: the investigation into Benny by the Attorney General for his work prosecuting Hayden Watkins nine years ago was revealed to be because new DNA evidence suggested Watkins was actually innocent, while a "reference arc" in Danny breaking up with her British boyfriend spurred on a fresh romance with an FBI contact. Good stuff - although there was no need to wait this late for this kind of stuff.
VIEWERS: 10.39m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.3
VERDICT: Everything a courtroom case should be, with the bonus flair of Liberty as an opponent. Funnily enough, better than most cop procedural whodunnits as well. 9/10
Bull - 1x17 "Name Game"
"When a class-action suit is brought against a corrupt bank, Bull fronts the money for the trial."
I can't believe the analysis I'm about to provide for Bull, I really can't. After 16 episodes of waxing lyrical about Bull's need to introduce some solid character arcs, it's finally done so at the most awkward time and in a shamefully intrusive manner.
The plot of "Name Game" was that 4211 people scammed by a pump-and-dump brokerage scheme at Brannigan Trust would seek Bull's help in a class-action suit against the corrupt bank, but with the cost of fighting against a bank so high and everyone's life savings wiped out, Bull would have to front the fee himself. If TAC lost, then the company would be in dire financial straits.
 |
Bull addresses some of the victims of the bank's scheme
|
But Benny beginning to crack under the pressure of the impending investigation into his conduct because he put an innocent man away for 9 years diverted all attentions from what should have been the main focus, which was that TAC had so much riding on winning this case. I get that the story demands Benny crack under this pressure, and perhaps having him do so in the midst of such a critically important case was the way to bring things to a head, but I can't help feeling they made a mistake in the execution. TAC won't be in this unique position for another few seasons - if at all - so they really should have made use of the high stakes by keeping that the meat of the episode.
However, despite saying all that, the misuse of premise vs arc didn't mean "Name Game" was bad, just weighted badly. The Benny stuff was excellent, along with Bull continuing to beat everyone he looked at - except from the judge, who barred him from the courtroom during voir dire. That reminds me of another small gripe about another missed opportunity: a chance to see Benny trying to cope performing voir dire without Bull's backup. Again, Bull being kicked out of a courtroom won't occur again anytime soon, so the chance to see Benny flying solo in analysing jurors being passed up was a stinker.
VIEWERS: 10.90m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.3
VERDICT: A very good episode that simply missed a lot of beats. 8/10
Bull - 1x18 "Dressed to Kill"
"Chunk's mentor dies on the runway, but Bull decides to defend the prime suspect in her murder."
1x13's "The Fall" opened with TAC stumbling on a case when Chunk took Bull to an e-sports tournament; in similar fashion (pardon the pun), TAC stumbled on a case in "Dressed to Kill" when Chunk took Bull to a fashion show and his old mentor, Nella Wester, died of arsenic poisoning on the runway. I dislike this "stumble on a case" trope in general, but having two episodes so close together form from the trope meant this was likely to be an episode I wouldn't particularly enjoy.
And I was right. "Dressed to Kill" was an uninteresting distraction from Benny's arc (which received zero attention here at all), and an uninteresting tide-over until Eliza Dushku appears in a recurring role in the final 3 episodes of the season. Even the drama between Bull and Chunk felt forced - why would Chunk, knowing Bull's almost flawless ability to identify innocent people, not have faith in him? It didn't make sense, and accordingly, I found myself drifting out of interest fairly quickly.
On the plus side, Jill Flint as lawyer/Bull's love interest Diana Lindsay made her third appearance of the season. There was no involvement from her in a professional respect, simply as Bull's love interest who wants him to visit for a romantic weekend; their flirting was the only interesting and cheer-worthy aspect of the episode. She also reverted back to her Texan accent, suggesting Diana is back in Callisto. Here's to hoping that, with her role on NBC's summer show The Night Shift, Jill Flint will have the fall free to continue recurring here. She and Bull make a cute couple.
VIEWERS: 11.13m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.6
VERDICT: "Dressed to Kill" had the opener of 1x13's "The Fall" with the murder mystery of 1x16's "Free Fall" and the no-need-for-the-courts conclusion of 1x04's "Callisto", and couldn't better any of them. 6.5/10
"Bring It On" brought flashbacks of Terry Robison, the narcissistic doctor who appeared earlier in the season, but Jules Caffrey was a level above him. In his own heightened narcissism, Caffrey hired Bull on live TV without speaking to him first, ignored Bull's instructions far more than Robison ever did and even defended himself in court. This last matter sidelined Benny a bit, but everyone at TAC was probably just enjoying the storm, as Caffrey's headiness led him repeatedly into hot waters with the jury, whose opinion fluctuated depending on the narrative of the prosecution.
That is, until the trump card was revealed: that Caffrey's wife was actually a con artist, and she had been killed by her brother because she fell in love with Caffrey and stopped trying to con him. Oldest story in the book is the con artist who fell in love with her mark (check Hustle or Leverage for examples), and it really did feel like a trump card here. I'm not sure I liked it: it seemed like a far-fetched way of providing an out for Caffrey in an episode I where I would have liked to see him cause his own downfall. It would have been a cautionary tale for all future narcissists Bull defends.
Meanwhile, there was no movement on the Benny front, but that's OK because a three-episode arc in the final 3 episodes will wrap up his storyline here. What we did see was Cable's relationship with gamer Wes, which managed to stay intact even after Cable caught him gaming again. How Bull continues to make its relationships (Cable and Wes, Bull and Diana) the best parts of episodes I don't know, but they do.
1x13's "The Fall" opened with TAC stumbling on a case when Chunk took Bull to an e-sports tournament; in similar fashion (pardon the pun), TAC stumbled on a case in "Dressed to Kill" when Chunk took Bull to a fashion show and his old mentor, Nella Wester, died of arsenic poisoning on the runway. I dislike this "stumble on a case" trope in general, but having two episodes so close together form from the trope meant this was likely to be an episode I wouldn't particularly enjoy.
And I was right. "Dressed to Kill" was an uninteresting distraction from Benny's arc (which received zero attention here at all), and an uninteresting tide-over until Eliza Dushku appears in a recurring role in the final 3 episodes of the season. Even the drama between Bull and Chunk felt forced - why would Chunk, knowing Bull's almost flawless ability to identify innocent people, not have faith in him? It didn't make sense, and accordingly, I found myself drifting out of interest fairly quickly.
On the plus side, Jill Flint as lawyer/Bull's love interest Diana Lindsay made her third appearance of the season. There was no involvement from her in a professional respect, simply as Bull's love interest who wants him to visit for a romantic weekend; their flirting was the only interesting and cheer-worthy aspect of the episode. She also reverted back to her Texan accent, suggesting Diana is back in Callisto. Here's to hoping that, with her role on NBC's summer show The Night Shift, Jill Flint will have the fall free to continue recurring here. She and Bull make a cute couple.
VIEWERS: 11.13m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.6
VERDICT: "Dressed to Kill" had the opener of 1x13's "The Fall" with the murder mystery of 1x16's "Free Fall" and the no-need-for-the-courts conclusion of 1x04's "Callisto", and couldn't better any of them. 6.5/10
Bull - 1x19 "Bring It On"
"Bull is hired without his knowledge by narcissistic criminal defense attorney Jules Caffrey, who is on trial for murdering his fiancée."
"Bring It On" brought flashbacks of Terry Robison, the narcissistic doctor who appeared earlier in the season, but Jules Caffrey was a level above him. In his own heightened narcissism, Caffrey hired Bull on live TV without speaking to him first, ignored Bull's instructions far more than Robison ever did and even defended himself in court. This last matter sidelined Benny a bit, but everyone at TAC was probably just enjoying the storm, as Caffrey's headiness led him repeatedly into hot waters with the jury, whose opinion fluctuated depending on the narrative of the prosecution.
That is, until the trump card was revealed: that Caffrey's wife was actually a con artist, and she had been killed by her brother because she fell in love with Caffrey and stopped trying to con him. Oldest story in the book is the con artist who fell in love with her mark (check Hustle or Leverage for examples), and it really did feel like a trump card here. I'm not sure I liked it: it seemed like a far-fetched way of providing an out for Caffrey in an episode I where I would have liked to see him cause his own downfall. It would have been a cautionary tale for all future narcissists Bull defends.
Meanwhile, there was no movement on the Benny front, but that's OK because a three-episode arc in the final 3 episodes will wrap up his storyline here. What we did see was Cable's relationship with gamer Wes, which managed to stay intact even after Cable caught him gaming again. How Bull continues to make its relationships (Cable and Wes, Bull and Diana) the best parts of episodes I don't know, but they do.
VIEWERS: 10.32m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.1
VERDICT: Trump card really felt like a trump card and brought the expected result of proving Caffrey's innocence. But once again, relationships trumped plot for quality. I'm team #Wable. 7.5/10
Bull - 1x20 "Make Me"
"Bull takes on a case of Troy Dickerson, tried for murdering his father, because he believes Troy was hypnotised by a cult."
"Make Me" was a key example of what Bull can do when it switches its emphasis from the courtroom scenes to TAC's investigatory work. Troy killing his father was not in question - CCTV plainly showed him bashing his dad's skull in with a golf club - but there was work to be done to prove he wasn't in control of his actions at the time. That meant deep-diving into his history, illegally (as ever) obtaining the golf club's CCTV and going undercover at the cult. All to discover the twist that Troy's golf date with his dad had not been planned and the real target of his murderous hypnosis had been the cult leader, whose daughter wanted him out of the way so she could expand the business.
The time not spent in court was good for Bull, but the mystery was big enough it couldn't serve up too much court time anyway. It also had to deal with Benny's continued spiralling, with Benny eventually confessing to Bull that he is being investigated for prosecuting the innocent Hayden Watkins - only this time there's the added point that Benny had ignored critical evidence that might have exonerated Watkins. I'm not sure how I feel about this extra nugget yet; this kind of thing is meant to increase the precarious nature of Benny's position and it feels a little forced. But I'll let it run.
As a final point, it's nice to see Chunk recognise parallels between cult members and the staff at TAC: "a group of people with a fanatical commitment to a charismatic leader, a belief that his way is the only way and a complete lack of life outside of the organisation". To the cult of Bull!
VIEWERS: 10.64m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.2
VERDICT: A format switch-up helped, and an interesting case worked with that uncommon episode structure, 8/10
Bull - 1x21 "Welcome Back, Dr. Bull"
"Benny goes to trial for planting evidence in the Hayden Watkins case, so Bull hires an expert fixer, J.P. Nunnelly, to help."
An episode that saw Marissa, Danny, Cable and Chunk all massively sidelined may not feel like one that could rank among the best of the season, but Bull achieved something in doing this. Not only did it bring a satisfying and interesting conclusion to the Hayden Watkins arc in an episode naturally Benny-centric, but Bull created an overlap of arcs to round out the season: with Benny's problems with the Hayden Watkins investigation behind them, TAC now has to repay J.P. for assisting them by helping her on three cases.
You could tell Eliza Dushku had real fun playing sharp-tongued fixer J.P., and she was excellent in the role. I'm not so sure about the love interest dynamic the writers hinted at (Bull is, after all, supposed to be in a sort-of relationship with Diana Lindsay), but I want more of J.P. and I want to see her involve herself with the rest of TAC a little more.
Case-wise, it was obvious that the detective had planted the evidence instead of Benny when he tried to talk Benny into taking the deal midway through the episode: Bull writers could have been a bit more subtle with this. They also need to rethink the first scene: Bull's voiceover about dodging bullets was a great tone-setter for the episode, but Cable going on a date with a guy she's met on an online app? Isn't she supposed to be in a relationship with Wes? I don't understand how no one ever picks up on things like this, given the lengthy process an episode goes through from the ideas board to the final cut. It really bothers me there's this little oversight and continuity.
VIEWERS: 10.89m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.2
VERDICT: One of Bull's better episodes, and it gave Freddy Rodriguez a chance to shine. However, it was a little too easy to guess the outcome. 8.5/10
An episode that saw Marissa, Danny, Cable and Chunk all massively sidelined may not feel like one that could rank among the best of the season, but Bull achieved something in doing this. Not only did it bring a satisfying and interesting conclusion to the Hayden Watkins arc in an episode naturally Benny-centric, but Bull created an overlap of arcs to round out the season: with Benny's problems with the Hayden Watkins investigation behind them, TAC now has to repay J.P. for assisting them by helping her on three cases.
You could tell Eliza Dushku had real fun playing sharp-tongued fixer J.P., and she was excellent in the role. I'm not so sure about the love interest dynamic the writers hinted at (Bull is, after all, supposed to be in a sort-of relationship with Diana Lindsay), but I want more of J.P. and I want to see her involve herself with the rest of TAC a little more.
Case-wise, it was obvious that the detective had planted the evidence instead of Benny when he tried to talk Benny into taking the deal midway through the episode: Bull writers could have been a bit more subtle with this. They also need to rethink the first scene: Bull's voiceover about dodging bullets was a great tone-setter for the episode, but Cable going on a date with a guy she's met on an online app? Isn't she supposed to be in a relationship with Wes? I don't understand how no one ever picks up on things like this, given the lengthy process an episode goes through from the ideas board to the final cut. It really bothers me there's this little oversight and continuity.
VIEWERS: 10.89m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.2
VERDICT: One of Bull's better episodes, and it gave Freddy Rodriguez a chance to shine. However, it was a little too easy to guess the outcome. 8.5/10
Bull - 1x22 "Dirty Little Secrets"
"A bomb goes off in a restaurant just blocks from TAC, who are drafted in by J.P. as part of her deal with Bull to protect a data company from having to cede to an FBI warrant to pass over their data."
We know the bad guy from the off: Harry Kemp, right-hand to Garrett Tilden, head of Heptex. He's waiting for something to happen at 10.15am, which transpires to be a bomb. I loved the bomb exploding in the background, then utter silence as Kemp sunk under the bathwater and ten seconds later absolute chaos as he reemerges. What we don't know is the extent of his involvement, nor how his involvement led to his bank balance rising from -$64m to $35m because of it.
 |
The explosion witnessed from Heptex
|
The reason was interesting: I wasn't aware of extreme gambling, where people bet large sums of money on mundane things to happen that they can't control. Kemp was so in debt due to this he was paid $100m because he could ensure (based on his knowledge due to extreme gambling) that 3 people some very people baddies wanted dead would be in the restaurant at 10.15am.
But before we find out that reason, Bull is drafted in to defend privacy rights for a huge data company Heptex - and no one on TAC, including Bull, is pleased, since defending Heptex means the identities of those who ordered the bombing may not be discovered. And that leads to some friction, including with Cable, who refuses to help decrypt Heptex's servers in secret. I like that Cable of all people - the hacker - had doubts about how everyone's info is stored online; after all, finding that out about jurors is basically her job. But in the end she came through.
And amid all this, J.P. continued to add an extra, interesting dimension to the team. She's continuing to diminish the rest of TAC's importance, which might grow into a problem if Eliza Dushku is added to the main cast in season 2, but for now it's charming and intriguing enough.
VIEWERS: 10.88m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.2
VERDICT: J.P. raises the bar for intrigue, but the science was missing a little here. Still a good episode. 8/10
The overriding feeling following the conclusion of Bull's debut season is that the character of J.P. may not be as great an addition as first thought. Her first case was rooted in the TAC ranks, as she defended Benny from a corruption charge. In her second, the TAC team were minimised to give her and Bull's jousting a significant portion of the airtime. But the finale pushed that to the limits, making this episode nearly entirely about the Bull/J.P. dynamic, a dynamic that, after only 3 episodes, is wearing very thin. I'm not sure we saw Danny, Cable, Marissa or Benny past a couple of scenes, and I don't remember seeing Chunk at all. If Eliza Dushku's J.P. is added to the main cast for season 2, this will need to be remedied.
But in terms of the case - typical CBS. A good premise, but the stakes never felt high enough. The most interesting part of the episode - watching Bull try to fathom a jury when their identities were concealed from public view - was meant to occur because the jurors were scared of retribution given the case's importance, but it never felt like anyone was in danger.
This was a disappointing finale and, like many CBS shows, doesn't really feel like something that rings out the end of a season. But it will be back for season 2 so, like Bull's closing words, "In a while, crocodile".
Bull - 1x23 "Benevolent Deception"
"For the second case Bull owes J.P., he must travel with her to Miami to help prove the sister of a suspected drug lord innocent of harbouring heroin."
The overriding feeling following the conclusion of Bull's debut season is that the character of J.P. may not be as great an addition as first thought. Her first case was rooted in the TAC ranks, as she defended Benny from a corruption charge. In her second, the TAC team were minimised to give her and Bull's jousting a significant portion of the airtime. But the finale pushed that to the limits, making this episode nearly entirely about the Bull/J.P. dynamic, a dynamic that, after only 3 episodes, is wearing very thin. I'm not sure we saw Danny, Cable, Marissa or Benny past a couple of scenes, and I don't remember seeing Chunk at all. If Eliza Dushku's J.P. is added to the main cast for season 2, this will need to be remedied.
But in terms of the case - typical CBS. A good premise, but the stakes never felt high enough. The most interesting part of the episode - watching Bull try to fathom a jury when their identities were concealed from public view - was meant to occur because the jurors were scared of retribution given the case's importance, but it never felt like anyone was in danger.
This was a disappointing finale and, like many CBS shows, doesn't really feel like something that rings out the end of a season. But it will be back for season 2 so, like Bull's closing words, "In a while, crocodile".
VIEWERS: 8.35m
DEMOGRAPHIC SHARE: 1.1
VERDICT: An underwhelming episode that ignored a season's-worth of character focus to force J.P. down our throats. Not a hopeful sign for season 2. 6.5/10
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
WEEK NINE
Defendant's lawyer (to plaintiff): "Would you agree the defendant is kind of a jerk?"
Plaintiff's lawyer: "OBJECTION!"
Judge: "She's trashing her own client ... Are you sure you want to object?"
Plaintiff's lawyer: "... Objection withdrawn"
WEEK SIXTEEN
Bull: "[The victim failed to adhere to proper security protocols in the leadup to his death because] he was in a hurry to get home for a game."
Marissa: "At 1.30 in the morning?"
Benny: "You've obviously never seen an Arsenal Man U match."
Plaintiff's lawyer: "OBJECTION!"
Judge: "She's trashing her own client ... Are you sure you want to object?"
Plaintiff's lawyer: "... Objection withdrawn"
WEEK SIXTEEN
Bull: "[The victim failed to adhere to proper security protocols in the leadup to his death because] he was in a hurry to get home for a game."
Marissa: "At 1.30 in the morning?"
Benny: "You've obviously never seen an Arsenal Man U match."
No comments:
Post a Comment