Third-episode verdict: Justice

I liked the first episode of Justice. Fresh TV from the House of Bruckheimer, it was a touch more CSI: Miami than CSI – the kind of show where no one just has a meeting, they have to stand up the whole time, shout and have handheld cameras swung between them – but it was new and different. Do I like it now, three episodes in?

Yes, I do. It’s toned down the CSI: Miami stupidity and still continues to offer some incisive views on law as practised in big media cases in the US. Victor Garber’s Ron Trott is a fantastic piece of haminess. And you’re never sure who you’re supposed to be rooting for.

There’s still little characterisation going on – although as is the case with many third episodes, characters started throwing out random bits of background history to give the illusion of characterisation:

“Like I tell my son, never get caught in a compromising position with an inebriated woman.”

“Your son’s five years old”

“It’s never too early to start telling them.”

But that’s no bad thing at this early stage, as long as the plots remain strong, which they do. The fact we’re dealing with defence attorneys rather than prosecutors remains a relatively novel twist, particularly since we’re never sure until the end if the defendant is guilty or innocent. The third episode had a particularly interesting development on that score, which I won’t spoil anyone by revealing. The fact they’re also quite a sleazy bunch is equally novel, although I’m sure Boston Legal fans would disagree.

All in all, I’d say keep watching (or start watching come October if you’re in the UK) Justice since slick and glossy it might be, it’s still smart in the areas that count.

Here’s a YouTube vid for you. It’s the first seven minutes from the pilot episode and gives you a fair idea of what the show’s like if you haven’t watched it yet.