
After watching the first 4 series, I began to think, not end if this viewing of the series. But was able to overcome this — and wait until the end of the first season (second is will?! it is interesting to see whether he well sir, as first...). The last of the series — five or six — more interesting — possible to force more fascinating stories. From the first half from I rarely happened to nothing I could remember, except for the overall impression. Well, well, let's talk about the perfect.
Dr. bull can be positioned somewhere between Dr. Lightman ("Lie to me") and Patrick Jane ("the Mentalist"): from first took (almost) a scientific approach to"reading" people — on the subject of cheating whether or they tell the truth (although this is a problem: what to consider the truth; see least "Rashomon"); from the Mentalist — ability to manipulate people. Moreover, manipulation — this is the main skate Dr. bull: "scientific" somehow not convinced. But if "Lie to me" was really interesting to watch Tim Roth depicting Dr. Lightman, it from the cheerful gouging Patrick Jane Dr. bull took only a smile (from the Cheshire cat remained one smile); to unfortunately, the smile doctor there not be anything, but the desire to not read; other explanation I found, as he smiles for any reason.
He specializes in bull — trial en masse; the challenge — to help the client to win in court. For the doctor bull involved in the jury selection, simulates the process of the court yourself the lab using a "mirror" of the jury — i.e. people, reminiscent of specific performance of a real jury. It builds the judicial process so that to affect the decision of the jury in he needs (and clients) key: i.e., the fact, engaged in manipulation of the court.
On the bench I would be attracted to Dr. Bulla of responsibility for disregard trial for the discrediting of the judicial process and for the illegal use of technical means in the courtroom. But then show "dead" would be completely (however, in a couple of series of doctor Bull was denied presence the use of technology — be fair). Assume that series — this is an easy fantasy on trial.
And there really is a problem: whether the court is so impartial, independent enough to be able to trust it solutions and no doubt the jury a whole. Perhaps this is the only positive thought that can be drawn from series. Everything else — the individual scenes loosely connected, without a cross-cutting theme (for example, in the "the Mentalist," it was red John) and for no particular masterful acting.
On topic I was reminded of "Justice for all" with al Pacino.
So in summary, not very interesting, very likely, does very well played. The average series, it is to 6,5 (as he and evaluated). Put 6. If you are interested in justice, you can see.