(S01E01) After posting my early look at this new NBC procedural crime drama, reading your comments, and thinking about Charlie Crews in general, I have come to the belief that Life may actually have a chance this season. Not because of the crimes he and Detective Dani Reese solve -- hey, a murder is a murder is a murder. Not because of Charlie's mix of innocence and quirkiness. I think what is going to keep people tuning into the program is the whole sub-plot of the series: trying to find out who the heck framed Charlie for the murder of three people.

From what we see in this first episode is could be practically anyone he knew previously. Perhaps it's his boss, Lieutenant Karen Davis, who wants nothing more than to see him out of her department. Maybe it's his former partner, Officer Robert Stark, who seems to go about like Charlie wasn't locked in solitary confinement for a dozen years. Or, it could be any number of other people that may be looked into as the show progresses.

What this sub-plot will do is turn this procedural into a serialized procedural. Now, this can be good and bad for the show. If the hunt for those that framed Charlie is intriguing enough, and doesn't open 500 other little mysteries like another show on another network that is based on a tropical island, the audience may stick around awhile. If, on the other hand, the audience doesn't stick around the network may pull the plug. We've seen that this is a bad idea when it comes to serialized shows because those who remain with the program are anxious to see what happens next. Seeing that it was done so many times last season (Kidnapped, Vanished, The Nine -- remember them?) NBC may have to contend with a mass riot if they decide to move the remaining episodes to the web.

This is all just theory at the moment. The real proof will come on Thursday when the nightly numbers come in. In the meantime, let's talk about the first episode of Life itself. As I said in my early look post, the pilot is okay but the second episode is better. That's probably because, like many other shows before it, this one suffers from TMI (Too Much Information for the non-abbreviated) Syndrome. It packs so much information into 43 minutes of show that it's hard to follow it all. I know that this is used to setup the rest of the season. However, it leads to a bit of confusion.

Take Dani Reese for example. She's a recovering drug addict that's supposed to be in some type of program. However, something else seems to be going on with her. Promiscuity? A new addiction to sex and/or alcohol? I'm not sure. We get such a brief snippet of her outside life in the pilot episode that it's hard to tell. Yes, you'll say that it adds to the mystery of the character. I'll counter by saying that it really doesn't establish what the character is all about, and whether we should be supportive of her or angry at her. Again, yes, it's hard to make such a decision in the first episode. I say that while it is difficult, what we see of a character in a series premiere sets the stage for what we think of that character as the show progresses.

As for Charlie . . . As I said in my earlier post, the Charlie that we see in this first episode is a bit irritating. Eating all that fruit and showing ignorance of modern technology. I'll give him the fact that he doesn't know about Instant Messaging, although I believe Internet companies like CompuServe (blast from the past) had that type of technology way back in 1995. But, I can't believe that he never saw anyone in or near the prison talking on their cell phone. Not even the lawyer who sprung him out of the joint (sorry, had a bit of a 40's flashback there) talked on a cell phone or used a Blackberry while talking with Charlie in prison? It seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Besides those two things I actually like Charlie's investigative style. Because of his education in the way of Zen he is one of the calmest police detectives I've seen on television. He also has that sixth sense that some other detectives wish they had. A good example of this is when he finds the severed finger buried underneath the victim's dog. Another is when he smells marijuana on the shirt of the victim's stepfather. It reminds me a bit of the investigative techniques used by one Shawn Spencer of Psych.

Crews and Reese as a team remind me of Seeley Booth and Temperance 'Bones' Brennan of Bones, except in reverse. Take away Reese's off-putting attitude towards Charlie and she has that same type of 'please stop pulling my leg' feeling that Booth has every time Bones says something that's way out in left field. Charlie has Bones' matter-of-fact attitude and innocence. He's also missing that switch in his brain that stops him from saying something he shouldn't. Right now, since they are just starting out, they do not make a good team. However, if the show continues and the producers let these two characters grow, they could be a duo that is right up there with Bones and Booth, or Benson and Stabler of Law & Order:SVU.

You probably noticed I never mentioned Adam Arkin, who plays Charlie's financial advisor, throughout this entire review. Frankly, I'm not really sure what he is doing on the show right now. Comic relief? Well, Charlie can handle some of that with his reactions and mannerisms. Possibly Crews' external conscience? All right, I'll give him that; he does try to keep Charlie grounded a bit. I guess I need to see this character fleshed out a bit more before I really make a determination if he should still be on the show or not (like my opinion is really going to matter to the executives at NBC).

So, there you have it. I'm going to give this show a few more episodes to see if grows on me. Hopefully there will be enough audience to let this happen.