'Outlaw' Premiere Review: This Whole Court's Out of Order
NBC's new Jimmy Smits vehicle is called 'Outlaw.' I guess the title 'Contrived, Irritating Star Vehicle' just wasn't as catchy. You may have gathered that I found 'Outlaw' to be a waste of time, but it's actually a misfire that illustrates several things that end up going wrong every fall and mid-season, when when the networks roll out half a dozen shows that make similar mistakes.
Someone call the TV police, because they're going to have to cite 'Outlaw' (which premieres 10PM ET Wednesday, then moves to 10PM ET Fridays) for the following crimes:
1. Star Vehicles, Especially on the Broadcast Networks, Don't Work All That Often. The television-creation process at the big networks too often works against the creation of interesting characters -- the idea is to avoid alienating any potential viewers. When a show is built around a name actor, the impetus to create a sexy, amazing, brilliant, kind and heroic lead can become overwhelming. These characters are often terribly boring. I'm not saying noble characters can't be interesting -- they can be, when good writers and creators have free reign to create compelling situations, dilemmas and worlds. But when a well-known star is wedged into a well-known genre, the characters and the stories frequently end up being predictable.
2. Supporting Characters Don't Support When They Are Mere Types. Smits' smug character, famous lawyer Cyrus Garza, has three assistants helping him with cases. One is left-ish, one is right-ish, and one makes constant sexual innuendos. These people are not humans, they are robots sent from the future to destroy all happiness. OK, in all seriousness, unlike the supporting characters on, say, 'The Good Wife,' these characters exist to say and do things that set up the hero's heroic actions; their personalities, such as they are, don't stray outside very defined parameters. Al Drezinsky (David Ramsey), Garza's law partner, gets especially short shrift -- Drezinsky is extremely bland, presumably to make Garza look that much more interesting. 3. If the Dialogue Is Bad, Everything Else Is Probably Clunky Too. Your honor, I submit into evidence: "Following the rules doesn't always lead to justice. When that happens, Eddie, you've got to change the rules." "Too much head, not enough heart." "You can't put the system above a man's life!" To top it all off, Garza makes The Speech at the end of episode 2 -- you know, the speech about Why He Does What He Does. It's the speech you've heard a million times before, frequently done better on everything from "L.A. Law," one of Smits' previous shows, to "Boston Legal."
4. Just Having a Character Do The Opposite of What Most People Would Do Does Not Make That Person Inherently Interesting. I guess we're supposed to think Garza is a savvy maverick and a sexy risk-taker. But when he does things with little or no explanation of why he's doing them (especially in the second episode), he just seems like a presumptuous blowhard uninterested in collecting solid information before making a decision. We're supposed to root for that guy... why, again?
5. Just Having a Character Who Likes to Go to Las Vegas Does Not Make Him Inherently Interesting. Garza gambles, he loves the ladies. So what? I'm tired of the lazy TV shorthand that says someone who plays poker or likes a drink is inherently edgy. Oh, but, you know, thanks for hammering away at the theme that Garza is a Risk Taker! Otherwise I might have missed that idea, which is, you know, in the title.
6. A Decent Plot Can Help No Matter What, But if the Plots Are Flimsy and There Are Other Basic Flaws, You Are Toast. Would a senator really harass a sitting Supreme Court justice? Would that senator threaten impeachment when the justice doesn't do his bidding? That sort of contrived silliness is all over 'Outlaw,' which also has Garza finding the perfect evidence at the perfect moment in the second episode.
I rest my case.
Follow @MoRyan on Twitter.

14 Comments