50FiftillidideeBrain
No sustained objections ◇ The Preponderance Of The Evidence Supports an "A" °Excellent°
The following is my brief with respect to this series. LS is, beyond a reasonable doubt, guilty of being a supreme legal drama.
This could almost be labeled a law school "fantasy" series, as unviable as that sounds. Fantasy shows don't appeal to everybody; some prefer realistic dramas. There are many more that hate procedure, or predictability: They want to be surprised by a last-minute reluctant witness. This show should satisfy most people, including most everyone in these groups, but the web of lives, the condensed degrees of separation, and the tangle of grudges and motivations wouldn't be admissible in a true-to-life drama. It is a strain to think of professors at an ivy league level school being as caring as the profs in this drama are. Identifying the right suspect is not as predictable as it is slightly erroneous. Astute viewers may still be able to pinpoint the killer with ease and declare it too predictable... To which I say: "Quash all of that. Who cares?" LS is not guilty of contempt. They've put together a winning case.
⚖Suspend your skepticism and examine all the evidence yourself. The jury must watch the whole show prior to deliberations, so we are remanded to get on the roller-coaster and enjoy LS. This show is written, directed, and edited with a habile hand (I just looked "habile" up and decided to use it… pretty cool word, right? I hope it impresses the judge and jury).
LS follows the lives of law students along with some of the professors - their struggles and triumphs, families, friends and foes, along with their growth as they navigate through the fraught chambers of their lauded institution. Prof Yang and Kang Sol A are fabulous characters. I could listen to Kim Myung-Min (Prof Yang) talk all day. His voice is divinely masculine and deep. It would have been tossed out if he couldn't act or take command of the courtroom, but he can, and very well at that. The director sustains the tension throughout the series. It's high mystery in classic whodunit form. The taut editing and soundtrack sequester the audience in a state of suspense. If you reason that you know who the culprit is in ep3, you might waiver by ep8. The evidence keeps our minds in motion, turning like a bottle being spun on a table.
We should overrule some of their arguments, though. There are things that seem judiciously obvious to the court at large that elude their brilliant minds. That always weighs a case down. I strongly object to the last moments of the show which are remitted as way too brief. We get very little discovery pertaining to what the characters went on to do or what the relationship is of the three that are walking together at the end. It resounded like a cracked gavel. That may be hearsay, however, the prosecution argues that it's pure negligence to wrap up a 16+ hour series with a 10 second consultation. Would that we could depose the director about that decision. In the balance, we can easily dismiss any such torts committed by the director. Indubitably, the director's curriculum vitae (resume) shows he's had a solid run, and has a high likeability factor. The overall quality of the piece is a mitigating factor taken into account in the sentencing phase: LS gets all the credit for time served, and remains released for all of us to enjoy.
I originally postponed the hearing on LS as I wasn't convinced that it would sway me. The worth of its collateral was evident once its docket came up on the calendar (my Netflix queue), and I sat in judgment. While I wasn't confident of its appeal, now that all the exhibits have been examined, Res Ipsa Loquitor: The thing speaks for itself.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this drama has acquitted itself laudably. The ratings prove what broad appeal it has. The preponderance of the evidence is that this show has prevailed in its effort to convince us of its credibility. So don't waiver: Watch as an interested party. I'm sure you will agree to stipulate the worthiness of the production.
IMHO...
Directing 8
Thought provocation 8
Acting 8
Suggested Age 12& up.
This could almost be labeled a law school "fantasy" series, as unviable as that sounds. Fantasy shows don't appeal to everybody; some prefer realistic dramas. There are many more that hate procedure, or predictability: They want to be surprised by a last-minute reluctant witness. This show should satisfy most people, including most everyone in these groups, but the web of lives, the condensed degrees of separation, and the tangle of grudges and motivations wouldn't be admissible in a true-to-life drama. It is a strain to think of professors at an ivy league level school being as caring as the profs in this drama are. Identifying the right suspect is not as predictable as it is slightly erroneous. Astute viewers may still be able to pinpoint the killer with ease and declare it too predictable... To which I say: "Quash all of that. Who cares?" LS is not guilty of contempt. They've put together a winning case.
⚖Suspend your skepticism and examine all the evidence yourself. The jury must watch the whole show prior to deliberations, so we are remanded to get on the roller-coaster and enjoy LS. This show is written, directed, and edited with a habile hand (I just looked "habile" up and decided to use it… pretty cool word, right? I hope it impresses the judge and jury).
LS follows the lives of law students along with some of the professors - their struggles and triumphs, families, friends and foes, along with their growth as they navigate through the fraught chambers of their lauded institution. Prof Yang and Kang Sol A are fabulous characters. I could listen to Kim Myung-Min (Prof Yang) talk all day. His voice is divinely masculine and deep. It would have been tossed out if he couldn't act or take command of the courtroom, but he can, and very well at that. The director sustains the tension throughout the series. It's high mystery in classic whodunit form. The taut editing and soundtrack sequester the audience in a state of suspense. If you reason that you know who the culprit is in ep3, you might waiver by ep8. The evidence keeps our minds in motion, turning like a bottle being spun on a table.
We should overrule some of their arguments, though. There are things that seem judiciously obvious to the court at large that elude their brilliant minds. That always weighs a case down. I strongly object to the last moments of the show which are remitted as way too brief. We get very little discovery pertaining to what the characters went on to do or what the relationship is of the three that are walking together at the end. It resounded like a cracked gavel. That may be hearsay, however, the prosecution argues that it's pure negligence to wrap up a 16+ hour series with a 10 second consultation. Would that we could depose the director about that decision. In the balance, we can easily dismiss any such torts committed by the director. Indubitably, the director's curriculum vitae (resume) shows he's had a solid run, and has a high likeability factor. The overall quality of the piece is a mitigating factor taken into account in the sentencing phase: LS gets all the credit for time served, and remains released for all of us to enjoy.
I originally postponed the hearing on LS as I wasn't convinced that it would sway me. The worth of its collateral was evident once its docket came up on the calendar (my Netflix queue), and I sat in judgment. While I wasn't confident of its appeal, now that all the exhibits have been examined, Res Ipsa Loquitor: The thing speaks for itself.
In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this drama has acquitted itself laudably. The ratings prove what broad appeal it has. The preponderance of the evidence is that this show has prevailed in its effort to convince us of its credibility. So don't waiver: Watch as an interested party. I'm sure you will agree to stipulate the worthiness of the production.
IMHO...
Directing 8
Thought provocation 8
Acting 8
Suggested Age 12& up.
Considerați utilă această recenzie?
