If it was 1990, when series like “Walker, Texas Ranger” were ruling the airwaves, this would have been a smash. Sadly for “Killer Women” audiences are expecting more from their television series.
Formulaic procedurals already have their place amongst the
TV market. “Law & Order” and the recent cult hit “Castle” have both been
successful, not to mention the sensation that is the “CSI” franchise. The key
for “Castle”, at least, is having a quirky character at its center.
For “Killer Women” the lead character is neither, interesting nor compelling. Helfer does a respectable job in the role and brings a certain, je ne sais quoi, to the role. She comes across strong and realistically intimidating. In a landscape that typically sports females of waifish proportions performing the physically impossible as they thrash away attackers, Helfer is authentically capable.
For “Killer Women” the lead character is neither, interesting nor compelling. Helfer does a respectable job in the role and brings a certain, je ne sais quoi, to the role. She comes across strong and realistically intimidating. In a landscape that typically sports females of waifish proportions performing the physically impossible as they thrash away attackers, Helfer is authentically capable.
That is where the positivity ends. The pilot’s opening
mystery was explained to audiences in a manner that reeked of self-astonishment.
As if this story were so fantastical that it needed to be stripped down to its
lowest common denominator and spoon-fed to its audience, untangling a web of
incredible complexity.
While the twist was intriguing, it was poorly explained how Helfer’s character honed in on the ulterior crime, within seconds and with no real evidence to support her outlandish hypothesis. At this juncture, the show has both dumbed down its reveal and overextended the ingenuity of its lead, in a nonsensical fashion.
While the twist was intriguing, it was poorly explained how Helfer’s character honed in on the ulterior crime, within seconds and with no real evidence to support her outlandish hypothesis. At this juncture, the show has both dumbed down its reveal and overextended the ingenuity of its lead, in a nonsensical fashion.
Also of note, the series, to this point, negates the use of
DNA or any crime scene clues. It relies solely on circumstantial proof. An
evidentiary support that when implemented in real life; can have gossipy and
shallow roots. That is a dangerous notion to promulgate. In a different time,
the show might’ve been impressive, in 2014, it has all been done before and
better.
Episodes Aired: 1
See It or Free It: Free It, a mid-season replacement not
worth its salt or heavy advertising.
Comments
Post a Comment