Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: USA's 'Suits' a flat legal drama

Another slick but empty USA series

  • Critic's Rating C
  • Readers' Rating A-
<p>Gabriel Macht and Patrick J. Adams in "Suits."</p>

Gabriel Macht and Patrick J. Adams in "Suits."

Credit: USA

USA has established an odd little tradition in recent years where most of its new series debut with extra-long episodes. On the one hand, I understand that a channel whose motto is "Characters Welcome" would want to give its new shows bonus time to establish those characters from the outset. But on the other, USA shows are designed to be light, easy-to-digest fare - even when they're not airing in the summer, they feel like they should be - and these super-sized opening portions usually feel a bit too leaden for that.

Rarely, though, have I had as hard a time getting through an inflated USA pilot than I did through all 73 minutes (90 minutes when you factor in commercials) of "Suits," the new legal drama that debuts Thursday at 10 p.m. after "Burn Notice."

It's not that "Suits" is terrible, or even bad. When you have a factory approach like USA has, there's going to be a baseline level of competency for each new bit of product that comes off the assembly line. "Fairly Legal," USA's previous new series (also a legal show, and clearly an area the channel wants to mine) was also problematic, but at least it had Sarah Shahi doing light comedy.

The issue with "Suits" is that it feels much, much too flimsy to hold up over 73 minutes, and even the standard-length second episode felt about 10 minutes too long. Again, it's an excuse for attractive people dressed in nice outfits to banter, and that's swell to a point, but eventually a man wants a bit more. (And the better USA shows, like "Burn Notice" and "White Collar," provide that when they're at their strongest.)

The premise itself, and the show's universe, both feel awfully thin. We're introduced to attorney Harvey Specter (the professionally handsome Gabriel Macht), a killer shark with a killer wardrobe, whom boss Jessica (Gina Torres) repeatedly introduces as "the best closer in New York." (All due respect to Mariano Rivera, apparently.) Jessica and other characters, in fact, talk so much about how brilliant Harvey is at closing deals that it either feels like padding in a long pilot or, more likely, creator Aaron Korsh hedging his bets, just in case he didn't do a good enough job of actually showing Harvey's genius - which he hasn't quite. We see him close an impossible deal early on, but in a way that blows up in his face later, and he spends most of the two episodes I've seen putting out fires of his own creation.

Most of those fires arise from his impulsive decision to hire Mike Ross (Patrick J. Adams) - a college dropout with a photographic memory who once passed the New York state bar on a dare - as his new associate, trying to pass him off as a Harvard Law grad. It's the whole point of the series - the golden boy giving the scrappy kid from the streets a chance, and the scrappy kid in turn giving the golden boy a heart - and yet the show never really sells us on Harvey's reasons for taking such a big risk. He's presented as too selfish and impatient to attach himself to someone who could both torpedo his own career and who has to have his hand constantly held on matters that an actual Harvard Law alum would know.

So Mike constantly gets both himself and Harry into trouble due to his ignorance of basic legal practicalities, and Harvey in turn seems much dumber than the show wants him to seem. (For that matter, Mike's beautiful mind seems to take a significant beating between the pilot and the second episode.) And every five minutes, Harvey is either threatening to fire Mike for endangering his standing in the firm or Mike is threatening to quit because Harvey's too mean and unfair.

Again, if the pilot were shorter, those beats might not feel as played-out by the time we get to the second episode and do it all over again, but there are still fundamental story and logic problems that shouldn't have even flown on a turn-off-your-brain kind of network like USA.

(It would also help if this top New York firm didn't feel so underpopulated. There are lots of extras floating around, but the only ones who ever speak or do anything are Harvey, Mike, to a much lesser extent Jessica, Rick Hoffman as a sleazy rival partner and Meghan Markle as a paralegal who's constantly filling in the gaps in Mike's practical knowledge. Most USA shows have casts this small, or smaller, but they tend to be about outsiders, where "Suits" is trying to be about an insider and an outsider who team up inside this big institution.)

Still, there are isolated moments where the show comes close to clicking. We get to see both Harvey's charm and courtroom savvy in an amusingly deadpan scene where he outlines his argument in a sexual harassment case by posing a hypothetical about the middle-aged male judge seducing his middle-aged male bailiff. And even if I don't buy Harvey hiring Mike, the scene where they meet and Mike shows off his smarts is snappy and fun. (The two characters are kept weirdly separate for much of the pilot and the second episode, when the interplay between Macht and Adams is by far the show's best asset.)

But the pilot episode definitely would have benefited from a less-is-more approach, while the series as a whole could use a little more meat and/or logic.

Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Alan-sepinwall-sm
Alan Sepinwall
Sr. Editor, What's Alan Watching
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Wayne

    Let me get this straight...you LOVE Chuck, but you dislike this show? Something doesn't seem right about that.

    June 22, 2011 at 2:10PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Unamused_talkback_profile

      mac35 What the hell? How in the world is there even the slightest correlation between Chuck and this show? Maybe if they were even the same genre or tone you could ask how one could like Chuck and dislike Suits but they're not. I say again, what the hell?

      June 22, 2011 at 2:15PM EST
  • Unamused_talkback_profile

    mac35

    Oh and Alan, I see you gave this a C. Personally the review sounded more like a C-. I'd like a bullet point list detailing your rationale for going with the C. I need this in the next 20 minutes too, I'm very VERY concerned about this.

    Yours truly,
    A concerned grader

    June 22, 2011 at 2:18PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Darius

    As a fan of Gina Torres, any reason to tune into the show for her?

    June 22, 2011 at 2:19PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall She barely appears at all in the second episode, and only sporadically in the pilot. At least in the early going, she's just the authority figure, there to remind us of how much trouble Macht could get into if people find out he hired a college drop-out.

      In other words, if you're tuning in just for her, you're gonna be sitting through a whole lot of not-her for some brief, uninteresting appearances.

      June 22, 2011 at 2:25PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Eric

    I'm just curious, do you think Psych is worse than White Collar (as somewhat implied), or did you not include it in the comparison because it (and Monk) are somewhat less beholden to the USA formula?

    June 22, 2011 at 2:34PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Psych's a relic of the days when Monk was the USA template, where now all the shows are modeled in some way on Burn Notice.

      I also don't like Psych, but that's only because I want to punch Shawn in the face in every single scene. The rest of the show strikes me as the sort of thing I'd enjoy if I could get past that minor sticking point.

      June 22, 2011 at 2:40PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    RA Porter

    I was shocked how bored I was watching a show that featured (in too-small roles) Torres, Hoffman, and Rebecca Schull.

    RA Porter

    (OT: Facebook connect doesn't seem to be working right now for the comment system.)

    June 22, 2011 at 3:15PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Mike

    They could have at least based this in a state where you don't need a law degree (JD, LLM, something) to take the bar. Easy fix if you need a big city, put it in LA, or DC (not necessary for VA bar, Seattle even. What happens when a Harvard grad asks him about old professors or classes, or asks Harvard people if they remember him...too many logical holes!!!!

    June 22, 2011 at 4:17PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nic919 That is the first thing I thought of as well. As an actual lawyer it is stupid set ups like this discourage me from even watching the show. It is called practising law for a reason. You can know every case in the world but the actual ability to apply this information depending on the facts of the case requires experience and that is not something you can fast track or fake. And with all those screw ups, at some point he will have to report himself to the Bar Association because he will get sued.

      June 22, 2011 at 10:42PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Nikki This matter was the exact thing that frustrated me every time commercials for the show aired. Beyond the New York legal system being overdone and my desire to see shows set in other cities (despite my love of White Collar and of TV production coming to New York) as a lawyer practicing in New York the very premise of this show irritated me. I kept looking into it, hoping the show would reveal something to assuage my assumptions, but it's exactly as it seemed. It's not that hard to go to law school in New York. Pretty sure you can get a degree online. Someone lying about where he went to school would have been preferable. As it is, this show has only served to remind me of the state bar would actually occur with anyone being hired as an attorney in the state of New York and how no law firm would risk malpractice by not performing such checks.

      June 25, 2011 at 11:47PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    hpfan12

    I gave the show a B-. It is another one of those USA shows that I might not mind watching for the next few weeks after Burn Notice (until I'm off screeners for Louie and Wilfred).

    It's cheap, easy summer TV and nothing more. I didn't find the pilot as much of a chore to sit through as you did because there things going on and the characters are interesting enough.

    June 22, 2011 at 4:35PM EST Reply to Comment
  • The_boondocks_a_pimp_name_slickback_talkback_profile

    tigger500

    So not worth it to watch Gina Torres at least?

    June 22, 2011 at 5:50PM EST Reply to Comment
    • The_boondocks_a_pimp_name_slickback_talkback_profile

      tigger500 Oops, you've addressed this question.

      June 22, 2011 at 5:54PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Caio

    I'll never understand why people vote before they even watch the show. In theory, the reader's rating should be a great way to see how, in average, readers liked the show. Instead, people are voting based on... What you wrote about it? How many actors in it they enjoy?

    I honestly don't understand it.

    June 23, 2011 at 9:26AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nidhena I agree...there is the slight chance that readers might come back and rate it AFTER they've watched the premiere but it would make a lot more sense to have readers rate it when Alan opens up the discussion after the pilot airs.

      June 24, 2011 at 1:50PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Brandi

    I found the show to be very clever. I enjoyed every minute of it and can't wait to see more. Too many shows these days are either extremely cheesy or they creep me out/make me depressed. This had the right mix to keep me coming back for more!

    June 25, 2011 at 6:46PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      haneen abusada I can't agree with u more

      July 13, 2011 at 8:24PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Meg I absolutely agree! I think that the writing is snappy, the characters have heart, and the writers are creative in mixing up the story lines every week. Despite the improbable plot contrivances used to bring Harvey and Mike together, I love the witticism-peppered end result.

      I also appreciate that this show hasn't yet fallen prey to the same problems formulaic/procedural shows usually do - over-focusing on the victims' plight, becoming repetitive, under-utilizing good actors, and losing the B and C story lines.

      It's not realistic, but it's good, fun, well-written television.

      August 21, 2011 at 11:43PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    suits_teevee

    In case you missed any episodes, try www.suitstv.com.

    This way you can have a look and see if the show is to your liking.

    August 6, 2011 at 8:52AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    tim rice

    Reviews like the one above is what u get when you allow unqualified people to express opinions.

    August 6, 2011 at 8:07PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    flat

    you know who's flat? YOU

    September 12, 2011 at 12:28PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    hadto

    So fed up with this show and having 20 year old friends tell me how harvey is "the man". Because he wears nice suits and looks cool in the intro with the snappy music? Alan Shore was the man, and it exemplified in his courtroom ability... not the case in Suits.

    December 29, 2011 at 4:16PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Dan

    Why is it that you give the show a C while the people that actually matter the viewers have given it an A- shouldn't a "critics" review be a fairly accurate reflection of the views of the people? Do you not enjoy the combination of swagger and smarts with a little bit of comedy thrown into the mix?

    July 18, 2012 at 12:33AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Gizmo_bigger_talkback_profile

      dan No, Dan. A critic's review should be an accurate reflection of the critic's feelings about a show.

      -Daniel

      July 18, 2012 at 1:03AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Geoff

    Alan's the top critic I follow these days, but having been introduced to Suits on an airplane flight and working my way through the series now, I have to disagree with his review here. He's free to his opinion of course but I find it enjoyable...it's not quite "Chuck" level because Chuck had better actors. It IS entertaining and works its formula very well. Most importantly, while the pilot may have suffered as Alan said, the series does improve as you get through it. Give it a shot.

    October 7, 2012 at 12:21PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web