Even if you weren't in the practice of watching ABC's 'The Practice,' you might find its spinoff, 'Boston Legal,' habit-forming. [3 Oct 2004]

Boston Legal represents a vast improvement over the final season of The Practice. [1 Oct 2004]

Whatever one thought of Practice last season, Boston Legal is a separate show -- and it should be viewed with a clean slate. Taken on its own purposely outrageous terms, Boston succeeds as a decent legal comedy led by two broadly amusing characters. [1 Oct 2004]

There is no mistaking "Boston Legal" for anything other than a Kelley office drama. The show and its characters have all the trademark tics that have become his calling card: Quirky cases, outrageous characters, legal arguments as sermons on the mount. Everything is just a little bit heightened, at least when it's not completely over the top; caricatures too often sub for characters. [1 Oct 2004]

The cases on "Boston Legal" will inevitably become ridiculous; that's the trend in Kelley's shows, as he pushes the envelope beyond reason. But the show's regular cast has great promise. [2 Oct 2004]

Its first cases ... play out cheaply as setups for one-liners, only a few of which land squarely. [3 Oct 2004]

The most unfortunate victims of Kelley's sad attempt at recapturing the funky fun of his past and mixing in what gravitas he can scrounge up are two otherwise fine characters, Spader's impishly amoral Alan Shore and Shatner's extroverted nut case Denny Crane. [2 Oct 2004]

A fun introduction to our lively cast of lawyers. There is something about the chemisty of the actors that really draws you in. A little flighty, but always entertaining. A good watch, especially when you are in an ethical mood, Al Shore's speeches are pretty awesome.

This either delights or annoys. For me it annoyed. To be honest, I am not a lover of courtroom drama; however, as this was billed a dark comedy and starred James Spader, I thought I'd give it a go. First the positive: both Spader and William Shatner are brilliant - they play their roles beautifully. Both have screen presence and fill their scenes with their charisma. Unfortunately, the characters they play so well are just too annoying. Spader plays a smarmy wisecracking know-it-all, gleefully gurning at all before him. Shatner playing a buffoon who we are constantly reminded never lost a court case - also a smarmy wisecracking know-it-all. Plot-wise let me again start with the positive: the ethical conundrums that unfold in the court cases and clients they take on, are inventive and cleverly thought-out. Unfortunately, it falls into the unbelievable far too often. The mistake the plot writers make is insisting the aforementioned pair never lose. So it becomes a tired cycle where the opponents change each week, but the result is the same - more smarmy self-satisfied back-slapping for the perennial victors Alan Shore (Spader) & Denny Crane (Shatner). What are they victorious in ? Whatever - court cases, office politics, personal disagreements, relationship issues. The result of this insistence on Omni-victory means the plot writers have to produce increasingly ridiculous twists to perpetuate it. Easily half of the cases Shore (Spader) is involved in, would never go in his favour; many of the stunts he pulls would never actually happen. Wholly against the will of the Judges he brings into the courtroom loud-mouthed political activists of dubious character, camera crews and even on occasion: Judges' own mothers! The result: the Judges crumble before the all-conquering one ! Hoorah ! -- Sorry, no, no, no - that is rubbish television: annoying, grinning, wise-cracking, ever-triumphant characters, repeatedly annoying, grinning, wise-cracking, ever-triumphant rolling over and over again. I just couldn't take anymore of it !