BrianC

Listen! I hear a foghorn: ****! The money-saving formula for this show is this: 80% drawn out, concocted dialogue with inconsistent characterization, and 20% zombies (give or take a few percentage points on premieres, sweeps or finales). Basically a soap opera with zombies, only the actors and effects are good.

If you can swallow the absurd concept this show is based on, it's actually very good. There is extraordinary dialogue and repartee between the two lead actors - whenever they are on screen together, everything works very well. Meghan Markle's Rachel Zane is nice to watch, smart and well-played. Rick Hoffman's antagonistic Louis Litt is an amazing character, and at times upstages all involved.

I really had to challenge myself to finish watching the season. This show is: 10% Jurassic Park, 45% The Waltons, 45% scripts, poor ideas and cheesy dialogue from the lesser Star Trek shows (Deep Space Nine/Voyager/Enterprise). Exactly 10% of the show works. It's not the 1990's anymore, much less the 1960's. Battlestar Galactica set a high bar for modern scifi: Intelligent and gritty, great action, with realistic human drama at the center. You simply can't go back to the old formulas now. If Fox orders another season of this show without trimming all the fat, I guarantee I will not watch it.

After a clever start and a slow middle, Season 2 really cranked things up and finished strong. Great dialogue and fantastic acting. Certainly one of the best shows on television at the moment.

Below par on all levels. The dialogue is oversimplified. The CG is poor. The plots are recycled. With the exception of the Pope character, the characters are generic, plagued by stiff acting. It basically says "NBC" on all levels. Falling Skies has very obviously attempted to replicate elements of Battlestar Galactica and The Walking Dead, which are some great shows to emulate. Unfortunately, the show fails to deliver even a fraction of the quality.