Analysis and Humor for a Throwback Series
I love the humor, especially when poking fun at The Practice tropes (how the jury is always back early, yet they’re always surprised. “What does it mean?!”; the police detective who investigates every crime, etc... personally I like how Helen is supposed to be this formidable DA they’re always chagrined to face, yet have no problem routinely mopping the floor with. Or how they’re always like “Helen GAMBLE??” She’s your best friend, is the last name necessary? And since when do lawyers have such carte blanche at crime scenes? Also, in every episode there will be at least one time where people are yelling at each other and an exasperated 3rd party intervenes, “Alright!” What’s the word limit on reviews, yikes. Some constructive criticism: personally I’d dial back the sound effects and stoppages to give characters’ credits. Sometimes we’ll be in the middle of good scene and it gets repeatedly interrupted with multiple “Who’s that [character]” inserts and/or several bumper effects. IMHO in the right spots that stuff works, but too many interruptions chops up the flow of the episode. Would you consider a segment dedicated to that kind of thing? Just a thought! Occasionally I feel like you’ll be in the middle of a compelling point that gets sidetracked on a tangent/inside joke and never circles back to the point.... or when a joke extends too far over the playing episode, there’s a competition for attention. Eugene thundering away at a witness warrants our undivided focus! I would love to see more discussion as it pertains to scene breakdowns: analysis of legal strategies, relevant case law, etc (my own bias as I love that kind of stuff). Overall though I love stumbling upon a great new podcast, and this is one of them. Keep up the good work fellas! Sorry for the long review!
Reviewed on Apple Podcasts