Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

bananaswag Dear viewers,This is a review that will inspire and enlighten the bitter tongue of injustice that taints the moral image that surrounds this show.Outlaw, is truly entertaining and is a masterpiece of television cinema. The level of intensity and suspense gives the viewer a truly amazing feeling.Thank you for creating this show.

macscotland_steveg I cant believe I'm the only viewer who really likes this show so far. Love the acting,the court room scenes, the summations at the end of the cases. Jimmy Smits is a great actor and as we watch it more, we will find out more and more about his character. His gambling addiction, his love life etc... I think it's really early to tell where this show is going or how it's going to pan out, but so far I think it's very promising. As far as the negative opinions, everyone is entitled to their opinion however, the show has just started. Give it a chance folks. It's way too early to either condemn or praise the show too highly, but I actually look forward to watching more episodes.

troybierkortte Conservative Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Cyrus Garza, faces impeachment for his marginal conduct off the bench unless he votes the party line on the appeal of a convicted cop-killer. Garza writes the majority opinion ordering a reversal of the conviction, and announces his resignation from the court after reading the decision. The door is now open for Garza to arrange a partnership in a noted law firm and to argue the appeal of the case of the alleged cop-killer. Relying partly on legal precedent that he wrote himself, Garza convinces the appellate court judge to allow the introduction of new evidence during the appeal. This is where the plot gets all too familiar. A witness vital to the case disappears. Another, uncooperative, witness is hiding the whereabouts of a potentially crucial witness who wasn't known before and hasn't testified. How does Garza pull victory from the jaws of defeat? Rather than spoil it, I won't say here what happens. But anyone who has seen The Verdict, staring Paul Newman, can see this one coming for miles. The plot devices were lifted entirely from the 1982 film. It might be forgivable that a legal drama will involve deviation from actual legal procedure. Matlock and Perry Mason were very successful legal drama series - even though neither lawyer ever practiced law within the rules of legal procedure. Outlaw, may be an apt title for this show, as it seems it will follow the path of those legal thrillers where the thrill is more important than strict adherence to legal procedure. Fine. But what isn't forgivable is to serve warmed-over leftovers for plot lines. The vanishing witness, the sneaky way of finding the hidden witness, the smoking gun that the hidden witness kept for all those years, are each clever and valid devices for moving the story past a point of conflict and crisis. Any one, or even two, of those would have contributed to this script and served it well. Using all three was over the limit. Not since The Flintstones "reprised" The Honeymooners has one script ripped of another in such a wholesale fashion.

lilred1700 I wanted to like it. I love Smitts, its just too cardboard cut out. Writing is cliché. Smits character may as well be wearing a big "S" on his chest and a red cape. He shows no vulnerable side, no deeper issues to make him human and likable. And the supporting actors are not great, maybe its the writing. Plus, as usual, conservatives are evil, the only pure hearts beat in liberal's chests...I am so sick of that overcooked, generalized, message. And how does he go, in a matter of hours, from believing this guy had eleven years to fight his verdict in court and that the system, that he has served his whole life, works- to throwing away his seat on the supreme court to defend the guy? what is Smits' character basing his change of heart on? Maybe I fell asleep for a second and missed something. And surprise, the guy is innocent, it would have been more interesting if the guy was actually guilty or if he was innocent and Smits and he Godzilla size ego didn't take the deal from the prosecutor and the guy almost or does die, teaching Smitz a lesson in humility at the cost of a human life.Then he spends the rest of the season trying to reconcile his life's work with the reality of our well meaning but often flawed legal system. I am not hard to please but this one didn't make the cut.