Lie To Me 01/21/09 [Text View]

BobB

01-22-2009, 05:37 PM

At this point I'd put it in the same category as United States of Tara - it hasn't bowled me over but I'm going to give it a chance. I like the underlying concept, but it needs more to drive it than just the elevator pitch. The acting is not as good as on Tara (pretty straightforward network-quality drab), so my hopes aren't as high, but I'll watch a few more episodes before deciding whether to cancel the SP.

Mr. Soze

01-22-2009, 08:10 PM

It was OK. SP not yet deleted. Lucky I have free space.

jschuur

01-22-2009, 08:34 PM

Glad to hear. I planned to watch but deleted it after the stunt scheduling blew my chance to record Lost. 9:30 - 10:06 ? Really? Easy decision!
One comment and you're not even going to give it a try?

I liked it. It's a little different from The Mentalist in that it explains some of the tells humans have. In The Mentalist, Patrick Jane doesn't always reveal what clued him in on his conclusions.

I'll watch it for a few episodes based on the pilot.

dswallow

01-22-2009, 08:47 PM

I enjoyed it quite a bit and am looking forward to more episodes.

alpacaboy

01-22-2009, 09:43 PM

I liked it, but I don't know if the concept is worth a season. I've actually seen a lecture about this a while ago and they used the same terminology as the show, and even the same Kato clip as an example.

I think realistically, someone would be repeatedly relying on a small set of tricks, but expect the show will feel obligated to introduce a couple new "lie" mechanisms each week which will get contrived. But of course, I'll have to see.

Kelli Williams is enough to get me to watch it though.

atrac

01-23-2009, 01:09 AM

I think it was a very strong pilot and it is off to a great start!

My only concern is if the constant descriptions of the different signs of lying are going to get old (and how many can there be?). I mean, Tim Roth's character even explained a sign to Kelli William's character at one point, which made me question why she didn't know it already (isn't she an expert too?). I believe he even said that particular one was a "classic" sign of lying.

So....we'll see if it can keep up the momentum (and my interest). But I'm definitely glad I watched it.

squint

01-23-2009, 05:11 AM

My only concern is if the constant descriptions of the different signs of lying are going to get old (and how many can there be?). I mean, Tim Roth's character even explained a sign to Kelli William's character at one point, which made me question why she didn't know it already (isn't she an expert too?). I believe he even said that particular one was a "classic" sign of lying.

I don't think it's going to focus just on lying but body language in general. The woman appears to be the expert in verbal behavior (such as when she asked the politician to tell his story in reverse chronological order) while the guy is the body language expert so they complement each other.

Cainebj

01-23-2009, 09:47 AM

I enjoyed it also and found it way better than quite a few of the newer dramas dating back to the fall season (i.e., The Mentalist or that other show I can't even remember the title of it's so generic...)

brnscofrnld

01-23-2009, 09:52 AM

I forced the GF to watch since I figured it would be her kind of show. We both ended up liking it and looking forward to next week.

The "always tells the truth guy" could get annoying but is just a fun twist IMHO. I like all the references to RL people on trial and showing their expressions matching up.

Jon J

01-23-2009, 10:44 AM

It's a keeper for me.

atrac

01-23-2009, 12:43 PM

I don't think it's going to focus just on lying but body language in general. The woman appears to be the expert in verbal behavior (such as when she asked the politician to tell his story in reverse chronological order) while the guy is the body language expert so they complement each other.

Thank you! That makes perfect sense then. :)

ronsch

01-23-2009, 12:45 PM

The wife and I both liked it. Two more Thumbs Up.

TAsunder

01-23-2009, 12:59 PM

I liked the show enough to be excited for future episodes, but I predicted almost every plot point. It took me a while to figure out exactly what was going on with the kid's plot, but it was obvious there was pregnancy, student/teacher relationships, and something with the principal. The senator one was too obvious.

In a way, I kind of like having a mystery that is easy to solve. This means that they don't have to show us a mystery that only the one expert can conveniently solve using clues that make no sense to us (ala The Da Vinci Code). On the other hand, I wish they'd make it a LITTLE harder.

I mean, Tim Roth's character even explained a sign to Kelli William's character at one point, which made me question why she didn't know it already (isn't she an expert too?). I believe he even said that particular one was a "classic" sign of lying.

I took it to be expository in nature - for the sake of the audience. They should have had the rookie around a lot more. I worry that they've written a flaw into the premise because the rookie can tell lies pretty well too. So now he can't explain it to the audience every scene since he has two experts. Still, it didn't bother me too much.

I don't think it's going to focus just on lying but body language in general. The woman appears to be the expert in verbal behavior (such as when she asked the politician to tell his story in reverse chronological order) while the guy is the body language expert so they complement each other.

He was well aware of that trick, though. He even smiled when she used it. I am not sure that she's a "verbal" expert or anything like that.

Enrique

01-23-2009, 02:33 PM

I enjoyed it quite a bit and am looking forward to more episodes.+1 I enjoyed the show too.

Jayjoans

01-23-2009, 02:46 PM

Don't know if it was because it was the pilot episode or what, but this show just couldn't hold my attention. I didn't delete it, but I stopped watching about 20 minutes in. ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz from me.

Same. We chose live TV with commercials over this, just about 20 minutes in.

retrodog

01-23-2009, 04:45 PM

A few thoughts that I had about it last night:

1. Seems like a rip-off of the The Mentalist.
2. Glad to see Kelli Williams back.
3. AssHats at network ruined it by abnormal ending time.

If those freaking idiots want me to watch it, they'll make it end on the hour mark, and not 6 minutes afterwards. Total unacceptable stupidity!!!

But other than that, it was kind of interesting. Roth is always pretty good in most anything.

TAsunder

01-23-2009, 05:26 PM

My tivo had 1:05.

Is the mentalist comment a joke referencing the psych/mentalist comparisons or are you serious?

Fl_Gulfer

01-24-2009, 12:20 PM

I'll be looking at everyone's face from now on when I ask them a question... Good Show!

Combat Medic

01-24-2009, 12:54 PM

I took it to be expository in nature - for the sake of the audience. They should have had the rookie around a lot more. I worry that they've written a flaw into the premise because the rookie can tell lies pretty well too. So now he can't explain it to the audience every scene since he has two experts. Still, it didn't bother me too much.

But remember, she hasn't had any training. She does it naturally and doesn't often know why she knows the person is lying. For that reason alone there can be a lot more explanation.

-Mike

Rob Helmerichs

01-24-2009, 01:18 PM

But remember, she hasn't had any training. She does it naturally and doesn't often know why she knows the person is lying. For that reason alone there can be a lot more explanation.
Plus each of the three "human lie detectors" operate on a different basis...physiological, psychological, intuitive...giving plenty of opportunities for things to be explained back and forth.

But I think they will have to find their way, sooner rather than later, to the characters of the series taking front and center. Otherwise, the gimmick will almost certainly wear thin.

Kind of like Bones, which despite its flaws (Gormogon, anybody?) has done an excellent job of moving from centering on the flashy pseudo-forensics to centering on the characters.

alpacaboy

01-24-2009, 02:47 PM

Random musings about the show...

I was actually thinking having this device (human lie detectors) will force different types of plots(this is good) than say, CSI:Miami, where very frequently, it turns out to be the 2nd or 3rd person they interview, who is lying.

The pilot touched on a couple things that seem like they could be good devices for good stories:
- The investigator can be biased looking for one thing (did the kid kill someone) and the first time around miss another (arousal), so even with a human lie detector, they still have to ask the right questions.
- People can lie about/ be ashamed of something other than the primary thing they're investigating. I.e. lying about "I was home alone" could really be "I was at the crime scene" or "I was at a strip club."

Personally, I hope it focuses more on the investigation and not on the characters. I didn't like it when the CSIs evolved that way, and I don't like it in L&O episodes when they focus on the personalities rather than advancing the plot of the investigation or legal maneuvering.

Don't get me wrong, I do like character driven pieces too, but mostly for the comedic aspects of the characters and when the characters are distinct enough (West Wing, Desperate Housewives, Monk, Psych, House, ...). I don't know, maybe they'll evolve that way, but I just didn't see much personality in most of them, and most of their humor seems to be in catching someone in a minor lie, rather than in a personality interaction (I don't know if I'm making sense).

I'm also dreading the idea of an arch nemesis that seems to happen a lot with these shows with a "power." Like... in season 2, we'll find out that always-tell-the-truth-guy is really the best liar of all, and just knows how to cover and manipulate lives and he's really been running a sinister... counter-something or the other under their noses...

Wow, somewhere, I transitioned to rambling...

ruexp67

01-24-2009, 04:30 PM

I missed the pilot, on both of my DVRs because of the dumb-ass scheduling. :rolleyes:

I just streamed the show, and I really liked it. Granted, I like Kelli Williams and Tim Roth (for different reasons. ;) ) I was really interested in the human tells. And the "tricks" to get people to reveal the truth.

I just hope there are enough tells, and tricks to sustain a long run of the this show. I fear that it will run it's course pretty quickly and turn into another procedural. Don't get me wrong, I watch L&O, the Mentalist, CSI, Bones, etc.. I like procedurals, but I like the premise of this one a LOT.

milo99

01-24-2009, 06:02 PM

I think it was a very strong pilot and it is off to a great start!

My only concern is if the constant descriptions of the different signs of lying are going to get old (and how many can there be?). I mean, Tim Roth's character even explained a sign to Kelli William's character at one point, which made me question why she didn't know it already (isn't she an expert too?). I believe he even said that particular one was a "classic" sign of lying.
.

it hasn't gotten old for CSI to constantly explain every step that they do and why, right? With CSI, you'd never have fellow scientists explain as much stuff as they do to each other in real life conversations, but it benefits the viewer. Same here.

And i'm enjoying it, hoping that it'll help me in my poker game. :D

JimSpence

01-24-2009, 06:10 PM

I enjoyed the show.

Glad to hear. I planned to watch but deleted it after the stunt scheduling blew my chance to record Lost. 9:30 - 10:06 ? Really? Easy decision!
Same here... maybe I'll catch it if they re-run the first ep on another night...But yeah.. LOST vs. Some Show I've Never Seen? LOST for sure!What did you have scheduled on the other tuner?

TAsunder

01-25-2009, 10:35 AM

Plus each of the three "human lie detectors" operate on a different basis...physiological, psychological, intuitive...giving plenty of opportunities for things to be explained back and forth.

Well, I think certainly there is plenty of opportunity for tim roth's character to train the rookie and ask her WHY she knows he's lying. That would offer a lot of expository opportunities as well.

I think the show will figure it out. I just hope it doesn't degenerate into crap once the premise starts to wear out and the character plots become center.

Graymalkin

01-25-2009, 10:42 AM

Liked the first episode, will keep watching.

wendiness1

01-25-2009, 12:04 PM

I wonder how long the premise can sustain itself. I would think there is a finite number of "tells". But then, I might be lying.

Einselen

01-25-2009, 12:18 PM

I wonder how long the premise can sustain itself. I would think there is a finite number of "tells". But then, I might be lying.

The show isn't just about the tells, but also the murder mystery aspect behind it. How many ways are there to process a crime scene? These shows have s formula to them.

CSI is to question many people, maybe make it look like one person but then new evidence shows up and then they have no leads, but then another key evidence shows up which spirals to the correct suspect who usually admits it all without a lawyer present.

House is to diagnose and misdiagnose and then last minute the bulb goes off and the person is saved (usually).

Mentalist is on tells again and then at the end trick the person and get them to confess.

squint

01-25-2009, 12:43 PM

Years ago I was completely oblivious to body language but now am a body language junkie so I do like the show. Understanding body language helps a lot in dating. I've done some interesting things like holding a girl's hand and feeling her begin to perspire if she liked me and I was getting her excited.

atrac

01-25-2009, 01:17 PM

it hasn't gotten old for CSI to constantly explain every step that they do and why, right? With CSI, you'd never have fellow scientists explain as much stuff as they do to each other in real life conversations, but it benefits the viewer. Same here.

Well I'll admit that I have only seen one episode of CSI (the one directed by Quentin Tarantino). I am a rarity indeed, no doubt. ;)

But I do understand the need for the exposition (as another poster stated) -- it's for the audience's sake.

dtivouser

01-25-2009, 03:23 PM

Yawn. It felt like an acting class to me. We weren't watching real people get caught lying, we were watching actors pretend to lie. It was just too hard for me to get into the show, I just felt like I was watching actors act. And not always very well.

ahartman

01-26-2009, 09:10 AM

The show isn't just about the tells, but also the murder mystery aspect behind it. How many ways are there to process a crime scene? These shows have s formula to them.

There was very little mystery to this show. Every single plot point/twist was painfully easy to figure out.

Wife & I felt pretty blah about this. We'll give it another week or so, but I don't see this one lasting (the SP or the show itself).

As for CSI, I've never seen a single episode of any of the eleventy-billion flavors. Nor a Law & Order. I think these types of shows just aren't my bag.

dswallow

01-26-2009, 09:23 AM

As for CSI, I've never seen a single episode of any of the eleventy-billion flavors. Nor a Law & Order. I think these types of shows just aren't my bag.

Wouldn't you need to see one of each to really know that for sure?

I remember when I first started watching CSI... not sure why I did or why I hadn't started earlier, only that it was several seasons after it had begun and in the middle of a season I just started watching and really fell into loving the show and the characters.

retrodog

01-26-2009, 10:22 AM

My tivo had 1:05.

Is the mentalist comment a joke referencing the psych/mentalist comparisons or are you serious?

I'm serious. They are both totally based on an investigator type person with exceptional skills at reading a person during interactive dialogue. They both use stimulant tricks to get the person to give off key telltale signs that others are mostly unaware of. They both come up with assessments in seemingly miraculous speeds and are challenged by others. The challenge is typically met when the assessment is proven/validated, making the ones who challenged them seem dumb.

The primary difference is that Lie to Me is a bit more serious and has different actors.

If you can't see this... well that just makes me Patrick Jane (or Cal Lightman) and you're one of the other guys who is wondering what the hell just happened. :D

YCantAngieRead

02-01-2009, 02:55 PM

I caught this on Hulu. I really enjoyed it! And I've had a lot of acting classes in my day, and I can honestly say I didn't think that at all.

Graymalkin

02-01-2009, 05:49 PM

Liked the second episode, will keep watching.

I did realize -- how it took me two whole episodes, I'll never know -- that Lightman is really House's long-lost brother. :D

barbeedoll

02-02-2009, 11:37 AM

This one is a keeper for me.

One of my favorite parts is when they not only freeze frame on the person in the episode doing his "tells", but then when they go to them in a montage with recognizable politicians, celebrities, and others in the news and show them doing the same tells.

So far I remember Nixon, Clinton, Bush, Anna Nichole Smith....

Barbeedoll

BobB

02-02-2009, 01:43 PM

Well, the second episode was the clincher for me: SP deleted. All too predictable. Neither the writing nor the acting is good enough to keep my interest. Buh-bye!

mattack

02-02-2009, 11:05 PM

I liked it -- though it seems like they took a bunch of other characters - Monk, Columbo, The Mentalist guy (didn't think of that until this thread), the Psych guy (only watched a few episodes of S1) -- in a blender and came up with another almost identical show..

but somehow it worked. Which is bad, because I already tivo way too many shows. (Heck, I have a bunch of Mentalists I haven't watched yet, and I think I've watched *1* of that CBS show that airs opposite 'er'.) I wish they kept the Friday re-airings though.