Public Morals : I'm done - sorry

Ep 2
zzzzzzzzz
That's my lot I'm afraid.

I feel you.

Same here. I gave it it's requisite opportunity and..they blew it.

I don't think they "blew" it as much as it just isn't your cup of tea, which is fine. I love it. The characters have depth, the show has style, the acting is amazing and the music is to die for. Is it going to resonate with people who get off on watching Duck Dynasty, The Kardashians, or Maury Povich? No. It's a smart show for smart people and it actually has actors rather than people who were born rich and found stardom in a sex tape. It probably won't appeal to the kids who love CGI eye candy. Public Morals has a solid plot that is told exceptionally well.

Talent is hard to come by nowadays, especially when people like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are being cast in movies. So for Public Morals to have such an amazing cast all on the same show working together in some of the most riveting scenes ever to make it to TV is a blessing. I actually haven't been pissed off at my cable bill since the show came out. I don't mind paying the $140 nor did I mind buying the season for $20 on Amazon. This is a show that like Crime Story, Dragnet (radio, 50s and 60s), The Untouchables, etc. I'll watch again and again.

I started watching because I follow the brilliant actor/musical genius Mr. Kevin Corrigan on Twitter. I saw he was portraying Smitty and so I was in from jump. Then I find out that Mr. Michael Rapaport who is outstanding as well is going to be working with Mr. Corrigan. It doesn't get better than when those two are together. As a team they've done comedy, drama, thriller, - they can do anything and it always comes across as natural.

I've liked Edward Burns in a lot of what I've seen him in but anyone watching can tell this is his baby and he shines here. Kudos to him for making a show that is resonating with a lot of people thirsty for good TV.

There's only one way to describe Brian Dennehy: American Treasure. The scenes between Patton and Smitty are some of my faves. To see those two iconic actors in the same room together is my idea of heaven. Seriously, if I died and somehow went to heaven and Brian Dennehy and Kevin Corrigan were on a big screen together, I'd be like, "Yepthis place is exactly how I imagined."

There's so many elements I love to this show. There's the feel of old cinema when the writing and actors were the focus instead of explosions and special effects. There's the side of each character people can relate to. There's that hope in everyone to survive whatever wreck is coming. There's the dark side of everyone too. The characters aren't black-and-white. They're not simple or caricatures. They're well-defined and perfectly placed within the organization, the ranks, the force, etc. It all fits and works perfect together. The characters make mistakes but most try to do the best they can.

There's a great scene where Smitty tells his wife that he knew he could prove to her, he wouldn't be a bum his whole life. And the angst on his face when she tries to tell him that he was never a bum, is why Kevin Corrigan is living art. It says so much and it makes the viewer pull all that much harder in Smitty's favor. It's like for Smitty; it's finally a good occasion, he feels like he got somewhere and his wife really loves him and he loves her and can finally give her something nice. He struggles not to let his guard down. He doesn't want to be too emotional. He grew up on the streets and it's pretty obvious that to survive you have to be hardened but he still can't help but reveal his cards a bit. His own insecurity shows for a brief moment. He did feel like a bum and always wanted to make it to the top and now he's etching closer and he can taste it. He's appreciative of his wife for always being loyal and he can finally prove all the scumbags who put him down wrong. He made it - if even for that moment. Did Smitty say all this? NO. It's in the portrayal. The dialogue, when spoken is without question, some of the best ever written; but even in the moments of silence that hang in the air, the actors are so genuine and great at their craft that the viewer knows exactly what each character is going through.

That isn't to say there aren't moments of shock. There are certainly plot twists that happen but the characters always stay true to who they are. They are played by the best in the business.

So, is it for everyone? NO. Is it for me? Hell yes! I am so happy that it looks like it may be renewed for season 2.


"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

TI;DR

I did not type 'I' instead of 'L' by mistake. This abbreviation stands for "too insulting, didn't read". I'm insulted that you think anyone who doesn't enjoy this show must enjoy Kardashian-related garbage and Michael Bay movies.

Requiescat in pace Pete Postlethwaite.

I didn't write that those who didn't like the show are exclusively fans of Michael Bay films or Kardashian shows. I stated the show isn't made for fans of those types of programs.

If you didn't read my post because it was too insulting, why are you commenting on it or engaging me? I actually thought I was being very respectful and dignified in my post. You can disagree with me but if you responded to my short post without reading it, I wonder how much of a chance you give a program before criticizing it.






"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

---

I don't think they "blew" it as much as it just isn't your cup of tea, which is fine It's a smart show for smart people

---

I can't possibly be the only person in the world who sees this for the clear-cut insult against others' intelligence that it is. If you wanted someone to read the rest of what you had to say, perhaps it would've been best to not fill your first paragraph with such heavy implication.



Requiescat in pace Pete Postlethwaite.

I didn't imply anything. Part of my career is reviewing movies and television shows. I use that phrase a lot in my reviews. I'll say, "it's a smart movie for smart people" or "it's an intelligent production" It's an easy way to convey that a film is dialogue oriented or focusing on character depth or plot rather than M Night Shyamalan-esque twists, special effects, or other eye candy. There was no ill intent.

If you read its entirety, I was pretty clear in my post that the show isn't for everyone but it is for me. I also describe in detail why it is for me which may help in putting the initial paragraph in its proper context for you.

If you were offended by my opening paragraph, I apologize for your confusion. Have a great day and may good JuJu find you.



"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

---

I was pretty clear in my post that the show isn't for everyone but it is for me.

---

And the implication is that the show is for you because you are intelligent, and everyone who doesn't like the show is unintelligent. There's no confusion on my part, so your sarcastic apology is not accepted.

Besides, I like this show too. You just don't seem to realize how your stock phrase fits into the rest of your paragraph. Or you intended it and don't give a smeg. I'm gonna go with the latter.



Requiescat in pace Pete Postlethwaite.

Well, I tried, but if you want to believe my apology was sarcastic, there's nothing more I can do. Just as 'you can't talk sane to crazy,' you also can't talk real to paranoid so I won't try to convince you of my intentions with the apology.

As for the "implication" I did explain that in the last post. You read too much into it. I was pointing out that the show itself was created in a smart way for smart people. It's character driven and everything in the show works like a well-oiled machine. The plot and actions of the characters are completely believable. The acting is topnotch and the emotions of each person is done in a genuine and a realistic manner.

To use another example, 12 Angry Men is my favorite film of all time. That is a smart movie for smart people. Stupid people can't appreciate the perfection of its simplicity. That isn't to say that there aren't smart people who dislike it. Maybe there are some who detest courtroom dramas. It doesn't take away that the design of the film/play (a.e.) the setting, the dialogue, the tension was made in an intelligent way for smart people to enjoy. People have different tastes and I pointed that out in my original response.

Another example is The Twilight Zone. The Twilight Zone without question is a smart show for smart people. Still, there are some intelligent people in the world who probably dislike science fiction or horror and regardless of the show's brilliance find no enjoyment in it. That said, the show wasn't made for morons either. It isn't fodder for dummies. It's a well-thought out show with lessons on morality, ethics and prejudice.

Maybe this will help you further understand the actual intent rather than that imagined by you. Have a good day!



"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

Explaining the reasons that it's a quality show doesn't change your very heavy implication in that first paragraph, that's all I'm saying. "If you don't like it, that's okay; it's a smart show for smart people. I will go on to describe why it's so smart, and pretend I didn't just imply that you are dumb."



Requiescat in pace Pete Postlethwaite.

We will just need to agree to disagree. If you want to believe that the statement, "this is a smart show for smart people" is an indication that every person who dislikes the program is an idiot, I can't convince you otherwise.

That wasn't the intention of my statement but I realize going back and forth isn't a good way to spend my time or a proper way to utilize my excellent writing skills.

I wish you well and may good juju follow you.

"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

It was, and I don't understand why you ever pretended otherwise. Even if it hadn't been, your "I apologize for your confusion" line throws all your sincerity into question. Believe it or not, apologizing to someone while placing the blame on them in the same smegging sentence completely nullifies your apology. People don't do that in a polite and reasonable world. It's rude.

Work on those writing skills; you need a little more practice hiding those barbs.



Requiescat in pace Pete Postlethwaite.

Life is too short to take this much offense to an IMDB post.

The apology was a diplomatic one. I wasn't taking fault because I believe in the context of my original post, I was clear. Still, I'm sorry for your confusion regarding it. I'm not sorry for what I wrote, just your interpretation of what I meant.

Think of it in this way: You call your cable company because you thought channel 37 came with your package, but it doesn't. The representative will most likely say something like, "I'm sorry for your confusion regarding the package," or "I'm sorry if you had the impression that the channel came with your current line-up." They did nothing wrong, yet on a level of human understanding they're apologizing for your inconvenience.

Lastly as I was meditating to white noise and reading a fantastic book an idea came to me as to how I may better help you understand. Math is a beautiful thing. It's a universal language and as long as one comprehends the equation there is usually no confusion.

If all women in church wear hats, are hats only worn by women? You can't answer the latter question. Even though all women wear hats it doesn't mean that they are only worn by women. Men or children may also wear them.

Now, think back to the statement about Public Morals being a smart show for smart people. If a TV show is created to appeal to a smarter audience, will all intellectuals watch the show? Again, there's not enough data to answer this in a hypothetical situation. Nor is the former indication that the latter is true. Math just doesn't work that way.

I hope this can assist you in your understanding. I'm not sure if you really wanted me to respond or if you are just intent on having the last word. If the latter is true, the floor is yours.

Have a good night. Now I'm returning to 'This Place on Third Avenue' which is a book I highly recommend. It's written by John McNulty and is available via Amazon Prime.



"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

A truly professional reviewer reviews the work itself rather than commenting on what type of people will or won't like it. Doing the latter risks alienating readers, which has happened here.

Instead of using the phrase "smart for smart people" as shorthand or the easy way, why not be specific and say, as you did later in a subsequent post, " a film is dialogue oriented or focusing on character depth or plot," or "It's character driven and everything in the show works like a well-oiled machine. The plot and actions of the characters are completely believable. The acting is topnotch and the emotions of each person is done in a genuine and a realistic manner."

See? You can get across what you think without dismissing possible audience members.


Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll take it under advisement.

That said, I do enjoy phrases like "smart movie for smart people" and I think it does resonate with the typical readers of my reviews.

It's silly if someone dislikes a movie or a show and becomes genuinely outraged when someone defends their opinion of it. Regardless of how detailed the analysis is or how much detail it lacks, it really shouldn't matter to someone secure in their opinion. That isn't directed at you. I see no outrage from your post nor do I read condescension. Just in general, people need a thicker skin and to stop looking for reasons to get offended.

Thankfully, my website generates enough traffic where I have a built in audience that understands my writing style and appreciates the methods I use to describe productions. Sure, there's always going to be a few who hate something that I love or love something I hate and therefore tears apart every word written, but that's part of the business. You take the good with the bad and do your best.



"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

For the record, I've not stopped liking the show because of you (it was the premiers of shows I find more interesting that did that), and believe it or not, I'm definitely not the kind of loser who chooses to be offended by everything I can manage. The only thing that ticked me off here was your complete and utter refusal to admit you could have chosen your words better. That is all.



Requiescat in pace Pete Postlethwaite.

You are entitled to your opinion. I just think getting "ticked" off at an IMDB post is a waste of time and energy. If I don't like the words used by a post, I'll skip it or I may even respond to it, but I certainly don't waste any emotion on it. Even if someone were to say something factually incorrect, it doesn't bother me. I'll add my thoughts and move on.

I just think you take IMDB too seriously and choose to believe that ill intent is meant when it isn't. I understand if my word choice had been different, it would have made you feel better, but I refuse to consider "everyone's" thoughts and feelings before I post what is on my mind. I don't think anyone else should either. To put that much energy into writing a post on IMDB is a waste of time.

I feel the same goes for you and everyone anyone else. People should say what's on their mind and if someone takes it the wrong way, oh well. One can either choose to try to explain their intent as I did or ignore the poster. Either will suffice.


It's just the internet. It's just a message board. It's something to have fun on and waste time on, but not something to put so much effort in that you fear someone may take something wrong. It's just not worth it. There's no payoff.


"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

Melissa, I agree with you that this was a very good show and although I wasn't sure at first, it grew on me and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Until the last episode, which ended so abruptly that I didn't realize it was over until my DVR stopped! I hope this means there will be a second season.

I also agree that there is such a thing as smart programming for smart people. Sadly, the great majority of tv shows and movies out there today are made for morons and watched by morons.

That was exactly my point. I cannot stand reality TV or shows like Maury Povich. It irritates the hell out of me. I'm just happy that we have some television aimed at people who are looking for intelligent TV.

"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

You are not the only one. It was obvious she was arrogantly talking down. She sees herself an intellectual because she feels her supposedly highbrow views are seeing nuances that are lost on you who watch reality TV. She now is trying to defend the wording of her sentence but the implication is obvious to anyone reading her gas.

Sorry but it is a very average show. It has great production, sets, music but lacks the elements in script and acting that make an amazing show. Enjoybale but very forgetable.

Articulate and well written review, Melissa. I have not seen the show but you make a compelling case for checking it out. I cannot imagine why anyone would find what you wrote to be insulting, but there does seem to be a growing class of people out there who find offense very easily.

Thanks for sharing your impressions of the show.

Thanks :) I have to remember that. I know sometimes in writing one cannot interpret the poster's motivations and take offense. Typically, resolving it is easy when I offer an explanation but I guess you can't please everyone :)



"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

So far, from the episodes I have seen, (binge watched the first ones) Mr. Burns should to go back to the drawing board. Also He needs to watch those shows mentioned above, The Untouchables (I cut my teeth on this one) Dragnet (loved the staccato banter between Joe Friday and Bill Gannon), Crime Story (how can you not like anything with Dennis Farina, a former cop, and the whole Chicago/Vegas scene of the 50-60s. Which Mr. Burns appears to be trying, but failing, to duplicate in this self-indulgent crime show. For all intents and whatever purpose this poorly written stereotypical melodrama looks as if Mr. Burns and TNT are trying to show the only thing different between the Cops and the Criminals is the badge. Maybe to take advantage of the recent anti-police movement? How crass is that? And, if so, how deep will he be stepping into the cowpattie of Political Correctness? Yes, as an understood, it happened in all cities, at one time or another, that is why New York had the Knapp commission investigations. Back to the final shot on the show, so far, isn't even able to twirl a nightstick. As to the fanboy/girl/person of Ed Burns, someone here has a really big chip on their shoulder don't they?
To use one of the best remembered lines from a classic listed here already, "Just the facts Ma'am."








"The names have been changed to protect the innocent."

Well other than this show, it appears we have similar taste. I'm actually getting Joe Friday's badge tattooed on my shoulder and underneath Dirty Harry's gun.


"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

I'm with Larson419. There's nothing especially smart about this show at all the dialogue's trite, the characters are cliched and the acting's serviceable at best. I'm a trained actor, and many of the scenes are acted at the level of a first run-through in acting class no depth, no character background, just a surface interpretation of the words on the page. And that's all fine for a first run-through, but not for the finished product.

The period details are all off too. The soundtrack for Episode 2 prominently featured a recording of "All That Jazz," a song that was written in 1975. There are far too many (bad) fedoras for 1967, and the actors wearing them look uncomfortable in them, like little boys playing dress-up with daddy's clothes. If you're going to wear a hat, you have to OWN that hat. You can't just put it on and hope for the best. I'm a hat wearer myself I don't leave the house without a hat on my head and it's easy to distinguish someone who's comfortable in a hat from a dilettante. The actors on this show are the latter.

This is the level that Edward Burns projects generally reach, so I should have known better than to hope for more, but one need only compare this show to, say, BOARDWALK EMPIRE to see how short it falls.

A trained actor and a hat-wearer? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

I'm not a trained actor but I do believe that these guys have a monster hit on their hands and the only way I can show my approval is putting it on my DVR each week. It is thoroughly entertaining and the acting is excellent.

"I do believe that these guys have a monster hit on their hands "

Really? The lastest ratings for cable shows on Tuesday doesn't even list this show as cracking the top 100

Doesn't sound too much like a "monster" hit to me.



"Sie sagan diese katze Shaft ist ein schlect Mutterficker!"

Not at all. I love my hats, and I moved on from acting twenty years ago and have done just fine in other fields of endeavor.

Watch an episode of Public Morals followed immediately by an episode of Boardwalk Empire, and all will be revealed. If the producers of a period show can't even be bothered to get the music right (and this show definitely does not), they are clearly taking a lackadaisical approach.

I love Boardwalk Empire. Steve Buscemi is an amazing actor. That said, I'm happy this isn't a clone of that show.

A pet peeve of mine is when people nitpick about things that don't make a difference. I don't care if a song was written in 2012, if it has the feel of the time and serves the purpose of the scene, I'm all for it. I'd rather a song be utilized that sets the tone of the production than one that doesn't but was made in the era presenting. You never hear people complain about movies that take place in the 1800s doing this.

Mr. Burns provides an authentic and riveting drama that is unlike anything else on TV. As for fedoras, I love them. Jack Webb never looked better than when he was wearing one.

I understand that some people dislike the show, but I think it succeeds on all levels and am so excited about season 2







"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

Concur with your post ^_^
I love the show, big fan of Ed Burns
and so many others

There are so many things that pull me
in and keep me.

Thanks for a well developed post

Patti

"You're watching too much Sopranos, when you give your kids their allowance in envelopes"

Ed Burns has developed a classic - one that though appreciated now, I think will be even more appreciated years from now. It's amazing and I have a feeling it will spawn a lot of copycat and inferior shows/movies.


"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

We will see, the others not worthy will drop off, hopefully PM will continue.

"You're watching too much Sopranos, when you give your kids their allowance in envelopes"

I was done 20 minutes into episode 1 when he created, wrote, acted in and directed that clich scene with his kid

He called you a little piece of chicken.
Travis Bickle

That scene (as has been well documented) was close to verbatim of a talk he had with his own dad when he was a kid. It's a cliche? Name me another movie/TV show that it mirrors, sour grapes.

What the *beep* is that worth? Why not do a scene where he drops a turd. I am sure he did that in his life too

He called you a little piece of chicken.
Travis Bickle

That scene (as has been well documented) was close to verbatim of a talk he had with his own dad when he was a kid. It's a cliche? Name me another movie/TV show that it mirrors, sour grapes.

something tells me Edward Burns is everything you wish you could be. But failed.

Who the hell are you people talking to? The original poster? This show sucks. Burns sucks. If you want to watch something decent, watch The Wire, Oz, The Sopranos, Ray Donovan Etc. Lots of things

This is Clich crap. Why would anyone want to be Ed Burns when they could fantasize about being someone involved with one of those other shows, even the caterer? If you are so into a fantasy life wet dream that is?

And as for the moron talking about professional reviewers, they get paid. They don't come here to try and matter.

Get a life!



He called you a little piece of chicken.
Travis Bickle

I'm with you!! His posts have "failed artist" all over it.

"self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is" Isaac Asimov

It wasn't well done, was it? Actually, one part was extremely well done - Elizabeth Masucci played her small contribution to the scene as if she has been here many times before - something missing from Burns' handling.

I do wish this were a bit tighter - so much is just, for me, off by a bit. The times - are we 1962? 1965? 1968? I was a child in New York then (I am 10 years Burns' senior), and I remember very significant differences, but the show seems a bit confused as to precisely when it is set, and that is diminishing.

Where are the kids playing in the street? They did, in every NYC neighborhood in the 1960s.

I think it possible that Burns is too close to this, and also perhaps too concerned with writing a plum role for himself. He's a better than decent actor, but not spectacular, and his presence is lightweight, for me. His voice irritates my ears, and it does not sound as if he has ever worked on bettering its resonance.

My husband notes (and he likes the show) that the women are too peripheral, and that even the men all take seats very much to the back of Burns. I agree, this ought to have been more ensemble-oriented. It tries, half-heartedly, to do that, but doesn't really succeed.

Spielberg isn't showing himself well on television - "Smash," now this. At least Edward Burns can light candles of thanks that he is being given his head. Or perhaps that isn't, in this case, a good thing . . .

Oh, right. So, she secretly trained a flock of sandflies.

I am rather enjoying this show. Even if it is a little slow, the acting and dialogue are pretty good.

Yeah I get you.. it's a PAN AM type of show trying to mimic more serious stories ending up as just.. bad.

Mmmm I hear'ya. I have watched every episode and I presume it's only one left. And after that I'm done too. Finally.

So annoyed at the main character and his super ego denying his family a safer home just because he want to stay. Also bossing around his children.

I only watched it through the season because Neal McDonough is in it, he is so GOOD!

Don't be sorry. This show is horrendous.