Did you see it? It’s got wings! Wait, that’s something completely different. What I was getting at was the big debut of Laurence Fishburne on CSI. It’s an interesting time for the show because if any one character is the show, it’s William Petersen’s Grissom.
We’ll learn over the next few episodes whether or not the CSI faithful are willing to exchange that for the offerings of Raymond Langston. The early verdict is yes, they are. ABC was kind enough to give the show a free ride for the launch, airing a repeat Grey’s. That led to 20.61 million viewers and a 5.8 demo. You can’t complain about those numbers, but the episode itself was kind of dull at the start.
Now, I’m not a hardcore CSI fan. I’ve watched all the various incarnations of the show on and off over the years, but it’s not can’t-miss TV for me. That said, this is something of a milestone event, so I tuned in Thursday night to see what all the fuss was about, and overall, it could have been better.
The first half of the show was curiously Fishburne-free. Maybe that was understandable because they needed time for Grissom’s announcement and the resulting reactions. Even if that is the case, it was all completely underwhelming. There was a little too much with the slow camera movements, soft music, and me asking, “Where is Laurence Fishburne?” I would have preferred kicking things off with more Langston from the get-go. Especially given the fact that once he became involved, the episode got a whole lot better.
I wasn’t crazy about the investigation surrounding the Dick & Jane copycat/accomplice, but the actual Dick & Jane killer was very good. Nathan Haskell (Bill Irwin) is all kinds of creepy. His kind of evil is up to the task of appearing in an episode as big as one sending Grissom on his way. The classroom scenes, and the impromptu phone call, were the best part of the episode and they do signal good things for the future. Laurence Fishburne is really good. He commands the screen whenever he is on it. And I have no reason to think that won’t continue when he takes up residence at CSI HQ.
How it’s all going to shake out in the end is still anyone’s guess. We won’t know for sure until Petersen has ridden off into the sunset and Fishburne is left to carry the rock. Speaking for myself, I’m much more inclined to watch the show after the change. But then, my taste, and the taste of the average Nielsen watcher, are more often than not at odds. What did you think about Langston? Thumbs up? Thumbs down? Thumbs kind of sideways in a shoulder shrugging, too early to call, kind of way? Whatever the case, it should be fun to watch it all play out.
Clacked by Brett Love 
on Dec 12, 2008 @ 14:57 EST5EDT
I hate to say this but you DID notice the “to be continued” at the end of the episode?
This post reads like a review of the first half of a movie.
Epic fail man…
*POST AUTHOR*
Yes, I noticed the “to be continued.” But that doesn’t change the fact that the first half of the episode wasn’t very good. And no matter how good the conclusion is next week, the first half of this episode isn’t going to change.
The first half of “A river runs through it” is about as entertaining as the first half of this episode was.
Maybe you get my point. Or I guess you don’t.
Maybe another example: how much do you like the lower half of the Mona Lisa?
*POST AUTHOR*
I get your point Sebastian. I just don’t agree with you. Aside from the fact that the lower half of the Mona Lisa has the boobs… I’ll point you to this link.
https://cliqueclack.s3.amazonaws.com/tv/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/monalisa121308.jpg
The difference with your example is that the lower half of the Mona Lisa is executed with the same skill as the top half, and works as part of the whole. I don’t think that was the case with this episode. It’s not a matter of this being the first part of a two part story. My issue was with the fact that the first quarter of this story just wasn’t very well done.