CSI: Cyber (TV Series 2015–2016) Poster

(2015–2016)

User Reviews

Review this title
143 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
To be canceled
tagheue5 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I actually looked forward to this series, despite the fact that Arquette is its spearhead. I have never been a fan of hers, but it still could have worked.

It does not. The problem is that this show relays too much on the formula. Widely recognized TV series spin-off? Check! Even more niche specific than the original (see law&order SVU)? Check! Is half the cast made out of already established and recognizable actors? Check! This is the formula, this is not the first show that uses it, and to some degree it works decent enough. So why is it failing here? Because the script is non existent. They did not even try to make it somewhat lifelike. It is 1 degrees of separation from a script used in porn. The show starts early on with an "argument" over jurisdiction of a kidnapping case. The argument is that since electronics were used during the kidnapping it would be a cyber crime and it should be reassigned to the cyber unit from the detectives already assigned to the case. This argument is accepted without 2 second of protest. First things first. Kidnapping in the US is a federal crime and it is handled by the FBI by default, not by some detectives. Even I know that and I am from Europe. Never lived in the states, by the way. Number two, considering the extensive level of use of electronics in the day to day life, at least 80% of crime would fall under the provided cyber crime definition. Now a lot of you will come back at me that it was meant to be malicious use of electronics, but that was not proved until way after the argument over jurisdiction was made. And number 3, that argument went way to easy, as it was there just because it had to be there.

Look, I am not even going to bother with all the other sink holes with this show. The writing is lazy, the dialog is terrible, it is a waste of time all around. It should be canceled based on the pilot alone. Unfortunately, I think it will even see a second season.
35 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Camera twitching, slurred speech
marysassyjane12 March 2015
I am so disappointed in the production of CSI cyber. The constantly twitching camera angles are distracting. The slurred and mumbled speech make it hard to follow the plot. Someone confused suspense with technique. It is not working. Please, someone fix this so we can get into this spin off. The imitators of the original series need to watch the original CSI series again to correct technique.

The acting is good. Character selection and formula work. Staging O.K. Constant, and I do mean constant, use of computer parts to mark scene changes needs to be more thought out. Good T.V in CSI teaches something about the subject matter. All the hyped vocabulary, and explanation of it by characters, is not complete enough or even if it is, is not possible to follow because of all the camera angles and mumbling. So incredibly disappointed in production.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Using the CSI Name won't save this series!
mike-53594 March 2015
I've never been a fan of Arquette and now that she won an Oscar I'm sure the shows written post-Oscar will include even more of her unfortunately. I am a fan of Peter MacNichol however he won't be able to save it either. It seems they are trying too hard to "dumb down" the show by explaining each and every technical aspect. Using the tried and true formula of animation and music is pointless. Too bad they just can't allow CSI to end gracefully! I will continue to watch each show until I simply can't stand it but if you are wanting to get in to some great new series, this will only disappoint! My suggestion would be to go and watch the entire "The Wire" series or Kevin Spacey's early days in the "Wiseguy" series!
34 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst depictions of technology since Hackers (1995)
nachocheeselibertad6 March 2015
Writing, acting, everything mediocre, just another crime show with generic characters, the hardcore geek, etc.

However, every single depiction of technology is horrible incorrect, it's like they want anyone that's technologically educated to want to turn the show off.

This show is very popular in a forum called "It's a unix system" that makes fun of horribly inaccurate and downright ignorant computer use in television and film.

CSI: Cyber would benefit from hiring an actual geek to consult on the mind-numbingly poor depictions of anything hacking, programming, or computer related.

And seriously, the acting is so mediocre, there's a million better things to watch.
130 out of 157 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not good
samanthaob4 March 2015
So far...episode 1 = not good, not good at all - bad acting all round, even from Patricia Arquette which really surprised me, below par script/plot, just so run of the mill not what you expect from CSI...very disappointed by it's lack of originality or sophistication. Surely they don't think this is what the average viewer wants nowadays, a paint by numbers plot with absolutely no challenge to the grey matter? So tired of these shows that are written for people with low to no intellect there are only a handful of shows still airing that I can say do that and this certainly is not one of them. (Why do they take off air the really good shows (sci-fi especially and replace it with this mindless drivel), well that is my late night rant, fueled by yet another disappointment in what looked to be a promising show over and done with.
115 out of 151 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Totally UNREALISTIC depiction of computers, cellphones and technology in general.
Dr_Sagan8 May 2015
This a deeply flawed TV show.

I am not a big fan of Bruckheimer's CSI franchise but I watched some episodes of NY, Miami, Vegas etc. for purely "informational" reasons. I mean to see what the forensic science can do nowadays. Many of these stuff seem highly unlikely to be true but you can swallow them with a pinch of salt.

In the latest member of the series CSI Cyber however, the lack of realism reached unbelievable heights and the show is a joke to follow even for mere entertainment.

Who ever writes this has absolutely no clue about how technology works and what is possible and what is not. Surprisingly enough that goes the other way too! Not only you see a constant overestimation of what technology or a hacker can do BUT you often get the exact opposite where the computers "geniuses" of FBI seem to ignore the simplest truths and possibilities that any kid with a mobile phone knows. I'm now watching episode 6 and the computer "experts" of FBI are amazed by the fact that it's possible to create ...fake SMS into your phones, something that a gazillion apps out there are doing in a split second.

The direction, effects, editing and music of the show is also an over-the-top version of the CSI series. Either you like it or not. The fact is that is difficult to have any emotions with such a fast-paced pseudo-modern presentation. You are not going to feel sorry for the victim, or pity, or sadness or joy. The acting is wooden. Even the most sentimental line is been delivered like from robots.

And there are more flaws. A long uninspired intro, a lame song and credits, a couple of background stories that no one seems to care about and of course the ...terrifying message in every episode " It can happen to you "!! As I wrote I'm now watching the 6th episode. If you hate it why you watch it? you might ask. Well...I'don't...not really. Somewhere I read that the 7th episode something about cyberbulling is good, so I'm watching till this. And, yes. Sometimes you want to see how much more ridiculous a show can be...
18 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Not a great start
razzel5 March 2015
I was really looking forward to this show! I used to watch CSI and CSI:Miami. I stopped watching at some point, but always loved the shows and love forensic series in general. CSI: Cyber was combining two of my favorite genres/subjects.

The acting really was not very good at all. Most of the acting was so wooden and monotone...especially Patricia Arquette's. Even Peter MacNicol, who I loved in Numb3rs was not great. The only characters with personality and that I actually enjoyed were the 3 hacker characters (Charley Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, and Shad Moss).

I didn't mind the dumbing down of the tech stuff like some of the other reviews. You have to be able to appeal to a wider audience than the geeks out there.

I really hope this gets better. I'll probably give it 2 more episodes.
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Let me count the ways... of Awful!
irodragon4 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It was so bad I don't know where to start. I would normally never write one of these but being a geek I figured; "Cool, a CSI spin-off I could watch". Many of my friends watch other CSI shows and I have caught an episode or two yet never dedicated the time to one. I can't believe Jerry even let his name be on this one. It was that bad and I won't fault the actors entirely I blame writing. 1. Clique moments like the big bad cop comes in the door "I'm here to get your son back" lame. 2. Cops would NEVER chase a car like they did in the end with a baby in it. Especially if they had GPS track on it with no reason to engage. OMG I hope the Baby CPR works. 3. VR Autopsy lol you would have been better with a CNN Magic Wall of photos. 4. An elite Cyber Baby Napping ring with a 24 character ALL NUMBER password, OMG and Tattooed, please. Why bother with a password let alone 24 numbers only. 5. Back-trace the game console right to their hideout, yeah OK. VPN please. I could have written a better episode and my writing kinda sucks, my apologizes. Do they even have a "Cyber" consultant on the staff? Someone to say how wrong and flawed some of the Geek stuff was? I could add more but that is my Top 5 of Awful.
30 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Sorry to see this go...
mathmaniac29 May 2017
I enjoyed both seasons of 'CSI: Cyber.' I worked in programming, I know the sloppy mistakes that slip through the lack of security in a company - and I know that this is boring, boring, boring!

'CSI: Cyber' accomplished taking an intriguing area of crime, called Cyber Crime, and making it interesting by focusing on not only the crimes but the people who work in the field of cyber crime detection and the victims.

What is so surprising is that this series was inspired by the character of a true life worker fighting cyber crime. Dr. Mary Aiken is an Irish cyber psychologist who blends the field of behavioral psychology with detection of cyber crime. To me, she is not unlike, in her appearance, a somewhat youthful Patricia Arquette!

The infant abductions in the first episode are taken from the real life case of these in Houston. I vaguely remember that Aiken consulted on that case. I know she consulted on this series, and shared ideas for the plots. This stuff is serious.

As serious as it is, it is something you learn to appreciate. Then you just want to learn about it. A television show that gives you information? Makes it so much more palatable.

I have both seasons of the series. Now, my appetite is whetted, helped by my husband's constant warnings that our data can be hacked - until now, I have not paid him much attention. Now, I'm watching 'Outlaw Tech' which is about cyber crime but lacks all the plot and actors of 'CSI: Cyber.' It's more of a documentary type series. Fascinating. Every episode so far would make a fine series (not an episode, a series!) and it is tech, tech, and more tech!
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
started bad, turned out for the better
lord_leon_198723 April 2015
So i've been watching this show since release, and i can agree with people saying that the first episode (the first 3 or 4 actually) was kinda bad, but now after a few more i'm starting to enjoy it more and more.

I personally think that episodes 5 - 8 was really good, especially episode 7. I think this show will turn out great if we just give it some time to develop.

Only thing that bugs me is that Avery, Elijah and Sifter doesn't really feel like they belong in a Cyber unit, but the rest of the crew is a very good fit.

Sure, it will never live up to the original CSI, but i don't think people should expect it to.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terribly flawed, mindless and untalented junk.
thejohnscott4 March 2015
I'm actually at a loss on where to begin with the terrible first episode I watched last night. At first I thought I'd just give it a chance, being the first episode and all, but it just went from low to brand new lows with every scene. Some of the main features you can expect from this series.

* pathetic stilted acting * unbelievable characters * illogical plot * terrible storyline * below par music and atmosphere * preposterous make believe computer science * illogical cyber jargon galore

Even the last scene had me verbally insulting the TV and wishing I'd watched Teletubbies with the kids instead, for it's superior content and production.

This is a new low point in the whole CSI series. I am actually amazed that they found the funding to produce this tripe. It isn't even so bad it's funny... it's just plain bad. 45 minutes of my life has been taken and left me with nothing but the urge to write this review. On the bright side the whole thing makes me feel a little better about myself, seeing others fail so miserably.
123 out of 166 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I am in the minority because...I like it!
I do like this show, and Arquette is playing a very different character for her.

I like the tech, I like the cast which is coming together, and I like that the show is fun. I am not one who tears holes in shows. I go with the flow, and this show is entertaining. I have seen the first 3 episodes and I have enjoyed all 3.

I do see some people's points about the tech lingo, a lot of computer looking, and the action scenes not being the best. Yet. Every show starts somewhere and the cast and stories start to glue.

Arquette's character is smart, tough, and does have a sense of humor. She keeps things close to the vest for obvious reasons, and I am sure she will be having some kind of breakdown, etc. shortly. I want to learn more about this character.

Give it a chance people and just enjoy it.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
This show could be better
ehknal13 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
If you are going to write anything that has to do with technology you have to get the terminology right. As an example; Season 1 Episode 7: Supposed hacker/computer genius "Daniel Krumitz" refers to a desktop computer as a "hard drive tower". Anyone with basic working knowledge of computers knows that it's just a tower. When I'm watching any show, mistakes like this really jump out at me, and this show has tons of examples.

How this show could be better. research, research, and more research... refer to someone who actually knows what they are talking about.

If you want to invent non-existent technology for a show like CSI: at least make it believable. Or call it Science Fiction and you can call things whatever you want, and you can make stuff up.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Everyone else says Awful. I agree. Here's the worst part.
viridel5 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Gotta love how they bought themselves 30 minutes by agreeing to re-open the auction site in the middle of the day in Baltimore, then set up with a SWAT squad in Jersey, late at night... Plus the bad guys were all just sitting in a warehouse playing cards instead of, you know, using the tech? So what exactly was the point of that 30 minute window Arquette was so proud of? There are shows that are bad because of concept or budget... This was just bad because there was clearly no interest in making it good. Reminded me a LOT of NCIS: LA. Over the top, silly, and trying absurdly hard to be cool (therefore failing miserably, because it's impossible to TRY to be cool).
45 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Painfully bad... CSI: Hackers (1995)
fastpuppy4 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Um... why would an online auction have voices?

Seriously though... this show is bad, really bad. Not since Hackers (1995) has tech been gotten so wrong.

How much computer jargon can a cast jam so unconvincingly into a single episode? Producers, please hire a real geek and not someone you met at best buy.

When did Patricia Arquette have time to go to the David Caruso school of acting? She can act, so I don't understand why she is so bad in this. A grown up Bow Wow is probably the best actor in this thing.

The product placement was a little obvious but that's to be expected, it usually has been in every CSI. Faraday bags were held up to the camera so as to be easily recognizable, but the tactical ball camera was a harder to place.
53 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Horrible...
jfarren-035424 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was really looking forward to the show C. S. I Cyber but it was nothing but a let down. James Van Der Beek will always be the Dawson's Creek kid. Come on Shad Moss aka "Lil' Bow Wow" give me a break. I found the most disappointing Patricia Arquette acting was stinky cheese. The story line was not that good, it was original but there was not a lot of focus on the "bad" guys. With no "bad" guys seen you don't get what is the impact of the show and how hard it might be to catch them. The ending was just all to easy when the "Bad" guys were presumable smart with technology. I'm truly disappointed in the show and sad to say it's not a show I will be watching.
84 out of 125 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What can I say?! Just: awful!!
SceneByScene3 December 2015
What can I say?!

Just: awful, awful, awful.

I cannot believe that - having cancelled all 3 of the other 'CSI' programmes - the producers then give us yet another programme of the exact same style!

It has been churned out with techniques identical to the last few series of 'CSI's 1 to 3. This sadly resulted in a first episode with the following flaws:

~ meandering plot ~ dull story ~ inconsequential events ~ confused schematic ~ none of the wit or humour hoped for ~ zero warmth from the protagonists ~ no depth or scope i.e superficial ~ nil characterisation or back stories for the players (until at the very end, when it was far too late to enthral me in any way!)

I was hoping to see another programme of the quality of the first few series of the original 'CSI' - when "Grissom" et al really grabbed my interest, and the plots were feasible and properly fleshed out. Instead, this CSI-4 simply - and unbelievably - reproduced the very death throes of 'CSI' & the other 2 'CSI' series.

Yet another US show with a fatal case of style over substance. Gloss does NOT equate to quality.

I had SO looked forward to this new series. So I was HORRIFIED to see such a lazy production being rolled out.

The episode was proving abysmal even after the first 5 minutes, and dropped ever lower in my estimation the further the drama went on.

I would have hoped to be able to watch the second episode, in order to give the whole series a critique - i.e. after perusal of more than just one storyline. But, having seen the exact same style of programme in the last days of 'CSI's 1 to 3, there is clearly NO hope that CSI-4 will change. So I am signing off the series as of now. And have in fact already deleted the 10+ episodes that we had so far recorded... 1 hour is enough of my life wasted! ,-) After all, if the 'CSI' studio haven't learnt by now, then from this first episode they have proved that they never will.

Sadly, I can give this programme no more than 1 out of 10, as the production studio should have known better.

No-one can blame the actors, so please, please - Patricia Arquette, Peter MacNicol, et al - MOVE ON to something worth your skills.

I just HAD to get my opinion down. A form of catharsis, no doubt!! ,-)

One last point: the best thing about this programme? In fact, the ONLY good thing? Is ANOTHER superb theme song from the catalogue of 'The Who'. So I am off to YouTube to listen again to the great 'I Can See For Miles'. Now that WILL be 4 minutes well spent!
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A show I'm super mad got cancelled
taylorkingston25 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I loved this show. I really did. I'm so mad that it got cancelled. James Van Deer Beek just can't seem to catch a break since Dawson's Creek. I mean, Don't Trust The B---- In Apartment 23 got cancelled, and now this? You'd think a CSI franchise would last more than two seasons. Oh well. At least I still have a few episodes left to watch. And then Ted Danson, I know he's done a lot, but this show should've kept going. I'm surprised, especially with how tech-based the world is, you'd think the show be super popular.

This series is about the Cyber division of CSI. Revolving around Special Agent Avery Ryan, and her team, they solve cyber-based crimes for the FBI.

Fun fact: CSI: Cyber was the last remaining CSI series, before it was cancelled.

Fun fact: Ted Danson was the first character to be a featured in two different CSIs (CSI, and CSI: Cyber)

Overall, I give this episode a 7 out of 10, which in my ratings book is: Great.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The first episode is soooooooooo bad
mickdansforth5 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There are people in this that I am glad to see on TV. I was a fan of Medium and Rosanna Arquette was a firecracker before that show, but there is a through-line with her from firecracker, through mom rolls to this.

James Van Der Beek has been impressive since he played a crazy version of himself on Don't Trust The B In 23. He was also good in Friends With Better lives and the lame Power/Ranger Bootleg. CSI Cybers shows a hint of the Beek being able to pull off action and when he is done with this show I would love to see him in action rolls as a detective or fighting aliens or something.

And it is great to see Peter MacNicol back on TV too. He was great on Numb3rs, Ally McBeal and Ghost Busters 2.

I am going to blame the writers, producers, editors and directors because no one is giving a good performance in this episode.

First, their opening case is a baby abduction. What kind of amber alert sentimental bull-crap story is that? It is like the annual obligatory kid episode on NCIS only worse.

Arquette is unconvincing in her stating that her unit is taking this case. It is a flimsy set-up and she was not able to connect with it.

Then at the crime scene, hacker #1 squabbles with hacker #2 over who has the most cooties or something equally lame.

Arquette never is convincing as any type of cop in this, she only ever comes across as a mom.

And the Beek is also given nothing to work with and comes across as hollow.

***Possible Spoilers*** There is a scene where the Beek jumps in water (in slow motion) and it feels almost John Woo or something, but they don't cut soon enough and it ends with a almost splashing-in-a-wading-pool bit.

***Possible Spoilers*** There are some people who get shot in this episode and they are unconvincing as dying people. That could be editing. Maybe don't let the second victim ask a stupid question about the first victim before he dies.

The episode is chock full of really bad decisions from the creators. The episode never gets anywhere near immersive because every minute or so something happens that pulls the viewer out of the story.

My hope is that this show gets cancelled so the original CSI can get another season. I never liked the show under Peterson, but it has been great since Ted Danson took over.

I give this 2 stars instead of 1 because Peter MacNicol was flawless with his five or less lines, and The Beek did eek out some charm no matter how badly the creators tried to kill it.
45 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Exciting, suspenseful and enjoyable
skoyles12 March 2015
My wife and I are barely computer literate but educable. (Several of my students are employed in IT.) I am emphatically not a Patricia Arquette fan. I neither like nor watch CSI in any of its variations. I do, however, believe in giving almost any new series a chance and so it was that my wife and I settled in to watch CSI: Cyber with no great high expectations. We now have seen the second episode and we have thoroughly enjoyed both episodes. The actors are charming and their interactions, interesting. In the midst of all the computer language we have Arquette as a gifted therapist with a background. Her observations and insights give a human centre to the geeky surroundings. Exciting, human, techy drama. We like it. Therefore it will probably be cancelled very soon.
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bring Tino Struckmann with you from CSI Vegas
klarsichtgerda7 June 2016
This is a good show that potentially could be better, however what so many TV shows seems to lack is new faces. I suggest, from having watched most of his movies that you bring one of your previous CSI supporting cast Tino Struckmann with you on this new endeavor and give him a bigger part. we need new faces just like his. he can act and does not look like all the other boring actors and he have chops. I know most series casting or execs do not read reviews but as a fan and somebody in the industry I wanted to open the door for new talent deserving of your attention. A veteran who does his own stunts, knows hos to hold a gun, he started on E-ring and lead a bunch of Indie movies but it is time he gets a break. He became known for his book on women's safety and have his heart in the right place.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I can't get past the flashy graphics
jdonalds-54 March 2015
We have really enjoyed some of the CSI series. We still watch the Las Vegas episodes and look forward to them each week (when we can guess what night they are on). We also really enjoyed CSI NY and were sad when that series ended. CSI Miami was great, except we just couldn't deal with the mannerisms of David Caruso's character so we didn't watch it. Caruso was great in the first season of NYPD Blue. It looks like CSI Cyber might be another one we will take a pass on.

Seven minutes into the show when the first commercial hit I didn't like CSI Cyber. The basic concept is fine. I didn't get to know the characters but that could come with time. We know that most shows don't settle down into their stride for a few episodes, or for some even half a season. But it is the music and flashy graphic jumps that first turned us off. Frankly it was difficult to judge the acting quality because the episode was so chopped up none of them were on screen long enough. But what I could discern was mostly poor acting. I blame that on the director rather than the actors.

CSI Cyber isn't a serious crime scene investigation series. It's more like the fast action glitzy type of show. MY feeling is CBS gave it the CSI name to give it a boost but it is more likely to tarnish the name. The pace seems more like the recent Scorpion show which we are still giving a chance. I'm not sure we'll give CSI Cyber a chance.

If you like fast paced shows with lots of action and don't mind questionable crime investigation methods you may like this show. It makes wide use of hand held cameras, nothing is stationary, camera angles last about 4 to 5 seconds and even then the camera is moving. It's like the director gave instructions to the editing crew that if the camera view didn't change in 5 seconds or less they'd be fired. If you're not already schizophrenic you may be after watching this show.

Overall I blame the director for this mess. but I'm sure the style is already burned into the series. They are shooting for a much different audience than those who enjoy CSI Las Vegas.
56 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
started out rough but am really looking fwd to next episodes
kstuart-1091419 March 2016
I really like Patricia Arquette, however, I did think the first episode was pretty rough (writing and all around acting) but I have been watching every episode thereafter. But I feel they're getting better and better. I look fwd to each new episode as the 'family' grows. As not a very tech savvy kind of person, I do like learning about what's possibly out there. It's quite scary, the cyber world, & how everyday things we use, pass by, etc... can be our truest enemy. My child won't watch the show because it freaks her out. But I hope the show sticks around awhile. Ted Danson did offer some more character to the show but am excited to see where they go from here.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Am I the only one who did not find this bad?
Ellie-8925 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
So many of the reviews on this show are slating the acting, the episode structure, the lighting, anything which can be picked at, it's happening. Many reviewers seem annoyed by the fact this is not anything like NY/Miami (both respectively have been cancelled).

CSI:Cyber is looking at a different form of crime, one which, is becoming a lot more common in this day and age of technological advances. There are plenty of other programs and films which have featured technology playing some form of role within a crime (Untraceable?); the CSI franchise has took it upon themselves to make a show about this.

I genuinely do not see where all of the poor reviews are coming from, they have used a well known actress to play a lead role and smaller screen actors for supporting roles (sound familiar from the other CSI spin offs?). This version of the series (judging from this episode) does not sport murder, blood and crime scenes as the other series' do, however, it addresses what could happen in generation filled with technology. The first episode centred around how an everyday household baby object can be used for baby trafficking, whilst this can be seen as extreme, the hacking of camera objects is not uncommon in real life.

Many people are seeing the CSI name and expecting it to automatically create the same buzz as the other spin-offs, this is a different form of crime, therefore comparisons based solely on it being a CSI spin off is taking away the fact this show is actually a SPIN OFF. It is not supposed to be the exact same, follow the same format etc. It is something new, current and different to most other shows.

Personally I can't wait for the next episode. I look forward to seeing how the characters develop and how the series progresses. It is unfair to write the series off after just one episode, most spin offs are compared to harshly to the original show. Watch with an open mind and it's really not that bad. No series has an impeccably flawless first few episodes, it takes time for an audience to warm to the characters, this show just needs to be given a chance.
12 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not Impressed
wael-h-a3 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I was very excited to watch the show, but after having had the chance to watch the first episode I can say that I am not impressed. I felt as though the plot was not well formulated. A few of the actors that they had for the small bits were just awful, I mean I couldn't tell if they were pretending to be under the influence or were actually under the influence during filming. The way the whole show is captured in regards to video quality and such is also not done well. It made me feel as though I was watching a mini episode prepared by high school students without experience in film and video. It was filled with unnecessary CGI in between every scene that made it look just horrible. It looks super cheap and a waist of time, and does not come even close to other shows within the same genre. I would be surprised if it lasts for more than a season.
44 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed