Flashback to the Sept. 19, 1995, TV column in the Deseret News:
It's not often that a television show can live up to its hype."Murder One" does.
You may have heard or read that critics are calling this the best new show this fall.
It is.
This is Quality drama with a capital Q.
Back to this week. The week that "Murder One" wrapped up its first - and possibly only - season on the air. So what's the final verdict on the show?
Yes, it was the best new show that aired on network television this season. Yes, it proved indeed to be consistent, quality drama.
The 22-episode tale about the murder of a 15-year-old girl, the arrest and trial of film star Neil Avedon (Jason Gedrick) in connection with the crime, the nefarious dealings of millionaire businessman Richard Cross (Stanley Tucci) and - looming over it all - the efforts of defense attorney Ted Hoffman (Daniel Benzali) to save his client and get at the truth was often compelling.
Which is not to say that "Murder One" was perfect. It had its share of flaws, which ranged from major to minor.
The show's biggest problem was with its biggest character - Hoffman. And the problem with Hoffman had mostly to do with the casting. Benzali just wasn't up to the task.
His low-key demeanor, initially somewhat interesting, wore thin as the season wore on. To borrow a phrase, Benzali's expressions ranged from A to B. If he was angry, if he was incensed, if he was overjoyed, if he was frustrated, it didn't matter. It was all the same.
Benzali's Hoffman never became a character that the audience could cozy up to. That the audience could identify with. That the audience could get behind.
And it's not just that that is important to a television series, but - as a defense attorney - Hoffman would have to display the qualities that a jury could cozy up to, identify with and get behind. Never happened.
Not that it was all Benzali's fault. The writers insisted on trying to make him into some sort of sex symbol, what with an attractive wife (who loved him despite deciding to divorce him), with Richard Cross' attractive ex-wife in pursuit, with the revelation that he'd had an affair with the judge years earlier and with various bimbos making a play for him.
Not particularly believable.
The show corrected another major error, dropping the annoying secondary stories that plagued its early episodes. For a show that was supposed to be something new and different, those subplots made "Murder One" look like a return to "L.A. Law."
Even the show's major premise had a problem. Spending an entire season on one murder case proved to be just too much time. The case dragged at times, although - much to its credit - the action picked up in the final few weeks.
(And creator/executive producer Steven Bochco has already stated that, should "Murder One" return next season, it will cover two trials instead of one.)
The three hours that aired this week clearly demonstrated the best and worst of "Murder One." When Neil was convicted, it was absolutely stunning stuff. To watch despair and horror pass over Gedrick's face and the stunned amazement of his lawyers was remarkable.
The legal maneuvering that went on was fascinating. The suspense built as Hoffman discovered that a videotape of the actual murder did exist and was in the possession of Richard Cross. The search for the AIDS-stricken Cross was enough to bring viewers to the edge of their seats.
The two great hours on Tuesday, however, led to sort of a letdown on Tuesday. Viewers were promised a "shocking" ending, and - while unexpected - the revelation that the murderer was a South American drug kingpin didn't quite live up to the hype.
Not that it didn't make sense. Viewers had been introduced to the character months earlier when he came to Hoffman to get his son out from under rape charges. And the parking ticket on his son's car (in front of the victim's apartment on the night of the murder), plus Richard Cross' reasons for covering up the crime, did hang together logically.
What made a lot less sense was the Perry Mason-esque discovery of the videotape that exonerated Neil. It just wasn't particularly believable. And, for a show that was supposed to be about the legal process, it was a copout to resort to a stunt like that.
All of that said, however, "Murder One" was still a very worthy experiment. The sort of television that was smart enough so that you could talk about it afterward.
When "Murder One" was good, it was very good. And when it wasn't good, it still wasn't bad.
It also got better as the season went along. And, if given another chance next season, the producers and writers could presumably build on the lessons they learned and turn out an even better product.
Whether that will happen is extremely iffy. And ABC really has no one to blame but itself. Scheduling "Murder One" opposite "ER" last fall was a huge mistake that may have damaged the show beyond repair in the ratings.
It gave "Murder One" the aura of a loser, and that's tough to overcome.
And moving "Murder" to Mondays at 9 p.m. was no great favor, either. All it did was put it in competition with another hit medical drama, CBS's "Chicago Hope."
The ratings for "Murder One" did pick up considerably for both Monday's and Tuesday's episodes, although it might be too little too late.
But, while so many TV shows don't deserve a second chance, this is one that does. It's not likely, but let's hope ABC can see its way clear to bringing "Murder One" back next season.