REVIEW OF CSI- CYBER TELEVISION SHOW

THE KUHNS REPORT

LAS VEGAS - Hello America, and how is the world treating you?

Evelyn, from Austin, Texas asked my opinion and review of the new CBS television show, "CSI-CYBER.

Patricia Arquette recently made news with her impressive speech at the Oscars when she made a plea for equal pay for women as she picked up her Oscar for best supporting actress in " "Boyhood." The CSI Cyber show is currently on Wednesday's at 10:00 P.M.It  is about a group of criminal investigators that look into crimes relating to the world-wide web, the Internet.  Personally, I believe Arquette took this part in the CSI series just to keep her face in the public eye, worldwide. I also think she is not suited for this series. Fact is, I don't think this Cyber series is suited for the CSI franchise either. The show is too muddled and has a tendency to overdo the special effects of computer geek stuff, it's also short on good story lines and dialogue.

The previous CSI spin-offs which created this franchise were great.They had very good story lines regarding various crimes and the actors played the parts well, but this Cyber show tries too hard. Maybe it's because they rely to heavily on the character the show is supposedly based on, Mary Aiken, a cyber psychologist, who also acts as consultant on the series and is supposedly involved in "every" aspect of the series.  The field Ms. Aiken's, works in and around as a cyber-psychologist  is trying to get across a weaved, tangled pattern of what she chooses to call cyberanalytics, which is only in its infancy and not clearly understood. Thus, because  Ms. Aikens is a psychologist it appears she tries to combine computers and the Internet into still another field of psychology.

I submit that if  a law enforcement agency wants to know the operational facets and workings of computers and how to deter hacking and crimes using computers and the Internet just call on the brainiac  whiz kids that know the in's and outs of the computer and not any  psychologist(s) who try to use questionable mental solutions to determine who is guilty or not guilty of a crime

I would suggest that a person is either a psychologist that can offer an opinion to law enforcement when they ask for assistance or the person is a sworn law enforcement officer/agent who carries weapons and is in the field shooting it out with the criminals.

Arquette's character  is too serious, dry and  sometimes silly. She is acting more like a mind reader coming across like a swami solving situations to close the case. She also roams around with a grim expression on her face but yet tries to portray a tough FBI agent. Really?,   Also the show  tries to make  everything look technical with computer symbols and text flashing across the screen to much and the actors try to explain what technical stuff they are doing but in all, the show comes across very dry, boring and displaying  some of the most childish dialogue and acting I've seen in a long time in a supposed crime show.

Charly Koontz, Hayley Kiyoko, Peter MacNicol, James Van Der Beek and Shad Moss the other actors appearing with Arquette look like a bunch of keystone cops and to top it off Arquette's character is supposed to solve the crime by looking at the suspects and  proclaiming from high that she knows when a person is telling the truth and who's not guilty while some of the supposed computer techs go on and on about explaining to Arquette and others on the show how the computers work-- BORING! DULL! The  story lines are "kid stuff."  The show also has the cast babbling and babbling on about how they arrived at retrieving something from the Internet. WOW! Again BORING, DRY and DULL!  The show drags on and one of the silly parts is where  the entire team goes out with bullet proof vests and guns drawn,running through the streets, breaks down doors and arrests the criminal. Come On. Most law enforcement agencies have sworn trained officers and agents who conduct the arrests and take down the criminals. They don't have a mind reading psychic/psychologist leading a tactical team, running around the city screaming orders and arresting the culprits.

Evelyn, the CSI franchise is a good idea but they are reaching in this case with CSI-Cyber. Regarding this show I would think it's like the horse fell and broke it's leg. They should shoot the horse and put it out of it's misery. The CSI series should have stuck to the original format: Crime being committed; the crime scene techs piece together forensic evidence to assist and help the investigating officers solve the crime and if the investigators require something pertaining to Internet and computers the investigators should consult with a computer savvy person. Hundreds are available all over the country. That's the way investigating and solving crimes is usually done, It doesn't take a psychologist ( a none sworn police officer) who allegedly is in command of trained  FBI agents(never happen) and a bunch of nerd techiees to gear up with weapons and armor and  use firearms  fighting crime.

The CSI producers should have continued the CSI series related to different cities like the original. Example - -the producers and franchise could have used. CSI- Atlanta; CSI- Dallas, and other cities carrying on the same theme as the first show. I believe the producers  of the CSI franchise strayed too far afield in this case. It reminds me of the many movie sequels that are  put out following the original. You know what I'm talking about --For example, The return of _____ or, ____,  Part II, or, Sea Creature I, II and III. They never live up to their hype and usually disappoint.

Well  Evelyn, you asked me for my opinion and review so to apply some sort of rating for CSI-Cyber, on a scale of  A to F, I would rate this show a C-, and that's being generous.And, that's my opinion and review. You decide. Make your own decisions.

BRADLEY W, KUHNS, Ph.D. O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com