TV: Person of Interest

  • Thread starter Thread starter dswearin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dswearin

Guest
Did anyone get a chance to see Jim Caviezel’s new show on CBS, “Person of Interest”? I found it to be really, REALLY, good. I was really surprised that they didn’t actually have him kill everyone, except when absolutely necessary. I look forward to the next episode.
 
I watched it primarily because it had Michael Emerson in it. He’s a phenomenal actor - I really loved what he brought to LOST.

I think I cautiously enjoyed it. I wasn’t WOWed by it. I’m not into graphic violence. But I did like the fact that he didn’t just kill everyone he came in contact with.

I plan on watching it for awhile to see how and where it goes.

As a LOST fan, it was a little ironic or eerie or something when he was lecturing Jim Caviezel’s character John. I turned over to my wife and smiled.

Interesting premise and it was an interesting story last night.
 
If anyone missed the pilot episode, you can watch it with limited commercials on cbs.com. I do hope it stays like this, with limited killing and hopefully no sexual content. I hate how they ruin potentially great shows with inappropriate sexual content.
 
I watched the show and was very concerned about Jim’s character being in bed with another woman and i didn’t see a wedding ring? Was he married to this woman? I thought I heard him once say that he would never perform any type of sexual scene on screen,because he is devout catholic.

What am I missing here? :eek::confused:
 
Dandelion_Wine said:
As a LOST fan, it was a little ironic or eerie or something when he was lecturing Jim Caviezel’s character John. I turned over to my wife and smiled.
Click to expand...
I’m a huge LOST fan too and I agree!

It was so familiar – Finch (Emerson) controlling everything that was going on. You have to wonder if somewhere down the line they’ll make it known that despite what he told Reese (Caviezel) to begin with, everything that they’ve been doing has an even deeper meaning. Of course, that’s probably just my LOST paranoia theories coming back! 😃
Lucky_Scrunchy said:
I watched the show and was very concerned about Jim’s character being in bed with another woman and i didn’t see a wedding ring? Was he married to this woman? I thought I heard him once say that he would never perform any type of sexual scene on screen,because he is devout catholic.

What am I missing here? :eek::confused:
Click to expand...
Well, they were both clothed (if I’m remembering right). They kissed, but nothing more. 🤷
 
Weren’t they in a bed though? If so, its obviously suggestive.
 
I had this show on my “check list” to see because Jim Caviezel was in it and because I read somewhere that J. J. Abrams had a hand in this show too. One of the best shows (I feel) on tv, Fringe, is another one of J. J. Abrams’ works so I wanted to see if Person of Interest was going to be as fascinating to watch as Fringe has been. And after the first episode, I’d have to say it has good potential. Since this wasn’t sci fi based, there were a few situations in the show which seemed farfetched such as the following and listening in on people via their own cell phone and surveying a person from atop another building without drawing attention to yourself from surveillance cameras. Also, there was the shooting of at least six guys (in the leg to boot) with guns drawn on him. But I did appreciate the fact that he did shoot them in the leg instead of killing them. So now, I hope to remember that this show (I think) is slated for Thursdays at nine on CBS. I hope the show is a success.
 
I watched this with high hopes. I’m a big fan of J.J.Abrams, Michael Emerson and Jim Caviezel, so it seemed like a sure win. I also heard that the pilot episode tested higher for CBS than any other pilot of theirs in the past 15 years. They even bumped the juggernaut CSI from it’s timeslot for this show.

I like Dandelion’s description that he “cautiously enjoyed” it. I think the only underwhelming part was the actual “mission” for the week. His task was a bit cliche and not very memorable. But then, this was the pilot. The main point was to introduce the major characters and the main premise of the show – which they did quite well. I am optimistic that future episodes will include more well-written plots and scenarios.

And, since Abrams is involved, you can bet that some type of supernatural-esque mythos will come into play eventually. 😃
 
I thought it was good in comparison to what else is on TV. Sometimes a group of arrogant thungs don’t think anyone has the nerve to face down a group of them, especially when armed, so no real surprise there. The cameras in the show were primarily street level, so being on a rooftop with binoculars was not that surprising. A lot of people simply aren’t looking for that sort of thing. By people, I mean your average, I just want to live a normal life and not concern myself about disturbing things.

I liked the less violence factor. I hope it turns into a trend. And the recruiter, possibly a billionaire, is trying to help people, or in this one case, expose corruption. I found his comments about his future and that of his partner, a bit too pessimistic. I would have preferred some cautious optimism. I mean, if he’s so smart, maybe he can cook up a way or ways to cover their tracks more effectively. I’m sure he has plenty of time to think while his partner carries out the actual mission.

Peace,
Ed
 
I SO enjoyed this show! I tuned in for Jim Caviezel and as a Lost watcher, I’m familiar with Michael Emerson. It was refreshing not to turn away from T&A shots. So many shows have so many gratuitous shots of this type (and ANY T&A is “gratuitous” to me), I’m finding I have had to give up watching some shows in order to retain my newfound sanctity! 🙂

It’s on tonight and I am so looking forward to it.
 
Only heard about because of Jim Caviezel and I am forcing my family to watch it!! So far we LOVE it!!! I like that he doesn’t actually kill anyone, he just shoot them in the leg, which actually makes it sort of funny. The producers said his character was supposed to be like Batman, which he is definitely turning out to be just like him!!! Going to turn into a great show and I absolutely love Jim Caviezel so it is great to see him on tv once a week!!!
 
I think it is a sad commentary on life and a cautionary tale.
 
Like most of the responses thus far, mine is enthusiastic. Jim Caviezel starred in two of my favorite movies, The Passion of the Christ and The Count of Monte Cristo. I love to see the “bad guys” get their just desserts. This looks like another one of those kinds of shows.
 
Lucky_Scrunchy said:
Weren’t they in a bed though? If so, its obviously suggestive.
Click to expand...
Since its a flashback to when the character was still in the military, depending upon his role, he may not have worn a wedding ring. My husband doesn’t always wear his wedding ring, if he’s deployed to a place in this world that it would draw unncessary attention to him or his fellow soldiers or endanger the mission in some way.
 
I’m a huge fan of Jim Caviezel and a HUGE fan of this show: I like how it’s a bit morally ambiguous without heading into dangerous waters. Following the Twitter hash-tag for the show, I’ve seen some viewers comment a bit negatively on the use of violence to stop violence, but sometimes that’s necessary, but most of the time, they don’t use lethal force, unless the target is armed with a gun and about to kill an unarmed person. Gotta love how JC’s character tends to leave the bad guys lying on the floor whining in pain (ie. the two hit men in an elevator at the start of the second episode).
 
Anyone still watching?

I saw last week’s episode “Flesh and Blood” last night. Blown away. Incredible episode!
 
Lucky_Scrunchy said:
I watched the show and was very concerned about Jim’s character being in bed with another woman and i didn’t see a wedding ring? Was he married to this woman? I thought I heard him once say that he would never perform any type of sexual scene on screen,because he is devout catholic.

What am I missing here? :eek::confused:
Click to expand...
If they were clothed, how was it sexual?

You say later that it implied that sex occurred, but why is that a problem? Sex does indeed happen, it’s a part of life.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
If they were clothed, how was it sexual?

You say later that it implied that sex occurred, but why is that a problem? Sex does indeed happen, it’s a part of life.
Click to expand...
Why is it a problem? The implication is that there’s extramarital sex going on, and that isn’t something Christians want to see further normalized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top