The formula of this show is an odd mix of crazy visions and standard law show. I think the series wants to be a bit more whimsical than it is - but mixing Boston Legal with the sci-fi channel isn’t really working for me.

Plus, so far these cases have been kind of odd. The first episode was going after pharmaceutical companies for making inoculations, and this one seems to give off the message that its ok to lie to the government if you want to come home from the war.

Now, I’m not going to get off on a rant here about being either pro or anti war - that’s not what I’m talking about. The fact that there is a war is irrelevant to whether or not its ok to lie to the government (or anyone else for that matter) to get out of a commitment that you don’t want to be in any longer.

That’s an odd choice for a show that is supposed to have a lawyer/prophet guy as a the star. To me, it comes off as irresponsible writing from someone who I can only assume is against the idea of war, and thus thinks its ok to abandon your commitments when you don’t think you’re being treated fairly.

Like I said, I hate to get off into a rant on this thing, because I can see an argument from both sides - especially if your “commitment” is extended without your approval, and in a way that you were mislead from the start.

I get that - I just don’t care much for the way this show jumps so quickly into the solution. Honestly, I don’t care much for Eli Stone. I want to - I like the lead, and I would love to have another new show to watch, but this one is just not worth the time.