I've never started a thread before. Exciting.

This will be premiering on Fox after American Idol on Wednesday, January 21. Tim Roth stars as a man who can tell if people are lying (comparisons to The Mentalist and Psych are probably inevitable). I don't think Tim Roth has ever done any American TV work before, so I'm looking forward to watching it if only for him. Plus, it's nice that we get a British actor who actually gets to KEEP his regular accent. Here's the official description from Fox's website:



More complete description and video can be found here

I've only read one review, but it was very positive. Fox probably has high hopes for this one, considering it got the cushy post-AI slot.

I'm sick to death of procedures, but, you know, Tim Roth. I have to give this a chance.

pinkmoon, I'd like to send you a bouquet of agreement cookies.

Tim Roth. Also, bright colors on a procedural.

Well, the influence of Mr. Ends ("I'm already bored. By episode four, Tim Roth will have encountered his nemesis: Botox.") and the incredible overdose of commercials on Fox, I think I'm out.

It does seem very thin. But I might be bored after AI.

I've been looking forward to this forever. Tim Roth has been my favorite actor since before Quentin Tarantino busted him out. Here's to hoping Lie To Me does for Tim Roth what House did to Hugh Laurie.

The premise is very interesting and a lot more believable for me than the other "quirky" premises for procedurals such as the Mentalist or Psych or Monk, all of which I dislike. If you can tell every time someone is lying and you pay attention, that must be a very depressing way to live. Kinda like reading minds. A lot of mind reading episodes in a fantasy/sci-fi shows end up tellling you how terrible it is to know people's minds. True Blood springs to mind. I hope they'll play a little with the theme that although we demand truth all around us and we trust in it, that there isn't much of it.
And then, it's Tim Roth who I always found intriguing in a slightly unsettling way. I actually can't wait for this one.

I was going to check this show out, since I like Tim Roth, but the pathetic, defensive blustering (Lie to Me is science!! Mentalist is a scam!!! Lie to Me doesn't have fake American accents, Americans think British accents are smarter!!!!) has changed my mind. If they have that little confidence in their own show, no thanks.

I'll watch Tim Roth in pretty much anything, so I'll give it a shot.

(...)

Error in posting. Moderators, feel free to delete.

Here's an interview with Brendan Hines . I'm interested enough to check it out. At the very least we'll learn some truth tips, right?

Well, I really enjoyed it. Thought it was very clever, and I love that I actually learned a few things while watching it!

I liked it enough to tune in next week.

It was a good show, I'll tune in again even though they had some glaring mistakes of Jehovah's witnesses.

I got the idea the writers decided the boy would be from a devoutly religious family and picked a religion from a hat.

I love the airport scene. If it'd been me I'd taken the suitcase of money and not worked for a year or two for anyone .
I figured out the politician's story pretty fast.
And the cut screens could get annoying fast but for tonight they enhanced the show pretty well.


Edited to delete off topic stuff.

I really enjoyed this! I especially liked the quick flashes of famous folks displaying the same gestures--really drove the point home a few times.

I would like a few more plot twists--my roomate and I figured both storylines out before they had their reveals. But we still enjoyed the show. Here's to hoping it sticks around! I love Tim Roth and it was great to see Kelli Williams back on TV again.

I thought that it was okay. The dialog got clunky and the plot got pretty predictable, but I liked the side characters, particularly Eli. I would have been okay with the ending if we did not actually hear what the people were saying. As it seemed like it was just a series of bad actors badly acting like they're acting badly.

I am not sure how scorn = you're onto something. Or was it supposed to mean that he hated that church specifically?

Wow, I hated this. Even Tim Roth couldn't save it for me. The plot was paint-by-numbers and far too obvious, and I can't stand that "slow motion zoom because we think the audience is dumb and won't see this" device that's used over and over.

I'm very much in like with this show simply because of the cast. As if Tim Roth and Kelli Williams weren't enough, Brendan Hines, my beloved Andy Goode/Tyler Ford (any Middleman fans in here? No?), is in it too. So much love for the cast already. And KW seems like she's having so much fun with the role.

The actual storylines fell flat for some reason. I just didn't feel any urgency from the Lightman crew. However, unlike the more clever people on here, I didn't figure out either storyline till the end.

I like the new recruit. She reminds me of (S1) Dani from Life which is a fantastic thing. Here's to hoping the characterization sticks. All in all, show looks like a keeper.


Ditto. Wonder if they'll be able to maintain that in future episodes.

I dunno. The point-driving was more like running it into the ground. I like the characters and all, but the show will have to make their points a little more subtly if I am going to stick around for more than three episodes.

Definitely liking this show so far - it's working a little too hard to make sure we notice people's emotional tells, but it's only the first episode, and I like the core group of characters a lot. Admittedly, I'd probably watch it anyway for Tim Roth, but it helps that the characters are interesting. Nice to see Brendan Hines back on my TV, too - mandigirl, you're definitely not the only Middleman fan around here.

My tape cut out at the very end, though, just after the end of the interview with the girl. Serves me right for still recording on VHS, I guess. Can anybody recap the last few minutes for me?

Principal: guilty/arrested.
Boy: alive/released.
Note: instructions/vague.
Final scene: ask/not.

I lasted 10 minutes, then had to turn it off, because I knew one more zoom-in zoom-out on a facial expression would have made me smash my TV to smithereens. I've never been so incredibly bored so fast. Poor Tim, poor Kellie, that it has come to this.

Ankai, you're gonna have to do better than that. =) My DVR went nuts--I saw that the principal was being arrested, but why did he kill her?

I really like Tim Roth, so I really wanted to like this show, but I was a bit disappointed. I found it somewhat boring and my mind wandered a few times. Roth was really the only thing that kept me engaged, so I'm in for at least another week. And as a Psych fan, I'm used to the extreme zooms, so they really didn't bother me here.


Because he was having an affair with one of the students. The student told him that the teacher was going to turn him in and so he killed her.

Pretty enjoyable (but yeah, they do need to cut down on the bad acting for those almost-extras).

I also saw the endings for both mysteries coming a mile away (along with him lying about the boy killing himself), but I enjoyed the journey. And colors. I did roll my eyes though when they telegraphed in huge blinking letters that the teenage girl was pregnant (whlie the characters surmised she had an STD). It always sort of disappoints me that TV characters clearly don't watch as much television as I do.

But yeah, I think if they pick less tired "mysteries", this could be a very good show.

Decide to give it a shot, and while I suspect I'll give it a few more episodes, I'm pretty much on the underwhelmed camp. I also saw both twists coming a mile away, and neither one of the storylines was really all the original or exiting. And the closeups was way overdone.

I did like the main group of actors for the most part. Tim Roth was awesome but that isn't too surprising. And Brandon Hines a.k.a. Andy Goode from Terminator: SCC was funny and charming in his role. I just hope that, unlike Terminator, his character's arc doesn't end by a few bullets at the hands of Brian Austin Green.

I too was disappointed with the episode. The stories were predictable and I thought the body language signs a little too obvious to really showcase the Roth character's talents. The characters seem interesting and entertaining and I like the cast so, I'll give it a few more episodes to find its balance.

mandigirl
Art Crawl!

If there's nothing else on, this will end up one of those shows I watch just because I love the cast (kinda like "Brothers and Sisters" since last year). As a show though, it's pretty mediocre so far. I hope the cases become more interesting, and there's some good backstory on the characters.

I thought this was... okay. Neither of the mysteries really held my interest, but the central characters did. The four main characters all seemed to have good chemistry with each other, and I can see myself becoming intrigued with that aspect of the show. I've sat through many a dull episode of television for characters that I like, so I'll definitely watch another episode.

If they can create more exciting/interesting mysteries in the future, that would certainly help. I also felt like there wasn't much going on below the surface of the storylines--not a lot of subtext, just a lot of text. The premise is promising in terms of being able to address themes in a subtle way, if that makes sense, so I'd just like to get more from each episode than a pat mystery (or two) and some charming character interactions.

I enjoyed it, but I'm thinking that one gimmick isn't enough to hang a series on. Cue the soap opera storylines?

The Mentalist and Psych are better. This show felt pretty bland and the closeups on people lying is probably going to get on my nerves if they keep doing it. I probably won't be watching it on a regular basis. I only have room for so many new shows a season, especially ones so similar to each other, and The Mentalist has me hooked.

I may watch again, I don't know. Depends on what else is on (is Lost going to be on at 9 or 10 ET?). It wasn't bad, but it was pretty obvious too. Religious people intolerant and scary, check. Principal having affair with pretty student, check. And let's be honest here, if it had been the minority leader of the House Ethics committee (in other words, a Republican), he would've been evil and a closet pervert who was meeting with the young woman to have sex with her 9 year old son or pet goat or something. He was a Democrat, so he had to be noble (I saw that coming a mile away).

Yawn. Some things never change.

Lucky for them, I'm so used to it, it doesn't matter anymore.

But I don't like it as well as the Mentalist (and TR is in no way as cute as SB).

Hee! Split Ends, Mr. Ends is funny. (But you knew that already.) "Damn you, Botox! Damn yoooouuuu!"

I hadn't read the article where Tim Roth swears that his show is the bestest, and everybody else is jus' jealous. And I don't want to. I must be the only one who tuned in in spite of Roth, though. I haven't really liked him in anything since Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Sorry, dude just creeps me out. I think Eli's ("he lie"?) "radical honesty" approach would be believable, though annoying - if Eli were a college sophomore. Or Greg House. Eli, you're no Greg House.

Does the Lightman Group (wow, subtle!) have a policy of hiring only the cripplingly beautiful? (Other than Lightman himself, that is.) I think they picked Security Girl out of the lineup at the airport because she's gorgeous. And if Ria is "one of the naturals," how could she not tell the difference between Cal's faked twitchy-ass behaviour and someone who's really hiding nefarious intent? Boo. I'm giving this show one more episode to shape up.

Count me in with those who thought the pilot was kinda meh. The bad acting by the extras were painful.

Did you see the horrendous kiss between Kelli Williams her husband?

I will tune in again because I think what this show has going for it, which The Mentalist does not, is that it has strong supporting characters. Kelli Williams, loved her on The Practice, is capable of carrying an episode by herself and the "I can not tell a lie" guy could bring some funny storylines to future episodes.

And there really is nothing else on besides this show after American Idol besides a rerun of The Real World so might as well stick with it.

It was interesting, to say the least. Not great, but warrants a second try next week. However, comes February, I really don't see how it will survive. There will be Life, Criminal Minds and Lost in its time slot. For me especially, it's gonna be a tough choice since my PVR can only take two.

Wow. That was just...bad. I called every single plot twist out to hubby before it happened. So, so predictable. Just terrible writing. And the face flashes of famous people got old and annoying after about, oh, 5 seconds. Bad and/or lazy guest stars, Tim Roth looking constantly constipated, and the show going to great pains to demonstrate that it is sooooo seeeerrrrrioussss!
Blech. I love Kelli Williams and tuned in just for her (and didn't she look great!), but even the wonderfulness of her will not keep me coming back unless show gets really better really fast.

Pilots are always sketchy so I give the show at least a couple more episodes. This show will probably get more than a couple because of the cast.


True on both counts though TR definitely holds a sort of appeal to me.

To me anyway, The Mentalist and Psych have a lot more in common which each other than either has with Lie to Me.

I Really wish they had focused on Lightman instead of the rather weak mysteries. I would like to know how he ticks, why he's divorced (?), why he does this, besides the oodles of money. I suspect he must be a very lonely person and Roth did a great job, without even any dialog, to show how world-weary he is. I would love if they had explored this a lot more, but I'm willing to give them a chance to get there.

Re: the zooming stuff. Like an earlier poster mentioned, I watch Psych, so I'm way over the zoomy camera thing. But maybe they should go the Mentalist route and not do that. They can just kind of recap at the end like they did with the KKK guy at the beginning.

Last random question: What's with the disclaimer on the title? Are they being self reflexive ('Everyone lies including us') or are they trying to avoid liability or something? I couldn't get it and I thought it was weird.

I didn't hate it, but I thought the mentalist was much better, both in terms of acting for the supportings and not telegraphing every single plot point from 3 miles away, I agree it was pretty easy to spot them. I liked Tim Roth but the "mysteries" were weak at best, and unlike "The Mentalist" and SB (IMO) there was not enough of TR being incredibly charismatic to off set that.

I am shallow. The plot lines didn't matter to me at all - I liked the characters and the actors who play them. Best part for me was TR knowing that KW's husband was lying to her. Having been in relationships where I was the only one blind to what was going on, it really struck a note of truth.

I could do without the daughter, whose wide-eyed acting drove me nuts.

Yeah. I thought it was Danielle Panabaker and amsused because "that's a huge step: from Stark's daughter to Lightfoot's daughter, not". But it turned out to be her younger sister, Kay.

That's why it bugged me though; while KW's not supposed to be as super-fantastic as Lightman, her character's supposed to be good enough at spotting the phonies/lying stuff to align herself w/ him. So how come she doesn't seem to know her hubby's a lying liar?

Also, the close up zooms annoy me because the show assumes I'm not smart enough to notice what's going on.

Sigh. Step it up, Tim Roth. I want to like this show, but so far it's not looking good.

Maybe she does know, but is ok with the reason.

For instance, on CSI:NY last night, the murder victim had lied to his wife about taking a business class one night a week - but it turned out he was taking Salsa lessons so that he could surprise his wife on their anniversary. So maybe she knows exactly what he's up to, but....ok, even I can see I'm reaching here.

I liked it. I'm glad they focus so much on the fact that although lying goes on all the time, we can't really say what people lie about and why. So, knowing that someone lies isn't a magic wand.

We don't know that she doesn't know. Just because she accepts the lie doesn't mean she didn't spot it. I think it showed that she doesn't use her skills in her relationships. It contrasts with Cal who obviously has trouble turning it off. He sees it as weakness, naivete even. I also felt the episode showed that both points are valid depending on the context. I also liked that it showed some backstory between them. Obviously, she must have told him at some point not to interfere there.

I really would like to think that I'm good at spotting lies when I knew that the teen didn't hang himself but I probably just watch too much TV.

Loved Cal's little smile after he asked the boyfriend about his intentions. And I didn't mind him blocking that guy. Parking spot thieves need to be punished!

I kept thinking that his show would be very demanding of its guest stars. So that will be interesting just in terms of watching actors work.

I found the interpretation that Hutchinson and the other lawyer had a fling and that she doesn't want to continue was a bit too much, I thought. Still, I'm gonna check out Paul Ekman's website before I start complaining about how improbable all this is.

I liked it. The cases were a little predictable, but the main cast was good and the characters have good chemistry. Radical Honesty guy could get old pretty quick, though I found him amusing so far. I haven't seen Tim Roth (that I recall) since Rob Roy, but he's outstanding. With a lesser actor, Cal would come of as simply pompous, or worse, dull. But Roth makes Cal's quirkiness and cynicism engaging. He doesn't have the charm of Simon Baker's Patrick Jane, yet he's intriguing enough to carry the show for a while.

One thing that bugged me, however, was the supposed science behind the lie detection, specifically the claim that these microexpressions are absolutely universal. Seriously? I mean, I can buy that they are quite generally applicable and provide very good evidence of deceit or other emotional states. But the claim that cultural background is completly irrelevant is hard to swallow. For example, in American Sign Language, movements of one's mouth and eyebrows function as grammatical markers, pointing to the topic of the sentence, the kind of question, or adverbial phrases. And we're supposed to believe that with all that going on, an ASL user's expressions would indicate exactly the same thing as, say, a spoken English user's expressions? And there are really no gender differences either? Overgeneralization is irritating.

Liked it better than The Mentalist or other similar shows, and I'll watch it for a bit, but if it's up against both Life and Lost, when Life comes back and now that Lost is back... well, my DVR only tapes two, and it's not worth bumping anything. Though I suppose being a FOX show, I can catch it on Hulu.

That's interesting. I think what they mean is that these microexpressions show concealed emotions. As far as I know from even older behavioural and anthropological studies, emotions are expressed in the same way across cultures or ethnic backgrounds. In their "micro" state, they are being concealed. Expressing grammatical markers is a different matter altogether, I would say.

I actually really enjoyed the show after watching it because I was too lazy to turn the channel after AI. Of course, I may be biased because one of the characters had my name, both first and last and same spelling, which freaked me out a bit.

Looking forward to the next one- though I totally agree that the close ups were a bit much.

Yeah, she looked freaking fantastic.

I can't believe I forgot "Life" will be on at the same time. Guess I won't be watching this show.

I'll give it another shot or two, but I live in DC, and they didn't do even the most basic research. Our public school system is predominantly black, for instance, and that's teachers and principals, not just students.

Very little black and grey is worn here, maybe because we don't want people to think we're New York.

Seeing the exteriors and then going to the arched California interiors didn't help much either.

Still hate Kelli Williams.

Doesn't he always?

I didn't mean to conflate grammatical markers and emotional expressions. What I mean is, if your face has to do various things to convey grammar, it is hard to believe that this wouldn't affect one's expressions enough to make the emotional indicators less reliable. For example, in ASL you raise your eyebrows to indicate that your question is a yes/no question rather than a who/what/when/where/why question. But Cal says that raising your eyebrows indicates that you know the answer to your own question. I suppose an expert like Cal could tell the difference, based on the duration of the eyebrow raise or other facial expressions. Really, my problem isn't with the claim that emotional expressions transcend cultural background as much as the fact that they emphasized that it is universal, i.e., no exceptions. It just felt like they were dumbing down the science a bit here. Not unusual for network TV.

I love to watch Tim Roth in action, and I truly enjoyed this show. I am looking forward to seeing what they do with it. I think the premise is interesting and it's fun/interesting to listen to the expressions and their meanings. I have to admit, the fact that Tim Roth is in it is what made me want to check it out, and I'm really glad I did.