The New ‘Matlock’ Isn’t the Old ‘Matlock,’ but Is That Enough?
There’s a lot going on in the new “Matlock” series — or, as Matty (Kathy Bates) might say, “There’s more moving parts than a Swiss watch in a sandstorm!”
First, there’s the premise Matty tells anyone who will listen: After the death of her husband and daughter, Madeline “Matty” Matlock, Esq. talks her way into a new gig at a prestigious law firm, Jacobson & Moore, in order to support her young grandson. She’s happy to start at the bottom — working alongside two other junior associates in a cramped office filled with three desks — but the penniless attorney is eager to shift toward the firm’s most lucrative cases: pharmaceuticals. Oh, and her name? That’s just a coincidence. She’s not related to Andy Griffith’s defense attorney because he’s just a character on TV!
More from IndieWire
But then there’s the twist: At the end of the first episode, it’s revealed that Matty’s not named Matlock at all. Her real name is Madeline Kingston, and she’s hiding her identity behind a very famous moniker because she believes someone at Jacobson & Moore helped suppress evidence that could’ve helped curtail the opioid epidemic. Matty thinks if she can get access to the company’s internal documents, she can find out who hid the documents, and thus hold accountable the person partially responsible for her daughter’s overdose (and so many more). Also: Matty’s extremely wealthy, and her husband is very much alive. But her daughter did die, and they are raising her son, Alfie (Aaron D. Harris).
Phew! Did you get all that? Honestly, I’m not sure I covered everything, but that, in a nutshell, is the Big Twist? of “Matlock” (2024). Not only does the pilot pull its rug out from under us with impressive precision, but it also distinguishes the new “Matlock” from the old “Matlock” in clear, unmistakable terms. Finally, a reboot that’s not a reboot, a revival that’s not a revival, and a new incarnation of I.P. that doesn’t require you to know the difference between those two distinct words. How refreshing!
Well, it was refreshing. For a few weeks. Having now screened the first six episodes of “Matlock,” it’s clear the series is still very much figuring itself out. Showrunner Jennie Snyder Urman (“Jane the Virgin”) went big right out of the gate, introducing a massive cast to carry out her ambitious story, and now she’s picking out which pieces are working, which aren’t, and how many they need for her hybrid series (half case-of-the-week procedural, half serialized mystery) to run at peak efficiency.
At times, it can feel like the only distinguishing aspect of the new “Matlock” is that it isn’t the old “Matlock.” The ongoing story arc takes up a lot of time, as does Matty’s husband, Edwin (Sam Anderson) and grandson. While it’s important for Matty to be able to vent to someone who knows what she’s really going through — network TV requires spelling a few things out for a network audience — Edwin and Alfie are energy drains. Her husband is way too sad, way too worried, and way too extraneous, while Alfie is fine as a living reminder of what’s at stake (his future and his mother’s legacy), but this isn’t a kid’s show. In fact, it’s the opposite. So let these golden oldies shine.
To that end, the episodic cases aren’t compelling enough. Instead of quirky hooks or creative sparks, they tend to be ordinary disputes centered around suffering clients. Some relate back to Matty’s personal history, which is fine — tying the defendant’s plight to the attorney’s is an efficient way to develop multiple characters at once — but far too many dip into melodramatic territory that “Matlock” can’t pull off. I get reminding audiences that what Matty is doing is serious. (It’s for her daughter!) But procedurals that hook you with fun twists and a folksy Kathy Bates (and are called “Matlock”) aren’t typically able to shift tones every 10 minutes. Dialing back the heavy stuff should make it easier to dial up the fun, which is where “Matlock” really starts to feel like its own thing.
Clearly, if it’s going to last more than season — heck, if it’s going to keep people watching for more than a few hours — “Matlock” needs to become its own show instead of merely being not that other show. And to Urman’s credit, it certainly can be. The main cast is already alight with chemistry. Billy (David Del Rio) and Sarah (Leah Lewis), Matlock’s two office-mates, make for endearing sidekicks. A few more of the firm’s employees flex high potential as recurring guest stars in coming weeks.
Best of all, Olympia (Skye P. Marshall) and Julian (Jason Ritter) are an ideal will-they-won’t-they couple. They’re both partners at the law firm, they’re in the process of getting divorced, and their boss, Senior (Beau Bridges), is siding with Olympia even though he’s Julian’s dad. All three seem to get along just fine, which makes the natural yearning for an old flame to rekindle all the more tantalizing. (Plus, Ritter has long deserved a regular showcase like only weekly TV can provide.) Yet what really seals the deal when it comes to the firm’s partners’ and our bond to them: They’re all prime suspects in Matty’s investigation! One of them concealed evidence to protect Big Pharma! My god, can you imagine if it’s Julian? That would ruin me!
If “Matlock” can keep twisting these emotional screws each week, while providing stronger cases and regular frivolity, it could prove to be more than a worthy successor to the original series. It could be a worthy companion for “Elsbeth,” Robert and Michelle King’s new series that’s already sliding all its pieces in place. Two CBS originals worth watching in the same season? Now that’s a twist I didn’t see coming.
Grade: B-
“Matlock” premiered Sunday, September 22 with a special sneak peek. New episodes air Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET on CBS and are available to stream on Paramount+.
Best of IndieWire
Sign up for Indiewire's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Solve the daily Crossword
