2 out of 5

Developed by: Jennie Snyder Ulman

I understand that it’s important for media to have a hook, and we think we’re past the point where “law procedural led by a folksy old-timer” would be enough, so: let’s add meta somewhere in there, and let’s make it topical, such that this Matlock revival becomes a show in which Kathy Bates plays a character purposefully name-checking the old TV series – which exists in-universe – and is (spoilers for the first episode) sneaking her way into a law firm in order to take down Big Pharma from within. While all of this – having Bates as the lead; having opioids as the topical topic of choice; being Matlock – is parents-TV bait in the first place, the extra layer of plotting above the usual procedural stuff comes across as a cringey way of sneaking it into primetime television or to expose it to younger eyeballs, since we’re also potentially capitalizing on Bates’ appearances on American Horror Story.

In short, Matlock 2024 is perfectly fine when it’s Kathy Bates’ Matty Matlock, working at the Jacobson Moore lawfirm, and bringing her homespun wisdom to bear on young whipper-snapper cases involving social media and the like. The younger generation of leads attorneys Olympia (Skye P. Marshall) and Julian (Jason Ritter) provide Bates with solid actors to pair off against as straight men to her charms, and at the same job-level playing field we get the associates Billy (David Del Rio) and Sarah (Leah Lewis), whose energy / competitiveness provide ongoing olds versus youngs humor, as well as moral moments where Matty can act as parent to these surrogate children.

But Matlock 2024 is painfully forced when it’s trying to goddamn solve opioids by having Matty work “undercover” at Jacobson Moore, helped along by her husband (Sam Anderson) and grandson (Aaron Harris), acting essentially as the off-site tech resource for bugging cellphones and breaking into email and the like. The premise of a retired elder needing to get back into the modern legal landscape is plenty; this added plotline is very clearly just for “intrigue,” and leads to an ongoing stream of dumb contrivances that are just fake setups for tension – e.g. whoops, Matty dropped her real ID and now they’ll figure out she just faked the Matlock last name for recognition and etc. (And don’t stop to think too hard about how that kinda muddies using that name as a premise for a reboot in the first place.)

I appreciate that compressing the opioid issue down to One Bad Lawfirm is a TV simplification; but we’re also dealing with the gladhanding of a network like CBS, and that this show isn’t a King creation, so actually naming names and trying to treat this like legit commentary is off the table. Thus, opioids are reduced to an issue to solve, and that aforementioned TV simplification makes it feel all the more shallow and almost insulting to those sufferings with the realities of the issue. But even set all that aside, and assume it was something the show was actually potentially able to tackle – the combination of the plotlines on Matlock is sinfully clunky, to the extent that it might as well be two different shows. If it was truly a secondary plotline, this might be less disruptive, but it’s not: it’s given equal time.

The final equation is thus an average procedural combined with a poorly conceived and superficial Agenda show, with no actual combination happening.