'Law and Order' was a brilliant show in its prime and overall is actually my favourite of the 'Law and Order' franchise and out of it, 'Special Victims Unit' (the longest running) and 'Criminal Intent'. Despite not feeling the same post-Briscoe. 'Special Victims Unit' started off brilliantly, but became hit and miss Season 7 onwards and has not lived up to the early seasons generally for a long time. 'Criminal Intent' also was truly fine in its early seasons, but became wildly inconsistent mid-run.
"Dining Out" is not one of the best episodes of Season 15 (or quite more like) or of 'Law and Order' (nowhere near), but it is certainly not a lesser episode. It is very good and at its best great, though the legal portions for me were a good deal more interesting than the policing. There is nothing inherently wrong really with "Dining Out", just that other episodes did execute individual components even better than here.
It does start off a little too on the nothing out of the ordinary side.
Also did think that the ending was slightly rushed.
However, everything else is extremely good and even great. The production values are slick and have a subtle grit, with an intimacy to the photography without being too claustrophobic. The music isn't used too much and doesn't get too melodramatic. The direction is tight but also accommodating enough, letting the story breathe while still giving it momentum thanks to some nice tension in the second half.
Moreover, the script is very well written and meaty, especially when things comes to trial and the whole intriguing conflict with the jury complications. The story is engrossing and thought probing, especially in the second half and the dilemmas of getting a conviction with the conflict that comes with the case. The performances are all great, Sam Waterston and Wendie Mallick are both strong and more than worthy opponents to each other. Susan Wands steals the episode as the most interesting character.
Concluding, very good. 8/10.
"Dining Out" is not one of the best episodes of Season 15 (or quite more like) or of 'Law and Order' (nowhere near), but it is certainly not a lesser episode. It is very good and at its best great, though the legal portions for me were a good deal more interesting than the policing. There is nothing inherently wrong really with "Dining Out", just that other episodes did execute individual components even better than here.
It does start off a little too on the nothing out of the ordinary side.
Also did think that the ending was slightly rushed.
However, everything else is extremely good and even great. The production values are slick and have a subtle grit, with an intimacy to the photography without being too claustrophobic. The music isn't used too much and doesn't get too melodramatic. The direction is tight but also accommodating enough, letting the story breathe while still giving it momentum thanks to some nice tension in the second half.
Moreover, the script is very well written and meaty, especially when things comes to trial and the whole intriguing conflict with the jury complications. The story is engrossing and thought probing, especially in the second half and the dilemmas of getting a conviction with the conflict that comes with the case. The performances are all great, Sam Waterston and Wendie Mallick are both strong and more than worthy opponents to each other. Susan Wands steals the episode as the most interesting character.
Concluding, very good. 8/10.
