Bones

:

Season 1
  • Network: FOX
  • Series Premiere Date: Sep 13, 2005
Season #: 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
User Score
7.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 294 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 211 out of 294
  2. Mixed: 20 out of 294
  3. Negative: 63 out of 294
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. SusanM.
    Nov 9, 2005
    0
    Totally unoriginal crap. I couldn't make it through a full show. Ick.
  2. Coeco
    Dec 15, 2012
    1
    God-awful TV series which used to be decent around the first season or two due to unpredictability but now it's a big, growing pulsing lump of personal drama at every corner, pushing into the investigation-nature of the series like a sore thorn. While the make-up artists and the criminal scripts are very well polished, it's all ruined from the force-fed flood of "science" talk andGod-awful TV series which used to be decent around the first season or two due to unpredictability but now it's a big, growing pulsing lump of personal drama at every corner, pushing into the investigation-nature of the series like a sore thorn. While the make-up artists and the criminal scripts are very well polished, it's all ruined from the force-fed flood of "science" talk and repetitive voice-acting.… Expand
  3. TenaciousTexan
    Jan 4, 2011
    3
    This show started out really good (first 3 1/2 seasons) and is now swirling the bowl. If a viewer watches three show from the first 3 seasons and then three from the next 3 seasons, anyone can see the obvious decline of writing, acting and storylines. It is like they never thought it would last this long and failed to plan for a long running show and are now grasping at straws for each newThis show started out really good (first 3 1/2 seasons) and is now swirling the bowl. If a viewer watches three show from the first 3 seasons and then three from the next 3 seasons, anyone can see the obvious decline of writing, acting and storylines. It is like they never thought it would last this long and failed to plan for a long running show and are now grasping at straws for each new episode..All of the most climatic scenes of the B&B relationship have been really pretty anti-climatic - a lot of hype with little payoff. I'll never watch another Hart Hanson show again. What a disappointment this show turned out to be...… Expand
  4. TVCritical
    Jan 30, 2012
    1
    This show is a waste of time nothing about this is good and I really don't want to spend time critiquing this mess of a TV show the only thing good about this show is the extremely heavy use of gore and gory dead bodies which every time I see one I laugh so hard and when this show's gory dead bodies' is coupled with one of Bones' rare funny deadpan emotionless comments to a person's deathThis show is a waste of time nothing about this is good and I really don't want to spend time critiquing this mess of a TV show the only thing good about this show is the extremely heavy use of gore and gory dead bodies which every time I see one I laugh so hard and when this show's gory dead bodies' is coupled with one of Bones' rare funny deadpan emotionless comments to a person's death and their gory dead bodies I laugh even harder. This show is not funny at all I just find the humor in this show's stupidity this show is so bad it's funny. The worst part of this show is how bad they use science in this show which is suppose to be the main course of the show but they show it and serve it like barf on a plate that makes this show even more of a disappointment/disaster.… Expand
  5. Weeksie21
    Feb 14, 2013
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is used to be a show about scientists doing science, and Brennan's character being a believer in facts and evidence over faith in anything supernatural was central to this theme. The so-called epiphany she experiences in the latest episode (Shot in the Dark) along with the precedent of ghosts and psychics being verifiably real (Ghost in the Machine) goes against the every point of her character. More than that, it blatantly perpetrates the worst misconceptions about atheists: That not believing is the result of something 'being wrong' with the person; that atheists are cold, emotionless people who live unfulfilled lives devoid of any kind of warmth or happiness; that Brennan's non-belief has somehow limited her in her life, despite the fact that she's one of the most renowned and successful experts in her field.

    In the end, this episode, like so many before it, was nothing more than sloppy storytelling, lazy writing, and propaganda, plain and simple. And though I'm an atheist, I'm less offended by the (oh-so-common) prejudice against non-believers and more offended by the sheer absence of logical character behavior and progression.    … Expand
  6. Honest_Alex
    Apr 29, 2012
    1
    BONES IS FOR DICKHEADS. Now that I have your attention I believe that the tv series they call Bones could not possibily be worse. Although David Boreanaz does a half decent job However the female actress is happens to be utterley appauling. The science of the show is absolutley ridiculous. David must leave the show to reach his full potential and how can he possibly do that when he isBONES IS FOR DICKHEADS. Now that I have your attention I believe that the tv series they call Bones could not possibily be worse. Although David Boreanaz does a half decent job However the female actress is happens to be utterley appauling. The science of the show is absolutley ridiculous. David must leave the show to reach his full potential and how can he possibly do that when he is sorounded by incompotent idiots. I have an idea for a show called Gay Drug Wars it would star me and David and we would be homosexual partners in San Francisco and we would kick the drug Lords asses. My prediction 10/10 and we would win a joint Oscar. If you got this far Thanks you could be on my show too >3.… Expand
  7. sailboatsailor
    Feb 7, 2013
    0
    This is not a series that will appeal to men. The two lead actors are women and at every possible instance they will tell you how superior they think they are and that the men in their lives should be subservient. I was appalled when I watched two random episodes and swore I'd never watch another. Feminism is so yesterday, I won't have anyone force it down my throat. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!!
  8. Green
    Aug 30, 2006
    1
    Poor Actresss, poor writing, mediocre show.
  9. MattH
    Jan 5, 2006
    2
    Formulaic, boring, the heroine lacks credibility, the plots are thin and the co-stars chemistry is non-existent. CSI sets the standard; this one doesn't even come close.
  10. GaryD
    Mar 3, 2006
    2
    Another of the many shows with testosterone charged women playing wanabee cops.
  11. NickR
    May 17, 2006
    1
    I really don't mind when shows are predicated on fantasy with imaginary and fanciful plot points, but why do shows like this feel compelled to try to mix that fantasy with science. It's no wonder that the level of intelligence of an average American (when science is concerned) borders on nonexistant.
  12. Anna
    Aug 29, 2006
    2
    Why strong woman means hitting at least one person per episode for some tv writers? And Brennan is perfect at everything and the flaws (aka treating people like crap because she can) it's because her parents went missing and she close herself. As a woman, please, dont write more this pseudo feminist shows.
  13. PeterM
    Aug 29, 2006
    1
    I was not even bothering to write a review but after reading some die-hard fans opinion (I think that's why they gave 10 points) I can't avoid it: Bad lineament of characters, mediocre writing, not realistic science, predictable plots, and barely average acting from the female lead.
  14. Lima
    Aug 30, 2006
    1
    When I just read that someone said that Deschanel should be nominee for an Emmy ILMO... Really, because the only worst thing was Pompeo or Longoria playing dramatic (that was bad). But this not-Zooey can compite with those two for worst performance.
  15. Gaby
    Aug 30, 2006
    1
    please, someone gives acting lesson to this House wannabe.
  16. MVictorP
    Feb 20, 2007
    2
    Terrible feminazi fest, improbable plots, predictible stories, stereotypical characters, fantaisist technologies, wooden lead role... What's not to like? Gave it a 2 because of Boreanaz.
  17. cub
    Nov 19, 2005
    2
    inane writing
  18. CamD
    Feb 15, 2006
    3
    It tries way too hard to be "cool" and is a classic example of style over substance. The characters are unengaging, the plot lines boring, the hologram absurd and having Booth beat up someone every episode gets old very quickly. With so much quality TV around I won
  19. Misha
    Aug 28, 2006
    2
    I didn't want to give this rate because of Boreanaz, but the woman lead can't act: she either has the wooden expresion that means thinking or the teary eyes because of her family. The plots are predictable and they have their own universe, because there's no rule of known science is used here. Poor Boreanaz
  20. Simba
    Aug 29, 2006
    1
    David WHY?! I love you but I can't help it. This show sucks, the actress can't act and the blind fans says that it's because of the "character" when Bones is supoused to be anything but flat. Monotone and with three facial expresion, that's what Deschanel is. Colin is good, but her character is annoying. and don't start with the science and the Start-trek David WHY?! I love you but I can't help it. This show sucks, the actress can't act and the blind fans says that it's because of the "character" when Bones is supoused to be anything but flat. Monotone and with three facial expresion, that's what Deschanel is. Colin is good, but her character is annoying. and don't start with the science and the Start-trek technology that does not exist. Besides, funny how the reconstruction are made by an artist, a pintor, that's not suppoused to be a squint (a forensic) Please, give some credit to the audience!… Expand
  21. Laisa
    Aug 30, 2006
    1
    Poor version of Crossing Jordan with a woman that has no charisma and acts like a stick. She's so intelligent but often acts like an idiot and the age doesn't match any of the things they say she did. Poor boreanaz
  22. TheReviewer
    Aug 12, 2006
    2
    Bloody AWFUL. Female lead absolutely CANNOT act. Perhaps the worst crime drama currently on the air.
  23. laurat
    Aug 18, 2006
    2
    this is the x files2!!!!
  24. MichaelM
    Aug 28, 2006
    1
    It's CSI: highschool days with a wooden actress and a charismatic actor that alone can't save the series. My five years old cousin can guess who's the killer, why and how every episode.
  25. Grant
    Aug 29, 2006
    1
    I watched mostly for my sister (Boreanaz's fan) the second half of the season. He's good, even with the mediocre line he had to said. The woman is bad, annoying and makes her character unbelievable. and worst when she's saying the science speach (when she's suppoused to be confortable,) she cuts the phrases in a bad way and seems that she's repeating russian by I watched mostly for my sister (Boreanaz's fan) the second half of the season. He's good, even with the mediocre line he had to said. The woman is bad, annoying and makes her character unbelievable. and worst when she's saying the science speach (when she's suppoused to be confortable,) she cuts the phrases in a bad way and seems that she's repeating russian by fonetic. The chemistry, after watching Boreanaz with Charisma Carpenter and Julie Benz (I never was a Buffy fan) is not that impressive. And if you can't guess who's the killer it's because you had a lobotomy because it's the most predictable show… Expand
  26. Dunestrider
    Nov 20, 2014
    0
    This is truly a ridiculous show. First, in every episode, the FBI and the "Jeffersonian" get together to solve crimes, but in practically every single episode, the crime should not involve the FBI, it would be a local police matter. Second, either Emily Deschanel (who plays the titular character) is either an incredibly horrible actress, or she is purposefully playing a character who actsThis is truly a ridiculous show. First, in every episode, the FBI and the "Jeffersonian" get together to solve crimes, but in practically every single episode, the crime should not involve the FBI, it would be a local police matter. Second, either Emily Deschanel (who plays the titular character) is either an incredibly horrible actress, or she is purposefully playing a character who acts like a robot. In fact, the robot from the 1960's Lost in Space has more personality that "Dr. Temperance 'Bones' Brennan".… Expand
  27. Programming
    May 13, 2016
    0
    Idk who watches this junk. It's highly entertaining to watch all the criminalities imposed by the characters in this so called show. Of course it is called programming for a reason .
  28. Vl_cz
    Feb 18, 2017
    0
    The last 12 season just disgusting. They had to finish the show a couple of seasons ago. Now strike one of it completely gone bad. I hope it will not renew any more.
  29. Anon
    Aug 30, 2006
    1
    I know they use the excuse of character driven for all the holes in plots, mistakes in science, obvious twist, etc. Guess what? That's not an excuse! That's bad writing. And poor acting from this Deschanel chick. Boreanaz can make something more complex with his line, she doesn't have that capacity

Awards & Rankings

39
#39 Best TV Season of 2005
10
#10 Most Discussed TV Season of 2005
19
#19 Most Shared TV Season of 2005

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 29 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 29
  2. Mixed: 11 out of 29
  3. Negative: 5 out of 29
  1. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Matthew Gilbert
    70
    An engaging crime show that borrows plenty from the ''CSI" franchise but adds a layer of light character drama.
    Read full review
  2. Chicago Sun-Times
    Reviewed by: Doug Elfman
    88
    Boreanaz and Deschanel stir good chemistry as a crime-fighting duo.
    Read full review
  3. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Sid Smith
    40
    The scientific setup may be intriguing... But the dialogue, including the contrived sexual tension between Temperance and Seeley, is strictly canned and cutesy.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »