Breaking In

:

Season 2
  • Network: FOX
  • Series Premiere Date: Apr 6, 2011
Season #: 2, 1
Metascore
48

Mixed or average reviews - based on 4 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 4
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 4
  3. Negative: 1 out of 4
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Stream On
Buy on
Stream On

Critic Reviews

  1. San Francisco Chronicle
    Reviewed by: David Wiegand
    Mar 6, 2012
    75
    Mullally is certainly another reason to watch the show, but her presence also works to solve another problem: cast dynamics.
  2. Uncle Barky
    Reviewed by: Ed Bark
    Mar 6, 2012
    50
    There are signs of improvement, though, even if Mullally tends to over-do it in the "brash and bold" department while holdover Christian Slater remains in place as the downgraded former head dude known only as Oz.
  3. The Huffington Post
    Reviewed by: Maureen Ryan
    Mar 6, 2012
    40
    It doesn't seem to know who it wants to focus on or what it wants to do (the security missions, such as they are, are unexceptional afterthoughts).
  5. People Weekly
    Reviewed by: Tom Gliatto
    Mar 12, 2012
    25
    Saddled with stars who neither clash nor click, breaking In appears to be broken. [19 Mar 2012, p.46]
    All this critic's reviews

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
5.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 10 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 4 out of 10
  2. Mixed: 5 out of 10
  3. Negative: 1 out of 10
  1. SwarleyStinson
    Apr 17, 2012
    6
    The original cast are great and funny enough for the show to not deserve its cancellation, but Mulally really does ruin every scene shes in,The original cast are great and funny enough for the show to not deserve its cancellation, but Mulally really does ruin every scene shes in, playing basically the exact same character as Karen but here shes just out of place and annoying. Also she brings with her an assistant who is not as bad but turns half the script into taking the piss out of her accent.… Full Review »
  2. jack2059
    Mar 8, 2012
    4
    Breaking in Season One wasn't a stand out program, it offered small laughs and some nice characters at best. In the latter 2 or 3 shows thoughBreaking in Season One wasn't a stand out program, it offered small laughs and some nice characters at best. In the latter 2 or 3 shows though it began to find some form, the episodes got better and Dutch became a more like-able guy, it was starting to work. ....I was shocked to see Season Two beginning other day and even more shocked to see it was being transformed. After the first episode i have to wonder why they bothered, what little enjoyability there was looks to be gone for now. Mullally has arrived and instantly made herself incredibly annoying, sticking herself right in your face with her marmite voice and brash dialogue. ....With Dutches dissapearance only slightly explained, the disguise guy completely missing and Melanie being a part time character im not sure where the success can come from, and how we will cope with whats left.....One thing for sure though, Oz will continue to please with Christian Slaters great performance.… Full Review »
  3. JennetP
    Mar 7, 2012
    7
    A pleasant surprise, seeing this show back. Or is it? TV has no shortage of dramadies about criminals working on the side of the angels, andA pleasant surprise, seeing this show back. Or is it? TV has no shortage of dramadies about criminals working on the side of the angels, and some ("Leverage," White Collar") are very good. So we don't really need another one. Nor are we lacking shows about teams of social misfits, which invariably include at least one case of relapsing-remitting Asperger's and one really hot girl. So what does "Breaking In" really offer? For me, it's the relationship between Oz, the boss, and his underlings. The role of Oz is perfect for Christian Slater, an actor whose lack of range is more than compensated by his mastery of characters touched by the demonic. A paranoid control freak with a wicked sense of humor, Oz enjoys convincing his employees that he is omniscient and pretty darn close to omnipotent. A running joke has him using office technology--a copy machine. a power point presentation--to make quips while visibly out of the room, responding very specifically to each utterance his underlings make until they have to admit he could not have pre-scripted his end of the conversation. Rich, powerful, and supremely well-connected, Oz keeps everyone but his on-again-off-again wife in awe, which I find quite entertaining. So, pleased though I am to see the show return, I have some doubts about its new direction. As everyone knows by now, Oz sold his firm to a giant corporation, making Megan Mullally his boss. If there's an actor on earth who gives Slater the appearance of range, it's Mullally, who becomes the same horny, smart-mouthed rich **** every time someone trains a camera on her. She was mildly amusing in "Will and Grace," but, if last night was any indication, she promises to mess with what's best about "Breaking In." I get the comic potential in watching Oz try to preserve his allure of omnipotence without even a boss's authority, and I'll try to keep an open mind, but if the price is an endless stream of reverse-sexual-harassment jokes, with or without air tushy-squeezing, I don't expect to last. I have to wonder: what is Fox thinking? Just last year, a new female boss helped kill off the more successful "Human Target," and Indira Varma is far more talented and appealing than Mullally. I keep reading that such changes are designed to "attract women viewers," so, as such a viewer, let me proclaim that I am not attracted by the arbitrary addition of actors with two X chromosomes. Here's a radical notion: to attract women viewers, try good writing, good acting, and the occasional fresh idea! And, when something ain't broke, don't Mullally it!… Full Review »
See all user reviews »