City of Angels

So far, City of Angels is a solid, fairly smart series that doesn't quite reach out and grab the viewer as Barclay and Bochco's previous collaborations have done. But a cast capable of doing that when the writing hits its stride is definitely in place. [16 Jan 2000, p.L5]

Underwood and Fox are good together, and this is solid, watchable drama that deserves longevity, skin color notwithstanding. [15 Jan 2000, p.F2]

Both good and bad. It has some obvious strengths (a strong, easy-to-like cast, a distinctive urban look) and one or two structural weaknesses (conventional plots, flat attempts at humor). If the creators - including Steven Bochco - can edge City of Angels a few more inches into the originality zone in the next few weeks, it has the potential to join TV's growing collection of quality hour-long series. [15 Jan 2000]

City of Angels has all the problems of the genre from predictable bad guys to overblown acting to a dark unrelenting tone of anxiety. The drama, though, is not simply a multiracial version of every other medical show. [14 Jan 2000, p.17]

An above-average series with a largely minority cast as well as a significant minority presence behind the cameras. [12 Jan 2000]

This show has a long way to go. [14 Jan 2000]

The predictability of it -- extending even to the fact that, yes, Underwood's and Fox's characters were once engaged -- is a shame. If a series is going to try to be groundbreaking in one respect, it ought to have the guts to do so in others as well, especially midway through the TV season, when the more interesting fare tends to be allowed to surface.

The opening scenes of City of Angels" are so poorly written and in such stunningly poor taste that I was tempted to declare this one D.O.A. after just 10 minutes. And I'm afraid many viewers will do the same, which is unfortunate for City of Angels because eventually the show does find its way. [15 Jan 2000]

But with its one-dimensional characters and relentless preaching, it isn't compelling entertainment.