Evil

A relentlessly clever mash-up procedural, merging psychological medical mystery with techno-crime and spiritual struggle. Its paranoia is far-reaching, and very bleak.

While the supernatural can take this in directions you probably don’t want to go, the researchers (played by Mike Colter, Katja Herbers and Aasif Mandvi) do get moments of clarity. The show’s best bet is Michael Emerson as a pot stirrer who uses technology to cause problems.

Evil never feels unfocused. It shifts between tones easily and authoritatively. Some series take a while to find their footing and rhythm. Based on the first four episodes, Evil is immediately confident in its multifaceted identity and interest in raising ideological questions, giving it a depth too often lacking in broadcast television.

What sounds painfully familiar -- in a "A priest and a psychologist walk into a police station" sort of way -- proves unexpectedly compelling.

The show’s so-far two-handed central relationship — believably at-odds without being stagily prickly — is helped along by two strong performances. ... By the time the episode ends, the viewer will already have come to expect a great deal from “Evil,” a show whose classically elegant construction and sharp sense of itself augur great things ahead.

There’s an enjoyably spooky “X-Files” vibe and also a little too on-the-nose will-they-or-won’t-they? chemistry between the married Kristin and the presumably celibate David. “Evil” evinces a welcome cheekiness.

Though Evil manages some truly unnerving moments, particularly the scenes with the lascivious demon, it's more about ideas than the pea-soup-vomiting stuff audiences usually expect from stories about demons and exorcism. In post-Kardashian America, it may be too late to convince viewers that evil is more than a matter of table manners.

Getting past the easy signifiers to what really distinguishes David’s and Kristen’s (or Ben’s or Leland’s) views on their intended subjects will help give those characters — and the viewers who follow them — better answers. Even if those perspectives are different, it’s the discussions of those diverging ideas of obligation, morality, and belief that separate this from recent shows that have tried to bring religious ideas into a mainstream offering. So far, it’s an admirable attempt, if sometimes overly simplistic. If there’s a willingness to go further, there are deeper mysteries waiting to be explored.

"Evil is the best new broadcast show of the season by a considerable margin, and it will be very fun to watch it settle into itself and play with its form and tone even more, the way The Good Wife did. Hopefully it's not too weird for primetime."

The pilot spins an involving yarn, only to rush through it and wrap it up in too tidy a fashion. But the foundation is strong, and I’m interested to see where Herbers takes this complex character of hers. Mulder and Scully might not be coming back to primetime anytime soon… but Evil‘s dynamic duo might be the next best thing.

This is my way of saying that Evil is decent and, by whatever measuring stick I'm using on this fall's broadcast premieres, probably better than decent. It's a show with some tonal ambition, blending scares and laughs and occasional philosophical and spiritual investigation.

Some of the hallmarks of those [Robert and Michelle King] shows are present: crisp pace and fluent dialogue; a self-conscious focus on trendy tech; a female lead struggling with work-life balance (the psychologist, played by Katja Herbers); the pleasure of Mike Colter’s laid-back basso in the role of the team leader. ... The show drifts along in a nebulous and not very interesting middle ground. ... If the Kings commit to the horror — and give Emerson more to do — “Evil” might become a less refined but more entertaining show.