Watch Now
Where To Watch
| Buy on |
|
| Stream On |
|
Critic Reviews
- Critic score
- Publication
- By date
-
In Treatment is exhilarating.
-
Its capacity to maintain an unyielding grip on your attention becomes similarly evident fast, as does one's strong sense that that grip isn't going to weaken anytime soon.
-
Gabriel Byrne plays the part flawlessly, and he's up against tow especially rewarding talents. [1 Nov 2010, p.42]
-
In Treatment feels neither soapy nor formulaic, because of the intensity with which it's presented.
-
It all makes for lots of great soapy intrigue, and Byrne makes you believe he can solve everyone's problems. Except his own.
-
If you've been wondering about the art of series-TV writing, and how potent and resonant it truly can be, you need look no further than HBO's extraordinary new In Treatment.
-
The performances of the players are so uniformly terrific that you could do worse than to bring these deeply flawed characters into your living room on a regular basis, as this is a series for which TiVo was invented if ever there was one.
-
Cleverly conceived, it boasts a star-studded cast (Gabriel Byrne, Dianne Wiest, Blair Underwood) who achieve, at times, theatrical transcendence.
-
It's an engaging series that's definitely worth at least a trial spin.
-
Like a series of one-act two-handers--stage plays where just a pair of actors face off--this sneaky little gem steadily strips away its therapy patients' emotional defenses and excuses, exposing the raw fears and paralyzing reactions beneath.
-
If you like shrink-oriented, smartly written TV, In Treatment (Monday-Friday, 8:30 p.m., HBO) just might get you through the next few weeks with your sanity intact.
-
You get out what you put into it--even in the episodes that are weaker, I was rarely bored--and it's a consistent scripted oasis in a sea of shows where people take lie detector tests on camera.
-
This show is smart and rigorous, with a concentration that bores deep without growing dull.
-
It isn't high literature nor even perhaps high television, but In Treatment does have a welcome, and occasionally riveting, pulpy streak, perhaps inevitable with its promise of peeks behind doors that usually remain closed.
-
Some half-hour segments work spectacularly well and some don't. Like real life, I guess. But even the ones that don't work so well are very interesting.
-
Oddly enough, as much as I like In Treatment and its theatrically deft interplays, it doesn't get off to a great start with its Monday patient.
-
The first episode of this show will probably make you roll your eyes and beg the gods for mercy. Don't give up, though, because In Treatment is sharp and unique and worth the effort.
-
Though I took a strong dislike to tonight's patient, Laura--and was more than casually interested in no one but Wednesday's patient, Sophie--I've somehow made it through 23 episodes so far, and found something in each that advances the storyline.
-
The writing is uniformly strong and Byrne excellent not only at reading Paul's dialogue but conveying what he's withholding--his true feelings about his patients, his inner turmoil over his disintegrating home life. But the storylines vary wildly from riveting to tedious.
-
In Treatment is fascinating TV, but it's not a pleasant experience. Watching these therapy sessions is akin to eating your TV broccoli.
-
In Treatment's intensity does build as the weeks progress, but it's never completely absorbing, and you wonder how many viewers will commit to such a demanding regimen even with multiple plays to catch up on missed half-hours.
-
Even at its sporadic best, In Treatment comes across as no more than an actor's exercise, one likely to be best remembered for providing future acting students with a large supply of two-character scenes for class projects.
-
The gimmick's in the scheduling of this tediously claustrophobic though sometimes searing half-hour drama, set almost entirely in a psychotherapist's office.
-
In Treatment, while offering viewers a seemingly intimate look at this process, doesn't capture the emotional mise en scène: the characters on the show have all too easy a time expressing themselves, and the element of suspense is mostly absent.
-
Paul Weston's (Byrne) nonadventures straddle the realms of the scarcely credible and the incredibly boring.
-
The writing is forced and thin, some of the acting stagey, most of the characters unlikable and - the show-killer quality that HBO execs apparently failed to see--profoundly boring.
Awards & Rankings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 175 out of 193
-
Mixed: 8 out of 193
-
Negative: 10 out of 193
-
Jul 7, 2015
-
Dec 31, 2011
-
Nov 3, 2010