“Kathy Bates’ new Matlock lives and dies in its twist”

There’s a lot going on in the new Matlock series – or, as Matty (Kathy Bates) would say, “There are more moving parts than a Swiss watch in a sandstorm!”

First, there’s the premise that Matty tells anyone who will listen: After the deaths of her husband and daughter Madeline “Matty” Matlock, Esq. She talks herself into a new job at the prestigious law firm Jacobson & Moore to support her young grandson. She’s happy to start at the bottom—alongside two other junior associates in a cramped three-desk office—but the cash-strapped lawyer is eager to move on to the firm’s most lucrative cases: pharmaceuticals. Oh, and her name? That’s just a coincidence. She is not related to Andy Griffith’s defense attorney because he is just a character on TV!

But then comes the twist: at the end of the first episode it turns out that Matty isn’t called Matlock at all. Her real name is Madeline Kingston, and she hides her identity behind a very famous nickname because she believes someone at Jacobson & Moore helped suppress evidence that could have helped curb the opioid epidemic. Matty believes that if she gains access to the company’s internal documents, she can find out who hid the documents and thus bring to justice the person partially responsible for her daughter’s overdose (and many others). Also: Matty is extremely wealthy and her husband is very lively. But her daughter did dies and they raise their son Alfie (Aaron D. Harris).

Phew! Did you understand all of that? Honestly, I’m not sure I’ve covered everything, but that, in a nutshell, is the Big Twist™ of Matlock (2024). The pilot not only pulls the ground out from under our feet with impressive precision, but also distinguishes the new “Matlock” from the old “Matlock” in clear, unmistakable terms. Finally, a reboot that isn’t a reboot, a revival that isn’t a revival, and a new incarnation of IP that doesn’t require you to know the difference between those two different words. How refreshing!

Well, it Was refreshing. For a few weeks. Now that we’ve seen the first six episodes of Matlock, it’s clear that the series is still finding itself. A huge success from the start, showrunner Jennie Snyder Urman (“Jane the Virgin”) introduced a huge cast to deliver her ambitious story. Now she’s figuring out which parts work, which don’t, and how many they need so that her hybrid series (half procedural case of the week, half serialized crime thriller) runs at peak efficiency.

Sometimes it feels like the only distinguishing feature of the new “Matlock” is that it is not the old “Matlock”. The ongoing story arc takes up a lot of time, as does Matty’s husband Edwin (Sam Anderson) and his grandson. While it’s important for Matty to have someone to turn to who knows what she’s really going through – network television requires making some things clear to network audiences – Edwin and Alfie are energy guzzlers. Her husband is far too sad, far too worried and far too inconsequential, while Alfie is fine as a living reminder of what’s at stake (his future and his mother’s legacy), but this isn’t a children’s show. In fact, the opposite is true. Let these golden oldies shine.

For this purpose, the episodic cases are not convincing enough. Instead of quirky hooks or creative impulses, these tend to be run-of-the-mill disputes involving suffering clients. Some draw on Matty’s personal story, which is fine – linking the defendant’s plight to that of the lawyer is an efficient way to develop multiple characters at once – but far too many delve into melodramatic territory that “Matlock” can’t create. I remind the audience that what Matty is doing is serious. (It’s for her Daughter!) But procedurals that captivate you with funny twists and a folksy Kathy Bates (and are called “Matlock”) usually aren’t capable of changing tone every 10 minutes. Stripping back the heavy stuff should make it easier to ramp up the fun, and then “Matlock” really feels like its own thing.

It’s clear that “Matlock” needs to become its own show if it’s going to last longer than the season – hell, if people want to watch for more than a few hours – and not just not be the other show. And to Urman’s credit, it has to be said that it is entirely possible. The chemistry between the main actors is already good. Billy (David Del Rio) and Sarah (Leah Lewis), Matlock’s two office colleagues, are lovable buddies. Several more of the company’s employees show great potential as recurring guest stars in the coming weeks.

And best of all, Olympia (Skye P. Marshall) and Julian (Jason Ritter) are an ideal couple. They are both partners in the law firm, are currently getting divorced and their boss, Senior (Beau Bridges), is still on Olympia’s side He is Julian’s father. All three seem to get along well, which makes the natural longing for an old flame to rekindle all the more tempting. (Plus, Ritter has long deserved the kind of regular exposure that only weekly television can provide.) But what really seals the deal when it comes to the firm’s partners and our bond with them: They’re all prime suspects in Matty’s investigation! One of them hid evidence to protect Big Pharma! My God, can you imagine it’s Julian? That would ruin me!

If “Matlock” can continue to tweak these emotional dials each week while offering stronger cases and regular frivolity, it could prove to be a more than worthy successor to the original series. It could be a worthy companion to “Elsbeth,” Robert and Michelle King’s new series, which is already well underway. Two must-watch CBS originals in the same season? This is a twist I didn’t expect.

Grade: B-

“Matlock” premiered on Sunday, September 22nd with a special sneak peek. New episodes air Thursdays at 9 p.m. ET on CBS and are available to stream on Paramount+.