The 2010 British series, Accused, offered an interesting structure for a series and managed to back it up with some great execution. Primarily a crime anthology, the hook of the show was that it centered around a new criminal justice story each episode, told from the point of view of the defendant. Each episode begins with an accused who is currently awaiting their verdict. The episode then largely consists of flashbacks to how the person came to be in the predicament they find themselves in.
A novel idea, and certainly one that could easily translate well with US audiences once some updates and good old-fashioned Hollywood flair were added in — or so it seemed. Unlike the British rendition, the US version of Accused hasn't so far managed to muster the same acclaim as its counterpart. In fact, most critics generally agree that the show fell flat in comparison. There appears to be a few standard reasons why, so here's our take on why the US version of Accused has so far been a huge disappointment.
Unfulfilled Promise
Following the successful British show which became an award-winning series, the US version was picked up by Fox and aired its first season earlier this year. Following the same basic blueprint, the show seemingly had all the ingredients to succeed, at least in a critical sense. However, in comparison, this version seems entirely listless and uninspired, only mustering a paltry 56% rating so far.
That may seem like It's because the show doesn't offer much in the way of originality, since it's a remake. However, that's not entirely true. After all, the shows were released more than a decade apart. This one was also given a uniquely American feel and an updated discourse, so there were at least attempts to bring some originality to it. Yet, these traits, and the fact that it was co-produced by Howard Gordon, the brilliant mind behind hit procedurals and crime thrillers like 24 and Homeland, still wasn't enough for the show to resonate with critics.
What Went Wrong with Accused?
The answer to this question, is probably, "nothing in particular." The US version of Accused is a perfectly good show, well-made, and has some very interesting episodes. However, the fact that it's an anthology show means, by design, it lacks an overall unifying theme.
With each episode being self-contained, it's birth in the age of binge-watching mania and streaming giants makes it seem incoherent at times, even though it's an anthology. As a meditation on crime and punishment, the show is also reflective of many things — perhaps too many things.
Too Many Cooks
Accused sometimes feels like it tries to inject too much Americanism into it. This is most likely so it could feel like a jazzed up version of the British show, with uniquely modern US attachés acting as ambassadors for popular American cultural and the country's hottest socio-political agendas.
Unfortunately, this sometimes gives the show the feel of one that fails at being edgy and contentious, while coming off as contrived instead. With a concept that was originally premised on the justice system, this one all too often abandons this theme in favor of bemoaning too many social ills that deliberately only finds the most favor with liberal America.
While there's nothing inherently wrong with taking a stance and exploring important issues, the problem is it sometimes feels like every modern American TV show and movie is doing the exact same thing. Rather than giving these topics punch, shows like Accused now simply feel like just another tired attempt to flog the same horses over and over.
While these horses are by no means dead, American shows still never miss an opportunity to keep flogging. Unfortunately for this show, since these issues are explored in an anthology format, none of them seem to ever get the full treatment they deserve, merely snippets that hint at their importance, before flitting off to champion another cause by the next episode.
Here's a little of what The Hollywood Reporter had to say about the show.
"The problem isn’t that its goals seem to shift from chapter to chapter, though they do: Some episodes, like the harrowing Gordon-penned premiere “Scott’s Story,” raise the implicit question of what anyone might have done in its lead’s shoes, while others build toward more straightforward notes of tragedy or triumph. It’s that Accused lacks the conviction to go very far in any direction, and thus ends up a show about the criminal justice system that has curiously little to say about it."
The Cast Differences
In a straight comparison, the British version feels far more relatable at times. Aside from this, there's a very different feel of how the whole thing is executed. The US version is more modern and certainly looks that way, however, it's also this trait that takes away from how much more gritty it ought to have been.
The British version also only ever featured ten episodes across two seasons. However, the US one already has 15 episodes in its first season, and has been renewed for a second one, so there are more on the way — albeit now delayed until 2024 in the aftermath of the SAG-AFTRA strikes.
This unspoken immediate shift in this version's lengthier offering is likely steeped in network TV's thinly veiled and notorious need to grind every cent out of the shows it backs. Also, unlike the British version, this one has sprung for a massive cast of mostly up-and-coming or mid-tier cast members.
Respectfully, the biggest names you'll come across so far in Accused are the likes of Michael Chiklis, Rachel Bilson, Whitney Cummings, Abigail Breslin, and Malcolm Jamal-Warner. In comparison, the British version featured Oscar-worthy stars like Naomie Harris, Sean Bean, and Andy Serkis. With all due respect to the cast of the US version, there's an obvious difference in quality there that simply can't be overlooked when comparing the shows.