Disregard the other rather juvenile review posted. This was a quality show that must be looked at through the prism of history. I saw this as a child with my brother and it was enjoyable. You can't expect 2016 realism in a show from the early 70s like the previous reviewer did. What was interesting was George Stanford Brown. He was the star of the show and always acted with a lot of humanity, feeling and dignity. Michael Ontkean plays the young innocent in a Keanu Reeves kind of way. Kate Jackson is very beautiful. Gerald O' Loughlin and Sam Melville are dependable actors. This was the first episode of the series and it shows. It's a little melodramatic in parts and wears its issues on its sleeve. But the show settles down nicely as it goes and remains quality entertainment. Also if you stick with The Rookies, you'll see a lot of great actors in early bit parts.
3 Reviews
Good, Remember, it Takes Time for a Series to Develop
samwa-2731119 October 2019
It's essential, to know that every show takes up to half a season, to be good.
Examples, Bonanza, Five-O, The Mod Squad, Barnaby Jones, and many others, the first six or more episodes, were not great.
I saw the Rookies from day one, in 72.
Then DVDs, four years ago, then now. I usually see episodes 6-24, then go to the first ones.
I've accepted the fact that the Rookies was meant to be preachy.
There is no question about that.
Even Nurse Danko, is always, and I mean, always, the strong woman, with wisdom and keeps everyone together.
Being created by a woman, Rita Lakin, they make Jill Danko, to never be wrong about anything.
So, accepting that the show is social worker first, police second, has helped me.
Here, the gangs were fairly accurate.
The city is fictitious, which is rare, but it is obviously filmed in Los Angeles, (by the many landmarks), but for 1972, the portrayal of gangs, was about right, even for a California city.
All acting was good, and remember, they really try to show that they care about some of the crooks.
Good episode, especially for the first one.
Examples, Bonanza, Five-O, The Mod Squad, Barnaby Jones, and many others, the first six or more episodes, were not great.
I saw the Rookies from day one, in 72.
Then DVDs, four years ago, then now. I usually see episodes 6-24, then go to the first ones.
I've accepted the fact that the Rookies was meant to be preachy.
There is no question about that.
Even Nurse Danko, is always, and I mean, always, the strong woman, with wisdom and keeps everyone together.
Being created by a woman, Rita Lakin, they make Jill Danko, to never be wrong about anything.
So, accepting that the show is social worker first, police second, has helped me.
Here, the gangs were fairly accurate.
The city is fictitious, which is rare, but it is obviously filmed in Los Angeles, (by the many landmarks), but for 1972, the portrayal of gangs, was about right, even for a California city.
All acting was good, and remember, they really try to show that they care about some of the crooks.
Good episode, especially for the first one.
Pretty dumb--and it's hard to imagine that this was episode #1~
planktonrules22 February 2013
When I was a kid, my family always watched "The Rookies" among other shows. However, I was a kid and have no idea if the show is any good. So, tonight I put in the first disc from the series and was shocked--shocked at how dumb episode #1 was. I am talking about REALLY dumb! So dumb you wonder why they began with this sort of episode and not something stronger!
"Concrete Valley Neon Sky" is set in a magical fairy world they call 'the inner city'. I say this because it looks NOTHING like a real tough city--nothing. First off, no place (even Detroit) has trash EVERYWHERE like this place...and like this trash....it's so clean looking trash! The 'gangs' are hilarious--the guys mostly look like 30 year old college students--not tough hooligans. And, these gangs are 100% integrated and very well dressed--with button up shirts and no holes in their clothes. It comes off as hilarious--fake and very, very funny.
The new rookies in the department (in other words, the black guy) are asked by their lieutenant to go into 'the bad part of town' to get these hooligans to start hanging out at the new rec center. But, the thugs have contempt for the police, so the black guy heads their after his friend is beaten up and 'gets real with them' and eventually wins their hearts like Sidney Poitier won hearts in "To Sir, With Love"! It all ends with a funny scene with a guy who really over-emotes and sweats like he's been sitting in a sauna! To say this is fake and contrived is an understatement. To make it worse, it's not especially enjoyable or entertaining. Either my family was stupid (a distinct possibility) for watching the show or the show got a lot better.
"Concrete Valley Neon Sky" is set in a magical fairy world they call 'the inner city'. I say this because it looks NOTHING like a real tough city--nothing. First off, no place (even Detroit) has trash EVERYWHERE like this place...and like this trash....it's so clean looking trash! The 'gangs' are hilarious--the guys mostly look like 30 year old college students--not tough hooligans. And, these gangs are 100% integrated and very well dressed--with button up shirts and no holes in their clothes. It comes off as hilarious--fake and very, very funny.
The new rookies in the department (in other words, the black guy) are asked by their lieutenant to go into 'the bad part of town' to get these hooligans to start hanging out at the new rec center. But, the thugs have contempt for the police, so the black guy heads their after his friend is beaten up and 'gets real with them' and eventually wins their hearts like Sidney Poitier won hearts in "To Sir, With Love"! It all ends with a funny scene with a guy who really over-emotes and sweats like he's been sitting in a sauna! To say this is fake and contrived is an understatement. To make it worse, it's not especially enjoyable or entertaining. Either my family was stupid (a distinct possibility) for watching the show or the show got a lot better.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews