“Psych” is an incredibly easy show to dissect, thrash and generally make fun of in nasty, yet truthful ways. I could probably go an a marathon-esque rant about all the things that could’ve been better, and no-one of any wits at all would’ve argued against it. ‘Cause when you boil away the water and poke through the charred remains, you have to admit that “Psych” lacks some very vital ingredients that I’d normally demand without hesitation.
Did you notice the italics? They’re there for a reason, you know.
Normally I’d be happy blast “Psych” into American Television Hell where it by all accounts should belong. But I won’t do that since despite all its shortcomings and glaring faults, “Psych” is actually a good show that I really liked. That doesn’t exclude the facts that it could’ve been a lot better - love does blind, but it doesn’t cut off your entire head - with a few tweaks and additions.

“Psych” is a detective show about a guy named Shawn, whose deductive reasoning and observational skills are so utterly spectacular that he can tell you ten things you didn’t know about yourself just by looking at you. He can even solve real crimes just by watching the television; in fact, he’s already pulled that feat off a number of times. One day he solves a crime by watching a news report, calls in the tip and heads off to the police station to collect his well deserved reward. However, this time around he’s solved a crime so complex that the only sane explanation for it is that he’s in on the whole shebang. Well, either that, or he’s a psychic and has supernaturally divined the answer from the very ether itself. Which for some insane reason sounds all the more likely to the police than the real reason.
Now Shawn has to carry on the lie of being psychic so he won’t have to go to jail for purgery or what-not. His fellow “psychic detective” is his childhoodfriend Gus, who actually has a real job but doesn’t mind being dragged around town while Shawn “divines” the answers to cases the police can’t crack.
“Psych”’s closest cousin in the TV world would appear to be a cop show like “Bones” or “C.S.I.”. They’re all shows that hinges their plots on one way to reaching the conclusion, whether it’s through some small remnant of DNA or, in this case, “psychic abilities”. I say “appear to be” the closes cousin, ’cause in truth they’re actually pretty far removed from one another (they probably don’t even exchange Christmas cards). The best comparisons for “Psych” is rather a show like “Reaper”, that settles for funny comments and witty observations above making the story believable. And just like “Reaper”, “Psych” does this to the extent that you find yourself not giving a shit if the plot’s so thin it makes cellophane look dense.
So yeah, “Psych” is actually a comedy show in slightly different package, but numb relief doesn’t always equal “dumb relief” (though the humour isn’t exactly high-brow all the time either). There’s nothing wrong with liking a show that isn’t particularly realistic, yet incredibly charming and entertaining. “Psych” has all those qualities; witty banter, funny situations and as the show progresses, some quite well-built central characters.
The thing I really missed, though, was an overreaching plot arc. Any respectable show has one, and every show that has one - nearly no matter how lame it is - is better for it. I can understand that the writers of “Psych” are loath to include them because of the somewhat reduced accessibility to new viewers, but I can’t see why there isn’t included some small measure of character development. They get expanded upon, but no matter how many new addendums you include, you can’t shroud the fact that they’re terribly stoic and, after a while, a bit predictable.
Also the “amazing and mind-blowing” solutions to the crimes got a bit predictable by the end. Yeah, we get it, all right? It’s always the hawt girl that Shawn takes a liking to that’s done the dark deed (and if she hasn’t, you can bet your ass she’s done something else that’s just about as nasty).
All in all I’d say that “Psych” is a solid show if you judge it by what it sets out to do. And that is, after all, a reviewers responsibility. That’s why I’d heartily recommend this show to anyone looking for something easy to rest their ever-spinning eyes on. Life is at it’s best when you’re having fun, and television isn’t even remotely different in that regard.
7.0 /10 (weak)

Posts
Only having seen three episodes yet, I heartily agree with everything you write here, though I think “Chuck” is a closer link than “Reaper”. The oddball civilian stumbling around noticing things the cops don’t leading to crimes being solved seems more Chuck’y than Reaper’y, and the humour is pretty much the same on all three shows (though I’ll grant you that Reaper and Psych is a good bit lighter than Chuck is).
I’d also say it reminds me a lot of House M.D. - not the show, but the character. House uses the exact same deductive skills as Shawn (or Holmes, if you’re into the classics) to impress, confound and intimidate, i.e. he uses them in a way which is dramatically very, very similar. The big difference, of course, is that the SHOW “House” isn’t about this at all. His deductive skills might be applied, but his enormously astute attention rarely comes into centre, whereas on “Psych”, that’s all the show’s about.
Interestingly, they both have a rough relationship with their fathers.
Be that as it may, my point with even mentioning House in this context is that the premise isn’t that original, but it’s damned cool. Any character who can do the Holmesian Miracles of Deduction automatically seems Awesome. With House, that awesome is just the frosting, but with Shawn it is the one thing the character has going for him.
Which is dramatically interesting, isn’t it? He’s a lazy, selfish, rude and rather childish guy who only has one thing that makes him stand out - the thing his father drilled into him his entire childhood. Which made him hate his father.
I find that to be interesting, and I’m very sad to see the show underplaying the potential of it so much - and also sad to, from your review, have my expectations that it won’t really get much better anytime soon confirmed.
Still, it’s entertaining. Especially the sceptical cop and the dad are awesome, and Dulè Hill is a great enough actor to actually bring some life and interestingness into the flat straight-man sidekick-character of Gus. I’ll probably end up following this one all the way unless it starts taking a definite turn for the worse.
5. March 2008 @ 17:18 ( Permalink )
I’ve only seen the pilot for “Chuck”, so I don’t think it’d be fair for me to use it in this context, though I do agree with you from what little I’ve seen of it. Maybe I’ll watch the rest of that show when I’m done with season 2 of “Psych”. It’ll probably serve nicely as a mood-changer from season 3 of “Deadwood” (expect that review sometime in the easter).
There actually was a paragraph in this review where I compared Shawn to Gregory House, but I deleted it when I edited the post. Yeah, they’re alike in the way solve their cases, and that’s nifty, but aside from that capacity I would be hard pressed to name any other similarities. However, it was because you said this show was” kinda like ‘House’ ” that made me watch it, so maybe I shouldn’t have been so eager to use my backspace key…
I can soothe your nerves right here and now and tell you that the show’s pretty consistent. You do get some slightly better and slightly too goofy episodes, but nothing too off-putting. The weakest episode I’ve seen so far is actually the second season ’s première, which was very disappointing. The best episode so far is hard to say since they’re pretty blurred together in my mind, but I do remember enjoying the “Sci-Fi convention” episode a lot (for obvious reasons…).
(Hey, Loki: I bet your inner-geek was pleased when they “explained” why Cut-throat Bitch suddenly got replaced in the second episode of season 2. I was a bit bummed out by that since I think she’s a pretty good actor, but the replacement does a nice job of it, too. She’s pretty, so I’m not complaining
).
6. March 2008 @ 07:09 ( Permalink )
(So very plessed.
And I for some reason can’t stand Cutthroat BItch at all, so I was happy to see her go. I don’t get it. She acts well, looks moderately attractive, and has interesting characters. And I can’t stand her.)
You should prioritize Chuck over Psych. From what I’ve seen - i.e. all of Chuck and three episodes of Psych - Chuck is a vastly superior show.
As for House, I feel the comparison is rather relevant on the character-to-character-basis. On the show-to-show-basis though, nope. The only similarity there is that a gimmic on House is the main premise on Psych.
6. March 2008 @ 13:32 ( Permalink )
“plessed”?! *pleased, for crying out loud.
6. March 2008 @ 13:32 ( Permalink )
I thought “plessed” was a wonderful cocktail of “pleased”, “blessed” and “pissed”. You should patent it, you should
6. March 2008 @ 13:38 ( Permalink )
So… plessed = happily drunk with divine favour?
6. March 2008 @ 13:39 ( Permalink )
Plessed = contently angry with delusions of ethereal deity
6. March 2008 @ 13:43 ( Permalink )
Mine made more sense. Which is in and of itself quite shocking.
6. March 2008 @ 13:50 ( Permalink )
Making sense is vastly overrated in my opinion.
Under red bedness has making fire!
6. March 2008 @ 13:55 ( Permalink )
I feel that making sense when talking nonsense is less logical and thus more nonsensical than speaking actual nonsense in the nonsensical topics, thus, sensibly, making my statement superior to yours.
6. March 2008 @ 13:59 ( Permalink )
Theoretical superiority of any relative, and they all are, statements is immaterial when compared to the meshed motives of the underlying subterfuge in which you most sneakily has despised.
6. March 2008 @ 14:03 ( Permalink )
Despised? Me? I LOVE my underlying subterfuge right down to the very last meshed motive.
6. March 2008 @ 14:19 ( Permalink )
The thing is, you perceive this truth as a coherent ring of growing understanding, but you never stop to consider the true texture of the universal, intertwined faith in obstacles! Nearly mind-boggling, it is, if not for the pink, flying elephants.
6. March 2008 @ 14:24 ( Permalink )
That, good sir, is simply rubbish, and I dare venture a claim you have not the slightest of intention with any single one of your chosen turns of phrase. With the possible exception, I should add, of the pink, flying elephants.
6. March 2008 @ 14:44 ( Permalink )
How dare you utter such preposterous undergarments? I always try my hardest to never venture claims of simple rubbish when the intention is to perfunctorily validate my loops and knickers.
And the telekinetic elephants? They never stop buzzing…
WHY WON’T THEY STOP BUZZING?
6. March 2008 @ 14:52 ( Permalink )
I do believe they get a - wait for it - buzz out of it.
6. March 2008 @ 14:59 ( Permalink )
Granted that the irony of fluffy containers escapes them, I do believe that you have an orangutanguan hairy argument.
6. March 2008 @ 15:06 ( Permalink )
Yes, my arguments are the kings of the swingers. Veritable jungle V.I.P.s.
6. March 2008 @ 15:08 ( Permalink )