What makes it different from others?

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Started off with a lot of potential but lost it's way about a third of the way through season 1. Good acting, not a bad plot, but started to drag badly. The jumping ahead and jumping back was very distracting. Still wanted to see how it turned out so started fast forwarding and jumping ahead just to get through it.

Season 1 gripped me and each ending lured me into the next episode. My thirst for justice hooked me and being a sucker for a resolution meant I had to keep faith. The great camera work and competent acting earned my loyalty enough to see me through to season 2. Unfortunately I would have been happy to walk away at the end of season 1. I got a little closure and, even if my conclusions were wrong, I wasn't going to pine for more revelations.So season 2 had to convince me to stay and with episode after episode becoming bleaker and bleaker I was running out of reasons to watch. It wasn't just that no one had an ounce of moral fibre, or humanity looked so jaded, the evil just got boring and all the little devices got jarring. Another side plot would have added a dimension but all we got was more of the same, burying all my passion beneath a plot I had no desire to bear.But what really did it for me was that vindictive, calculating Ellen just wasn't believable and I got sick of hearing her swallow that scotch or whatever it was supposed to be. What is it with this type of programme and drinks? The gold standard is Breaking Bad but Damages is pretty run of the mill in comparison.I'm not hard to please and season 1 would get an easy 8 but I fear 6 would be generous if I'd felt the need to endure season 2 to the end. I'm a little sad because the production was great and the plot had potential.

Watched the first 52 minutes of Season 1, Episode 1. Right up to the point where the woman finds her dog, Saffron, slaughtered on her kitchen floor. I refuse to watch any movie or TV series where they kill the pet. Big turn-off. Now, having said that, I will say that I was very disappointed for that to occur. Up to that point, I was drawn in to the characters and the story. Unfortunately, using the killing of the dog indicated weakness in the story development. It's a device used to shock viewers and engender anger toward the antagonists. This is especially annoying when an otherwise quality production needlessly falls back on a manipulative plot element like this.

Alongside an accomplished Glenn Close portraying a powerful lead attorney, "Damages" casts previous Emmy and Oscar winning names including Judd Hirsch, William Hurt, Ted Danson and John Goodman. Lily Tomlin and Martin Short, primarily recognized for comedy, were particularly enjoyable taking on serious roles. Rose Byrne, as the other lead attorney, I initially deemed too lightweight to work among those seasoned talents. It quickly became apparent that was the idea. Her character is similarly underestimated. Each season the plot follows a new theme to its conclusion, with subplots threading through the years and sometimes evolving into the next main story. With such star power, how could it possibly fail? It doesn't quite, yet does somehow fall short of potential. A compelling plot device that worked the first season was allowing glimpses into the future. The mystery of how the story would move from beginning to forgone conclusion was repeated year after year. After a while felt more manipulated than intrigued by the flash forward method. It was somewhat satisfying seeing how the pieces fell together, but the formula was tired. Perhaps the most annoying gimmick was dream sequences. They became increasingly recognizable, but could still confuse.What I valued most was the depth of characters. When I've judged one is only capable of malicious behavior, they surprise by being generous. Or the other way around. The believability achieved can't simply be written and directed. It took the caliber of acting "Damages" employed to pull it off.