Still Great - But not as riveting as Season 1, July 20, 2009

Season 1 was taut and terrifying magic. Season 2 tries to mix in a major new storyline while still carrying forward the lethal fallout from last season's Arthur Frobisher case. Although teasing and confusing the viewer are part of the stylistic tone of this production, things got a little muddy with too many characters in mid-season. Still, the Season Finale was so brilliant, it more than paid off its mid-season markers. Meanhile, the acting of the major characters - Rose Byrne deserves more credit, IMHO - continues to shine.

The first season of "Damages" was brilliant.The second season was very good as well. But, it seems to be missing something.Upon reflection, I believe the missing ingredient was villians who were just as compelling as the "heroes."In Season 1, the series benefitted greatly from Ted Danson's portrayal of the wayward billionaire Arthur Frobisher. Danson's Frobisher was equal parts "average joe made good" and inaccessible, plutocratic jerk; the rare character who you find yourself both repulsed by and rooting for. (This combination made him a yin to Patty Hewes's yang.)There are no "villians" who the viewers can identify with in the 2nd season. The primary antagonist in this installment was an industrialist who would not acknowledge the illegal dumping of hazardous waste because he would "have his company taken away from him" if he did. There's nothing nuanced, complicated or vaguely sympathetic about that.Glenn Close once again...

Not very often are the 2nd seasons better then the 1st, but in this case it was. This was like a good book that you can't put down. It had me wanting to watch more from the 1st episode. The twists and turns that the story takes and the characters are fantastic! I can not wait to watch the 3rd season! If you have never watched Damages before I would HIGHLY recommend it!