I remember it being one of the best shows of the season when it was released. Now i'm re-watching it via Netflix. The other reviews here don't make sense to me. I do want to see the Britsh version, but I'm glad i didn't see it first. The gist of reviews is that this is a pale comparison, which doesn't mean much.<br /><br />I remember before it premiered, the buzz was mostly questioning whether the US was ready for such an "unpleasant" central character. I found Fitz pleasantly realistic and not nearly so obnoxious as the press indicated. The show has a great deal more depth than much of what's on, plus a large dose of simple everyday realism compared with most current dramas (where's Bochco when he's needed?)<br /><br />Currently there seem to be two schools of drama; both rather irritating: In one, focus on characters is maximized but events are somehow super-heightened as to be unreal. Kind of soaps on steroids that grind you down after a while: i.e. Grey's Anatomy<br /><br />The other is the gimmick show, started by ER, which focuses so heavily on it's supposedly clever concept, usually some scientific subject usually just off the radar of common folk, the characters are virtually forgotten; mere robots carrying on the activity necessary to illustrate the subject: Any of the CSI's, Criminal Minds, Numbers, Lie To Me, and a few dozen others they've spawned.<br /><br />Cracker was not clichéd. It was character driven without forgetting to have interesting goings on, and didn't try to twist the viewer into knots with every plot turn.<br /><br />Fitz reminds me quite a bit of Dr. House, especially now that show has lost it's sense of humor as well as the cast and formula that made it great. Cracker was never as brilliant as House began, but then there's plenty of room for both sorts. Perhaps the character of Fitz WAS before the time was right.