So many reasons to love: Kathy Bates is stellar, all the actors are. The evolution of Sarah's character was good: she finally got some depth, man she is good at both funny, sad, nuanced. All of them. Love how Olivia and Kathy Bates character became a team. Really love strong women, supportive men and was hooked every episode.

Holy shit! Are they seriously going to drag this fucking Wellbrexa storyline out forever?

I just finished Season 1. NINETEEN episodes devoted to this fucking case, and it ends on a cliffhanger?!? I don't know if I can sit through another season of this shit.

The Wellbrexa storyline is boring, I mean.. it was OK for a dozen episodes or so. but... it just keeps getting dragged out for no good reason, and I'm not even buying the basic premise. Are we seriously supposed to believe nobody knew opioids were dangerous and addictive until this law firm helped cover it up? People have known that shit for over a century.

And Matty takes absolutely no personal responsibility. Based on the way she's raising her grandson, I'm not even convinced she was such a great mother in the first place.

Then there's her marriage. At the beginning of the season, she and her husband clearly loved each other (that was nice, and it grounded the series). They seemed like a genuinely happy, devoted couple. Now all they do is bicker and fight. She's kind of a jerk to him, and it's gotten so bad that, based on what they say and how they treat each other, you'd hardly believe they even love each other anymore. It's not interesting marital drama. It's just tedious.

And that's really my problem with the show. It started off with a great premise, an interesting lead character, and a lot of potential. But instead of moving the story forward, the writers seem determined to stretch everything out as long as humanly possible.

I genuinely liked this show when it started, which makes the disappointment even worse.

So I'm asking those of you who've watched Season 2: Does this show actually get better? Does the Wellbrexa storyline finally go somewhere? Does Matty become more likable again?

I'm not looking for major Season 2 spoilers. I just need somebody to give me a reason to keep watching, because right now I'm about ready to throw in the towel.

Spoilers for all of Season 2.

I really enjoy Matlock, and Kathy Bates is fantastic. But throughout Season 2, I kept feeling that something was off. It wasn't until the finale that I could put my finger on what had been bothering me.

The show constantly raises questions about justice, honesty, loyalty, and accountability. Yet when it comes to Matty herself, those standards seem to change.

I'm not suggesting that Matty's deception is morally equivalent to a pharmaceutical company concealing evidence of addiction risks. The motives, consequences, and scale of the wrongdoing are obviously different. But that doesn't mean Matty should be exempt from scrutiny.

And that's where I think the show has a problem.

When compassion becomes an excuse

One storyline that particularly bothered me involved Diego Castillo, the gay rookie firefighter who endured harassment from his colleagues, including the sabotage of his safety equipment.

A crucial witness refuses to testify against the fire chief because the chief is seriously ill and could lose his medical benefits. The witness wants to protect someone he's worked alongside for years.

That's understandable. But Diego is his colleague, too.

The same witness even suggests that, given a choice between rescuing an old colleague and a rookie from a burning building, he'd save the person he'd known longer. For a firefighter, that's a disturbing attitude. His loyalty seems to depend more on seniority and personal attachment than professional responsibility.

What frustrated me was how the story shifted its emotional focus toward the chief. Diego had been harassed, his safety had been compromised, and the organization had failed to protect him. Yet the possibility of the chief losing his medical coverage became the central concern.

Why should holding someone accountable mean abandoning them? The firefighters could have supported their chief's medical needs without sacrificing Diego's right to justice.

Compassion and accountability aren't mutually exclusive.

Winning a case doesn't make someone innocent

Then there's Olympia's family.

Her stepfather Lionel faces a fraud lawsuit over his medical device business, and we learn that actors were used to portray actual patients in promotional materials.

Olympia wins the case by establishing that the investor knew about the deception from the beginning.

Legally, that's a victory. Morally, it doesn't resolve much.

The investor's knowledge doesn't make Lionel's advertising practices honest. Yet the storyline ends with a legal win and a family reconciliation, while the underlying deception receives relatively little attention.

This creates an interesting parallel with Matty's mission. Matty is furious that lawyers helped powerful clients avoid accountability. Meanwhile, Olympia uses her legal skills to protect her own family from liability.

The circumstances aren't identical, but the underlying question is the same: Does successfully defending someone mean their conduct was justified?

What about the people responsible for the opioid crisis?

Matty's mission begins with the death of her daughter from opioid addiction. She infiltrates the law firm to uncover evidence that the pharmaceutical company Welbrexa concealed the addiction risks associated with its drug.

Her anger is understandable, and the lawyers who participated in a cover-up deserve scrutiny. But the company that developed and marketed the drug should be central to any examination of responsibility, too.

Instead, the show's main conflict focuses overwhelmingly on the firm, particularly its head, Senior, and his son Julian. I understand why. It's a legal drama, and Matty's infiltration of the firm drives the story. Still, the people at the center of the narrative aren't necessarily the people who bear the greatest responsibility.

Julian's involvement raises another question. If the firm cannot escape responsibility by claiming it was acting for a pharmaceutical client, Julian cannot automatically be absolved because he was following his father's instructions. Their relationship helps explain his decisions, but it doesn't erase his responsibility.

By the finale, Julian cooperates in exposing his father's wrongdoing, knowing he could face legal consequences himself. He ends the season under arrest.

Matty, meanwhile, succeeds in her mission and chooses to keep the identity and relationships she built through deception. Their actions aren't equally blameworthy, but the difference in how the show confronts their consequences is striking.

What about the people Matty deceived?

Matty enters the firm under a false identity, gains people's trust, develops friendships, and uses those relationships to gather information.

Olympia eventually learns the truth and becomes her ally. But that doesn't erase the deception that came before it, nor does it automatically justify everything they subsequently do together.

Matty's grief explains her motivation. It doesn't automatically justify her methods.

There's an obvious irony here. Matty is determined to expose people who concealed information and manipulated others to protect their interests. Yet she repeatedly lies and manipulates people to achieve her own goal.

Again, the wrongdoing isn't equivalent. But shouldn't the show at least examine that contradiction?

By the end of Season 2, Matty has accomplished what she set out to do. More importantly, she chooses to continue living as Matty Matlock rather than abandon the identity she created for her revenge.

I find that choice fascinating. A false identity created for a temporary mission has become a life she genuinely wants to keep. But if a life built on deception becomes meaningful, does that erase the responsibility for how it began?

I'm not arguing that Matty needs to be arrested or punished like Julian. Accountability doesn't always mean criminal punishment. Losing someone's trust, facing an honest confrontation, or acknowledging the harm you've caused can be meaningful consequences, too.

Yet the show seems more interested in allowing Matty to keep the life she's built than in examining what her deception has cost the people around her.

Why I keep thinking about The Good Wife

One reason this bothers me is that Matlock reminds me of The Good Wife. Both combine legal cases with complicated personal relationships, and both feature protagonists who make ethically questionable decisions.

But Alicia Florrick's moral compromises were part of what made The Good Wife compelling. Her decisions damaged relationships, changed how others saw her, and sometimes made her difficult to root for. The show didn't always protect her from the consequences of her behavior.

Matty has the potential to be an equally complicated character. The difference, at least through Season 2, is that Matlock seems more willing to examine the wrongdoing of the people Matty investigates than Matty's own.

The finale's pacing didn't help. The airport workers' case occupied much of the final two episodes, leaving relatively little room to explore the fallout from the Welbrexa investigation, Julian's arrest, and Matty's choices. I would have preferred the finale to focus more on those consequences.

Season 3 may address these issues. I hope it does. But that doesn't entirely resolve my frustration with how Season 2 ended.

Are we judging Matty's actions, or are we judging Matty?

I suspect Kathy Bates is part of the reason this contradiction is so easy to overlook.

She's brilliant at making Matty clever, funny, sympathetic, and occasionally ruthless. Because we like Matty, her lies can feel like clever tactics rather than betrayals of trust.

The real suffering caused by the opioid crisis also gives her mission enormous emotional weight. But being sympathetic and being justified aren't the same thing.

Imagine Matty were less charming, less competent, and much harder to like. The same loss. The same goal. The same deception. Only her personality and abilities are different.

Would we still be so willing to excuse her behavior?

At times, the Season 2 finale almost seems to suggest that losing someone to opioid addiction gives you a free pass to deceive people in pursuit of revenge, as long as you're clever and likable enough.

I don't believe that's what the writers intended. But it's the impression the finale left me with.

What initially drew me to Matlock was its potential to explore the gap between pursuing justice and actually behaving justly. Matty is an ideal character through whom to examine that contradiction.

I just wish the show were more willing to turn the same moral scrutiny on its protagonist.

So here's my question: Are we rooting for Matty because her actions are justified, or are we justifying her actions because we're rooting for her?

If you are new to Matlock reboot, the pilot is a great place to start. For those of us who have been here for the ride just a few more months and we will get to see what they are all up to after seniors ex wife sings like a bird

The little chihuahua was so funny when Matty visited emmalyn. And it was almost sleeping

Does anyone else enjoy the cases of the week but find the whole undercover revenge storyline the least interesting part of Matlock?

I don’t think the new Matlock is great, but it’s watchable, and the individual cases make for enjoyable, easy television. Kathy Bates outsmarting people and helping win a case is enough to keep me watching. That part gives me what I liked about good episodic one-hour dramas: a satisfying story each week.

What I don’t need is the fake name, secret wealthy life, pharmaceutical conspiracy, and family spy operation. It feels like the writers had a perfectly workable show but couldn’t resist proving how clever they could be.

I mean, imagine if they rebooted Columbo, except this time he was secretly working for the CIA, and solving murders was just his cover. Would that make the show better?

Or suppose they brought back Perry Mason, but his courtroom work was really a front for a top-secret mission to uncover government files about space aliens.

Or how about Magnum, P.I., except Magnum's real reason for living in Hawaii was that he was secretly working for PETA, and the womanizing and detective work were just a cover for his animal rights activism?

Would any of those ridiculous additions improve the original shows? Of course not. They'd just get in the way of what made them entertaining in the first place.

Heck, even HBO's dreadful Perry Mason reboot, which turned a beloved character into a creepy, crooked, sleazy, and thoroughly unlikable version of himself, at least had the sense to stick with the basic idea that he was there to investigate crimes and solve cases for his clients.

And that's my point. These iconic characters didn't need elaborate secret identities, undercover operations, or some grand conspiracy driving everything behind the scenes. A good character, a good actor, and good storytelling were enough.

The original Matlock understood that, too. Andy Griffith didn't need to be secretly working for the FBI or avenging some decades-old family tragedy. He was simply a clever, folksy lawyer who was underestimated by his opponents and usually managed to expose the real culprit. That was the show. And it worked.

Ironically, Kathy Bates' character already has everything she needs to make that same formula work today.

Her cover story would have made a better actual premise. She's an older lawyer returning to work, people underestimate her, and she proves she still has it. Her daughter's death could still give her emotional depth and fuel her passion for certain cases. Her grandson could still live with her and be a likable part of her life, even help out with cases occasionally, without becoming technical support for an undercover mission.

Kathy Bates certainly has the acting chops to carry a show like that. I just wish the writers trusted her to do it.

In fact, introducing such an outrageous and immovable secret backstory almost suggests the writers don't have enough confidence in their own characters, actors, or weekly stories to hold an audience's attention. They feel compelled to add something "shocking" or "unexpected" to make the show seem more sophisticated.

It reminds me of that old television gimmick where producers introduce a cute new kid or sidekick to boost ratings. Remember Cousin Oliver on The Brady Bunch? Or little Sam on Diff'rent Strokes? Cartoons did the same thing with characters like Bat-Mite and Scrappy-Doo. The idea was always to inject something new and exciting into a perfectly workable formula, but too often the gimmick became more annoying than entertaining.

That's how I feel about the undercover storyline in Matlock. Instead of adding to the show, it distracts from what I actually enjoy watching.

Whenever we return to the secret Wellbrexa investigation, I find myself waiting for the show to get back to the actual case. The storyline that's supposed to keep me hooked is the one I'm least interested in.

And seven episodes in, it's already so central to the premise that I can't imagine how the writers could easily abandon it.

Ultimately, I think television writers sometimes forget that audiences don't always need something bigger, darker, more complicated, or more outrageous. Sometimes we just want to watch a likable, intelligent character outsmart the bad guys and wrap up a good story in an hour.

Less gimmicks, more fundamentals.

I just wish they'd trusted Kathy Bates and a good weekly mystery to carry the show.

Does anyone else think the simpler version of Matlock would actually have been the better show?

And now I am having the blues!! Such an engaging series. Looovee the characters. Kathy Bates is a legend. I cannot wait for season 3.

From TVinsider, Beau Bridges had an interview for a different show he’s in. but in it he also gave us some Matlock tidbits! :D

Apparently they are filming Season 3 currently, and Beau is going to return for filming as Senior in December.looks like we’ll get to see Senior in Jail or some flashbacks! Or even both!

there is only one source for this news so take it all with a grain of salt!

I just really hope we get a teaser this December, I miss this show so much.

Does anyone know when season 3 starts? I can't seem to get a locked in date. But it sounds like sometime in 2027?

So I'm watching Matlock (CBS) right now (Season 1, Episode 14)and I'm confused.... The show is doing this class action lawsuit storyline with a caffeinated soda (five shots & caffeine) and it got me thinking. I'm from a different country (not the US) and where I'm from this whole "sue the company" thing feels really foreign. Like, if someone drinks alcohol, smokes, or does something risky, back home we'd usually say the adult is responsible. In the US, it seems like companies can get blamed (or sued) for the harm that individuals cause or experience, and I'm genuinely trying to understand why that is and how it makes sense here. Like I'm always on the opposing council side.

I just completed Season 1 on Netflix but cannot find anywhere else to watch this on Season 2. Anyone in Singapore have a clue! TIA!

Season 1:
A Guy Named Greg - great character evolution of Matty with her bias

All of Bitsy’s visit! Masterclass in acting from all parties. Love their relationship

The Johnson Case - unraveling and seeing how Olympia picked up on things

Season 2:
Finale

I did not get all the “feels” that you guys did when I watched it the first time. So, I decided I was gonna sit down and rewatch it again and boy what a great show. I’m so happy I did. I just love all the characters especially Matty and Olympia. Woman power with the added bonus of a beautiful friendship.

Im patiently waiting for it, but I am starting to get a bit worried. Season 1 got its DVD August 2025, just 4 months after the finale. It’s now September and there’s no sign of a listing on Amazon. we kinda need it tbh, Season 2 closed the overarching plot beautifully.

Given the real life issues and controversy that happened during Season 2, that could be a possibility why we don’t have it. But the other CBS shows haven’t released their latest season DVDs either, so I have hope!

Maddy's kitchen and home office, Olympia's office, every character's wardrobes, and I just noticed in this episode, the stairwell at the law firm, and Lev's fish market. I mean seriously, WTF?

This show really has great knowledge around addiction and recovery practices but in this episode I was a bit disappointed. Harm Reduction practices such as giving out free clean needles and free Narcan (which saved my life) helps prevent 100's of thousands of deaths.

I was a heroin addict and will have 7 years sober from everything next month and I think there's a lot of people's lives that have been affected by addiction that watch this show, it really hits home because of how knowledgeable Matlock is. The big reason I was disappointed though is because they show such great knowledge about addiction and recovery but then they blatantly call out how "bad" harm reduction is and I don't want people who watch this to think that's true.

I do understand that this is just a TV show, and I hope I am not breaking any rules with this post, and the end of the episode does highlight that it was helpful in saving lives but I still feel like some people may take away that Harm Reduction is somewhat negative when it's 100% the opposite.

I'll end my rant here but for those unaware about Harm Reduction practices, they are an amazing thing and programs that offer free needles, alcohol swabs, and Narcan are things that should be encouraged. Since I've gone on this rant: for those who have been affected by addiction and want to support programs that give out free Narcan you can do so here https://give.harmreduction.org/ (there is also most likely local programs near you also if you Google it).

For me:

MORE:
Matty
Olympia
Ms. Bevin
Shae
Eva (love her even though [SPOILER])
Hunter
Julian
Edwin (with season 1 vibes tho)
Remy

LESS:
Senior
The Wolf
Sarah
Alfie/joey
Langston (sorry he’s so boring lol)

Happy Birthday 🎂🥳Kathy Bates

June 28, 1948 (age 78)♋

(Kathleen Doyle Bates)

Matlock

My mom got me into Ludwig on Britbox and it's reminding me a little of Matlock.

The premise is, a reclusive puzzle setter must go undercover as his identical twin brother, a police detective, to find out why said brother suddenly vanished, with hints that at least one person in his department was involved. In the midst of all this, he ends up solving a bunch of murders in a way that only he can. It's a bit like if a toned-down Adrian Monk from Monk was in the Madeline Matlock role, having to pretend to be someone they are not in order to get justice for a loved one. And throw in some fun puzzle-solving elements.

Season 1 is out, and Season 2 should be coming out later this year.

Since it’s so freaking hot in FL I’m doing a clean the house and listen to Matlock as I clean.

I’m 56 now and I think I would really like a mystery show with Allie as an adult!

I’m going to put that on my watch list for 20 years from now, lol!