Unlike most reviewers, I watched "Maverick" when I was a little girl and enjoyed it. However, many of the reviews distort what this series was about, thinking that because James Garner became a star as a result of it, he was the entire show, and that Jack Kelly wasn't any good, let alone Roger Moore. Garner definitely was NOT the whole show although he was obviously a world-class actor who was superior in his reaction to situations. The strength of the show was not with any particular actor- -it was in the writing. The writing was top-notch and clearly tongue- in-cheek. You don't see this type of writing in modern television programs. "Maverick" was the jewel of the crown of the great Warner Brothers westerns of the late 1950s.
Garner left in a contract dispute after the third season, but I have found the Kelly shows during the first three seasons and thereafter were just as good as any of the Garner episodes. I also enjoyed watching the Roger Moore episodes of the fourth season. When I was younger, I, like most of the reviewers, tended not to watch the episodes with Kelly and Moore and focused only on Garner. That was my loss, for these shows were consistently good no matter who the lead actor was.
I believe if you are going to review a television series that had rotating lead actors as this one had, you should watch the entire series, not pick out episodes because a particular actor is in it.
