It seems most critics over at Metacritic disagree with me and find Fringe to have some redeeming qualities. What I saw was a slow, boring, absolutely ridiculous show that played more like Garth Marenghi's Dark Places than X-Files or even JJ Abrams's Lost. In fact, most of the reviewers acknowledge this but willfully ignore it such as Mary McNamara who wrote in the LA TImes:

"if you're the type of person who needs every little thing, or indeed any little thing, to make sense in a pilot, then you should probably watch Fringe in solitude, preferably with the door closed, so the rest of us can enjoy it for what it is--an uneven but promising jumble of horror"

What strikes me as odd is that people heap praise upon Abrams but when they discuss this show, it's almost like they are discussing trash TV like Silk Stalkings or 90210 (the new version of which I gave up on halfway through the second episode). 

Of course, there are the people who loved it like the New York Times' Allesandra Stanley who wrote:

And as pilots go, this one is sensational, an artful, suspenseful mix of horror, science fiction, layered conspiracies and extended car chases. “Fringe” sets out to stretch the boundaries of conventional network series.

I honestly have no idea what show she watched. Even the strongest supporters admit that the show wasn't fresh, original, or even surprising. Was there really one twist that she didn't see coming? The show makes absolutely no sense and requires such a suspension of disbelief that it takes away from the whole concept of the show. It's hard to make a show that asks "What if fringe science was real?" when everything is already completely unrealistic. Honestly, the fringe science was the most plausible thing about this show and, to me, that takes away from the allure of it all.