Castle (TV Series) Hell Hath No Fury (2009) User Reviews

The Family Man and the Scorned Woman

[claudio_carvalho · 8/10 · 11 April 2022]

When the body of a man is found inside a rolled up rug, Detective Kate Beckett and her team are assigned to investigate the case. Castle identifies the man as the politician Jeff Horn, a councilman that defends family values and is in campaign for reelection. Kate and Beckett interview his wife Laurie and his advisor and friend Frank Nesbit and they learn that he had blocked a project from the wealthy Calvin Creason and the rug is from a hotel of his own. They interview Calvin and learn that Jeff's opponent Jason Bollinger is ahead in the polls and has photos that compromise Jeff, and will probably win the election. They visit Jason and find that he hired the police detective and now P. I. Bruce Kirby that took pictures of Jeff with the prostitute Tiffany. Therefore, Jeff was being blackmailed. When his wife replaces his position in the election, Castle and Kate decide to follow the money to find the murderer.

"Hell Hath No Fury" is another great episode of "Castle". The episode shows how people can be hypocrite, and how wise is the saying "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". The plot is also good, with many twists and suspects. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Hell Hath No Fury"

The episode title *is* a spoiler!

[ttapola · 6/10 · 20 May 2010]

"Hell hath no fury--" Now how does that saying end? There might have been some ambiguity about who was the guilty one had they not "subtly" "hinted" at it in the title. And no, including a discussion about "a red herring" between Castle and Beckett is not clever, if it was intended to be clever in the first place, that is. This is not a question of "Why on Earth did they do that?" - this is a question of "How on Earth did they do that?" It's just so unfathomable. A bit like "How on Earth did they make Gigli so bad?" The naming actually robs this episode one star in my book. Not that it would have stood out - it's just basically a professionally done, entertaining episode with no invention.

The things that raise this one above the 5 to 6 star episodes most common on TV (although 7 minus 1 is 6) are: The characters. The actors. The banter between Castle and Beckett. Amusing guest characters. And "It's That Guy From What Was It™" (Jonathan Banks). Highlights: Castle's "wise-ass vs. jackass" comparison and the final scene, where Nathan Fillion is at his best. Damn that man is funny.

Dead boring investigation, superficial novel release arc and skinny character development but charming performers, entertaining protagonists and rainbow mum

[igoatabase · 4/10 · 19 February 2010]

Even if the previous episode, Hedge Fund Homeboys, disappointed me it wasn't bad enough to make me give up on Castle. But what really convinced me to watch its fourth episode was a summary I read on Wikipedia. The investigation in the world of dirty politics sounded boring but I was definitely intrigued by Castle's novel release and his book reading where Beckett was supposed to throw him off his game. It could have be fun and interesting if it had lasted more than a few split minutes. But instead the writers decided to focus on a new murder case, new witnesses and new topic. The problem is that it wasn't new at all and dead boring, like the unknown man they found at the beginning. I couldn't care less about these characters who are not connected to the protagonists. It's character development at its worse.

I better understand now why Castle is defined as a police procedural production. They designed one role episode and only change its parameters from time to time. The problem is that it doesn't work because the recipe is not creative enough and ice cold. Stana Katic is fantastic but Kate Beckett is just too predictable. She's always upset by Richard Castle the matter what he does. Everybody likes him but her. However like one of her co-worker said it he's a charming and smart man. In fact it's one improvement compared to the previous installments, the better use of the secondary characters. Their role was still anecdotic but they helped to better understand the relationship between the beautiful female detective and the writing beast. The other thing I enjoyed was Susan Sullivan performance as Martha Rodgers, Castle's mother. In the third episode I noticed she had potential and in this episode she was the only one interested by her son's career. So without her the subject would only have been covered at the very last minute. Moreover her character is refreshing, joyful and colors the scenes with her extravagant clothes. In fact she reminds me of crazy Magda from the hilarious film There's Something About Mary. Last but not least fashion design is good in most scenes and it makes them less boring even if a beautiful shell can't save a poor contents.

However the few pros I mentioned and the tiny scenes I enjoyed couldn't hide the fact that Castle doesn't have much to offer. The patterns used by the writers are so obvious that I don't see the point of watching most season one episodes. I already know nothing will ever happen between the protagonists. I still enjoy their jokes and awkward face-offs but they're definitely not Dana Scully and Fox Mulder.