xbatgirl-30029 Reviews

Shardlake (2024– )

Wanted to like it more

[8/10 · 12 May 2024]

Let me start by saying I did really like this a lot but I wanted it to blow me away and it didn't. I have read most of the books and absolutely love the character of Matthew and Sansom's writing in general. I'm very sad to find out Sansom passed and still while relatively young. That said, the book this series was based on is my least favorite of them all and I did read it several years ago. So my opinion of the show is going to be different than someone who has not read them.

I loved everyone's acting and the casting of Matthew and Jack. I found the writing to be good but a little lacking. I'm so so tired of blue filters used in historical dramas and "gritty" mysteries in general. It's really clichéd and distracting. I was also super distracted by what looked like a bad hairpiece on Sean Bean, but overall I liked the costuming. The depiction of the tail end of life in a Medieval monetary was weak. For instance, I don't think any character had a tonsure and there was no praying at the canonical hours or accompanying bells. At one point a brother says the gates opened at 6 am, when he should have said something like "just before Prime", though I get the audience wouldn't have understood that so it could be excused. Speaking of inaccuracies at one Alice quotes Shakespeare, yet he had not been born yet by this period. But in general, I wanted much more character development and realism from the suspects. I first thought the show would have to be longer to do so, but I've seen better writers do much more with even less time. I also really didn't like the way Matthew talked to himself and saw things. It almost makes him seem insane. Surely there were better ways to give the audience exposition than that. And towards the end there is an extremely cheap sequence that turns out to be a dream that I absolutely hated. It pulled me out of the story. I'm ok with Matthew having a dream on that subject to show his fears, but not ok with faking out the audience just to add excitement and drama. Additionally, I never felt it was made clear why Matthew was being delayed. If I remember correctly, a promise had been made to King Henry to deliver evidence on a certain date or else Cromwell would lose favor and his position of power. So Cromwell was very nervous about getting a positive outcome. I don't think that was depicted well enough in the series.

I strongly disagree with the racists that a diverse cast is bad. I noticed one reviewer who claimed to have read the books even had an issue with Guy. Guy is Moorish in the books and it very much affects his character and how he is treated throughout the series. He is from Spain, which had been controlled by Moors for centuries up until just before the time of the story. I find it revealing many of those claiming inaccuracy call him Asian, so I'm guess they do not know Spanish history. This was also a time when England had entered the Renaissance and beginning to explore the world and there absolutely is a great deal of proof the population had diversity. However I was distracted by the Abbot being Black. Society then was very racist, as it still can be as show by the some reviews here, so I do not believe a Black man would have such a position of power, and that it is never commented on. However I am open to evidence of such examples, though I still say it would have been commented on by other characters and effected how he was treated. Sansom made a point of describing inequality in Tudor society in all the Shardlake books. But then again, that goes back to the lack of character development for the supporting cast in general.

All in all, I hope there are more seasons and I can't wait for them. Just get rid of the blue filter and hire a more skilled writer.

Veritas: The Quest (2003–2004)

Terrible

[1/10 · 17 March 2024]

I gave up on the series in the middle of episode 3. It's a shame because it's a great premise for a show - after all there are many others in this genre that were successful and short lived cult favs. It's a genre I really love and even do repeat viewing of many similar series. Sadly, this is one of the worst in memory. The majority of the problem is that the writing is hacky, chichéd, and predictable to a fault. Usually, if a show is not super original, it can still be super fun to watch though, because you like and enjoy the characters, the dialog, the settings. Even though this originally aired on ABC, the budget seems tiny. I think I did watch one or two episodes when it originally aired. I don't remember if it hated it then also or if it just got lost in the schedule so I couldn't keep watching. I do know it was pulled from the schedule completely after 4 episodes. For once, I agree with the executives. Another downfall is casting Ryan Merriman as the lead. He's extremely whiny and unlikeable, and it's not just due to the writing. Every line he says or close up of his pouty, spoiled face, is like nails on a blackboard. It's a shame because most of the rest of the cast is great. I've enjoyed watching them in many other shows and they've had careers with staying power. I've especially been a fan of Eric Balfour and Arnold Vosloo. There were even good guest stars. Take episode 3, which I gave up on, they had Liz Vassey who played Wendy from CSI, who I enjoyed watching for years. For the most part, the casting was great. I would have enjoyed watching the rest of the cast in a show of this type had it been good. But I just can't with Merriman. Putting him aside, there is not a single plot development that is inspired or interesting. How do you mess up a story of this type so badly? There were other similar small budget similar shows like Adventure Inc or Relic Hunter that I loved. There were even similar shows with teens such as Unnatural History that did a better version of this genre. But they had better writers and likely also better directors. The entire writing staff for Veritas needed to be replaced. Whoever was showrunner made a lot of poor decisions. What a shame.

Veritas: The Quest: Antarctica (2003) Season 1, Episode 2

Nope

[2/10 · 17 March 2024]

Is the rest of the series like this? If so, I can see why it got cancelled. Niko is such an unlikable brat and the plot line is so clichéd. I'll give it one more episode and if it doesn't improve, I'm done. As all stories of this type go, the show opens with Niko not having the skills and maturity to succeed on a test. Then he spends half the show acting like a spoiled toddler. Sadly, his tantrum gets him his way. His smile really returns when he basically says to Calvin "ew, you probably paid attention in class and got good grades, yuck". I guess the writers thought this was a sick burn? Once he has gotten his way, he's back on top of the world. You could switch off the show at this point. We all know exactly what happens next because it's been done a thousand times. The team goes off to get in trouble and it's up to Niko to save the day. He even gets to be hero with Calvin. See audience, you don't need education or skills, as long as you have street smarts and heart, you get the be the main character, superior to all others. The discovery and how it all turns out is so silly and so unoriginal, it comes of like it was written by a 13 year old.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: For Gedda (2008) Season 8, Episode 17

Season finale

[8/10 · 2 February 2024]

I watched this episode when it first aired and I believe it was pretty well known Warrick wasn't coming back, or at least it was a high likelihood. So as the episode went on you don't want something bad to happen to him, but you weren't exactly shocked either. They do make you think for a bit at the end "well maybe he is going to stay!" Then they pull the rug out under you. They left the door wide open for Sarah to return, but Warrick is definitely gone.

I do agree with some reviews about there being a lot of plot holes, although I think Warrick not having his blood tested was more of a clue than anything. Why did the person running the investigation not get labs? To hide evidence, of course. Although why wasn't Warrick himself yelling to get his blood drawn asap? That didn't make sense. I also have watched enough tv to believe his union rep should have been there to protect him and get him a lawyer immediately. And as a probable final plot hole, the undersheriff left his fingerprints all over Warrick's car. He only wiped off the gun before he walked away. So...

I do agree as well with another reviewer that the opening scene was gratuitous, if not racist. How does it make sense to hide a corpse in the coffin of a very large man so it was bound to break? Why not keep pursing the funeral home director as an accomplice? Why did our gang stand around the grave making really obnoxious comments and jokes about the dead person - with his family standing right there?!? And finally, why make the crowd decide to fight the CSI's for no reason other than "Black people are just like that?"

In the end though, it just gets old hearing people complain when a show changes. Long running shows either change or get cancelled. If you don't like it, stop watching. As it is, we are left with a bit of a cliffhanger about what will happen the next season. I can't remember if they ever answer Warrick's question about why was Gedda himself killed. Is there someone even higher up who needed the whole mess cleaned up? Or is it going to be dropped? As of now though, a character we watched and liked for 8 years is gone.

Edited to add that I love that the redhead Nick was eyeing at the end is played by the same actress who was Jessica on True Blood. One of my favorite characters. He has good taste!

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Two and a Half Deaths (2008) Season 8, Episode 16

Better as comedy than a mystery

[8/10 · 31 January 2024]

Between the dueling trivia items about whether this show is partly based on Roseanne or Cybil Shepherd, I vote Roseanne. 100%. On the one hand you have a rando claim that Chuck Lorre had "issues" with Cybil. On the other hand, you've got a star who was supposed to be (at one time) America's lovable sweetheart, who was really a nightmare behind the scenes (believe it or not, there actually was a time when most fans saw Roseanne that way) and who went on to have a whole lot of plastic surgery and abuse a lot of substances. She started dating a guy a from Iowa (just like in this episode) who had a massive coke problem who then she made a producer and writer. There's also the infamous writers room on Roseanne which was like a revolving door, especially in the early years when Lorre worked there. There was even a quick joke about how spiritual Roseanne/Annabelle liked to portray herself in the media. There's way too many parallels to claim this is supposed to be Cybil Shepherd instead. I'm sure Lorre, like any writer, pulled from his lifetime of experience in Hollywood, plus his imagination, to add to the characters, but come on. Though I will say I don't know what issues Roseanne may have had with her female costars, especially Laurie Metcalf who won multiple Emmys for playing Jackie, and who Lorre later cast as Sheldon Cooper's mom. But Cybill did notoriously had an issue with Christine Baranski being considered funnier than her and getting accolades on her show as well.

There are so many other jokes in this make it really fun - like when Diedrich Bader told Grissom to be careful with the Emmy. "Is that what this is?" Petersen was nominated 3 times, as producer, but never won. Or the quick cameo of Lorre's Two and a Half men cast. Or Annabelle making Natasha feel her up. But what made me most happy is that it never turned out that Annabelle and Natasha ended up switched. I think on so many other shows, it would have turned out that Annabelle killed Natasha, then made it look like she herself was dead then she left town, only to have someone else knock her off later. It's such a cliche and I'm glad this episode didn't do that.

The ending though was a bit of a letdown. I mean it is also a cliche for detectives to confront a suspect with just a theory and little evidence, only for the killer to immediately confess to everything. But Rachel Harris' speech about Uncle Guiseppe went too far to be funny. Hanging a lantern on the lack of details or motivation didn't make up for the lack of details and motivation. Maybe Harris just wasn't funny enough in the part? Because the scene was somewhat saved when Stephen Tobolowsky showed up and then Brass said his line about Burbank. Can't win them all in the end.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Drops' Out (2008) Season 8, Episode 14

I like Drops

[9/10 · 9 January 2024]

I find it hard to imagine people aren't charmed by Drops in this episode and really feel for him by the end. I do wonder if those who look refuse to sympathize with him and his associates in this episode also idolize movies like Dirty Harry or anything by Scorsese and Tarantino. I wonder what the difference is?

Anyway, the set up is a little far fetched, but I enjoyed how each new clue led the team from one point to another. They started with nothing and figured out the whole story, which is what CSI did so well, each character doing their part.

I can see why the producers liked working with Method Man so much in his episode that they brought him back and gave him his own story. He can play menacing, quick thinking, and sneaky all while emitting warmth, depth, and humor. And yay for the unexpected Octavia Spencer cameo!

Curious Caterer: Grilling Season (2023 TV Movie)

A little slower than the 1st movie

[7/10 · 28 December 2023]

Overall I enjoyed this movie however I did find it a little slower moving than the first one. I kept getting distracted by my phone. Probably because I kept looking away, I had trouble keeping straight some of the characters and their jobs and relationships. It was super obvious right in the beginning who did it and how, although I was caught up in the back story of some red herrings along the way.

I have not read the books and I can see why some might be put off with so many major changes. A movie is never going to be just like a book. I get why they need to do things like combine characters. And of course Hallmark is not where I look for some gritty drama about a former abused wife with an angsty, troubled teen or realistic police work. I can see, with a limited cast and future movies possibly planned, how it helps to have Goldy have a good relationship with Richard as opposed to him being awful. I'm fine that Marla and Richard never dated/were married as it seems they did in the books. Kind of yuck for Goldy to have married her best friend's ex or whatever timeline the book had them all together. Very glad they made that change.

Do I love that most actors on Hallmark, male and female, look like they haven't even seen a carb this century? No. Nor do I love the overuse of face injectibles, dated beachy waves, false lashes, men's facial scruff, etc etc. No, but that's Hallmark. Take it or leave it it seems. Funny enough, I'm working my way through the Whitstable Pearl books after watching the tv show. They did the opposite where the book characters look like models and the actors look like real people - I actually prefer the tv characters, but many reviews complained about that change. You just can't please everyone.

I was a little thrown off as to why Goldy wears long winter coats in almost every scene, including indoors. I thought the actress might have been pregnant but Wikipedia doesn't list any new kids. Was it that cold on the set? Anyway, looking forward to the next installment.

Murder, She Wrote: School for Scandal (1985) Season 2, Episode 4

Half developed script

[6/10 · 14 December 2023]

I have to have seen this episode more than once but I absolutely didn't remember any of it when watching again. It's just not very memorable. Without some lovable, talented cast members doing their very best to make their characters lively and interesting, this episode would be at best mediocre. As a bonus though we get Jessica both jogging and bike riding. Usually it's one or the other. And she looked amazing in her college robes.

Unfortunately, the script was more like an outline. I get what the writers likely intended, but it felt like half was missing. The story and the number of characters would be perfect for something like a two hour Midsomer Murder. After all, we've got an older, uptight college professor whose daughter appears to be a party animal. But secretly she writes trashy novels and has affairs with multiple men? Great idea! But instead nothing got developed. I could barely keep everyone's roles straight because they each got so little screen time. In two hours, there could have been many more scenes with Dean Werner and his ditzy wife, who turns out to be not so ditzy. Bland professor Ron and his nondescript wife could have had actual personalities. After all he was one of Dr Laird's harem of men.

Many of clues were super IN YOUR FACE more than usual. The detective of the week was ridiculously inept and I laughed out loud when he basically said "Aw geez, Miss Fletcher. I don't know nothin about being a cop. Won't you stay with me every step of the way and show me how?"

All this and yet that insane scene at the train station went on way too long, though that actor certainly milked it for every second. It was like the director had to fill time because the script was too short. Mystifying. I really want this plot to be recycled on Midsomer Murders now though.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Who and What (2007) Season 8, Episode 6

Not into it

[6/10 · 23 November 2023]

I seem to agree with most here that this episode was a bit too convoluted, coincidental, cliched, and far fetched to really get into. Also I agree that Dennis O'Hare was the high point.

I've never watched Without A Trace before, though I usually like Anthony LaPaglia. I'm wondering if his character is usually such a jerk? And not a charming jerk, such as Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock. A cold fish jerk. He definitely didn't tempt me to watching more of his series, which presumably is one of the goals of crossovers. In fact, the others were uncharacteristically jerky here also, such as Grissom and Doc being strangely snarky at each other. It was uncomfortable. Was this the influence of the writers of that other show?

The way Jack (was that his name?) treated Hodges was terrible. Imagine if you are at work and some toady-like, complete stranger asked about a job at your company. You give him an address or number and get out of there. What normal person aggressively just calls him an a-hole? That's psycho behavior. This is what the writers felt was a great first impression for the CSI audience? It's mental.

Nevertheless, there were a few mildly funny moments between Grissom being neuroatypical and Jack being obviously way too typical, which came off a bit demeaning of Grissom. Then it totally paid off with Jack super dramatically climbing thru the train at the end, only to find Grissom already standing there. As he said, only *sometimes* do you have to go slow to go fast. Other times, you just go fast.

I wish Without A Trace was streaming anywhere to watch part two. I feel like if a crossover episode is made with another series, the follow up episode should be included with streaming of the first series or on the dvd. Maybe it is on this particular dvd set. I have no idea. I guess we can assume the bad guy is caught in a very dramatic way and then Jack stoically helicoptered away into the night.

EDITED: while looking for part 2 in streaming, I discovered there's a 1983 movie called Without A Trace based on the kidnapping of a 6 year old boy from NYC. The father was initially a suspect. Coincidence?

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: The Case of the Cross-Dressing Carp (2007) Season 8, Episode 4

P. Cyden

[7/10 · 18 November 2023]

I really wanted to write a review because I just figured out Paul Cyden's name abbreviates into being Poseidon. LOL.

Anyway, yes, the episode hasn't aged well. Lots of things don't. To claim it can never be shown in reruns because it "spreads misinformation" is ridiculous on more than one level. You have to watch with a historian's eye and acknowledge the past with context. That's like saying you can't learn about any bad time in history (which is most of it), because it teaches impure ideas or something.

Also, just because a character in a show says something, that was the writer's choice for that character. It does not mean the entire staff of the show endorses that point of view. You'll notice in this episode, Nick says what is now an offensive term. That's the type of guy the writers felt Nick was. You'll notice Grissom has a different point of view, and so does Doc Robbins. So are they endorsing every competing point of view at once? The writers may have had a completely different view from all of them. People have no sense of context.

Also, the CSI team did not "ignore a crime just because a woman did it", like one reviewer says. You'll notice they did take the case to the DA. As Grissom always says, they don't judge. They just collect the evidence. It was the DA's office who decided they'd never get a jury to convict. Which is something completely different.

Anyway, Poseidon!

The X-Files: Schizogeny (1998) Season 5, Episode 9

Maybe it's the simplest answer

[7/10 · 22 September 2023]

I finished this episode trying to figure out what the heck actually happened. It creepy, atmospheric, suspenseful. Great aesthetics, fun to watch, and hints at occult forces, but in the end makes no sense - kind of like this entire series. I was trying to come up with some deep meaning and came here to see what others said. "Heh, this guy thinks the trees were alive!" I thought. But then "Wait. Maybe the trees were just alive?"

It makes the most sense. There's a grove of sentient trees that bleed red fluid and they have a mysterious caretaker. A young girl with psychic powers happens to live next to it and she develops some sort of controlling link with the trees. They get sick due to the girl being abused and due to her intense anger. One night she snaps and forces the trees to kill her father. Years later, she never moved away and became a therapist. Unfortunately her mental illness worsens and it kicks off the events of the show, including making the trees sick again. The trees even bring her the corpse of her father hoping she can accept he's gone and let go of her anger. But she only gets worse. When the caretaker kills her, he wants to sever her connection with his trees so they can be well.

This makes the most sense. It's just that the writers left out 2-3 crucial scenes. LOL.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Post Mortem (2006) Season 7, Episode 7

Frustrating storyline

[6/10 · 16 September 2023]

The only reason I rewatched this episode is because I liked the whole Miniature Killer storyline the first time it was on. In this particular episode, I like all the twists and turns of the murder as it seems like it's first one suspect then another then they get on the trail of the real one.

But I really hate the other, on going plot with Greg and this family. All of it is so infuriating and designed to push buttons to try to get people talking and watching. If I remember correctly, it didn't work as a trending topic or anything. It's just way too heavy handed and unrealistic. Some parts, as will come up in other episodes especially, seem pretty racist. Yet other parts are too radical left. You end up hating everyone involved. I'm also a massive fan of Lorraine Toussant. I guess it shows what a good actor she is, because I hate her character here. Better writing would have made her and her family more sympathetic.

As the show points out, this episode is not about a trial. It's an inquest. Yet I agree with the other reviewers that the inquest is far too unrealistic, even if they wrote a judge running for re-election and who is pandering for votes. (This is why we should not elect judges.) No one as biased as the one juror would ever be picked either. The whole thing is enraging and really does a disservice to the subject.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Goodbye and Good Luck (2007) Season 8, Episode 7

What about the previous murder?

[7/10 · 24 August 2023]

I'm doing a rewatch. Most people have at least a bit of hint now what happens with Grissom and Sara in the seasons to come. It hits differently now than it did in 2008 when the future was uncertain. However this episode was super well acted, even in voice over, by Jorja Fox. The ending made me cry, even though I know it's not forever. I enjoyed Sara passing the baton to Ronnie towards the end. I did like how Ronnie was depicted doing exactly what Sara would have done in season one with the battered woman.

There are definitely odd moments, such as when Ronnie and Sara are with the woman who had been stabbed. It made no sense that the husband was allowed to just walk in to attack her again without a cop tackling him. Also Grissom was conveniently even more passive than usual. I liked the direction though overall. The visuals and pacing were really interesting. They still felt fresh even in season 8. The director and actors can't help the script they got handed. Oh! And the primitive computer graphics along with the cast still having to explain the internet to some viewers is amusing.

But as I'm doing a rewatch, I watched this episode immediately after the one from season 6 where Marlon and Kira first appear. It's never truly resolved who the killer was in that episode - Marlon or Kira. I suppose in the end you can rationalize it was Kira. She had more motive. But if it was Marlon, the gang is way too soft on him in this episode. He's written as an unfortunate pasty, not a murderer who got away with it. He's gotten on with his life like nothing happened with no consequences. We're also supposed to believe, no matter how smart she is, the university hired a 14 year old to help teach classes who was publicly part of a murder trial in the exact same town just 2 years earlier to help teach? And all the students are fine with it? There's never a hint that you can be super smart at chemistry at 14 yet still be undeveloped emotionally.

At least Brass' attitude to Marlon should have been "well, maybe you're innocent this time, but you're still finally in jail like you deserve to be." At least the goth girl should have been dating Marlon because of his dangerous past. The guy who assaulted Marlon should have stated something like he was "saving" the victim from Marlon because everyone still thinks he's a killer even if he was found not guilty.

If he was innocent of the original crime, he still took part in the cover up. He's showing no guilt or cockiness this time around. He acts pretty much like any other suspect on any other episode, up until the end when the audience seems left to fill in the blanks that he's so overwrought by being framed by Kira and he sees nothing for his future but prison, so he offs himself. The writing is super simplistic. It's also such a ridiculous coincidence that the parents died pretty much immediately after the first case. What a waste to not imply Kira did that also.

Obviously the real focus was chosen to be on Sara's own emotional state and not on the murder suspects. No one to steal her spotlight. I really wish the writers had just created some other case to push Sara over the edge because there were so many holes left behind and missed opportunities. Since the emotional punch of Sara leaving is not there for me, I was left annoyed at the mediocre writing on the actual case.

The only reason I give this episode a relatively high rating is due to Jorja Fox's acting and the direction of the script that was provided them.

Whitechapel: Episode #3.6 (2012) Season 3, Episode 6

Setting up season 4

[8/10 · 21 August 2023]

Warning: some spoilers for the entire series.

I've watched this series before and was not very happy with the direction season 4 goes in. I didn't really like how the first three seasons seemed set in our own mundane universe, then suddenly it seemed to change completely in the final season and become a universe where the supernatural is real. Well, this time I'm rewatching and I skipped season 2 with the Krays, as the tone and visuals are so different. It think the choice to center on the 1960s aesthetic and on the Krays was a mistake, although I loved watching the continuing evolution of the main characters and their relationships. Season 3 stays on track with season 1 in referencing the Victorian era and more primal fears of the dark and bogeymen. It also increased the horror tropes. This time rewatching, I can see how these last 2 episodes of season 3 were laying groundwork for season 4. There's a great deal of foreshadowing. The producers seem to have decided what comes next.

In light of what is to come, I'm especially left questioning some of Morgan's actions. On my earlier viewing, I had thought that even though some characters are nervous about ghosts and evil creatures, the viewer never is led to believe they are real. This time, I especially wonder about the scene where Mansell and Kent were in Mantus' house, freaking out about ghosts, and certain things happened such as pictures falling off the wall by themselves. Perhaps the ghosts were real all along. Perhaps Mansell was not just carried away with fear. Perhaps the house did have an effect on Mantus. More importantly, what exactly was up with Morgan's last conversation with Kent? Who exactly was Morgan?

You can accept her for exactly as she seemed. Or you can see her as part of the plot from season 4. Perhaps Kent's assessment of her was spot on. For one, there is an overemphasis on her repeated comments that "someone has to die". Second, it's implied after all that if she had testified at the inquest differently, Luke would not have been triggered to go on his spree. Maybe it was her intent to cause mayhem. And when Luke breaks in while she was showering, exactly how did she know he was coming? Perhaps Kent was right about the second attack being necessary so she could be kept in place at the station. They all were just accepting her story of events - and so does the viewer. Her connection to Chandler, then her death, may have been necessary to cause him to spin even more out of control than if he had never met her. Most especially, what was with her menacing look and comment to Kent at the end? If it wasn't for that exchange, which otherwise makes little sense, everything else has a mundane explanation. Was she part of the cult? It sounds crazy to speculate on until you find out what is coming.

I still don't think I'll change my review of the very last episode of season 4, which is very negative. But I do see how the story doesn't come out of nowhere. The groundwork was already being laid for a supernatural explanation.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Still Life (2005) Season 6, Episode 10

Too smart for real life?

[7/10 · 11 August 2023]

This episode is constructed like an intellectual puzzle that mostly works itself out by the end. The twists and turns are fun to watch. Yet the ending is empty, because there is no closure. We don't know what happened to the boy. In real life, I doubt the killer would ever even be convicted for murder. Obviously her kid is gone, but all they have in the end is what would get called circumstantial or too vague. So in the end, she's shown getting locked up. But in real life, that might possibly happen for falsely reporting a crime and stalking (if Nevada even has stalking laws), but then she'd be back on the street. Her neighbor better keep a good eye on his new dog.

One thing I kept thinking was "why not have a psychologist question her?" That was super silly to leave out. Anyway, this is yet another example of "tv crazy", which CSI uses frequently and has little to do with actual mental illness. Someone is so completely delusional, for months if not years, yet every other aspect of their life is perfect, neat, and well maintained. All of her stories were perfect. She could even trick one of the best crime labs in the country into believing a little boy lives in that house. This sort of thing only happens in fiction. Yet it shows up so often in media, most people believe it could be real.

Part the of emptiness that I felt after watching this was probably was due to the story lacking authenticity. Part of it might have been due to the actress cast as Karen. I'm sure things may have hit differently with someone else in the part. Enough said there.

Speaking of acting, Kevin Durand gave possibly the best performance of the episode, all in the single scene he got. Creepy & menacing. And scary while towering over Warrick.

Eight Is Enough: Turnabout (1977) Season 1, Episode 5

Description of the episode is off

[9/10 · 6 August 2023]

It's hard to rate this objectively. I watched this when I was very little and feel like I grew up with the family. I'm sure my nostalgia gets in the way of the rating. But it does seem like what probably would have been considered good writing at the time it was made. Standard for a family drama but on the good end of the spectrum. It also seems pretty plugged into issues that were part of current conversation.

The episode revolves around David getting into a relationship with an older woman, played by Adrienne Barbeau. The family meets her and is scandalized. The description listed here had me expecting something completely different, perhaps some drunken blowout at a party where David got in big trouble or a fight.

It's bizarre to watch this in 2023 to see just how upset everyone is about their age difference, especially most of the girls. I could expect that attitude from the older generation but I wouldn't have from the kids. The real life age difference between Grant Goodeve and Barbeau is actually 2-3 years less than their characters and they have good chemistry. My one note is that I would never want Dr Maxwell as my doctor. His comments about what he wanted to do to Barbeau's character, Jennifer, if he ever got his hands on her just because of her politics, went way over the line of what is healthy. Someone needed to tell that actor to tone down the rage. Sheez.

I have to think this was inspired Diana Hyland's real life relationship with John Travola. She gets three scenes here, which must have been super awkward to film, where she is the one ultimately telling everyone to lighten up and get over themselves about the age difference. All while most of the family is making all sorts of crass remarks and even speculating about possible mental illness.

I would like to know if the scene towards the end between Mary and Dr Maxwell was originally supposed to be with him and Joan instead but it had to be rewritten because of Hyland's illness. It really seems like it would have worked better with Joan. The darkroom scene earlier was very obviously filmed without Hyland on the set and her voice added later. I wonder if this episode was actually filmed prior to the previous one, where Joan doesn't appear. Or did Hyland come back for this last time because the message meant so much to her? It's very sad that this is the last we see of her.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Weeping Willows (2005) Season 5, Episode 22

Everyone was done wrong

[3/10 · 28 July 2023]

When I first rewatched this episode, it thought it was just, ok but as I started thinking about it, it really began to tick me off. I think pretty much everyone ended up poorly written.

First of all, I never thought the CSI writers in general had any clue as to how shift work works. Was there a 12 hour day shift and 12 hr nights? Was it 3 eights? It only ever seemed like there was one team who worked 24/7. At the beginning of this season, they made a big point that Grissom was supervisor of days and Catherine was of nights. But already they're all back to working together, with Grissom as boss. No one ever seems to get more than one day off at a time. They all could end up working in the day or night depending on what the episode needs. No one else works there on other shifts besides our core team. It's super confusing.

This episode was especially bad about this as Catherine seemingly got finished with a shift in the evening (?), so she went out for a drink. Yet in the wee morning hours, she's called back in. This makes no sense but it happens over and over on this show.

Second, the writers always seemed to have a major issue with a mother like Catherine having a full time job. Her daughter is a massive brat whose one character trait is resenting that her mother works. This isn't 1962. Kids know mothers work. They can deal.

This may be the first episode where we see Catherine's mother helps out. Yet that's never enough for spoiled Lindsey. As we see in the future, spoilers, adult Lindsey hates her mother and the one reason we ever get for this is that she had a job. Horrors! Maybe the writers had mommy issues?

The case this week is pretty basic. It was fun to see Catherine play against type with her real life husband. Yes, she could have made Grissom sit still to discuss how she met the suspect in the bar instead of being so whimpy about it. (Remember how in the beginning of the season Catherine was going to "run a tighter ship" as supervisor than Grissom? The writers didn't.) Maybe she could have gone directly to her former buddy, Ecclie, if Gil was busy. I also don't get how she was told to recuse herself, yet that never actually happened and no one batted an eye. The B plot with the contaminated swabs was just dumb and a waste of time.

Then, at the end, Grissom gets away with telling her she shouldn't have a personal life? The whole thing is written to shame her for meeting a guy in a bar. There's a judgment made that simply meeting someone then kissing him before saying good night was a major character flaw and "what did she expect for being a tease?" Or "what did she expect for being in a bar alone?" And as on most shows, the characters have no friends outside of the people they know at work.

If you think about it, the lawyer is also shamed for going out to meet women. He's not lonely and looking for a relationship. He's a creepy, almost rapist who deserves to be a set up for murder and perfect suspect.

Most jobs also require you to get 8-12 hours off before calling you back in, but that didn't happen here. Instead Catherine got shamed further for having a drink in her off hours, when she got called in with no warning. And somehow Grissom is the virtuous one for not having a personal life?

The entire episode was super contrived and pretty chauvinistic to boot.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Committed (2005) Season 5, Episode 21

Committed

[8/10 · 27 July 2023]

In 2005, when this came out I was in nursing school. We had to take a trip to a high security mental hospital. I went on to work in an ER that had a psych unit. Some things are sort of accurate and some not. As another reviewer says, there are cameras everywhere and there would have been one in the hallway outside the victim's room. But I have no idea if they actually record or are just used for surveillance. I do wish that had been addressed. The five points restraints shown were not what we used. The ones on the show would be considered unsafe and would not be allowed by government regulations. Also the nurses station is always locked. The team would have been told not to just leave the door open and we know Grissom would not have ignored that rule. Everyone had cards to open doors, not keys, so there would have been no fumbling to get into the nurses station when Sara was inside. There should have been many more *competent* security guards too. There were other small issues but in general they definitely tried.

All that aside, James Badge Dale did a great job. He is so very young here yet already showed talent. This might be what finally makes me pay to watch Rubicon again. Super great show. I loved seeing Jon Huertas from Castle. Funny that I recognized his voice before they even showed his face. Obviously his character was criminal and unethical to steal drugs from patients, but he had a point about how staff gets treated, including constant verbal abuse and being at risk of physical assault, all while some do just get minimum wage. If you pay better, you get better people. Additionally, I for sure met some staff, including nurses and others higher up, who are way worse people than that patients. That they got right.

The whole thing with the pot is ridiculous. In the end that facility would be shut down for a full scale investigation of its practices. The ending is sickening and absolutely enraging. I agree with Sara's assessment.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Spark of Life (2005) Season 5, Episode 18

Tragic

[7/10 · 25 July 2023]

This episode is pretty far fetched yet interesting to watch because there are so many possibilities as to what happened. Yet one of the things that really bothered me towards the end is that if a person were shot in the head, as one victim was, it seems there would be waaaayy more splatter to show where it happened than the show portrays. The script wants us to believe there would be just a few closely placed drops of blood that later were covered up by a puddle. Yet, especially if you watch shows like this, the audience knows there would be bone and brain matter along with blood on the opposite wall, the floor, the bed, etc. So that part was very contrived.

The situation between the families itself...it is what it is. It's pretty unrealistic but it made the show interesting to watch. Let's just say, I used to work in level 1 trauma, and it's pretty difficult for a person to set themselves on fire without an accelerant. One patient tried it - twice. Vodka by itself is not enough. At least I think that's what the character used. There was an awful lot going on between the innocent bystander at the start of the show who was ignored and the trucker who was pretty needlessly added in.

I like Tim Dekay a lot though, so it was good to see him featured. Funny that his name was Neal, when his costar on White Collar was also Neal.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Unbearable (2005) Season 5, Episode 14

No sympathy for the hunter

[8/10 · 19 July 2023]

Yeah, I said it. I'll also say the ultra rich are disgusting. The writers had it right when this was made and they're right now. Hunting for subsistence is one thing. Sport is another. That storyline though was a bit of an afterthought but it had me distracted anyway, since Jon Wellner comes back later as a regular. I guess everyone really liked working with him!

Speaking of the disgusting ultra rich, Sarah Foster is a terrible actor. Assuming her character had been played by someone with skill, the character came off immediately as unlikeable and a suspect. She certainly never seemed remotely sad her best friend had just died, or guilty for sleeping with her husband, or traumatized by accusations of violence. It all seemed like she was telling a lie. I kept waiting to find out how she was involved. Though Lolita Davidovitch had to be involved also, just because she was still so well known when this was made and I figured her character was after money through the grandson. I did not see the exact ending coming, which is always fun.

This show is an enjoyable exception to the rule that the most famous guest actor did it. Jane Lynch in the ranger uniform was definitely a highlight of the show. Obviously, Eric Stonestreet continues as a semi regular. But Jane made a great ranger.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Nesting Dolls (2005) Season 5, Episode 13

Two bodies, mixed feelings

[7/10 · 19 July 2023]

This episode is a victim of time and the adage that the character played by most famous actor is the guilty one. You know right away, you don't hire Misha Barton to just say hello once early in the show then to never show up again. His character's definitely involved. Collins was still pretty early in his career when this came out, but a lot has changed in 20 years and it affects the viewing. Plus Zeljko Ivanek has play a LOT of sleazy, violent criminals. He's probably a great guy in real life and a victim of being a good actor who got typecast. But the ending wasn't a huge surprise.

Also the script misdirects you in the way a real life investigation might not - mainly that it quickly focuses completely on Svetlana and draws you in to her story and various suspects. Only towards the end, I realized "wait, who is the second victim?" By that point, no one had even identified her. Do we even know early on if she was a woman? How was she connected to Svetlana? There's no mention of how she died, if any of the other suspects were around for the first murder. If this was Bones, they might do an isotope analysis of the teeth to show she was also from Eastern Europe and go from there. Her story is just tacked on in the end once the suspects were caught. So there's some obvious audience misdirection along the way to keep you focused on the red herring which feels like a cheat.

Unlike the other reviewer, I was always a big fan of Sarah. I don't remember this episode specifically so I don't think I ever knew what happened to her father. Whoa. Her mother's story does come up again later on. But I like getting more background to develop our main characters. I also like seeing this development in her relationship with Grissom. I didn't remember him taking the blame for her at work this way, or this exact friction between her and Catherine.

Now Sarah was totally out of line, lashing out, and cruel to Catherine. But I don't know if I buy how eager Catherine was to have her fired. I would think her attitude would be more like Greg's, who wanted to support Sarah through a bad time. Catherine doesn't strike me as the type who would be that offended after one (yes, really rude) comment. She's had a tough history herself. I can see her being angry, but more in a way she'd work through rather than resort immediately to firing. And I don't think enough has been shown with her character where it makes sense she'd be aligning herself with Ecklie. She was mouthing off to him herself the last episode. I wish there was more of a scene between Sarah and Catherine maybe having it out over some drinks one night. But for better or worse, this show always limited the personal drama of the main characters to where we just get hints of relationships here and there.

So in the end, this isn't what I'd call a great episode, but it's definitely not terrible, and not just because of the issue with Sarah, but also the misdirecting script, and the lack of development with Catherine. But I also wouldn't call this average because there's such a change in characters' relationships. Definitely worth watching.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Harvest (2004) Season 5, Episode 3

Star studded episode

[7/10 · 13 July 2023]

The story of this episode is good but not necessarily amazing. What makes this episode fun watching it almost 20 years later is the number of quality guest actors. I include Aisha Tyler in the count, even though she was a semi regular this season. There's also Carlos Gomez who played one of my favorite characters on The Glades, which I watched maybe 3 times total. And DB Woodside from both Buffy and Lucifer. Obviously, Melissa Leo became the biggest name. I'm sure someone has kept a count of how many CSI guest actors went on to become successful, either finding regular work in well known shows or becoming household names with big awards. This one has to have one of the highest amount in one episode. Even some of the lesser known actors are recognizable from frequent roles on other series. I do wish the script gave more time to America Ferrera's character or Woodside's to round them out and give them closure, but that was just the nature of the show that the minor characters might only get a few minutes. It's just strange to see really famous actors have so little to do. Ramon de Ocampo though had a super touching, moving scene at the end that showed he could keep up with the award winners. Finally, I did also like that Catherine's ongoing issues with Lindsay continued to carry over for years, including into the new CSI Vegas series. It's cool to see Lindsay go from little girl to grown woman with a kid of her own.

Relic Hunter: So Shall It Be (2002) Season 3, Episode 22

Series finale

[7/10 · 12 May 2023]

I wish this episode had ended the series with more of a bang but it didn't. It definitely doesn't rank poorly but, all in all, it was pretty average. It does set up a possible 4th season, perhaps with more from the Gural Nataz (however it's spelled). I'm glad Simon MacCorkinale was featured, since he was one of the show's producers. I was a fan of his since Manimal (what can I say, I was about 7 - it hasn't aged well.)

This episode also happily had blessedly little of Simon's pantomime mugging. That was wearing very thin by this season. It's nice that Karen got to go with them to England. The actual relic of the week mystery was ok. Sydney certainly did have a habit of just going off with any stranger pretending to be someone else. You'd think she would wise up eventually but no.

Personally, I think the show started to get a little tired in season three. We'll never know if it could have renewed itself in season four with more of a serialized storyline or new characters. Or if it would have declined further. Perhaps cancellation was for the best. I will miss Sydney though.

The Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries: The Creatures Who Came on Sunday (1977) Season 2, Episode 7

More silly than usual

[5/10 · 11 May 2023]

I do love the cheesy, comforting nostalgia of this series and have done repeated viewings. This episode is definitely not one of the better ones. Obviously you've got the super annoying performance of the wannabe-actress-with-a-famous-dad playing Sharon. But the writing is the real problem. It seems like just a few tweaks could have made this so much better. After all, the mysterious craft in the sky menacing drivers has been done a zillion times by now and often quite well.

As others have pointed out, Frank immediately buying Sharon's story is ridiculous. She met a guy a few times but only at the same bar who then ghosts her. Why would anyone not react like the sheriff? Like maybe he's married and out to have an affair? Why not just have a Frank and Joe approach it like they'll find the guy who was a jerk to their friend and give him a piece of their minds? Yet the sheriff is portrayed as incompetent and sexist so we know he's wrong. Dun dun dun.

Then you have the "rangers" who told the guys to take a different route after the fire. If I was driving though an area that just had a huge fire and some ranger said "that way's unsafe right now", of course I'd thank him and turn around. But Frank says he'll drive it anyway. And when he got pushback, it's instantly telegraphed to viewers something mysterious and sinister is going on.

It's all super illogical nonsense to get us to where the boys find the guy in the radar station (a welcome cameo by Tony Dow) then find a fenced facility that Frank decides to break into. That's when the show actually gets going but it's almost halfway through the episode. By that time it's hard to buy into it. It's a shame because everyone does a good job, besides the whiney, neurotic Sharon who mercifully shows up less in the second half. Many of the actors were familiar faces in the seventies. The mountain scenery is gorgeous. The idea for show was decent. It's just the details of the plot and the execution that sucked.

I do love how it seemed like almost every show in the seventies took place outside, with natural sunshine, and often a country setting as opposed to controlled, artificial and sterile looking sets and actors shot with controlled lighting. Everyone's hair back then was shiny from the sun and they looked healthy and natural. Not caked in makeup with a face full of injectables. I really miss that on current tv.

It's a shame the far below average opening for the episode hurts its great setting and fun cast. I do wish more time was spent in the first half letting the guys come to the alien conclusion themselves, with more creepy moments before finding the facility. Also more of a part for Tony Dow. What a wasted opportunity. Anyway, just when the episode had become its more usual, fun self, it's over.

Relic Hunter: Under the Ice (2002) Season 3, Episode 16

Couldn't get into this one

[2/10 · 2 May 2023]

This is my least favorite episodes of the season so far. It's so insanely, completely derivative, both the story and the characters. It's probably been done a hundred times. X Files, Stargate, The Librarians. Even shows like Firefly if you make the Arctic Station into a stranded spaceship. Or how about a research outpost that people lost touch with, as on Star Trek or again Serenity.

All the actors did what they could with the script though perhaps nothing outstanding, and that includes the leads. Michael Anthony Rawlins easily made the strongest showing and at least gave his character some personality. The others are forgettable. Though I really mostly blame the director, and script, because I've seen all but the guy playing Harley in other shows and I know they're much better than this. Frankly, I was shocked to later find out that this bore fest was written by Damian Kindler. Although, he was involved in some of the exact shows I was thinking of where they also did versions of this plot. So it makes sense.

The set and lighting pretty much looks exactly like the sets used on all those other shows. The most ridiculous moment was when Sydney goes out in -50° weather wearing pretty much the same outfit she wears on their college campus and she just gets a little chilly. The show lost me completely after that. Again, it's totally derivative for the hero to get stuck out in the cold/in space during this trope, yet the way this was done was way worse than usual.

Even the usual mystery surrounding an ancient artifact that needs decoding or protecting was absent. Instead, most of the show was people walking around alone in dark hallways, saying "what was that noise?" or "how are we ever going to be saved without a radio?" They even fell into the cliché of killing off the Black character early on.

Often, when a show does a super clichéd story like this, there might be a little clever moment or two thrown in, maybe some character revelations and bonding, perhaps there's a season long story arc that moves forward a bit, something that makes it all acceptable entertainment in the end. You don't get any of that here. Then ending itself is quite underwhelming. Very much a phoned in filler episode.