Eat Your Heart Out Joan Crawford! (7X09 Review) **out of 5

Murder isn’t what I think needed justification in this week’s episode, aptly named Justified. The real crime is what was done to the audience, and to the character of Mac Taylor. There were enough holes in this story to make me crave a good slice of swiss cheese. Is it wrong to say I’m sick of happy endings?

As you can probably discern, I did not enjoy this episode, which is disappointing considering it was written by John Dove. His episodes are usually strong attempts to think outside the box. Dead Reckoning brought in the idea of DNA contamination due to a factory worker not wearing gloves, or Sleight Out Of Hand using fetal alcohol syndrome and magic to tell a tale of murder. His episodes are usually entertaining and thought provoking. This episode was neither, and what is worse is that is was so obviously trying to be. It was apparent that the nephew was involved--my review last week predicted either Carver (John Larroquette) or the nephew was the killer--and I wish they had made the choice to really surprise us. Foreshadowing is a power tool, when used effectively, but when it fails it simply comes off as poor storytelling.

My biggest problem with this episode is what it did to Mac Taylor. His character has always been the more self righteous type. He usually claims to be the moral authority, though if you asked him he’d probably deny it. I always found that to be a believable character flaw. He’s in law enforcement, a former Marine, he’s worked his way through the ranks, and he obviously believes in what he’s fighting for. Playing the arbiter of all things ethical is understandable. However, he was completely ridiculous in this episode. He was out for blood with Carver. He showed up at Carver’s grand-nephew’s soccer game to accuse him of murder. Really? Mac’s going to treat the Chief of Detectives like that? Then to make Mac look even more unfeeling he shows up a wedding rehearsal to arrest Carver’s nephew of murder. Mac had no sympathy or consideration for either of those men, claiming, “my judgment has never been better.” That is until he found out the reason behind the murder, then he’s all ready and willing to help “one hell of a cop”. Jo acts like Mac was some type of hero at the end of the episode, that, along with Mac’s spewing of some bull crap about how “It’s not important what I think” when all episode it was only about what he thought, frankly strained credulity. It was one of the worst character assassinations I’ve witnessed in a while (and I’m including what they did to Lindsay two weeks ago). I can handle Super Mac. I can’t stomach Pillar Unto Himself Mac.

Which brings us to the actual “justification” of the crime. I felt for Jason. I was meant too. The story was one big emotional manipulation, as most stories are. The problem arises when I feel like I am being forced in one direction despite how I want to feel. Meaning, I wanted to feel sympathy for that little boy, but I couldn’t because the show had spent the entire time establishing what a great uncle Carver is. How can I believe as Jason said that “there was nobody else to protect them.” The definition of justified is showing to be reasonable or provide adequate grounds for, and it’s just hard to believe Jason had no other recourse than to kill his mother when he obviously had an uncle--a cop--who was willing to help. I don’t understand why this show won’t allow an episode to end with realistic consequences, no matter how uncomfortable or heartbreaking they are.

I like it when they use their brains to solve crimes. I don’t like it when things conveniently work out. Marcella Gomez (Alex Madison) was warned by Carver that the police were onto them so she flees, leaving her wallet behind with photo identification behind. Smart. A man remembers what the police officer who took his knife 15 years ago looked like. I got pulled over once 9 years ago and I remember nothing about what the police officer looked like. Adam doesn’t think to run the DNA on the gum against Roni Parker’s, despite Jo’s observation that the there are things “typical when a killer has a personal relationship with the victim.” A personal relationship doesn’t suggest a family member? Too many inconsistencies to look passed.

And on a more personal level of episode watchability, I can’t understand the lack of Danny and Lindsay. This episode was ripe with the opportunity to enjoy a moment between the couple, but instead we got another dose of Don and Danny. I think they are talking about moving in together. I feel like Steve Irwin (in my best Crocodile Hunter voice) “Ok, folks here we have the very rare DL moment. They are hard to spot so you have to be patient. And be ready ‘cause they are fast little devils too. They’ll be gone in a flash if you’re not careful.” I’m getting desperate here! It brings to mind a line from the film The American President, “They’re so thirsty for it [a DL moment] they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s not water, they’ll drink the sand.” I’m tired of drinking the sand...it doesn’t digest well.

I went back and forth between one or two on this episode, but decided to go with two because I still loved Laroquette’s performance, no matter how I ultimately felt about his character, they also maintained the ensemble form of storytelling, and I thoroughly enjoyed Jeff T. Thomas’ directing style. He is one of the more talented directors they have on the show. He is able to weave through scenes effortlessly, and bring a flare to the narrative. The opening sequence where Mr. Shot Through the Heart-Giving Love a Bad Name beats the crap out of Fake Roni was violent and powerful. Thomas uses distorted reflections to heighten the tension, and create a world of un-rights. He also didn’t skip the science parts to ensure enough time for the long confession. Instead he interlaced them over different scenes. I think a lesser director would have settled for the old voice-overs, but he took the time to include them.

I will forgive Mr. Dove for this episode, because we are all allowed to be fallible, but I can’t in good conscience rate this episode any higher. I will even continue to look forward to his episodes, but this one I’ll shove in the closet under the box of Christmas ornaments I never have time to put up.

Where's the rock salt when you need it? 7X08 review (***out of 5)

There’s not much in this week’s episode, Scared Stiff that warrants much scrutiny. As episodes go, this is one I would categorize as adequate. The main plot follows the death of a young woman who bears no obvious signs of murder, leading to a great deal of speculation and conversation amongst the main characters regarding the existence of ghosts and other such paranormal activity. The sub-plot involving John Larroquette’s character, more specifically the sudden discovery of his estranged sister’s corpse, was pretty heavy handed with it’s foreshadowing (getting Mac’s Spidey sense all a tingling) but effective enough for me to be interested in the story’s resolution next week.

I think the word that comes to mind when considering this episode is creepy. Opening with the empty, eerie gaze of a dead woman and the haunting tones of Graffiti6‘s heavily delayed (referring to the echoing sounds) Calm the Storm--the irony of course being the park is hit with a thunder storm--immediately gives the impression that things are going to get interesting. Sid, most notable for his well established creepiness, shines in this scene as he delicately, but deliberately begins manipulating the body, forcing her limbs from their petrified state. Robert Joy has the ability to seem disturbing and uncomfortable (ever seen his episode of Medium? The guy was amazing!), but then he turns around and he is the geekiest, goofiest, silliest character. I am thrilled to see him this season after his criminal under use last season. Similarly, the perp, Gordon Sprouse (brilliantly played by Jeffrey Vincent Parise) was an unnerving balance of being vulnerable and...well...how to put this delicately...freaky as hell. The interrogation scene between Hawkes, Flack, and Sprouse was entertaining and fascinating to watch. About Sprouse, Lindsay observes, “This guy can only relate to dead bodies. That’s really sad.” This perfectly captures the conflict that I felt as an outside observer to his neurosis. Sprouse’s own fears about life keep him living in an abandoned mortuary. He’s as stiff as the bodies he’s attempting to perfect. Eat your heart out Alan Ball!

I thought writer Kim Clements tried to ensure character involvement in the story. While the dialogue seemed a bit contrived, it still tried to give a personal side to those we come to see each week rather than treat them like strangers. She seemed to keep them in character--pretty impressive considering this was her first time writing for the show--and provided believable motivations for their actions. I loved the continuity of Hawkes and his side job as a park E.M.T from season six, and the more I thought about it the more I felt Lindsay’s comment about the 21 grams of weight lost at the time of death was hugely appropriate for her. The small moment before Hawkes walked in, the look of contemplation on her face--a night of great facial expressions from Anna Belknap, she killed that surprised look in the park--I took as a reference to what she had been through. Was she contemplating the loss of Shane Casey’s soul? Or her friends? I like that it was subtle and really open to interpretation.

I was disappointed at times by Clements use of cliches, stereotypes, and silliness. I felt having Lindsay see two ghosts (which looked like it had been created in Window’s Paint; sorry effect department) was completely ridiculous, and instead of adding tension to the scene it immediately took me out of it. And Sully (Lightfield Lewis Helen) was a walking punch line, which wasn’t very creative since most people make fun of those who believe in paranormal activity. And the worse part for me on a personal level was the missed opportunity for a Supernatural reference to AJ Buckley. (Yes, I may have a deep seeded love for all things Winchester).

The story line was fluff, nothing too deep or touching, nothing motivating thought or change, just a bit of fun. I can handle that. I don’t want it all the time, but the occasional bubble gum pop episode is fine. The deeper story line involving Larroquette, however, clearly sets up a more emotional meaning behind his sister’s murder. Did he kill his sister? Is he covering for someone? His nephew perhaps? I really thought Larroquette played it off well, and I can’t believe how much I am enjoying having him on the show. Nothing against the guy, I’ve just never been too involved in any of his previous works. But every time he’s on the screen I feel like he’s a perfect fit, and I like watching him.

The bromance continues between Danny and Don (they are apparently this season’s Danny and Lindsay) which is frustrating. I love the dynamic between the two men, but why make the decision to have two of your main characters marry and start a family if you then choose to neglect that relationship? We’ve had more Ellie references, including one in this episode, then we have Lucy. I try to keep my reviews focused on the episode as a whole and not simply focused on the DL factor, but even if I weren’t a fan of the Messer family I would still find this odd. So far we are at four straight episodes of no DL and no Lucy. And the minimal DL we had in episodes previous were ridiculous in their minuteness. That is pitiful!

This episode was more a pit stop to what I can only assume is going to be an intense episode next week. It had a middle of the road feeling and sometimes that’s ok. It had plenty of character interaction and even a little bit of heart. If Clements develops her humor to a sharper point, and matures a bit more in her presentation then I think she could be a great writer for the show. Next time just leave Casper out of it.

Highlight of the episode: I thought Gordon Sprouse was one of the better villains they’ve had. His crime was so ambiguous, and almost seemed harmless while being absolutely disgusting.

Guilty Pleasure: Mac processing a scene! It seems like it’s been forever since we’ve seen him getting down in the dirt.

Tights and Cape Not Included 7X07 review (***out of 5)

It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s super Mac? Well, maybe and maybe not. Ambiguous enough for you? That’s how I was left feeling after watching this week’s episode, Hide Sight. I was confused, not by the episode, but by how it left me feeling. From the oxymoron title to the constant role reversals, I was unsure whether the episode was good or not (which is unusual for me). It took me realizing that as a story, separate from established mythology and canon, it was pretty good, but as an episode written within the confines of the CSI:NY universe it was a failure. This duality in viewing makes for an interesting review process. Mac fought the man, Sid was hurt in the lab (it says in his contract that this must happen at least once a season apparently), Lindsay was smart-then not-then smart again-then not, Jo morphed into Stella, and a psychopath is nurtured right into a killing spree. Yep, a rip roaring tale of neglect and how many lives are changed by the selfishness of one person. Tragedies aren’t meant to leave audiences with a warm happy feeling, they are meant to inspire thought and motivate change. This episode wanted to mean something, but didn’t want to put in the effort or the pain of actually being a tragedy.

No one wants an infallible hero. By the very definition, one cannot be considered a hero until an obstacle has been cleared. Superman could only be considered super because of his foil, Kryptonite. Without this deadly element then Superman would simply be someone who can fly. While I felt Mac’s pain over the situation, I never really felt him being tested. I know he was angry, I know he was sad, but there was no -as Aristotle puts it-“change from ignorance to awareness” nor did I feel the “tragic pleasure of pity and fear.” Mac’s righteous indignation comes off more as an unprofessional temper tantrum. I believe, as part of his established character, that Mac would be upset by being told to keep quiet about the sniper. However, I find it ridiculous to be expect to believe that a man as professional as Mac Taylor, would stoop to such theatrics as ripping up a directive from his superiors in front of his own subordinates, subordinates who are also subject to said superiors. Could you imagine Hawkes taking an order from Mac and telling the lab techs and other coworkers to ignore it? Of course not. We know Mac would never stand for it, and we know Hawkes is too mature to ever act that way. Why would I believe such behavior of Mac? Similarly, it is not Mac’s job to make those types of decisions. It belongs to those in office; mayors, commissioners, etc. There are times, as much as I wish the world was different, when it is important to contain information. Chief Ted Carver (guest star John Larroquette) effectively points out to Mac, “It’s not your call, and I’m not creating a city wide panic.” In February 2007 the FBI released a report, that has since been unclassified, entitled Sniper Tactics and Effects on the US Homeland which includes a study on the impact of a sniper situation on a community. The social and economic impacts are severe, not to mention the dramatic increase in post traumatic stress disorders that surface, nor is there any proof that alerting the public of a sniper situation saves lives. Mac’s job is to run the crime lab, not the city. If this were a story about a character I’d never met before I would be more willing to buy it.

There are several scenes I enjoyed that seem to characterize exactly what makes the CSI franchise unique. Getting to see Adam (though he was in the field, which is confusing) reconstruct the first sniper shooting and leading Jo and Lindsay to finding valuable evidence was very interesting. Danny, rocking out the face mask, had his own reconstruction--building bullets and shooting dummies--that had a very old school feeling to it and enjoyable to see. Also, the scene where Mac, Lindsay, Hawkes, and Adam are discussing the case felt very natural and well written. They were exchanging ideas and bouncing theories off each other effectively. Likewise, writer Bill Haynes and director Alex Zakrzewski, worked together to efficiently establish Michael Reynolds’ (Austin Michael Coleman) past as well as Mac’s emotional attachment to him. Told through choppy and distorted flashbacks, I felt empathy for the shooter. Of course, in an interesting twist, we soon find out that the physically and emotionally abused Michael, is not the sniper, but rather it is his younger brother Tom (Mark L. Young). I struggled with feeling the same empathy for Tom that I felt for Michael. While it is clear Tom’s life has been heavily influenced by Michael’s kidnaping and subsequent return (the room the brothers shared had been completely over run by Michael’s paintings, perversely taking away Tom’s identity) it is also very apparent that Tom has some serious psychological issues. (He pulled out what Mrs. PotatoeHead (Toy Story 2) would call his “crazy eyes!”)

A neighbor to the Reynolds brothers, Hayley (Tiffany Dupont), verbalizes one of the prominent themes that “it could happen to any of us.” She is referring to the kidnapping, but that sentiment is echoed in the episode by the sniper’s random shootings. Tom screams about being emotionally and mentally trapped in a hole, which ironically mirrors what had happened to his brother who was literally kept in a hole. Just as Michael suffered from Stockholm Syndrome and took on the last name of his kidnapper, Tom begins to take over Michael’s issues, leading him to kill Michael, thereby eliminating his emotional rival. One man, Author Francis, who fifteen years ago chose to take a young nine year old boy, forever altered the lives of countless number of people, and resulting in at least four homicides. This is all very interesting and intense. Based on that story line alone, the episode is quite good.

But this isn’t an independent story. And while I admit the episode was better the second time I watched it, there were still glaring errors that I found to be insulting as a viewer. Lindsay is the character that seemed the most ill used. She was routinely used as a way to explain to the audience what was happening, but it was done in such a way that left her looking inadequate to the job. This, of course, is the antithesis of what as has been established in her character. Jo steps into the situation to make up for Lindsay’s slack, which is more reminiscent of Stella’s character than Jo’s. Lindsay is also instructed to keep Hayley on the phone, which clearly didn’t happen, and don’t get me started on Lindsay not knowing about sibling mitochondrial connection. And let’s just avoid talking about the stale and over used device of Sid getting hurt in the lab to progress a story. While Haynes isn’t known for his writing, he has spent a great deal of time involved with the show as a technical adviser, so it is unfortunate that he would be so far off base.

There are deep and complex themes that move throughout this episode that are never quite developed. Sometimes the tragedy is what is left unsaid. I rather enjoyed Larroquette’s character and look forward to seeing more of him, but hope they have him as less of a push over next time. Also, I could have done without Jo’s “wild wild west” field kit belt reveal, that made me laugh, and not in a good way. So to sum up, a great story, but the CSI:NY characters proved to be Haynes’ Kryptonite. Hit the Google button dude and do some research, or you can even borrow my dvds as a refresher (though I need them back pretty quickly. I don’t do well if I don’t get my CSI:NY fix often enough). Next time come back with a great story AND a great CSI:NY episode.

Highlight of the episode: Danny’s reconstruction. Seeing him in that face guard took me back to Oedipus Hex which is one of my favorite episodes!

Guilty Pleasure: Gary Sinise. When Mac and Carver argue the first time I was reminded of the Gary from Apollo 13 and Of Mice and Men. I’m not sure what it was, but there was just something different about his facial expressions. Swoon!

It's the game of LIFE 7X06 review (***out of 5)

Ever turned off the TV, pulled out the board games, and just enjoyed being with your family (or perhaps friends who are practically family)? Do Not Pass Go, as its Monopoly inspired name suggests, was permeated with that feeling. As writer Adam Targum’s first episode, it was a hodgepodge of personal relationships and crime drama, and hinted at the potential of Targum’s storytelling. It was the personification of my mother’s advice, reminding, “it’s not about the game, it’s about having fun.” Meaning, this episode was less about the actual crime and more about remembering what’s important. While the episode lacked a certain eloquence and finesse, needing a bit more polish, it uniquely deserves to be recognized for where it both failed and succeeded.

The episode opens with two windows, and two parents. Windows have long been accepted in the literary world as symbols of both hope and despair. Windows allow us to view what is beyond the world we are living and give us a chance to dream of possibilities, but they also only allow for a limited view, and in some cases act as barriers to the outside. This conflict of meaning mirrors the emotional state of the mother and father that sit gazing out of those windows; they long for freedom from the state of turmoil they are living in, but simultaneously fear the ramifications of that freedom. Their son has been missing for days and they face the opportunity to find him, unaware of whether they will find him alive or dead. Unfortunately, I felt disconnected from the power of the moment by Helen Slater’s portrayal as the grieving mother. Her delivery was stilted, and had an “acting workshop” feel to it, especially when compared to the other matriarchal figures that appear in the episode; Jo Danville (beautifully established by Sela Ward) and Sally Anderson (Stephanie Venditto).

There is an improvement this season with the use of Flack’s character, and that continues in this episode as he and Sally Anderson discuss her dead son, Craig. It was a tender scene used to establish the rules of three. We have three perspectives: one mother whose child is dead, one mother whose child is missing, and one mother whose child is very present.

The introduction to Ellie Danville (Sydney Park) allows us a moment to extend our understanding of Jo’s character. Ellie is plagued by what any pre-teen would suffer from following a move to a new school and Jo, an obviously loving, involved parent, who considers her child’s needs and strives to provide, handles it like a pro. She maintains the same easy going relationship with her daughter as we have seen her establish with the other characters of the show. It a light and beautiful connection that is made brighter by the juxtaposition of the hideously gory dead body and dark themes of hate, revenge and damnation.

The murderer, Allison Scott (Maïté Schwartz), has killed one young man she believes is responsible for the death of her fiance, and has attempted to kill a second, and is using the parents of one of her victims to destroy evidence for her since she is now in jail on a separate charge. (That’s right, they should have gone “straight to jail”... sorry, couldn’t resist the pun). Allison has allowed her anger to fuel her desire for revenge, becoming consumed with hate and unable to more forward, no longer able to “pass go.” She uses her love for her murdered fiance to justify her actions. I was thoroughly impressed by Jo’s reaction to Allison. Jo did not pull a sanctimonious card out, or begin spouting righteous judgments. Instead, she responded, “I could only imagine the anger you felt. God himself couldn’t save someone who wanted to hurt my family. I would hunt them down. I would make them suffer like they have never suffered before. I would need them to feel the unrelenting pain that I felt.” She wasn’t allowing Allison justification, but she was willing to accept that things are rarely black and white.

This was clearly a Jo centric episode, but it also was able to include each of the main characters. There were some wonderful scenes involving Hawkes and Sid (again, great seeing Sid out of the morgue, and just as fun seeing Hawkes back in it), Flack and Jo at the bar and chasing the subject added a dose of levity, Adam used his mad skills to help crack the case, and Danny and Lindsay shared a sweet moment that despite its brevity was long enough to arouse an emotional response. I am enjoying the friendship between Mac and Jo, a dynamic relationship of opposites, and look forward to their future interactions.

David Jackson’ directing was neither bad nor good, but was rather pedestrian. I also understand a suspension of reality (not sure how often a CSI is involved in an interrogation in real life, but I’m willing to accept it) however, there are still parameters that the show should stay within to keep me in the story. I find it highly unlikely that Flack and two CSI’s would show up the abandoned warehouse, and the Flack and two CSI’s would go to find the body on the barge. Typically CSI’s are called onto a scene by detectives, not the other way around. So Targum needs to learn to better manipulate his story to stay within the established laws of the CSI franchise, rather than just expect the audience to “buy” it. He also needs to find a better balance between character driven story arcs and plot driven ones, but at least he was trying, and gives me hope that his stories are going to be ones that I will be looking forward to, and you can take that straight to the bank(er). (Yep, that’s right, I went there)

Highlight of the episode: Jo. From her messy desk, to her love for her daughter, she really shined.

Guilty Pleasure: Don Flack running...in a suit!