Crazy for CSI:NY

B.Y.O.B. Bring Your Own Broom 8X10 Review (***out of 5)

2012-01-10T20:51:00.000-08:00

What to say about this week’s episode of CSI:NY? Hmm…truthfully I don’t have a lot. Clean Sweep felt exactly that, like a bit of a chore, a bit of a bore and a bit of tidying up. This wasn’t a flashy episode, nor was it particularly inspiring or emotional (not really, despite the attempts to force it on the audience). And neither was it glaringly awful. It was just…meh…

The case was fine, the characters were fine—it was all fine. Like a type of movie where one would say, “Don’t waste money seeing it in a theater but spend a $1 and rent it from Red Box.” I just wish the show wasn’t so blindingly obvious sometimes. Argue what you want about the show but the fact that it adheres to a formula cannot be denied. The reason I say this is because I can predict nearly ever aspect of every case/episode. This isn’t because I have some Sherlockian ability to capture details; it is simply because the show never strays far from its own self erected narrative fences. For example, when Lisa Richards (Laura Breckenridge) reveals she is pregnant this tells the audience that Ryan Richards (Alex Nesic) is not dead. Because the show always places the out of the ordinary right under the nose this becomes a “tell.” Unless I’m playing for money I’d rather not know the opponents give away, it makes for a very laborious viewing process.

I physically cringed when Adam zoomed in on the photo and the image magically became clearer rather than dealing with that silly pixelation issue. Sorry, that’s just a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when any show or movie does that. Moving on.

I was interested in Jennifer Walsh (Vinessa Shaw) and her purpose; not as Mac’s love interested but what she was inquiring about: officer misconduct. I’m curious if that is going to be a potential storyline or if it was just a convenient way to work her character into Mac’s life. I did, however, laugh out loud at Flack’s prank on her. That was a nice character moment for Don and I appreciate the show giving it to us (though poor Mac, between Danny and Don he never gets to meet someone without their interference). I also thought it was very telling when Walsh made the comment about people believing Mac to not be so “strict” with the rules. Seems I’m not the only one who’s noticed his willingness to bend his code of ethics when the story needs it. Gary Sinise played the scene well and he and Shaw had some nice chemistry. It was fun to see Lindsay giving Mac a hard time—another nod to some character continuity.

Bits and pieces were interesting, but again nothing really grabbed my attention or piqued my interested. The pacing, directing, and dialogue were all adequate. The episode flowed nicely. I could have done without the Jo/Mac recap at the end but then Mac’s “Flack is dead line” was so hilarious I’m willing to forgive. I do disagree with Jo about doing anything for love, I felt the episode had more to do with the criminally under prosecuted issue of stalking in the USA, but I understand her sentiment. And good for Gary Sinise using his show as a platform for Veterans' issues. It can feel awkward in an episode but if he's got the power and he's willing to use it for good then I say go for it. Otherwise the episode just doesn’t garner much scrutiny, so I’ll leave it at that. (Am I drunk? I don’t think I’ve ever had a review this short before…wait a second, I don’t drink…what’s wrong with me?!)

What do you think? Wedding bells for Mac on the horizon?

Up Next: A couple’s “divorce-stand-off” even The Ref would have found challenging!

Get Back JoJo! 8X09 Review (1/2*out of 5)

2011-12-05T22:33:00.000-08:00

It’s hard for me to not be insulted by this week’s episode Means to an End. The list of everything wrong with this episode is almost overwhelming, but what bothers me the most is the sacrifice of story integrity for the cheap thrill.

It’s hard to know where to start with an episode like this, so I’ll just go with the main factor: Jo. I like Jo—correction, I like Jo of the seventh season (hereafter MommyJo). MommyJo was laid back, respectful, considerate, fun, loving, and a family woman. MommyJo was quirky, unorganized but still competent. I understood—wasn’t a fan of, but understood—the show’s need to spend more time on her character last season. She was new and unknown, and I felt they did an adequate job of distinguishing her from Stella (a few lapses) and creating her own niche in the CSI:NY world. Season eight Jo (hereafter SuperJo) couldn’t be a bigger waste of screen time. She spent the last three episodes running around with a self-righteous stiff arm, while attempting to play the victim as well. Note as she tells Frank Waters that he gave her no choice, he made her confess his mistake. The phrase “gave me no choice” is as clichéd as it is untrue. Everything is a choice. I’m not arguing whether she made the right or wrong decision, but SuperJo is so quick to find blame with others. After Curtis is released on bail Mac finds her going through Lindsay’s evidence. Mac tells her she can’t do that it’s not her case (which is true for about 30 seconds, but I’ll get to that in a minute) and Jo replies she “can’t let this case fall apart.” So Lindsay following the evidence is letting the case fall apart? And I like how the writers, Zachary Reiter and Christopher Silber, conveniently ignored that rather blatant implication, and I guess just sat there with their fingers crossed hoping the audience would follow suit? (I don’t get paid nearly what the actors get paid…wait, I don’t get paid anything! So, no, I won’t ignore it! I was hugely uncomfortable with the fact that they brought in Lindsay’s husband to help Jo. A complete insult to Lindsay) MommyJo would have found a way to work with Lindsay. But if they had done that then SuperJo wouldn’t have found a way to be in such a contrived ending situation. My best guess is that the writers came up with that one line “people forget about the bullet in the chamber” and gave hearty high fives for their cleverness then manufactured a situation where they could use it. Cue SuperJo. It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s a character that has morphed into something so unrecognizable as to inspire images of a dark nothing consuming everything around it in Miyazaki proportions! Insult #1

Then we have the issue of Ali Rand’s murder at the hands of Senator Matthews. As soon as the validity of Rand’s accusations came under scrutiny it was clear what had happened. She had been hired to accuse Curtis of rape. The obvious answer would be that the Senator hired her; which turned out to be the case (though I was desperately hoping for something more surprising). When Rand gets spooked she tries to bail. Matthews freaks and kills her. Let’s back track a moment shall we? As Matthews, his daughter and Jo stood outside the courthouse following Curtis' bail hearing Matthews tells Jo that it’s because of “all the other daughters that had to suffer” that he is so upset. Yet, this guy is willing to bash a woman’s head in with a rock and his umbrella so readily. This woman that he’s been having a rather involved sexual relationship with (remember she’s been traveling around the world to be with him) and a woman who is someone’s daughter? No, you don’t paint someone as a cat lover and then show them beating a cat with a baseball bat. She wasn’t even threatening to expose him or blackmail him. She got scared so he brutally ended her life. And he killed her right by the river so please explain to me why he didn’t throw the rock he used to crush her skull into it? Insults #2 & #3.

Frank Waters (Michael Weston) appears for reasons beyond my understanding—except perhaps to continue the indignant looks from Jo. If he was supposed to be the “bait” we go for, it was an utter failure. Anyone paying attentions would know he was a distraction. There is no way he would be so obsessed with getting John Curtis that he would be stupid enough to dose Rand with the wrong amount of GHB, especially considering his FBI background. Hawkes even states as much. So what I (& Hawkes—thank you Doc!) knew in 30 seconds took the CSI team nearly 10 minutes of the episode to conclude. It’s like when a magician tries to perform magic but hasn’t quite pinned down the technique of slight of hand. But what I find most confusing is that Waters was so distraught by his actions he is willing to step in front of a bus, but not willing to give Jo the evidence he brought to the coffee shop. He storms out angrily and takes his evidence with him. Yeah, that makes sense. Insults #4 & #5.

And what is Mac’s role in all this? To let SuperJo do whatever she feels is necessary (oh, and to get the confession). He tells SuperJo she can’t work the case because it’s too personal, but when she explains to him it’s precisely because it is so personal that she should work the case he happily folds. (Umm…excuse me, but season 3 and season 5 Hawkes called, and he’d like to take the royal chewing out he got from Mac and tell him to shove it up his…sorry the message cuts off there.) Then Mac waltzes into the Senator’s hotel room and says tell me what I want to know or I’m going to have the press in here combing through your life! The Senator—now shaking in his wingtip loafers—them easily confesses. What the hell does he think is going to happen with the press after he confesses to murder?! Oh, well, he confessed so I guess we should just leave him alone. The press is always so reasonable, they’re really known for that. Insults #6 & #7.

And the list continues; Lindsay’s emotional involvement getting dropped like a hot potato caused all of her scenes to fall flat and unaffecting. John Curtis showing up at the apartment was utterly unbelievable. Curtis was about to walk free, but instead he tries to kill Jo? They have said over and over again that he is meticulous and careful but we’re supposed to believe he left so much evidence at that woman’s apartment? If he could get into her apartment so easily why wouldn’t he just take the stuff? Seriously I have many more examples of the failures of the resolution of this particular storyline. Last week’s episode was so strong, which may be why the contrast is so glaring to me.

As a fan who really thought Jo was a great addition to the cast, it is utterly disappointing to see her used in such a melodramatic, nonsensical and overpowering way—like a song one really likes until the radio plays it 15 million times. I try to find something good about each episode so I’m going to pull a Liz Lemon here: the lighting was really good. This episode truly was a means to an end for this fan, just probably not the end the show had in mind…I want my MommyJo.

Jo's survival skills got me thinking, if you were stranded on an island with a murderer which character from the show would you take with you for protection?

Over a month before the next new episode. A perfect time to pull out those DVDs and watch episodes passed!

Bikers, Russians, and Senators, Oh My! 8X08 Review (*****out of 5)

2011-11-21T22:28:00.000-08:00

There’s real power in this week’s episode of CSI:NY as story met craftsmanship. Crossroads encapsulated true marriage between writer, director, and actor, and made this fan girl drool all over herself!

Writer John Dove is an established alum on the show and has a clear understanding of the characters, crime drama story telling, and the show itself. He weaves together a story with twists and turns that seem plausible and interesting. He broke from the typical format, and gave us an opening that was incredibly entertaining—showing us a different point of view as the supposed killer dashes out of his apartment. Even the setting of the murder was unique and outside the norm, introducing us to how a judge (complete with robes and cigar) and jury inspect a crime scene during a trial. The implication that the Russian mob is somehow involved is a pretty solid way to redirect the story and investigation, though further digging reveals a deep, dark, disturbing secret. Our murdered judge isn’t quite the “upholder of justice” he was believed to be. The case held my attention and maintained a bit of mystery until the very end. Of course the accursed “easy confession” made its dastardly appearance *grumble* Mac’s gaze is just too powerful *grumble* but I am always more willing to forgive the horrendous insult to viewers when there has been a bit of effort put into the majority of the story. I appreciated that there were consequences doled out, ultimately ending in the suicide of one perpetrator—a surprise ending since the show doesn’t normally push the envelope in that aspect, preferring to have the team magically talk every one down.

And I’m assuming Dove is the one responsible for this week’s portion of the John Curtis story arc, but whoever it is utilized the characters and the story itself in a much better, more powerful, and stronger way. Jo’s interaction with Curtis and Serena Matthews (Jenn Proske) was more believable (and effective) than the dribble that was dished out last week. She isn’t technically involved in the case, but she is clearly involved in the case. I don’t need trite dialogue telling me that. Dove instead allows the actors to communicate that—allowing Sela Ward the chance to show off her acting skills, and us a chance to connect with her. Likewise, Anna Belknap was allowed to demonstrate Lindsay’s emotional upheaval and uncertainty as she faced what has to be a nightmare for her personally (thank you John Dove for that sweet moment of support between husband and wife). It is impossible to not consider her own experience with wanting to see a man who haunts dreams put behind bars. Phenomenal acting and spot on writing.

However, to me, the shining factor of this episode belongs to director Jeff T. Thomas. His experience with the show has been a grab bag of decent, boring, and interesting episodes, but he really took this story to the next level. He integrated his role in the story telling process without detracting but instead adding. The clever rolling of the cigar from one scene to the next was creative without being distracting. He used the directing of the episode to be part of the story rather just a vehicle. Consider for a moment the scene where we are first introduced to Senator Matthews (Jeffrey Nordling) and his daughter. Mac enters and Lindsay makes the introductions and a conversation about the case ensues. The camera moves around each character from outside Mac’s office—all except Lindsay, her shots are clear and straight on without the interference of the glass or blinds. Thomas brilliantly communicates Lindsay’s role in this case showing she is the one responsible—the one “seeing clearly.” While everyone else is running on emotion, their vision being blurred, she is the one who has to make the hard decisions. A fact that is later established when Lindsay’s testimony cast doubt on the victim and her accusations. That is subtle and beautiful storytelling at its finest (and the equivalent of a cinematic turn on! *fanning myself desperately*).

There were a lot of parts to this episode and it had the potential of being clunky and convoluted yet Thomas managed to weave together each part with a delicate and skillful touch. I felt like there was a respect and partnership between Dove and Thomas, and that bled into the actors and, as a result, to me the viewer. Were there flaws? Yes (I still think there are way too many people apologizing to Jo these days) but I can’t argue there wasn’t a great deal of talent put into this episode. In a three part story arc this was the Empire Strikes Back and I thoroughly enjoyed it (pause to picture Danny as Han Solo…).

Let the speculation begin! Now that we are left to believe there's something fishy going on with the victim Ali Rand where should the team be looking? The Senator? The Senator's daughter? Jo's old college who screwed up in the first place? or Ali Rand herself?

Next up: The exciting conclusion of Jo Vs the Volcano! (The volcano of course being John Curtis' grade school nickname...)

It's Just a Little Crush 8X07 Review (***out of 5)

2011-11-15T17:03:00.000-08:00

It’s about murder, manipulation, and mayhem as nothing is sacred in this week’s episode of CSI:NY, aptly named, Crushed. Logic, reason and true characterization fold under the weight of “drama” and convenience, leaving me to wonder if the writers are actually a group of unmedicated A.D.D. preschoolers pulling out every toy they see before they are even done playing with the toy they have.

The most obvious reference to the title is the opening scene. Writer Kim Clements has created a situation where a party of youngsters goes viral—in a sequence very reminiscent of last season’s Do or Die cell phones are whipped out and the messages sent (we get it, this generation uses social media and cell phones in ways inconceivable to those who were impressed by DOS). As over “700” show up things go Animal House pretty quickly and soon a balcony couples under the weight and crashes to the ground, supposedly resulting in the death of a young girl, Libby Drake (Valentina De Angelis).

Of course all is not as it seems, and it is revealed that Libby does more than throw and insane party. The second reference to the episode’s name comes as it is revealed that young virgin girls are being manipulated into changing their clothes to meet the “popular girl’s” standard and then to take off said clothes to meet the “popular boy’s” standard. It’s She’s All That without the happy ending. Libby Drake is the driving force behind this disgusting game. This is truly one of the most interesting cases I’ve seen on the show in a while, but Clements mediocre writing and apparent lukewarm understanding of crime drama keeps it from reaching its full potential.

I despise obvious character placement and as soon as Danny spoke to the young girl at the hospital—where she revealed for no particular reason that she was going to run in a marathon, therefore giving the audience a big heads up—I knew she was guilty. It made the entire “bait and switch” scene involving Paul Blart Mall Cop—while entertaining since I thoroughly enjoy and well used Danny/Don scene—superfluous. I would assume one would need more finesse and subtly when writing for a big name like CSI, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. The cascade of conveniences continues, as let’s face it, they had practically zero evidence pointing to Rachel Webber (Shanley Caswell) as the killer. It seemed to boil down to her DNA being on the necklace and some sort of mustard on a window. Where was this girl’s lawyer? Are you seriously telling me that out of a group of 700 people this was the only girl who is a hardcore athlete? And she just willingly gave up a DNA sample? Then Mac’s “Don’t” as she tries to talk her way out of it, was completely unbelievable. We are meant to understand this is a generation that can create and exploit social media, taking over the world one text message at a time, but this girl doesn’t know to keep her mouth shut? That is not only lazy writing, but it is incompetent as well. Clements can’t stay focused on one story long enough to see it through to the end. Again, we have the magical confession at the end.

However, when the easily begotten confession doesn’t work for their story suddenly a guy is calling for a lawyer. The secondary story of the episode was equally as flawed. The final reference to crushing has to come from Jo. The reappearance of the case that drove her from the FBI was a real opportunity to add depth to Jo’s character. However, they went the typical, stale, and rehashed route. Jo is pissed so she gets to act like a total bit..uh…jerk. I don’t understand why they keep writing Jo like she is someone else. She has been well established as a laid back, easy going gal who is patient, understanding, and even compassionate. Yet she tears into a well-meaning Lindsay as if she was scraping poop off the bottom of her shoe. I’ve seen her be kinder to a murderer than she was to her co-worker. That was totally and completely out of character and utterly unnecessary. If the writers wished to show how truly effected Jo is by the case then why not show her at the end of the day crawling into bed with a sleeping Ellie, or putting her energy in helping and encouraging Lindsay? Why stick to a stereotype of a “woman scorned” and turn her into a walking cat fight? Been there, hated it when they done that (with both Stella and Lindsay—though it should be noted that Lindsay is the only one to ever go back and apologize). Now, not only do I feel like I’ve lost what little insight I had into her character, but I’ve lost a bit of my desire to know more about her as well.

They have a victim who is willing and able to identify her attacker, Mac even brings up the hotel staff, and bar tender to collaborate her statement, yet we have Jo calling foul when just moments ago based on a mustard smear they are getting an easy breezy confession from a killer and calling it good? And now the D.C. rapist John Curtis (Jason Wiles) is demanding a lawyer. It is so frustrating when they first make the rules and then break them.

The shining portions of this episode were Duane Clarks’ directing, as he maintains a decent pace and easy flow, Lindsay and Don Flack’s handling of rape victim Ali Rand (well portrayed by Beau Garrett), as well as Lindsay’s attempt to be the better person and apologize to someone who clearly doesn’t deserve it or, apparently from her lack of any true response, want it. Also included in the highlights of the episode is the potential of the case and again, at least they are attempting to tell emotional stories which is much better than last year, as well as the continued use of each cast member. I am glad they are finally giving Lindsay something decent to work with, but roll my eyes at the fact that they aren’t creative enough to do a better job of it.

This was an uneven episode that did as much as entertain as it did infuriate. That is an odd combination, and Clements really needs to iron out some of the kinks in her storytelling or go back to school and learn what it means to be responsible for an entire story.

Agree? Disagree? with my assessment of Jo and Lindsay? Could you think of a better way to demonstrate Jo's emotional upheaval or did the show hit the right note for you?

Next Week: Watch out Judge Judy because it's Judgement Day...yeah...sorry I went there...

Dug Up Dead 8X06 Review (***1/2out of 5)

2011-11-07T20:26:00.000-08:00

It’s Arsenic and Old Race to save a life this week on CSI:NY. Nothing says effective character moments better than Halloween…yeah, maybe not, but some how Get Me Out of Here, in a quirky way, managed to get the ambiguous white mask off and take a deeper look. However, the episode also scared up a number of disappointments as well. So for the first time in reviewing history (that’s right...the first time EVER) I am giving a half in my rating. There was just enough good to make the episode a four but just enough bad to make the episode a 3, and I couldn’t decide—also I finally figured out how to make that darn m&m a half.

Sorry to dig up the past but the show had a pretty high standard to live up to when touting a Halloween episode. Season four’s Boo was hugely effective in the “sleeping with the hallway light on” creepiness, as well as being emotionally strong, and show casing excellent CSI interaction and a real taste of New York City. This episode attempted to accomplish that, but came up short. For me it boils down to two main factors: Director Scott White is no Joe Dante and Writer Trey Callaway (as much as I have enjoyed several of his episodes) is no Peter Lenkov. Sticking with the Halloween metaphors that I am forcing down your throats, White and Callaway are more wearing the plastic masks of Dante and Lenkov.

The episode, rather than starting with an actual scare begins with what the show seems to really cling to: the “faux fright.” Oh look a girl running and screaming. I should be worried and scared for her except I’m not because I know that in 5 seconds it’s going to be revealed she’s playing flashlight tag or something equally inane. It’s a trick the show relies on much too frequently. A true “Halloween” episode shouldn’t have pulled that punch. (Remember in Boo when in the opening a body literally crawled its way to the surface? That’s some scary sh*t!)

Really, a big disappointment for me was the lack of fear. There wasn’t any real tension for me because the “scare” factor was never truly established or maintained. Which would have been fine, but it was clear they were trying to create that feeling. They just weren’t able to pull it off. No one ever assumed the guy buried alive would die. If that illusion is taken away then so too is the emotion and things become mechanical and boring. (Remember in Boo when they killed a family of four? Yeah, I felt that tension right away!)

Then—as one of my biggest pet peeves—the killer (who was so willing to MURDER another human being to protect himself) just gave a full confession in the end. No rhyme or reason is established; the show was just running out of time and Callaway knew he had trapped himself in a crypt and took the shameful road—Yes, shameful I say!—of the easy confession. (Remember in Boo when the killer is discovered it turns out he is absolutely bat crazy because he had accidently killed his sister? Talk about depth and well thought out motivation!)

And was I the only one to laugh out loud at the cemetery manager getting whacked ridiculously by the bulldozer? (Remember in Boo when that crazy ass old woman attacks Lindsay? Ok, I know those two things don’t really compare. I just like bringing up how incredibly fantastic Boo is.)

However, there was still plenty to like about the episode. In Boo the character stories were much more subtle and understated. I am always struck by the quiet sadness of Danny and Lindsay as they question the little girl in the hospital, but it is very understated. That has its place in story telling and works in that episode, but in this season I absolutely enjoyed every second of the obvious and over the top character exploration. There was nothing quiet about Danny and Lindsay here. They were entertaining and amusing. The topic of what to do with their bodies after death was macabre but playful (an interesting combination). The flow and progression of their conversation well communicated the shift in their dynamic, offering a glimpse in their too little viewed married life. It was wonderful to see a bit of that old chemistry again.

Likewise, Sid out of the morgue was a special treat. His pillow idea had absolutely nothing to do with the case and yet it didn’t feel forced or too out of place. I adore Robert Joy and his portrayal of Sid Hammerback is the reason he is my favorite M.E. across the franchise. Creepy Sid was well used in this episode. The same can be said for Adam and Hawkes as well. They all managed to get decent screen time and play pivotal roles in the episode. If the case had been better written and executed then it would have been an overall strong episode. It had strong pacing, and I can’t remember ever being bored or wanting a scene to hurry up and end.

I am getting a little sick of “Mama Bear” (and I typed Mama with a strong southern accent) Jo. That relationship has to be eased into and established; not forced down our throats. It would be nice to see someone else befriend Mac and show him affection for once. But even with Jo as the catalyst I love episodes that end with the entire cast doing something stupid like watch a dumb movie. (I will refrain from asking about Lucy since I’m beginning to wonder if she is just a figment of my imagination…you guys saw her once too right?…right?) It just feels like family finally getting the chance to connect for a moment. And for that kind of emotional manipulation I am a total sucker…OF BLOOD! Get it? ‘Cause I’m a vampire. (Does this mean I glitter in sunlight?)

So which do you prefer the Hokey Halloween or the Night of Horrors Halloween?

Next Week: Let’s Party like it’s 1999! And some poor balcony takes the fall for a murderer.

The Brothers Rim 8X05 Review (***out of 5)

2011-10-25T23:33:00.000-07:00

What happens when we get a mediocre writer, a competent director, and a storyline with a bit of heart? Surprisingly, a decent—if some what forced—episode of CSI:NY. (I won’t lie…I was very shocked I didn’t hate this episode.) When I see Aaron Rahsaan Thomas credited with writing an episode I cringe, and make sure to bring a book because I have thus far been bored to tears by the episodes he has presented. His color-by-numbers approach to storytelling sends me diving under the kitchen table as I have horrific flashbacks to my first year of Creative Writing class. The episode Air Apparent was just that—very apparent. However, there was enough skill in the directing and acting department to enhance Thomas’ attempts at emotion.

The episode opens with the juxtaposition of brothers; one in prison, one on the basketball court, or rather one in hell and one in heaven (the announcer to the game even calls the winning shot as one from “heaven”). The story begins moving between the two brothers, showing closeness in nuances and thoughts but clearly separated by circumstances or choices—Hank the Inmate and Riley the Good. I am not a big sports fan. I had enough of basketball growing up with three brothers who were obsessed with the game. Oddly though, basketball and prison sent my memory a’scramblin’ and I remembered reading a story about a basketball player from BYU named Jimmer Somethingorother (later found it was Fredette) who had gone with his brother to play basketball with inmates in prison. I can’t help but seriously consider this the idea that inspired the episode. Even the teams colors were blue and white (BYU’s colors) as well as having Jimmer…I mean Riley…shown as a clean-cut, religious young man. The dynamic is set up clearly from the beginning of the episode. A bit too clearly in fact since before the opening sequence was over I knew who the “killer” was. We have two very distinct characters introduced to us in the first five minutes, but we also had a third character heavily hinted at. Coach Gavin was declared the “winningest coach in ADL History” after already being mentioned by name moments earlier. In a show that keeps a great deal of details generic or vague it is always pretty telling to have a character so well touted. This again goes back to Thomas’ lack of subtly and finesse.

Yet director Anthony Hemingway (who managed to work his name into the opening sequence “Hemingway passes the ball.”) was able to add enough flash and pizzazz to take the heavy handed emotional manipulation and actually make it meaningful. Though I may never forgive either of them for the embarrassingly obvious jump to Don’s storyline. Don basically says “You should watch out for your sibling with an addiction problem.” Then cut to Mac who asks, “So Don, how is your sibling with and addiction problem?” Ugh! Really? They aren’t even going to buy us dinner first? But, again, there was something to save it and this time it was Eddie Cahill and Kathleen Munroe as the Siblings Flack. The dialogue was very “After School Special” but Cahill and Munroe managed to deliver their lines with easy and grace. Their chemistry kept the scenes engaging and heartfelt even as I could feel the proverbial gun of emotional manipulation to my head. Don wants to look out for his sister. “NYPD. Open up!” And Samantha wants her chance to be an unsupervised adult. “You’ve been knocking on my door like that since the Academy.” These two played well with each other, even if they both needed to be put in time out for a moment. Munroe’s performance added a splash of color to Cahill’s character. It was wonderful to see. We usually get a scene report, and a line or two of laughter from his character so this was a great departure.

If they could have gotten the pacing of the episode a bit more on target then they really would have had a strong episode. The scene where Don is following his sister was so fast and choppy that I had to go back and watch it three times just to be sure I didn’t miss anything. But the scene where the two brothers play basketball seemed to go on forever. I later realized the 3 minute basketball game in a male psyche is equivalent to the gratuitous naked dancing woman we typically get. There needs to be someone making better calls in the editing department.

Everything wrapped up nicely in a disgustingly Disney-esque fashion. Both sets of siblings paralleled each other by making up in the end. But that’s just because Thomas lacks refinement (and Alan Menken was unavailable to provide an award winning musical number). However, there was a lot of old school CSI magic here too. I can’t remember the last time we had a “good ol’ fashion internal organ getting stabbed” shot. Morbid, but interesting. Also having Lindsay perform the blood analysis was great continuity, and I am totally digging the stronger, sassier Lindsay this season. And Mac wasn’t doing everyone else’s job this week. There was a strong season two vibe to this episode—it just missed the great DL interaction from that season.

The show is getting closer to finding the balance between plot and character. They still have a way to go but this one was definitely a lot closer to knocking it out of the park (that’s a basketball reference right? …Right?)

So which do you prefer: an episode that features a character’s story heavily with a case being the subplot or the reverse? Or are you a “keep the drama in the kitchen I just want some crime solving” type? Or how about the “case shmase—just give me the character stuff” type?

Next Week: H-A-double L-O-W-double E-N spells a case that looks eerily familiar, almost like we had a someone come out of the grave in a previous episode…oh yeah it was called Boo from season 4! Hmm…here’s hoping this episode isn’t just a zombie! Wait…that actually just spells HALLOWEEN…I knew I should have paid closer attention in school.

Tammy Wynette Eat Your Heart Out 8X04 Review (***out of 5)

2011-10-17T22:49:00.000-07:00

As the old adage goes, you can never go home again.

Wait…what’s that?

Oh, sorry.

Take two: As the old adage goes, you can sometimes go home again. Was that the moral message of this week’s episode Officer Involved? Or was it good will out? Or how about make some really dumb mistakes but get off scot-free? To tell you the truth I was left scratching my head. As an episode made up of spare parts from season’s passed—I got it! This episode is in direct correlation with season one’s On the Job. If the circumstances didn’t give it away then the constant reminders in the dialogue more than adequately spelled it out. I mean geez guys! Danny wasn’t the only one with head wound by the end of the episode!—it lacked the cohesiveness of a truly well crafted tale. It didn’t bring Danny’s story full circle so much as it drove half way around the block, stopped for some lemonade before crashing into a light pole.

Last week we had a moment where Danny confronted a rookie, then immediately doubted himself, ultimately apologized to said rookie, then went out drinking with his team. Officer Cooper called Danny an excellent boss. Mac said Danny was an excellent Sergeant. That’s not we’ve seen on screen. Here’s what I saw very well summarized by IAB Lt. Mitchell Adler (perfectly portrayed by Dean Norris), “Let’s review your choices: you went out drinking with your patrolmen, you brought a loaded weapon to a crowded bar, got into an altercation with a patron, ended up the night half unconscious on the pavement as one of you officers shot the patron to death with your own weapon. You seem capable Sergeant Messer. The things you did in that lab, way over my head. But as a boss, your way over yours.” I nearly had whiplash from Danny’s change in attitude. Two episodes ago we hear about how his heart is breaking over not getting to see his wife. Last week he is irate over having to be stuck with overtime due to missing his family. This week however he is perfectly content to spending “hours” at a bar, until what I can only assume was early in the morning since the sun is clearly up by the time they start processing the scene and taking statements. I don’t have an issue with him going out with his team, but a bit excessive there Sergeant.

And thank goodness I spent all that time actually believing that the writers were coming up with something original rather than the utterly clichéd “cheating” storyline…um, be careful I am actually dripping sarcasm here…I don’t want anyone to slip. Despite my love of Carmine Giovinazzo’s portrayal of indignant, emotional Danny (and let’s be clear, I do LOVE it) it wasn’t enough to make me feel connected to his character. I thought this was going to show how much Danny’s grown, but really it just showed that he wasn’t ready to lead a team. A point well emphasized by the fact that he voluntarily turned in his stripes. Why did he do that exactly? ‘Cause the other kids were mean to him? It was too hard? I’m not sure because one line from Danny about trust does not a convincing argument make. He’s back in the lab and I have a little less respect for his character than I did before.

As much as they bitch-slapped Danny, they solidified Lindsay’s strength. I originally thought this episode would inspire feelings of sympathy for Danny, but I was surprised to find Lindsay was the character I felt the most for. Her obvious concern for her spouse (which was never reciprocated) was perfectly portrayed. Her worries and fears were apparent in her mannerism, dialogue, and personified in her confrontation with Officer Cooper (Jeananne Goossen). There were times when I could see those emotions strongly in Anna Belknap’s face and eyes. Sadly, my favorite interaction of the entire episode was between Lindsay and Cooper. It was real, it was powerful, and it was believable. Goossen and Belknap found the perfect median between overly dramatic (As the CSINY Turns) and the hysterical (Jerry Springer style).

For me the episode lack a sense of balance between the intense and the quiet. In season two’s Trapped we have Danny stuck in a highly emotional, highly charged situation. Yet amidst that we have the small still moments as he thinks about the victim, or his own brother. There was none of that here. The dead body remains just that, the dead body. It was cold. In fact, IA corrects Danny at one point in reminding him that this guy was a victim. A big part of that also has to do with the true lack of interaction between Danny and Lindsay. If you’re curious, because I know I was, they spent 49 seconds together at the beginning of the episode—only 26 seconds of that were spent actually communicating with each other, and a total of 40 seconds at the end. That is a total of 89 seconds out of an episode that was nearly 45 minutes long (about 2700 seconds). The rest of the episode was Lindsay running around everywhere Danny wasn’t and Danny making no reference of any import to his wife. (I refuse to count his “I’m married” line, because I know how Danny would respond to a perp if he heard that regurgitated.) They missed a prime opportunity to really connect the season one episode. S1 Danny laments not having someone to watch his back, but S8 Danny clearly has a wife who is devoted to helping him and we get nothing from Danny. ZERO. Writer Christopher Silber needs to keep as far away from DL storylines as possible.

Actually, he can stay away from character stories period. Vigilante is the only episode he’s written where he was able to successfully include some character—which was also a strong Lindsay episode—but ultimately his strength lies is the cases. However, that wasn’t so much true with this episode either. Hawkes at one point tell Lindsay “there’s no empirical evidence IA is on a witch hunt” however, Cooper admits to having made the shot, but they are riding Danny. Then Cooper admits to lying, but only because Danny told her to, so IA goes after Danny. Danny knows how GRS works. He would know that the lab would figure out who actually shot or didn’t shoot the gun. Why would he tell Cooper to lie? Mac confronts IA, pressing for information on who is politically grinding an ax against Danny, because (and I agree) there’s no real reason why IA is busting his chops so hard. So is it a witch hunt or not? And who is this “man in black” who is always out to get Danny?

We got our weekly “Jo characteristic that emulates Lindsay” moment. We got Adam looking like an idiot and trying to talk about the case with Lindsay, just so the audience could be reminded that she couldn’t work the case. I hate it when they do it to Lindsay, and I hate it when they do it to Adam. There were several lines that actually didn’t make sense. At one point Jo says “Danny and the other two cops” confirmed the sketch of the Rockaway Killer as one of the guys they fought with that night. Except Danny makes no mention of seeing a friend with the victim and we know he was unconscious during the brawl. There are other such inconsistencies throughout the episode. Not to mention when one drinks absinth I thought they saw Kylie Minogue…am I wrong about that?

I appreciate the show’s attempt to give us something of substance, but it was too disjointed and uneven to actually reach a level of meaningfulness. It is interesting to see that in season one Danny was taken off the promotion grid following the circumstances surrounding Danny’s own “good shot” then voluntarily gives up his promotion following the circumstances of a “good shot.” A decent enough concept, just not well executed. It was a great episode for Lindsay, a terrible episode for Danny, and an “o.k.” episode for this viewer.

So, what do you think, did Danny return too soon to the lab or are you thinking "It's about damn time!"?

Next Week: The team must follow the writing on the wall! And watch out, Lindsay's gotta gun!

Turning Left For Four Hours 8X03 Review (**out of 5)

2011-10-11T06:15:00.000-07:00

Well put the car in gear and run me over why don’t you CSI:NY? Last week I criticized the show for recycling themes and certain aspects of other episodes, but conceded to the fact that at least the episode did its best to redefine those ideas in creative ways. This week’s episode proved a giant flat tire while traveling on the road of mediocrity. Cavallino Rampante by my count is at least the third time the case has centered around cars (even more if one includes the cabbie killer), and as was made apparent by Multiplicity, the more something is copied the worse it gets. Obviously someone on the writing staff likes fast cars—along with every member of the crime lab incidentally—but enough already. This episode was running on fumes and I don’t think even the fancy driving of Lightening McQueen could have saved it.

It’s hard enough for me to not be bored by cars (the Click and Clack radio show has really been the only instance where I can deal with talking about cars so much…hilarious show by the way!) so it has to be some good, solid, entertaining writing to keep me interested. Season 4’s You Only Die Once accomplished that with its humorous parody, creativity, dialogue, intrigue and wit. Not so much in this episode. There were too many issues that took me out of the story. I know it’s not unheard of for a show to reuse an actor—Law & Order was rather known for it—but CSI:NY doesn’t do it very often and was I left scratching my head as to why they did it in this episode. As soon as Tim Guinee appeared on screen (last seen--and much better used--as the killer in season two’s Fare Game) I knew he was the bad guy. It usually isn’t too hard to figure out who is the guilty party on the show, but because it was so blatant I was left feeling cheated.

Not only was it easy to guess, but writer Adam Targum first made the rule—the killer was a criminal mastermind—then broke the rule having him caught so simply at the end. So he’s a ruthless law-evading genius one moment then a total chump the next? He works to rig a car (another recycling from Season 4, a la the cabbie killer), kills without guilt, and kidnaps for ransom, then in the last minute blindly accepts “undercover Jo” and her fake car? It’s like Targum forgot he had to write the end of the episode and in a panic just hit the breaks.

I also don’t understand why they chose to make Jo a car enthusiast. Is it a requirement that every member of the crime lab love cars? The show has well-established Lindsay’s interested and affinity for the fast and furious (as well as Mac’s, Adam’s, and Danny’s) so again it felt stale seeing Jo with a “gee golly” smudge on her cheek sliding happily out from under the car. Been there, drove that! I can’t even make a Speed Racer or Batmobile reference because then I would be stuck making the same mistake. A big issue for me is that they seem to give Jo very little that she can call her own, while steeling from Lindsay’s character. Is it that difficult to write two very distinct women?

AJ Buckley seems to be able to maintain chemistry with whomever he is paired with, but I wonder if his routine of humor is going to get old soon. They are very close to turning him into a caricature. I really enjoyed Adam’s character in the premier. They worked to give him depth and wrote him outside of his typical self. But he has now been relegated back to lab clown, which is funny right now, but I’m hoping they don’t make the same mistake they made in season 7 and stick to a formula.

The only thing I really appreciated was that this episode served as a vehicle…hee hee…for Danny’s storyline. I liked his interaction with the rookie. It felt very authentic. She was nervous and unsure around him but trying to play it cool, and he was a boss. It is his responsibility to help his subordinates learn the job and sometimes that involves taking the hard line. Danny had to learn things the difficult way and it seemed he simply wanted to save his team from taking that course (as well as ensuring he isn’t spending too much time away from his family cleaning up spilled milk). I was surprised by Mac’s response to Danny’s chewing out, but then immediately felt pleased. I, like Danny, was expecting Father Mac to sweep in and drop some sage words of wisdom. It was a pleasant shift in gears. The show is giving us a lot from this particular storyline and I am really enjoying how it is playing out.

So overall this was a big disappointment, especially so early in the season and following two pretty solid episodes. If the show wants another season they are going to have to stop relying on old material. If a writer pitches an idea as a reworking of a story that’s already been done the producers should flat out refuse. I will not spend the next 15 episodes stuck in neutral like last season. So fingers-crossed this was just a one time hiccup, because the Premier really was a jumpstart to a new life in the show, and I would hate to seem them drive this opportunity into the ditch. (Are there enough car references in this one? Wait…what? Too many?! Never!)

Are cars overdone on the show or do you think there is still plenty of storytelling left in them?

Next Week: Uh oh Rookie, you did a bad thing and you’re about to learn you don’t mess with the Messers! (Cue a member of a boy bad!)

Sheena is a Punk Rocker! 8X02 Review (****out of 5)

2011-10-03T21:37:00.000-07:00

Confession time: Punk doesn’t really do it for me. When I hear of the Ramones I usually get them confused with series of children’s novels. However, this week’s episode of CSI:NY definitely got my toe a tappin’ and my heart a thumpin’!

The episode, Keep It Real, opens with the pumping tones of “Blitzkrieg Bop” as a crowd of young hipsters reinvent the glory days. The band is fronted by a vivacious blonde. The focus is immediately brought to a young man who clearly thinks she’s a sensation. Some secret smiles and a few ogling looks and it’s apparent the magic isn’t just happening on stage. Cue the dead body.

I was a little concerned because my mind immediately went to season three episode The Ride In where a body is found covered in cash, as was this week’s unfortunate victim. I worried because we have seen the writers regurgitate past episodes, and they were just as pretty as the image of regurgitation inspires. But again, I was pleasantly surprised. Even though there were several themes and ideas that were repeated, I wasn’t left feeling like I wasted my time. There were so many wonderful new elements that it kept my interest. That is a direct correlation to the show’s use of character. For two week’s in a row we have been given more character interaction than, I would argue, we got in the entirety of season 7. From Danny and Lindsay’s several conversations about life with the new promotion, Flacks tender interaction with victim’s girlfriend, to Hawkes’ childhood revelation, and Jo’s college boy drama, we have gotten to see and learn about our favorite characters.

I never understood why the show would invest so much time in each episode on people we’ve never met before and seem to ignore the cast we return to watch week after week. This episode, as did last week’s episode, had a superb balance between a plot driven storyline and character driven story lines.

As the case progresses, we find out that the rock star girlfriend likes expensive guitars and to kick in windows (clearly well prepared for fame), but probably didn’t murder her boyfriend of only a few weeks. In fact, Aly Michalka delivers a rather believable performance as a girl who has lost the potential for true. I found her relationship with Michael to be exactly as she described him, “sweet and genuine.” Writer Bill Haynes gave us a few twists and turns, keeping the case interesting and engaging. Not to mention the guest actors and their characters were a lot of fun to watch and played their parts well. Even those who weren’t a big part of the case, like the tattoo artist, helped to keep the story evolving and moving.

Director Alex Zakrzweski managed to keep things flowing and moved between the case and the sub-plots well. There is one aspect of his directing that frustrates me; too many flashbacks. I can’t stand it when a show “flashes back” to a scene we saw only 5 minutes previous because they think the audience is too stupid or too slow to pick up on the details. This isn’t CSI: Sesame Street, we don’t need everything spelled out for us! (Although, how cool would that show be? Brain now running rampant with images of Muppet crime scenes…)

Outside of the case, Mac’s sudden return to the lab left me a bit confused at first, as well as a little disappointed. Last week he was lamenting about never coming back and then he suddenly walks off the elevator and back into his old position? It nearly gave me whiplash! But at the end of the episode as Mac stares at the plaque from last week’s episode, I was reminded of the storyline involving Joe Vincent, the firefighter who lost his son on 9/11. Joe insisted over and over again he wasn’t coming to the ceremony. This paralleled Mac’s own feelings on returning to the lab. Perhaps Mac realized his own words of support and encouragement needed to be directed inward, and seeing Joe show up at the ceremony provide Mac with the realization that he too needed to show up. I really wondered about Joe’s story line in Indelible, but now I see it making perfect sense when married to this week’s episode. That’s pretty strong writing.

We really are getting to see the characters dealing with life outside the lab. Danny and Lindsay’s storyline is being well plotted and nicely paced. The concept of life with separate jobs was well introduced with their initial interaction, “I’m looking for Danny Messer. He’s my husband; at least I think he is. I haven’t seen him for days.” Lindsay jokes to which Danny responds, “You tryin’ to break my heart?” Clearly they are trying to deal with the separation, but it isn’t all rainbows and butterflies. This theme continues as they have their “lunch jacking” moment. This is an extremely interesting development in their relationship and the ground work is being well laid for them this season.

Jo’s own sub-plot with her son and his new roommate was also well integrated into the show. It provided humorous material from Adam, as well as a moment of insight into Hawkes’ life. It also continued to give shape and depth to Jo’s character. She broke the “Mom Code” but still managed to give her son the respect he deserves at this age. I am enjoying her character much more this season, and glad to see her interacting with more than just Mac. What an odd team she and Adam make, but it seems to really work.

Overall, it wasn’t the most suspenseful story, but I’ve always said if I get a decent case with great character interaction then I am happy. And this episode definitely makes it on Billboards Top Chart!

Question: So Jo was in definite mom-mode this week—going to extremes, overacting—but all in the name of love. Any moment come to mind when your own parent/guardian managed to embarrass you with such parenting skills?

Next Week: A bunch of girls with some junk in their trunks! CSI:NY is gone in 30 seconds, so too perhaps, Danny’s new promotion? Hmm….

Opening with Closure 8X01 Review (*****out of 5!)

2011-09-26T20:55:00.000-07:00

It isn’t often that an episode of television has the opportunity to create and inspire a powerful and lasting emotional response. So it is always a pleasant surprise when a show can do just that, but what is even more surprising is it was CSI:NY. I’ve seen every episode of this show (most of them more than once) and I have never seen an episode like this week’s season premier Indelible. This episode was packed with Humanism, love, and loss. It managed to bring to remembrance all the emotions of a truly tragic day in our history.

I was very worried when I heard that this episode would focus on the events of 9/11. As much as I love this show, it isn’t necessarily known for its deep emotional impact on and interpretation of the world. Yet, coming off a season finale that was possibly a series finale—perhaps inspiring those involved with the show to demonstrate to the world what a mistake it was to consider ending the show before its time—and from the real life efforts of Gary Sinise to help with the remembrance of those who suffered as first responders on the day of the attack, everyone involved clearly worked hard to give us something we as viewers could be proud of. It was bold, it was ambitious, it was respectful and honest, and it was successful.

As the episode opens with an unfamiliar looking Mac, one who exudes warmth and love, it is clear we will be witness to many deaths in this episode. Director Frederick E. O. Toye immediately set the tone by seamlessly shifting from Mac and Claire’s full, vibrant bathroom and morning rituals to Mac’s current sparse, sterile, and lifeless bathroom. The silence of the laughter and music was clear and effective; with Claire gone, so too was the light and joy of Mac’s life. She was the music in his life, a theme well established by his surprise opera tickets.

Writers Zachary Reiter and John Dove continued this emotional roller coaster throughout the episode. Mac remembers his last bus ride with Claire, again the music is present as they share ear buds, then to be immediately left standing alone. These ups and downs aren’t limited to specific moments. The entire episode moves through humor and tears, joy and despair. It was nice to be reminded of the writers’ comedic ability (who could forget Mac’s love of waterfalls?) as we watched Adam give his impression of Jo—though it came out as more Paul Lynde than Sela Ward—it was a perfect moment of levity in a heavy episode.

I was really impressed by their decision to not show us what ultimately happened to Claire. I respect that decision because I believe I would feel uncomfortable knowing more about what happened to her than Mac. It was unbelievably effective to have Mac speaking with Claire on the phone only to have her disappear in a swarm of ambiguity. There are still so many questions for so many people that it is heartbreaking to think that over 1600 people lost a spouse that day. The agony that comes from losing a loved one can only be compounded by the mystery and unknown. The writers’ choice was very realistic and, as a result, very emotional. They clearly established Mac and Claire’s love for each other serving to emphasis the amount of loss in Mac’s life. (Although, since I am a true blue dyed through and through DL fan I can’t help but think that if they could show Mac and Claire so affectionate towards each other then why can’t we get that between Danny and Lindsay? But because I know we are going to be getting decent DL stuff this season I’ll leave it at that.)

This brings me to Sergeant Messer and one of the most powerful scenes: the flashback to when Flack and Messer first met. It is interesting to note that as we see them in 2011 Don is in civilian clothes and Danny is in his uniform. As we move to 2001 we see the reverse, a uniformed Don leading a bleeding victim out of the fog of debris, smoke, and ash only to met by a street clothed Danny, also running out the same fog. There is no music, no added drama. It seemed like a scene out of a play where the emotion and impact almost relies solely on the actors and dialogue. And it was done beautifully. It reminded me of the film The Others where the characters are surrounded by the fog of their own nightmare and hell. It was solemn, scary, and uncertain; a perfect interpretation of that fateful day.

Each of the actors from our main cast brought every scene to a whole new level and acted as a voice to so many people. Sela Ward brilliantly delivered the uncertainty and worry as Jo looks onto a crippled Pentagon, Gary Sinise the heart ache and loss as Mac races to an already lost Claire, Robert Joy and Hill Harper as Drs. Hammerback and Hawkes quietly and firmly displayed the necessary commitment to help those in need, and Anna Belknap and AJ Buckley were the spot on and emotional voice of Lindsay and Adam, those who could do nothing more than watch and wait. While Adam’s story isn’t a new one—Without a Trace had an episode about 9/11 where a character had a nearly identical story—it was wonderfully used and AJ’s vulnerability created another dynamic in Adam. This episode marvelously incorporated our characters in such away that we were seeing their past, but gain new insight into each one. For example, Lindsay’s decision to come to New York may have stemmed from her time in the city when she was there to help with the bucket brigade—a truly creative and genius use of this episode.

There is so much more about this episode that I could go on about, but what it boils down to is to question whether the episode accomplished what it set out to do, then to question whether it exceeded that expectation. My answer is a resounding yes to both. While not perfect, this is a realistic portrayal of sacrifice and endurance. I am not my usually hokey self in this review because this episode isn’t about the typical crime fighting/case solving escapades our characters run into. This is The West Wing’s Isaac and Ishmael, or MASH’s Goodbye, Farewell and Amen—an episode set apart from other episodes, a risk with the attempt to actually say something meaningful, to be vulnerable. (Never fear, I can’t resist the corny or ridiculous for too long and will be back to my normal self next week…and I’m sure that was something you were fearing…) So with the respect this episode deserves I will end with Mac’s words:

“Ten years have passed since that tragic day… and here today we gather, a people united not only in our grief but in our resolve to stand together as one family of Americans.”

Which scene or character best personified your emotions that day 10 years ago, or is there a different perspective you could add?

Next Week: The rock and roll of murder mysteries appears and Danny and Lindsay try to finally have that elusive meal together. Sounds like a bit of dissonance is headed our way!

Season 8: Yo Mac! Back in Black!

2011-09-18T19:39:00.000-07:00

The end of the summer is officially marked by the beginning of the Fall season on TV...at least it is in my house! So goodbye summer tan (you really only existed in my mind anyway) and hello frantic DVR programming!

In honor of the beginning of the season, and my return to forcing my opinions on all the unwitting, I am taking a moment to prepare for the season.

Where we left off:

Danny's 'movin' on up' and Mac pulls a George Bailey wondering if his life has purpose. Hawkes spent the summer sittin' in a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G, and Flack, Adam, Sid, and Jo...um...well it was work as usual for them.

Where we're headed: (SPOILERS AHEAD MATEY!--that's my best pirate voice)

The Premier is set to be an emotional one. According to EW magazine, "In a story line inspired by star Gary Sinise, who raised money for a 9/11 memorial, the season 8 premiere flashes back to the day that Det. Mac Taylor lost his wife in the World Trade Center. "After the attacks I got very involved in meeting first responders," the actor explains. "I wanted to do something for them." Coming off the anniversary of his wife's death, Mac's getting emotional--and he's not the only one. "We let the audience into some personal moments this season," says exec producer Pam Veasey. Newly promoted sergeant Danny Messer struggles with work/life balance, and Jo Danville will delve deeper into the reason she moved to New York City. Hint: we'll learn more about that rape case she covered in D.C."

So Mac has found a purpose; helping with identification for victims of 9/11. I admit I am excited by that. It is a unique and believable way to tie in Mac's history with his future. It is a prime opportunity to help Mac finally move on from his wife's death while respectfully recreating the drama of that day. We've had hints of his struggle through out the years, and I will be interested in seeing if they write his character any differently this season.

Danny is now a Sergeant and things aren't running too smoothly for our favorite TV family. Eonline reports, "Anna Belknap tells us that there are some struggles early on getting used to Danny's (Carmine Giovinazzo) new sergeant position: "They are used to working together and seeing each other everyday, so it becomes sort of difficult. They try have lunch in episode two. They can't make it work. It's frustrating. You're used to seeing somebody everyday. He works long hours, she works long hours, they're not seeing each other, so it's tough."

This has great potential as a storyline. My problem with TV couples tends to stem from the fact that "drama" is usually so contrived or forced: the old "cheating" standby, or kidnapping, or something blowing up type thing. Those things have their place, but they are more cliched now. I am really interested in seeing this couple deal with a pretty typical marital issue. Work can get in the way of romance. I think it is unbelievably sweet that they have been so used to getting to see each other all the time that the shift to working separately is a very real issue for them. In a world where marriage is often represented on TV or film as something to be avoided or mistreated it is so refreshing to see a man and woman who actually love and care for each other, and their family.

In Friday night's chat with Executive Producers Pam Veasey and Zach Reiter they confirmed that "Flack's sister makes a return, we were very lucky for that. We're hoping to start something..."

Need another reason to get giddy? How about this from Pam Veasey in TV Guide: "This year, there are relationships for everyone. We want to see the other side of our characters. Who are they outside the lab?" says Veasey " You'll learn things that will make you smile"

Since the switch to single case episodes, CSI:NY has struggled to keep me interested in an episode from start to finish. Often there isn't enough in an episode to keep my attention, in other words I was bored. However, the episodes I did find successful were the ones that had an interesting case and the secondary story was filled with character development. Season 5 episode The Triangle is a good example of this. Interesting case and the parts of the episode that didn't deal with the case dealt with Danny, Lindsay and her pregnancy. Or Season 6 episode Cuckoo's Nest dealing with Flack going AWOL. If this is going to be the trend with season 8 then I am ready to see one of the best season's of the show's history!

Season 8; write it great! (I'm terrible I know)

Seriously, what sounds better for a Friday night than dealing with the death of a loved one, a family struggling to keep it together under stressful situations, a passed rape case that haunts those involved, a sister who is an alcoholic, and general murder and mayhem? What could beat that?

Enjoy the Premier and I'll be back to posting reviews on Monday.

Also, thanks to DLChem.net (a one stop shop for all things Danny and Lindsay) for their help in making sure we fans have all the up to date info. I was able to pull quotes so easily thanks to all their hard work! Looking forward to another year of gabbing like crazy about how cute Lucy Messer is. ^_^

You Say Goodbye and I'll Say Hello! 7X22 (****out of 5)

2011-05-16T20:28:00.000-07:00

Let me just start by saying this was an incredibly difficult episode to review. I battled with myself. Can I review this episode like it was just any other episode? Should I? The fate of CSI:NY may still be up in the air, but I can say that if this is the last episode they release into the universe, then they can be proud. The episode wasn’t flawless, and I’m not giving it a sympathy vote. There were weaknesses, but there were also strengths, and thankfully this week the latter out weighed the former. Exit Strategy truly was strategically presented.

I am critical of the writers (and offer no apology for that) but this week I am giving them credit where credit is due. This episode brilliantly weaved Mac’s emotional upheaval with my own. Within the first five minutes of the episode beginning Mac comes face to face with his own mortality, even as I sat wondering if this would be the last time I would be excitedly watching a new episode. Mac’s situation brilliantly paralleled the show’s, which added depth to each scene. This episode beautifully reinforced why Gary Sinise is such an established actor. His ability to inspire both heartache and strength is phenomenal. Mac’s vulnerability, while it seemed to come out of no where, was still believable.

The episode was peppered with small, intimate moments. Watching the team sit around the conference table discussing the job was more entertaining that the multiple Danny/Don chase scenes we were subjected to this season. The wonderful scene between Danny and Lindsay as they teased each other with ease, followed by an involved discussion about their future was marvelously written, and wonderfully executed by Carmine Giovinazzo and Anna Belknap. It encapsulated everything I have been longing to see in their relationship. It was a great touch to have Danny’s character—one of the more central characters of the show—to come full circle. The first season he was wild, and lost his chance for promotion, now he is grounded and moving up in the world. Don’s friendship with Mac has really been honed the last few episodes and I’m glad they gave Eddie Cahill the screen time he deserved. It is a little disheartening that we had to wait until the last episode of the season to get this kind of emotion, but it is reassuring to know that the show’s producers and writers are still capable of achieving that power.

Even the case was well done. It was messy and confusing. We have a little girl (who was being neglected and abused by an alcoholic mother) taken by a ruffian who then devotes his life to taking care of her in a way her own mother had been unable to. Clayne Crawford embodied that conflict well, as Wes he came off as gruff and unapproachable, perfect for someone who was willing to tag along and make an easy buck in a robbery. However, he also exuded a subtle tenderness that allowed Olivia/Madison to find a person who would love and care for her. Because the show is what it is there was a bit too much convenience involved. It worked out perfectly that Olivia’s mom is no longer an alcoholic, that Wes was killed, that Olivia had a heart problem etc., but those are things that just have to be accepted as part of the show’s narrative style.

While I struggled with some of the directing, there was some pretty notable camera work. As Mac stood in the lab towards the end of the episode with Jo standing in the distance, a level up, I was moved by the implications—she stood on his shoulders, as either his conscience or as his predecessor.

Oddly enough, one of the most emotional moments for me was to see Mac watching Adam as he struggled to get the light working on his magnifying glass. It showed that despite the upheaval, and potential for change, some things always remain the same. The song choice seemed to have been written for this episode. It met the tone of the episode and then enhanced it:

It's everything you wanted, it's everything you don't
It's one door swinging open and one door swinging closed
Some prayers find an answer some prayers never know
We're holding on, and letting go.

Typically I end my reviews with a Guilty Pleasure and Highlight of the Episode, but this time I would like to invite anyone who may be reading this to post/comment what you would pick as a guilty pleasure and/or highlight.

And if you’ll indulge me for just a moment to say thanks to those who encouraged me with my reviews and have supported me in ways I never imagined. The administrators of DLChem have been wonderful, and the members have helped make this an experience I will always treasure. I am so grateful I’ve had a chance to in some small way contribute to the board. I’m staying optimistic and saying I’ll see you guys next year!

Matryoska Dolls Anyone? 7X20 (***out of 5)

2011-05-09T22:10:00.000-07:00

New York, New York, an iconic song representing an iconic city and one assumes it would be extremely difficult to overcome such standards, but as the minor tones of Digital Daggers techno remix (and I would even argue rejuvenation) of Sinatra’s anthem pound out around the seduction and murder, or I guess I should say murder and seduction, of a young woman I am convinced it’s possible. Just as the remake of the song breaks away from what it typically accepted or understood, so too does the entire opening sequence of this week’s episode Nothing for Something. Typically the show utilizes slow motion to propel motion forward, but as we see the first shots of a dead body, then follow the sequence of events in reverse at an accelerated pace, it is clear nothing is going to so easily fall into place in this episode. Conceptually the idea was cool, interesting, and entertaining, I just felt the execution came up a little short, not quite living up to the potential set by such a powerful song; an intense opening sequence for an episode that lost steam. This seemed to set the tone for the rest episode—so close to being phenomenal, just not quite living up to expectation.

My biggest issue with this episode was the lack of balance. I have a lot of respect for John Dove and his contributions to the show over the years, but I couldn’t find my footing with this episode. There was some great dialogue: Flack’s musings in the diner about dog years and cop years was strong. While other times the dialogue was weak and almost comical: Jo tells Mac that the killer—Charles Martin—had “no motive to kill Christina” as part of her argument that she believed him innocent with regards to the woman. The only problem with that is, of course, that they established no real motive for him killing either of the other two women beyond it was something he felt propelled to do and enjoyed it. So he liked killing the other two women, but wouldn’t like killing this woman? What sense does that make? Similarly, Adam’s “improve” dialogue was pointless, but I loved the interplay and dialogue between Danny, Jo, Flack, and Lindsay as they processed Martin’s apartment. There were also lines that I didn’t get at all. Jo asks about the basketball player and Lindsay tells her that it is linked to the shoe print of the killer. How did she know the shoe print belonged to the killer? They found the body in a public park. I could see how the print may eventually be found to be the killer’s, but at this point there is no evidence that is the case. And don’t get me started on Jo’s save-the-day moment as she “talked” Martin down from the ledge. I like strong female characters, but I roll my eyes when Mac does it, I rolled my eyes when Stella would do it, and I rolled my eyes when Jo did it. Let the CSIs be CSIs, they don’t have to be negotiators, interrogators, snipers or any other scenario the writers come up with. They can be scientist fighting crime and I’ll like them well enough.

I will say that I felt this was a strong episode for Gary Sinise. It’s these types of episodes that remind me why he is my favorite boss out of all three shows in the franchise. He wasn’t Mr. Self-Righteous in this one. He was a tired guy, who got frustrated, a little ridiculous, but ultimately focused on doing what’s right. Mac was funny, intense, emotional, apologetic (if you can believe it), and fallible; a great range for Sinise to play with. Even when he and Peter Fonda had the great “jaw lock” stare down I was struck with the comparison of the two men. Is Mac destined to such loneliness? To be an old man in a diner keeping teenage boys from skipping out on the bill? I loved the juxtaposition of that thought to the one I had as Jo was ordering…um…I mean, convincing Mac to go home. She cares about him, Flack cares about him, as I would wager most who work with him care about him. I am not suggesting a Jo/Mac romance, I am talking about something more than flirting, a real sense of caring for each other. Will that save Mac from a future of coffees alone? I hope so.

I refuse to comment on the scene involving those “famous” sports people. I don’t know who they are and I couldn’t care less. I cringe at those forced, useless cameos, and that’s all the space I will spend on it.

I wasn’t a fan of Eric Laneuville’s directing in this episode. Again, it goes back to balance. There were some creative shots that worked well with the story, but the flow and pacing was choppy and clunky. Each scene felt more like its own episode rather than a collection of scenes that form an episode. We went from a dead body, to Mac’s wallet being stolen (Note: Mac immediately canceled his police badge and credit cards…so they can deal effectively with a wallet being stolen! *grumble* *pointless Danny storyline last season* *grumble*), to shoe prints, to an apartment that had already been processed, to an old case, to a new missing woman, to Pissy Mac shoving a guy into a wall, to a private investigator, to a “grieving” husband, to Wild Bill Hunts’ “Go ahead Mac, make my day,” to a hotel room, to Hunts’ vigilante grocery shopping, back to the grieving husband, to a third dead body, to Flack’s leopard-print travel bag, back to Hunt…my head is spinning just thinking about it all! The word convoluted comes to mind.

However, I then think about Flack and Mac’s interrogation of the husband and I liked it. I always complain about how the killer just suddenly caves in the last 10 minutes of an episode and confesses. This time they legitimately tricked him into a confession. I loved it. Clifton Collins Jr. was great as the ambiguous bad guy and Peter Fonda wasn’t bad as the ambiguous good guy.

This was a hodge-podge episode that did really well in some parts and abysmal in others. I will at least applaud their efforts in trying new things and braking out of their self-constructed narrative box they built around themselves. If this is the first step into some newer, meatier storylines then I say it’s not bad. If this is just a flash in the pan, then we truly did get nothing for something.

Highlight of the episode: Eddie Cahill’s comedic timing.

Guilty Pleasure: I love Lindsay quietly processing the shoe print while the others talked. It just seemed so old school, and sweet in a weird way.

The End of the Road for Dirty Hunt 7X21 (***out of 5)

2011-05-06T22:58:00.000-07:00

I remember how my heart pounded as Lindsay stared down the barrel of a gun, how I squealed with delight as Danny stormed into the room, calling out to her, his voice frantic and fearful. I can still feel my face spreading into a grin as he pulled her desperately into his arms, his breath rushing out in relief. I remember how in slow motion Lindsay gripped tightly to him and gratefully buried her face against his body, and I fell even more in love with their relationship. I remember how I sat (literally) on the edge of my seat as Mac snuck up onto a deadly, enraged Irishman, my fists clenched in panic as Peyton pulled out her cell phone and dial his number. “Oh no!” I cried, “no, no, no, no!” The phone rang, Mac was caught and I was glued to the set. These jaw-dropping moments welded me to this show. Unfortunately, this week’s episode Life Sentence paled in comparison—and making the comparison is inevitable since we saw a lot of what we previously saw in It’s Not What It Looks Like and Snow Day.

The episode wasn’t bad. The storyline was interesting. A police officer who believes he is owed more than what he is given and makes a terrible decision, then continues to compound his horrible situation by bringing himself deeper into destruction. Christopher Silber and Adam Targum wrote an episode that was a bit more complex than the typical bad guy/good guy dynamic and Jeffrey Hunt’s directing was competent and kept the episode moving. Peter Fonda was convincing as the hard-nosed William Hunt, embittered by years of regret while Clifton Collins, Jr., likewise, gave a subtly but unnerving portrayal as Raymond Harris, an equally embittered man. So where’s the problem?

I don’t have all the answers and there is a great deal I don’t know. I can only respond with what I feel and recognize, but when I compare the power of the last 10 seconds of season three’s It’s Not What It Looks Like with the hug between Danny and Lindsay in this week’s episode, it creates a visual answer. In season three, having known each other barely a year and really being in the beginnings of anything truly romantic, as they embraced for the first time I was exposed to more emotion and power between the two characters than I got in a single second of the hug in Life Sentence—and this is after years of marriage and having a family together. Yes, Danny was obviously concerned about Lindsay and his hug was…nice (especially when one slows it down and freezes it…not that I did that…over and over again…) but it was over so quickly that I was left severely disappointed.

But let’s go beyond the Danny and Lindsay moment; this was after all a Mac episode. As with last week’s episode, I felt Mac was back to being more his character than the caricature they created him to be earlier this season. He will always be slightly hypocritical in his manner—chastising and berating those under his command for doing exactly what he winds up doing when he gets pissed or irritated—and he will always have a streak of self-righteousness. Those are his character flaws, and are part of who he is, but it doesn’t mean it’s always fun to watch. I was confused by him though (and I’m not necessarily saying this is a bad thing) and have been left pondering his motivation. He punched Hunt in the face when he found out that Hunt had stolen money, but showed compassion when he found out Hunt had murdered in cold blood and with his bare hands an innocent woman. Similarly, he was very brutal with Harris, even after he found out what Hunt had done. Like I said, I am still confused about that, but haven’t decided if it weakness or a strength to Mac as a character. But what I do know is that despite all that I still felt nothing compared to the intensity I felt in Mac’s character in Snow Day. There was naturalness to Mac’s indignation in that episode that seemed more forced or more contrived in this episode. For example, as the lab was falling to pieces around them, Mac flies to Lindsay’s aid, protecting her while exposing himself and then, nothing. There was no more to that situation; there was no development or growth. Mac saved Lindsay, the scene ends. There was no emotion, no inspiration, no connection, it was all action. *I duck as clichés are thrown at me* Yes I know actions can speak louder than words, but sometimes the words are needed, sometimes they are necessary and it feels like the show has forgotten the words. I’m all for subtly and nuances, but sometimes it gets tiring have to watch the show through a microscope for a glimpse of true emotion. That scene felt more like an exhibition into how selfless Mac is, and when I have to be hit over the head with the flashing sign MAC TAYLOR IS A HERO it kind of loses its impact. The opening sequence was definitely intense, and I’m all for shooting or blowing up the crime lab, let it happen once a week I say as long as it actually means something.

I also understood the bad guys in the two previously mentioned episodes; they were motivated by greed and were willing to do anything necessary to get what they wanted, whether it was diamonds or drugs. The bad guys didn’t give up until the last second of the episodes. Which is why I was left scratching my head when Harris, cornered by Mac, wearily proclaimed, “It doesn’t matter anymore. She’s gone.” Dude spent 17 years plotting his revenge, and 2 episodes creeping the hell out of me, only to decide at the very last moment of his triumph that it doesn’t matter anymore? That is weak writing. There was no believable reason presented for Harris to suddenly just give up. Also, it is a personal pet peeve of mine to have manufactured moments of intensity, especially at the cost of others. This is what I mean, an NYPD detective was suppose to be watching Harris, but because a truck pulled up and blocked his view Harris got away. So a trained detective is so lazy and so poorly trained that he would chose to wait in the car and let a suspect get away? They even went so far as to have the detective tell Flack that Harris was still sitting at the table when it was clearly impossible for him to see that. How insulting, not only to me as part of the audience but to the NYPD. This isn’t the first time the writers have used the incompetency of our men and women in Blue. How many times was Shane Casey able to escape custody? Writers, quit being lazy and actually write something that is believable not just something that is convenient.

Again, an episode that was so close to be great, but just coming up a little short. After a season of episodes that left me completely deflated I am overall pleased with how the last few episodes have begun to regain a bit of what was lost. Reminds me of the lyrics: We’ve made it through the wilderness somehow we’ve made it through...Come on CSI:NY go that extra mile and really touch me! I know you can do it!

Highlight of the episode: Flacks quiet and constant support of Mac. Flack has been a rather neglected character this season, and the last two episodes have just reinforced to me that his character needs to be used a bit more and with a bit more appropriateness (i.e. not as a CSI but as an actual NYPD detective)

Guilty Please: Please the bottom of this post…

Just Say No! 7X19 (**out of 5)

2011-04-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

Hawkes hits his rebellious teens on a very special CSI:NY. (And unfortunately this episode was about as cliche) It’s love and other drugs for our ME turned CSI in an episode that seriously left me with the munchies. From the french fries with foie gras gravy to Hawkes’ sudden adolescent behavior I was left...well...confused.

Let me just start by saying I tried desperately to get into this episode. I like Hawkes, but I’ve never felt like they’ve nailed down his character. In the first season he was creepy. In the second season he was suddenly outgoing and eager to be out solving crime. In the third season he began to fade into the background and tends to remain there until a Hawkes-centered episode is written (one or two per season) and then we learn something new about him; former fiance who was raped, lost all his money in a scheme or druggie sister who was murdered. He takes the moral high road most of the time (remember how he chastised Danny during the blue flu?) but doesn’t mind not taking the moral high road either (remember how he argued with Lindsay about vigilante justice?). I don’t understand his character. Can a character be too enigmatic? It’s difficult to identify with a character that moves so far across the spectrum. Some times he seems noble and gallant and some times he’s secretive and closed off. He was willing to walk out of Camille’s party when he saw people smoking, but with a batting of the eyes from Camille he walked right back in. I’m not yet ready to crucify Camille, because I don’t know her, and while I don’t really understand Hawkes, I at least feel like I know him well enough to say that he is a responsible adult male who put himself through medical school and now works as a crime scene investigator. He is choosing to destroy his life and career, no one is forcing him. Though let’s be clear: I DON’T LIKE CAMILLE. I would actually be more intrigued with Hawkes’ character if he continued down this destructive path. But if the show stays true to its pattern then we may get some vague reference to Camille before she disappears completely.

I groaned out loud at several points during this episode. I don’t know what Trey Callaway was thinking here. The dialogue between Camille and Hawkes was incredibly trite. “Have you ever tried it?” Camille asks. “You mean weed?” Hawkes responds with a frown. They gotta be careful or Old Principal Taylor will catch them! Then to hear Camille go on about how she was too busy going to school and getting a career to be in her twenties. GAG! Are we seriously suppose to believe that Hawkes hangs out at a party where there is weed and then the next day he is randomly selected for a drug test? That is not good writing. In fact, that is bad writing that is reserved for high school motivational plays. I’m surprised by this because Callaway has a pretty good track record with emotionally involved episodes. (Shop ‘Til You Drop not withstanding)

This episode felt disjointed and uneven. It seemed to be more a series of random scenes than a clear, cohesive narrative. We had great Danny and Lindsay interaction towards the beginning of the episode, Jo and Don towards the middle, and a sprinkling of Mac until the end when he steps up for the arrest then gives a half-assed chewing out to Hawkes. He gave it to Adam with both barrels at the beginning of the season over for breaking a rule in order to catch a killer? He gave Hawkes a tap on the wrist in comparison. I also didn’t buy the bad guy. Why blow up the truck in the middle of a food fair? That wasn’t to help his father, that was to hurt other people. If his motivation was to get the truck off the streets then why not wait until the truck was parked and empty and not in the middle of a crowd? It didn’t make sense.

Yet, because I am such a sucker for character episodes I didn’t hate it. I was bored by it, but I at least felt something while watching it, even if what I was feeling was frustration with Hawkes. That is better than being bored by an episode and getting NO character (see most of the episodes from the middle of this season). There were some good moments here too. I liked how Jo told Hawkes to save his excuses for Mac. She didn’t need to know, and she was respecting his privacy. Danny and Lindsay are finally giving us evidence that they are a married couple; loved how she knew exactly what he was thinking when she made the “I’m not pregnant” comment. I enjoyed how Danny covered for Hawkes, and I liked Mac and Sid’s interaction. The episode just felt convoluted and top heavy. It was not a well made episode but it is still better than what we’ve seen the majority of this season. I would at least watch this episode again.

Highlight of the episode: I hope I sound like a broken record and I hope I continue to sound like a broken records when I say: DANNY AND LINDSAY! Thank goodness it seems the writers have given up ignoring their relationship and insulting us with those pitiful and ridiculous references to their marriage/relationship. We are finally getting some meaty interaction!

Guilty Pleasure: Don going all 007! He was under cover and looking sexy.

Who are you? Who? Who? 7X18 Review (***out of 5)

2011-04-05T20:59:00.000-07:00

I love it when episode titles work beautifully in my reviews. Take this weeks episode, Identity Crisis, to quote Shakespeare, “There’s a double meaning in that.” Of course we have the portion of the story dealing with the cross dressing, trans-aged con artist, losing herself in an attempt to take from others, but then we have the Ellie/Jo portion. Ellie is forced to face the fact that she doesn’t come from where she thought she did. And then we also have the episode itself struggling with its identity; a case episode versus a character episode. And just to assure everyone, I am not confused about who I am...I don’t think...but maybe I really am unsure of who I am but just don’t realize it or know it and thus, paradoxically, I am more confused than any! *Looks down-sees short legs, some junk in the trunk, food stain on pants, spit up on shoulder* Never mind, I’m still me. Now, let’s dive in.

I had a roommate who was afraid of old people, she never trusted them. I thought she was crazy, but she may have been onto something. My grandmother use to tell us that she should look into becoming a drug runner for money because, and I quote, “Nobody will suspect the little granny with the dope in back [of her car].” I know for a fact she was crazy, but the point however is that people are more prone to believe in the helplessness of the elderly and our thief utilized that to swindle others. Interestingly enough, I believe it is also what led to her dieing. I don’t think our killer, Jayson Luck (*groan* Yes, that was his actual name...really Pam Veasey? There is a thin line between irony and goofiness) would have been apt to stab a woman, but it was easy for him to forget who she was because of her disguise. Kurt Vonnegut wrote, “We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.” Because she took herself out of the equation, Jayson was able to kill her without even “remembering pulling the knife out of the bag.” Jayson himself was a conflicting character. His contrite statement to Mac about how he was sorry because he’d never be able to pay his brother back was full of emotion and loss, but who cares? Jayson was willing to rob an old man of his money, in fact he did rob “him.” He would have been content to live off another person’s money had it not been a scam. So I say have fun sitting in jail buddy, you deserve it. Conversely, Veasey was wise enough to offer a character who was genuinely interested in helping the old man. I liked that scene between Lindsay and Byron Wendle, the gentleman who was swindled (hee hee, it rhymes) because he offered to help, at least one person didn’t lose their money because of selfish motives. Although I could have done without The Sting dialogue, that was weak writing that made Lindsay look a tab bit more heartless than I think the situation called for.

Now we peel back another layer and find Ellie and Jo. I like when Veasey writes episodes because she includes personal storylines, and I enjoy learning more about our characters. I learned a lot about Jo both good and bad. I also don’t like it when Veasey writes episodes because she is the queen of failed continuity and rearranging things to fit her story. I enjoyed seeing Ellie’s conflict. I believed her reasoning for wanting to know her mother and was glad to see it went beyond typical teenage rebellion or angst. Jo’s own internal conflict was believable and, perversely, very entertaining to watch. It is clear her deep love for her daughter, which is why I find it difficult to believe Jo would chose to lie to Ellie for so long. It seemed out of character, also hypocritical, since she was all “sisterhood of the no secrets” earlier in the episode. We don’t lie to our kids in our family about anything, we don’t teach them that Santa brings presents or make up things about where rainbows come from. It’s a personal choice, though just to be clear we teach them the power of imagination and allow them to believe in what they chose to believe in, we just ensure they have all the information, and ensure that information is presented in an age appropriate way. Why did I tell you that? Simply to illustrate why I struggle to sympathize with Jo’s decision to keep the truth from Ellie. I was a little disappointed in Ellie’s rather lack luster acceptance of this new information. I would have preferred to see some tension and emotion develop between Jo and Ellie. But I think that goes back to Veasey forcing a story to fit her preference. Likewise, everyone remembers how Jo literally ran away from her ex-husband (who runs from DJE? Incidentally, he was criminally underused!) a few episodes ago. She didn’t want to talk to him, didn’t want to see him, had spent years avoiding him. Now suddenly he is in her apartment, hanging out, and Jo seemed perfectly fine with it. Another example of how things are changed to fit the story and thus killing the continuity. Oh, and speaking of failures in continuity, I like how Jo tells Mac he should have kids so she wouldn’t be alone in parenting...weird...I thought she shared an office with two parents...

Director Mike Vejar did a good job with keeping the pacing of the episode going-though the first confrontation between Jo and Ellie was a little too long, it at least had a lot of emotion and both Sela Ward and Sydney Park carried it well. Vejar seems to be able to get strong reactions from the actors and it was great to see. The scene between Adam, Danny and Lindsay was fun for me to watch because all three actors seemed to be really into, having fun and totally went for it. Vejar moved smoothly between the case and the character as well, and I was surprised when the episode ended because I wasn’t ready. I hadn’t looked at the clock once during the episode-a rarity for me.

Then we have the episode itself. I still see the struggle of being able to find the balance between plot driven and character driven aspects. We have had too many episodes recently where the character aspect has been completely ignored, and to me those are super boring episodes. This episode I think was a little too heavy on the personal. The case portion suffered as a result. There wasn’t a great deal of “meat” behind the crime solving process this week because there was a lot of time devoted to Jo’s story line. But if I had to choose between the two, I will always choose an episode that is a little heavier on character than plot. Snow Day is probably CSI:NY's crowning achievement when it comes to balance; action, drama, romance, emotion. I just wish instead of living in the episode’s shadow they would find a way to harness that awesomeness. (Plus, it would be nice to see shirtless Danny again, and if he happens to be making out with Lindsay so be it)

Overall a decent episode. It is a continuing trend of improvements. I don’t know what the problem was in the middle of this season as the show seemed to suffer its own identity crisis, but hopefully this means it is officially behind us and we can get back to the show we all love to watch.

Highlight of the episode: “We’re gonna grow old together.” I heard it, you heard it, and my DL loving heart grew!

Guilty pleasure: You can basically assume that any episode involving DJE is going to have him and his fine looking 6‘4“ body as my guilty pleasure.

Oh! Duckie Should Have Just Killed Blane! 7X17 Review (****out of 5)

2011-03-14T22:49:00.001-07:00

Move over John Hughes, teenage angst has gone digital. Do or Die, this week’s episode, was just as brutal as its title suggests. In an opening sequence, reminiscent of Baz Lurhmann’s “Everybody’s Free (To Wear Suncreen)”, we are introduced to the world of Archford Academy. As the heavy, intense beats of The Blue Van’s “You Live You Learn You Die” (could they have found a more aptly named song? I think not) pound around images of kids snorting cocaine, filming a porno, cheating their way through school, we hear the juxtaposition of what the students should be doing as the principle pontificates the virtues of an education earned at the Academy. The irony is well used and entertaining, even when Olivia Prescott (Cassandra Jean) stumbles out, falling to the ground as the words “walk tall” are spoken didn’t come off as clownish, but effective. It was drama so intense Judd Nelson’s nostrils are still flared.

For Matthew Levine’s first official foray into the world of CSI:NY, he offers a look into the deadly combination of bullying and jealousy with a dash of the overly emotional hormonal teenage response (you know what I’m talking about, the response that typically ends with a door being slammed). Levine takes a page out of Hughes’ playbook, by basically ignoring the parents and teachers, and focuses on the adolescent as the war is waged between a fading childhood and an overwhelming desire to be an adult. They are suppose to be think more about Career Opportunities rather than European Vacations. And I could kiss Levine for his flawless integration of Lindsay’s past (just let me grab my grape Starburst flavored chapstick first). Having Lindsay “remember” what happened to her as she stood over another murdered teenage girl was priceless. I cheered for joy over the clips from Sleight Out Of Hand and truthfully sat stunned for a moment. Lindsay has a rich, emotional, dramatic history that has been neglected by the writers season after season. This one episode didn’t make up for that but it made me happy. I love continuity on a show. It is one of my favorite parts of being a viewer; it makes me feel like the writers respect me. That doesn’t happen often with this show so when it does (and it includes one of my favorite characters) I go ape crazy.

And happily, Levine doesn’t shy away from including personal moments with the characters. He maintained a perfect balance between professional and personal as Danny and Lindsay walked down the halls of the school discussing Lucy’s future. It was so natural and believable. It is exactly what I have been longing to see on the show. Sometimes the writer manufacture moments for the characters and they come off forced and odd--remember when Lindsay says she’s teaching Lucy Spanish? Or Mac’s weird, sudden relationship with an OCD homeless woman? Or Hawkes losing all of his money and his home? Those things came out of nowhere and that can make it difficult to care. This week’s episode used already established mythology to create drama, and I adored it. It was Some Kind of Wonderful.

Not only did Levin maintain a great connection with the characters, he also maintained a great connection to those things that make the show great. Not one, not two, not three, but four of our CSI’s were shown processing evidence, and that doesn’t include Sid processing the body. Levine didn’t hide from the Weird Science. Don Flack, the tall...rather, um, attractive dark haired detective on the show, was in full form as a detective NOT a CSI. He was interviewing witnesses and suspects like a pro, bringing in his touches of humor and intensity. Flack is At Ease in his role as detective, and I prefer him there.

The story unfolded as the investigator uncovered the evidence step by step. And while the writing was clever and solid, Matt Earl Beesley’s directing stayed true to the energy of Levin’s story. The pacing was well balanced and there were several wonderful touches in the camera shots. Lindsay and Danny’s hands colliding on the table as they “re-enacted” Mr. Andrew’s Big Exam wasn’t necessary in the grand scheme of things, but it was a beautiful addition to the scene that added depth. The interplay and editing between Benjamin Gold’s (an adult film name in the making) and Becky was well done, adding more impact to the dialogue. Only the Lonely would be left unsatisfied.

The ending of the episode was disappointing. The last ten minutes lost steam and it felt like the episode came to a screeching halt. The previous solid evidence disappeared faster than Ferris Bueller from a mid-term. The “evidence” they confronted Emmy Thomas (Scout Taylor-Compton) with was laughable--in fact I did laugh. Her confession wasn’t believable. I never liked how on the show the killer always confessed when face with the evidence, but I accepted that it was a way for the show the wrap everything up all Pretty in Pink. At least I accepted it when the writers took the effort to actually have the evidence. If I were Emmy, I would have told both Mac and Jo to go to hell. There is no way I would have confessed to killing another person because some one confronted me with a photo of myself...taken from a distance. I have some pretty funked up photos where I am making some pretty awful faces; doesn’t mean I wanted to kill anyone. I just think Levine ran out of time and thus the ending was rushed, leaving him open to criticism. Confessing to murder is a pretty big deal, the CSIs and detectives have to really work for that, even in this land of pretend.

But still a wonderfully entertaining and relevant episode, that will make for one interesting Class Reunion if a few years. Whether I’m traveling by Planes, Trains & Automobiles, or just enjoying the Great Outdoors by the glow of Sixteen Candles, there is something to be said to having a nice hour of television to enjoy, and I really enjoyed this episode. I’m a sucker for teenage drama, and this was the whole package, even down to the Eugene Levy-looking principle. (Darn it! I was trying so hard to find a way to work in The Breakfast Club. Although I was hoping to see that little scene between Danny and Lindsay lead to a little She’s Having My Baby action, if you know what I mean. *waggles eyebrows suggestively*)

Highlight of the episode: Really? Do I have to even say it? “Do me a favor babe, hope up on that table for me...” swoon!

Guilty Pleasure: Was I the only one who wanted to see a little more of Mr. Andrew’s Big Exam? That Benjamin Gold (Austin Butler) was FINE!

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Sky Bridge 7X16 review (***out of 5)

2011-02-28T22:59:00.000-08:00

The luxury suv, perfect for getting one’s golf clubs to the all important tee time, ideal for trips to the Hamptons, and made to accommodate the occasional bodily abduction of a member of the NYPD. (Rich people; they just don’t know how good they have it! I know when I kidnap someone I’m stuck with shoving them into my cluttered trunk--so unfair). Of course, that separation of class permeated this week’s episode, The Untouchable. From wealthy men who believe they are impervious to the law, to a homeless woman who’s mental degradation makes her unreachable on certain levels, this episode is all about contrast.

Writer Kim Clements makes her second foray into CSI:NY, and I believe my comments from her first episode hold true. In Scared Stiff, she strove for character interaction, effectively using the characters in her storytelling. It was clear they weren’t just pawns in the case, they were breathing, thinking individuals whose experiences contributed to the solving of the case. This episode was very similar in that aspect. Danny’s baseball knowledge, Jo’s pushing for answers, Mac’s desire to help Tessa James (Kate Towne), Lindsay’s useless trivia, are just a few examples of how the characters pushed the case forward. Clements seems to understand an important aspect of serial television; we come back week after week to see our favorite characters. To me, a great story is predicated on my connection to the characters. If a character doesn’t provoke some kind of emotional reaction, whether negative or positive, then I have no reason to be engaged. As I watched this week’s episode, I felt something.

Mac’s Close Encounters of the Crazy Candy-Eating Homeless Woman (a.k.a Ella McBride-lite) Kind were pretty sweet moments. I felt that Mac was truly concerned for this woman, and wanted to help her. Which is a pretty established characteristic of Mac Taylor--see the a fore mentioned reference to the other blond chick Mac got caught up in. It was also really cool to show Danny’s affinity for baseball (hip hip hooray for continuity!). I like it when a CSI’s history is used to solve a case, again it provides a deeper connection. Who else would be able to raddle off baseball information from 1919...of course his mustache may be the source of his power. Does anyone else worry that Danny is top hat and cane away from tying a girl to a railroad? Anyone? No? I’m the only one creeped out by his maniacal looking facial hair? That’s fine. I even like Jo’s up front approach with Mac. She sensed there was a problem and didn’t let him brood. I like Mac and Jo’s relationship, I like that they are friends, and I like that she forces him to step out of his comfort zone. I also like that it was there and then it was gone. The show “Jo”ed me out; too much too fast! Now that balance to the Force is beginning to be restored, I can again appreciate her character.

However, for all the strength in Clements writing involving characters and emotions, it is equally problematic. There were enough holes in the plot to literally convince me I was missing entire scenes. I had to watch the episode three times to ensure I wasn’t just blacking out at crucial moments. The actual crime solving seemed to mostly progress based on wild speculations. Lindsay petitions Mac regarding the legitimacy of Tessa’s claims. Mac responds, “Tessa wasn’t delusional Lindsay. She didn’t think people were listening in on her thoughts or that she was receiving messages from television or aliens.” Oh, well if Mac says it, then it must be true; as we all know the only two requirements to being delusional are paranoia and hearing voices. (As for me, I thought she was bat crazy!) Also, as they were spraying down the gentlemen’s club they come across a splattering of blood. Mac practically declares that the woman Tessa saw was murdered in that spot. I literally shook my head in wonderment at such a conclusion. That kind of conjecture keeps a story from being believable. The truth is, any defense attorney worth a dime is going to win against the “evidence” the team collected. Was the manager even arrested? I can’t think of a single reason they would have to arrest him. Yes they found his print on the coat, but as he pointed out, he handles lots of coats. The courts can’t use what Mac was told by Tessa James (again, I mention bat crazy) because it is hearsay. I’m not a lawyer but I did look up the law of hearsay; there are very strict parameters where an officer of the law can actually testify using what they were told by someone who isn’t able to testify on their own. This situation doesn’t qualify. So all they have is his print on a coat. Similarly, there wasn’t any hard evidence that the other two men were involved in either the prostitutes death or Tessa James’ murder. The word circumstantial comes to mind, and I don’t doubt someone with an actual law degree would be able to come up with several other words as well. A writer on this show has a responsibility to the integrity of the crime lab; Clements hasn’t grasped that yet. She relies too heavily on conveniences and dues ex machina-esqu conventions. Mac says he researched the names Tessa gave him, George Weaver and Billy Gleason, but came up with nothing. I googled their names and found plenty of articles on who they were. I don’t think that would necessarily have helped him solve the case, but that’s not the point. Also, Mac said that Tessa James had a job as an assistant at a law firm. Why not ask her former employers for information. Wouldn’t they have her I-9 form on file-which would include a social security number? I was expected to turn off my brain, and that kind of writing drives me crazy. The moment at the end of the episode was very touching, but it would have been even more effective if I wasn’t sitting there wondering why they were all ignoring the fact that they knew where she had worked. It’s not about solving a mystery (which is what happened in this episode), it is about legally catching the perpetrator(s) of a crime(s) (which is not what happened in this episode).

I did not care for Vikki Williams’ directing. It was choppy, and ill-balanced. As far as I can tell, or rather as far as imbd can tell me, it was her first time behind the camera on the show, and it was apparent. There was no flow from scene to scene, and some of the shots screamed of trial and error. We seemed to fly through some scenes, and then meander through others. It was too messy.

Now, having said all that, I still go back to the characters. Even an episode that buckles under the weight of heavy scrutiny still comes off as enjoyable to watch because I was able to see the characters I care about. If they could find someone to write the case aspect of an episode and simply use Clements to write the character aspect I think I would be quite pleased (basically if they can find two people to make one Peter Lenkov...sigh...Peter--said in my best teenage dreamer voice). For goodness sake, the woman gave us Danny and Lindsay talking to each other, teasing each other, working together. That fact alone puts this woman at the top of my list. So because I care more about the characters than I do the cases, I am giving this one a higher grade than it probably ultimately deserves, but sometimes it just boils down to watch-ability. And Mac Taylor was quite watchable this week.

Highlight of the episode: A tie: Mac’s “I’m her friend” moment was really rather beautiful-despite it’s plot flaws-and let’s see...what was the other thing...oh, I remember DL MOMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (enough exclamation points? No?)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(how ‘bout now?)

Guilty Pleasure: I will say it, I will proudly admit to it; when Mac pulled the bag off his head and was kinda staring straight at the camera I drooled on myself.

What's red, white, and gray all over? 7X15 review (*****out of 5)

2011-02-21T23:02:00.000-08:00

“You just don’t get it do you? It doesn’t matter who the victim is; it’s the killer we’re after.” This was said to a rape victim after a rapist had been found murdered. It was said with conviction, and leaving no room for doubt. It was said to convey an absolute wrong in the face of vigilantism. And it was said by Lindsay Monroe. Not in this week’s episode Vigilante, but in season 4 episode Commuted Sentences, an episode about two women who kill in the name of justice. Sound familiar? Yet, when comparing the episodes (and their vast similarities...and there are a vast number of them) it is surprising the difference in tone between them.

A brief look at history contends that the CSI’s on our show are determined to find the killer, no matter who the victims is and in truth no matter who the killer is. In season 4, Flack and Mac interrogate rape victim and murder suspect Fern Laslow without apology; their job was to catch the killer. There was no discussion about right and wrong. In season 7, the episode revolves around such discussions; Lindsay and Hawkes, Jo and Danny, Jo and Lindsay, Lindsay and Kate (Lindsay Price), Mac and the lawyer Annie Cartland (Megan Ward). Everyone had a chance to weigh in, provide different sides of the argument. Writer Christopher Silber, who wrote one of my more favorite episodes of this season Out of the Sky and one of my least favorites Shop Till You Drop, really took the opportunity to explore our beloved characters. The dialogue was heavy with back-stories and emotion. This episode is an argument for how a single case story line could be successful. There was a lot of crime solving while allowing for a chance to get to know and grow the characters. Silber also had the characters move outside the formula of this season; Flack and Lindsay went after a suspect--allowing us the chance to see Action Lindsay--which was awesome, the episode didn’t end with Mac and Jo, no one had to play the lab idiot to make another character look good, the science was solid and not just convenient, and I wasn’t expected to turn off my brain. Simply put, this was a solidly written episode.

The next nod goes to director Frederick E.O. Toye. He too is rather inexperienced in the CSI:NY world, however he is a well established director in the realm of television. He has directed plot driven shows like Alias and Chuck, as well as character driven shows like Brothers & Sisters and The Good Wife. That experience helped him effectively move through the two aspects of this episode; the inhumane (the case) and the humane (the characters). He produced a well paced episode that was balanced between shades of dark and light, hard and soft, fast and slow. There were moments of intense emotion intermingled with moments of introspective quiet, and it never felt awkward. A particularly powerful scene shows Garland Clarke (Kevin Interdonato) attacking his victims; it is done as one flawless crime, the victim changing from woman to woman though Clarke stays the same, continuing his assault. These woman loose their identity and collectively become the rape victim; all defined by the same event. It is clear that a lot of time and detail was put into the presentation of this episode. Simply put, this was a solidly directed episode.

A well written and well directed episode will never mean very much if the actors are unable to deliver. Thankfully the caliber of performances was equal to the demands of the production. Lindsay Price’s performance as Kate established a woman whose life had been permanently altered by her rape. She was bitter, afraid, confused, and vulnerable. Price, the actress, didn’t go over the top. While her heartbreak was clear and worn on her sleeve, her desperation was subtle. It was clear that Kate was in pain and needed help, but it was also clear she wasn’t sure how to find that help. I think her character mirrored season 3 Lindsay. “I spent the last year of my life in a daze. I pulled away from friends. I gave up on life,” Kate professes. A description that can be well applied to what we saw Lindsay go through. Is this what prompted Lindsay’s great internal conflict, when just a few seasons earlier she was so sure of her stance on justice? Does she see herself in Kate? Or perhaps it is the experience of being guilty of taking a life, does she see herself as a vigilante? There are a few different options that would motivate Lindsay to see things differently or to at least feel prompted to examine her own feelings. She is confronted again and again with the idea that she doesn’t care enough about victims. We are left to speculate at her change in attitude, left to wonder why her internal struggle suggests a need to find balance between her heart and her head. Ultimately though Lindsay stays true to the character shown in season 4, telling Kate, “I know you’re going through a lot Kate, but eventually you’re going to see that what they did didn’t help you. What they did was wrong.” However, in a moment of growth, she hands her card to Kate offering a willing ear, showing her willingness to accept her need to change and allow more compassion in her job.

This was a beautiful episode that was made for Anna Belknap. She portrayed Lindsay’s internal conflict brilliantly; allowing moments of critical self analysis to be communicated with no more than an expression. An established character flaw of Lindsay’s is that she can be too aggressive, too unforgiving. She was forced to face the consequences of being that way and Belknap could not have presented it better. While the dialogue provided some insight into what Lindsay was struggling with, it was Belknap’s delivery that truly offered substance. For example, Lindsay subtly shrinking away from Kate as she is accused of being cold and unfeeling, her defensive tone as she spoke with Hawkes clearly showed a woman who was struggling with her own feelings, or the moment of slight hesitation just before she offers Kate her card were nuances that served to strengthen her performance. I hope the writers are smart enough to recognize that both Anna and Lindsay are more than capable of caring an episode and thus allowed more opportunities to shine. Simply put...well you get the idea.

Two issues in the episode--issues, not flaws--were 1) the vast similarities with Commuted Sentences and 2) the neglect of allowing Lindsay and Danny to interact. I really struggle when a show retells a story. It is usually a let down, and is left open for a wide range of criticism. But this episode took a great story idea and didn’t simply regurgitate it, but added to it and built on it. Silber took a gamble and the gamble paid off. With Danny and Lindsay, having spent season after season watching those two characters struggle with communication and a willingness to allow each other into their respective lives, I was disappointed to see the show miss an opportunity to really show how they have grown in that regard. Neither of those things change the fact that this is the best episode of the season. Simply put, 5 stars...um...I mean m&ms.

Highlight of the episode: The final scene between Lindsay and Kate as Lindsay is finally able to accept who she is, while taking the first steps in making herself better.

Guilty pleasure: Lindsay taking down that woman by her hair. Was I the only one who thought, ‘Damn Girl!’?

He Can Kidnap Me! 7X14 Review (****out of 5)

2011-02-14T21:56:00.000-08:00

Ah, the days of the rat pack; a slick looking suit, a shot of brandy in the bottom of a short tumbler, a subtle beat, a fedora set rakishly to the side, and of course the amazing precision and accuracy of shooting someone in the heart and head...wait, what? It’s Ocean’s .22...ok, maybe it’s not quite so dated, but this week’s episode, Smooth Criminal, was definitely an homage to the idea of the bad boy who isn’t all the he seems. There was science, mystery, emotion, and there had been a dash of DL then I would have gladly given this episode 5 out of 5!

Just because writers of CSI:NY aren’t bored by writing the same thing over and over again, doesn’t me I’m not. It is really difficult to review the same thing week after week, and since the show has been so bogged down in stale, repetitive stories and narratives, I’ve been stuck on the same review cycle. This week, however, is a breath of fresh air! I have to be honest, since the episode is credited to writer Aaron Rahsaan Thomas--he doesn’t have the greatest track record-- I was prepared to suffer through trite dialogue, poorly constructed plot, and unimpressive story telling. Imagine my surprise when I found myself actually enjoying this episode. Yes, the dialogue left a bit to be desired, and yes Thomas suffers from adolescent like immaturity in his writing, but it was all forgivable when combined with a decent episode. Thomas doesn’t know the meaning of the word subtle, preferring to hit us over the head with each point that he wants made, but thanks to Scott White’s competent directing those points were presented in a creative way. White’s previous venture into the show was for Dead Reckoning, an episode I thought was rather well done. He didn’t disappoint in his second time behind the wheel. The opening sequence was, quite frankly, really cool. Watching The Handsome Man --a ridiculous name and testament to Thomas’ need to get out of his creative writing workshop mentality--(Guest star Ne-Yo) pull out his gun and with amazing precision take out three guys in quick succession as the beats of the song pound around the room, and interspersed with well used slow motion, helped me forget the stilted conversation between him and Camille (Lesley-Ann Brandt), and definitely got my attention. White efficiently added tension to the story as well. Interspersing the two scenes where Flesser (yes, I went there, because I’m massively irritated by their constant man love) knocks on the door and the apartment manager knocks on the door was brilliant. I know it isn’t a new tactic, but I can’t argue that it didn’t work. I fell for it. White also ensured there was an element of emotion. I know it meant ending the episode with Mac and Jo...again (my tone is of course one of long suffering) but I thought it was more effective to show Hawkes and Camille from a distance. That way we aren’t forced to listen to Thomas’ poor writing, but instead are able to witness Hill Harper’s acting ability. It was easy to believe there was affection between Hawkes and his lady friend, because Harper’s face was perfect. White prefers showing emotion through action--Lindsay witnessing Danny standing and holding Lucy last season was done with zero dialogue. It was a pretty powerful moment, and one of my favorites. They need to hold onto White and use him more often!

I am not for stunt casting, and am not too impressed with the show’s attempts in the past to incorporate non-actors into the show, but I will say that Ne-Yo, while he isn’t headed to any Emmy or Oscar nominations soon, fulfilled the requirements for the role. The guy’s got mad “smolder” skills! It was a bit of a rocky start, but once he got into it, I found myself enjoying watching him. It’s easy to hate a bad guy, which is why when I don’t hate a bad guy I am impressed. I had to keep reminding myself that this guy was a murder, because I just liked him too much. He had character, panache, and was a killer with a tender side. He played it beyond the cliche and sold the idea well. I was disappointed when he was arrested at the end, because I wouldn’t mind seeing him again. It was interesting that we were allowed so much time with the killer. Normally we are allowed a glimpse into their lives, or it is only at the interrogation at the end that we even face our killer, but this episode we got to know him a bit. It was a departure from the typical format, and that is something the show desperately needed. It has been so redundant of late, that I rather enjoyed the new perspective.

I was a bit distracted when I watched the episode the first time and that may be why, but I was a a little surprised by the reveal. I wasn’t expecting the good Dr. Kumi (Adrienne Barbeau) to be the culprit, and I appreciate having Camille’s involvement to be left so ambiguous throughout the episode. This gave Hawke’s (and Harper) a great chance to shine. And even more exciting than that was the use of the science. Where last week’s episode was embarrassingly void of what our CSIs actually do, this one effectively included a great deal of unraveling the tale by discovering clues through science.

This is the first episode, since the beginning of the season, that I would be willing to rewatch. I desperately need my DL fix, but this episode was at least closer to the success of previous seasons.

Highlight: Believable character interaction. Hawkes asking Mac for permission to participate in the investigation was a necessity, and a small example of actual, real character interaction. Not the superfluous, empty interactions we’ve been forced to suffer through this season.

Guilty Pleasure: A man in a fedora!

Buckle Up! It's the Law. 7X13 Review (**out of 5)

2011-02-07T20:59:00.000-08:00

There are laws against drinking and driving, but no one has ever really covered dancing and driving. Well now’s the time. You see kids, when your parents told you to never attend a party in the back of an unknown semi--even if you were specifically invited with blood ink art stationary--they were absolutely right. I can’t help moralizing when I see people acting completely retarded...I mean the back of a semi?! Seriously? At least I can get a chuckle out of the episode’s title; Party Down, because the episode didn’t sink quite as quickly as the truck, though it did have it’s issues.

CSI:NY has a pretty consistent ability to hook an audience with the teaser openings, and this episode was no different. I was interested as I watched the truck speed around corners, narrowly avoid two brawling cab drivers, slam through a fence, and finally submerging itself in the freezing, dark waters of the river. The effect of people swimming up through the water was attractive, and beautiful--a stark contrast to the violence of several people drowning or nearly drowning. We even had a typical groan worthy comment from Mac, only this week it was actually funny to me. “Crashing this party wasn’t an accident.” It’s the rest of the episode that I usually struggle with, and, again, this episode was no different. However, I enjoyed this episode much more than I have episodes weeks past. This episode reminded me of a really weak or, forgive the pun, a watered down season 2 or season 4 episode.

The story was a bit of a modern twist on the old murder aboard a train tale; only this time it was a semi and Hercule Poirot’s mustache did not make an appearance. We have four people in a room and we have to figure out who “done” it. I have issues with the story lacking in the science. They spent nearly 20 minutes in the police precinct questioning and taking statements. It really bothers me when they have CSI’s doing the jobs of NYPD detectives. I don’t mind it in small doses. It keeps the characters involved in the story, and as with most tales a suspension of belief is necessary, but writer Adam Targum was really stretching the limits. Law & Order is about solving crime through interviews and conversation. The CSI franchise is about solving crime through the science. There wasn’t much of that going on. It was also frustrating that the show turned into the Jo, Mac, Danny, & Don happy hour. If there isn’t enough story to go around, then add another case. I want to see Hawkes. I want to see Adam. I want to see Lindsay. Get off your lazy butts writers!

Targum really did expect us to swallow a lot. The party goers claimed to not know the truck was moving. I once drove over a speed bump a little too quickly and woke my child up from a deep nap. I’m suppose to believe a truck full of adults didn’t notice the earth moving beneath their feet? Also, I find it hard to believe that Abigail West (Marla Sokoloff) didn’t recognize Neal Cooper (Michael McMillian). Jo specifically said they were best friends when they were younger. They spent all evening together and she didn’t look at him for one moment and think, “huh? That guy looks familiar.” There were several other issues, but why harp?

The characters were entertaining, but a little random. I’m still not certain what Carmen Enzo’s role in the episode was. We saw Mac’s character regurgitate dialogue from season 2 episode, Zoo York. “Stay out of this investigation,” and “when there’s something to report, I’ll call you.” It sounded better the first time around. Enzo shooting Cooper at the end was a joke too. Season four’s episode Admissions was a pretty powerful episode. When Gerrard shot and killed that boy in the police precinct, I distinctly remember my jaw dropping and the strong emotions I felt. I was absolutely floored me. I’m not sure why they chose to go that route with this week’s episode. They did it so well the first time around. I mean really well. Why ruin it with a half-assed version of it now? Episodes just don't inspire the emotional response they once did. A writer should only reuse something if he/she has found a way to make it better. Although, interestingly, the man who played Inspector Gerrad was an actor named Carmen.

I like Agatha Christie stories, so the premise of the plot was interesting enough that I wasn’t bored the whole episode, but this still isn’t the caliber I expect from what was once the best show in the CSI franchise. As far as episodes go this season, I would probably put this one closer to the top than bottom, but in comparison to earlier seasons this one wouldn’t have even show up on the radar.

Guilty Pleasure: The music. I liked it.

Highlight of the episode: Don’s reaction to the artist’s installation. That was pretty funny!

What's the Spanish Word for Douche Bag? (7X13 Review) *out of 5

2011-01-17T21:24:00.000-08:00

Well, it’s back; that terrible stench of mediocrity and half-assed story telling, culminating in a horrendously boring and lack-luster episode. This week’s episode, Holding Cell, is perfectly named, because right now CSI:NY can’t get itself out of it’s self imposed funk. The season of new writers and new directors has directly translated into a season of perfectly terrible episodes, one right after another. I have spent weeks trying to eek out redeeming qualities to every episode I have reviewed, and it is getting tiresome. Last week’s episode was one step forward, this week’s was two steps back.

Here’s the deal; writer Bill Haynes isn’t new to the show. He has written some fantastic episodes, but he seems to be at a loss with the single case episodes. Battle Scars is still one of my least favorite episodes because it was so BORING! This episode suffered from that as well. I was b-o-r-e-d. The episode groaned under the weight of slow pacing and inactivity. The narrative was choppy and inconsistent. It is really frustrating because Haynes is usually so good at bringing in the CSI:NY characters; The Box, Point of No Return, Redemptio are all great examples of episodes that involved the characters and their lives in the episodes. This episode bounced from character to character without much flow.

This week was again more about staying with some formula. I am so sick of Danny/Don scenes, because there is no substance to them. It’s all about how cheesy they can be while trying to track down some "doot ta doot" (I even used it in a sentence and everything). There isn’t much balance anymore. Even the Danny/Lindsay moment we got didn’t have much more to it than a chuckle. I’m glad we got a mention of Lucy, but it’s just sad to be excited over what is ultimately not a whole lot. I will say that I am glad Hawkes got a little more screen time than what he’s been allowed this season.

The dialogue in this episode drove me crazy. I couldn’t believe some of the things coming out of Mac Taylor’s mouth. When addressing the mother of the dead man, and wanting to get her to allow them to keep the body, Mac argues with, “It’s in your son’s best interest.” HE’S DEAD! What in the world could possibly be in his best interest?! Did I mention the guy’s dead? That is one of the most ridiculous lines of dialogue I’ve ever heard, and I nearly turned the episode off after that. It appears that Mac Taylor is this year’s Horatio Caine and I say, “no thank you!” I want my Mac Taylor back, the one who isn’t such a douche to everyone one. The way he treated that mother and the visiting detective was embarrassing. I know Mac Taylor’s character. I know what to expect from him, even appreciate his shortcomings as part of his character, but even I just had to roll my eyes as he and Jo stormed the embassy. He gets so insanely defensive over everything, and I’m tired of it.

Last week I commented on how CSI:NY is what it is. Meaning, we have to accept the occasional campy, or even silly attempts at emotional manipulations, and I more than accept them, I appreciate their role in giving the show its own unique stamp. There have been several powerful episodes, but I mostly think the show needs to stay away from the more sincere forms of moral social commentary. Euthanasia and depression are two topics that seem outside the show’s depth--at least in this new shoebox form of storytelling they've adopted. The show is trying to be something it’s not. Sometimes a crime solving show should stay a crime solving show. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be growth and development, it should just make sense, it shouldn't feel so forced.

I actually went through and deleted my first review. I initially tore the episode to shreds. I seriously hated this one, but I just couldn’t bring myself to post it. So I limited myself to what really drove me nuts. I’ve never been able to just watch something. While keeping in mind that sometimes it can just boil down to personal preference, I try to pay attention to directing, writing, editing, music, dialogue, special effects, acting, cinematography, pacing, continuity, characterization, symbolism, etc. That is fun for me, I also think those who participate in creating something would appreciate their efforts being noticed. So it’s saying something when I couldn’t find much to get me going this week. Just remember that I love this show and I loved last week’s episode!

Guilty Pleasure: Lindsay. She was was great in this episode.

Highlight: Hawkes’ laughter. I love that sound

"Making My Entrance with My Usual Fair" 7X11 Review (**** out of 5)

2011-01-10T19:04:00.000-08:00

Character, emotion, humor, drama, science, David James Elliot and clowns--a recipe for success? Oddly enough, yes. This week’s episode To What End? marks the return of CSI:NY from it’s long break (in more ways than one). What has been so lacking in the past several episodes, seemed so prevalent in this weeks, and maybe that’s simply because we’ve been so starved of a decent episode. I laughed, I cried (well, I would have if I were a more sensitive person), and I was reminded why I enjoy watching this show.

Pam Veasey and Zachary Reiter deliver a story that blurs the lines between right and wrong, and demonstrates how thin the difference between Marxist theorist Louis Althusser’s Repressive State Apparatus (RSA) and the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) actually is. Basically the RSA refers to terror and violence to maintain order and the ISA refers to a more human way, through education. While this review isn’t an essay on such topics, I was still struck by the sociological impacts of this story. Don Flack’s character--convincingly portrayed by Eddie Cahill--was both the good guy and the bad guy. Having several years ago “convinced” a witness, Bobby Renton (JD Pardo) into testifying and subsequently entering the FBI’s Witness Protection Program and leaving behind a pregnant girlfriend, Flack is now forced to face the consequences of his actions. Renton’s life has been a “prison” since entering the Program. As he points a gun in Flack’s face, Don reason’s that his sacrifice “saved lives” while Renton retaliates with “But I lost mine!” (Note: Renton laments his loss of a “decent slice of pizza” while in protection in Memphis. Tennessee has some delicious pizza, thank you very much). I respect Don’s acceptance of his involvement, despite Mac’s own attempts to validate their efforts. Don tells Mac, “We do more than ask, we’re taught to presuade...you get caught up in that.” Don is forced to consider whether he helped Renton make the “right” decision or whether he simply made the big sale. A well known Vulcanism summerizes it as “the good of the many out ways the good of the one” but then Vulcan’s are taught to suppress emotions; the rest of us aren’t so lucky. This was messy. To help add emotion, the show even sprung for the pricey use of Three Doors Down--great song, and great use of it.

The opening sequence was beautifully directed by Eric Lanueville. Clowns are fun and happy and I love them...who am I kidding? Clowns are freaky as hell and the things of nightmares! The way the camera moved down and shot Renton from underneath, elongating his frame and making it seem as if he towered over everyone else and made the tall building of New York City seem even more intimidating. It was quite simply, eerie! It should also be noted that as far as I could tell there is not such thing as a New York Clown Registry (thank goodness) but there is such a thing as The Clown Egg Registry where clown’s faces are painted on eggs...um...creepy. I thought that was a neat fact for the show to include. The rest of the show’s directing was pretty pedestrian, but not in a bad way. The story was told effectively, and the point was made. I did think it was interesting that Renton was walking down the street dress as a clown and no one paid attention to him. That was a nice touch of New York City. A guy walking down the street dressed like that where I’m from would definitely have warranted some stares.

There were plenty of great moments in this episode. The character of Colby Glass (played by the incomparable Ron Glass) was awesome. I rolled with laughter when he referred to Jo as “Kentucky” and reveled in his bad attitude. “Not all clowns are happy.” That is a great line, and it was perfectly delivered by Glass. If anything, I think his character was underused. Similarly, I don’t think we got enough of Harmon Rabb, I mean Russ Josephson...sorry. David James Elliot walks on screen and I pay attention. I enjoyed his scene with Jo, he and Sela were fun to watch. It also included that wonderfully entertaining moment with Lindsay. They better be bringing this guy back! And shame on CBS for not promoting him and the show better.

The dialogue in this episode was head and shoulders above the dribble we’ve been subjected to recently. And my favorite part of all? Everyone was acting like themselves, and no one was relegated to the office dummy to progress the story or to elevate another character. And I nearly passed out when I saw Lindsay and Danny on screen together. I may not be able to stand EDNA but Danny loves her, and Lindsay’s jealous. That’s right, we even had confirmation that Danny and Lindsay were in a relation ship. There was even continuity! Lindsay pulled a season two--teasing Mac about helping with the work load (and it was nice to see Mac in a lab coat again). Don and Danny joking about the clown shooting through the door, referring to an episode from earlier in the season. Don gave a fleeting reference to Angell, “saints get shot.”

Were there problems with the episode? Sure. With CSI:NY there are always going to be issues. Unfortunately it’s not a top rated show of such caliber as Emmy winning shows . Renton’s hand reaching out for his son was campy, and absurdly presented. Don Flack flying off the building to tackle Renton was unnecessary. There were even a few holes in the plot, but at this point those things are expected. I would even argue that without those things CSI:NY will cease to be CSI:NY. I love a show that entertains, and this show does, as long as it effectively uses the characters I adore so much. This episode was definitely the first step on the road to recovery, and because of that I am willing to forgive them for subjecting me to the whole clown thing...*shudder*

Highlight of the episode: Was it the Danny/Lindsay moment, or Adam getting pissed, or Mac and Jo at the Clown Registry, or Lindsay walking in on Jo and Russ, or Don’s redemption? The answer: Yes,

Guilty Pleasure: Isn't it obvious? Harmon Rabb Jr...dang it, I mean Russ Josephson, or rather David James Elliot.

I'm dreaming of a CSI:NY Christmas...keep dreaming 7X10 review (*out of 5)

2010-12-06T21:18:00.000-08:00

Perhaps it's the thorough saturation of film and media in my life, but there is something magical about Christmas, or the holiday season, in New York. The lights, decorations, snow, the constant hussle and bussle and people everywhere, it all culminates in presenting this idea of a special time of year. The cold opening of this week’s episode Shop ‘Til You Drop exuded that sense of awe and wonder as Jo happily flitted her way through the crowds, excited to participate in one of the City’s holiday traditions. Seeing Mac’s curmudgeon Scrooge attitude was funny and well juxtaposed to Jo’s childlike excitement. Watching as a pickpocket moves through the crowd with Mac’s hawk-like gaze following him seemed very old school, and Jo’s humor had me giggling. It reminded me why I prefer CSI:NY over the other shows in the franchise. Unfortunately, the magic ended there, and the episode went down hill so fast I headed straight for the checkout line (and I happily ignore your collective groan at my pun!)

With the exception of usually a season finale/premier, it is often a bad sign when four people are credited with writing an episode--Trey Callaway & Aaron Rahsaan Thomas were credited with the teleplay, while Adam Targum & Christopher Silber were acknowledge with the story. The reason this is a bad sign is because it usually means too many cooks in the kitchen--or too many clerks behind the counter (I swear that was the last joke). This was made apparent as four very different writing styles clashed to give us a disjointed, choppy, and (more often than not) lack-lust dialogue and a story so trite that I can already hear the Hallmark Channel scrambling for the rights to this episode.

The episode was plagued by awkward moments of silence, like the cast was wondering around, not really sure what was going on. It reminded me of negative space in art. Even something as simple as shading can take a picture from being so one dimensional to being engaging, all by proper use of negative space. The show just keeps the negative space empty, showing a misuse of time and talent. I think I’ve decided an episode that does too little is more heinous than an episode that does too much.

The biggest surprise though is that with four writers not one of them chose to think outside the box. The show has become so formulaic that I can confidently predict each episode; Mac & Jo have a conversation where she teases him and Mac shuffles his feet, blushing, while at the same time solving all the crimes ever committed in New York, Danny & Don chase some idiot suspect and lay down some lame/cheesy lines that are meant to be funny, Lindsay & Adam work in the lab, Hawkes & Sid just appear at random times--they all have their assigned parts and they ain’t budgin’! When they become so transparent it’s hard to care, or stay focused on the story.

However, to contrast repetitive narrative style, we are also bombarded with characters who never seem to act like themselves. A few weeks ago Mac was moving hell and high water to go after Chief Carver, but this week he flippantly tells Don that there is nothing they can do about keeping Alena (Lisa Brenner), the woman suspected of the murder, because of some new District Attorney. Then we’ve got Jo filling in all the blanks for Danny. The scene at the make-up counter is a great example of this. Four pages of dialogue for Jo later, we are meant to understand Danny can no longer use his brain. He’s a pretty good CSI. He figured out that the Hollys used glass-shattering sound waves in It’s Not What It Looks Like, and he did it all by himself (excluding the dog of course) just like a big boy. But thank goodness Jo is on the scene now. Yes the audience needs help through the story, simply because most of us have no background in criminology and usually limited knowledge of science, but for crying out loud, I don’t need a color-by-numbers explanation--especially one that comes at the cost of the integrity of the characters I love.

I had hopes that with the season of giving right around the corner, we would be favored with a delicious cast episode, the likes of Manhattenhenge, or even in some part like Second Chances, but family was sorely neglected to instead give us the story of a dieing stranger. I didn’t know that girl, I didn’t care about that girl, which makes the “emotional” ending to the episode seem forced.

There’s not much more I can say that I haven’t said in prior weeks--Don and Danny are preparing to send out wedding invitations, Super Mac now has Super Jo to sit with him atop Mount Olympus, and every one else just kind of floats by. I’m being very critical because I am so disappointed, but I don’t think it's wrong to want something good to watch, particularly if I’m being asked to give up a chunk of my Friday night. Despite all that, I’m still not ready to give up on the show. I love the characters too much, I love what they represent in my life, the good times I’ve spent watching and discussing the show. I am a fan through and through, which is why the frustration is so severe. I usually will watch an episode 2 or 3 times before I write a review, to try and be as meticulous as I can, but I’ll be honest, I couldn’t really bring myself to watch it a second time, it was just too boring (which is also why this review is so short^_^) This episode just wasn’t good enough.

I want my money back (ok, so I had one more pun left in me)...what’s that? But I don’t have a receipt...Fine, I’ll take the store credit, or rather, how about the next new episode just be super awesome? I’d stand in line for that!

Highlight of the Week: We got an obscure, fleeting reference to Lucy! (This is getting sad)

Guilty Pleasure: Howie the pickpocket. He was entertaining and humorous, and wearing an awesome sweater!

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

2010-11-21T20:18:00.000-08:00

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)

2010-11-14T20:35:00.000-08:00

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)

2010-11-07T21:30:00.000-08:00

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)

2010-11-01T04:46:00.000-07:00

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!

We Wants It! 7X05 review (****out of 5)

2010-10-25T22:02:00.000-07:00

The ethical debates abound as the search for the “One Ring” presents the quandary: are we the Gollums of the world or the Frodos? This weeks episode title, Out of the Sky, refers to more than a bag of jewels dropping down from no where, but to the emergence of a long lost partner/friend, and how quickly a person can fall to the “dark side.” The story was fast-paced, full of nice character driven plot points, growing teamwork, and had a parade of hilarious one-liners. The parallels in the story aren’t very subtle (we get it, everyone has to chose right or wrong), but they are--more importantly--effective. This episode manages to epitomize Voltaire’s statement, “Judge an [episode] by [its] questions rather than by [its] answers.” Let’s be honest, there wasn’t much doubt that Danny’s former partner, James Belson (Coby Ryan McLaughlin) was involved, but when a story is well told then I feel engaged, and excited to see how it will all play out, and that is how I felt watching this episode.

Writer Christopher Silber and director Nathan Hope are a dream team of subtle emotional manipulation. We feel the first moments of intensity as an obvious gang member places the gun he used to murder someone on the coffee table of his up-scale, wealthy lawyer, Roland Carson (umbrageously played by TV veteran Gregory Harris) as they discuss the legality of Carson keeping the weapon. This would be interesting enough as its own plot point, but intersperse their conversation with a helicopter hovering above the building and two men in black garb dropping down Mission Impossible style, and it is clear things are about to get a whole lot uglier. We again see this form of storytelling as Hawkes and Mac first discuss Belson’s guilt, only this time Silber and Hope improve upon it, using two distinct devices: a flashback showing Belson’s involvement and slow motion Danny walking towards an empty hospital room, essentially having three different scenes playing on top of each other. (A nod to those in the editing department; that couldn’t have been easy. Plus I love slow motion. You know something's about to go down when the slo-mo action starts.)

The story moved quickly through competent scene changes and snappy dialogue, maintaining a great pace. This is definitely an improvement from last weeks heavy handed jargon and boring moments. The dialogue was razor sharp at times. Mac accuses Carson of no longer wanting to be his clients’ errand boy by saying, “Maybe you got sick of carrying their water,” or how about in the same scene when Mac returns with a witty “They’re a little bit dead right now”? Adam joking about “ass dialing” an ex-girlfriend, Flack interrogating a suspect and citing him for having a knife to which the suspect responds, “Not my knife” prompting Flack to humorously reply back with the line, “It was in your pocket when we picked you up” are just a few examples of Silber making the effort to not only give us something to watch but to give us something we can actually enjoy watching, allowing the audience to move through drama and comedy effortlessly . Hope then adds depth to the language by using more than stationary camera shots. As Flack and Hawkes discuss petty thief Arnold Vonley’s (Mike Foy) inability to preform the heist, they are walking down the halls of the precinct, moving around corners and negotiating through co-workers--a classic West Wing-esque “walk and talk.” This scene very easily could have been filmed with them standing still, but the extra work paid off and the scene is much more memorable.

On top of the “who done it?” scenario that is playing throughout the episode, there is also an underlying character driven arc; Good Danny versus Evil Danny. (Anyone else find the light haired Messer/dark haired Belson difference to be interesting? Not sure if they meant that metaphor to be present, but it is immediately what I thought about.) Belson is an ex-cop, has a failed marriage, kids live thousands of miles away from him, and he is stuck working for the “bastard Carson.” Danny is questioning fate and luck, being forced to face what his life would have been like if he had made the same mistake Belson had. This also brilliantly adds believability to Danny’s reaction in the first season episode On the Job when he is accused of fatally shooting a cop. We gain insight into where Danny’s paranoia extended from, and why he was so concerned about what people were saying behind his back and the way they were looking at him. Danny was clearly effected by what had happened to his former partner, and Belson cleverly plays into that. When Danny first questions Belson in the hospital, Belson offers to help get Danny a job in the “private district” prompting Danny to respond, “I don’t plan on retiring anytime soon.” Belson then abruptly replies, “Yeah, well, neither was I if you remember.” This, of course, immediately brings that memory and its associated emotions to the forefront of Danny’s mind, which is established by Danny’s now reticent and withdrawn behavior, effectively distracting Danny and allowing Belson “off the hook” long enough for him to get out of the hospital and begin his rampage of killing. However, we see Danny’s growth as a character when he powerfully tells Belson at the end of the episode that it’s time for him to take responsibility for the life of crime he has created while at the same time we see Danny taking responsibility for the life that he has chosen to create.

This was a strong episode for many of the actors and characters, and Carmine Giovinazzo really stepped up to very tenuously show a range of emotions, including a slightly vulnerable side of Danny. Likewise, we saw both a tender and hard-nosed version of Flack, wonderfully delivered by Eddie Cahill (I was reminded why he was so successful on Friends; the guy has great comedic timing), and a chance to reconnect with light-hearted and clever Lindsay--who shared a few nice moments with Jo. Again, an episode that included every member of the team working together to solve crimes, and to help each other. The episode was sprinkled with great personal conversations that really helped to connect with the audience. I also appreciated Silber treating the audience with some modicum of intelligence. I was ready to go crazy over Belson noticing a little ring missing from a duffel bag full of jewelry, and him being willing to go back to the apartment and murder again for it. I was up in arms over how ridiculous I thought that was, but Silber efficiently solved that problem for me by having Carson explain to the audience it’s worth and importance. This is a type of detail that tends to get over looked on the show, the writers just expecting the audience to “go with it.”

A few flaws keep the episode from being perfect, having worked in the alarm industry I know for a fact you cannot disable an alarm by simply cutting a wire. Also, the thieves broke into the safe using the code so why didn’t anyone immediately wonder if this was an inside job? And if the water splashed on the guy’s clothing as he was walking home from work, and he was taking the duffel bag to the police the next morning, why was he wearing the same water splashed clothes when he was killed? I am also curious if it would have had more impact to show the girlfriend standing at the fountain with the ring in her hand, and end with us wondering what choice she made rather than show her tossing the ring into Fount(ain) Doom, but these are pretty minor issues in an otherwise excellent episode. So which is? Do you return the jewelry or keep a ring or two? You ponder on that while I take a quick trip to New York. There’s a fountain near Lucy’s I gotta go digging through...my precious...

Highlight of the episode: Lindsay dancing in a purple shirt.

Guilty Pleasure: Danny in glasses! (Yes, I actually squealed when I saw them). Although a close second would be Lucy’s--I know they were talking about the restaurant, but that’s how desperate I am for a mention of our girl.

CSI: West Side 7X04 review (**out of 5)

2010-10-25T21:52:00.000-07:00

It’s the Sharks versus...well, the Sharks (Jets need not apply) as a gang leader begins systematically killing members of his own gang in this weeks episode Sangra Por Sangra; however, don’t expect a romantic duet between Mac Taylor and guest star Edward James Olmos’ character Luther Devarro--they prefer to swap trite, uninspiring, and stagnant dialogue as they engage in what can only be referred to as one epic stare-down. To paraphrase Don Flack, this episode starts out as a hot shot, but ends up a shish-kabob, as writer Aaron Rahsaan Thomas weaves an uneven, poorly developed tale of righteous indignation and hypocrisy, leading us all to the grand conclusion: vigilantism never ends well.

If you’re like me, then you were immediately engaged by the opening scene of a clearly wounded Mac with blood rolling down his arm, moving silently in and out of the shadowy darkness with his gun drawn as he hunts his prey, or perhaps he is the hunted with the deadly opponent just around the corner. Sounds and colors are muted, heightening the tension and we find ourselves in a damp underworld, watching as Mac comes face to face with the barrel of Luther’s gun. We are left with a cliff hanger moment when Luther pulls the trigger, releasing the bullet in Mac’s direction and the scene changes, providing no resolution. This of course follows the old adage ‘leave the audience wanting more’ and is rather effective...the first time around that is. A few scenes later and we have the exact same cliffhanger moment as a perp aims his gun at Don Flack and fires, cut to commercial. This is obviously the second time the episode deals with this particular story device and the second time definitely comes off as cheap and lazy. This may be blamed more on the director, Norberto Barba, than the writer, but I still think it goes back to the fact that one can’t really force a poorly written episode into a good one, but the narrative wasn’t helped any by the choppy pacing--some scenes lasting too long, while others weren’t afforded enough time.

The storyline follows the notorious gang member Luther Devarro (Olmos), recently released from prison and founder of the rough and tough El Puno (the fist), as he secretly--or not so secretly since I found the plot to be rather obvious--murders the members who ran the gang while he was behind bars for fifteen years. The motivation we are presented for his killings basically seems to boil down to semantics. The younger generation defines “the fist” as a weapon to be used to fight, destroy, and batter the community, to be used as offense. Devarro’s definition of “the fist” is about control, maintaining a tight grip on the community, to be used as defense. As he tells Mac, “I never intended to create something violent.” This statement is made after it is revealed that Devarro is the one responsible for the dead bodies *insert your own disbelieving tone*. His character is riddled with such inconsistencies. In one of the more well written lines of the episode, Devarro validates his lack of willingness to involve the police by stating, “Last thing I want is an army of badges canvassing my neighborhood with itchy trigger fingers. Someone’s son [is] liable to be out on a stoop, holding a cell phone and catch bullets.” A disheartening sentiment, but unfortunately also a very believable possibility. His statement, however, is rendered moot when he blows up a building, in the middle of the day, on a crowded street. He didn’t seem too concerned with the number of innocent lives he could have taken.

Can a person really take the moral low ground? When Hazel Ortega (Lymari Nadal-who gave one of the better performances of the evening) was being accused of one of the murders, Devarro, knowing that members of El Puno were thirsty for revenge and cognizant of his own guilt, did not do enough to try and protect her, resulting in the before mentioned shoot out between Flack and two members of El Puno. It is revealed that Ortega witnessed Devarro killing, but her fear of retribution kept her silent, and Devarro didn’t hesitate to use that fear, otherwise he would have killed her to protect his own identity. Instead, he was willing to use his status as El Puno’s infamous cutthroat leader--a status he gained not by his own devices, but by the actions he professes to despise of the younger gang members--to ensure her silence. This undermines Devarro’s claims of for an “aw shucks, mom ’n’ pop” type of gang operation he dreamed of.

We again see the repetitive nature of Thomas’ storytelling when Mac confronts Devarro, twice, each time promising the hand of justice to come down--note to writers, a threat loses its power when it has to be made twice. These cringe-worthy moments were inundated with boring, cliched, George Lucasesque lines such as “a handshake used to mean something” and “If you don’t, this fair man will lock you up again, and this time you won’t get out.” Tension has to be created organically because if it’s forced, for example Mac making the ridiculous choice to go into a gang’s hangout alone and without back up, it takes one out of the situation with its lack of believability, therefore voiding the intensity, nearly make a mockery of it.

There is plenty to pick apart in this episode (the occasional role inversion between Mac and Devarro, the lack of commentary on what effects it would have socially and fundamentally on a community when one gang is whipped out leaving it’s rival full rein, Devarro’s misguided Utopian view, his God-like-complex failing to understand “that you first make thieves and then punish them”, choppy editing, stilted scenes, and jokes that just weren’t funny) which is disappointing considering last week’s fantastic episode, and the deep respect I have for Edward James Olmos as an actor. It’s a shame we can’t have a re-do, bring him back for episode worthy of his caliber.

On a positive note, I am thoroughly enjoying the inclusion of all cast members in most of the episodes this season, each having a role to play in the weekly fight against crime, and I hope that trend continues, especially the continued use of Team Messer. I am glad the writers are realizing that they worked well together before they were married, and they can continue to work well together post matrimonially as well. Here’s hoping next weeks episode maintains a better balance.

Highlight of the Night: Seeing Sid out of the morgue.

Guilty Pleasure: Danny’s sexy voice when he was talking to Lindsay about “kiss and tell”

I like Videos

2009-08-31T08:53:00.000-07:00

So I like to make videos. Normally I would use a better program but since I tend to work on this kind of stuff during work I can only use what is on my work computer. So the videos aren't anything spectacular but I still have fun doing it. I really like marrying the music with the video. This one won't let me post it on youtube so I am posting it here. It is about how Danny and Lindsay faced the challenges in their lives and as a result they were able to move forward together. Now they will face their challenges together but that is for a different video (at least TPTB better have them working together...I would really hate to have to go to California just so I can egg them) The rest of my videos are on youtube but if I ever can't post one there I will post it here. The song is "Stand My Ground" by Within Temptation. Thanks!