gesundheit

I haven't seen any spoilers nor do I know the real-life story it's based on, but it does seem pretty obvious what the big reveal will be so my question at this point is solely (I don't want to ruin it for anyone so I spoiler-tagged it even though it's truly just speculation)

Yes, this was just too implausible for me. Why would Megan lose her coding scholarship for having sex? They should've made it some silly private grant that had a morality clause or... something. I don't know. Because this just made no sense. I see they're going the safe route with the costume design again, where they're really blending 2020s style with a few 1999/2000 flourishes. Also pretty funny that the foreign exchange student is American.

I just heard that Victoria Pedretti was originally cast as Emily? Interesting.

Well, I guess turnabout is fair play! In that the two most engagingly-written and well-acted characters were Gogo and Edwin while everyone else was a shallow, stereotypical mess. Fair enough. Unbelievable that Claire was still such a selfish brat even at the end. Withholding the truth from her parents? About their child's death? Acting like she's all wise now but they can't handle the truth? What a deeply dreadful girl. The least she could've done is write to the island media or something to clear Edwin and Gogo's names, considering that was still their reputation. Easily would've been a Dateline special! I also call foul on Ivy League Vacation Boyfriend's story tracking. He lied because his dad made him since it would've made him a murder suspect? No, he lied before anyone even knew she was dead. Anyway, all that because someone got White Girl Wasted and slipped on a rock after realizing she's not important. (In fact, more like 'all that because stupid Claire and Ivy League Vacation Boyfriend lied.") Her death was deemed accidental, though, that's why charges were never pressed. Right? That's how I remember it. It was the family (not trusting the Caribbean police) and the gossip mill (due to the drug charges against Gogo) that held onto the idea that it had to be Edwin and Gogo. I did like that they were able to justify what we'd assumed was some knowledge about her death on Gogo/Edwin's part, due to our seeing Gogo back at the beginning saying that line about how they deserved everything that was coming to them. Definitely planted the seed that they at least knew what happened and didn't report it. But of course he was speaking from internalized homophobia. Probably the only successful fakeout/satisfactory "twist" of the many, many beats. I guess the horrific betrayal Clive was referring to from Edwin was letting him serve time for the drugs. Anyway, Jayden Elijah and Josh Bonzie deserve all the kudos for their performances in this, and those were tough needles to thread with them having to carry so many red herrings. I hope this leads to some truly rewarding work for both of them. Absolute tour de force on both parts.

Well, I'd like to at least feel a tiny bit smug that I predicted the new husband (as some of you above, his name being "Arthur" was news to me this episode), but it was all so incredibly deflating that I'm not even experiencing that satisfaction. Arthur paid for Dan's defense out of guilt! But why he would kill Alex "for them" in the first place wasn't well explained at all. So silly. And I couldn't really even track what had happened since I tended to somewhat tune out Ellen's present-day scenes. The Jungian stuff was way too on-the-nose and heavy-handed. How did Arthur know where she lived? I missed that detail. I agree about sabotaging his case, that was completely insane and I don't buy for a second that an experienced prosecutor would make that choice. The affair being real literally explained away every single piece of evidence against him for the murder, but his inexplicable pride did him in. Or any random true crime podcaster! People would lick that up, it would become a cause celebre! It's cute that she's now making a chunk of her living reviving psycho-chick icons from thriller flicks of that era. She going to do Peyton Flanders and Catherine Tramell next? Add me to the growing list of "nopes" on a second season.

I completely agree with this. She's fine. She's not awful. She's self-absorbed, but the normal amount for her age. She's pretty enough. And she's seeking -- which makes her a target for all these other people's needs. And tiny Claire's admiration is just standard sisterly worship, obviously compounded by her tragic death. I don't need Allison to be exceptional for the story to work. Unfortunately I do need Emily to be remotely sympathetic for it to work and, alas, she is not.

Exactly - I wouldn't notice it if some random kid at the resort I worked for did that, and I certainly wouldn't connect it 15 years later to an adult woman doing it in a wildly different context.

Emily is really insufferable and the actress is not doing the character any favors. Such an oversimplified depiction, from every angle (writing, directing, acting). It really would've helped if this show spent any time showing us why these people are so devoted to her since we've only seen her display the worst of her pathology. I do understand that they are sympathetic to her mental illness, but it's just way too far-fetched that her boyfriend is still just living with her like things are normal. And apparently it took him days to ask what happened "the other night?" So they've just been living together for multiple days and he hadn't asked? On the bright side, as impressed as I've been by Josh Bonzie this whole series, I can now add Jayden Elijah (Edwin) to the list. He's really doing a masterful job shifting from charismatic to cruel to vulnerable and back again in seconds.

The first episode was pretty bad, but of course they've got me hooked with the mystery. So hopefully the quality improves! And now I can add this to the ever-expanding list of shows I'm mad about in the Primetimer Forums for dressing all the women in high-waisted pants in the early aughts! Other than that very glaring "no way is this 2003" detail, this show is making me nostalgic for 2003 New York, I'll give them that.

I really assumed she was dead because nobody's at the hospital and her husband is inconsolable and Beth made him take a pill to go to sleep. Exactly - this is no longer thriller/suspense, but more of a plodding mystery of how Alex died and by whose hand. Very different energy, and probably not what most folks showed up for.

That is wild to me. But irrespective of anyone not having found Glenn Close as attractive as Anne Archer, it's also incredibly irritating that so many people think it's only plausible for a man to cheat on his wife if the other woman is "hotter."

This is also driving me crazy in another show with a similar conceit (one present-day timeline, one back in the aughts) -- Saint X. What woman in 2008 (or whenever these early-timeline scenes are supposed to be taking place) was wearing high-waisted pleated jeans? Those would've been considered hideously frumpy mom jeans then, and I don't think that's the intention. I'm also enjoying that "scrunchie and bangs" are the quick code for which timeline Amanda Peet is in.

So both the bunny and the dog were red herrings? "Save the pup-pup, kill the grandma." (Probably less upsetting for a lot of the audience, honestly.) If Dan's 'fessing up to the affair this early, I wonder what it is he lied about when the murder accusation came up? I had just been assuming the lies all his co-workers were so angry about were that maybe during the investigation or trial he was still trying to deny the affair or something, but obviously not. I'm just confused about the details -- so he did go to trial for it, so he didn't take a plea. There was a defense. So at what point did he give up and start pretending he really did do it? Or is that something only recent for the sake of the parole board? Did they not find her body or something? I still feel like this all points to the original pre-test-screening ending of the movie that they had to re-do. Which would be extra hilarious that Dan presumably did not even bother to appeal.

I wish this were a better series because Josh Bonzie (Clive) is giving a tour de force performance. He's amazing. The whole thing is so silly. If someone like Emily were following me around the city like that I would avoid her at all costs, and I don't have the history that Clive does that would make him 100x more wary. Also her best friend is as stupid as she is. And of course Sara married Edwin! Way too much time spent on that asshole resort guest played by Louis from Dexter. So gross.

I'm half expecting the new husband/dad to be the real killer or something.

Logically it should be, yes. But wow, those are some very high-waisted jeans and shorts for 2003!

I think that was exactly it, but it just seemed pretty unprofessional to shift from supportive to practically ghosting her mid-phone call and then cut her off forever. There are protocols besides just throwing one's hands up in the middle of a conversation. Sure, they could be illustrating that this wasn't a good therapist, but she sounded like she'd actually been a very good one up until that split second. Also, I agree with your point about the ability to function in society -- she's got an extremely taxing job with a ton of high-stakes activity, and plus she's somehow incredibly wealthy (but I'm guessing that's from some older source), and that kind of work would have very diligent background checks. Some lies she could talk herself into believing were harmless, some orchestrated run-ins, etc., I can fully accept. But she already seems to be at fever pitch while simultaneously being able to hold down a demanding and high-stakes job in which you really cannot mess around.

I wonder if the ending will be same as the movie's original unused ending (I won't spoil it here for those who don't know, but it's easily googled if you're curious or need a refresher like I did). That would be easy to do with what they've set up so far. Couldn't quite parse the deal with the psychologist. Obviously she can't counsel her anymore, but it was weird how she sounded encouraging and then shut down abruptly and ghosted her. Maybe they're trying to make some statement about accessibility and stigma around mental health care (i.e., if it'd been easier to get a therapist, if the alleged threat of job loss for suicidal ideation hadn't been an obstacle, etc.). But mostly this getting the 8-episode expansion with prestige actors doesn't seem to be shifting it from the garden-variety psycho-lover thriller. Which is fine, it's fun and all! But I keep feeling like they're trying to claim more than that. They better! I thought the bunny sighting in episode 2 was just an "artsy" surreal easter egg reference to the original, but now that it's real and in-story-context, I worry for it. And of course I worry about the dog.

I just mean that the affair scenes look like they take place in the 80s or 90s in terms of a lot of the design, cinematography, and lighting

I don't remember the original that well, but I foggily recollect that the affair was deliberately brief because of a situation (were they at a work conference, or was the wife away? regardless, I recall it being much more contained) and I also foggily recollect Alex making up-and-down assurances that this was indeed a one-time thing, she had no interest in more, it would remain between them. Which never made Dan a great guy, but I think at the time brought a little more grey area into the audience reaction (he betrayed his wife, but he certainly didn't lead Alex on -- while in this one, you could argue that he certainly did, or at least didn't bother to clarify before jumping in). I'm irritated that Dan is essentially playing martyr/hero in the present-day scenes. I don't need him to be a monster because, again, it's the grey areas that compel. But this is a bit much. I was extremely confused by his claim that a record of her being suicidal would get her fired (though in most states it would likely have a mandatory hold -- 24-72 hours, depending -- which could put her in a rough spot with work regardless). That feels like a lawsuit, but then I don't know employment law in... California? I don't really understand where they are, did they tell us? I think it's Southern California but it's weirdly got east-coast-urban-coded production designs for the historic scenes with west-coast-greater-urban-environs-coded production design for the present day. I feel like they mentioned some California exurban towns. That too! The affair timeline doesn't look 21st century to me. I can't even remember where the original took place. Anyway, nice bunny shoutout at the end there! Particularly because that's probably all we'll get, and the cute little feller will remain unboiled.

All I know is that tiny boy playing Clive & Sara's son is adorable. In that scene where she was holding him and his parents were having the love/not love argument, he really was watching each of them like a fascinating tennis match. Too cute. In the last episode I was still wondering where the island was, but Google tells me Indigo Bay is a real place in St. Maarten, and I'm a little surprised they're presenting it in a real place considering how disparaging it could come across. Google also tells me this novel was loosely drawn from a real-life story about a girl's death, so was that really in St. Maarten? And I guess "Saint X" is some sort of take on that? I don't know! Just trying to figure it all out. I flat out hate Emily. I am sympathetic to the obsession, for sure (and hell, who wouldn't kind of lose it if the man presumed to be your sister's rapist-killer in another country was all of a sudden your CAB driver in Brooklyn??? [insert eye roll here] Who wouldn't think fate was trying to tell them something?). But what is this whole "why" nonsense? What is the scenario in which a rapist-killer (which he probably isn't anyway because drama) says, "Oh, here's why I raped and killed this girl, I presume this explanation is satisfactory and clears everything up?" "Yes, why thank you, now I have the answers I have been seeking!" The present-day story is just too far-fetched and she's being too dumb for me to connect, so I'm just all-in on the historic scenes. Thank goodness there are more of those. The police guy did say in this episode that there would be charges pressed against Clive and Edwin for drugs found, so presumably that's all from that night and maybe not anything that happened later, but I'm not sure. I wonder what year the resort scenes are supposed to be in. Some of the references seem a little anachronistic if it was, say, 2003.

I need them to give us year marker title cards or something. I can't get a read on this so far, it makes me nervous, but then I see some of the folks involved (like Dee Rees) and assume it's going to get subverted at some point. But what the hell, with the therapist thinking Emily-Claire shouldn't live in Flatbush because her sister was murdered in a Caribbean country?? "You should not live near people of the same ethnicity as the citizens of a country where something bad happeend to you" seems like terrible trauma counseling! I feel like there's another word for blaming an entire ethnicity for the actions of one or two people (or suspected actions, as the case seems to be here), and it's not "triggering." (Also which country is the resort supposed to be in? What year? Or are they keeping it deliberately vague?)

All I know is that they referred to Camden, Maine as a "five-hour drive" from Manhattan about 12 times during this episode and I was losing my mind about it. Are they trying to tell us they abuse their cop privilege and go at about 150% of the speed limit the whole way? Extremely fucked up. I really bristled at that. For someone in her position to jump to "deserve" in that scenario? That's "people on Twitter making jokes about a news story where a woman shoots her hubby for cheating with her sister" stuff, not Captain of SVU stuff. She could've just wondered aloud what the husband had done that the shooting was in reaction to, rather than outright endorsing it and shrugging it off. (Although presumably, the writerly thinking was that All-Knowing Olivia could already magically antipate that the guy must've been a pedo -- which deserves an equal amount of bristling.)

That one was weirdly refreshing, in that the accused was wholly unsympathetic. Maybe not a great look for them to portray that demographic this way, but this series has been pretty performative in the other direction that it's not exactly a worrisome pattern at this point. Exactly what I was thinking -- it was very Season 1 You! I cracked up at that, too. "He was agitated when he left the house" is a very bad defense for murder! Who was the actress playing the stalkee/realtor? She looked so awkward, like a high school kid in a power suit trying to look like a high-powered professional

I'm pretty sure the friend really did still do the bribe, and that Dennis still knows that deep down but moved forward anyway. God the musical is bad. But Davia is also really bad in it. She just kept walking across the space with her arms by her side like a robot. I also think that was a lousy way to try to collaborate with the writer -- it's completely inappropriate to just tell him "the change you are making will fail, you should not do it." She should've raised the issue and they could've had a collaborative discussion. That's what musical workshops are for -- so it's very bizarre there's no one else in the room to facilitate those discussions. (I don't know why I'm all of a sudden expecting realism from this storyline though.) Joaquin has ridiculously low empathy for his sister's situation. It's not going to help her deprogramming to ignore her attempts to talk about it! Oh Malika. You are not winning that girl back. I felt like the episode title and all that repetition about cheating was definitely pointing in that direction -- but I agree, I hope not.