Umbelina

If Kim had been the one to lose her suitcase and keep everyone waiting for over an hour, Kyle would have been bitching, rolling her eyes, and implying "Kim's not SOBER!" and "Oh poor me, look what I constantly must put up with!" As she's always done before. Kim was right about that.

They were all whining during the treasure hunt, except for Camille and the extra lady, whoever she was. Grumps.

Kyle is disgusting. Frankly, everything Kim was saying was true this episode, so I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Lipsa doesn't seem sincere to me, at all. She talks behind Kim's back, but if she was so damned concerned, TALK TO HER FACE. Harry Hamlin was an alcoholic? Nice to out him Lipsa. Yet you still drink? If he's only been clean 3 years, that must be tough, and yes, if it runs in families, perhaps you should be more aware of drinking in front of your girls. Oh, and you can take off for 5 days and 5 nights, but didn't manage to visit your parents until Bravo was filming you? What a bunch of grumpy bitches during the treasure hunt. Oh, and as much as you complained non stop about Kim, Eileen? She was the one who solved "Jack Nicholson" for you. These women may do the gym stuff, but they are not in good shape.

We get maybe 40 minutes once a week, and these guys film for hours. Even in the candid shots I can see the others sometimes looking pensive or "unhappy" if the shot was isolated the way the very short zoom in of Brandi was. Bravo can not put something in that wasn't there, but they DO several things to manipulate scenes. 1. Have them reshoot conversations (common) 2. Edit a clip or reaction from a different episode and paste it in. 3. Not show happy or social shots (even if they have plenty) and find the one moment that the "wife" looks the way they need to tell their chosen narrative of the show/season. 4. Take hours and hours of shooting and only use what forwards their chosen storyline. These are silly little shows, for the most part. Occasionally they let the cameras run and we get something real, but that is happening less and less often as the shows go on. They want the table flips, the slaps, the screaming at each other or into the camera (hello Kyle.) They've filmed the other women with husbands or each other, and the only conversations we see are about Kim or Brandi. Surely these women talk of something other than that, or do more than gossip their lives away, but Bravo isn't showing it. Editing DOES create story, and the problem I have is the editors suck.

The con was Jimmy had the watch, because he claimed it. The dude basically bought a cheap watch from them, by giving them the money in the wallet, and everything he had on him.

Oh please, they all have, and they all will again. Just not on camera for most of them.

Seriously? You don't see that editing chose to show the moment when Brandi was sitting alone looking pensive? You believe that none of the other women took a break and sat down for a moment, and they could have shown those if it was "attack Lipsa year?" They could have shown Brandi up and laughing and partying with all of them, but they didn't because that's not their storyline this year. As far as being on the website, I'd be shocked if even 10% of the people who watch this show would see those.

Yes, and Brandi is in the group shots with all the women, having fun like the rest. Bravo editing has a LOT to answer for. http://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/photos/photos-from-lisa-vanderpumps-surprise-party/item/10636941

Or maybe Keaton was getting nervous and was reviewing the speech before the announcement?

Well, from the previews, it looks like Chuck's isolation may be over in an extremely scary way for him. Guess the neighbor wanted her $.25 paper more than the $5.00. I think (a few) people aren't liking this because it's not as dark/crazy as BB, and that's a shame. This is a completely different show, with it's own vibe, and it's really growing on me. I don't think it's trying (at ALL) to be a BB clone, and in fact, they are fighting against that, but giving some important nods to the world that was already created in this same location. Tuco IS there, and he's a criminal, though not tweaker extra-nuts yet, and since Saul is a criminal lawyer their paths will cross. They just crossed in a typical early Jimmy fuck up way. It was a little gift for us, but it's not the show. Nacho isn't going to let this go, and he's probably in this for a relatively long haul. He's scarier, because he's calmer, and he thinks. Saul stood up to him well, I thought he would be more terrified, but Saul is a good talker, and does have a backbone. He's going to owe Nacho, and that relationship will probably lead him into darker clients. I don't think it's going to be all dark though, as a matter of fact, while I expect scary moments, I think many of Saul's cases will be pretty funny, add to the ridiculous, without crossing that line. Jimmy's "criminals are stupid, you kind of hope they would be smarter" line to Mike seemed like foreshadowing to me. (not exact quote) This show has so much potential since there will be a variety of crooks who need Jimmy/Saul's help, so it shouldn't get boring. We all know he eventually takes on a client who does change his life in very bad ways, but the parts we are watching now, seem to be Saul doing pretty well, he's smart, he's a quick learner, a "go getter" and I don't think most of that is going to be dark. I don't WANT one particular criminal becoming the main storyline, bring in several of the smaller cases, and have some fun with all of those possibilities. The thing with Chuck as conscience is bothering me though, probably because he is SO isolated, and his only interactions are with Jimmy, and even those are trying to get Jimmy to not be Jimmy. Or getting Jimmy to not be Saul. Maybe I don't like him partly because Chuck wants the opposite of what I want. Ha. Also, I think there is good in Jimmy, and I don't like the idea of Chuck being the reason for that. They aren't quite going that yet, but in a way they are dancing close to it. Although, if something happened to them while they were raised that caused one to (sorry) "break bad" and one to "break good" I guess there could be a payoff there.

I fell for it too. For a comic, Saul really does "serious" well, which is why I do think he can carry this show. The possible storylines are endless. The brother is my only downer from this (and all) episodes.

The whole negotiation with the embezzlers cracked me up too. "You're the kind of lawyer guilty people hire. Take the bribe. It's like overtime."

I thought this was the best show yet. I loved the whole "take on the big guys" in typical Jimmy way, and the billboard stunt was classic. The female lawyer is growing on me too. I may even learn her name. Then they ended it with the brother, and even though the inside look at the way he views the world was very well done, and did put me inside his head for a while, I just do not like the brother character or anything to do with him. At this point, as soon as I see him on screen I feel like groaning. So, the only clunker in an otherwise wonderful episode. Loved the S'alls a Good Man too.

For a show like this, I think you really need a comedian that's familiar with improve and live shows. They have to be able to think on their feet, without making it all about them. They also have to show a bit of respect and SOME dignity. I think that's one reason the presenters were so dour. They were trying to add some dignity and gravitas, because the host certainly was not. It's Hollywood's biggest night, it means something to them, in spite of the multiple other awards shows. Endless mocking and insulting really doesn't work well, unless it's good-hearted.

Yeah, her Wiki says "international" and Eileen Ford. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yolanda_Foster

I read on a home site that Yo's fridge DOES work (a friend of the poster there has one.) The doors are (obviously) not insulated though, and as Rye said, crappy seams when closing, so it costs around $700 a month to keep food cold, minimum.

On Kimmel Travolta went on to say that while talking to Goldie, the handler mumbled something to him about changing the spelling on the prompter to "phonetic" and he missed it, mostly since the first handler missed the cue, so a second rushed him to the stage. When he read the phonetic spelling of her name he had no idea what he was looking at. I believed him on Kimmel, where he was fine, if old.

I think Shonda was pissed because the Glory number was a show-stopper, and would have been more noticed/honored, except Gaga blew it away soon after. ??? It seemed like a race thing, and again, probably based on the snub. Exactly. Same with the documentaries. If you don't elaborate, don't expect us to care. If they are so important to include, then show why. Also, I still can't find the other technical award winners (presented at a separate ceremony) listed anywhere on the Oscar page. Or the other (a different separate ceremony) either. So I guess only SOME Oscars winners are important. ? Maybe do the awards most people care about in Part 1, and then do the rest in Part 2? I'd watch both. Instead they do one people care about, then a bunch most don't, to keep you watching until the ones most people care about again. They can't spare a moment or a sentence to elaborate, but they can interview seat fillers? Yeah, no.

I thought "I'm not gonna miss you" was the better song, but really? I knew the Glory song would win, since it wasn't going to win best picture, and that was the only other nomination it got. That said, I enjoyed the song, and the production of it quite a bit more than the other songs, it was close to a show stopper. How much of that was all about the snub? I'm not sure really.

My point is, I left not knowing a damn thing about what the documentaries were about (other than what I'd read previously.) If they want to honor them, and showcase them? TELL us more than the name and who produced it. Add a sentence, if not a clip, or why not both? Since they don't, including them is basically BS. "This touching documentary shows us what is is like for children working in sweatshops, and follows them home to their hovel with 15 siblings." Or "_______ shows us the continuing devastation of _______, and what we could do to stop it."

I can't even find a list of the tech award winners (or the others not shown on the broadcast show.) Anyone? http://www.oscars.org/ Again, my comments about changes to the show only relate to two things. IF they want ratings. IF they want this to make people want to go see movies and documentaries. Oh, and I am old enough to remember when the Oscars always had dance numbers. Hee.

Many of the technical awards are ALREADY separated, and they work hard too. I just think two broadcasts are the answer, again, if they care about RATINGS. They keep doing all this stuff to "get ratings" and to "get people to go to the movies." If that is the goal with broadcasting this at all, then it's a fail. I learned next to nothing about the movies last night. I didn't hear the scores, I saw very few clips, (and none from documentary or animation.) Endless time was wasted on the bullshit category of "best song" though. If they want this to be something else, and don't care about the ratings of the show? Continue with the lame jokes, and making it all about the best song. Including the categories just by "name" isn't honoring the tech, doc, or other awards either. I would rather have had clips or explanation about what the documentaries were about than watch NPH interview seat fillers, or do his magic trick.

I loved Camille's house too. That was beautiful, with wonderful views.

I thought Kim was doing "acting" scenes for fun, but they left out the part that started it all with editing. Maybe not though.