Eolivet

Well, I'd be remiss if I didn't contribute to this topic... I judge episodes based on the ick factor of their cases (i.e., I'd be much more likely to rewatch one with subpar performances as long as the case wasn't too vile), so I will actively turn off "Family Values" (incest + massive serial killing = no thank you), and I have a very difficult time with "The Posthumous Collection" (so senseless and awful -- I get upset both about the boy's mistreatment by his relatives and how he takes it out on completely innocent women). Similarly, I have a hard time stomaching "Want" (even though NPH is very effective, but hot water into her skull, no no nooooo). I also won't watch "Shrink-Wrapped," but for completely different reasons. For some reason, that episode seemed to be rerun every time I used to turn on the TV. I think I've seen it five or six times, so I can basically recite the whole thing. "Now you can't ignore me! I'm your daughter! I'm yours!"

He's supposed to be in Poland for a year -- has the CS ever skipped a year? Maybe S3, but I thought they were slowing down time again after racing through it for the first couple of years. Not only does Ovenden have a musical career, per the above poster, but he seems almost as desperate as Dan Stevens to have an American career. He's been in "Smash" and the failed ABC series "The Agency" (about the KGB) just in the last year. I think this is fun and all for him, but if he gets a U.S. Pilot, Fellowes is ready, willing and able to Gregson-ize him and have Mary move on.

Thus endeth the tenure of Charles Blake on Downton Abbey? Poland is about as volatile as Germany, so if they can't get Ovenden back, perhaps he will befall a similar fate to Gregson. The kiss was awkward, Mary was shocked, but didn't reciprocate, it didn't take her breath away or give her pause -- she just happily took his arm and went to dinner, snarking all the way. Again, if this is a recipe for a great love, I'm not seeing it. Interesting Fellowes recycled Matthew's "I can't leave her -- it wouldn't be noble" excuse for Gillingham. I wish he'd made that clearer in Gillingham's initial upset about being dumped. Perhaps that scene wasn't meant to play as angrily as it did, and these later episodes have been damage control. Mabel Lane Fox remains a breath of fresh air, and she and Gillingham have a cute chemistry together. May they be happy, with my love. Was that the same Marigold from the last episode? I swear, she looked younger last episode, but older this episode. Go figure. The kid who plays George is such a nonentity. Does he smile at all? Sybbie continues to act circles around the rest of the kids.

That episode is close to the most disturbing episode ever. It's one of the few Goren/Eames eps I would shut off if it was on -- I wouldn't even have it on as background noise. Kudos to David Harbour for effectively portraying such a repulsive human being -- after being pretty sympathetic as a conflicted thief in "Silver Lining," too. As I mentioned before, it bothers me not just because of its content, but because it's constructed more like a thriller and less like an episode of Law & Order CI. It's all shock value and very little substance. (Hee, maybe we need a "Most Disturbing Episode Ever" thread, like the Mothership has!)

Man, whoever was writing the season 4 titles was really on point. "Beast" and "No Exit" were exceptionally clever titles, befitting of their episodes. I hadn't seen all of "No Exit" before, and I thought it was particularly strong. Hubert Skoller was such a hapless "villain," and it was one of those few times where it seemed like the "bad guy" wasn't the actual killer. I was very impressed with Arye Gross, the actor who played him (looked him up on IMdB and he's probably guest-starred on every popular show for the past 25 years!) What a controlled performance -- the last scene made me feel like I was watching a play. I wasn't that impressed with Darrell Hammond, but I've come to the conclusion that I'm prejudiced against popular actors without a theater background appearing on Law & Order CI.

I enjoyed this episode. Narcisse is a great villain (I actually believed his contrition earlier, and while I probably shouldn't have been surprised, the idea that the maid was play-acting was great). As another poster said last week, I'd also love the idea of Narcisse being a bad man and a good husband. He and Lola have great chemistry. The Leith/Greer/Castleroy love triangle is the only one I can remember where a woman has a choice between two men who seem like fundamentally decent guys. Leith has had his iffy moments, but he did let Castleroy go with the guards, and then showed up for the wedding (only to leave). I'm happy Greer chose Castleroy -- they seem like a good partnership. His new affiliation with the Protestants should make for some interesting future subplots. It was just nice not to have a love triangle where there seems to be no bad guy. I mainly like that they're developing the storylines for the other characters, independent of "the great angsty love of Mary and Francis." Francis is so outmatched in his battle with Narcisse. I don't think he's a terrible person -- quite the opposite. I think he's way too nice and way too noble to be an effective King. Mary might act impulsively, but she knows how to course-correct, and she does ultimately get stuff done (like Catherine does). Francis seems to be guided by his principles -- which makes him a good man, but an awful leader. But Narcisse telling Francis not to tell Mary what he knows, and Francis actually doing it, reminds me of those shows or movies when the criminals kidnap someone and tell the family not to go to the police. You always go to the police! It's what ends up saving you!

Can't decide if Colleen Dexler ("Beast") should join Nicole Wallace's brigade of Tow-Headed Terrors. She had blonde streaks, at least. Another (disturbing) trope: borderline or inappropriate familial relationships. -"Smothered" -"Death Roe" -"Family Values"

I never thought of that. I don't want to belabor the point, so this will be the last I'll say about it, but I just wonder why everything else about Cooper, Bitsy and the attempted assassin had to be so "on the nose" about Reagan. My reaction isn't so much "How dare you besmirch Reagan's memory, Shonda and writers!" so much as "Wow, lack of imagination much, Shonda and writers?" Why couldn't the assassin have belonged to a religious cult? Or had a crush on a guy? Or been an evil twin? Anything other than "Let's rewrite Reagan's assassination attempt with this fictional guy" because it begged those parallels for everything. If it wasn't meant to prove some kind of "I hate Reagan and I'll tell you why" point, it showed a sad lack of creativity. Why crib so many aspects of Reagan's presidency when Shonda and her writers could've created another fictional president, First Lady and presidential assassin that were all completely unlike any past president, First Lady or presidential assassin? But your point about how Mellie will push Olivia back toward Fitz to get stuff done for herself is a great one. I could see this happening, as well as Liv figuring it out. I do like that Mellie has her groove back and am excited to see what she does with it.

Unless the inventor of the kids belts found it necessary to dress her kids in flat-front pants all day, every day, most kids pants -- even the nicer brands -- now have adjustable waists or elastic waists. Actually, even the flat-front uniform pants at Target are adjustable! Talk about a solution that had no problem.

And if it was just about Mellie and Bitsy, I could see that. But Olivia's client was a virtual carbon copy of the assassination attempt on Reagan (right down to the fact that he was trying to impress a girl). Something about this felt...almost personal. All that was missing was the Law & Order warning: "The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event" (which is always a signal that it's based heavily on a real life case). It made me wonder exactly what Ronald Reagan had done to Shonda or her writers.

Yeah, I figured that's what Bonnie meant by "Rich girls don't go for guys like Frank" or "You're toying with him and he thinks he has a chance with you." Unless one partner is significantly less attractive than the other (not the case here I don't think) to me, that generally implies a discrepancy in net worth. But again, I didn't realize Laurel was rich either, so the show isn't doing the best job delineating the Haves from the Have Nots.

I think others have mentioned that they think they're protecting Annalise (who interestingly, as established this episode, knows nothing about the murder or says she doesn't). I have to say, I think they whiffed big time on casting Frank and styling the character. They were clearly going for "blue-collar guy aspiring to look professional," but the beard, the expensive-looking suits and next to no accent (or a really bad accent) belie that entirely. They needed to make him clean-shaven and ease up on the tailored suits. Or make the actor do a decent accent. Law & Order knew how to style a "wrong side of the tracks defendant at court" all the time -- something would just look off, and the accent always gave them away. But Frank has always looked -- and sounded -- pretty polished to me that I was utterly confused about him until Bonnie spelled it out this episode. (Also: Laurel is rich? Have we gotten any hints about that at all, other than "Her apartment probably doesn't look like Wes' apartment.") I have to say, Peter Norwalk writes/creates/shepherds a good mystery. Shonda's anticlimactic solutions to the mysteries on Scandal must've driven him nuts.

Riffing on Fitz's fictitious Ronald Reagan predecessor -- complete with a mentally unbalanced assassin trying to impress a girl -- was just bizarre. Was this Scandal or Law & Order? At least it gave us Bitsy Cooper, who was a more believable power player in one episode than four episodes of Portia de Rossi. If I didn't just notice that Scott Foley now has second billing after Kerry Washington, I'd say Jake's storyline is almost done. But given that...probably not.

I wish Jeff had treated the bartering like they do in Big Brother: get the rice, but give up immunity for the next few challenges. I realize that would wreak havoc on their production, but it would've been an interesting strategy. I actually was expecting Jeff to offer that as an option last episode when Reed brought up the bartering. "Sure, you can have more rice...in exchange for that immunity idol."

This felt like a rejected Modern Family script (Family Member loves Holiday. Family Member tries to get Other Family Members to enjoy Holiday, too. Other Family Members resist.) until Charlie punched Josh in the face. That took it to another level. Charlie is a great recurring character -- emphasis on "recurring." The show is using him wisely thus far, and with great results.

Yes, especially as she was referred to as "feminist hero, Tess McGill." The neighbors making up the "nuthouse" claim was pretty telegraphed, though. I also liked Mitchell "winning" his case with Lily. It was a loving, supportive thing he did for Cam. It was one of the first times I saw Mitchell's affection for his husband, but in a truly "Mitchell" way. Really nice scene. And "joint Thanksgiving." Heh.

Hee, I'm sorry -- I suppose I got into Law & Order: CI because of the Goren/Eames Sherlock/Watson dynamic. I liked the "solving a murder based on how these little pieces of paper are lying differently from those little pieces of paper." It made it different from the Mothership in that sense (you'd never see Lennie Briscoe examining little pieces of paper!). I actually really liked Mike Logan on the Mothership, but I thought CI as a show became more ordinary without Goren's "I can tell you were in a Thai prison because you speak Chinese with a French accent" kind of crime-solving eccentricity. I didn't like Jeff Goldblum either -- Goren was CI to me, and I thought it lost the thing that made it unique from other Law & Orders when he wasn't there. So, enjoy Mike Logan -- I enjoyed him on the Mothership, but he just never clicked for me on this particular show.

I was never a big Mike Logan fan, but just caught this gem during "Stress Position:" "The Patriot Act. I read it under its original title: 1984." Wry bit of social commentary there.

Mary is generally my favorite, but I'm feeling unusually protective over Lola lately. It occurs to me that Francis did the same thing she did, and his life did not change one iota. He came back to court. He still married Mary. He still became King. Any heirs he would have with Mary will eventually become King. Lola's life was forever altered. She went from an eligible, titled Lady to "mother of the King's bastard" or "the King's mistress." Her pick of suitors has narrowed tremendously, her hope at a normal life has been taken away. Unlike Mary, (as far as she knows) she won't get to marry a rich, titled nice man of her choosing and have a family of her own. Her fate is now tied to that of her son. Lola was absolutely right: Mary would resent her, especially since Lola has a son -- Francis' son -- and Mary has been unable to conceive. I think Mary has been gracious and kind and loving to Lola, but I don't blame Lola for waiting for the other shoe to drop. While Mary may be jealous of Lola, Lola is also jealous of Mary -- not because she wants Francis, but because Mary has the life (rich, titled husband + potential legitimate children) that Lola should have had for herself, and now can only have, with limitations. I think the show is doing a great job of showing how both Lola and Francis made a choice: but whereas Lola's choice altered the course of her life forever, Francis' choice didn't change the course of his life at all.

Wow, you hit the nail on the head there. I went from tolerating Blake to not being able to stand him. He's a sh!t-stirrer, basically. Gillingham left Mary alone this entire episode, and Blake was still whispering all "See, I got Mabel Lane Fox to come and invite herself to the house! Look at my cunning plan!" When...Mary doesn't need your cunning plan, buddy. She's blown off Gillingham, they got through the race being civil to each other (and not talking) and Blake's in her ear taking credit for the whole thing. As mentioned before, Fellowes has proven he can write sweet, subtle romances this year. I can't imagine we're supposed to find this charming. Bring me Bachelor #3, please. Good point about Mary only being herself around Tom. I've really enjoyed their scenes this season.

I just loved that Lila called Sam, her married lover, "Mr. Darcy" -- because I find Pride & Prejudice very overrated and it cracks me up to see that venerable character/romantic trope tarred with that brush. I thought we got less insight into Laurel during "her" episode than we did with either Michaela or Connor. Despite its legal bent, I get some very LOST vibes from this show. Maybe it's all the flashbacks/focus on individual characters per episode. It's an interesting way to tell a story.

Tony Gillingham was close to charming with Mabel Lane Fox. I'd be rooting for those crazy kids a lot more, if Charles Blake weren't smirking at every turn like we should be so impressed with his cleverness. Interesting how Gillingham completely left Mary alone in those scenes -- they didn't even speak. Next week's preview looks ridiculous. "Kiss me...now!" Does that really work on the ladies, Blake? I'll roll my eyes pretty hard if it works on Mary. Have yet to see any evidence that she's that into him at all. Wow, I didn't see that Bates curve ball coming. I really do think Anna will end up taking the fall for him, especially since it seems pretty telegraphed that the train operator will remember selling him that ticket to London.

I liked her, too. I mean, who better to play a stage mom? I also found her scenes with the son quite poignant ("You were just a little boy"). To me, she was an example of good stunt casting (unlike say, Doris Roberts in "Privileged" -- which was bad stunt casting, to me. I didn't believe her as an aging socialite, but I completely bought Liza Minelli as a slightly unhinged stage mom).

But when I tune in to SNL, I expect to see skits and parodies. This was two minutes of free publicity for Jimmy Kimmel, who isn't a real inventor, and had nothing to do with Shark Tank except that they air on the same network. I didn't like it when they used it to plug "The Neighbors" either. I'd have rather those two minutes have been given to another one of the pitches, so I could learn something more about real products. I guess I'll just turn it off next time. But if I tune in to the last two minutes of Survivor and see the cast of Criminal Minds trying to solve an immunity challenge puzzle with victim body parts, reality shows and I are going to have words.

The Filling Station at Chelsea Market in New York has been doing what "The Oilerie" has been doing for years. Kevin was right -- it seems like a very regional market. I hated the Jimmy Kimmel bit the first time they did one, and I hated this one even more. Pretend pitches are just not funny to me.