LuvMyShows

My issue isn't so much that I can't keep straight what era they're in when they show it, although Luke and Brent seem pretty much impossible to tell by appearance and Isabella as easy as Megan, but yes the lighting is definitely different. It's that I can't keep track of who is at what stage with whom, and what has or hasn't already happened, when we come into an era. Like, for any given era we enter, has Megan been boyfriend/girlfriend with Luke yet? Has she kissed Jeff? Is the roof leak in era 2 or 3? I just wish they would let us see longer action in eras, which they definitely did in season 1, to let it sink in. It's particularly difficult for distinguishing between action from eras 2 and 3.

I wondered if maybe Megan's mom was kissing Megan's dad because she wanted to butter him up because she needed something from him. I'm starting to wonder if Jeff killed Luke. Clearly Jeff is very into Megan, and Megan clearly has very deep feelings for Luke. Maybe he knew she would always carry a torch for Luke and he wanted her all to himself. Debbie did not go to college. IIRC she said something about Megan being the first in the family to go to college. However, ever since she said that, I have felt that if that is supposed to be miscast, then a different actress should be playing Debbie. KaDee seems too refined to not have gone to college. So with this episode, I started wondering why Brent doesn't know it's not Isabella on the sex tape. If he was watching his own tapes, he would have seen the whole tape and realized it was Megan. So if he does know and has kept quiet about it so far, does that figure into the plot later on? I agree. For me, a huge problem is how short the scenes are from each time period. I cannot keep straight who is at what stage with whom.

Don't forget, he had the young daughter go in first, knowing full well what she was going to find, which is a typical move for these sh*ts. Also, he apparently did not learn from the queen of 9-1-1 call gasping, Chacey Poynter, that it actually doesn't make your I-just-found-the-victim-and-I'm-so-shook call sound more convincing!

IIRC, the detective himself never said it was the biggest blunder...that was Josh M's guess and teaser before they headed to commercial. After the commercial break, the detective himself explained the crying I think by saying you work a case for long and it gets to you, or something like that...he didn't say anything blunder-related about that particular scene.

To me, she looked like she had some plastic surgery done that hadn't yet finished healing. What I thought was, this guy is supposedly so freaking wonderful, but he didn't even have a place that was nice enough for them to move in to? Isn't that what she slammed MTS for? As they were having this conversation, and as, IIRC, Krysten was defending the right to have a preferences, it occurred to me that she slammed Mitch up and down for having a preference, for the more bohemian look! Thought it was funny how she said Katie had been advising to unplug the 24-hour camera. Thought it was interesting that when asked if they ever got used to that camera and basically forgot about it, Krysten said yes, and that she walked around naked. That doesn't really fit with the narrative she portrayed during her season. And more emphatically, I really need to never see Lindsey again!

The plot progressing also seems to hinge on believing that a lawyer would advise a client to not use diplomatic immunity because it wouldn't look good! WTAF. That's exactly what diplomatic immunity is there for...a literal get out of jail free card to use as needed. If ever there was a time to use it, it's now, and the lawyer's number one goal should be to protect her client, which could be best done by her client not being there anymore! Except that the school is the public University of Washington in Seattle, and IIRC the scholarship is connected to the Gates Foundation, so there's pretty much zero chance that there's a strict morality clause. It would have been so simple for them to make the scholarship from some very conservative organization that has a morality clause, and then we wouldn't be having the heartburn that this is causing us!

I'm still not so sure. Megan said that Isabella had apologized millions of times; which seems like more than what someone would do as just an expression of sympathy. If Megan knew it was herself on the tape, it would seem strange to watch it in front of Isabella, because that changes the power dynamics, which were seeming to be in Megan's favor.

I find that they are not spending enough time with action from each time period...there's too much cutting back and forth. The fact that the earring was right there where they were, made me think that she had intentionally loosened it just then so that he could find it, and create a situation with high likelihood that he would kiss her. But Isabella did apologize before Megan found out it wasn't her. It occurred when the two of them were watching the video and Megan said she needs to see the whole thing. Isabella apologizes while they're watching it and Megan says, "I know. You've said that a million times." And after that, she sees the part where it's revealed that it's actually Megan on the video. So it still doesn't make sense that Isabella would apologize, repeatedly, for something she didn't do...unless the apology is for something that hasn't been revealed yet, or unless Isabella actually did have sex with Luke while Luke was with Megan, and assumed that the tape had captured that.

Very much so. OK, so I'm wondering if the show actually thinks they've pulled it off successfully.

My favorite part was when Aida was talking about having Ro be careful and take care of herself, and Ro said, regarding getting involved in trying to solve the mystery, "Don't worry. I won't be doing anything like this again." I also noticed that twice they made reference to people taking a taxi, which was a nice little nod to how different it was "way back" in 2008. Well, sort of. She looked soooo heavily made-up here. In the earlier AT movies, she just looked like an actress playing a role who had on the appropriate amount of make-up to film a movie. The one thing that didn't ring true, was all the stuff Aida was saying when she initially turned down the listing lead that the other woman gave her. And, truth be told, the actress was a completely different physical type as well. It sort of made it laughable when Ro put on Sally's coat and that ex-girlfriend tried to run her over...even a cursory glance would have caused the ex- to know that it wasn't Sally.

My boyfriend's back!! With "The Real Murders of Orange County" back for another season, the previews had been teasing the appearance of Matt Murphy, Senior Deputy District Attorney for Orange County. Finally with episode 3, we saw him! OK, maybe he doesn't actually know that he's my boyfriend, but why let reality get in the way of a great romance?! 😁 ETA: Looks like he's no longer in the DA business, and has gone into private practice...probably cashing in big time!

Totally agree on both counts. And I finally realized why the plot was so problematical. Lacey's character didn't actually solve the crime, as in, piece together clues that pointed to someone's guilt. Instead, she pieced together clues that pointed to someone's true identity, and that was basically all it took to decide guilt. There was no recitation of clues/factors, such as when/how she would have snuck in to his room to do the poisoning, or what she used to poison him and why. I also kept waiting for the two of them to have the conversation where they craft their back story as a married couple, and for there to be some explanation of what her supposed position in the company was, which the other senior personnel definitely would have asked her about. I did find it very entertaining in spite of all that, and Will Kemp was the reason, even though that type of character could easily have become annoying played by someone else. I liked how she kept mockingly calling him the names of former TV detectives. He looked familiar to me, but I couldn't place him until I checked IMDB and found that I knew him from Girlfriends Guide to Divorce. That was "To Catch a Spy" with Nathalie Kelley and Colin Donnell.

Finally finished watching. To me, the best part was the absolute deer-in-the-headlights look of Brian Houston when he was testifying before the commission. He looked like he was scared sh*tless, and possessed absolutely none of the swagger and certitude that we saw from him all the other times he ever spoke. I also wonder if anyone else picked up on something I noticed. At the time Brian testified, he was sticking to his story that his father had only abused that one boy, known then as AHA. The wording Brian used to describe what his dad did was a "one-off", although later he changed his tune and called his father a serial predator. So I found it very telling that he used the exact same wording of "one-off" to characterize that episode where he spent the 40 minutes alone in that woman's hotel room and had mixed the alcohol with the pills. I think that when he said "one-off" in relation to his father, he knew darn well that it wasn't. And I'm guessing that when he used "one-off" in regards to his own behavior, that it also wasn't.

I would have liked to hear more about how on earth they intend to finance this bus (if any of this is even real, and not just a producer-invented conversation). If they intend to buy it, that's a huuuuuge upfront expense and the monthly payments would probably be pretty sizable. Likewise if they lease it, the monthly payments might be even higher. I don't get the impression that Jasmine has any discretionary income to speak of, and I'm guessing Kirsten doesn't have a standard salary given that she's in real estate. So even just qualifying for such a huge outlay might be tricky. It was weird. It looked like she was standing in front of him and they were pressed up together, and he had his arms around her waist. He just seemed like a wet piece of cardboard on that date. But how can that be, when Pastor Cal and Dr. Pepper kept reminding us that Dom's an old soul?! 🤮 Yes, I think it was!

What goes around, comes around. In the A TIme to Kill episode "Highway to Hell", the police have a murder suspect, and he is a bad guy. As part of the investigation into the gun that was used, and trying to link it to the suspect, they uncover that 18 years earlier the guy was pulled over in a traffic stop, and was asked the standard question of whether there was a weapon in the car. He said there was a gun, that it was his father's, the police inspected it and made a notation about it (all was legal with the gun, I think). So now, a routine traffic thing he had done 18 years earlier and that he probably didn't even remember, came back to bite him in the ass, since that same gun was indeed used in the murder he was a suspect in. Karma's a bitch, dude.

Gina really seems to have negativity blinders on about Clint and positivity glasses about Mac! Mac does not have swag; if anything, Clint does. And for her to have remarked on Mac's clothing on their "date" and said that he has style and Clint didn't, made no sense at all since what Mac was wearing was literally a long-sleeved solid-colored t-shirt (maybe waffle-weave?) and jeans (appeared not to be designer), basically identical to the stuff Clint wore...and it's not like the clothes hung so much better on Mac than they did on Clint. Gotta disagree big time. Jemele seems like she is conducting interviews of the guests, whereas Keshia asked questions also but seemed more like she was engaging them in conversation. Love the imagery!

Interesting how she specifically indicated that her next relationship better propose within one year. If that is her main criteria, then I'm sure she can be successful, though how successful the relationship would actually end up being for her is another story.

What made it ten times more awful was that the killer was also a young man (age 19 or so?), and he was just completely cold, ruthless, and with no regret at all. He intentionally lured the young men to their deaths. Three of the young men were buried on top of each other, their bodies just thrown into a big metal contraption that had been used as a pig roaster, and buried 12 feet under ground. The first episode of season 8 was also memorable, about the unidentified 'baby' found in the water in Boston. It was really amazing to hear how much the community rallied around the unknown child. It was also fascinating how much they were able to sleuth out about the clothes she was wearing.

The recent See No Evil episode, "The Devil's Bathtub," broke my heart. They did a great job setting it up, and something about seeing the store video with the guy's son as the one walking through the door and buying the shovel, just got to me. I hope that mom burns in hell.

Sorry, not sorry, but I'm cheering for her, even though she definitely can be annoying AF. I'd rather have her every day and twice on Sunday, than even five minutes of Alyssa, or Lindsay, or Olivia, or Alexis. It's like, could they make it together? Sure. But should they? Hell no. Neither of them described a feeling of wonderfulness with each other, that was simply strained at times by difficulties they need to work on. Pastor Cal needs to take a seat. He saw an attractive Black couple of two nice, intelligent, driven people, and got drunk off of his "power couple" fantasy.

Another head-scratcher about detectives. Don't recall which franchise/episode, but a woman made a 9-1-1 call about a domestic violence situation and was taken to the ER. A man was with her, who she said was her brother. He stayed in there the whole time while they interviewed her, and she gave the name of the man she said had attacked her. Well, guess what? Turns out the man with her wasn't really her brother...it was her boyfriend, the abuser, but because he was in there the whole time, she didn't feel safe saying it was him. That should be part of basic training for domestic violence. But I did see some good thinking by detectives. Again, don't remember the franchise/episode. Suspects had been captured on video, but no one recognized them. I believe they used geo location to find which two phones had been at the location and making calls to each other, so they knew those were the phones of their two suspects. But one of the phones was a burner phone that had been turned off because of not paying the bill, so they couldn't identify where it was being used to try to locate the guy. So they got the idea to pay the bill and see if the person would start using the phone again...and it worked!

I'm still confused about the ending in terms of what's going on with Hannah and Mike. She seemed to have waaaaayyyyy over-reacted by giving him her ring back. As best as I can tell, she felt betrayed that he had been keeping his boss informed all along, given that she had told him she didn't want him to do that until she had the case solved? And he had felt work pressures to keep his boss informed? Aside from the fact that he should have just been straight with her about it, I don't see why this was worthy of calling off the engagement. Maybe it simply crystallized for her something that she'd been struggling with for awhile, but which the writers had never made us privy to, which is doubts about their future, such that she did end up saying something about "that's why we've never gotten around to scheduling the wedding". Given that we still see her having a lot of involvement with Norman, I sincerely hope they don't go the love triangle route. I also wasn't crazy about the plot, and had a hard time following it. For the elevator shaft murder, did the son accidentally kill the guy way back when, and then the dad falsely confessed in current times to protect his son? How did the guy accidentally get killed? For the other plot, where had that guy lived before such that no one recognized him in this town from his "old" life? Had his brother already died, such that there was now no risk that he would be prosecuted for the crime that he had committed all those years ago? If so, I find it hard to believe that this guy wouldn't have kept tabs on that, if only just out of curiosity, and then considered re-connecting with the surviving family, even if he would have worried about how they'd feel about him all these years later.

Sorry I don't remember what franchise/episode I was watching, but I just hate it when a good man lets his domineering wife ruin his life, and then of course he gets killed for his trouble. In this one, a cop took on a second job doing security, and that still wasn't enough to provide enough money for his wife to buy all the stuff she wanted. So he was borrowing from people. Truthfully, I have no patience for a man who would actually do that, rather than either divorce her or put his foot down and tell the beeyotch to go get her own job. But that doesn't mean he deserves to die because he was too accommodating.

I completely agree that Huszar comes across as very wooden, and there was definitely no chemistry between them. I am confused about the ending. The shrink and the woman (girlfriend? wife?) were the killers, right? And they killed Linda for the cash? But where was the cash? Had she really been storing it in a locker at the club? Why did it matter that Linda wasn't supposed to be at the pool that day? Were they planning to rob the locker and then Linda showed up so they killed her? Why would the shrink and the woman kill the artist? And who did the artist call to warn "They know"? Was the artist in on it, and then the shrink and the woman killed him so they could keep all the money? And just had to add, that the piano playing we heard from Lia didn't sound anywhere near good enough for getting into Julliard. They should have either not had the music at all, or had something that sounded Julliard-level. And now quoting myself because this is yet another new franchise where the protagonist inherits/starts an agency that solves crimes.

The low-income families absolutely has to be related to having employers paying for the service. $500 a month extra is simply not something that low-income families have. But even moreso, how on earth would the company know that their customers are low- or middle-income families? I seriously doubt they ask their customers for their income level, and on the off chance that they did, I can't imagine many people giving that kind of information to a company like this. I also don't imagine the company asking other related questions where you could infer low income, like, whether you have Section 8 housing. So I started thinking about the return-to-work-faster aspect, and now I'm even more confused. This product doesn't actually help people return to work faster, because you still have to do the pumping. The only thing this product does is provide a shelf-stable way to store your milk. If you view it as being able to stop pumping sooner because you now have the powder, that implies being able to calculate when you will stop giving your baby breast milk. And that may not go as planned. One can already store one's breast milk in the refrigerator, so it isn't like this product helps you get back to work sooner because of having another way to get milk to the baby during the day when the mom isn't home. And if you're producing milk to send off, then that means needing to pump just as often as if you were storing the bottles yourself, which doesn't help you return to work sooner. I really don't get it. But that implies that there is still some benefit to this that the powder form provides. Being able to take it on a trip won't cut it, because if you are still pumping and sending the milk off, then you'll still need to bring the pump on your trip. As I said, the only benefit I can think of is that having the powder allows you to stop pumping sooner, but as I said, you have to have calculated very accurately when you will stop pumping, and how much milk your baby will need after that. But even with that. most people who are breastfeeding, do it for longer than 6 weeks. But the pressure to return to work can easily start by then, so again, no benefit, because you'll still be pumping. Plus, $2495 up front is not feasible for a low-income family, nor many middle-income families.