GHScorpiosRule May 4, 2014 Share May 4, 2014 Admittedly, the first three and a half seasons were the sharpest! And wasn't toward the end of this season that Eames told Bobby she told Deakins that she "pities the fool" that ends up temporarily partnering up with him when she goes on maternity leave? 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 May 4, 2014 Author Share May 4, 2014 Eames said that at the start of S3. See the title. :-) 1 Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule May 4, 2014 Share May 4, 2014 Eames said that at the start of S3. See the title. :-) Just saw that. Oopsies! 2 Link to comment
BizBuzz May 5, 2014 Share May 5, 2014 Hey there all L&O:CI fans, this is your spot to talk about the specific episodes found in Season Two, they include: 1 Dead 2002-09-292 Bright Boy 2002-10-063 Anti-Thesis 2002-10-134 Best Defense 2002-10-205 Chinoiserie 2002-10-276 Malignant 2002-11-037 Tomorrow 2002-11-108 The Pilgrim 2002-11-179 Shandeh 2002-12-0110 Con-Text 2003-01-0511 Baggage 2003-01-1212 Suite Sorrow 2003-02-0213 See Me 2003-02-0914 Probability 2003-02-1615 Monster 2003-03-0216 Cuba Libre 2003-03-0917 Cold Comfort 2003-03-3018 Legion 2003-04-0619 Cherry Red 2003-04-2720 Blink 2003-05-0421 Graansha 2003-05-1122 Zoonotic 2003-05-1823 A Person of Interest 2003-05-18 Link to comment
WendyCR72 May 12, 2014 Author Share May 12, 2014 Ah, yes. I do believe "Dead" was the episode with Jay O. Sanders as the OCD Family Man Hitman. I actually liked his turn as Captain Joseph Hannah in S10 (far more than 3 seasons of Eric Bogosian's Danny Ross, actually, although Deakins will always be #1 to me! I barely count S9's Zoe Callas at all. Did she do anything but carry files?), but this first appearance always sort of took me out of Hannah's scenes, a bit, even though the killer role was a whole 8 seasons prior. Oh, well. Maybe that's good. At least it means his villainous turn was memorable! Link to comment
WendyCR72 June 1, 2014 Author Share June 1, 2014 So, "Malignant" just ended. That was the episode where the pharmacist diluted drugs for profit. I liked that one since it was more about shades of gray with the widower assisting with his wife's suicide, fallout from diluting the drugs in the first place, since the wife should have lived. I like the episodes where things are a bit controversial/not so neat. Seems to make for better drama. 3 Link to comment
cooksdelight June 16, 2014 Share June 16, 2014 "Dead" is on WGN just now. That episodes gives me bad dreams. Moreso when I think about Harry getting DNA out in the swamp from the dead bodies. His own personal Petri dish, indeed. 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 June 16, 2014 Author Share June 16, 2014 I just hope "Dead" was a completely fictitious story. I'd hate to think that actually happened somewhere. Eeewww. 1 Link to comment
cooksdelight June 16, 2014 Share June 16, 2014 It has happened. Either TN or GA, a crematorium was just dumping bodies everywhere. Link to comment
WendyCR72 June 16, 2014 Author Share June 16, 2014 It has happened. Either TN or GA, a crematorium was just dumping bodies everywhere. That's awful! Not to mention disrespectful to the dead and their families. Still, yuck. Link to comment
cooksdelight June 23, 2014 Share June 23, 2014 "Shandeh" is airing on WGN right now.... I keep wanting to call Linda Lavin by Ruth Buzzi, because that's who she reminds me of, lookswise. 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 June 23, 2014 Author Share June 23, 2014 Oooh, "Shandeh". I know GHSR likes that one. Linda Lavin's accent was both sort of hilarious, yet coldly disturbing. She was a proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Link to comment
cooksdelight June 26, 2014 Share June 26, 2014 Watching "Probability" on WGN, with "Monster" to follow. It took me a while to figure out who Mark Linn-Baker was because I knew I had seen him somewhere, but I had never watched Perfect Strangers, had only seen snippets here and there. What a kooky little geek murderer! Link to comment
WendyCR72 June 26, 2014 Author Share June 26, 2014 Yeah, Cousin Larry (his Perfect Strangers role) became a geek and embraced the dark side. He really did play quite an odd little man, making him even creepier! Link to comment
cooksdelight June 26, 2014 Share June 26, 2014 Everything in fives. I've known people like that, never knew they might have had Aspergers. Link to comment
Donny Ketchum June 26, 2014 Share June 26, 2014 I'm an Aspie myself, and I had no idea that even we were capable of such crimes. Link to comment
cooksdelight June 30, 2014 Share June 30, 2014 Watching "Cold Comfort" and found an interesting tidbit about Jay Goede who plays the son who's got Alzheimer's. This was his last acting gig. Looks like he's an acting teacher now. Too bad, I thought he was really good in this role. Link to comment
WendyCR72 June 30, 2014 Author Share June 30, 2014 He was great in that role. But at least he is teaching his skills to others now. Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 15, 2014 Author Share August 15, 2014 Have I mentioned I HATE Nicole Wallace episodes? Yeah? Well, I'm saying it again. If only that voting long ago in choosing if she lived or died worked in favor of the east coast vote. Sigh. While it IS nice Ion goes in order, sometimes I wish they'd skip anything involving her. She drives me insane. I have a soft spot for batshit Declan Gage for taking her bony ass out. Thank goodness the episode is almost over! 2 Link to comment
Eolivet August 23, 2014 Share August 23, 2014 "Con-Text" was on ion tonight and boy, I'd forgotten how confusing some of those early episodes could be. "Shandeh" was on earlier, and considering the two aired right after one another, it was interesting to see how the more twisty storytelling style of the show worked for that episode, while it just made "Con-Text" really convoluted and hard to follow. So, "Malignant" just ended. That was the episode where the pharmacist diluted drugs for profit. I liked that one since it was more about shades of gray with the widower assisting with his wife's suicide, fallout from diluting the drugs in the first place, since the wife should have lived. The man who played the widower was excellent, and I also liked the aspect of the worker who collected unused drugs and (I believe) distributed them to other sick patients, but that is one of those episodes where if you say the solution aloud, it sounds absolutely ridiculous: "A pharmacist diluted drugs for profit to cover excessive donations he made to a church so he and his wife could feel like they were pillars of the community." Some of these episodes were pretty light on motive, other than "People are craaaazy!" 2 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 23, 2014 Author Share August 23, 2014 Never underestimate the influence of greed, though, Eolivet! :-) So, in that particular context, those episodes do make at least some sense when you add that in. :-) 2 Link to comment
Eolivet August 23, 2014 Share August 23, 2014 Touche! So many of the early season episodes were almost Shakespearian in scale (especially when the crime was due to some deep-seated family drama) -- likely the better to distinguish them from the more cut-and-dried Law & Order Mothership episodes. And the grand nature of the cases is what drew me to Criminal Intent anyway, hee! 3 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 27, 2014 Author Share August 27, 2014 Touche! So many of the early season episodes were almost Shakespearian in scale (especially when the crime was due to some deep-seated family drama) -- likely the better to distinguish them from the more cut-and-dried Law & Order Mothership episodes. And the grand nature of the cases is what drew me to Criminal Intent anyway, hee! Same here, Eolivet. I loved the psychological angle that CI delighted in, and it was fun and a bit warped to see Bobby twist everything as he did. I always saw it as Alex helping with the warm up...then Bobby would pounce! Whereas Logan's style was more typical by the way of questioning, etc., but that worked for him, so it was fine. Nichols? He seemed a mix of Goren/Logan, but not many of his cases left much of an impression on me, to be honest. 1 Link to comment
Donny Ketchum August 27, 2014 Share August 27, 2014 Did this season have the two murdering sisters who were pretty much largely outed because one's pathetically glaring dependence on staying with the other led her to confess the whole thing? I remember all the screaming she did to stay with her, only to not even get that. 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 27, 2014 Author Share August 27, 2014 You're thinking of "Tomorrow", the 7th episode of season 2, so yep, it is from this season, Donny Ketchum. The one with the co-dependent deadly nanny sisters. And also Noelle Beck's first appearance on CI as the evil stepmonster of the two victims. (She'd return in S10 for the premiere "Rispetto" as Nyle Brite's wife, Debra.) 2 Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 28, 2014 Share August 28, 2014 I've always hated how "Tomorrow" ended. It was so... ambiguous. We knew that the father of the victims was cooperating with the cops to get the Sarah to roll on her older sister--but she was also guilty. Did he still provide her with an attorney? Or drop kick her to the curb after it was done? And thinking that that stupid soap opera was her life as well? Talk about delusional... 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 28, 2014 Author Share August 28, 2014 Yeah, but Hannah (the screaming sister) didn't seem to be wrapped too tightly to begin with, so I can see her going to extremes if someone made fun of her for watching it or whatever, too. 1 Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 28, 2014 Share August 28, 2014 Yeah, but Hannah (the screaming sister) didn't seem to be wrapped too tightly to begin with, so I can see her going to extremes if someone made fun of her for watching it or whatever, too. Oh, no doubt. But I'm not sure what the show was trying to tell us about that. Because it was Sarah's boss, who was like a father to Sarah, and not Hannah. And I would have expected Hannah to be more realistic considering where she grew up. But, whatever. It's one of my favorite episodes actually. 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 28, 2014 Author Share August 28, 2014 Maybe Sarah's boss didn't really believe (no matter what the evidence was showing) that Sarah did her part willingly and thought Hannah made her, or something. Especially since Sarah seemed so...meek. Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 28, 2014 Share August 28, 2014 Maybe Sarah's boss didn't really believe (no matter what the evidence was showing) that Sarah did her part willingly and thought Hannah made her, or something. Especially since Sarah seemed so...meek. I got the sense he knew she was just as guilty and only agreed to pay for her lawyer so that Sarah would roll over on Hannah. I recall him being angry and asked what he could do to help. I mean, both of his kids from his first marriage were murdered. And that's why I wanted to know what happened after Sarah walked away. Did the cops then turn around and say, guess what, you don't have a rich lawyer anymore? Admittedly, I'm anal about such things and don't like loose ends like that... 2 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 28, 2014 Author Share August 28, 2014 Yeah, loose ends are annoying, but maybe it was done to let the viewers wonder if Bobby was right, and Sarah would, in effect, become "Lucy's big sister", which would be all sorts of wrong and warped since she did help to kill both of her employer's children from his first marriage... 1 Link to comment
Donny Ketchum August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 The only thing I come away from that episode thinking is how pathetic Hannah looked at the end. Both of those killings just to stay with Sarah? I mean . . . really. Many, many, many of the perps on this show had such pathetic motives. I put Hannah right up there with the older woman in season one who killed the Asian woman just over a figurine she wanted when all she had to do was ask. Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 29, 2014 Author Share August 29, 2014 The only thing I come away from that episode thinking is how pathetic Hannah looked at the end. Both of those killings just to stay with Sarah? I mean . . . really. Many, many, many of the perps on this show had such pathetic motives. I put Hannah right up there with the older woman in season one who killed the Asian woman just over a figurine she wanted when all she had to do was ask. But that "figurine" was irreplaceable priceless Chinese art. I bet even if she did ask, she would never have gotten her hands on that piece except by illegal means. And that is where the psychological angle comes into play again as, like Bobby said, it was more about what the piece represented than the item itself, with the perp wanting to recapture her "ideal" youth. 2 Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 Wait. I thought she was killed because she recognized that guy from Tiananman Square. Peter Frechette's character panicked and had the dude kill her. Not because she had the artifact. Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 29, 2014 Author Share August 29, 2014 From what I gathered, the victim recognized the guy, and the perp's right-hand guy (who was looking out for the artifacts), called and told the perp that the Tiananman guy who was helping smuggle the stuff was recognized by Annie Ming, and she had the guy kill Ming, so her toy obsession/illegal importation wouldn't be found out. Or, at least, that's the scenario Bobby went with at the end, and Lucinda What's Her Face never denied it. Link to comment
Donny Ketchum August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 But that "figurine" was irreplaceable priceless Chinese art. I bet even if she did ask, she would never have gotten her hands on that piece except by illegal means. And that is where the psychological angle comes into play again as, like Bobby said, it was more about what the piece represented than the item itself, with the perp wanting to recapture her "ideal" youth. Doesn't change the fact that it was a petty reason to have her killed. Priceless or not, representing something or not, it was, as I said, pathetic. Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 Doesn't change the fact that it was a petty reason to have her killed. Priceless or not, representing something or not, it was, as I said, pathetic. But she didn't have her killed. Her man decided to kill her because she'd recognized the underling who was helping to smuggle in the artifacts as the officer from Tiananman Square. Old lady didn't care how she got the artifacts, as long as she got them. The murder wasn't planned; it was spontaneous. Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 29, 2014 Author Share August 29, 2014 What it basically boiled down to, in the case of the Chinese artifact, was greed. And a lot kill for greed. Be it money or possessions. So I don't necessarily agree that the motive for killing Annie Ming was petty. A waste? Yeah. But not sure about petty. Greed was the "religion" of the '80s, after all! (See Wall Street!) But she didn't have her killed. Her man decided to kill her because she'd recognized the underling who was helping to smuggle in the artifacts as the officer from Tiananman Square. Old lady didn't care how she got the artifacts, as long as she got them. The murder wasn't planned; it was spontaneous. But I think she did, GHScorpiosRule. Remember Bobby mimicking the faux-English dude's accent and taunting the perp with how her right-hand man called and said, "There's trouble, Mrs. Mobray!" and how Bobby theorized she told the guy to "take care" of things? And the old lady did say that "she was going to ruin everything". Link to comment
Donny Ketchum August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 I don't care about the reasons. As far as I'm concerned, killing over something so small is the definition of "petty" to me. Hands down. And that's all I'm gonna say about a first-season episode in a thread about the second season. Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 29, 2014 Author Share August 29, 2014 I don't care about the reasons. As far as I'm concerned, killing over something so small is the definition of "petty" to me. Hands down. And that's all I'm gonna say about a first-season episode in a thread about the second season. "Chinoiserie" (the Chinese artifact episode) was in S2, not S1. So you're good! Link to comment
GHScorpiosRule August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 What it basically boiled down to, in the case of the Chinese artifact, was greed. And a lot kill for greed. Be it money or possessions. So I don't necessarily agree that the motive for killing Annie Ming was petty. A waste? Yeah. But not sure about petty. Greed was the "religion" of the '80s, after all! (See Wall Street!) But I think she did, GHScorpiosRule. Remember Bobby mimicking the faux-English dude's accent and taunting the perp with how her right-hand man called and said, "There's trouble, Mrs. Mobray!" and how Bobby theorized she told the guy to "take care" of things? And the old lady did say that "she was going to ruin everything". Ohhh, right. I guess I just got confused over semantics. Though Donny meant that she told her guy to kill her from the get go, when really, Old Lady didn't know that Annie would be there to recognize the ex-military officer. Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 29, 2014 Author Share August 29, 2014 Though Donny meant that she told her guy to kill her from the get go, when really, Old Lady didn't know that Annie would be there to recognize the ex-military officer. Ahh, okay. That part was impetuous, and it wasn't planned from the beginning, so that's true. It was more a crime of opportunity. That's probably the best description. 1 Link to comment
Donny Ketchum August 29, 2014 Share August 29, 2014 "Chinoiserie" (the Chinese artifact episode) was in S2, not S1. So you're good! Either way, I've said my piece and am done with it. Okay? Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 29, 2014 Author Share August 29, 2014 Either way, I've said my piece and am done with it. Okay? Fine, but let's watch the tone. There is no need to get defensive. Link to comment
Eolivet August 31, 2014 Share August 31, 2014 Wow, WendyCR72 -- you weren't kidding when you talked about a lot of early episodes being about greed. Just saw "Cherry Red" again and man, that's a good, twisty episode, but it really boils down to greed being at the base of it. Man, so many early season killers just had unhappy childhoods, but the dad being a killer as well pushes it into Shakespearian territory. And what's with these writers' obsession with boys and toy cars? First Roger Coffman and his model cars, then the actor in "Vacancy" (with the smashed ambulance). Who knew issues with toy cars were indicative of a murderous nature? 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 August 31, 2014 Author Share August 31, 2014 Clearly, Eolivet, toy vehicles on CI were the gateway to hell. :-) LOL! Link to comment
Eolivet September 1, 2014 Share September 1, 2014 Just rewatched "Baggage" -- boy, I wish that greed had been the motive there. That Ramsey character was so vile, especially with how angry he got at the end. But the most telling part of it, to me, was this episode was aired 11 years ago, and yet, how the sexual harassment was handled might as well have been yesterday. "Toughen up," "it was just a joke," "we were just playing around." The more things change, sadly... 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 September 1, 2014 Author Share September 1, 2014 Just rewatched "Baggage" -- boy, I wish that greed had been the motive there. That Ramsey character was so vile, especially with how angry he got at the end. But the most telling part of it, to me, was this episode was aired 11 years ago, and yet, how the sexual harassment was handled might as well have been yesterday. "Toughen up," "it was just a joke," "we were just playing around." The more things change, sadly... Yeah, Eolivet, Ramsey was a scumbag. How DARE anyone think he should settle for an "average" person to love his entitled ass. As for the harassment plot, it really is telling - and sad - how little has changed in the years since "Baggage" aired. Link to comment
Eolivet September 5, 2014 Share September 5, 2014 Watching "Probability" on WGN, with "Monster" to follow. Just finished "Monster" -- somehow, I'd only ever seen the last maybe two minutes of it a long time ago, so it was one of those rare episodes where I had no memory at all. The sequence with Detective Marston, Mark Dietrich, Goren and the photo of the victim really confused me. So, they found the victim with her nightgown pulled down and staged the photo with her nightgown pulled up? Then Goren mentioned the nightgown was pulled down, and Marston seized on that, saying that must've meant Dietrich wanted to preserve his mother's modesty. But then Goren showed him the staged photo with the nightgown pulled up, and that meant Marston had lied. And then admitted the nightgown pulled up photo was staged in the first place? I don't get it. Didn't Goren mention the nightgown was pulled down? Or just mentioned the nightgown and Marston supplied the information about it being pulled down? But then Goren showed him the fake photograph, which caught Marston in a lie, except...not really, because the nightgown really was pulled down in the first place. Right?! I cannot believe I just wrote so many sentences about the location of a nightgown, but I had a hard time following that last sequence. Great episode, and wow the Central Park jogger was a long time (and yet not that long) ago. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts