Chalk this one up to being a fairly interesting, if predictable, story but the writing style didn't impress me.
On the day Adele Alban agrees to meet with a reporter, she dies abruptly before the meeting can take place. Her daughter Grace comes home to Alban House for the first time in some 20 years, her own daughter Amity in tow. From there, family secrets begin to unravel.
I have a love of gothic stories and ghost stories, so when I read the description for this book, I was excited to try it. Alas, I didn't find Grace a very engaging main character (excepting the first chapter, the novel is written in first person from Grace's point of view), and there was none of the delicacy of prose I expect with this kind of story. It was all a little bland for my taste.
Added to this was a romance with a local minister—so color me surprised when he was okay sleeping with Grace even though they weren't married? Yes, I know it happens, but to have this character spouting his faith constantly (I really did wonder if the book was being marketed as "inspirational" at some points) and then act against the tenets that faith felt hypocritical.
As for the plot, there were no particularly amazing twists. I had most of it figured out early on. But the base story line was at least interesting. Too bad we were living it through such a dull character.
Oh, and the epilogue was just . . . The book would have been better without it, I think.
There is just something so matter-of-fact about Webb's style that I couldn't really immerse myself in it. And for a book like this, that's what I really want to do.
Ah, well. It's not a terrible book. I just didn't enjoy it as much as I'd hoped to.
Showing posts with label suspense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label suspense. Show all posts
1.22.2017
Movies: The Girl on the Train
It seems like unreliable narrators and whole casts of unlikable characters are the in thing these days.
I haven't read the book. Maybe it's better? But I really disliked the Gone Girl book and still thought the movie was okay . . . So if I didn't like this movie, is the book worse? Or is this one just the flip of Gone Girl? Is it because David Fincher directed Gone Girl and he's plain awesome? I don't think I've seen anything Tate Taylor has done (didn't see The Help but loved that book, so . . .) I guess what I'm saying, not very well, is that I have to wonder how much of this is the source material and how much of it is the filter that is the director.
Emily Blunt slurs her way through this film as alcoholic Rachel whose husband Tom left her for Anna. Rachel and Tom suffered through infertility, but Anna promptly gives Tom a baby daughter. Rachel torments herself by riding the train past her old house each day, catching glimpses of Tom's and Anna's life, the life that should have been hers. Two doors down from her old house, too, there is another woman living a seemingly perfect life. Rachel makes up stories about who this woman is and what her life might be like. Then she flips the fuck out when she sees this woman kissing a man who is definitely not her partner/husband. When the woman—whose name is Megan—goes missing, Rachel tries to "help" by bringing up what she saw to the police and Megan's husband Scott. Unfortunately, because Rachel is constantly soused, no one believes her and they even suspect she may have done it. And since Rachel blacks out a lot and can't remember things, she wonders if she did something to Megan too. But of course we all know better because then there isn't really a story.
Not much suspense or many thrills in this supposed "suspense thriller." Again, maybe the book did it better. We know we can't trust Rachel's memories/flashbacks. So there's no surprise when she unravels things and discovers she was wrong about what she remembered. The whole thing has a Gaslight vibe that could have been really cool if played up differently. As it was, it was just kind of like ::shrug::
I haven't read the book. Maybe it's better? But I really disliked the Gone Girl book and still thought the movie was okay . . . So if I didn't like this movie, is the book worse? Or is this one just the flip of Gone Girl? Is it because David Fincher directed Gone Girl and he's plain awesome? I don't think I've seen anything Tate Taylor has done (didn't see The Help but loved that book, so . . .) I guess what I'm saying, not very well, is that I have to wonder how much of this is the source material and how much of it is the filter that is the director.
Emily Blunt slurs her way through this film as alcoholic Rachel whose husband Tom left her for Anna. Rachel and Tom suffered through infertility, but Anna promptly gives Tom a baby daughter. Rachel torments herself by riding the train past her old house each day, catching glimpses of Tom's and Anna's life, the life that should have been hers. Two doors down from her old house, too, there is another woman living a seemingly perfect life. Rachel makes up stories about who this woman is and what her life might be like. Then she flips the fuck out when she sees this woman kissing a man who is definitely not her partner/husband. When the woman—whose name is Megan—goes missing, Rachel tries to "help" by bringing up what she saw to the police and Megan's husband Scott. Unfortunately, because Rachel is constantly soused, no one believes her and they even suspect she may have done it. And since Rachel blacks out a lot and can't remember things, she wonders if she did something to Megan too. But of course we all know better because then there isn't really a story.
Not much suspense or many thrills in this supposed "suspense thriller." Again, maybe the book did it better. We know we can't trust Rachel's memories/flashbacks. So there's no surprise when she unravels things and discovers she was wrong about what she remembered. The whole thing has a Gaslight vibe that could have been really cool if played up differently. As it was, it was just kind of like ::shrug::
11.05.2016
Movies: Side Effects
This is one of those movies that probably read well as a script but in execution—yea verily, even in the capable hands of Steven Soderbergh—ends up being soporific and monotonous. Also, the "twist" was utterly predictable.
Rooney Mara plays Emily Taylor, a young woman suffering acute depression and whose husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison for insider trading. Already this movie is boring. When Emily runs her car at a wall but survives, she starts seeing a therapist (Jude Law) and taking a hot new antidepressant. Unfortunately, the side effects (roll credits) include cooking while sleepwalking, the ultimate result being [SPOILERS, SWEETIES] she stabs her husband to death during one of these sleepwalking episodes. Because she mistook him for a tomato or something, I guess.
Yawn. This movie is meant to be tense, I think, but it just isn't. Even as Jude Law goes all Watson and begins to unravel the truth, it's just . . . I was never made to care that much about any of the characters. Maybe it's just hard to make someone depressed very interesting, but I disliked Emily more than sympathized with her. I did feel bad for Law's therapist, who suffers a lot of blowback from having his patient become a murderer while under his care, but then he sort of goes off the deep end himself and makes himself a bit unlikable, even though we as viewers are aware he's in the right. There needed to be some kind of shift in the way the movie was filmed—a slight POV change—to make it palatable. Instead it's a lot of washed-out, moody filters. It made me sleepy.
I'll watch Jude Law in just about anything, but this wasn't one of the better ones. Side Effects is one of those that makes you wonder whether the cast knew as the filming went along that it wasn't going to be equal to the sum of its parts. Or were they all really believing in that script and director only to be disappointed in the outcome? Maybe Soderbergh himself was disappointed, too, as it became his last feature film (as director; he still produces) and he announced an intention to stick to television shortly thereafter.
Rooney Mara plays Emily Taylor, a young woman suffering acute depression and whose husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison for insider trading. Already this movie is boring. When Emily runs her car at a wall but survives, she starts seeing a therapist (Jude Law) and taking a hot new antidepressant. Unfortunately, the side effects (roll credits) include cooking while sleepwalking, the ultimate result being [SPOILERS, SWEETIES] she stabs her husband to death during one of these sleepwalking episodes. Because she mistook him for a tomato or something, I guess.
Yawn. This movie is meant to be tense, I think, but it just isn't. Even as Jude Law goes all Watson and begins to unravel the truth, it's just . . . I was never made to care that much about any of the characters. Maybe it's just hard to make someone depressed very interesting, but I disliked Emily more than sympathized with her. I did feel bad for Law's therapist, who suffers a lot of blowback from having his patient become a murderer while under his care, but then he sort of goes off the deep end himself and makes himself a bit unlikable, even though we as viewers are aware he's in the right. There needed to be some kind of shift in the way the movie was filmed—a slight POV change—to make it palatable. Instead it's a lot of washed-out, moody filters. It made me sleepy.
I'll watch Jude Law in just about anything, but this wasn't one of the better ones. Side Effects is one of those that makes you wonder whether the cast knew as the filming went along that it wasn't going to be equal to the sum of its parts. Or were they all really believing in that script and director only to be disappointed in the outcome? Maybe Soderbergh himself was disappointed, too, as it became his last feature film (as director; he still produces) and he announced an intention to stick to television shortly thereafter.
10.01.2016
Television: Designated Survivor, "Pilot"
Yeah, so I'm a week behind on this one. But I enjoyed it for what it was: squarely network political drama.
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the utter ridiculousness of the fundamental plot. Kiefer Sutherland plays Tom Kirkman, a low-level (Housing and Urban Development, I think it was?) Cabinet member who gets tossed into a safe room during, I dunno, the State of the Union or something. He's the titular "designated survivor" in case anything should happen to the rest of the Cabinet and Congress and whatnot. And of course something does happen, leaving Kirkman as acting President.
It's all played very straight, but if you think about it too much you'll see it's pretty silly.
Still, Kiefer does a great job as a very un-Jack Bauer character thrown into a Jack Bauer situation.
I do wonder if there is/was something going on between him and that Rhodes chick, though.
Kal Penn is on hand as a speech writer who has no faith in Kirkman's abilities. And of course there is a shady, warmongering general plotting to get rid of Kirkman because clearly Kirkman has no ability to lead (based on the whole hour or so he's been in charge and his refusal to bomb everybody).
I feel like there would surely be an emergency election or something, right? But I don't know enough about how our system works to be sure, and Designated Survivor is banking on most people not knowing much either. It's one of those shows that does just enough to skirt believability. Maybe the whole election thing will come up later. When you're in scramble mode after a major attack, who has time to run for president?
Overall, I found the show amusing and entertaining, which is all I really wanted from it to begin with. I'll keep watching.
Let's all take a moment to appreciate the utter ridiculousness of the fundamental plot. Kiefer Sutherland plays Tom Kirkman, a low-level (Housing and Urban Development, I think it was?) Cabinet member who gets tossed into a safe room during, I dunno, the State of the Union or something. He's the titular "designated survivor" in case anything should happen to the rest of the Cabinet and Congress and whatnot. And of course something does happen, leaving Kirkman as acting President.
It's all played very straight, but if you think about it too much you'll see it's pretty silly.
Still, Kiefer does a great job as a very un-Jack Bauer character thrown into a Jack Bauer situation.
I do wonder if there is/was something going on between him and that Rhodes chick, though.
Kal Penn is on hand as a speech writer who has no faith in Kirkman's abilities. And of course there is a shady, warmongering general plotting to get rid of Kirkman because clearly Kirkman has no ability to lead (based on the whole hour or so he's been in charge and his refusal to bomb everybody).
I feel like there would surely be an emergency election or something, right? But I don't know enough about how our system works to be sure, and Designated Survivor is banking on most people not knowing much either. It's one of those shows that does just enough to skirt believability. Maybe the whole election thing will come up later. When you're in scramble mode after a major attack, who has time to run for president?
Overall, I found the show amusing and entertaining, which is all I really wanted from it to begin with. I'll keep watching.
9.24.2016
Books: Deadly Alliance by Kathleen Rowland
Check out this romantic suspense novel by fellow Tirgearr author Kathleen Rowland!
Finbar Donahue, former Army Ranger, walked on the wild side in Iraq, but now he lives in the shadows. After his evasive partner, Les, was shot in a random drive-by, Finn discovers cash is siphoned monthly. He fights to keep his investment company afloat. When the late partner’s girlfriend, Amy Kintyre, applies for his bookkeeping job, Finn suspects she knows about his company drain and hires her.Amy needs a nine-to-five with free evenings and weekends to get her fashion design business back on track. She unearths Les’ s secret bank account and alerts Finn. Freezing of the money laundering account sets off havoc within an Irish gang. Amy witnesses a gang fight between a brutal ISIS fundraising organization and the Irish. Desperate to escape a stalker’s crosshairs, she seeks refuge with Finn. As danger heats up, sparks fly hotter.
Chapter One
“You know I love your sportswear designs, right?”
“I’m glad you do.” Amy Kintyre sat opposite a buyer, none other than Kira Radner, at a coffee shop in Lake Arrowhead, California. This sudden opportunity to re-launch her sportswear designs gave rise to the jitters, and Amy clutched her hands under the table.
Kira pressed her face forward, Amy’s sketches drawn on figures in action poses. With the portfolio spread between them, she flipped it sideways to examine the fabric swatches stapled along the sidebar. Their earthy tones blended with the marred wooden table.
Amy stilled the chatty urge.
“You know your presentation is in two weeks.” Kira was giving her the green light with Recreational Sportswear, Incorporated.
“I appreciate this, Kira.” To get her business back on track, she needed blocks of time to sew mockups. Amy inhaled the spicy aroma of the raw cedar wood. The under-construction décor of wide, timber planks on the walls made her think of her new self. Crazy how thirty felt like seventeen when embracing life and freeing her artistic side.
“Then I beg you,” Kira said, “please, please, please have your product samples ready. Deadline is the first Monday of November.”
“Got it.” Fear over the tight time frame tasted sour in her throat, but this break called like no other.
Kira leaned forward. “Impressive functionality with the shorts. Who would have thought this pocket holds a Swiss Army Knife!” The buyer’s fingertips traced the pick-stitch hem, made with thread matching the fabric, appearing invisible. “Nice detail.”
Amy’s only mock-up kept their face-to-face meeting running like the hum of the fluorescent lights above.
“Oooo,” Kira said and raised both her eyebrows. “Classic nostalgia with a twist. A pocket knife for hikers!”
“Useful, I think.” The bright light flickered over associates who’d worked together in the past, but Amy didn’t share the difficulty of making the deadline. Her breathing shortened, and panic carved a hole in her chest.
“Gotta bounce,” Kira said. “Get to work.”
“I will.” She pulled out a notebook and jotted down a to-do list ending with the file with various size patterns. After a half-hour of regrouping and rethinking, she stopped tapping her pen. Kira Radner took a chance on her, but to turn this chance into a reality, she needed evenings and weekends to make the deadline.
Last Sunday while pouring over Craigslist classifieds, she’d zeroed in on Finbar Donahue’s bookkeeping ad. After her inquiry, his head accountant sent her a message. She still favored the toe she stubbed after her in-box pinged.
Thanks to what happened, the call from Kira, she needed Finn’s job. Her mind raced to her third interview for his nine-to-five. Tomorrow morning, if all went well, she’d land the regular-hours job, tailor made for her time frame. She ran a hand through her hair, picturing the arrogant know-it-all with a never-ending string of women hanging on his arm.
Handsome wasn’t the word to describe Finn, her late, ex-boyfriend’s partner. She’d been around Finbar Donahue enough to know he looked at his world as if he were the Almighty himself. The former Army Ranger made her way too nervous. She tensed up to such an extent, her voice broke.
Romance wasn’t part of this equation. Her dream to launch herself, stitch by stitch, came down to landing the job. On a mission, her goal was simple. She closed her eyes and prayed tomorrow she’d nail it.
Buy It: www.tirpub.com/DeadlyAlliance
How about romantic travel to Lake Arrowhead, California, where Deadly Alliance takes place? Fall colors mix with evergreens around this pristine mountain lake. Bring a picnic basket and rent a pontoon!
Book Buyers Best finalist Kathleen Rowland is devoted to giving her readers fast-paced, high-stakes suspense with a sizzling love story sure to melt their hearts. Lily’s Pad and the Intervenus Series: A Brand New Address and Betrayal at Crater’s Edge are sweet. Deadly Alliance and her work-in-progress, Unholy Alliance, are contracted with Tirgearr Publishing and written for adults.
Kathleen used to write computer programs but now writes novels. She grew up in Iowa where she caught lightning bugs, ran barefoot, and raced her sailboat on Lake Okoboji. Now she wears flip-flops and sails with her husband, Gerry, on Newport Harbor but wishes there were lightning bugs in California.
Kathleen exists happily with her witty CPA husband, Gerry, in their 70’s poolside retreat in Southern California where she adores time spent with visiting grandchildren, dogs, one bunny, and noisy neighbors. While proud of their five children who’ve flown the coop, she appreciates the luxury of time to write. If you’d enjoy news, sign up for Kathleen’s newsletter at http://www.kathleenrowland.com/
Find Kathleen online at these sites as well: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/786656.Kathleen_Rowland http://www.amazon.com/Kathleen-Rowland/e/B007RYMF7S/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1450835163&sr=1-2-ent
https://twitter.com/rowlandkathleen
https://kathleenrowland.wordpress.com/
http://www.kathleenrowland.blogspot.com
https://www.facebook.com/kathleen.rowland.50
3.08.2016
Books: The Secret Place by Tana French
This is the fifth in French's Dublin Murder Squad series, and I've enjoyed each book in different ways. Though I wish she'd start varying the titles; they're starting to sound alike:
Okay, maybe it's just that Faithful Place and The Secret Place sound alike. But still. If they were farther apart in the series, it might be fine, but . . .
The titular Secret Place in this book is a bulletin board in a girls' school. A year before, a boy from the neighboring boys' school was found murdered on the girls' school grounds. Then a postcard appears on the Secret Place board—a board the girls at the school use to anonymously air their thoughts—stating someone knows who did it.
It boils down to two sets of girls, kind of rival gangs. But we only see through the eyes of, and are meant to sympathize with, one set of girls: Becca, Julia, Holly, and Selena. (And that Holly is the Holly Mackey we see in Faithful Place, only now she's much older.)
The result is a strange see-saw between a murder mystery and a YA novel. French alternate chapters between the current investigation and the past as described by Holly and her friends. And while French does both sides deftly, I found myself often wishing in the "YA" parts to get back to the main mystery.
There was also a touch of the supernatural in this book that felt out of place. It eventually boils away to nothing, and I was left wondering if we're meant to believe it was real or . . . ??? I suspect this is a commentary on the magic of adolescence, how maybe we all have a time in our lives when we can do amazing things, but then we cap ourselves off and make ourselves live solely in the "real" world. Or maybe there's just a time in our lives when we believe in ourselves and our abilities, but then the world crashes in and boxes us up and tells us, no, we can only do [insert assessment results here].
Anyway. It was a good book. They're all good. This one was just a tad weirder, a little off the track. Which isn't a bad thing, but it might not be what you're after when picking up one of these.
- In the Woods
- The Likeness
- Faithful Place
- Broken Harbor
- The Secret Place
Okay, maybe it's just that Faithful Place and The Secret Place sound alike. But still. If they were farther apart in the series, it might be fine, but . . .
The titular Secret Place in this book is a bulletin board in a girls' school. A year before, a boy from the neighboring boys' school was found murdered on the girls' school grounds. Then a postcard appears on the Secret Place board—a board the girls at the school use to anonymously air their thoughts—stating someone knows who did it.
It boils down to two sets of girls, kind of rival gangs. But we only see through the eyes of, and are meant to sympathize with, one set of girls: Becca, Julia, Holly, and Selena. (And that Holly is the Holly Mackey we see in Faithful Place, only now she's much older.)
The result is a strange see-saw between a murder mystery and a YA novel. French alternate chapters between the current investigation and the past as described by Holly and her friends. And while French does both sides deftly, I found myself often wishing in the "YA" parts to get back to the main mystery.
There was also a touch of the supernatural in this book that felt out of place. It eventually boils away to nothing, and I was left wondering if we're meant to believe it was real or . . . ??? I suspect this is a commentary on the magic of adolescence, how maybe we all have a time in our lives when we can do amazing things, but then we cap ourselves off and make ourselves live solely in the "real" world. Or maybe there's just a time in our lives when we believe in ourselves and our abilities, but then the world crashes in and boxes us up and tells us, no, we can only do [insert assessment results here].
Anyway. It was a good book. They're all good. This one was just a tad weirder, a little off the track. Which isn't a bad thing, but it might not be what you're after when picking up one of these.
1.17.2016
Movies: The Visit
Okay, so I have mixed feelings about M. Night Shyamalan's work. I know his movies are full of holes and flaws, and it has become a pastime of some people to point those out. And I honestly wasn't as blown away by The Sixth Sense as so many people seem to have been when it came out. But I do, in general, enjoy his movies. I think they're nicely done, and I usually am at least a bit entertained. It's only after the fact, when one thinks very much about them, that one sees the lack of clothing on the emperor. While watching (at least the first time), I'm usually drawn in enough not to be diverted in such ways.
Alas, The Visit did not draw me in. It was weird but not scary, and the "mystery" failed to engross me. I had it figured out fairly early on, and there wasn't any point at which I was all that worried for the main characters. Plus, the moments in which the characters made ridiculously bad decisions (as in so many horror movies) were egregious enough to be distracting.
I hadn't really read anything about the movie before watching it, which is my preferred way of going into a Shyamalan film. Turns out it's about two kids visiting their grandparents for the first time ever. Rebecca is 15 and an aspiring filmmaker, so the movie is all from the point of view of her filming the titular visit, interviewing her grandparents and so on. Her younger brother Tyler is 13 and a would-be rapper.
These kids' parents are divorced and the mother estranged from the grandparents which is why Rebecca and Tyler have never met them. And also why their mother does not accompany them on the trip. She just puts them on a train and off they go. This alone seems like a terrible decision, but I was able to let it slide. Later on, when there should have been calls to 911—that's when I was like, NOPE.
The bulk of the movie is Rebecca and Tyler trying to make sense of weird things happening at their grandparents' house. Their grandmother is "sundowning," which means she goes crazy every night at 10:00 or so. Their grandfather is incontinent and hides the dirty diapers in the barn, and he also dresses up for nonexistent costume parties. Yet when the kids Skype with their mother (who is out on a cruise with her boyfriend), they play down the bizarre nature of things. Or at least Rebecca does. She's keen to get her grandparents to confess some kind of forgiveness so that their mom can be reunited with them, so I guess she feels it works against her plan to say, "Nana and Pop Pop are crazy!"
I won't give the twist away, though it's pretty standard fare and easily seen coming.
On the whole, I was kind of bored and disappointed with the whole thing. Rebecca and Tyler fail to be engaging enough characters to carry the film, and the grandparents are certainly creepy in some ways, but I didn't find them entirely threatening. The whole thing felt like Paranormal Activity Lite. Which might be right for some audiences, but does nothing for me.
Alas, The Visit did not draw me in. It was weird but not scary, and the "mystery" failed to engross me. I had it figured out fairly early on, and there wasn't any point at which I was all that worried for the main characters. Plus, the moments in which the characters made ridiculously bad decisions (as in so many horror movies) were egregious enough to be distracting.
I hadn't really read anything about the movie before watching it, which is my preferred way of going into a Shyamalan film. Turns out it's about two kids visiting their grandparents for the first time ever. Rebecca is 15 and an aspiring filmmaker, so the movie is all from the point of view of her filming the titular visit, interviewing her grandparents and so on. Her younger brother Tyler is 13 and a would-be rapper.
These kids' parents are divorced and the mother estranged from the grandparents which is why Rebecca and Tyler have never met them. And also why their mother does not accompany them on the trip. She just puts them on a train and off they go. This alone seems like a terrible decision, but I was able to let it slide. Later on, when there should have been calls to 911—that's when I was like, NOPE.
The bulk of the movie is Rebecca and Tyler trying to make sense of weird things happening at their grandparents' house. Their grandmother is "sundowning," which means she goes crazy every night at 10:00 or so. Their grandfather is incontinent and hides the dirty diapers in the barn, and he also dresses up for nonexistent costume parties. Yet when the kids Skype with their mother (who is out on a cruise with her boyfriend), they play down the bizarre nature of things. Or at least Rebecca does. She's keen to get her grandparents to confess some kind of forgiveness so that their mom can be reunited with them, so I guess she feels it works against her plan to say, "Nana and Pop Pop are crazy!"
I won't give the twist away, though it's pretty standard fare and easily seen coming.
On the whole, I was kind of bored and disappointed with the whole thing. Rebecca and Tyler fail to be engaging enough characters to carry the film, and the grandparents are certainly creepy in some ways, but I didn't find them entirely threatening. The whole thing felt like Paranormal Activity Lite. Which might be right for some audiences, but does nothing for me.
2.24.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.8
So we get the rather abrupt answer to the Sandbrook mystery, but not before Claire tries to blackmail Alec by suggesting he held her prisoner and abusively raped her. Will that come back to cause trouble?
I'm not sure there's a short answer, but I'll try: Ricky caught Lee with Lisa and killed Lisa but told Lee he'd put it all on him if he didn't help cover it up. Then Claire came home and found out and coerced Lee into suffocating Pippa so she wouldn't say anything . . . But then she convinced Ricky it was his rohypnol-laced alcohol that killed Pippa.
We got all this out of a pendant and two identical receipts for flooring that, truthfully, should have been looked at more closely the first time around.
Do we know why Ricky came home from the wedding, btw? Did I miss that? Was he coming to get the flask so he could drug a bridesmaid? Seems like he would have had it with him . . . Was he coming to hit up Lisa himself?
Whatever. It felt weirdly anticlimactic. (Also, how was it Alec and Ellie could command an interview room? Aren't they both, like, off the force in Broadchurch?)
Meanwhile, Joe is found not guilty. Sort of saw that coming, too, didn't we? Doesn't make for much drama if he gets put away. Better to have him drummed out of town . . . And then will we be investigating his murder in Series 3? Lots of people want him dead. Sounds rather like a game of Cluedo. Hrm.
In other developments, Jocelyn tells Sharon she wants to work with her. Of course Sharon isn't keen. But then Jocelyn offers some insights into possible ways to appeal Jonah's sentence, so . . . Maybe that will work out?
And for whatever reason Beth unbends enough to be friends with Ellie again. So we end with Ellie and her boys, and the Latimers meeting up on the beach to lay flowers where Danny's body had been found. (Apparently Beth and Mark are okay now, too, despite the fact he was the primary reason the defence was able to come up with enough doubt in the minds of the jury.)
Anyway. It's enough of an ending to be somewhat satisfying, though one questions where Alec will go now. Then again, apparently he'll be back in Broadchurch before long since they have said David Tennant will return for Series 3.
I'm not sure there's a short answer, but I'll try: Ricky caught Lee with Lisa and killed Lisa but told Lee he'd put it all on him if he didn't help cover it up. Then Claire came home and found out and coerced Lee into suffocating Pippa so she wouldn't say anything . . . But then she convinced Ricky it was his rohypnol-laced alcohol that killed Pippa.
We got all this out of a pendant and two identical receipts for flooring that, truthfully, should have been looked at more closely the first time around.
Do we know why Ricky came home from the wedding, btw? Did I miss that? Was he coming to get the flask so he could drug a bridesmaid? Seems like he would have had it with him . . . Was he coming to hit up Lisa himself?
Whatever. It felt weirdly anticlimactic. (Also, how was it Alec and Ellie could command an interview room? Aren't they both, like, off the force in Broadchurch?)
Meanwhile, Joe is found not guilty. Sort of saw that coming, too, didn't we? Doesn't make for much drama if he gets put away. Better to have him drummed out of town . . . And then will we be investigating his murder in Series 3? Lots of people want him dead. Sounds rather like a game of Cluedo. Hrm.
In other developments, Jocelyn tells Sharon she wants to work with her. Of course Sharon isn't keen. But then Jocelyn offers some insights into possible ways to appeal Jonah's sentence, so . . . Maybe that will work out?
And for whatever reason Beth unbends enough to be friends with Ellie again. So we end with Ellie and her boys, and the Latimers meeting up on the beach to lay flowers where Danny's body had been found. (Apparently Beth and Mark are okay now, too, despite the fact he was the primary reason the defence was able to come up with enough doubt in the minds of the jury.)
Anyway. It's enough of an ending to be somewhat satisfying, though one questions where Alec will go now. Then again, apparently he'll be back in Broadchurch before long since they have said David Tennant will return for Series 3.
2.17.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.7
The penultimate episode of series 2 was a bit more in-your-face in tone and had Alec Hardy going full-on Scottish on everyone. He sounds like my great-uncle when he's angry—we all know he's upset but we can't ever figure out why because we can't understand a word of it. So we look at each other and say, "Who set him off?" And to Uncle Robert we're saying, "Can you just point to it? Whatever's bothering you?"
My crazy uncle notwithstanding, here's what happened on Broadchurch:
I had this moment, when Alec was asking Lee about his relationship with Lisa, where I wondered if Lee could be Lisa's estranged father. I have to say, it's pretty strange there's been no contact with Lisa's actual parents. But, I mean, the police can't be that terrible, can they? Lee can't be Lisa's dad because they can't possibly have missed that if he were. Right? But where are Lisa's parents?
And then there was the hint of there being someone in France. Could it be Lisa?
Next week we'll have the verdict on Joe. Unclear what we'll have in terms of Sandbrook. If Claire is ready to spill the truth . . . But then again, she has a history of lying and would suffer for it on the stand, if it ever came to that. Will there even be a third series? It's a brilliant show, but is it sustainable?
*I have nothing against two women kissing, but the actresses appeared really reluctant or, at best, uncertain about the whole thing.
My crazy uncle notwithstanding, here's what happened on Broadchurch:
- Sharon put Ellie back in the witness box and treated her as "hostile," bringing up the fact she'd given her sister £1000 on the same day her sister gave a statement that she'd seen Joe disposing of clothes the night of Danny's murder. Sharon then reiterated her argument that Ellie wanted Joe out of the way so she could carry on with Alec.
- Legal arguments concluded and the jury was sent to deliberate.
- Mark and Beth continued to have drama. We continued not to care all that much.
- Alec and Ellie chased down Gary Thorpe, son of the man who owned Thorpe Agriservices (aka incinerator place). Turns out young Gary ran the business into the ground. He also went out with Lisa a couple times . . . And stalked her . . . But was in hospital at the time of the disappearances because he'd tried to commit suicide.
- Alec and Ellie then went to Ricky to ask what he knew about Thorpe, why he'd never mentioned him before, and got the, "didn't seem important" answer. Alec noticed a framed photo of bluebells in Ricky's office, and he and Ellie finally figured out the strange number in Claire's phone was Ricky's. (They have ways to look that shit up, right? Why didn't they?)
- Alec told Lee Ashworth that Claire had been pregnant. When Lee confronted Claire, she told him she aborted it and that Alec was the one who stayed with her through that time. For once their fight (in the ocean this time) didn't end in a heavy make-out session.
- Jocelyn finally admitted to Maggie that she loves her. (We all saw that one coming, right?) Most awkward kiss ever.*
- With the idea that it's over between her and Lee, Claire gave Alec the pendant she stole from Tess's car.
- The jury returned a verdict, and either my cable went out or . . . Cliffhanger? Sigh.
I had this moment, when Alec was asking Lee about his relationship with Lisa, where I wondered if Lee could be Lisa's estranged father. I have to say, it's pretty strange there's been no contact with Lisa's actual parents. But, I mean, the police can't be that terrible, can they? Lee can't be Lisa's dad because they can't possibly have missed that if he were. Right? But where are Lisa's parents?
And then there was the hint of there being someone in France. Could it be Lisa?
Next week we'll have the verdict on Joe. Unclear what we'll have in terms of Sandbrook. If Claire is ready to spill the truth . . . But then again, she has a history of lying and would suffer for it on the stand, if it ever came to that. Will there even be a third series? It's a brilliant show, but is it sustainable?
*I have nothing against two women kissing, but the actresses appeared really reluctant or, at best, uncertain about the whole thing.
2.10.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.6
Tom goes into the witness box to testify on behalf of his dad. Unfortunately, he's willing to lie a little while there. He says Mark told him he [Mark] was guilty of Danny's murder. Of course, on cross examination by Jocelyn, Tom is forced to admit Mark only said he felt guilty, not that he'd actually murdered his son.
Mark is then forced to testify, and Sharon paints a nasty picture of him being the one to kill Danny and then calling Nigel to dispose of the body. I'm still not sure how she gets away with such speculation, particularly in saying Danny "could have seen you with Becca Fisher." Um, there's no way to prove that Danny did see anything (he's not alive to give witness), so the judge really should have shut down that line of inquiry. But the deed is done, the seed planted in the jury's minds that this alternative line of events is a possibility.
Also, Mark is cornered into admitting he'd gone and written a "goodbye" letter to Beth that night with the idea their marriage was over and he wanted to be with Becca. This feels like a bit much, a really trite effort to extend the drama in Mark and Beth's relationship for the sake of an audience that doesn't care as much about them as it did last season.
Sharon asks the judge to dismiss the case, but Jocelyn proves Joe can still get a fair trial, and so we move on. Jocelyn also reveals to Ben what we pretty much already knew, that her eyesight is failing.
And Paul visits Joe again, though one wonders why. Apparently only to reinforce the idea that Paul hopes Joe will repent and tell the truth, put an end to the trial. I do feel this may be where things head, that in the end the writers are setting Joe up to finally do the right thing.
Meanwhile, Alec and Ellie visit the Gillespies again and discover the door in the fence that connects the two gardens, allowing easy access. Ellie tells Alec to put pressure on Claire, so he calls and tells her their deal is off and he won't protect her any more. Claire asks Ellie for help, and Ellie says she will only talk to Alec on her behalf if she finally tells the whole truth. Claire promises and offers to do Ellie's hair besides, which leads to Ellie looking through Claire's portfolio and finding a picture of Claire wearing Pippa's pendant. We later see a flashback of Claire breaking into Tess' car and taking the pendant.
We also see Lee tell Claire they need a plan, and Claire tell him, "We had a plan!" So are they in it together? And maybe also with the Gillespies? It's a very fucked-up situation, and it's difficult to tell where the truth lies. But maybe that was the plan all along: Make it impossible to conclusively prove who did it. A hair here, a necklace there . . .
Alec is due for his pacemaker, and Tess turns up to take care of him. Jocelyn's mother dies (which solves having to keep paying for her care, I suppose, and anyway the woman was ancient). And Ellie—finally!—takes on being a proper mother again and tells Tom he will come home and they will be a family again. Good.
Only a couple more episodes this season. I will be sad when the show is over.
Mark is then forced to testify, and Sharon paints a nasty picture of him being the one to kill Danny and then calling Nigel to dispose of the body. I'm still not sure how she gets away with such speculation, particularly in saying Danny "could have seen you with Becca Fisher." Um, there's no way to prove that Danny did see anything (he's not alive to give witness), so the judge really should have shut down that line of inquiry. But the deed is done, the seed planted in the jury's minds that this alternative line of events is a possibility.
Also, Mark is cornered into admitting he'd gone and written a "goodbye" letter to Beth that night with the idea their marriage was over and he wanted to be with Becca. This feels like a bit much, a really trite effort to extend the drama in Mark and Beth's relationship for the sake of an audience that doesn't care as much about them as it did last season.
Sharon asks the judge to dismiss the case, but Jocelyn proves Joe can still get a fair trial, and so we move on. Jocelyn also reveals to Ben what we pretty much already knew, that her eyesight is failing.
And Paul visits Joe again, though one wonders why. Apparently only to reinforce the idea that Paul hopes Joe will repent and tell the truth, put an end to the trial. I do feel this may be where things head, that in the end the writers are setting Joe up to finally do the right thing.
Meanwhile, Alec and Ellie visit the Gillespies again and discover the door in the fence that connects the two gardens, allowing easy access. Ellie tells Alec to put pressure on Claire, so he calls and tells her their deal is off and he won't protect her any more. Claire asks Ellie for help, and Ellie says she will only talk to Alec on her behalf if she finally tells the whole truth. Claire promises and offers to do Ellie's hair besides, which leads to Ellie looking through Claire's portfolio and finding a picture of Claire wearing Pippa's pendant. We later see a flashback of Claire breaking into Tess' car and taking the pendant.
We also see Lee tell Claire they need a plan, and Claire tell him, "We had a plan!" So are they in it together? And maybe also with the Gillespies? It's a very fucked-up situation, and it's difficult to tell where the truth lies. But maybe that was the plan all along: Make it impossible to conclusively prove who did it. A hair here, a necklace there . . .
Alec is due for his pacemaker, and Tess turns up to take care of him. Jocelyn's mother dies (which solves having to keep paying for her care, I suppose, and anyway the woman was ancient). And Ellie—finally!—takes on being a proper mother again and tells Tom he will come home and they will be a family again. Good.
Only a couple more episodes this season. I will be sad when the show is over.
2.04.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.5
Well, now, where are we? Susan Wright gets decimated by Jocelyn during testimony. But still, the element of doubt has been introduced, hasn't it?
Ellie goes on a tear investigating Sandbrook. She sorts out that Lisa took money out of her account before going to babysit Pippa, and that she made one last phone call to her mother that afternoon, but then Lisa's phone was off for 18 hours before pinging a tower in Portsmouth. Who or what is in Portsmouth? Some agriservices firm . . . with a big incinerator.
So Ellie's theory that Lisa killed Pippa and then went on the run and is still alive goes up in smoke, so to speak.
But I think she had something there, given that the flashbacks show Lisa looking pretty put out about the bond between Pippa and Lee. And Ricky has said Lisa had a difficult relationship with her father, which probably extends to a messed up relationship with men in general.
There were all kinds of things going on, it seems. Lee and Cate, for one thing. And weird games of hide and seek between Lee, Ricky, Pippa, and Lisa? And Claire doing Pippa's hair, too, so we know they were all pretty tight. Partner swapping? Meanwhile, the wedding alibi for Ricky goes out the window when the bridesmaid says she rejected him. Yet Ricky was MIA for about two hours at the wedding . . . And carrying a flask that probably had rohypnol in it; Lee tells Alec he'd used it once and gotten it from Ricky, who made trips to Amsterdam and brought back all kinds of drugs.
The Sandbrook stuff has become more interesting than the Broadchurch trial. The writers are trying to keep Beth and Mark relevant by having Beth start a charity in Danny's name. Thing is (a) Mark isn't interested, and (b) Paul is encouraging Beth to have the charity help child sex offenders, which is something she's having trouble stomaching. Makes sense, but it's really hard to care about this particular plot line.
Tom, meanwhile, continues to be a brat by refusing to move back with his mother. Instead, he approaches his dad's defence team and asks to give evidence. Ugh.
And speaking of sons, Sharon's son is given a black eye in prison, and Sharon gets mad at Jocelyn because Jocelyn wouldn't take his case way back when, which is why he's serving time. We still don't have the whole story, but we do know whatever Jonah did, a man died as the result of it.
Sharon also asks Paul to testify as a character witness on Joe's behalf. When Paul tells Becca—and admits he'd been visiting Joe in prison—Becca offers no comfort. Instead she complains she feels like Paul has dragged her into it by telling her. What a rotten girlfriend.
There's a lot going on, to be sure. The show continues to be well crafted and compelling. I'll be sad when I have to wait again for more. That day is coming too soon for my taste.
Ellie goes on a tear investigating Sandbrook. She sorts out that Lisa took money out of her account before going to babysit Pippa, and that she made one last phone call to her mother that afternoon, but then Lisa's phone was off for 18 hours before pinging a tower in Portsmouth. Who or what is in Portsmouth? Some agriservices firm . . . with a big incinerator.
So Ellie's theory that Lisa killed Pippa and then went on the run and is still alive goes up in smoke, so to speak.
But I think she had something there, given that the flashbacks show Lisa looking pretty put out about the bond between Pippa and Lee. And Ricky has said Lisa had a difficult relationship with her father, which probably extends to a messed up relationship with men in general.
There were all kinds of things going on, it seems. Lee and Cate, for one thing. And weird games of hide and seek between Lee, Ricky, Pippa, and Lisa? And Claire doing Pippa's hair, too, so we know they were all pretty tight. Partner swapping? Meanwhile, the wedding alibi for Ricky goes out the window when the bridesmaid says she rejected him. Yet Ricky was MIA for about two hours at the wedding . . . And carrying a flask that probably had rohypnol in it; Lee tells Alec he'd used it once and gotten it from Ricky, who made trips to Amsterdam and brought back all kinds of drugs.
The Sandbrook stuff has become more interesting than the Broadchurch trial. The writers are trying to keep Beth and Mark relevant by having Beth start a charity in Danny's name. Thing is (a) Mark isn't interested, and (b) Paul is encouraging Beth to have the charity help child sex offenders, which is something she's having trouble stomaching. Makes sense, but it's really hard to care about this particular plot line.
Tom, meanwhile, continues to be a brat by refusing to move back with his mother. Instead, he approaches his dad's defence team and asks to give evidence. Ugh.
And speaking of sons, Sharon's son is given a black eye in prison, and Sharon gets mad at Jocelyn because Jocelyn wouldn't take his case way back when, which is why he's serving time. We still don't have the whole story, but we do know whatever Jonah did, a man died as the result of it.
Sharon also asks Paul to testify as a character witness on Joe's behalf. When Paul tells Becca—and admits he'd been visiting Joe in prison—Becca offers no comfort. Instead she complains she feels like Paul has dragged her into it by telling her. What a rotten girlfriend.
There's a lot going on, to be sure. The show continues to be well crafted and compelling. I'll be sad when I have to wait again for more. That day is coming too soon for my taste.
1.30.2015
Television: Elementary, "The One That Got Away"
Do we want Kitty to be a killer? The writers can't do it, of course, because that would dehumanize her. But the way she wimps out in this episode didn't sit right with me, either.
"Wimps out?!" I hear you cry. "She poured acid on a guy's face!" Yeah, but . . . I don't know. Kitty has been built up as a tough girl type. Sure, we all know it's an act she puts on. But someone who wants vengeance that badly isn't easily swayed into not killing the person she's wanted to kill. Unless she never really wanted to kill him?
It's complex, which is probably a good thing. Characters should be. But something still felt "off" to me about this particular turn. Maybe it was rushed. Her change of heart, the "I love you" to Holmes at the end . . .
As for the story, it was relatively straight forward. After Kitty fingers Watson's boss Gruner, Gruner fires Watson, then he gets pulled into the police station for questioning. Of course there isn't any evidence, so they can't hold him. Watson and Holmes begin a search for other potential victims (in New York, but why not London? was Gruner just in London for a trip when he grabbed Kitty?). Meanwhile, Kitty says she's going back to London, but we all know that's a lie. She's off to grab Gruner, torture, and kill him.
One wonders what she would have done if Holmes hadn't intervened. He didn't stop her, but he did give her a minor lecture. Even before that, Kitty was showing signs of weakness, which again seems odd given the build up of hate in her. She had enough anger and adrenaline to mix up a body dissolvent, and to apparently kidnap a guy bigger than her who has hurt her before (and who, one figures, she's at least a little bit afraid of), tie him up and such. So . . . Is her anger wearing off after all that? Not entirely, since she still pours acid on his face, but . . . Something about it just doesn't jive. It bothers me.
Holmes and Watson have a lead: a boy from an orphanage that Gruner supports is really the son of Gruner and one of his victims. At first they'd discounted the idea this woman could be a victim since she was kept almost a year. But then, realizing Gruner's interest in the boy, and taking into account the boy's age and such, they realize the victim became pregnant and Gruner kept her alive until she could have the baby. Then he put the boy in the system where he could keep an eye on him. DNA tests prove the boy is the victim's and Gruner's son, so the police now have the link they need to bring charges.
And Kitty is forced to flee in the face of her assault on Gruner, which is still illegal no matter how good her reasons were. "At least you don't have the taint of murder," Holmes tells her in a goodbye phone call. And Kitty tells him she loves him and hangs up.
I almost hope she joins Lestrade in South America. That's a whole other TV series waiting to happen. Maybe if Gotham doesn't work out . . .
"Wimps out?!" I hear you cry. "She poured acid on a guy's face!" Yeah, but . . . I don't know. Kitty has been built up as a tough girl type. Sure, we all know it's an act she puts on. But someone who wants vengeance that badly isn't easily swayed into not killing the person she's wanted to kill. Unless she never really wanted to kill him?
It's complex, which is probably a good thing. Characters should be. But something still felt "off" to me about this particular turn. Maybe it was rushed. Her change of heart, the "I love you" to Holmes at the end . . .
As for the story, it was relatively straight forward. After Kitty fingers Watson's boss Gruner, Gruner fires Watson, then he gets pulled into the police station for questioning. Of course there isn't any evidence, so they can't hold him. Watson and Holmes begin a search for other potential victims (in New York, but why not London? was Gruner just in London for a trip when he grabbed Kitty?). Meanwhile, Kitty says she's going back to London, but we all know that's a lie. She's off to grab Gruner, torture, and kill him.
One wonders what she would have done if Holmes hadn't intervened. He didn't stop her, but he did give her a minor lecture. Even before that, Kitty was showing signs of weakness, which again seems odd given the build up of hate in her. She had enough anger and adrenaline to mix up a body dissolvent, and to apparently kidnap a guy bigger than her who has hurt her before (and who, one figures, she's at least a little bit afraid of), tie him up and such. So . . . Is her anger wearing off after all that? Not entirely, since she still pours acid on his face, but . . . Something about it just doesn't jive. It bothers me.
Holmes and Watson have a lead: a boy from an orphanage that Gruner supports is really the son of Gruner and one of his victims. At first they'd discounted the idea this woman could be a victim since she was kept almost a year. But then, realizing Gruner's interest in the boy, and taking into account the boy's age and such, they realize the victim became pregnant and Gruner kept her alive until she could have the baby. Then he put the boy in the system where he could keep an eye on him. DNA tests prove the boy is the victim's and Gruner's son, so the police now have the link they need to bring charges.
And Kitty is forced to flee in the face of her assault on Gruner, which is still illegal no matter how good her reasons were. "At least you don't have the taint of murder," Holmes tells her in a goodbye phone call. And Kitty tells him she loves him and hangs up.
I almost hope she joins Lestrade in South America. That's a whole other TV series waiting to happen. Maybe if Gotham doesn't work out . . .
1.27.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.4
I really am starting to suspect Claire in the Sandbrook case. I mean, she's a hairdresser, right? And Lee's hair on Pippa's pillow? So is Lee too blind to see what's going on, or is he complicit in some way?
It appears Claire and Ricky (Pippa's father) are still in touch. Ricky and his wife Cate separated after the murders, and Cate tells Alec that Ricky and Claire were having an affair—something she didn't bother to tell him the first time around because, "What business was it of yours?" Um, well, might go to motive? Sure, it sucks to have the police all up in your personal life, but it sucks that much more not to have a case resolved when you didn't give them all the information.
Ricky wasn't even with Cate when the abductions/murders took place. Cate had said Ricky was with her at a wedding, but now she tells Alec Ricky was off shagging a bridesmaid. That = not with you in a couple different ways.
Meanwhile, Lee takes advantage of Alec's and Ellie's visit to Sandbrook by making a visit of his own to Claire. You can imagine how that goes. And of course Claire lies and says there's been no one else, though we all know she just had a one-nighter with some guy from a bar. So now she's an established liar.
Oh, and we learn that Alec and Claire did sleep together. Though the extent of their relationship is unclear.
As for the case against Joe, that is going up in smoke (again, or some more, and burning faster now) thanks to Susan Wright's return. She comes back to tell Nigel she has lung cancer and maybe nine months to live. Nigel is unsympathetic. So Susan goes in the box to testify she saw Nigel with Danny's body on the beach that night. The defence now has its viable alternative, which goes to reasonable doubt that Joe was the one who killed Danny.
Also, Mark breaks off with Tom, saying he has to focus on little Lizzie now. Tom is understandably distraught. Dumped first by his own dad in favor of Danny, and now by Danny's dad in favor of a baby. Not great for the self-esteem. Then Susan Wright comes home and kicks Tom out of her caravan too.
And Olly makes a nuisance of himself, as usual, by first going to Alec and asking why Lee Ashworth is in town (Olly recognized him from the papers), and when Alec won't talk, Olly goes to Lee and snaps a couple photos. Lee won't talk, either, so Olly runs the photos with the caption that the Sandbrook suspect has moved to Broadchurch. Broadchurch could have a new tourist tagline: Visit Broadchurch! Harbours child murderers!
Get it? Harbours? Because beach? Ah, never mind.
It appears Claire and Ricky (Pippa's father) are still in touch. Ricky and his wife Cate separated after the murders, and Cate tells Alec that Ricky and Claire were having an affair—something she didn't bother to tell him the first time around because, "What business was it of yours?" Um, well, might go to motive? Sure, it sucks to have the police all up in your personal life, but it sucks that much more not to have a case resolved when you didn't give them all the information.
Ricky wasn't even with Cate when the abductions/murders took place. Cate had said Ricky was with her at a wedding, but now she tells Alec Ricky was off shagging a bridesmaid. That = not with you in a couple different ways.
Meanwhile, Lee takes advantage of Alec's and Ellie's visit to Sandbrook by making a visit of his own to Claire. You can imagine how that goes. And of course Claire lies and says there's been no one else, though we all know she just had a one-nighter with some guy from a bar. So now she's an established liar.
Oh, and we learn that Alec and Claire did sleep together. Though the extent of their relationship is unclear.
As for the case against Joe, that is going up in smoke (again, or some more, and burning faster now) thanks to Susan Wright's return. She comes back to tell Nigel she has lung cancer and maybe nine months to live. Nigel is unsympathetic. So Susan goes in the box to testify she saw Nigel with Danny's body on the beach that night. The defence now has its viable alternative, which goes to reasonable doubt that Joe was the one who killed Danny.
Also, Mark breaks off with Tom, saying he has to focus on little Lizzie now. Tom is understandably distraught. Dumped first by his own dad in favor of Danny, and now by Danny's dad in favor of a baby. Not great for the self-esteem. Then Susan Wright comes home and kicks Tom out of her caravan too.
And Olly makes a nuisance of himself, as usual, by first going to Alec and asking why Lee Ashworth is in town (Olly recognized him from the papers), and when Alec won't talk, Olly goes to Lee and snaps a couple photos. Lee won't talk, either, so Olly runs the photos with the caption that the Sandbrook suspect has moved to Broadchurch. Broadchurch could have a new tourist tagline: Visit Broadchurch! Harbours child murderers!
Get it? Harbours? Because beach? Ah, never mind.
1.23.2015
Television: Elementary, "The Illustrious Client"
Ah, Kitty Winter. So we were coming 'round to this eventually.
If you're unfamiliar with the Doyle story, Kitty Winter was a mistress of Baron Gruner, a man suspected of murdering his first wife and now intent on marrying one Violet de Merville. Kitty is bent on revenge against Gruner . . . Well, you see where it's going.
Since Kitty didn't have any particular reaction to Simon de Merville's picture or voice, it was pretty clear he was never the one who'd abducted, tortured, and raped her. Still, the episode goes on pretending like he's the guy: He has a brothel, after all, and a branding iron that matches the scars on Kitty's back and the marks on the dead girl found on the pier.
But . . . They're two completely different M.O.s. So . . . I don't know. I spent most of the episode wondering how Simon de Merville was connected to the as yet unnamed person who'd victimized Kitty, since it felt obvious to me that Simon de Merville had not. (If I'd been remembering my Doyle, I'd have been looking for a name like Gruner, but then again, this show doesn't always use the same names as the stories.)
The fact that it's Del [Gruner], Watson's new boss at the insurance company felt like it came out of left field. So I'm really hoping they construct a good reason/backstory for that in the next episode. At a stretch one could consider that Gruner looked up Holmes's known associates and targeted Watson, drew her in with his charm, etc. (Gruner's charm is a big portion of the Doyle story.)
Still, the vengeful Kitty plot, whether true to Doyle or not, feels a little like a rehash of that whole Holmes revenge plot from a while back. Remember when he had Moran strung up? Yeah, that. While I like that Kitty is a relatively strong character, it might've been nice to do something new rather than take another spin on the Wheel of Vengeance.
If you're unfamiliar with the Doyle story, Kitty Winter was a mistress of Baron Gruner, a man suspected of murdering his first wife and now intent on marrying one Violet de Merville. Kitty is bent on revenge against Gruner . . . Well, you see where it's going.
Since Kitty didn't have any particular reaction to Simon de Merville's picture or voice, it was pretty clear he was never the one who'd abducted, tortured, and raped her. Still, the episode goes on pretending like he's the guy: He has a brothel, after all, and a branding iron that matches the scars on Kitty's back and the marks on the dead girl found on the pier.
But . . . They're two completely different M.O.s. So . . . I don't know. I spent most of the episode wondering how Simon de Merville was connected to the as yet unnamed person who'd victimized Kitty, since it felt obvious to me that Simon de Merville had not. (If I'd been remembering my Doyle, I'd have been looking for a name like Gruner, but then again, this show doesn't always use the same names as the stories.)
The fact that it's Del [Gruner], Watson's new boss at the insurance company felt like it came out of left field. So I'm really hoping they construct a good reason/backstory for that in the next episode. At a stretch one could consider that Gruner looked up Holmes's known associates and targeted Watson, drew her in with his charm, etc. (Gruner's charm is a big portion of the Doyle story.)
Still, the vengeful Kitty plot, whether true to Doyle or not, feels a little like a rehash of that whole Holmes revenge plot from a while back. Remember when he had Moran strung up? Yeah, that. While I like that Kitty is a relatively strong character, it might've been nice to do something new rather than take another spin on the Wheel of Vengeance.
1.20.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.3
Well, at least we don't draw out the whole Lee-kidnapped-Claire thing. After shouting the classic, "What is the point of you, Miller?" Alec takes Miller's car and finds Lee and Claire at Claire's hideaway house. Lee attacks Alec, but his real harassment of Alec has only begun—he goes on to file a report against Alec that forces Alec to come apologize to him. Then he turns up at Alec's house, at which point I have to ask whether Alec couldn't file harassment charges against Lee. But here's the kicker: Lee has been doing his own investigation into the Sandbrook case. WTF?! And he's been posing as Alec Hardy to do it!
As you might guess, Alec doesn't take that well, but Lee leaves the stack of evidence behind, and we all know Alec will eventually get curious and look through it. I'm starting to think Claire did it, actually. Would be an interesting twist anyway.
Speaking of Claire, she and Ellie go out for a night of drinking and picking up boys for one-night stands. Claire seems happy enough this way (uncommitted sex), but it doesn't suit Ellie.
And Beth, who at the end of last episode had gone into labor, gives birth at home to a little girl named Elizabeth. But she still hates Ellie. Just in case you're wondering.
There is also insight into the personal lives of Sharon Bishop (Joe's defence) and Jocelyn Knight (the prosecutor). Sharon has a son serving time, and Jocelyn has a mother in danger of losing her place in a care home due to unpaid bills. Also, they both have the names of chess pieces. I'm sure that's an essay waiting to be written by some film/TV student.
Of course the big finish to the episode was Sharon's accusing Ellie while in the box of having an affair with Alec Hardy. Her "evidence" is circumstantial at best, and honestly should not have been allowed (but maybe UK courts differ on this from US ones). Either way, the damage is done since the seed has been planted in the jury's minds—as well as the minds of everyone in Broadchurch.
As you might guess, Alec doesn't take that well, but Lee leaves the stack of evidence behind, and we all know Alec will eventually get curious and look through it. I'm starting to think Claire did it, actually. Would be an interesting twist anyway.
Speaking of Claire, she and Ellie go out for a night of drinking and picking up boys for one-night stands. Claire seems happy enough this way (uncommitted sex), but it doesn't suit Ellie.
And Beth, who at the end of last episode had gone into labor, gives birth at home to a little girl named Elizabeth. But she still hates Ellie. Just in case you're wondering.
There is also insight into the personal lives of Sharon Bishop (Joe's defence) and Jocelyn Knight (the prosecutor). Sharon has a son serving time, and Jocelyn has a mother in danger of losing her place in a care home due to unpaid bills. Also, they both have the names of chess pieces. I'm sure that's an essay waiting to be written by some film/TV student.
Of course the big finish to the episode was Sharon's accusing Ellie while in the box of having an affair with Alec Hardy. Her "evidence" is circumstantial at best, and honestly should not have been allowed (but maybe UK courts differ on this from US ones). Either way, the damage is done since the seed has been planted in the jury's minds—as well as the minds of everyone in Broadchurch.
1.13.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.2
The rule in drama is: Things must get worse before they can get better. And when one thing is resolved, another problem must be created.
Let's just say things got a lot worse last night.
For one thing, Joe's confession was excluded as evidence because of Ellie's brutality against Joe in the interrogation room. Now, I know what you're thinking: But that came after he confessed! And you're right. But apparently it shed doubt on whether or not there had been any brutality even before that, like when Alec arrested Joe. Remember that Alec and Joe were alone; there are no witnesses to the arrest. I would argue, however, that there is zero evidence that Joe was in any way injured prior to Ellie entering the interrogation room. They have cameras, right? They can see he was not hurt when he entered, can't they? Maybe that's a small thing and not enough, but it might be worth trying to argue that angle given the confession is the most important piece of evidence they have against Joe, and now they can't use it.
Joe, by the way, is being made increasingly reprehensible. Whereas at the end of the first season you thought he was pretty messed up but maybe not really a "bad guy," his selfishness now sets him quite squarely in "bad guy" territory. Yet the writers do such a good job with character because it's utterly believable that this man would behave this way under the circumstances. He's not some "villain" in the overly dramatic sense. He's a person causing a lot of pain through his selfish behavior. And people do that all the time; this is just an extreme case.
"Villain" is reserved for Lee. He approaches Alec and asks to see Claire. Alec convinces Ellie to convince Claire to meet Lee, Alec's hope being Lee will confess something, say something to implicate himself in the Sandbrook case. They use Ellie's old house in Broadchurch as the meeting point, and Alec sets up hidden cameras. Alec is in the kitchen, Ellie is out front. Problem: someone has told Beth Latimer that Ellie is back at her house, so Beth goes storming down there to confront Ellie. The distraction is enough to allow Lee to abduct Claire. (Or did she go willingly? Seems unlikely considering how reluctant she was to meet with him, but then again she did say he was like a drug to her, so maybe she couldn't resist?)
I am a little tired of Beth blaming Ellie, yelling at Ellie, etc. I mean, I understand why. But it doesn't seem to make her feel any better to yell and scream at Ellie, and it isn't going to change things, either. I guess it's not a rational thing, though. It difficult to be rational when your child has been murdered and now you're going through a painful trial.
By the way, Beth yelled so hard this time her water broke.
Other small points include Becca Fisher slyly making the defence team uncomfortable during their stay in Broadchurch, and Mark continuing to meet Tom for video games.
Things are rolling downhill. Still, we've got long enough to go that I'm sure we haven't quite reached bottom. In fact, we're only just getting the momentum going.
Let's just say things got a lot worse last night.
For one thing, Joe's confession was excluded as evidence because of Ellie's brutality against Joe in the interrogation room. Now, I know what you're thinking: But that came after he confessed! And you're right. But apparently it shed doubt on whether or not there had been any brutality even before that, like when Alec arrested Joe. Remember that Alec and Joe were alone; there are no witnesses to the arrest. I would argue, however, that there is zero evidence that Joe was in any way injured prior to Ellie entering the interrogation room. They have cameras, right? They can see he was not hurt when he entered, can't they? Maybe that's a small thing and not enough, but it might be worth trying to argue that angle given the confession is the most important piece of evidence they have against Joe, and now they can't use it.
Joe, by the way, is being made increasingly reprehensible. Whereas at the end of the first season you thought he was pretty messed up but maybe not really a "bad guy," his selfishness now sets him quite squarely in "bad guy" territory. Yet the writers do such a good job with character because it's utterly believable that this man would behave this way under the circumstances. He's not some "villain" in the overly dramatic sense. He's a person causing a lot of pain through his selfish behavior. And people do that all the time; this is just an extreme case.
"Villain" is reserved for Lee. He approaches Alec and asks to see Claire. Alec convinces Ellie to convince Claire to meet Lee, Alec's hope being Lee will confess something, say something to implicate himself in the Sandbrook case. They use Ellie's old house in Broadchurch as the meeting point, and Alec sets up hidden cameras. Alec is in the kitchen, Ellie is out front. Problem: someone has told Beth Latimer that Ellie is back at her house, so Beth goes storming down there to confront Ellie. The distraction is enough to allow Lee to abduct Claire. (Or did she go willingly? Seems unlikely considering how reluctant she was to meet with him, but then again she did say he was like a drug to her, so maybe she couldn't resist?)
I am a little tired of Beth blaming Ellie, yelling at Ellie, etc. I mean, I understand why. But it doesn't seem to make her feel any better to yell and scream at Ellie, and it isn't going to change things, either. I guess it's not a rational thing, though. It difficult to be rational when your child has been murdered and now you're going through a painful trial.
By the way, Beth yelled so hard this time her water broke.
Other small points include Becca Fisher slyly making the defence team uncomfortable during their stay in Broadchurch, and Mark continuing to meet Tom for video games.
Things are rolling downhill. Still, we've got long enough to go that I'm sure we haven't quite reached bottom. In fact, we're only just getting the momentum going.
1.09.2015
Television: Broadchurch 2.1
I love this show.
I don't love David Tennant's neck beard, but the rest is pretty terrific.
There are really a limited number of ways to go on from where the first season of Broadchurch ended. They could either have skipped ahead by a lot, or they could pick it up where they left off. They chose the latter. And that's good, because the situation is rife with the kind of tension that makes for good drama.
Joe is up for his plea and sentencing. There seems to be no question he'll plead guilty given the fact he's confessed. Right? But of course there wouldn't be much to it if it were that easy. So he pleads not guilty, to everyone's surprise, even his advocate's. He claims he can't go to prison, not as a child killer. Hmm. Probably should've thought about that before, you know, killing a child. #lackofforesight
The plea sets everyone on edge. They were expecting closure but now must face a full trial. And if Joe gets away with murder? Broadchurch is already coming apart at the seams, but if Joe were to walk free, it really will tear the town apart. If the trial itself doesn't.
All right, so where is Ellie in all this? Working traffic stops in Devon, apparently. She has Fred, but Tom doesn't want anything to do with her, so Olly and his mother (Ellie's sister) are looking after him. And we discover Tom is also being looked after by Mark Latimer, who meets with Tom to play video games in Susan Wright's abandoned caravan (that's "trailer" to U.S. viewers).
Beth, meanwhile, is ready to pop with the new baby. And we discover Reverend Paul is now seeing Becca.
But of course the biggest new plot line is that Alec is hiding a woman named Claire from a man named Lee Ashworth. The show was going to have to confront whatever happened at Sandbrook sooner or later, and this is it: Claire was the wife of the chief suspect (Lee), the man who walked free after Alec took the blame for the case going wrong. Alec had promised Claire during the investigation that Lee would be going to prison for life and she had no reason to worry about testifying against him. Guess how that went? So with Lee loose and free, Alec has hidden Claire away. And Lee has found them.
Yes, yes, Eve Myles (Torchwood) is Claire. But far more interesting (to me) James D'Arcy is Lee! You may remember him from such recent posts as my coverage of the Agent Carter premiere; he plays Jarvis. How fun to see him in two such different roles!
Alec confesses all this to Ellie in order to get Ellie (with Fred) to move into the house where Claire is hiding. Two women with child-killing husbands . . . Could be a new kind of sitcom?
Oh, and there's stuff about what we would call lawyers, but that stuff hasn't gotten all that interesting yet (though yay for Charlotte Rampling!). Something to do with Rampling's character Jocelyn prosecuting on behalf of the Millers only because she can't stand to see her once protegée win as she defends Joe. There's clearly a history here, but we're only going to get it in fits and starts.
A promising start. I'm lukewarm on the Claire plot, but the rest is good, and that one may eventually warm up in tasty ways.
I don't love David Tennant's neck beard, but the rest is pretty terrific.
There are really a limited number of ways to go on from where the first season of Broadchurch ended. They could either have skipped ahead by a lot, or they could pick it up where they left off. They chose the latter. And that's good, because the situation is rife with the kind of tension that makes for good drama.
Joe is up for his plea and sentencing. There seems to be no question he'll plead guilty given the fact he's confessed. Right? But of course there wouldn't be much to it if it were that easy. So he pleads not guilty, to everyone's surprise, even his advocate's. He claims he can't go to prison, not as a child killer. Hmm. Probably should've thought about that before, you know, killing a child. #lackofforesight
The plea sets everyone on edge. They were expecting closure but now must face a full trial. And if Joe gets away with murder? Broadchurch is already coming apart at the seams, but if Joe were to walk free, it really will tear the town apart. If the trial itself doesn't.
All right, so where is Ellie in all this? Working traffic stops in Devon, apparently. She has Fred, but Tom doesn't want anything to do with her, so Olly and his mother (Ellie's sister) are looking after him. And we discover Tom is also being looked after by Mark Latimer, who meets with Tom to play video games in Susan Wright's abandoned caravan (that's "trailer" to U.S. viewers).
Beth, meanwhile, is ready to pop with the new baby. And we discover Reverend Paul is now seeing Becca.
But of course the biggest new plot line is that Alec is hiding a woman named Claire from a man named Lee Ashworth. The show was going to have to confront whatever happened at Sandbrook sooner or later, and this is it: Claire was the wife of the chief suspect (Lee), the man who walked free after Alec took the blame for the case going wrong. Alec had promised Claire during the investigation that Lee would be going to prison for life and she had no reason to worry about testifying against him. Guess how that went? So with Lee loose and free, Alec has hidden Claire away. And Lee has found them.
Yes, yes, Eve Myles (Torchwood) is Claire. But far more interesting (to me) James D'Arcy is Lee! You may remember him from such recent posts as my coverage of the Agent Carter premiere; he plays Jarvis. How fun to see him in two such different roles!
Alec confesses all this to Ellie in order to get Ellie (with Fred) to move into the house where Claire is hiding. Two women with child-killing husbands . . . Could be a new kind of sitcom?
Oh, and there's stuff about what we would call lawyers, but that stuff hasn't gotten all that interesting yet (though yay for Charlotte Rampling!). Something to do with Rampling's character Jocelyn prosecuting on behalf of the Millers only because she can't stand to see her once protegée win as she defends Joe. There's clearly a history here, but we're only going to get it in fits and starts.
A promising start. I'm lukewarm on the Claire plot, but the rest is good, and that one may eventually warm up in tasty ways.
10.20.2014
Movies: Gone Girl
Starring: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris
Directed By: David Fincher
Written By: Gillian Flynn
20th Century Fox, 2014
R; 149 mins
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Let me start by saying I really hated the novel.
But . . . I really like David Fincher movies.
So I had mixed feelings about going to see Gone Girl. I thought maybe I'd just wait until it was on Netflix or whatever. Except Fincher movies really do deserve to be seen on the big screen.
And I liked the movie for what it was. Well crafted. Beautifully shot.
I didn't like the book because there was no one to like in the book. Neither Nick nor Amy is likable; in fact, they're almost intolerable. Sure, you could argue that Margo is sympathetic, but she's not enough to carry an entire novel about two really terrible people.
Now, it's been more than two years since I read the book. But seeing the movie, I do feel like they tried to make Nick more agreeable, probably out of necessity since every movie needs some kind of hero, someone for the viewer to cheer on. I sort of hate the movie for that, though, which is why I deducted a star. Nick doesn't deserve to be made the victim here; he and Amy are both awful, which is why they deserve each other. Yes, I really do believe that, even though [SPOILERS FOLLOW] she's a psychopathic murderer. To make viewers feel sorry for Nick is sort of cowardly filmmaking in my mind.
But maybe we're not supposed to feel sorry for Nick. Maybe it's the, "He made his bed and now he's lying in it" thing. He's stuck in a town where everyone knows he cheated on his wife (hell, the world knows it), and she comes up looking like a rose. No other woman is going to come near him now. He didn't go to prison, but yeah, he kind of did.
Mostly I feel sorry for any baby they have. And for the cat. I'm really hoping the cat was able to escape that toxic environment.
Anyway, my peculiar and particular beefs aside, it was a good movie. I don't really know if I liked it more than the book; it might be more accurate to say I liked it differently from the book. Fincher was certainly the right choice for capturing the tone, and Pike in particular does a phenomenal job as a calculating psychopath who has most of the world fooled. I do wish they'd cranked up Neil Patrick Harris' character a bit, though. And as I've mentioned, they could (possibly should) have made Nick less compassionate.
In short, a solid film. Those who loved the novel should be satisfied, and those who didn't read it should find the movie entertaining anyway. I fall somewhere in the middle and still found Gone Girl to be worth my while.
Directed By: David Fincher
Written By: Gillian Flynn
20th Century Fox, 2014
R; 149 mins
4 stars (out of 5)
_______________________________________________________
Let me start by saying I really hated the novel.
But . . . I really like David Fincher movies.
So I had mixed feelings about going to see Gone Girl. I thought maybe I'd just wait until it was on Netflix or whatever. Except Fincher movies really do deserve to be seen on the big screen.
And I liked the movie for what it was. Well crafted. Beautifully shot.
I didn't like the book because there was no one to like in the book. Neither Nick nor Amy is likable; in fact, they're almost intolerable. Sure, you could argue that Margo is sympathetic, but she's not enough to carry an entire novel about two really terrible people.
Now, it's been more than two years since I read the book. But seeing the movie, I do feel like they tried to make Nick more agreeable, probably out of necessity since every movie needs some kind of hero, someone for the viewer to cheer on. I sort of hate the movie for that, though, which is why I deducted a star. Nick doesn't deserve to be made the victim here; he and Amy are both awful, which is why they deserve each other. Yes, I really do believe that, even though [SPOILERS FOLLOW] she's a psychopathic murderer. To make viewers feel sorry for Nick is sort of cowardly filmmaking in my mind.
But maybe we're not supposed to feel sorry for Nick. Maybe it's the, "He made his bed and now he's lying in it" thing. He's stuck in a town where everyone knows he cheated on his wife (hell, the world knows it), and she comes up looking like a rose. No other woman is going to come near him now. He didn't go to prison, but yeah, he kind of did.
Mostly I feel sorry for any baby they have. And for the cat. I'm really hoping the cat was able to escape that toxic environment.
Anyway, my peculiar and particular beefs aside, it was a good movie. I don't really know if I liked it more than the book; it might be more accurate to say I liked it differently from the book. Fincher was certainly the right choice for capturing the tone, and Pike in particular does a phenomenal job as a calculating psychopath who has most of the world fooled. I do wish they'd cranked up Neil Patrick Harris' character a bit, though. And as I've mentioned, they could (possibly should) have made Nick less compassionate.
In short, a solid film. Those who loved the novel should be satisfied, and those who didn't read it should find the movie entertaining anyway. I fall somewhere in the middle and still found Gone Girl to be worth my while.
9.11.2014
Television: Intruders, "She Was Provisional"
The X-Files pedigree is easy to detect in this somewhat haphazardly blended show whose pilot episode jumped around leaving only very thin threads of webbing to tie things together. Most of what I got from it was: (a) James Frain is a creep, and (b) that little girl is turning into a creep, too. Oh, and that other guy can't find his wife. I think that's supposed to matter.
Best I can tell there are bad things that possess people. Also, James Frain is going around killing people. Much of what occurred—and it was so all over the place, it's difficult to say exactly what did occur—seemed played largely for shock value. I mean, I don't mind sex and violence, but when played solely for a reaction, I do mind it. Don't waste my time with that shit. Tell me a goddamn story.
But these days "telling a story" on television seems to be equal to chopping up a lot of information in order to string the viewers along. Sigh. At least Orphan Black started with a central character that was interesting, surrounded her with other interesting characters, and then branched out from there.
While there's a hint of an interesting story in Intruders, I found it difficult to care about anyone enough to want to pursue it. I will probably try at least one more episode to see if anything congeals in an appetizing enough way . . . Hmm. "Congeals" probably isn't the best match for "appetizing." But you get my meaning.
Best I can tell there are bad things that possess people. Also, James Frain is going around killing people. Much of what occurred—and it was so all over the place, it's difficult to say exactly what did occur—seemed played largely for shock value. I mean, I don't mind sex and violence, but when played solely for a reaction, I do mind it. Don't waste my time with that shit. Tell me a goddamn story.
But these days "telling a story" on television seems to be equal to chopping up a lot of information in order to string the viewers along. Sigh. At least Orphan Black started with a central character that was interesting, surrounded her with other interesting characters, and then branched out from there.
While there's a hint of an interesting story in Intruders, I found it difficult to care about anyone enough to want to pursue it. I will probably try at least one more episode to see if anything congeals in an appetizing enough way . . . Hmm. "Congeals" probably isn't the best match for "appetizing." But you get my meaning.
7.07.2014
Television: 24 & The Leftovers
I finally gave up on 24: Live Another Day.
I know, I know—I stuck it out for so long, why give up now? Well, I got nearly to the end of the June 23rd episode that was sitting on my DVR and realized I'd barely seen any of it because I was more interested in Bejeweled. That's a pretty bad sign. And I still had another episode waiting on my DVR, and I was faced with another hour airing tonight, and . . . All at once it was a chore rather than entertainment. And since I watch TV to be entertained, when it stops being fun . . . I stop watching.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
The Leftovers, on the other had, actually got more interesting. Is Garvey going crazy? How much of all this is in his head? Getting a glimpse of his dad and seeing that maybe it runs in the family . . . And yet Jill did seem to see the unnamed man on the doorstep . . . Little tidbits like the video interviews for "survivor" benefits or whatever add texture and depth to what is going on in the world. Though why would an agency feel the need to compensate people for what insurance would surely label an "act of God"? Is this a government agency or a private non-profit or what? Hmm.
And we also saw the source of tension between Lucy and Kevin; seems she and Kevin's dad have a thing?
I don't much like Liv Tyler, and Jill's friend is annoying, but I can get past that (for now). Should be interesting to see Christopher Eccleston's character's story next week.
I know, I know—I stuck it out for so long, why give up now? Well, I got nearly to the end of the June 23rd episode that was sitting on my DVR and realized I'd barely seen any of it because I was more interested in Bejeweled. That's a pretty bad sign. And I still had another episode waiting on my DVR, and I was faced with another hour airing tonight, and . . . All at once it was a chore rather than entertainment. And since I watch TV to be entertained, when it stops being fun . . . I stop watching.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
The Leftovers, on the other had, actually got more interesting. Is Garvey going crazy? How much of all this is in his head? Getting a glimpse of his dad and seeing that maybe it runs in the family . . . And yet Jill did seem to see the unnamed man on the doorstep . . . Little tidbits like the video interviews for "survivor" benefits or whatever add texture and depth to what is going on in the world. Though why would an agency feel the need to compensate people for what insurance would surely label an "act of God"? Is this a government agency or a private non-profit or what? Hmm.
And we also saw the source of tension between Lucy and Kevin; seems she and Kevin's dad have a thing?
I don't much like Liv Tyler, and Jill's friend is annoying, but I can get past that (for now). Should be interesting to see Christopher Eccleston's character's story next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)