|
Post by falconia on Apr 4, 2005 14:38:40 GMT -5
Exactly! The condoned and seemingly encouraged use of trickery as a valid investigative tool is totally alient to me!
Not that Brazil's famous for it's crime solving statistics, no way! Brazilian police resorts to torture and intimidation more often than not, and it is difficult to separate the agents of the Law from the criminals they should fight. As in many third world countries, the police was conceived not to protect the citizen, but to protect the state.
And the concept of plea bargain! This one is more than alien to me! It is inconceivable to a Brazilian officer of the court to suggest that a criminal or a suspect admited guilt over a crime only to have his sentence reduced or the same crime labeled something less severe. "You say you did it, and even though you killed the victim viciously and with premeditation, you'll get only 15 to 25 for manslaughter." This sounds so crazy to me!
But is it my impression or do we digress and this discussion should be taken to another area of this forum?
Falc, who loves a good debate
|
|
|
Post by BegToDiffer on Apr 4, 2005 14:52:04 GMT -5
I thought it was a good show, but I don't like it when you know so early on who did it. The minute the birth mother was realized, you had to know it wasn't the guys from Brooklyn that killed the parents. I do think the interaction between Eames and Goren gets better each week. I believe this season is winding down much better than it began. And allowing Deakins and Carver more air time really is the frosting on the cake.
|
|
|
Post by Cassie on Apr 4, 2005 16:40:04 GMT -5
I enjoyed last night episode. I thought it was a different style story. A couple of things bother me though. If the family was in the “Witness Protection Program” How come the Fed’s just moved the family from Buffalo NY, to another part of the state? I always thought that if a family was put into the “Witness Protection Program” that they would be moved a good 2,000 miles away from their original home. Also, I know I am nit picking here. Goren and his suit jackets. He is burning the midnight oil, eating Chinese food with Eames, he only takes off his tie? During Season 1 and 2, he used to sit at his desk without his suit jacket on. Now he is always wearing his complete suit. I guess It wouldn’t bother me as much, if it wasn’t for the fact that Eames is walking around in a sleeveless shirt. They look odd to me, She looks hot, and he looks cold
|
|
|
Post by Summerfield on Apr 4, 2005 17:37:49 GMT -5
Why wasn't his an episode of SVU?
|
|
|
Post by Sirenna on Apr 4, 2005 18:39:01 GMT -5
Why would it be?
|
|
|
Post by jethro on Apr 4, 2005 19:21:05 GMT -5
Why wasn't his an episode of SVU? Perhaps you would like to enlighten the rest of the members as to why you believe it should have been one?
|
|
|
Post by trisha on Apr 4, 2005 20:27:58 GMT -5
I thought that Death Roe might have made a good SVU episode because SVU's focus is "crimes of a sexual nature."
Aside from the relationship between the birth parents, there was nothing sexual about this episode. I guess I could see it as an SVU episode if they wanted the daughter because it brought something new and exciting to their relationship. But their need was about greed, not lust. But then, I don't watch SVU, so I guess I'm not the right person to say.
As a CI ep, I thought this one was very good. It was probably much more fun for me because I didn't read the NBC spoiler.
I also loved Carver calling the other lawyer an ass ;D
|
|
|
Post by goreneames on Apr 4, 2005 21:32:15 GMT -5
Just a guess here, but I think Summerfield was joking. Or not. Either way, I'm cool. This one wasn't as good as last week's, but was still enjoyable. I Loooooovvvee how they're getting Carver and Deakins more involved in the show!! If this is one of the ways TPTB are taking some of the burden off D'Onofrio, good show lads and lasses!! It's been such a long time -- maybe never? -- since we've seen Carver make an off the cuff, personal statement like he did about the other prosecutor. And Deakins is really shining as well. Makes all four of them seem like a team. The one thing I didn't really like was how complicated the scheme to defraud the daughter was. Seems as though it would've been easier just to con her out of her inheritance than murder her. She was already super susceptible to being played by them. I also wasn't sure her bio mom would've agreed to murder her, since she seemed so enraptured with the whole "playing family" game. Or, wouldn't it also have been easier (and something he could've done a long time ago) for the dad to murder his wife, then inherit their expensive home, sell it for a fortune and get it on with his mistress? As is, he's still gotta to get divorced. Also, killing the wife would've been one murder instead of three. He could've sniffed through her social work cases and pinned the murder on a volatile individual she'd encountered through work. Or not. Either way, I'm cool.
|
|
KMC
Rookie
Posts: 24
|
Post by KMC on Apr 4, 2005 21:44:54 GMT -5
In case Summerfield isn't joking...there was nothing in this case to make it an SVU case....the SVU deals with crimes of a sexual nature...and crimes against children.
If it wasn't for the fact that the dead couple were in witness protection...this case would probably have been handled as a straight homicide....and not by the Major Case Squad.
I like the actress who played Rachel...she LOOKS like a real teenager...someone you'd see at the mall...and NOT a perfect size 2. I hope she doesn't succumb to the Hollywood image thing.
The photo diorama puzzled me...must have cost a mint to set it up...why didn't they just go to the house....they'd have it in real 3D there.
Deakins remark about the late night restaurant came across as a bit snarky to me...they had a lot to do..so don't even think of going to dinner....but that's my take on it. I did love Bobby reaction to the stolen stapler...
That poor daughter is going to need LOTS of therapy....
|
|
|
Post by Observer2 on Apr 4, 2005 21:55:36 GMT -5
I agree with much of what others have said – though not that this should have been an SVU episode! I know I’m repeating some things here that you’ve already said, but this is what I wrote for the Universal board (nothing too controversial, you know ) and I may not have time to write more tonight. I was planning to write a post for this thread this evening, but my nephew came into town unexpectedly, so I ran off to a long dinner/visit with him. I will add more later, if I get a chance: I enjoyed The Good Child. I really love the way we’re getting more of a balance among the four regulars. We still have Goren finding the pivotal, obscure bits of evidence; but now the whole show seems stronger, which, to my mind, actually shows Goren in a better light. I especially enjoyed the scenes that focused on Carver – we had a great chance to see Carver in action in ways that we don’t usually get to see, both drawing information from the mobster’s wife (does Vance have a great voice, or what?!) and dealing with the FBI guy who wanted to play by a different set of rules. The shift from his coolly polite tone as he left the guy’s car, to his genuine disgust as he described the guy to the detectives gave us a nice glimpse of his relationship with them, as well as a bit more of his personal reactions than we usually get to see. The obnoxious FBI guy was also used to good effect to let us see a bit more of how Deakins can take charge when he chooses to. And both his manner with Rachel, and his decision to let her stay with her birth mother, reminded me that Deakins is a dad, and made sense to me in that context. This seemed to me like a very solid, engaging episode, with good writing for all four regulars – and a very appropriate, in-character ending. No sound bite, and no minimizing of the effects on the daughter – just Goren’s attempt to offer what he could to help her fight off the feelings of guilt over what happened. I thought that was very well done. It was a somber ending, but in a show that deals with the carnage wrought by the “worst criminal offenders” of New York City, somber endings are sometimes appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 4, 2005 22:06:02 GMT -5
Yep, I'm in the "camp" that thinks Summerfield's goofing on us. Summerfield, you tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and I'll tell you why this wasn't an SVU episode (I'll even throw in why last week's SVU wasn't a LOCI episode). Deal?
|
|
|
Post by Summerfield on Apr 4, 2005 22:56:42 GMT -5
Summerfield was feeling a little snarky when she posted "why wasn't this a SVU episode?"
|
|
|
Post by janetcatbird on Apr 4, 2005 23:45:44 GMT -5
"You tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin..."
Eight if they're skinny and four if they're fat. Oh lord, please don't think I'm trying to be ugly, I just like the way-too-literal, make you giggle nature of the answer. Peppermint Patty always makes me laugh.
I agree that Rachel looked believable--I don't think she was my age, probably in her early 20s, but young enough to be a college student living with her parents and still be going through that rebellious, I-am-my-own-person-I-want-my-own-life anxiety. She didn't have to be a super-skinny 0 petite, she can be a normal, healthy girl who deals with personal issues besides the grating stereotype of fat-and-lonely. Nice point, KMC.#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Techguy on Apr 5, 2005 0:32:20 GMT -5
Based on a single viewing, I'm rating "The Good Child" in my top five favorites from Season 4. I rate it an "A" but just not quite in the same pantheon as my "A+" episodes which obviously are in a class by themselves.
Like "Shibboleth," "The Good Child" makes excellent use of all four cast members. The scene when the detectives and Capt. Deakins return to the crime scene where the couple was murdered is extraordinarily well done, especially in the camera shots, angles and movement so as to re-enact where the killers were and what they did.
I also liked how ADA Carver was used to great effect to put the arrogant FBI agent in his place. He put on his cool professional face with the agent, then let on what he really thought of him when he got in the car with the detectives.
Is it too early to nominate Trevor as a candidate for worst, ie, most reprehensible villain ever on CI? Killing your birth daughter's adoptive parents, and then setting up the daughter as she takes the couple's ashes for burial--all this for the money the daughter inherited--makes Trevor a lowlife bottom feeder if ever there was one. I'd like to put him and Tommy from "Death Roe" in the same locked room for about 30 minutes and, you know, wait to see what happens. It just might make for an awesome CI episode, come to think of it.
|
|
|
Post by LOCIfan on Apr 5, 2005 1:59:38 GMT -5
"You tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin..."Eight if they're skinny and four if they're fat. Ok, Catbird, since you took me up on my offer, I'll follow through on MY side of the deal: Because it wasn't. (And its kicker of a follow-up) Because it wasn't. Eight or four, eh? I gotta write that down. ;D
|
|