|
Post by jeffan on Jul 29, 2009 11:42:11 GMT -5
Thank you Moonbeam.
I was just wondering why you thought this particular episode was predictable as I think, to date, there have been elements of predictability in all the episodes.
Regardless, this was a very well executed episode as can be evidenced by those who have actually reviewed it so far.
Takeit10 first suggested that Henry would make a great nemesis for Nichols - so, I agree and think it would have been excellent for any cross-over episode in the future. As you very astutely pointed out about the bleaching and DNA - maybe he could be found not guilty in the court case - and return to exact his bitter revenge on Nichols - or is that too predictable?
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Jul 29, 2009 19:02:27 GMT -5
Thank you Moonbeam. I was just wondering why you thought this particular episode was predictable as I think, to date, there have been elements of predictability in all the episodes. Regardless, this was a very well executed episode as can be evidenced by those who have actually reviewed it so far. Takeit10 first suggested that Henry would make a great nemesis for Nichols - so, I agree and think it would have been excellent for any cross-over episode in the future. As you very astutely pointed out about the bleaching and DNA - maybe he could be found not guilty in the court case - and return to exact his bitter revenge on Nichols - or is that too predictable? There's predictability and there's a 2x4 up side the head. Sometimes what's left unseen and unspoken makes for better drama. I now officially retract my earlier statement regarding Henry becoming a nemesis for Nichols. Nichols deserves a more worthy opponent.
|
|
|
Post by idget on Jul 30, 2009 0:34:08 GMT -5
If he'd left well enough alone, he'd gotten away with it. It was the planting of the false evidence that led to him. And I think he would've killed again. Patcat I agree with you wholeheartedly about him getting away with it Patcat if he hadn't planted the false evidence, but do you really think he would have killed again? This seemed like such a crime of opportunity, at first he wasn't quite sure what to do with her, then he was so worried about being caught, what with all the cleaning he did, I'm not sure he would have murdered again.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jul 30, 2009 10:34:50 GMT -5
Well, he was bold enough to threaten Nichols with poisoning. (I'm not sure that cup of tea was poisoned or not--some lovely ambiguity in the filming, acting, and writing of that scene.) I think Henry did that because he felt he was getting away with murder, and I think a part of him was enjoying the power. He was clearly terrified by what he did at first, but I think he began to feel empowered by his game with Nichols. But I'm probably doing too much armchair psychology with too little evidence, knowledge or education.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by idget on Jul 31, 2009 15:07:25 GMT -5
Hmm, perhaps your right Patcat he did seem to enjoy his little tea time with Nichols, but would he have murdered again? I think I will have to rewatch the episode again.
|
|
|
Post by hargiteam42 on Aug 1, 2009 23:28:28 GMT -5
I was sort of intrigued by this episode. I liked the take on it from the criminal's perspective. It was a little dull for me, though. I give a B- because it had it's good points. The guy that plays the perp kinda creeps me out too.
|
|
|
Post by dragonsback on Sept 10, 2009 10:47:03 GMT -5
I gave it an A, which really was a mark on JG/ZN. Such a good character, coming so well into his own. Script was very good, and some of the wit was indeed witty. They have to watch overloading Ross with too much sardonic tetchiness, though, or he'll fossilize into the stock boss of detectives who stomps around emoting at the lead maverick detective who solves every case. It's the Starsky and Hutch set-up, and to springboard from Moonbeam, it too has been done to death.
|
|