First and foremost, yes, I am not Tom; He was called away at
the last minute, so I will be your tour-guide through Las Vegas tonight. Don't worry though -- you'll be returned to
your regularly scheduled reviewer next week. I'm not quite sure what's up with CSI this year, it just hasn't
been "doing it for me" though. It's like watching an Olympic sprinter who is so far ahead of their
competition, it's ridiculous, and then you see that stutter. You know their pace is off, the question is, are they
going to fall flat on their face or recover and try and win the race? It seems like they've completely dropped the fact
that the teams were split, and I know there was some resolution to that, but it was still an interesting concept that
has fallen by the wayside. It seems like the blond agent with the slight accent is only on when everyone else is too
busy, yet she's a part of the main team. Ah well-- On with the show!That little rant over, any episode of CSI is still normally fantastic, but I
was sorely disappointed in this one. They've been hyping this episode as the big "conclusion" to what happened
to Nick in last May's finale. A move that I thought was stupid to begin with; I think they could have explored the
emotional effects it had on Nick without having someone else involved. They actually did this quite well in the episode
"Gumdrops", from back in October, when Nick
would not give up on searching for the little girl who's entire family was killed. Their was absolutely no payoff in
this story, zero, zilch, nada. It was bad. Turns out that the other voice on the tape from Nick's experience was the
guy's business manager, a woman who was just murdered. I'll give you three guesses to who the killer was, but the first
two don't count. If you said anyone besides the guy's tweeker daughter, well, you'd be wrong. Yea, big shocker.
The main story involved an increasingly disturbing trend with older ladies pretending they are in their 20's. A
mother and daugter both had "relations" with a motocross racer who wound up dead in his garage. After we at
least found out that the three of them weren't all in "the same place at the same time," we learn that the
daughter was the victim's boyfriend, and that she had a habit of overlapping boyfriends. Each time she moves on to a
new guy though, the one on the way out the door seems to be mysteriously injured. After some nice product placement
shots of the new Dodge charger, they piece together that there was a phone company repairman on the scene every time
someone seemed to be injured. Coincidence? On this show? Never...
So, if you couldn't tell, I was very
disenfranchised with this episode. It seemed very weak already, and then the fact that Nick's conclusion, something
I've admittedly been very against since the beginning, seemed to be shoe-horned in, was just made for an entirely too
weak episode for such a great show. I love this show though, so I have total faith that this runner will gain their
footing and continue on to win the race. Like how I tied that back into the beginning? Let me know what you think.
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-20-2006 @ 2:06PM
Tripp said...
I agree. I was hooked last season. This season they have flattened out the characters. "GumDrops" is the only real gem so far.
Reply
1-20-2006 @ 2:49PM
Sandra said...
Oh Yeah! They really screwed up this episode. BIG TIME. QT gave them an amazing plum to work with and they squashed it because GOD FORBID..they don't like arcs unless it's a Grissom or Catherine arc. Not bashing these characters. I just like fairness is all. The character, Nick, deserved a lot better then that and so far the season has been FLAT with the same old storylines rehashed over and over again. It's a great show, but I think the 5th season was the peak.
Ryan you hit the nail on the head with the 'older ladies' pretending to be 20. As a lady caught between the two generations, I found the storyline very offensive not to just 'older ladies' but to mothers in general who would never contemplate such a thing. I mean c'mon..was that the best they could come up with. I've always applauded CSI for it's positive portrayal of women in the law enforcement and its inclusion of older women actors who are left out in the cold when they hit the over 35 mark, but this storline took the cake!
Great commentary Ryan!
Reply
1-20-2006 @ 4:13PM
Mike said...
I'll not mention this episode other than to agree with both of your summations.
The thig with the teams being split: I loved it last season, it added a little something. But, if you remember back, at the end of 'Grave Danger', Grissom said that he wanted his 'guys' back... We're supposed to make the leap that he got what he wanted :) Shame, they could have done lots more with the slit team dynamic.
As for Sophia: It was explained that she ditched the CSI gig to become a Detective... A move I didn't like until 'A Bullet Runs Through It'. Another change that they could have handled better, but I'm hopeful they'll pull something out of the hat :)
Great run-down :) I'll be reading this blog more often.
Reply
1-20-2006 @ 4:15PM
Mike said...
What I wouldn't give for an 'edit' button, D'oh!
*must remember to proof-read*
*must remember to proof-read*
*must remember to proof-read*
*repeat ad nauseum*
Reply
1-20-2006 @ 4:46PM
Cold Chilli said...
Whats up with the bad hair on Stokes? First the caterpillar lip, Now the swoosh mop hairstyle ?
Get a look an keep with it.
Agreed, the conclusion to his story line was weak. The way we closed it. "Ahh its done then"... "Yep" So nonchalant. I wish they would have done more into his psyche, earlier in the season when he went down into a bunker he hesitated, before going in.
Weak episode, almost as predictable as Num3ers (2 out of 5)
Reply
1-21-2006 @ 4:07PM
Brent McKee said...
For me the worst thing about the whole "second voice on the tape" story arc was that it was practically Krazy Glued onto Tarantino's episode which should have been self-contained. It doesn't make sense for the father to blow himself up with the money if he needs the money to provide for his daughter. I guess it's a side effect of following up something like what Tarantino created with work by relative hacks.
Reply
1-23-2006 @ 12:18AM
Skylar said...
1. CBS, if you're going to run a promo making it look like the Grave Danger follow-up would be the only or the lead story, then make sure the episode actually has it that way.
2. And CBS, when the new episode is that underwhelming, don't move a repeat of the season's best episode, Gum Drops, into the slot right before it, illuminating further the flaws in the new show's script.
3. It would have been a far more palatable follow-up on Grave Danger if we'd gotten an overt hint that for Nick, it's not over. That he's making some changes (other than his new scruffy look, including the untucked shirts). Say a change in how much faith he has in Grissom or maybe a decision to go after Grissom's job.
4. How about we have an episode where just the guys work with Grissom and the girls work the other crime scene? I'm sooo tired of Grissom opening an investigation only with either Cath or Sara at his right side. I'm missing the male banter of early episodes and Warrick has been underused in many episodes this year.
Reply
1-23-2006 @ 12:45AM
Sandra said...
OH my god..this Grissom with Sara plotline is older then my geriatric cat! Please..mix it up writers. I mean why can't Nick and Greg work together, or Greg and Catherine..
I've an inkling that the writers have developed some kind of contempt for the fans. Which is too bad, because it's the fans that keep the show going.
Has anyone heard from the writers about Daddy's Little Girl.
Reply
1-23-2006 @ 4:02PM
Kylei said...
Well, during Gumdrops, one of the most emotional episodes this season, there was supposed to be a, get this, Grissom and Sarah hotel room scene, but, sadly, it could never happen...
Why? William Peterson had a death in his family, and he had to be written out of the script. The episode was great otherwise. But if there had been this scene, Greg was supposed to find out about there situation, and the plot would have gotten thicker and thicker.
What I'm trying to say is that the reason this season has gone on so slow, is because a key event had to be written out of the scrip.
Don't worry though, supposedly, writers are going to put back the whole situation, and the show will resume its normal speed.
Reply
1-23-2006 @ 4:26PM
Kylei said...
Five Things The Writers Need To Work on:
1.) Grissom and Sarah's relationship. This one will always be a problem. Dude, you can't leave something that's been built on for so long out in the rain. The writers really need to pick this one back up, or finish it of strong.
2.) Catherine and Warrick's relationship. Again, this has been a silly relationship that wants to be taken seriously. Catherine has feelings, which she has confronted Warrick about, but lets here more about his side of the story.
3.) Warrick's Wife. We don't know much about her. We've seen her once at the beggining of the season, and we're supposed to see her later, and maybe even linked to an investigaion. And we need to see how Warrick feels about her. The marriage was a big surprise. Don't just end the surprises there.
4.) Grissom's Emotions. This could be number one for me. We've seen a lot of Grissom's feelings, and his feelings for Sarah in previous seasons. But what about Grissom alone in this season? What about the death of his father and his mysterious past? He has seemed like such a flat character, and I don't want to blame the actor. It's just his lines! Where is his response to what others hve to say?
5.) Nick Stokes... Our sympathy for this guy has really dwindled down since "Gumdrops and Grave Danger." I think the writers need to slow down on all the drama, even though it will always be with him, and bring back a little more of his humor. He was always a classic with Warrick, and they need to bring that part of Nick back. He's one of those characters who needs a laugh, and I'd say kind of the same thing for Gil Grissom.
Reply