|Index||2 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Another unnerving performance from Jeremy Renner(he portrayed Jeffrey Dahmer in DAHMER and was also in the highly revered HURT LOCKER)highlights this particular episode of CSI, as a recently paroled criminal who possibly murdered two people, having his innocent brother bury the bodies, caught by a police officer, blood in the poor kid's car implicating him. A gun is found(ballistics can not tie it to slugs taken from the body of the first victim due to tampering with the barrel)as well as blood(unusable to to dry cleaning)but neither can convict Renner. Pizza flour is what links Renner to the first victim but it isn't enough to convict him. The second case concerns a healthy women who had a stroke in a sauna and how it could pertain to shellfish and a catfight over a guy in a bar. A haunting ending where the evidence doesn't put the right man in prison, with the one convicted taking drastic measures to keep from going to jail. We also see that Grissom was once a Catholic; Dylan Baker guest stars as a priest who knows the innocent young man locked up for the crime committed by his brother due to epithelials found on the yellow tie used to strangle the second victim.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
First off let me say that I love this show. I have been renting
episodes on DVD for a while now, and have grown to really appreciate
CSI more than any TV show in quite a long time. That said, I had a real
problem with two little lines from this one specific episode. And
please understand, I am not one of those people that picks apart every
little thing in a movie or show on IMDb. I love CSI. You really have to
be familiar with the show and have seen this episode for me not to
sound like a raving lunatic:
When Grissom, Nick, and Sarah are at the crime scene in the desert digging up the second body, they find a wallet in his pocket that helps them to identify the victim as "Ramirez".
NICK: "A 25-year old Latino and a 42-year old white guy...?"
SARAH: "Strangers. Doesn't make sense, there's no connection."
OK, come on. This is CSI! We know these characters, we've seen in countless episodes how they approach everything scientifically and without bias (or at least it's a plot-driven bias that is specific to one character in one episode, and helps that character's development by revealing some hardship in their distant past). For two CSI's to come to the lightning fast assumption that two men MUST be strangers because they differ slightly in age and ethnicity is laughable to me. These guys were 17 years apart in age. The mens ethnicity makes even less of a difference than the age gap. We are in the Western U.S., almost everyone's either white or Latino. And sure, maybe one of the younger CSI's would conceivably jump to a conclusion like that... maybe. On a longshot. But for both Nick and Sarah to be so blatantly short-sighted, in front of Grissom on top of it, and NOT have it somehow be part of the episode....?? (The two did in fact turn out to be strangers, and they never even brushed the topic again.)
How bout they work together? Go to the same church? The same bar? Share a hobby? Maybe they both have kids in the same school? How could anyone possibly say they ARE strangers with such certainty, especially a CSI?
It just rubbed me the wrong way, because it seemed so completely out of character for this group. Also, the episode ended on a bad note, with a known murderer getting away scott free, and the innocent brother killing himself.... not standard fare for CSI. I was about to question whether the writer, Ann Donahue, was any good; but then I looked up her writing credits and saw she wrote a number of CSI episodes, including the last episode from season 1, "The Strip Strangler" which thus far is probably my favorite. I'll have to pay attention as I continue to watch and see what I think of her other work.
|Plot summary||Ratings||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|