"Law & Order" Missing (TV Episode 2002) Poster

(TV Series)

(2002)

User Reviews

Review this title
5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Disappearances
TheLittleSongbird25 May 2022
"Missing" is one of the "ripped from the headlines" kind of stories that 'Law and Order' did quite a lot before and since. Meaning that it is based, closely or loosely, based on a real life case that had a lot of media coverage, in this instance being seemingly loosely based on the Chandra Levy case. 'Law and Order' often did this type of story well, and generally careful to not exploit the story when feelings are still raw (which they certainly were here).

It was a pretty good episode. Not great or one of the best of Season 12, but a lot better than the previous episode and doesn't exploit the subject matter. Despite being a kind of episode where that could have easily happened. "Missing" is not perfect by all means or one of the essential 'Law and Order' episodes, with the final third not being as good as what came before it, but there are a lot of very good things and the usual ones so it is well above average and more at least.

The production values as ever have slickness and grit, with an intimacy without being claustrophobic. The music has presence when it's used but does so without being intrusive, some of it is quite haunting too. The direction is also understated while also having some tension.

As expected, the script is lean, even with a lot of talk, and incredibly thought provoking and gritty. The story for two thirds of the length is compelling and is neither too simple or complicated, love the chemistry between Briscoe and Green and McCoy is such a commanding presence in the courtroom. Most of the performances can't be faulted, with particular credit going to gritty and wisecracking Jerry Orbach, ruthless Sam Waterston and Brian Kerwin successfully making one feel uneasy while also not being sure of whether he's guilty or not.

Did feel though that the storytelling was less focused in the final act, where the involvement of one character could have been better explained or gone into more detail. The conclusion did feel rushed and too short, which did have a muddled feel.

Really hate expressing my dislike of her, but Southerlyn is so personality deprived and adds little. Elisabeth Rohm's acting continues to be very limited, it always was in a way throughout her career but this was the role that most exposes it.

Overall, pretty good and actually very good until the murky and rushed final third. 7/10.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
He's made some mistakes.
Mrpalli7715 November 2017
A girl had been missing for about a week when his coworker asked the super to open up the apartment. The flat was full of packages so the girl might have decided to move on. Her parents told the police she had just lost her job as senator assistant, so she was willing to come home till she managed to find a new job. Briscoe and Green start digging in her personal life, realizing she used to hang out with older men since high school and when her dead body was found buried in the wood, they narrow down the suspects to middle aged men close to her. A state official and family friend is the prime suspect, mainly because he used to cheat on his wife (who lived upstate together with three kids): when it's time to cut off the on side relationships he used to call a bartender (Timothy Wheeler) to clean up the mess. A 10 gran cash withdrawal from a bank account could convict the defendant, but you have to wait till the very end to realize who the real perp was...

Defense attorney refers to McCoy that sometimes public figures could have affairs with their assistants. Everything is clear after this episode, we all were suspicious about his love affair with Claire Kincaid (died years before in a car accident) and that is the "smoking gun".
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
My response to earlier review -- CONTAINS SPOILERS
AlabamaWorley197128 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched this episode yesterday, and here's what I think: I think the defendant did say "take care of it" to his buddy Mickey Bastone. I think Mickey took it upon himself to kill the poor girl. Maybe the defendant meant him to, maybe he didn't. What the wife did TIPPED THE BALANCE towards making him look complicit in soliciting the murder. There was no hard evidence until the wife produced the bank withdrawal slip.

This episode is inspired by the real-life disappearance and murder of Chandra Levy, an intern who was having an affair with a congressman back in the '90s. The congressman was NEVER implicated in Ms. Levy's death.
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Mover and shaker
bkoganbing8 September 2020
A girl who worked for a powerful mover and shaker in state government disappears. She had a habit for falling for older men and her latest is Brian Kerwin who is on the state racing commission.

Kerwin is a powerful and paranoid guy about his indiscretions. He has to be since his doormat of a wife Mareyann Plunkett controls the money.

Kerwin also has this biker buiddy Timothy Wheeler to take care of problems as they arise.

Kerwin is the kind of guy you love to hate. But he swears up and down he didn't have anything to do with the deed.

In fact things are a bit murky when the episode concludes.
12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Anyone else spot the gaping flaw?
winstonfg18 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Don't get me wrong, I love L & O, so I found it quite surprising that they made such an obvious error (admittedly only obvious to me about 5 minutes after it finished :-) ).

Entertainment-wise, the episode is well up to the usual standard, so maybe I'm just nitpicking; but I did wonder if anybody else spotted it. If you want to watch for yourself and see if you can, DON'T read on.

SPOILER:

The twist in the tail suggests that the wife might have conspired to the murder; however, that would require there to have been collusion between her and her husband's biker friend, who actually *did* do it (not in question). Otherwise, how could she have known who to pay?

Not only is that not even suggested in the preamble, but it seems highly unlikely (a) that she would have had such a close relationship with a none-too-kosher chum of her husband, and (b) that she could have found a way to link her husband to the crime at all (the idea we're supposed to buy is that she incriminated him as an act of revenge).

At the very least the writers are guilty of introducing 'facts not in evidence'; at worst, it doesn't really hang together at all.

However, the episode does say that it was inspired by a real-life incident, which makes me wonder what it was.
15 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed