Who and What is the first half of a CSI crossover with Without a Trace (Where and Why) it's not an altogether terrible effort-but in all honesty I was expecting more from the intertwining of these two spectacular shows. Jack just doesn't fit in seamlessly into CSI show-the character seems out of place (unlike other CSI crossovers which seemed more fluid)
One of the highlights of the episode is AHS alumni Dennis O'Hare who gives a phenomenal performance (as always) which is the problem - the guest star/suspect is exceptional whereas the stars of the show (Grissom and Malone) offer an average performance in comparison. Still, not a bad effort and worth the watch.
9 Reviews
'Gil' And 'Jack' Okay, But Not Exactly The Dynamic Duo
ccthemovieman-114 January 2009
Anthony LaPaglia, star of "Without A Trace," guest-stars here as "Jack Malone" of the FBI. Jack is in Las Vegas to investigate a abduction and killing of a 10-year-old boy and his babysitter, respectively. Malone thinks the boy is the same one abducted six years ago in New York City by a guy also slaughtered the babysitter. Is it the same killer, or even the same boy? Actually, this story gets a little confusing. There are a couple of boys involved in this story and several relatives and you begin wondering who is whom?
It wasn't really as riveting as one would expect, since it turns out to be a two-part story, and a "crossover," to boot, meaning it's continued on LaPaglia's show. Usually two-part stories are very intense and interesting. As mentioned, this was so-so and sometimes confusing.
Much of the show is "Jack" and "Gil," not exactly two dynamic to start with, especially "Jack," who is really a dud, personality-wise. He makes Grissom look like a stand-up comic.
It wasn't really as riveting as one would expect, since it turns out to be a two-part story, and a "crossover," to boot, meaning it's continued on LaPaglia's show. Usually two-part stories are very intense and interesting. As mentioned, this was so-so and sometimes confusing.
Much of the show is "Jack" and "Gil," not exactly two dynamic to start with, especially "Jack," who is really a dud, personality-wise. He makes Grissom look like a stand-up comic.
How about why?
Son_of_Mansfield28 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
What seemed like a fantastic opportunity, Without a Trace's Lapaglia and CSI's Peterson playing odd couple, is pushed to the back seat behind a dull case involving some missing kid and a low rent psycho, the very watchable John Hawkes. It's nothing more than dull episodes of both shows mushed together. The writers bring these two together and all they can come up with is this generic fluff? Having said that, there are some good moments. Brass gets upset over Jack's helicopter entrance, Jack slams Hodges when he puckers up in his oh so obvious way, and one of Grissom's old lines, "Sometimes to go fast, you have to go slow," is pushed aside by the typically Jack response of, "I like to go faster by going fast." It's not as much of a disaster as it could have been, unlike the snore fest that is the Without a Trace half, but something more personal for the teams, like connecting two old cases Tammi Felton style, would have made for much more exciting television.
Simply Bad
tedg7 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Of my nearly 3,000 comments, the negative one for this episode gets repeatedly deleted.
I assume it is someone associated with the show.
So this time I will merely say it is an excrescence without giving details.
It is doubly so because its creators are afraid to let it live in the environment of viewers, and insist on eliminating negative observations.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life
I assume it is someone associated with the show.
So this time I will merely say it is an excrescence without giving details.
It is doubly so because its creators are afraid to let it live in the environment of viewers, and insist on eliminating negative observations.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life
A Federal Case
claudio_carvalho10 March 2023
When a babysitter is raped and murdered and a boy is murdered, Grissom arrives in the crime scene and sees the coroners waiting outside the house. Catherine and Greg explain to Grissom that they had to stop to process the scene by order of the FBI. Soon an helicopter brings the FBI Agent Jack Malone, from New York, and he explains that the case is similar to one that happened six years ago in New York. They team-up since Quantico has many cases to process and is overloaded. Soon they find a suspect, but the man is innocent. When an old couple is murdered in the same MO, they find a track to be followed.
"Who and What" is an engaging episode of "CSI", with a story to be continued. Great to see the guest star Anthony LaPaglia, but unfortunately the sequel is a crossover with the series "Without a Trace" that is have not seen yet. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Who and What"
Note: On 23 March 2023, I saw this episode again.
"Who and What" is an engaging episode of "CSI", with a story to be continued. Great to see the guest star Anthony LaPaglia, but unfortunately the sequel is a crossover with the series "Without a Trace" that is have not seen yet. My vote is eight.
Title (Brazil): "Who and What"
Note: On 23 March 2023, I saw this episode again.
Without A Trace Crossover
LoveIsAStateOfMind29 December 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Am I the only one who thought that the CSI/WAT crossover was the funniest thing in a long long time? Seriously there were so many moments where I was just cracking up mainly from the way Jack and Grissom play off of each other but also just ........ everything.
Like when Jack is being all FBI and control freak like to Jack when he's talking to the CSIs and Catherine just raises her eyebrows and gives the look.
And the Jack/Grissom/Sara scene in Grissom's office. I laughed so hard I actually almost cried. Yes yes there was a moment I'd joked about long ago whereby Jack tries to pass on his infinite wisdom about screwing a work colleague to the slightly perturbed Grissom.
And then the Jack/Grissom/Elena moment in New York and Grissom just gives Jack the look saying 'Eh hehehe this must be the work relationship you were talking about ."
But the jackpot with Grissom/Samantha. Tears. There were literal tears falling down my face. The only thing better than this would be if there was a Grissom/Samantha/Jack scene.
I know this was meant to be a deadly serious case with a lot of murders which gives the writers the opportunity to show Sara's faith in her job breaking etc. (which by the way Grissom shouldn't have looked so disturbed by because surely he must have known how she was feeling before now?!) but honest to god I could not stop laughing. There were scenes in which I would have sworn I was watching some kind of DVD extra where Billy Petersen and Anthony LaPaglia kind of spoof it up to parody the crime show genre and the FBI/Police strained relationship. Seriously though the case was weak and didn't draw me in at all (which is a shame because I watched WAT's previous episode and almost passed out by how shockingly good it was and I even kind of liked the Sam-being-pregnant moments although imho when Martin and Samantha were in the car together she should have just blurted out that she was pregnant to him ......) ANYWAY going off on a tangent there ... yeah the case wasn't great and the fact that they had to stretch it out over two hours only made it weaker.
Like when Jack is being all FBI and control freak like to Jack when he's talking to the CSIs and Catherine just raises her eyebrows and gives the look.
And the Jack/Grissom/Sara scene in Grissom's office. I laughed so hard I actually almost cried. Yes yes there was a moment I'd joked about long ago whereby Jack tries to pass on his infinite wisdom about screwing a work colleague to the slightly perturbed Grissom.
And then the Jack/Grissom/Elena moment in New York and Grissom just gives Jack the look saying 'Eh hehehe this must be the work relationship you were talking about ."
But the jackpot with Grissom/Samantha. Tears. There were literal tears falling down my face. The only thing better than this would be if there was a Grissom/Samantha/Jack scene.
I know this was meant to be a deadly serious case with a lot of murders which gives the writers the opportunity to show Sara's faith in her job breaking etc. (which by the way Grissom shouldn't have looked so disturbed by because surely he must have known how she was feeling before now?!) but honest to god I could not stop laughing. There were scenes in which I would have sworn I was watching some kind of DVD extra where Billy Petersen and Anthony LaPaglia kind of spoof it up to parody the crime show genre and the FBI/Police strained relationship. Seriously though the case was weak and didn't draw me in at all (which is a shame because I watched WAT's previous episode and almost passed out by how shockingly good it was and I even kind of liked the Sam-being-pregnant moments although imho when Martin and Samantha were in the car together she should have just blurted out that she was pregnant to him ......) ANYWAY going off on a tangent there ... yeah the case wasn't great and the fact that they had to stretch it out over two hours only made it weaker.
I'll Wait and See
Hitchcoc19 February 2021
We have at the center the kidnapping of a boy and the deaths of some women. Jack, from "Without a Trace," FBI agent, crosses over to assist the police and the CSI's in apprehending the bad guy. I felt unfulfilled until I realized it was probably a two parter. Somehow there is something dull about this series during this 8th season.
Not into it
xbatgirl-3002923 November 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I seem to agree with most here that this episode was a bit too convoluted, coincidental, cliched, and far fetched to really get into. Also I agree that Dennis O'Hare was the high point.
I've never watched Without A Trace before, though I usually like Anthony LaPaglia. I'm wondering if his character is usually such a jerk? And not a charming jerk, such as Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock. A cold fish jerk. He definitely didn't tempt me to watching more of his series, which presumably is one of the goals of crossovers. In fact, the others were uncharacteristically jerky here also, such as Grissom and Doc being strangely snarky at each other. It was uncomfortable. Was this the influence of the writers of that other show?
The way Jack (was that his name?) treated Hodges was terrible. Imagine if you are at work and some toady-like, complete stranger asked about a job at your company. You give him an address or number and get out of there. What normal person aggressively just calls him an a-hole? That's psycho behavior. This is what the writers felt was a great first impression for the CSI audience? It's mental.
Nevertheless, there were a few mildly funny moments between Grissom being neuroatypical and Jack being obviously way too typical, which came off a bit demeaning of Grissom. Then it totally paid off with Jack super dramatically climbing thru the train at the end, only to find Grissom already standing there. As he said, only *sometimes* do you have to go slow to go fast. Other times, you just go fast.
I wish Without A Trace was streaming anywhere to watch part two. I feel like if a crossover episode is made with another series, the follow up episode should be included with streaming of the first series or on the dvd. Maybe it is on this particular dvd set. I have no idea. I guess we can assume the bad guy is caught in a very dramatic way and then Jack stoically helicoptered away into the night.
EDITED: while looking for part 2 in streaming, I discovered there's a 1983 movie called Without A Trace based on the kidnapping of a 6 year old boy from NYC. The father was initially a suspect. Coincidence?
I've never watched Without A Trace before, though I usually like Anthony LaPaglia. I'm wondering if his character is usually such a jerk? And not a charming jerk, such as Benedict Cumberbatch's Sherlock. A cold fish jerk. He definitely didn't tempt me to watching more of his series, which presumably is one of the goals of crossovers. In fact, the others were uncharacteristically jerky here also, such as Grissom and Doc being strangely snarky at each other. It was uncomfortable. Was this the influence of the writers of that other show?
The way Jack (was that his name?) treated Hodges was terrible. Imagine if you are at work and some toady-like, complete stranger asked about a job at your company. You give him an address or number and get out of there. What normal person aggressively just calls him an a-hole? That's psycho behavior. This is what the writers felt was a great first impression for the CSI audience? It's mental.
Nevertheless, there were a few mildly funny moments between Grissom being neuroatypical and Jack being obviously way too typical, which came off a bit demeaning of Grissom. Then it totally paid off with Jack super dramatically climbing thru the train at the end, only to find Grissom already standing there. As he said, only *sometimes* do you have to go slow to go fast. Other times, you just go fast.
I wish Without A Trace was streaming anywhere to watch part two. I feel like if a crossover episode is made with another series, the follow up episode should be included with streaming of the first series or on the dvd. Maybe it is on this particular dvd set. I have no idea. I guess we can assume the bad guy is caught in a very dramatic way and then Jack stoically helicoptered away into the night.
EDITED: while looking for part 2 in streaming, I discovered there's a 1983 movie called Without A Trace based on the kidnapping of a 6 year old boy from NYC. The father was initially a suspect. Coincidence?
A super confusing episode that made no sense at all
interestingstuff12 March 2022
Nothing in this episode made any sense at all whatsoever. There is a murder in Las Vegas and suddenly FBI thinks it's related to some other random murder from 6 years ago in NY even though they have no proof and literally zero information about the killer, yet they are so sure that this is the same killer and he's in LV. They keep saying they have zero proof, zero information, yet they also seemed so sure.
Also it was super confusing where it was impossible to tell even what's going on. Also the idea that the killer must be using a train just because a few of the murders happened within a mile of a railroad is absurd and makes no sense at all but then again this is CSI, so it doesn't have to make sense.
The entire 8th season of CSI is nothing but a massive letdown. Just skip the whole season.
Also it was super confusing where it was impossible to tell even what's going on. Also the idea that the killer must be using a train just because a few of the murders happened within a mile of a railroad is absurd and makes no sense at all but then again this is CSI, so it doesn't have to make sense.
The entire 8th season of CSI is nothing but a massive letdown. Just skip the whole season.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
