Eight pairs of dismembered feet wash ashore after a recent flood on the U.S.-Canada border, but things don't add up when seven pairs of feet are identified as research corpses from a nearby...
See full summary »
Eight pairs of dismembered feet wash ashore after a recent flood on the U.S.-Canada border, but things don't add up when seven pairs of feet are identified as research corpses from a nearby university body farm. When Canadian forensic podiatrist Dr. Douglas Filmore takes the remains back to Canada, he and Brennan form an alliance to match the pairs of feet and identify the victim, and a rare and expensive pair of sneakers leads the team to the victim's murderer. Meanwhile, Cam gets in hot water when she makes college plans for her daughter behind her back. Written by
The establishing shot of the fictional University of Hogansburg is in fact the Valley Life Sciences Building at UC Berkeley. See more »
According to the feet-guy, the wounds had to be made by a lawn-mower. However, since the knives of a lawn-mower are always underneath the mower itself and protected by a hard shield above and around, so that only the grass under the mower is cut, the leg couldn't have been cut off by the mower that way. The mower would have bumped against the leg and the man would have fallen down, thus having just horizontal cuts instead of the diagnosed vertical one on his ankle. See more »
"Bones" is an entertaining and smartly written TV series with an outstanding cast. I was, however, disappointed with Season 6, Episode 17. The series is usually very progressive in so many ways, but couldn't they have found a real drug to use for this episode? To pass marijuana off as some treacherous drug was laughable. Oxycodone would have been a more legitimate drug to vilify. There are more potentially harmful side effects from acetaminophen abuse than there is from marijuana use or abuse. I really enjoy this show and I will definitely keep watching it, but I was surprised that the writers chose something as trivial as marijuana. If they had to imply some moral judgment they could have just said that adults have the right to eat, drink, and smoke what they want as long as it doesn't affect the safety or well-being of others.
2 of 18 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?