Your email was sent. Thanks for sharing HitFix!

Close

Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: 'The Killing' - 'Beau Soleil': I know what you did last weekend

With only one episode to go, the investigation finally heats up

<p>Things were looking up for Darren Richmond (Billy Campbell) in tonight's "The Killing."</p>

Things were looking up for Darren Richmond (Billy Campbell) in tonight's "The Killing."

Credit: AMC

A review of last night's "The Killing" coming up just as soon as there's a swimming pool in my ceiling...

"Maybe none of us knew her." -Terry

On the one hand, "Beau Soleil" - like last week's "Missing" - was a much stronger episode than we've gotten for the bulk of the season. With the finale only a week away, there's precious little time for messing around, which meant the show couldn't use its usual formula of two plot revelations bookending a whole lot of nothing. Significant things happened and were revealed this week, as we find out exactly what Rosie was up to that night, why she'd become so distant from Sterling, and get a line on who might have killed her.

On the other hand, "Beau Soleil," only magnified many of my frustrations with the season's long, pointless middle section. I know Veena Sud told me that they were going to decide on the killer as the season went along, but this episode at least created the illusion that they knew from the start and were just marking time with Jasper, Bennet, Belko, etc., until they got to what actually mattered.

And as with "Missing," I felt like a lot of this material would have been much more valuable had it been presented earlier in the season. Last week told us that Sud and company waited way too long to let us get to know Linden and Holder (both as individuals and as a partnership); this week gave us details on Rosie (and Aunt Terry) that would have significantly deepened our understanding of that family - a family that was largely defined by grief and not much else - had we known them earlier. For too long, the cops have been investigating the murder of a girl the show had completely lost interest in. Rather than spending so many episodes hanging a flashing neon "Guilty" sign over Bennet Ahmed, the show would have been so much better served telling us more about Rosie herself, and about her relationship with her parents, her aunt, her brothers, etc. I'm not saying all murder victims on mystery series need to be so prominent after the fact, but when you're spending an entire season on one case, you damn sure need to make us understand and care more about the victim than "The Killing" has let us with Rosie.(*)

Want More...

The Killing?
  • Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
(*) As I've said before, I think "Twin Peaks" was too tonally strange for it to be an easy one-to-one comparison with "The Killing," but that was a show that made sure Laura Palmer was significantly present in some way long after her death. Ditto with "Veronica Mars" season one and Lily Kane. Of course, those series used flashbacks and/or dream sequences, two structural devices "The Killing" has chosen not to really employ. And that's fine, but then Sud needed another way to make Rosie matter more than she has.

And because the show now has such an ingrained pattern of ending one episode with the killer's identity seeming obvious, only for what we know to be proven false early in the next one, I couldn't even get invested in the cliffhanger with Richmond. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it were to turn out that the escort(**) had misinterpreted Darren's talk of drowning - that he was feeling morose in the wake of his wife's death and was pondering that as a fate he'd give himself. That final sequence was very well put-together, and yet it didn't scare me nearly as much as it should have because this is the show that cried wolf. I will believe in no one as the killer until the final 5 minutes of the finale.

(**) Speaking of "Veronica Mars," she was played by Alona Tal, who had a recurring role on that show as Veronica's friend Meg.

A few other thoughts:

• We get yet another "Battlestar Galactica" alum playing a man in Linden's life who gives her a deadline about him leaving town, as Tahmoh Penikett turns up as her ex-husband. I'm not particularly invested in Sarah's personal life at this point, but I liked how she's stopped trying to keep that life a secret from Holder, and then how Holder knew to step back into the office to make sure everything's all right. It's like they're an actual partnership now, to the point where Linden could even banter with his former partner from the narco days.

• I worked at a newspaper for a long time, so I unfortunately had to smile at the show's quaint belief in the power a newspaper endorsement could still hold. If only, "The Killing." If only.

• I recognize that the emotions between Stan and Mitch are so raw, but man was I irritated by their conversation at the jail, where Mitch's anger and mistrust got in the way of Stan just explaining about the mortgage on the house - a misunderstanding that I fear is going to again lead to grave consequences next week. Dramatic situations that depend on two characters not sharing important information that's easy to convey frustrate the hell out of me.

Not sure if I'll have a finale review ready on Sunday night or if it's going to be another Monday morning affair. But we've hung in this long; let's see what happens next week.

What did everybody else think?

Alan-sepinwall-sm
Alan Sepinwall
Sr. Editor, What's Alan Watching
Alan Sepinwall has been reviewing television since the mid-'90s, first for Tony Soprano's hometown paper, The Star-Ledger, and now for HitFix. His new book, "The Revolution Was Televised," about the last 15 years of TV drama, is for sale at Amazon. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • 1
  • 2
Next 231 Comments
  • Park-recs-pyramid_1500_talkback_profile

    theholyavenger

    So he was meticulous enough to close his account at the website, but he decided not to close the related e-mail account? Did anyone else see the preview for the next episode that said "a final five minutes so shocking we'd be talking about it all summer!" It actually made me laugh out loud. Is there anyway that the killer reveal could be satisfying at this point?

    June 13, 2011 at 8:06AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Also, I'm really glad Stan finally put Mitch in her place.

      June 13, 2011 at 8:07AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      bryan Not only that but looking at his inbox it appears he uses that email account for work-

      June 13, 2011 at 9:23AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Also, most mail programs default to play a sound the first time new mail is received, not EVERY time new mail is receieved.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:34AM EST
    • Justified-fixer-4_talkback_profile

      conrad pop 3 email accounts can send and receive from the same source.

      i have 3 emails that connect through one gmail account.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:25AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      bryan-a right Conrad but don't they tell you when they've been forwarded from another account? mine does.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:33AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin It wouldn't show that it was forwarded from another account.

      All the emails would look the same in your mailbox, the only difference would be each individual email would identify which account the email was sent to.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:40AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Crumdawg97 I'm not bothered by the technological ability to link email accounts...seems that's very doable. I'm bothered that he kept that email active at all. And I'm flat out flabbergasted that he would keep his secret email linked with his work email after closing his Beau Soleil account.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:32AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya Jobin, the anonoymous police officer in Linden's office continued to send the e-mail. If Richmond's e-mail is set to check for new mail every minute (as mine sometimes is), it could ping fairly frequently.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:36AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Kenya, agree that the emails would show up in the inbox right away, because most people do have their mail set up to check every minute now.

      But I was only saying that the sound marker for new mail usually only plays when you get new mail intitially. Not every time you get a new email in.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:51AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr These are nitpicky complaints. I liked the use of the notification signal to enable Linden to connect the e-mails coming from her computer both to connect Richmond to the messages and to locate the computer. The account was clearly Richmond's personal account. When somebody is running for office, there is no separation between private life and "work." "Work," for Richmond, hasn't begun because he's two weeks away from an election. His campaign staff would have 24/7 access to him. Failing to create a secret e-mail account was a mistake on his part, but mistakes are what enables the police to catch criminals both on TV and in life. Even with this mistake coming to light, they have nothing on Richmond. Creeping out a hooker isn't a crime.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:56AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya @Jobin, I'm on a Mac using Mail set to check mail every minute and chime if anything new is downloaded. So I can get a chime every minute if it downloads something new every minute (even multiple copies of the same mail as has happened). Admittedly, the spacing was off in terms of minute intervals for the last couple of emails on TK, but it didn't bother me much.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:09PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Kenya, understood I was less bothered by the email chimes.

      I was more bothered by the fact that Linden had no reason to run to Richmond that night to hint to him that Drexler might a killer, especially when it would have made sense that she would have helped (or been present) for Holder's interrogaion of the "french" hooker.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:27PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chrissy The beeps bothered me only because he clearly uses that email for work, and I can only assume that he gets nine jillion emails a day (I mean, I'm not running for any office and I don't have any money, and I get like four jillion emails a day). Would he leave the beeping on when he's about to have a lady over? Eh, maybe. Married to the job and all that.

      But the fact that he had the presence of mind to cancel his account but not to close down the email boggles my mind. I cannot account for that, unless he's being really weirdly framed.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:04PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr Linden did have a reason to give Richmond a heads up...she owed him one after costing him political points over the Bennet Ahmed investigation. She felt guilty enough to apologize and guilty enough to tell him about the possibility of another complication.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:10PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Linden doesn't owe him jack, there is no reason for Linden to tell Richmond any details of the case when the killer is still unknown, and how many are involved are unknown. Meaning Richmond could somehow be involved, yet here she is talking about potential leads...its idiotic.

      June 14, 2011 at 9:28AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya While Linden probably shouldn't tell Richmond anything, this character probably would. She has talked too much to too many other characters (and potential suspects) throughout the season.

      June 14, 2011 at 9:47AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JerseyRudy Linden was not just telling Richmond because she owed him anything...she was telling him in order to try to get some information from him that would be useful. Maybe Richmond knew something about Drexler that would help in the investigation, or maybe Richmond's reaction would indicate that he knew more than he was revealing.

      There is always a downside in a detective revealing a potential lead, but it happens all the time if the detective thinks it can provide useful information.

      June 14, 2011 at 11:50AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Kenya, Linden told too much to Mitch about Bennett, leading to Bennett almost dying, this doesn't happen if Linden keeps her yap shut. This happened roughly 3 days ago, and already she's forgetting about that lesson she had to learn awfully hard?

      Oh and she talked to much to the greiving parent of the child when she thought they were close to nabbing her killer, in order to try to comfort Mitch. She hasn't talked to much to potential suspects for no apparent reason.

      JerseyRudy, her line of questioning was in no way "what can you tell me about Drexler" to Richmond as if she was probing into their possible connection. It was "yeah that Drexler...might want to stay away from him..."

      June 14, 2011 at 12:23PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JerseyRudy Jobin,

      Linden was trying to keep the conversation with Richmond as casual as possible. That is a common technique when detectives are trying to get information. If she asks the queston directly "what can you tell me about Drexler?" then it becomes more of an interrogation and someone like Richmond will likely get defensive and clam up. She instead raised the issue in a way meant to show that she was concerned about Richmond; if he wanted to share any info with her about Drexler, that would be a good way of doing it.

      I'm not saying that Linden is Sherlock Holmes (or even Columbo!)...but I think her method in dealing with Richmond was plausible.

      June 14, 2011 at 1:12PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr @JERSEYRUDY...I think your theory makes sense.

      June 14, 2011 at 1:44PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Jerseyrudy, none of the interrogation scenes in the show have been "casual" in nature. There was nothing in the dialogue or what was shown on screen that made it seem that Linden thought that Richmond was a possible suspect.

      In fact this is highlighted by the entire "DING" new email sequence. Because Linden's expression is one of SHOCK that Richmond could be the one with the email account.

      She wouldn't have been shocked in anyway if she believed Richmond was a possible suspect (or was somehow involved) and was at this apt to "casually" interrogate him.

      It's just lazy writing. What is the most suspenseful way for Linden to discover that the email account is Richmonds? I know...we have her be at the apt...and Richmond gets a phone call that takes him out of the room...then she finds his computer with the emails...then Richmond comes upon her in a extremely poorly lit doorway...and we end scene!

      The only reason why Linden went to Richmond's was so they could do that cheap-24-like "cliffhanger."

      June 14, 2011 at 2:56PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JerseyRudy Jobin,

      You are missing the point. This was not an interrogation; that is exactly why Linden was attempting to make it as casual as possible.

      She wasn't looking at Richmond as a suspect. She was looking at Drexler as a suspect and was trying to get information about Drexler from Richmond, after she saw the article in the paper, with a picture of them together. So the fact that Linden was shocked when she hears the "ding" from Richmond's e-mail is consistent with this.

      You might be correct that the purpose of doing it this way was to create the suspenseful cliffhanger. But this would only be a problem for me if it was not plausible. Linden had gone to Richmond's apartment in an earlier episode to apologize to him, and they had a casual chat. So for me it was totally plausible that she would do this again in order to try and get info regarding Drexler

      June 14, 2011 at 3:50PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin So only Drexler can be a suspect? Richmond couldn't also still be a potential suspect? Richmond couldn't have in some way helped cover up the murder of his biggest financial backer in Drexler?

      Again, there is nothing in their brief convo that shows that she was asking Richmond for info about Drexler before he had to "leave her alone, and take his phone call" gag.


      Her spilling details about investigation...again = not plausible

      Her spilling details about possible suspect to Richmond = not plausible

      Her going to his apt late at night, rather than just calling (or even calling first) = not plausible (what if he was at his office?)

      Lazy writing = very plausible

      But I'm not going to change ya mind obviously.

      June 14, 2011 at 4:41PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JerseyRudy it's a tv show, different reactions and opinions should be expected. I have found the writing on this show to be cringe-worthy plenty of times. But that doesn't mean that some of it is not well done. Overall, I find the show to be decent, although not nearly as good as I was hoping for it to be.

      My main point was addressing your initial criticism of this scene between Linden and Richmond. Linden was looking at Drexler as a suspect and discovered that Richmond and Drexler had a relationship that was worthy of investigating...it seems to me that her approach in trying to get information about Drexler from Richmond was smart. Do you have a better way that she could have approached this? If you think the writing was lazy, how would you have done it?

      and yes, I'm sure Linden was open to the possibility that Richmond could have helped cover up the murder...her approach in dealing with Richmond was not inconsistent with this possibility.

      June 14, 2011 at 4:53PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya @Jobin, Jerseyrudy, et al: I'm not arguing implausibility in this case, just that Linden seems in over her head with this case. In All About Eve, Addison DeWitt tells Eve Harrington, "As always with women who try to find out things, she told more than she learned." I would argue the gender generalization, but that's exactly what happens with Linden. I think she has suspected that Richmond or someone from his staff might be tangentially involved in a cover-up. She was earlier somewhat circumspect or at least curt in her dealings with him.

      June 14, 2011 at 5:29PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Kmarko

    I'd say this was the show's strongest episode. The last few minutes were genuinely tense, which is a first, for me at least. Also for the first time, I felt some menace in Richmond, even before he appeared at the door.

    I wonder again if it's really possible to pull off a full season waiting to find out who a killer is. (Again, someone had mentioned Prime Suspect, which I haven't seen, so maybe it is.) I do think knowing more about Rosie & family would have helped.

    At any rate, looking forward to the last show.

    (OT, I'm not liking the new look here.)

    June 13, 2011 at 8:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Kmarko The "new look" just went away--must have been my computer. Oops.

      June 13, 2011 at 8:32AM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl Prime Suspect wasn't a festival of red herrings. One story arc, you knew Marlowe was the serial killer pretty early, the cat and mouse game, the tension as Tennyson tried to prove it, was delicious. Can't begin to compare thesse two shows; PS was rich, dense, brought us into the minds of the police, the killers, and the investigation. I never once felt treated like an idiot, the way the Killing does.

      Couldn't agree more with Alan on all of it, especially plot devices turning on people not saying what they mean, seeing the obvious, it's bogus suspense. And treats me like I'm gullible, and don't deserve better. I never liked Sud's Cold Case; tried to watch it a few times, it's very inert, and the crime is always just suddenly solved minutes before the ending, from out of left field, and you never care about any of the characters.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:25AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kmarko That's kind of my point--if in Prime Suspect the killer was clear early on, then it's not a whodunit. I'm just not sure that something like a fun airplane novel is something that can work well stretched out over 13 weeks.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:48AM EST
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Veronica Mars season 1 was a whodunnit - two whodunnits, in fact (who killed Lily and who raped Veronica) - that was pretty fantastic from beginning to end. Of course, it had the luxury of taking long breaks from the case(s). Most episodes had very little to do with either the murder or the rape, while Veronica investigated other things. That's not something a show like this can plausibly do, where suddenly Linden and Holder have to put the Larsen investigation on pause to help catch a serial purse-snatcher or something.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:52AM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl @KMARKO A police procedural isn't only a whodunit...the tension in Prime Suspect was incredible, and she wasn't sure Marlowe was the killer, that certainty just kept growing and growing, and the joy was in the hunt. A procedural is also interesting for how the crime gets solved, how they nail the evidence, etc. Marlow might've gotten away with it if they hadn't found the garage where his car was stowed away, that went down to the wire....The joy of Veronica Mars was in the great characters, how the pieces moved around.

      The Killing is a dud all around...

      June 13, 2011 at 10:14AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      bryan-a True Alan - but better writers could have certainly taken the opportunity to veer off a little when appropriate, (ie, dead kid under expressway, mafia ties, missing Muslim girl - there were many opportunities where they could've done something similar to what they tried in vane to do two weeks ago with her missing son. The more I watch and think about this drivel the more obvious it is this was a show done by committee, and not a very creative one.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:20AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Danny Kmarko, referring your "new look" comment, I've noticed that about half the time, the comments sprawl across the page because the right side banner is missing. Might be my hosts file blocking ads.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:44AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva I seem to remember other Prime suspect storylines wherein nobody was sure for a long time who was to blame for a crime, and they still managed to hold my complete attention over time. This isn't rocket science; if you're going to hold the viewers on one crime for 10 or more weeks, there are rules:

      - you juggle the revelation of the clues so as to keep from focusing on just one suspect, OR you cast significant doubt on the one person you suspect by making hard to get the evidence despite considerable effort;

      - you provide enough material about the victim early to make us care and keep us caring throughout, or at the very least you give us motive for why this victim bought it;

      - you give us enough about the investigators early to make us care about them, too; and finally,

      - you do NOT treat the viewers as if they're stupid.

      Veena Sud broke all these rules. Is it any wonder she can't keep us from carping about the show??

      June 13, 2011 at 11:46AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr This is a show that is attempting to deviate from the rules. That's the point. The experiment working better for some viewers than it is for others. Maybe it's easier for me to appreciate than it is for some because I've read whodunnits that flow in pretty much the same manner. It's more like a novel than a TV show, in some respects, though I think that it makes good use of the visual medium in creating a distinctive place and atmosphere and in relying on the actors to convey information without words. Being a familiar format, I get it. I understand what others are saying when they want more information about Rosie or would have liked getting to know Linden and Holder earlier. Those kinds of changes might have made the show more accessible to a wider audience, but I don't know that they would have made sense in terms of the story. In real life, people like Holder and Linden would not have had instant rapport. In real life, the people working a murder case don't get to know the victim except through family and friends. Side excursions to solve other crimes would have made no sense at all in the context of a show that moves in daily increments. I thought this episode was one of the high points in a series that I'm enjoying. I appreciate The Killing as an artistic collaboration. Ultimately, I'm more interested in what this particular group of artists has to say than I am in all the shouldas and couldas coming from the peanut gallery.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:19PM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl @ NANCY In real life, detectives know the value of the first 48 hours in solving a murder. Why is it that the people who defend this show always strike the tone that we who don't aren't 'getting it"? What's wrong with this show is a laundry list of badly done: characters we don't know, and can't care about, a boringly familiar pattern of ending an episode with a great suspect who very quickly gets eliminated by next episode, detectives who, in 10 days, didn't have forensics go over Rosie's computer, didn't do much of anything right to retrace her steps on that night. And why did Linden show up at Richmond's house again? No reason, just another cheap plot device so she could hear the email alerts on the computer of a politican too stupid to separate his smut emails from business ones. This isn't adult, atomospheric and above my comprehension; it's actually a show that's beneath my intelligence, and has become laughable.

      And does ANYONE believe that Richmond is the murderer? They've played that game one time too many - murder suspect revealed in last moment! Then cleared by next episode!

      Peanut gallery my behind; I'm an affcionado of the crime genre, read every great crime writer out there, and this is sub-par.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:35PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Other Scott I believe Richmond is the murderer. Having to spend much of the episode clearing Richmond, and then starting on a new thread, finding the murderer, showing how the murderer did it and their motivations would be really rushed for a series that has been slow and methodical (sometimes too much so) to this point.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:51PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chrissy Alan, the comparison to Veronica Mars is pretty apt, I think; if you cut that season in half, more or less, to give us an AMC season, the two whodunnits would have taken up a much larger percentage of the time. And, had they wanted to, they could have focused even more on the mystery, and brought Veronica's dad in more.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:09PM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl @ CHRISSY I Loved Veronica's dad! And what that show got right was giving us such a complex view of the mileu of these people, so alien from mine, and allowing me to get engaged, and invested in them. It's kind of like sex: yeah, the orgasm is great, but there's a lot more stuff going on before you get there.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:35PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joej Nancy, whenever you stop patting yourself in the back for "getting" this supposedly super artistic crime drama, please consider these stupidly obvious absurdities related to the show:

      - It turns out that Rosie did indeed just return a book to Ahmed. Which means that on a friday night where she would be going to a dance and then to a casino to earn some money, she thought she had to return a book to a teacher. A teacher who also happened to be AT THE DANCE she left. It makes ZERO sense. It wouldn't be a big deal, if this didn't lead to 6 or 7 days (weeks in real life) of following a dead end.

      - The plot, and the investigation, has been driven forward solely by the use of absurd coincidences. Rosie stopping by Ahmed's (for absurd reasons) the same night another girl disappears, another girl with the same shirt in the same color with the same logo from the same giftshop from a place 1000 miles away. The same shirt that gets left behind. Then the plot is advanced by Rosie forgetting a not inside the book she returned, and the note's content beind deciphered by Linden coincidentally jogging past it. Now the latest device is that a detective would for whatever reason decide that spamming the mailbox of a suspect would lead anywhere, and then being coincidentally at the person's apartment just as he had that email open.

      This isn't smart writing. This isn't art. This is, contrary to your protests, pretty stupid writing that some people are too thick to see through.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:01PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr @XBROOKLYNGRRL We're talking about a TV show. Lighten up. Your multiple posts about your 48 hours rule is an example of the kind of comment that makes me think that you're missing something. Linden and Holder were actively investigating the crime immediately after the body was found, tracing Rosie's last steps. By the fourth episode, which would have been a little over 48 hours into the murder investigation, they were following a string of clues that led right to Bennet Ahemed. The details of their early investigation are crystal clear to me, so why do you have the impression that they somehow squandered those 48 hours? That's what mystifies me...that and the comments from people who say things like 'good cops would have checked her cell phone records,' when they did check her records almost immediately. If I came away from the show knowing that they checked her cell phone records, is it Veena Sud's fault that a handful of viewers missed that part? In the case of the cell phone records, I checked the TWOP recap...a handy device that I've used to keep track of details in other complex shows like The Wire and Lost. I don't just assume that an element of the plot was missing. I look it up. That way, I don't end up making myself look like a fool complaining about a missing detail that was actually there or a dangling thread that the writers did connect to the main plot.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr @JOEJ...What murder mystery isn't full of convenient coincidence?

      Rosie stopping by Ahmed's doesn't strike me as odd. I assumed that Rosie had stopped by Ahmed's because she wanted to be alone with Ahmed. The book was a pretext in case someone else was there. There was clearly some kind of flirtation going on. His wife was supposed to be away. That theory makes even more sense now that we know Rosie was a hooker.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:24PM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl Yo Nancy: Read Joe J's comment above, and quit being so superior. That you, and all the people who love it, choose to defend it by impungning the intelligence or sophistication of the people who Do Not appreciate all its weaknessses and flaws, says a lot. I'm sorry you're so mystified by all the criticism, I'm glad you enjoy the show. But to wait until the next to last episode for them to get to Beau Soleil, and the clumsy way of throwing out Richmond as a suspect -- and no, only false leads and misunderstandings led to Bennet, and speaking of him....? Wasted a lot of time on that dead end, and nary a mention of his condition.

      Please climb down. None of us are misundertanding the plot. We get it exactly as presented.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Joej "What murder mystery isn't full of convenient coincidence? "

      Good ones? It is one thing to have coincidences. It is another to rely on it exclusively.

      "Rosie stopping by Ahmed's doesn't strike me as odd. I assumed that Rosie had stopped by Ahmed's because she wanted to be alone with Ahmed. The book was a pretext in case someone else was there. There was clearly some kind of flirtation going on. His wife was supposed to be away. That theory makes even more sense now that we know Rosie was a hooker. "

      Bullshit. SHE KNEW AHMED WAS AT THE DANCE AS A CHAPERONE. BECAUSE SHE WAS ALSO AT THE DANCE. So she left the dance where he was, and she knew he was there, to be alone with him in his house?

      June 13, 2011 at 2:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin JoeJ, don't forget the part where Rosie gave her friend her withc costume and pink wig (changed into who knows) so that her friend could wear it during her amatuer sex-video with the two emo kids, and so everyone would think it was Rosie in the video.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:52PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva @nancyhallatr - you only get to 'break the rules' if you can do it well. Sud doesn't; hers is a piss-poor attempt at nearly every step. Must we really go back and cite the half-dozen or more weknesses of every single episode to date before it sinks in that she's botched this, even for an attempt to be 'different'?? She clearly didn't learn anything from David Simon and The Wire because *that* show never relied on its viewers to be blind and stupid - and Simon and his crew are the masters of roundabout, novelistic storytelling. Sure, there will still be those who don't like that style, even when it's well executed, but Sud's effort is not. I watch Treme just before I watch the replay of The Killing every Sunday night, and I've gotta tell ya, The Killins suffers ***MASSIVELY*** by the comparison. Hands down. I watch The Killing and think, This is what incompetence looks like.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:31PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr I'm not going to apologize because The Killing makes sense to me and because I like it. This is a forum dominated by people who clearly dislike the show and a few who dislike it so intensely that it makes them angry. That's kind of sad, when you really think about it. It's also sad that some of you take it as a personal affront when a forum member attempts to defend the show and to explain its appeal. Discussing this or any show with people who have a range of opinions is always interesting. Dodging the hate bombs in order to find people who have interesting comments...not so much.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:43PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joej Please don't play the victim after you said that people who don't like it don't get it and called them "the peanut gallery." If there is anyone who personalized this whole thing here it was you.

      June 13, 2011 at 4:21PM EST
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Guys, THAT IS ENOUGH. Rule #1 around here: TALK ABOUT THE SHOWS, NOT EACH OTHER. If you can't disagree about something without attacking each other, do not comment.

      June 13, 2011 at 4:33PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr I apologize for taking it off track.

      June 14, 2011 at 1:52PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      kmoorej Apology accepted, Ms. Sud!

      June 15, 2011 at 12:40AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    AJ

    Glad you brought up the Twin Peaks thing Alan. Watching it for the first time for the podcast, and the one thing that really jumped out that made the Killing more disappointing was how much of a central character the victim becomes on that show. For the majority of this show, Rosie has felt more like a prop than a person.

    June 13, 2011 at 8:36AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva That's it exactly: a prop. Good call.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:50PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    sayclark

    It's two pretty strong episodes in a row, IMO. Too little too late to save this from being a disappointing season, but perhaps it bodes well for next season.
    Like Alan, I HATE the misunderstandings used as a plot device --- there is absolutely no way Stan wouldn't just explain he had taken out that money for a mortgage. Why didn't he? Because she said "shut up?" He would talk over her, tell her to be quiet if he had to, and explain that he had taken it out to buy a house for crying out loud. Oh well. Didn't like that scene.
    And I REALLY didn't like the scene between Mitch and the aunt in the office. Not sure why, but that one really didnt work for me.
    I did think Sarah and Holder were once again very good and the email scene at the end was pretty intense. Overall, solid episode I thought. Still doesn't make up for shows 3 through 8.

    June 13, 2011 at 8:50AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva Too late to save it now. And if I and others really hate the ending, we won't watch teh next season. that's what happens when you screw up this badly: the finale, no matter how good, can't save you if the rest has been mostly crap. And the show runners have to have known that. If they didn't, the show doesn't deserve to come back.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:03PM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl I can't begin to imagine a scenario, this late in the game, that'll work, make sense, leave us satisfied. In really good police procedurals, you can look back and say, aha! i should've seen that, or I thought so. This show just keeps bringing up new and disconnected things. This was a good episode, despite its plot holes; too bad they didn't start like this.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:31PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      David H I'm with WEBDIVA. This has been just short of a disaster. I wish we could learn just what percentage of the audience is watching merely to find out who did it. It's curiosity entirely divorced from emotional investment. I can't believe they're bringing back this steaming pile for another season.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:17PM EST
  • Batfink_talkback_profile

    chuchundra

    Did Sud really say that they'd decide who the killer was somewhere mid-season? Did you mention that early on or did I just miss it?

    If I had known that going in I might have decided to skip the show entirely. I find this habit of show runners doing a serialized show dropping clues or hints for the viewer and then deciding later on what they meant really annoying. There's some excuse for this in a longer show with multiple seasons, but none at all for a show like this one.

    The central theme of this show is "Who killed Rosie Larson". There's even some online game connected with the show where you can search Rosie's room for clues. But Sud didn't know who killed Rosie Larson when the show started and it's not clear when she decided. I wouldn't be surprised if last week's show is the first one written where Rosie's killer had been decided upon.

    More nonsense from the Larsons this week. It's amazing to me that in a show where a teenager is brutally murdered, the writers have, over the course of twelve episodes, made me hate the two people who loved her most. We've spent so much time with the Larsons and it turns out most of it was just as big a time waster as the Bennet Ahmed story. The only way to redeem this even partially for me is if Mitch gets hit by a bus in episode 13.

    And it's 2011, people. Can we please get the internet at least partially right on a crime show? The whole going to the knock-off shoe place with the "Where's the server?". Hi-larious. And of course Richmond has his super-secret, ho mail account going into the same mailbox as his campaign e-mails. And e-mail shows up the instant it's sent.

    Anyway, I doubt Richmond is the killer. As you say, he's the final red herring before we get to the finale. I wouldn't be surprised if Rosie's killer isn't connected to the "social introduction" website at all.

    Anyway, one more episode left.

    June 13, 2011 at 8:53AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Opie I was convinced those annoying devil mask teenies would turn up again

      June 13, 2011 at 9:03AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Crumdawg97 You hit the nail on the head with the mailbox receiving both campaign emails and I KNOW WHAT YOU DID emails. Odd, to say the least.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:36AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joel "Did Sud really say that they'd decide who the killer was somewhere mid-season? Did you mention that early on or did I just miss it?"

      I missed this too and even though I get the nature of TV series writing and that things change and develop over time, that "planned" shows are rarely more than 20% planned in advance, I likely would not have stayed with this show had I known.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:25AM EST
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall I may be misinterpreting what Sud said here:

      http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/interview-the-killing-producer-veena-sud

      About the sixth question down.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:32AM EST
    • Batfink_talkback_profile

      chuchundra Hmmm...yeah, that seems ambiguous at best. I remember reading that and I didn't interpret it that way, but I see how you could.

      It's worth a follow-up question if you get to do a post-mortem interview.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:19AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva No, I don't think you misinterpreted what she said. it's what she didn't say that is the dead giveaway. She said they knew certain things to start, and they knew a few other things along the way, but mostly they decided to see how these things played out for several episodes. She never said, however, that she or the writers knew from the start who the killer would be but that they kept that from the actors, nor did she say that she had the general story arc worked out in advance. Everything she did say means, by default, that this was an ad-hoc operation -- and the episodes read that way, which is why they're so bad for so long. And if the killer turns out to be Richmond because she just ran out of time to make it anyone else by the way she proceeded, I'm going to be really pissed -- not because of her choice, but because she boxed herself in and didn't realistically have anyone else left. Haphazard plot development is the kindest term you could apply. Stupid is more apt.

      I'm being polite in assuming that Veena Sud never saw The Wire to learn how this kind of roundabout storytelling should be done. It's like she hasn't learned anything form the entire canon of mystery writing and Agatha Christie, either. That's how bad this season is. And she should be rewarded with another??? I hope not!

      June 13, 2011 at 12:30PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Other Scott One nitpick with the original comment. I don't believe the central theme of the show is "Who Killed Rosie Larsen?" That's just the way AMC chose to market the show to attract more viewers.

      The true theme of the show is how people deal with grief, mostly with the murder of Rosie Larsen. But that isn't all, we have Linden exposed to the tragedies that her job brings, and not really being able to handle it. And one more I think is about to come into focus is how Richmond dealt with the death of his wife two years ago.

      Don't be fooled by marketing and what you want the show to be about. This show is centred around character reactions to tragic events.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:46PM EST
    • Otherscott, I gotta say that isn't true. If it really was about the grief people experience because of the murder- where is Sterling,Jasper and street urchin boy? If it was a character study shouldn't we spend time with the best friend, exboyfriend, and childhood friend?

      June 13, 2011 at 1:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr I agree with OTHER SCOTT. I think that the way the show was marketed may have led to false expectations. It is, clearly, as much character study as murder mystery and I think that it works on that level. I don't think that adding grieving friends, some of whom didn't give a rat's ass for Rosie, would have made the show any better...especially when none of those characters had anything to do with the murder.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:31PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva If it's true that this show was really meant to be about grief and not a whodunit, then Sud herself should have protested the marketing after the first time it had an airing, even before the first episode ran, because that in itself would guarantee that a lot of viewers would be misled and pissed off as a result, which would mean dropping ratings as the show went along. Yet one *more* stupid development.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:39PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      prettok Deciding who the killer is halfway through the season is bullshit. It makes everything in the the first half completely irrelevant. Its one thing for the writers of Lost with 6 seasons of 22 episodes to make it up as they go along. But a murder mystery needs to know who the killer is at the beginning because it informs all the clues and plot twists that are later given. And the actor who plays the killer has to know too because its a pretty damn big part of his character. Every good Agatha Christie style whodunnit ends with the satisfying realization of "of course! It all makes sense now. Everything adds up! Suspect X is the ONLY person who could have commited the murder!! How did I not see that?"
      When a writer only picks a murderer at the end of the story, they're essentially telling the audience/reader that ANYBODY could have been the killer. It never really mattered. Which is a big middle finger to people who have been following the story and looking for clues to the solution.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:51PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Maggie Q Agree with everyone. I hated how "Damages" always seemed like a different show from episode to episode, as if the characters were given completely different motivations. And then I read that the writers were making it up as they went along, without a clear sense of the ending until they got there.

      June 14, 2011 at 6:25AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Opie

    Also, if either Richmond or Drexler turn out to be the killer next week, I think I might just cry.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:08AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      jon88 Since they took Belko away from me, my alternate choice is Gwen, whose motive would be covering up Richmond's indiscretions. (Who's Drexler? Too many characters, too few memorable.)

      June 13, 2011 at 9:21AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      jon88 Oh! Got it -- the druggie rich guy. I keep thinking of him as "that guy from Stargate Universe."

      June 13, 2011 at 9:52AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Cromulent Gwen's motive might be more complex than that. She wants Richmond for herself. She is competing with the memory of a dead wife, and Richmond is consorting - of some sort - with young women who look like his dead wife. Gwen is eliminating competition.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:31AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Maggie Q And by using one of the campaign's car, she got him involved in a way that could have ruined his campaign - and still might. That's a nice way to "punish" him, and she can still be the one who comforts him when it's over. I like it.

      June 14, 2011 at 6:30AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Col Bat Guano Well, we know it can't be Richmond, but I do like Gwen as a suspect.

      June 14, 2011 at 12:49PM EST
  • Cranky2_talkback_profile

    xbrooklyngrrl

    Anyone: was that Mitch or her sister who bailed out Stan? I blinked and couldn't tell.

    This show needed to begin with episodes like this, I suspect that we're all going to hrrumpf and scoff over the actual killer. Stupid show.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:19AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin It was the sister who bailed out Stan.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:37AM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl Thanks!

      Mitch is certainly a hateful woman, it shouldn't have taken this long for us to be able to get a glimpse of her pre-murder, controlling, unpleasant personality. Biug error for this show...

      June 13, 2011 at 10:17AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin I don't think she was that crazy/annoying before Rosie's death, as evidence by the few scenes in the first episodes when Stan and her were happy. To me she was just the normally strict mom is all. I mean in the aunt's eyes, fun = being a HS hooker, and Mitch was against fun...well DUH!

      But apparently Rosie had been hooking at the casino for A LONG TIME. How is it that the parents were never caught her in a lie about her whereabouts, when she was really at the casino hooking?

      How did Rosie's best friend never know that she was hooking? She would have been used as the alibi, for where she was those nights she was hooking.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:38AM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl Yeah, you can't have it both ways, a strict parent who doesn't see her kid is out all hours (hooking, I assume, is a late night activity in Seattle??)

      And I do think Mitch is a rigid, judgmental, controlling woman, and I think this tipped her over, but I wouldn't havew liked her, pre-murder.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:06AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chrissy She had time to hook at a casino and volunteer for the after-school basketball thing? That is one impressive kid. I barely had time to do my after-school clubs and my homework, and I didn't have to take a ferry to either of those.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:16PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Chrissy, excellent point. Oh and she was apparently doing both of those time consuming things without her apparently over-protective mother or best friend knowing about either.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:57PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      John Calloway I wouldn't say Mitch was that pleasant before learning of the murder - when she called Stan to come fix the plumbing she addressed him like it was a tremendous crisis that was his fault, at least as far as I can recall. And the interior of the house is really dark and depressing - I'm no interior decorator but it doesn't exactly seem like a home of joy and good times.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      hmm2 The Sister picked Stan up, but we didn't see who posted the bail. It could've been his old boss for all we know.

      June 14, 2011 at 5:53AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    joe

    to recap:
    - the cops who waited a week to check cab companies
    - who waited 10 days to check who had access to the house
    - Now have waited 12 days to do more than a cursory look at a teenage girl's webhistory? Because the supposed high tech url redirecting they talk about would be obvious once they tried to actually access it. So essentially they had the girl's computer for 12 days, and all they did was read the links on the browser, not bothering to check webmail addresses or mysterious urls accessed several times?

    June 13, 2011 at 9:27AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      maybe You're right, but maybe that's the point. Unlike most "perfect" tv cops- these cops are distracted by "life"(kids, health stuff- did a car break down?), just like the rest of the world- plus, they have a seemingly crappy boss and disconnected/lying witnesses who don't "provide" easy clues. reminds me of my job frustrations, but I'm not hunting a murderer...

      June 13, 2011 at 9:37AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joe It just seems to me that in the case of a missing/killed 17 year old with a double life, the first, obvious place to look for clues would be webhistory. Essentially all the obvious steps in the investigation have been set aside in favor of... what?

      Also,the whole "where are the servers?" bit essentially guarantees that the writers are clueless about tech stuff.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:47AM EST
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl @ MAYBE You're kidding, right? A yong girl is murdered, cops would focus on the first 48 hours like bloodhounts on the scent. These cops weren't even all that distracted at the start, they were just bumbling, overlooked pretty much everything is the point...

      June 13, 2011 at 10:19AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr I agree with MAYBE. The two principle cops on the case were established as being distracted from the outset. Linden was dealing first with her impending marriage and move to Sonoma, then with the breakup of her relationship, and then with her son's problems. Holder was an inexperienced investigator learning a new job...good with undercover vice, but not with homicide. They work for a bad boss who seems to have a hidden agenda, in a shabby police station in the middle of a crappy neighborhood. The technology at their disposal is probably five to ten years out of date as is the case in most bureaucracies; and like most governmental agencies, they're probably short on manpower. They probably had mandatory in-service training when their outdated equipment and software were installed, and have had no additional computer training. Unless either cop uses computers extensively at home, they probably have pretty rudimentary skills. Early in the series, the cops were onto a suspect "like bloodhounds on the scent." He had opportunity and a secret relationship with the victim, implying possible motive. He was also, clearly, hiding something. It didn't pan out so now they're taking a new look at information. That makes sense to me. I think that shows like Law and Order and CSI have created an essentially false image of the police in the eyes of the public. This is not CSI. CSI isn't real and neither are the well staffed billion dollar labs around which the shows are constructed. I think that Holder and Linden are more like the real thing, which means that they don't have all that cutting edge equipment and those dazzling skills.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joej Nancy,
      You are way off the mark. It doesn't take super CSI type skills to learn that a URL leads to another site. All it takes is actually trying to reach that URL. So in 12 days of a missing 17 year old they had no one checking her webhistory besides reading the urls, but never going to them? Of course, there is also the fact that this would be some sort of selective ignorance. They can pin point the exact address of a server location, which is much more complicated than figuring out a URL redirects somewhere else, but they can't figure or don't know that some URLs in a someone's webhistory may actually lead somewhere else?

      I have a degree in a joint program with a criminology department. Police work in reality is mindnumbingly procedural most of the time. In cases of missing/abducted/killed minors, the procedure is actually pretty straightforward:

      - Who had access to the victim. They check out family members and close acquaintances and their alibis, as well as everyone who had access to the house and premises the victim was last seen in (in the series, they only ask about access to the house around day 9 or 10, and only check out Belko's alibi at the same time).
      - They check the victim's communication logs. Check call history, web history, emails, etc. pretty extensively. Which means that they would have uncovered this website pretty easily (unlike you seem to assume, a redirecting URL is not some high tech thing, all it would require is trying to go to the original website).
      - Acquaintances and neighborhoods are scanned, and a tip line is provided to the media. Which means that people wouldn't be so unaware of the face of the killed girl whenever the cops asked about it, specially in a high profile case that has swung an election both ways.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:21PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr @JOEJ...Didn't they do everything you're suggesting? They did ascertain where immediate family members and friends had been. They did check her call record and her computer. Her room was processed by a forensics team. I don't remember whether they distributed photos and set up a tip line, but I believe her photo was on the news. They did trace her last steps from the dance to Jasper's and back to the school and finally to Ahmed's house. The last place she was known to be was Ahmed's house. They had forensic evidence that she'd been there. So they checked the alibis of the people associated with that location...the Ahmeds. Neither actually checked out...there was a gap in Amber's timeline and Bennet was proven to have lied as well. They had a witness to an abduction from that location and then an accomplice and later, they thought they had the place to which she'd been taken by Bennet and Muhammed. Their suspect had access to the car in which the body was found. Rosie was known to have hung out where he coached and she exchanged tender little notes with him. So, why would they start checking other locations and other suspects when the trail was leading them to Bennet Ahmed and the butcher shop? When that proved to be a false lead, they started over again and took another look at the information.

      I don't find any of this incredible, nor do I find it odd that an overworked IT expert might overlook a redirecting URL the first time around. He gave it the once over, nothing jumped out, and then he set it aside as Linden and Holder were pursuing a lead that looked solid. The lead didn't pan out; so the tech took a second, harder look and did discover something significant.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:06PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Joej Actually, no.
      -They only asked around as to who had keys to the Larsen's house after Ahmed was cleared.
      - They only talked to Belko's mother about his whereabouts after Ahmed was cleared.
      - They only took a cursory look at her webhistory. Any more than that and it would have been obvious that a URL redirects somewhere else (which is also a BS rationalziation, since webhistories save pages visited, not pages typed in, making the forward bit irrelevant.)
      - They didn't start to construct a timeline or check cabs until Ahmed was cleared.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr @JOEJ...Sigh...they had a growing pile of evidence that pointed straight to Ahmed. This included a timeline that came to an end at the Ahmed domicile, or so they thought. They thought that Ahmed and his accomplice abducted her. So, why would they have checked cabs when they believed that Rosie left the Ahmed's as a hostage? They were constructing a timeline using the best information they had at the time. Why would they have wasted time pursuing other leads when they thought that their timeline was correct, that they knew who had killed Rosie and that they had their guy in their sights?

      Rosie returning home, Belko, and following URLs had nothing to do with Bennet Ahmed so why would they have investigated other possibilities before their red hot suspect was cleared? That would have made absolutely no sense. It makes sense in hindsight, because we know that Bennet Ahmed was not the killer, but it would not have made sense in the moment.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:57PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      joej Ahmed only became a suspect on day 3. There was plenty of opportunity for them to check these things before. And once Ahmed became a suspect and they didn't have enough evidence to get a warrant, a great place to look would have been her email/online history.

      June 13, 2011 at 6:06PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      David I feel like an even bigger oversight is ADELA - once the cops saw that note wouldn't they have immediately googled "Adela Seattle"? Or dug around on facebook for it if they thought it was a person's name? Why why did they not discover what it was until Linden accidentally jogged by the Ferry? Not stellar police work.

      June 14, 2011 at 11:18AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr Cops have access to information about the people in their jurisdiction...information that is not available through Google. Linden knew how many Adelas there were in Seattle. That means that she had accessed whatever police databases she needed in order to locate those people. She probably had addresses, too. So, why would she Google 'Adela' when she thought she already had all the information she needed? She thought she was looking for a person and that's a reasonable assumption.

      June 14, 2011 at 2:01PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Hautie

    "I'm really glad Stan finally put Mitch in her place."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    OMG, no joke! I just had no compassion for that Mother. And her lack of ability to see anything but her own selfish pain.

    What annoys me is that the series wasted at least 6-8 episodes. Where it could have spent more time bringing us to this point were Rosie was been a "working girl" with a shady escort service for rich guys.

    Instead it is just dropped in the middle of our laps in episode 12.

    And it was the sister in law that went and bailed out the Father. Most likely using the money that Rosie had saved in the checking account, under the Aunt's name.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:34AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Opie

    Since it obviously won't be Richmond or Drexler now, my money is on the father of the rich kid that Rosie apparently dated for a while.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:42AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jeff This just clicked for me on how Rosie's Aunt knew the guy at the wake; he was a "client" of hers. I'd be mad if it were him though cuz he's been in what, 2 episodes? My money is on Gwen. Can't be Drexler cuz he was obviously still ordering girls almost 2 weeks after the murder and I don't think Richmond would actually kill her if he, in fact, loved her.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:56AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      John Calloway Jasper's Dad paid his kid's degenerate friend to kill her...MAYBE! It was kind of weird the Dad was at the wake anyways - Jasper and Rosie only dated for a short time.

      June 13, 2011 at 3:41PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Crumdawg97

    I was compelled by the action enough this week that I found far fewer nits to pick. Two little things that jumped out at me as really strange:

    Richmond's sitdown interview: I know he likes to sit sideways when he's in private meetings with his staff, but if I'm a newspaper editor there's no way I'm endorsing some shifty character who can't even sit up straight and face his body toward me.

    Mayor Adams photo delivery: We see him so angry that he's driven to do the cliched throw-everything-off-the-desk maneuver. Suddenly he's got photos of Richmond and randomly finds Gwen on the street to hand them off. Felt like we were missing something in between.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:47AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin The sideways sitdown thing had me totally annoyed too.

      Agree on the Adams packet of photos, why wouldn't Adams have leaked all those photos of Richmond with young hookers (who some are apparently still in HS) to the press after they leaked his affair? Or evern sooner? It would have totally crushed Richmond as a candidate.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      DougMac Adams said he just had them sent to him and that the press would have them too, he was just giving them to Gwen as a courtesy for someone he had known for a long time (and also to gain favor with her and her father for future considerations I'm sure)

      June 15, 2011 at 6:07AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jobin

    How does the aunt not tell the police about her whole hooking thing by now? How does she not tell them about the drowning warning on the website?

    I know the aunt isn't apparently the brightest bulb, but wouldn't she have made the connection after Rosie drowned, and told the cops?

    Oh and I laughed out loud good and long at the "maybe none of us knew her line" which I don't think is what the writers intended, but that is what I know I feel as a viewer about Rosie.

    What possible motiviation is it of Linden to go tell Richmond to watch out for his connection with Drexler? Oh right, cause she had to be there to hear the emails.

    Linden still has a gun on her, making the suppose dramatic scene with shadowy Richmond totally not scary.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:47AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Cromulent

    Its obvious! Its Gwen Eaton.

    What an interesting name for a "personal introduction" agency: Beau Soleil. I think that would translate as "Sun Girl".

    Sun Girl? Really? Virtually every single woman profiled in this series is a sallow-complected brunette. They have similar statures - well not the girl pregnant by Ahmed - and even their hair looks much the same.

    And isn't it odd that an agency named Sun Girl seems to have no blondes? We learn of 3 SG employees and all are brunettes: Rosie, her aunt, and Aleena.

    No, the name Sun Girl is dramatic foreshadowing meant to point us elsewhere. There are just two women on the show who have been kissed by the sun: our raven-haired hero, Sarah Linden, and ......... Gwen Eaton!

    I wonder if we didn't see just a bit more foreshadowing during the meeting with the newspaper editors. As we see the closeup of Gwen as she realizes that the ghost of Richmond's dead wife will never leave, I'd swear her makeup is done differently. She actually looks a bit darker, ever so slightly disheveled. In previous episodes her complexion is almost porcelain. Her monstrous act is weighing heavy now.

    Interesting that we don't see who Richmond's dinner date at the end was last night. We assume its Gwen, but we don't really know.

    Also, love the name of rich, snarky, and now we know depraved Mr Drexler. He likes to play basketball, wants to build an arena/stadium complex. And he just happens to have the last name of a legendary player from Seattle's rival Portland Trailblazers: Clyde "The Glide" Drexler. Coincidence? Au contraire mon frere!

    June 13, 2011 at 9:51AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      jon88 "Sun Girl"? Not "beautiful sun"? Is this an idiom?

      June 13, 2011 at 9:54AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Cromulent Well, sorta. "Beau" is also another name for lover. Since the patrons are all men, what does Beau Soleil represent? What they want of course. Sun Girls. If you lived in dreary Seattle and were looking for a good time, wouldn't you want a Sun Girl? And yet they don't seem to have any.

      June 13, 2011 at 9:57AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      jon88 I guess I have gender issues. My brain is stuck on "beau" being masculine. I do like your point about blondes, though.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:15AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Cromulent Well, if you take Beau as only being masculine then Drexler is your guy. He has lighter hair. But the Drexler bit with the girls last night was just too obvious for me. If you take Beau to me just "lover" I think it works just fine. In the shower this morning I went over all the women on the show and its amazing how many are pale brunettes. Like the vice cop we met last night.

      There *is* one other woman with different hair - Reggie. But at a conceptual level I take Reggie to be yin to Sarah's yang.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:28AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      echos myron "Beau"`means "beautiful" in French, idiot. The English word "beau" is clearly not the one being used in this episode`s title.

      June 13, 2011 at 2:31PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jim This nutjob hair theory didn't fly at AVClub, Cromulent, and it won't fly here. "Beau" does not mean girl and does not mean lover.

      And what exactly do you think "raven-haired" means? Hint: Not blonde, not strawberry blonde.

      June 14, 2011 at 1:23AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Shah of Blah Quick French lesson: "Beau soleil" = beautiful sun. Beau is masculine because "soleil" is masculine.

      June 15, 2011 at 12:05AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Ed It would translate as "Handsome Sun." It's another American bastardization of French, with the intent probably being "Belle Soleil," which would mean "Beautiful Sun," a thought more apropos for a call girl service.

      Surprised no one translated "Beau Soleil" as BS.

      More importantly, let's not call each other names. There's no need for that. Keep the discourse elevated, polite and intelligent.

      March 29, 2012 at 2:52PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    bryan

    I'm sorry but this show, at this point, deserves zero effin kudos. This is, and has been amateur hour from the getgo. What's been especially bad is the writing, it sounds like it came out of a community college dialogue workshop.

    Eg

    I'm having this dream about my dead daughter

    Therapist - tell me about it

    Standard tv dream claptrap with intense emotional ending which visibly upsets the patient

    Therapist - it was a dream

    June 13, 2011 at 9:53AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tyler Durden

    Even when this show tries to be clever, or tries to make the bungling cops look clever, it relies on contrived plot twists that are clumsy and make no sense. Take the ATMs and the casino. ATMs at a casino are there to serve one purpose -- to take money OUT so you can keep gambling. These are not full-service "banking centers" where you can make a deposit into your account for crying out loud. Yet they had to, for no apparent reason, write the casino staff as being belligerent and uncooperative, so the dectectives couldn't get confirmation of Rosie being at the casino from the "eye in the sky" tapes. Which meant the writers had to rely on the "ATM camera" (footage of which was apparently preserved by the bank for months, for no apparent reason). And then they had to explain why Rosie is using the ATM at the casino so many times -- for large cash DEPOSITS, not withdrawals. Again, no one does their banking at a casino ATM -- I would be willing to bet that any casino ATM is not even set up to be able to RECEIVE deposits. Besides, if it's just a cash deposit, why couldn't she just do that at the bank with a teller and a deposit slip? It's not like the bank teller would require ID for a cash deposit into an existing account. Makes no sense. And if she'd been going to the casino for weeks or months (as seems to have been the case), then why would she need to write herself a reminder of the ferry's name and schedule on that note the detectives conveniently found, the note that "unlocked" the whole casino angle for the cops in the first place. I try to suspend disbelief as much as I can when I watch TV, but I don't like being treated like an idiot, and I find it hard to believe the writers couldn't have found other ways to tie in the casino or the account without something so clumsy and, frankly, insulting to my intelligence. Just more evidence of the poor execution of this show.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:54AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Andy what about the casino 'key'? what hotel uses keys anymore? it would have been a plastic card with the name of the casino, which would have led the cops there right away.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:37AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya There's a lot wrong with The Killing if one expects it to be better than average fare. However, I think many of your complaints are farely specious. I've been to casinos that have regular ATMs just like anywhere else for which one can deposit money. It is not odd for banks and others to keep footage for long periods of time (usually as long as they have media storage available). Lastly and perhaps I'm just a messy person, but I still have notes with phone numbers, train and city bus schedules even though I now know that information. I just never got rid of this. None of this that unbelievable, though there have been some other far more incredulous actions in earlier episodes.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:52AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jesse

    I could've sworn that the description given for "The Oracle" was a guy about 5'8" to 5'10" with curly hair. That doesn't sound like Billy Campbell to me. Drexler maybe.

    So this escort reveal (which doesn't pack much of a punch since we don't know enough about Rosie to make this new information a surprise) probably explains why Terri acted so weird around Jasper's wealthy land developer father a few episodes ago. I bet he was a former client of hers. If they bring him back as the killer though, it'll feel like a Scooby Doo episode.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:54AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Colin MacDonald Hey can you remind me of what you're talking about with Terri and Jasper's dad? I don't remember that part. Also my money's on Gwen.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:09AM EST
    • Orpheus, and yes the description does sound like him. @Colin, during the wake Jasper's dad came through the line to give condolences and Terri brightened up and excitedly said hey but he ignored her.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:59AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Chrissy Jesse, there were two different Beau Soleil girls, who had two different dates. The first girl was assaulted (pretty badly) by someone who fits the description of Drexler. I don't think we ever got any name. The prostitute had left town and the only person who relayed the story was Holder's old partner.

      The second prostitute was Celine (the girl Holder met) who was not assaulted, but had a very off-putting conversation with a man who called himself Orpheus. That man appears to be Richmond.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:22PM EST
  • 040_talkback_profile

    Carrie

    "Am I interrupting anything?" I admit, between that moment and his "NAHHHHH" when Linden told him Jack was with his dad, Holder always manages to make me laugh. I might watch a second season of this show just for him.

    Here's the thing about the cliffhanger: I don't feel any danger when looking at Billy Campbell's character, so I am not really worried about what will happen to Linden. To use Veronica Mars as a comparison (and they're practically begging me to do it, putting Alona Tal in this episode and all) by the time the murderer was hinted at, you were DARN SCARED of that person. Here, the potential threat feels much less grave.

    June 13, 2011 at 9:54AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin But Billy Campbell was totally scary fighting Jennifer Lopez in a fairly dark room...dont you remember Enough! Doesn't that carry over for you?

      June 13, 2011 at 10:04AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jesse Ha, I was waiting for someone to make an "Enough" reference.

      The only really scary thing about Billy Campbell in that movie was his acting.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:33AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Liz

    While overall I have mixed feelings about season one, the last two episodes have been strong enough that I'm feeling optimistic about a season two. Like the show may be learning what its strengths are, what works.

    June 13, 2011 at 10:17AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    bryan-a

    To all you odd folk out there that are looking forward to season 2 - The only way I'm devoting another second of time to this second rate cast and crew is if they do a crossover ep with the Walking Dead and they all get eatin by Zombies. On second thought though they'd even make that boring and trite.

    June 13, 2011 at 10:31AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    joel

    It's probably going to turn out to be the councilman's lover, who has covered up the whole thing to protect him and her own careers, which makes no sense but makes as much sense as this show ever seems to need. She knows the councilman was seeing the escorts all along. The only part of this that makes no sense is why the former mayor didn't use this evidence sooner.

    But I wouldn't be surprised if Linden and Holden only have the circumstantial evidence that it is the councilman, and as they begin to dig they have to go after Beau Soliel, and it turns out that the lover's Father was Rosie's frequent customer (and her murderer), and he is alerted to this and shuts down their investigation from on high. Somehow Mitch is in the wrong place at the right time and overhears that the council man is the prime suspect. In the last five minutes he is holding a press conference ready to make his acceptance speech and right before he can, out of the shadows steps Mitch with a gun, she kills him, and SHOCKING ENDING. And the show ends with the Sentator escaping prosecution and blah blah blah.

    This show has gotten that stupid, so I wouldn't be surprised.

    June 13, 2011 at 10:35AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      webdiva Wellll ... yes. Even though it was a tense few minutes as Linden figured out it was Richmond's account that her e-mails were pinging, the real kicker was watching Gwen examining all those photos of Richmond with Rosie (and others, it seemed like, but I could be wrong) so dispassionately, as if she knew that he diddled on the side and had had a PI following him during off-hours so that she wouldn't be surprised with anything. Which tells me Gwen or Jamie are the ones to watch. Besides, it was just too bloody obvious who Orpheus was -- c'mon, a guy who missed his dead wife and was willing to follow her into the underworld? Right, hit me over the head again with the foreshadowing, folks. Not!

      June 13, 2011 at 3:22PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    joel

    I also loved the cop's comment to Linden that he knew Orpheus read her message. Really, he can see inside Orpheus' Web mail account? Then why are the still bothering to send messages? Why isn't he tracking down the IP address accessing the account? God, I hate the writing on this show. I just want it to end.

    June 13, 2011 at 10:42AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Kmarko I've gotten messages that my email has been read--I don't think that provides anymore info than the email address existing, but I could be wrong.

      I will say this--for whatever reason, this show does seem to provoke a passionate response. I tend to simply check out of shows that just aren't working for me...not sure what that means, but it's interesting.

      June 13, 2011 at 10:47AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin You have the option when you send an email to have it auto-ask for a "read receipt."

      When the receipient reads the email, you'll get an email response back to you, saying its been read.

      The only problem is that nearly ALL email accounts have the auto-sending of "read receipts" turned OFF, because it would be fodder for spam, privacy, other reasons.

      Usually an email will show that the user has requested a read receipt, and the receipient has the option of sending a read receipt to the sender willfully.

      So there is the possibility that she would know when the email was read, but it would never happen under usually default mail account settings.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:11AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya Agreed, the police officer was probably referring to a read receipt. I haven't had one in a while, but they used to have a full set of headers that would have made it easier to track down the recipient. The bigger question is why didn't they track the IP for the member Orpheus when they were looking at his closed account. Perhaps, these policemen didn't understand it was an option. That behavior emphasizes the implausibility of the investigation and not just the individual components of it. In a high profile murder case that makes the nightly news and has implicated at least one mayoral candidate, they have two people investigating.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr I'm assuming they were trying to get him to respond, maybe to set up a meeting or something.

      I'm asking this question because I really don't know the answer...would looking up and IP address identify a specific user? When I look mine up, I get a general region but the information is not entirely correct. I used several look-up tools and they all identify my location as a neighboring city, but not my city.

      June 13, 2011 at 4:13PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya I'm not an expert on IP addresses and all the information that they can provide. However, when I've looked up IP addresses, I get an internet provider and a city. The city is often the city through which the internet service is routed, not necessarily the city where the person is located. For example, if I use my Sprint datacard, I some times will have a city listed for my IP address in Texas, which is not the state where I reside or where I'm accessing the internet. What I would have seen as useful is to find the internet provider. One should be able to provide the data to them and have them track back to find the user or at least the financial information, e.g. credit card, with which the user paid for the account. (It's been done in a couple of cases around here to track down suspects engaged in illicit online behavior.) This is dicier if the connection is made from a public wireless, which might help you find a physical location, but would probably be more difficult to track to an individual.

      June 14, 2011 at 10:01AM EST
  • Tumblr_kzm9c9uc1p1qzfgtto1_500_talkback_profile

    LOLPIZZA

    Linden is one of the worst TV cops ever. I can't get behind her, even though she's clearly a Battlestar Fan. Flood that e-mail, Linden! Only those dumb young kids use their phones for computers - Cops wouldn't sink to that level. So what if there's a killer on the loose! At times, I've wondered if Veena Sud is actually one of those old men in the balcony on the Muppets.

    Also: why didn't Holder just take the call girl into the station? He technically had her for solicitation, right? Even if he didn't intend on charging her, he could have interrogated her more. Don't give up so easy, Boss. I realize it's not as sexy as the phone booth call in the rain, but letting her go is just a bonehead play.

    Also #2: Didn't Richmond's wife drown? Seems like they've got to stick with him as the killer, if they want the finale to be at all satisfying.

    This show is depressingly sloppy. It's not all together bad. I'm invested enough that I want to know what happens, but I'm almost rooting for it to get canceled, so I don't have to think about it again after next week.

    June 13, 2011 at 10:46AM EST Reply to Comment
    • They told us weeks ago she was killed by a drunk driver, which is weird because a reporter asked him if Rosie's murder reminded him of his wife.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:02AM EST
    • Batfink_talkback_profile

      chuchundra My wife surmises that Richmond's wife's car was hit by a drunk driver, knocking it into the water where she drowned while trapped in the car. That would give the Rosie Larson case more connection to Richmond and would explain his preoccupation with drowning.

      On the other hand, if this is true, it's information we should have had weeks ago.

      On the gripping hand, maybe Richmond killed his wife and framed the drunk driver for it and he killed Rosie because she found out...because that makes as much sense as anything else on this show.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:27AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Crumdawg97 In retrospect, the reporter's question (which was in what - second episode?) about Rosie's death reminding Richmond of what happened to his wife was probably the first really bad plot device we got a glimpse of in this show.

      Even if it was a drunk driver that knocked her into water where she then drowned, would a reporter really ask if a murder reminded someone of an accident?

      To be clear - I could see how a grief-stricken Richmond could have been impacted by his wife's drowning to the point where he became a killer and forced someone else to drown. But the reporter would have no reason to make a similar leap...thus why the question was such an illogical device.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:45AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    sangs

    The biggest, most ridiculous development of the episode is Adams turning over those photos to Gwen. Are you kidding me? His campaign just takes a huge hit with the skull. He's proven to be a big believer in dirty politics. Now, he's holding evidence in his hands that he could use against his opponent and he turns it over - to his opponent?! Suddenly he's Mr. Altruistic? I can't believe this show was renewed. Jesus.

    June 13, 2011 at 10:58AM EST Reply to Comment
    • It hasn't been renewed yet.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:04AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Kenya Just because he hands it over to his opponent doesn't mean he can't also hand it over to reporters. All he loses is the advantage of surprise.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:16PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      sangs You were saying about the renewal? :)

      June 13, 2011 at 4:23PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Art Deco I don't think he was being altruistic. Unless Rosie was clearly identifiable in the photos, or unless it was clear that Richmond was with someone underage, they had no shock value since Richmond is single.

      I think he was just doing it to warn Gwen, who was probably a friend of the family given his dealings with her Senator father.

      June 15, 2011 at 8:06AM EST
  • Tps_talkback_profile

    PotatoSolution

    The scene that truly drove me bonkers was the one where Terry admits that Rosie was involved with the escort service, and that she knew about a guy who brought another girl to the water and talked about drowning.

    It's impossible that Holder and Linden would not have screamed, "You couldn't have told us about this ELEVEN F*****G days ago?!"

    (No, of course not, because the writers just thought it up. Grrrrrrrr....)

    This show, oy vey.

    June 13, 2011 at 11:23AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr Why would Terry have implicated herself?

      June 13, 2011 at 4:17PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Maggie Q To catch her beloved niece's killer, and potentially save the lives of other girls?

      Terry would not have been implicating herself in the murder by revealing what she knew. At the most, confessing to being involved in prostitution, but I doubt they would have charged her with anything.

      June 14, 2011 at 6:39AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr Terry stands to lose a great deal once the truth about her activities is known. Her family is important to her and she will be an outcast once the truth is known. She's a hooker who had her beloved niece turning tricks. Terry's actions probably led directly to Rosie's death. Neither Stan nor Mitch will ever speak to her again because of what she's done. She'll never see her nephews again. She'll probably never see her mother again. I'm sure she was rooting for Ahmed Bennet to be the murderer. That possibility, and the fact that she seems completely amoral, made it easier for her to keep her mouth shut.

      June 14, 2011 at 2:15PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Maggie Q Good points. I interpreted "implicating" as the legal ramifications, not how it would damage her relationship with the family. They would clearly blame her, and if it turned out that some unrelated person (like Ahmed) was the killer, it would have seemed unncessary to her.

      June 14, 2011 at 7:41PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      nancyhallatr I meant Bennet Ahmed, not Ahmed Bennet...this week I can blame the cold in the upper Midwest for mental lapses.

      June 15, 2011 at 2:09PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Nick

    More unintended humor from this episode: during Terri's first conversation with Linden and Holder, she said "You got no right!"

    I was hoping she's throw in a 'You think you're better than me???" by the end.

    June 13, 2011 at 11:31AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Drew What about the creative writing when she's talking about getting dinner, paraphrasing:

      What should I get Belko? The same disgusting stuff he always gets because hes gross and an idiot?

      June 13, 2011 at 12:16PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    jkepley

    Poor Helo. Yet another Cylon trying to take his kid away.

    June 13, 2011 at 11:40AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tausif Khan

    "I worked at a newspaper for a long time, so I unfortunately had to smile at the show's quaint belief in the power a newspaper endorsement could still hold. If only, "The Killing." If only. "

    After you (Alan) went to Hitfix Myles McNutt made an interesting comment. He said he wondered if the move would signal a reduction in then number of pull quotes you received promoting shows. Since then I have been looking for the number of promotions that employed rave reviews from online sources and have found next to none." Therefore for me while print journalism may be dying the the brands and reputation of newspaper publications still live on and therefore I would buy them looking for a newspaper endorsement.

    June 13, 2011 at 11:41AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Crumdawg97 They made a comment that every mayor in city history had won the newspaper's endorsement, but that is not necessarily identical to saying, "Every mayor was elected BECAUSE it had the newspaper's endorsement."

      I would say that's a case of correlation rather than causation; otherwise what's the point of the rest of the campaign? You'd just focus 100% on the endorsement, right?

      I didn't interpret the newspaper endorsement as a powerful game-changer the way Alan seems to think the show was portraying it, but more just yet another advantage the Richmond campaign hoped to gain with its current momentum.

      June 13, 2011 at 12:02PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    MBG

    That pool-house was KRAZY with a K. Was wondering what happened with Jamie, who seems to be either a recovering(?) alcoholic or someone who can’t handle his booze. Did he drink up & don the speedo? Wasn’t terribly surprised the photos were of Richmond & Rosie. I’m having trouble following the money.

    Like the show & don’t meant to nit-pick, but wouldn’t the Mafia don know Mitch was in the clink? Related, I’m still wondering why people who can’t stand this show force themselves to a.) watch it and b.) subject us to their comments here every week . . .

    - MBG

    June 13, 2011 at 11:41AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      MBG jeebuz, I mean STAN was in the clink... my bad.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:42AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jobin Answer to A/B - Because we are fan's of who dun it serialized shows, and this started off promising.

      But at this point, I believe a writing team comprised entirely commentors upset with the show and its many flaws, could write a more compelling and interesting show than what the Killing has given us.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:58AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Stacy I'm guessing people are still watching to find out who killed Rosie. It's the only reason I'm watching. It like watching a long movie that you know 30 minutes in is horrible - but you keep watching for another 2 hours just to find out how the damn thing ends.

      June 13, 2011 at 11:59AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    ABC

    It's extremely frustrating and baffling to me that Sud and Co. didn't know who the killer was going to be and decided later (as writing). What a difference it could have made in the build-up if they did. So much more interesting stuff could have been thrown in. Now it just feels cheap and pointless. I keep watching, but I've been so so so frustrated by what could have been.

    June 13, 2011 at 11:58AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      John Calloway I didn't read the comment Alan wrote but I don't see how you could create a show of this nature and that be the case. They had to have known who the killer was - you can't construct a show like this otherwise, as bad as it is...

      June 13, 2011 at 3:18PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Maggie Q It's different in this case, though, since the show is a remake of an existing series. They can follow the same basic plot, discover the same trail of clues, chase the same red herrings - up to the point where one of those false trails from the original turns out to be the right one. So it's not as difficult as if they made it up out of thin air.

      But, yes, not having that final answer from the start destroys the ability to layer in subtle clues from the very beginning that allow the viewer to watch the killer's reveal and feel satsified that it works.

      June 14, 2011 at 7:49PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Nick

    This show has grown to be such a disaster, I was either completely baffled at what was going on or laughing.

    Why the discovery at the waterfront development would COMPLETELY ruin his campaign and make Richmond a foregone conclusion to win made absolutely zero sense to me. The mayor completely gives up and hands those pictures over? Um, why?

    The hooker being so mysterious about who Orpheus is - she can't tell him in person, has to go to a payphone and STILL can't say it. She has to send him to a location to see a picture?? Completely hilarious. And how convenient that Richmond's e-mail was open, the speaker was turned up real loud, and he gets all his e-mails in one account! Honestly couldn't keep myself from giggling.

    Oh, and does anybody care about Bennett anymore?

    June 13, 2011 at 12:17PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Cranky2_talkback_profile

      xbrooklyngrrl Yeah, i was wondering if I missed something -- I ocassionally space out during this shows -- and maybe he died and I didn't hear that? After so many episodes about him, and a near-death beating, his fate kind of deserves a nod.

      June 13, 2011 at 1:39PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Col Bat Guano Yeah, I was trying to figure out how the Mayor was going to be destroyed by the delay in the waterfront development. If he had first been elected on the promise of completing the project and they were just breaking ground four years later then this delay might mean something. And this points out another failing of the show. The political scandals come and go much too quickly. It's been 12 days since a murdered girl was found in the trunk of a campaign vehicle and the initial suspect was connected to the campaign. That alone would be months of material, but in this world, the councilman can just glide over that and keep campaigning while releasing evidence that the mayor has a mistress on the side. This is dispensed with in a single press conference. And now a single discovery at a construction site eliminates the incumbent mayor who apparently based his entire campaign on developing Native American land on the waterfront.

      June 14, 2011 at 1:08PM EST
  • 1
  • 2
Next 231 Comments

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web