Metal_Robots Reviews

The Twilight Zone: Long Distance Call (1961) Season 2, Episode 22

Chilling episode, maybe an Influence on Poltergeist?

[8/10 · 24 March 2024]

I've been watching the original Twilight Zone show recently. This episode called "Long Distance Call" was particularly creepy and was very reminiscent of the story in Poltergeist!

I can imagine that the show was hugely influential on writers / film makers like Spielberg who must have been watching it when they were young.

I won't go in to too many spoilers but general story of souls in the afterlife being envious of youth and the living, finding a conduit in which to contact the young, was all covered in Polertgeist.....just swap the telephone in this episode for the TV in Spielberg's production!

The Twilight Zone: The Whole Truth (1961) Season 2, Episode 14

The Whole Truth

[6/10 · 11 March 2024]

If you're looking for a laugh, you might want to check out the Twilight Zone episode "The Whole Truth". It's about a used car salesman who buys a haunted car that forces him to tell the truth. Sounds hilarious, right? Well, not exactly. The episode tries to be a comedy, but it falls flat on its face. The jokes are lame, the acting is wooden, and the plot is predictable. The only thing that's funny is how bad it is. The episode is so bad, it's good. You'll laugh at how ridiculous it is, not with it. It's a classic example of unintentional humor. So, if you're in the mood for some cheesy entertainment, give it a watch. Just don't expect any quality or logic from this episode. It's a whole lot of nonsense, and that's the whole truth.

CSI: NY: Blink (2004) Season 1, Episode 1

Possibly my favorite episode of the whole CSI Franchise

[10/10 · 9 February 2024]

If you watch this back-to-back with an episode from season 13, you are basically watching two completly different shows, the atmosphere, sets and general tone are unrecogniseable to what the show became later.

This early episode has a brooding intensity and cinematography which I can only compare to Blade Runner or Manhunter (1986) and I love its atmosphere.

The dialogue is minimal but direct, intelligent and effective. The incidental score is mesmerising. The whole episode is a work of art with a dream-like quality, and the plot is a disturbingly adult story which could be the plot for an entire horror film in the vein of Silence Of The Lambs or Se7en.

When I first saw this I was awestruck by how darkly different it was to Las Vegas and Miami, both of which I saw before this.

Unfortunately, in later series, the show as a whole fell into the cliched predictable and self-referential soap opera melodrama that also eventually afflicted the original CSI (although not Miami quite to the same extent)

But I still go back to enjoy this episode now and again, and think about what could have been if it had continued in this style.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Blood Drops (2000) Season 1, Episode 7

Bloody Drops

[10/10 · 5 February 2024]

Murder is rarely a light-hearted affair, but this powerful early episode established just how dark CSI was willing to go. The murder of four members of a family-including two children-is chilling enough on its own, but the motive is decidedly dark territory. It's pretty obvious early on that Tina Collins is somehow involved in the deaths of her parents and brothers, but her motives-the fact that her father had been sexually abusing her for years and now was starting in on their daughter-take the episode to another level altogether. Earlier episodes established CSI as a somewhat offbeat, quick witted, tech savvy show, but "Blood Drops" proved that the franchise wasn't going to shy away from heavier storylines.

The episode features an early performance from child star Dakota Fanning, who at the time was just six years old. Her only line as traumatized Brenda Collins is "the buffalo" which she blurts out to Grissom when he first checks up on her. The words refer to her father's necklace, which Grissom realizes once he recovers the personal effects found on the victims. Though Fanning has few lines, her big blue eyes and timid demeanor speak to the depth of the trauma Brenda has endured. Even in this early performance, Fanning's talent as a performer shines through, and her scenes with Sara are poignant ones.

Though Sara protests to Brass that she's not good with kids, and objects to being put in charge of Brenda, Sara's instincts are better than she realizes. She's unwilling to leave Brenda with the brisk child services worker, recognizing Brenda's reluctance to go with the woman. Though it will be a while before viewers learn Sara herself was in foster care as a result of violence in her own home, Sara's compassion for Brenda and empathy for her situation are evident here. Later in the episode she tells the team that she left Brenda in the car with the windows cracked, her tone so matter-of-fact that for a moment everyone looks worried. Jorja Fox shows her range in this episode, highlighting Sara's emotional awkwardness as well as her biting sense of humor.

The episode introduces Conrad Ecklie, the day shift supervisor who is Grissom's chief rival at the lab. It's clear from the get-go that the animosity between these two is pretty heated: while Grissom is only concerned with the science and the job he's tasked with, Ecklie is far more political, eager to kowtow to the Sheriff in the hopes of advancement. Played with a ruthless pragmatism by Marc Vann, Ecklie makes no apologies for his ambitions, even going so far as to poach some evidence from the case in the hopes of giving the day shift an edge. Grissom doesn't take this well, storming into the break room and demanding the Ecklie turn over the ill gotten evidence. Ecklie tells Grissom that keeping the Sheriff out of the loop is a "career killer," and Grissom shoots back that it's "sad" that Ecklie thinks of the job simply as a career. It takes a lot to get under the usually even keeled Grissom's skin, but this case and Ecklie's behavior definitely succeed here.

Catherine is facing a personal problem of her own: her husband Eddie reports her to child services after she fails to show up at school to pick their daughter Lindsey up. It's the audience's first real glimpse of Eddie's duplicitous nature: when Catherine hurries home after realizing she forgot to pick Lindsey up, Eddie is sweet as can be, even offering to make her pancakes. He doesn't seem put out at being called to the school to pick Lindsey up, even reminding Catherine that Lindsey is his child, too. But Eddie clearly sees Catherine's mistake as an opportunity to win custody from her, calling child services and initiating an investigation that no doubt will be a thorn in the single mom's side.

The normally easy-going Nick is rattled by the case, punching a doorframe when the body of one of the slain teen boys is carried out of the house. In a scene that highlights the bond between the two CSIs, Warrick quietly asks him about his hand and by extension if he's okay, and Nick tells him that he is. Nick is definitely one of the more emotional members of Grissom's grave shift team, and arguably the most sensitive, but he's not the only one affected by the case. Even the normally unflappable Grissom sighs and has to look away when he sees the bloody handprints left on the wall by the youngest victim.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Who Are You? (2000) Season 1, Episode 6

Who Are You?

[8/10 · 4 February 2024]

The tensions between the cops and the CSIs come to a head in this episode. It's easy to forget now, but early in its run, CSI had the burden of distinguishing itself from the numerous cop shows that came before it. This episode underscores how different what the CSIs do is from what cops do; if this was a cop show, the valet's eyewitness testimony might have been enough to convict Tynar. But the CSIs don't deal with he said/he said; it's all about the evidence. Though he's clearly on the cop side, Brass knows enough to realize that the CSIs need to find that bullet before drawing any definitive conclusions. Neither Tynar nor the valet is a perfect witness: Tynar has a laundry list of complaints against him and was investigated by IA twice, while the valet was joyriding and may have been drinking. The theme "people lie, the evidence doesn't" is one that's emphasized many times during the show's first season.

Like he was in the "Pilot", Brass is argumentative and aggressive, very much a typical cop to the CSI team's somewhat more diverse and quirky roster of scientists. Though he's clearly old guard to the CSIs' more progressive point of view, Brass isn't simply a cliched arrogant cop by any means, and he's got a point about how the bullet needs to be found before any conclusions can be reached about Tynar's guilt. Paul Guilfoyle proves he was the perfect choice to play Brass with every performance. He's grizzled and tough but there's a depth to his performance: even if our sympathies are naturally with the CSIs, Guilfoyle always allows us to see where Brass is coming from.

Brass's clash with Warrick is just beneath the surface of their interactions, and he brings it up here when asking about the evidence. Brass asks Warrick if the investigation is "payback," referring to Brass denying Warrick a warrant and putting him on suspension after Holly Gribbs was shot in the pilot. It's understandable that the tension would be the greatest between these two: Warrick has a fiery, intense personality that makes him more likely to clash with Brass than say, Grissom. Grissom sticks up for himself and his team, but despite the CSI supervisor not being a politician, he is good at calming people down and he effectively diffuses the conflict between Warrick and Brass.

Given how the episode ends, Brass makes an ironic comment to Grissom when he asks the CSI when the last time he drew his weapon was. The end of the episode sees Grissom pulling that weapon to save Nick, who is being held at gunpoint by the clearly unhinged Amy Hindler. Though Grissom is very much a scientist, this is the first time we really get to see him in action, so to speak, and he rises to the occasion. There's no hesitancy in his action; he's as calm and collected holding a gun and talking Amy down as he is in his lab running an experiment.

If Nick isn't quite as cool in the situation as Grissom is, it's easily explained by the fact that he's the one Amy is brandishing her weapon at and also that he's simply not as experienced as Grissom. Someone having a gun aimed at them on television or in the movies is such a routine circumstance that it doesn't usually make much of an impression with the audience, but because of the way George Eads chooses to play the moment, it's a memorable one. Nick's tears and the fear in his voice make the circumstances feel very real, and force the audience to actually worry about Nick's fate. After all, it was just five episodes ago that Holly Gribbs was shot, and she didn't survive that. Eads' performance makes a situation we've become desensitized to on television feel very real and frightening. It's a risky choice--seeing a man cry on television is uncommon as seeing a gun aimed at someone is common--but it's one that definitely pays off.

We finally get to meet Eddie Willows, Catherine's ex-husband, a manipulative charmer who feels no remorse about playing on his ex-wife's lingering feelings for him. He has no hesitation about using their daughter, Lindsey, to get Catherine to help him: he asks her whether she wants their daughter to see her father in the park...or in jail. Whether it's for Lindsey's sake, Eddie's or her own, Catherine is swayed by his argument and pursues the case, even going so far as to call on her strip club connections to get into the strippers' locker room. The case opens up a glimpse into Catherine's past, and rather than being ashamed of her previous employment as an exotic dancer, Catherine claims it and embraces it. When Greg suggests he might have seen Catherine dance at some point, she brazenly tells him that if he had, he would remember.

And yet, as tough and proud as she is, Catherine is still clearly susceptible to Eddie's charms. He tells her he married up when he married her and reminds her in the park where she's taken Lindsey that they were good together sexually. If Lindsey hadn't interrupted, would Catherine have kissed her ex? It's definitely possible. As much as she's not quite yet able to chuck Eddie, she has no problem defying Grissom. Grissom tells her repeatedly to remove herself from the case, but Catherine is determined to see it through. As clueless as he can be about people sometimes, Grissom does see through to her real motivation: she's still in love with Eddie.

Grissom himself might be feeling a few tugs on the heartstrings himself: there are definitely sparks flying between him and pretty facial reconstructionist Teri Miller. Grissom takes an interest in Teri's work, and Teri takes an interest in him, boldly leaving her number on his cold case bulletin board. "The ones that got away," Grissom muses. Teri clearly hopes not. Also making a first appearance is Robert David Hall as Dr. Robbins. There was nothing wrong with Jenna Wells, but Hall brings a gravitas and presence to the morgue. Like Eric Szmanda, he makes an impression. It's no surprise both were made regulars down the road.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Friends & Lovers (2000) Season 1, Episode 5

Friends & Lovers

[9/10 · 4 February 2024]

Grissom is hit hard by the case he's on in this episode, and it's the first time we really see something get under the normally unflappable CSI's skin. At one point in the episode, Grissom outlines the three things that really get to him: men who beat their wives, sexual abuse of children and drug dealers who prey on kids. This case obviously falls under the last category and it's evident in the usually cool-tempered Grissom's reaction to Ethan, the haughty, arrogant drug dealer who quotes the law to Grissom condescendingly. Ethan actually gets a rise out of Grissom, who vows to get him for murder. That Grissom fails in this is surprising, and Ethan dances in the hallway as he's let go. Jeff Parise injects both glee and arrogance into his performance as Ethan, and the audience is as disappointed as Grissom is when Ethan walks away scot free.

A pre-Gilmore Girls and Heroes Milo Ventimiglia is also memorable as Bobby, who remains an earnest, sad figure throughout the episode. He's genuinely devastated to find out he's lost his best friend, but his devastation is mixed with abject horror once he discovers that he in fact is the one responsible for Eric's death. Rather than denying the evidence or wanting to fight for his freedom, Bobby gives up once he realizes he's responsible, horrified that he's killed his best friend. His reaction makes him an even more sympathetic character.

Grissom is similarly saddened by the outcome of the case. When Bobby's lawyer tells him she plans to argue diminished capacity, he tells her frankly and honestly, "I hope you win." Much as Grissom believes in following the evidence, even he can't fail to be moved by the fact that Bobby not only had no intention of hurting his friend, but that he didn't even remember doing it in the first place. The real bad guy, Ethan, walks free and there's nothing Grissom can do about it. To get away, he heads to the strip to ride a gigantic rollercoaster. In a truly impressive sequence, the camera follows Grissom's face as his car climbs to the top and shoots down and around. The tightly-controlled Grissom doesn't let out a single scream or even a stray emotion as he zips along.

Catherine continues to stand in stark opposition to Grissom, though she would probably be interested to see his reaction to Bobby's plight. Catherine tells Nick when he quotes one of Grissom's quips to her that "Grissom isn't right about everything." This is another novel approach from CSI (and one its first spin-off, CSI: Miami doesn't follow): the hero isn't always perfect or right. Grissom is human just like the rest of the team, and while his methods as a scientist are inventive and effective, life isn't so cut and dry that science--or Grissom--can have the answer to every problem, especially when it comes to human emotion. Even Grissom, who would approaches each case as clinically and scientifically he can, has things that get under his skin, like the aforementioned list. Grissom might strive for a dispassionate examination of the evidence, but that doesn't mean he's without feeling by any means.

Catherine, because she's so driven by emotion, clearly doesn't always see that. Here, she and Nick rather easily solve the puzzle, but for Catherine motive is a big missing piece. She's suspicious of Kate's story from the get-go, and the blood splatter on the wall and on Woods' shirt points to Julia's involvement. But for Catherine, the case isn't closed until she knows why the two women killed Woods. The conflict between what the evidence says and basic human nature is a frequent theme early in the show's run; the CSIs aren't cops and their job is to deal with the evidence, not wrangle a confession out of a suspect or uncover the motive, but basic human nature means they'd naturally be curious about what causes one human being to take the life of another. Catherine typifies this curiosity, but as this episode proves, even Grissom isn't always capable of remaining detached and emotionally objective.

David Phillips makes his first appearance in this episode, awkwardly flirting with Sara by telling her he likes her "gusto." Sara, being as sharp as she is, immediately picks up on the fact that he's flirting with her, and gives David some very frank advice for improving his game. There's a bit of irony in Sara telling him to be more aggressive knowing that down the line Sara will be the one who pursues Grissom, but the quip is amusing. Even Grissom gets a little love at the rave when a drunken girl comes up to him and tells him "I love you!" His response that she's a complete stranger to him is pure Grissom and easily draws a laugh from the audience.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Pledging Mr. Johnson (2000) Season 1, Episode 4

Pledging Mr. Johnson

[8/10 · 4 February 2024]

The fourth episode of CSI delves into the differences between its leads, Gil Grissom and Catherine Willows. Grissom typifies science and reason and logic, which are essential in the field but also a little cold. On the other hand, Catherine personifies emotion and passion and feeling, which can sometimes be beneficial and sometimes just the opposite. Grissom and Catherine both locate the boat; Grissom uses his tank to figure out which way the current would have driven the boat, but Catherine is the one who actually physically finds it using her eyes. Which way is more effective? It's mostly a draw, though by the time Grissom figures out where the boat with his mock set up, Catherine has already found it. Though Catherine's way is less precise than Grissom's, both methods are clearly valid. Grissom and Catherine just have two completely different approaches to their work.

Less acceptable is Catherine allowing her own experience and emotions to sway her approach to a case. By the end of the episode, it's very clear that telling Winston Barger that his wife was cheating on him was a mistake. Not only could Catherine have spared Winston the pain of knowing his wife was going to leave him--especially after hearing from Phil Swelco that Wendy was worried Winston would fall apart if she left him--but in telling Winston, she unintentionally gave Winston motive to kill Swelco. Obviously, Catherine couldn't have predicted that Winston would murder Swelco, but Grissom had a point when he said she shouldn't have allowed her personal experiences to influence her in handling a case. Grissom made the distinction between what their obligation was to Winston: telling him how his wife was killed is their duty, but telling him that his wife was having an affair is not.

When Grissom criticizes Catherine for telling Winston that Wendy was cheating on him, she doesn't take it lying down. She tells Grissom flat out that she can't be like him, eschewing a personal life for work, work, work. Therein lies the difference between the two: while Grissom is able to approach his work from a clinical, scientific standpoint, but Catherine is guided by her emotions and can't separate them from her work. More than that, she's irritated at Grissom for being able to do just that: she lobbies a personal complaint, saying that she wished he'd told her when her ex-husband Eddie was cheating on her. This implies that the two are more than co-workers: they're friends, and Grissom was aware of the details of her personal life, and about her husband's infidelity.

William Petersen and Marg Helgenberger play off each other perfectly in this episode, adeptly showing why they were perfect choices for their roles. Petersen plays Grissom as the consummate scientist, truly baffled by the idea that emotion and gut instinct could ever compete with or even supersede science. Helgenberger, on the other hand, brings out all of Catherine's spitfire, spunky spirit that the character will come to be known for. And yet, different as they are, they do respect each other. Grissom is visibly impressed that Catherine found the boat on her own, without the aid of his scientific experiment. And Catherine is suitably awed when Grissom shows her Wendy's death was in fact a tragic accident and not the result of foul play. These two might have little in common, but each recognizes what the other brings to the table.

If Nick and Sara aren't quite there yet, it's only because they're younger and less familiar with each other. Sara dismisses Nick when she learns he was a frat boy; it's clear from the get-go that Sara thinks little of the fraternity system and the people involved in it. But while Sara is the one with the nagging suspicion throughout that the fraternity boys are lying, it is Nick who is finally able to get Matt to crack by appealing to his sense of community within the fraternity, telling him that unless he levels with the CSIs, the house will go dark. Though Sara's instincts were dead on, it is Nick who speaks the language of the boys they're dealing with, and knows just what to say to Matt to get him to crack and give up Kyle.

Warrick's entanglement with Judge Cohen comes to an abrupt end in this episode when the judge crosses the line by asking Warrick to tamper with evidence and thereby allow a rapist to go free. Warrick might not be above placing a bet for the judge in order to get a warrant, but actually tampering with evidence and compromising a case, and thus letting a criminal walk free, is going to far. Testing Warrick and seeing what his limits are early on is a good move: the audience knows he's a bit of a maverick character since he did gamble for the judge, but they're allowed to see that he's still honorable when he refuses to do anything that would help put a criminal back on the street. Grissom is still worried about him and therefore we as an audience are, too, but his promotion to CSI Level Three is hopefully a sign of good things to come.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Crate 'n' Burial (2000) Season 1, Episode 3

Crate 'n Burial

[8/10 · 4 February 2024]

Ann Donahue's first episode of CSI settles the show into business as usual: two cases for the team to tackle. Grissom and Sara display a natural ease in their interactions in this episode and there's even a little innuendo between them, hinting at the attraction between them. Sara is clearly proud of the fact that Grissom handpicked her for his team and her banter with him is easy and natural. There's an undercurrent of flirtation as well; Sara calls to him, "Will you come tape me up?" and Grissom turns to Catherine with a genuine smile and says, "I love my job." It's refreshing to see the lighter side of Grissom, to see him enjoying the attention of a younger, attractive woman.

Sara makes waves with Nick, establishing a rivalry between the two of them right off the bat. After he pulls rank on her, she is quick to remind him she was handpicked by Grissom to join the team. It's understandable that there'd be some friendly competition between these two; they're pretty much on the same level. Both are protiges of Grissom and both are ambitious. Grissom continues to act the part of mentor with Nick; when Nick is ready to take the voice match to Chip from the audio tape and call it a day, Grissom urges him to dig deeper in the hopes that he can uncover evidence of Laura's involvement and sure enough, Nick follows Grissom's advice and comes up with the proof they need to put her away.

CSI's third episode scores with an impressive guest cast as well. Erich Anderson, who played the titular character's father on Felicity, turns in a sympathetic performance as the duped husband while Jolene Blalock in a pre-Star Trek: Enterprise appearance, turns in a slinky, layered portrayal, hinting that there's more to Laura's story without ever making it obvious, until she's found out, that she was in on the scheme all along. Everwood's John Beasley is heartbreaking as the grandfather who stands to lose his grandson to a tragic accident and the poor decision to flee the scene. It's impossible not to sympathize with Charles Moore, even if we know James is the one who has to pay for the crime.

Catherine and Warrick struggle with their case. Catherine laments that she wishes her job included helping the good guys and not just catching the bad ones. It's a grim point about the CSIs' jobs, but a valid one. They're out to catch criminals and at best they can offer solace to victims, but there's not much they can do to help the Moores. James made a terrible mistake and compounded it by leaving the scene, but his actions didn't have any malice and he certainly didn't intend to take a little girl's life. Charles wants to help his grandson, figuring his life is coming to an end and jail won't ruin his future the way it might for James.

But, as Warrick reminds Catherine, the CSIs can't be a party to that. In what will be a theme for the duration of the show and its spin-offs, the importance of the evidence--and the evidence alone--is emphasized. The CSIs don't have the luxury that presented itself every now and then on one of those older, more traditional cop shows of sometimes letting a good but guilty person go because they feel sorry for them. Evidence might be irrefutable, but that's a double-edged sword sometimes, especially when the CSIs feel bad about finding out someone they sympathize with is guilty. The evidence, like justice, is blind.

Though he's the one to champion the fact that the CSIs' job is to follow the evidence, he's not unsympathetic to the Moores' plight. He offers his phone number to James as the boy is about to go off to jail, something Charles notes Warrick didn't have to do. The situation brings up a memory of his grandmother, who Warrick says described him as a "work in progress." Charles replies that she did something right, but Warrick only allows a tentative "maybe." No doubt he's thinking of his gambling troubles and entanglement with the corrupt Judge Cohen. In just three episodes, Warrick has emerged as the show's most interesting and complex character, at least at this juncture. The bad boy trying to do good is an alluring archetype, and Gary Dourdan's performance adds depth to an already compelling character.

The sense of the team as a cohesive unit is underscored by the way they rally around Catherine for her daughter's birthday. Though Lindsey doesn't want a party, all of the CSIs (save for Sara, who is new to the team) have gotten her presents. Both Grissom and Nick got the little girl lab kits, underscoring their mentor/protige relationship. Sara teasingly suggests Nick keep his and use it himself. The scene establishes the team as friends as well as coworkers, a kind of chosen family. Later on, when Catherine spends time with Lindsey at the park, the little girl tells her the reason she didn't want a party was so that she could spend time alone with her mother. It's the classic single parent dilemma, balancing work and family, and one that will dog Catherine throughout the show's run as Lindsey grows from a precocious little girl to a resentful teen.

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Cool Change (2000) Season 1, Episode 2

Cool Change

[9/10 · 4 February 2024]

Picking up where the "Pilot" left off, "Cool Change" can easily be seen as the second half of the show's debut. It fleshes out characters like Catherine and Nick, who didn't have quite as much to do in the first installment, establishes Grissom as the team's official leader and introduces Sara Sidle, who will become an integral member of the team. She's a better outsider than Holly, if just for the reason that she isn't the cliched newcomer, the fish out of water trying to find her way. There's nothing wrong with that kind of character, but it's refreshing to see someone who's different.

Sara establishes herself immediately by dispelling Catherine's initial hostility. Catherine is naturally protective of her co-workers and doesn't take kindly to an outsider coming in to horn in on the case. "We can argue," Sara offers, "but two sharp women are better than one." With that simple statement, Sara calls out Catherine's behavior and offers a solution all in one. Reminding Catherine that they're on the same side, as women and as criminalists who want to uncover the truth reveals a lot about Sara's character. She's practical, she tells it like it is and she's not interested in petty disputes. Catherine responds to Sara's frankness and shares her work on the case. Sara in turn recognizes that Catherine has things under control and turns her attention to Warrick. It's a promising first meeting between the two women.

Catherine has an increased role in "Cool Change." She feels both guilt over and responsibility for Holly's situation after encouraging the young CSI to stay until she solves her first case. Grissom initially wants to give the case to Nick, who didn't have any contact with Holly, but Catherine insists on taking it, and she won't accept no for an answer. Interestingly, Grissom accedes, proving at least in this instance, her will is stronger than his. The audience also gets to see Catherine's brazen side when she calls the pager's owner and pretends to be a flirty young girl looking for a little fun when he picks up the phone. Catherine might be a bit unconventional, but her strong, forceful personality is evident from the get-go.

Warrick is in pretty deep water, even more so than he was in the pilot. Not only was he off placing a bet while Holly was getting shot, he managed to bet on the wrong team and lose Judge Cohen some serious money. The judge demands Warrick repay him double the original bet and if that weren't bad enough, the judge isn't done with the CSI, claiming that their business isn't over and that he'll call Warrick when he needs him. "I own you," the judge snidely tells the CSI. Warrick initially offered to place a bet for the judge in exchange for a warrant, a well-intentioned if ill-advised move. He's paying for it now; the bet he placed for the judge may have cost Holly her life and the corrupt judge recognizes an advantage when he sees one.

Grissom, now the leader of the CSI team, has to make the tough decision of whether or not to fire Warrick. Brass was in charge of the CSI team in the pilot but he's moved back to Homicide in this episode. I wonder if this was a network decision or if Anthony Zuiker's original plan was to have Grissom set up as a new leader for the show's first season. It's much more fitting to have Grissom in charge of the "nerd squad" as opposed to Brass. Brass represents the old school, the type who barks orders and leans on suspects hard for a confession; Grissom is the new order, the type who uses science to figure things out and is a fount of obscure information and observations because, as he tells Nick, "It's our job to know stuff."

Grissom is a much kinder, gentler leader than Brass. He affectionately calls Nick "Nicky" and clearly views the younger CSI as his protige. And he doesn't fire Warrick, saying, "If I let you go, I have to let me go." Grissom sees the graveyard shift as a genuine team, meaning they stand together. As Warrick says earlier on, he was left alone at crime scenes plenty of times as a rookie; Warrick's mistake, gambling aside, was something any CSI could have committed. If Grissom knew the whole story, however--that Warrick was placing a bet for a judge--he might not have been so forgiving.

Just as the team cohesiveness is established early on, so is how integral setting is to the show. CSI is a Las Vegas show; as is true of each of the franchise's offerings, the city plays a part in the show just as much as the characters do. The first two episodes feature a crime at a casino, a sly but pretty prostitute, a CSI with a gambling problem and a disreputable judge. Each episode opens with a shot of the Las Vegas strip: the glitz, the lights and the hotels flash before the viewer's eyes before the first body shows up. With its glamour, seedy underbelly, promise of unimaginable success and threat of dismal failure, could there be a more perfect setting for a crime show than the city of Las Vegas?

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation: Pilot (2000) Season 1, Episode 1

Pilot

[8/10 · 4 February 2024]

This is how it all began, and looking back on the pilot episode, it's interesting to see how CSI has changed from its first outing. Though it's a more stylized and darker show now, CSI's quirky humor and smart writing was evident from the get-go. The pilot manages to be straightforward and accessible even as it lays out some complex plot threads that will continue throughout the season and beyond: the faked suicide killer, Warrick's gambling problems and Catherine's attempts to balance her job with raising her daughter.

Looking back at the pilot from 2008, when forensics shows are in abundance, it's easy to forget how groundbreaking the show was when it first premiered. Before CSI, it was all about getting a confession or finding a key witness or tripping a suspect up in the recounting of a story. In CSI, things are much more concrete: striations on a toenail clipping from a suspect match it to one found in the victim's shoe and similar skin discolorations reveal that a prostitute drugged her john. As Grissom quips, "Concentrate on what cannot lie: the evidence." People are fallible and, as Doctor House would say, "everybody lies." Whether they're trying to conceal shady behavior or an actual crime, people can't always be trusted. The evidence can.

It's easy to see why quirky, eccentric Gil Grissom makes such a compelling hero. He's different from the typical brash, posturing detective (personified in this episode by Jim Brass). What supervisor would ask for a pint of blood on a new employee's first day? Who yells, "You assholes!" at a morgue full of dead people? Grissom garners a few laughs in the pilot, but he's also an insightful, clever character. And a determined one as well--when the husband tells Grissom he cut his toenails and flushed them down the toilet, Grissom gamely sets about searching around the toilet for the clippings. The message is clear: incriminating evidence can't really be gotten rid of.

Grissom comes across as less reserved in this episode than he does as the series progresses. William Petersen is clearly having fun with the CSI's quirky side. He greets Holly Gribbs with a smile--and a request for a pint of blood. The moment where he yells, "You assholes!" at the corpses after Holly is startled by them is funny and completely unexpected. Who knew Grissom had it in him? He also apparently tried romancing one of the lab techs, with little luck. Grissom might be good at reading crime scenes and interpreting evidence, but women are something of a mystery to him it seems.

CSI's leading lady doesn't get much screentime in the pilot. Catherine does swoop in for a memorable rescue, getting Holly Gribbs out of a sticky situation with a convenience store owner who doesn't want the CSI to waste her time looking for evidence. Catherine's pragmatic side shows through right away when she assesses the situation and tells Holly to come with her. Why bother processing the scene of a robbery if the victim doesn't care about who robbed her? Catherine's got a point. She gives the frazzled Holly advice about the job, urging her to stick with it until she closes her first case. Catherine promises her she won't regret it.

Sadly, Holly probably does regret it, given that the episode concludes with her getting shot and as Brass says solemnly, isn't expected to pull through. It's a shocking ending to the first episode; the audience has been lulled into thinking Holly was their gateway into the CSIs' world, that she would be their guide, gently easing them into the world of forensics as she got the hang of it. But it's not to be so; Holly provides a quick introduction and then is summarily dispatched. Holly is a fairly stock character--the newbie uncertain of her path but eager to impress and please. The loss of the character is worth the message her death sends: that this is dangerous work and that the show isn't going to play it safe.

Holly's predicament puts Warrick in even bigger trouble than he already has stirred up for himself during the episode. He goes around Brass's back to get a warrant, but does so by making a deal with a judge: he'll place a bet for Judge Cohen in exchange for a warrant. I can't imagine Grissom would approve of this kind of backdoor dealing. Then, after being pulled from the case by Brass, Warrick blows off shadowing Holly to go place the bet for the judge. Warrick might never have gotten caught for that if Holly hadn't been shot, but his actions clearly have grave consequences here. It's a risky move, introducing Warrick with so much maverick behavior in the first episode, but it also immediately makes him one of the more fascinating characters to the audience.

His counterpart and rival, Nick Stokes, plays it a bit safer, but he does offer a deal to Kristi Hopkins rather than simply having her arrested. It's unconventional, but it does allow him to close the case, return the hapless victim's belongings to him and earns Nick the promotion to CSI Level Three. Nick comes off as easygoing and charming guy; it's no surprise that at the end of the episode it's he and not the troubled Warrick getting the promotion.

Brass is the very opposite of easygoing in this episode, and it's clear the character was initially envisioned as the stereotypical hard-nosed detective in opposition to the "nerd squad." Though Paul Guilfoyle does well with the material, Brass is a little too caustic to be likable here. First he lays into Holly Gribbs for being a legacy hire and then he opposes Warrick, disagreeing with the CSI but also clearly looking to rattle his cage. Brass also appears to be the one in charge of the CSIs, giving Grissom orders and putting Warrick on suspension following Holly's shooting. I'm grateful the character of Brass was mellowed as the series progressed; though he's on good terms with Grissom in the episode, his antagonistic attitude wears thin after a while.

There's no sign of Sara Sidle or Dr. Al Robbins here, but Greg Sanders shows up, geeky and quirky from the get-go as he banters with Nick about what kind of swabs are the best. From his goofy shirt to his quick wit, Greg is every bit the lab geek. In just two scenes he makes a strong impression, and it's not hard to see why he was eventually added to the main credits while the rest of the supporting players in the pilot didn't survive much beyond it.

I Will: The Story of London (1993 Video Game)

The best game ever made.

[10/10 · 29 January 2024]

The acting and story in this FMV game is clearly a genre-defining moment in video games. No expense was spared in finding world-class actors. Thankfully Pierce Brosnan had to pull out at the last minute, as this made way for Nigel Ellis to put in one of the best portrails of a Doctor / Scientist ever caught on a shiny disc.

He is backed-up by the equally talented Catherine Gribbin, the doctors assistant and the girl who's the key to everything.

The use of laser disc technology to create this cutting edge Pioneer LaserActive Full Motion Video game is utterly groundbreaking. If you ever wondered where the current prosperous and dominating FMV game genre started, look no further than this game, which kickstarted it all 30 years ago!

Invisible (2016– )

Raises intriguing questions about the ethical implications of having such a gift

[7/10 · 27 January 2024]

Invisible is a sci-fi thriller series that explores the consequences of a family secret that grants some members the ability to turn invisible. The show, directed by Doug Liman, who also helmed The Bourne Identity and Edge of Tomorrow, combines action, mystery and drama in a compelling narrative that keeps the viewers hooked. The series boasts a talented cast, including Jason Priestley, Olivia Thirlby, David Harbour and Nick Robinson, who deliver convincing performances as the protagonists of the story. The show also features stunning visual effects that create a realistic and immersive experience of invisibility. The show tackles themes such as identity, morality, power and family, and raises intriguing questions about the ethical implications of having such a gift. Invisible is a well-crafted and engaging series that offers a fresh and original take on the genre of sci-fi. It is a must-watch for fans of Liman's work and for anyone who enjoys a thrilling and suspenseful story.

Barbie (I) (2023)

Not the evil propaganda some people are saying, but also not funny and very shallow

[4/10 · 22 July 2023]

I just watched Barbie, it wasn't offensively bad. It was just weak, and not funny. The feminist rant stuff is unapologetically there, not as frequent as some people are saying, it came across to me like content from an '80s female stand up comedienne, so nothing original, and very dated. The script is messy and doesn't make a lot of sense even regarding it's own internal logic.

The "empowerment" stuff in it is very generic, a lot of the sentiment is kid's film-level "just be yourself and like yourself" thinking that applies to any person, but it's only the girls in the film that make these profound "revelations" as they are the creative gender and the guys (in Barbie land and the "real" world) are all cardboard cut-out airheads.

The film is nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is, it's pretty shallow and light-weight and isn't going to leave lasting impact in pop culture, good or bad, pretty forgettable really. Kids of an impressionable age will most likely just be bored by it, and most older people will see it for the weak sauce it is.

World on Fire (2019–2023)

With English people this unpleasent, who needs the Nazis?

[1/10 · 18 July 2023]

Revisionist crap, just like the god-awful BBC "interpretation" of War Of The Worlds a few years ago, suddenly all English people in the past have become homophobic, racist, sexist, and everything else-ist, by some kind of BBC directorate that seems to be infecting almost everying it makes now days.

If you want to get some true idea of what WW2 was like, watch the countless films made during and just after the war, made by and starring people who were actually alive during the war, fought in the war, and knew what it was really like, knew what people were really like then, and what actually happened.

If you want some kind of agenda-driven drivel written by 30-somethings who's main reason for writing is to project some kind of modern-day anti-Brexit diatribe onto the past (for what reason?), then watch this nonsence.

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun (1969)

The SFX make this worth seeing, essentially a short story spread too thin for a full film

[7/10 · 18 July 2023]

The special effects are downright beautiful, I'm a big fan of classic model-work with matte paintings (pinnacles being Douglas Trumbull's 2001, Blade Runner, ST:TMP etc) and this fully delivers in that area. The detailing on the model shots is world-class, and this is a rare / lost art now so it's safe to say these techniques may never be equaled again in the future of film.

On a technical level, the film is superb, with excellent performances and a general air of authenticity, with care given intelligently to minor details in the sets and props, which makes for a convincing, believable view of the future....1969's view of the future of course, but as such it stands up very well.

The story itself is where things are not quite at the same standard. This feels like a great entry in a sci-fi short story collection, that is stretched out too thin for a feature length film. There is a bit of meat to the story in the beginning, with elements of international politics, Bond-like espionage and some adult-themed interpersonal drama, but they feel under-developed and don't go anywhere, and when the film's real point gets into gear, it's not explored as thoroughly as it could have been and the end feels abrupt and fairly unsatisfying. I think another half hour of running time and a more developed story could really have made this an epic sci-fi that would be better known than it seems to be now.

In conclusion, this is still a must-watch for sci-fi genre and SFX enthusiasts such as myself, so I can still recommend it highly.

The Lonely Guy (1984)

Not on the level of Martin's best, but still thoroughly entertaining

[7/10 · 17 July 2023]

This mixes some Airplane-style site gags, and pathos-heavy comedy in a fairly typical style you'd expect from actors like Bill Murray, and Steve himself of course, in the 80s. Two films that I was reminded of were the beginning of Stripes (with Bill Murry), which was quite similar to the beginning of this film, and some of Martin's own "The Man With Two Brains", when he is being lead-on by Kathleen Turner's character, as he is lead-on by the equally gorgeous Robyn Douglass in this film.

(On a completely unrelated subject, I discovered this film while looking into Robyn Douglass's films after seeing her in the 1980 Battlestar Galactica spin-off, and in this film there is a funny scene where Charles Grodin's somewhat socially-challenged character is at a swinging party, but found sitting in a room on his own, watching Battlestar Galactica! Which I thought was a nice little coincidence)

This is a low-key, generally good-natured comedy with some minor hints of dark humour, that made me laugh out loud on many occaisions, so it totally passed the true comedy test for me, and although it's not quite up there with Martin's best films, it's easly in the top half of his works and is a consistently funny comedy that I can easily recommend to any fans of classic '80s entertainment.

1982: Greatest Geek Year Ever! (2022–2023)

The editing is a bit schitzophrenic but it's good where it counts

[7/10 · 15 July 2023]

I can only review episode 1 of this 4 part series as the rest is not available to me yet, but so far it's good.

You can see it's not the highest budget documentary ever made, with title cards, fonts and flat graphics looking somewhat basic & home-made, but it's good where it counts, with the most important thing in place: plenty of interviews and soundbites with people who actually appeared in the movies, or were involved in making them, plus a surprisingly large number of names from the video game industry. For instance I was happy to see Nolan Bushnell of Atari. The early eighies console and arcade scene was inextricably linked to the films in the minds of kids of the time, one of which I am.

The first episode does have a few too many fast cuts, sometimes the rush of comments from different people spending no more than a few seconds on each person can get a bit messy, but I can see that they are trying to fit a lot in the first episode by way of an introduction to the whole thing, so maybe in the next episodes things will calm down a bit. In this episode, the main focus does eventually settle down on Poltergeist & E. T. and plenty of interesting and entertaining information is divulged, including quite a lot on Spielberg's cancelled project "Night Skies", which directly influenced E. T., which I was not aware of.

The most important thing you take away from it is the sheer Spielbergian wonder of the film and other films of the year, because of course Spielberg was possibly the single most influential person of the early 80s genre blockbusters, so he does deserve the spotlight he gets in the second half of the show. Even though he himself is not interviewed (the is not quite made on the scale to get interveiws with Lucas, Spielberg etc), plenty of people who worked with him and knew him are interviewed, so it works.

I will definitely be watching the coming episodes and can recommend this without hesitation.

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (2023)

Annoying side characters spoil what might have been a much better film

[5/10 · 9 July 2023]

All the technical aspects of the film are pretty good, aside from a couple of the major action set pieces taking place in a kind of foggy, mushy, near-darkness, making them very hard to see, I suspect it's to obscure deficiencies in the special effects / CGI. I wish this wasn't the case as the clear camera work of the previous films is far more enjoyable and more fitting to the established style of Jones films.

I actually don't have a problem with the aged depiction of Jones and his general lack of involvement in the action scenes, people would be equally complaining about how ridiculous it is to see an near-80 year old man doing OTT stunts, which would have demanded even more uncanny valley CGI.

My biggest gripe, and it is a big one which drags the film down from a 7 out of 10 or so to 5, is the utterly annoying side characters of Helena and not-Shortround, sorry I mean Teddy.

For a large proportion of the film they show no respect for Jones, constantly back talking to him, jibing him, denigrating his past as a mere "tomb robber" who "just did it for the buzz" and if these are meant to be endearingly humorous, they fell totally flat for me. Near the beginning of the film the untrustworthy Helena intentionally puts Indy in positions where she knows he is going to get caught and likely killed, with a smug grin.

Considering her character is the daughter of a good friend of Jones, who knows him well enough for him to have a pet name name for her, the writers just don't do enough work to convincingly justify this attitude she now has towards Jones, we are just supposed to go with it because she's a "resourceful, daring, beautiful and self-sufficient" woman. These are her actual words, describing herself, in the film, not mine. If she is the beautiful genius that has memorized everything that her father and Indy ever knew about archaeology, as she describes herself in the film, wouldn't she at least have some reverence for Jones' past achievements? The more you think about it the less it makes sense.

I understand that Helena is meant to be a rebellious character but they go WAY too far in this regard and I really see no reason to empathise with her, or even remotely like her, and the attempts they make to reverse this near the end are too little and too late, they feel bolted-on as though they are last-minute script changes, which maybe they were, seeing as this film had extensive reshoots, which pushed it over 300m to make.

There are minimal signs of "modern" writing in this film too. Being Nazis, we can take it for granted that the bad guys will have very unpleasant and prejudiced views in all the ways you'd expect, but as it's now 2023, we had to have a scene where the main bad guy is openly racist to a black hotel porter, just to drive the point home for anyone dumb enough to not realise. This scene was totally superfluous and only reminded me that this is a film written in 2023 and not the 1980s. I guess the writers watched the original films and decided the Nazis weren't racist enough?

If they had written side characters that showed a normal amount of respect to Jones, as anyone would normally show anyone else, then this film would be getting a significantly higher score, as all other aspects of the film were fair enough, including the main plot, enemies and their motivations, but I cannot give it more than 5 due to these jarring and unfitting writing decisions which pulled me out of it too often.

Citadel (2023– )

Generic, familiar, looks OK but that's it, otherwise it's very bland.

[4/10 · 8 July 2023]

The show looks nice, decent cinematography and design, but the dialogue is painfully obvious, it's one of those shows where the characters have no individual personality because they speak almost entirely in A. I.-generated exposition. There's a few fight scenes which remind of scenes in the Russo brother's Marvel films but that's it. I was going to give this a five as extremely average but having seen episode two, which now also seems to think the only way to add real character to the characters is to insert pointless f-bombs into every other line, im reducing it to a four. This is background viewing, it *looks* like a slick spy thriller, but there is absolutely nothing new on offer here and the flat perfotmances and perfunctory dialogue are the final nails in the coffin. I actually wanted to like this, but I am totally out now.

Storyboard: Woodentop (1983) Season 1, Episode 4

The longest running police show in the UK

[8/10 · 18 May 2023]

Woodentop was a pilot episode for the long-running British police drama The Bill, which aired on ITV from 1984 to 2010. The episode was part of the Storyboard series of one-off plays, and was broadcast on 16 August 1983. It introduced the viewers to Sun Hill police station and its officers, focusing on PC Jim Carver's first day on the job. The episode was written by Geoff McQueen, who created The Bill, and directed by Peter Cregeen.

The episode was praised for its realistic and gritty portrayal of policing, using hand-held cameras, natural lighting and authentic dialogue. It also featured strong performances from the cast, especially John Salthouse as Carver and Trudie Goodwin as WPC June Ackland, who would become one of the show's longest-serving characters. The episode dealt with various aspects of police work, such as dealing with a dead body, a domestic dispute, a juvenile offender and a possible rape case.

Woodentop was a successful pilot that led to the commissioning of The Bill as a full series, which premiered on 16 October 1984. The series retained many of the elements and characters from Woodentop, but also made some changes and inconsistencies. For example, Sun Hill police station was relocated from Wapping to East London, and some of the officers' ranks and names were altered. Woodentop remains an important and influential episode in the history of British television drama, and a landmark in the genre of police procedural.

Star Trek: Picard: Võx (2023) Season 3, Episode 9

I've enjoyed a couple of episodes of S03 including this one

[7/10 · 15 April 2023]

There have been some good bits in this season, this episode (and probabaly the final one) and episode 4 particularly, all the good bits that actually advanced the story significantly could have fitted into a single film length which would be a much less boring experience but honestly still only up to the standard of the other TNG movies. It's a shame that we've also had to tread-water through hours of otherwise repetitive tiresome mystery box boredom for the rest of the time. Realistically you can't say a 10 episode show was great when there was only 2 good hours out of 8 hours. Though that is still 2 more hours of good stuff than the previous 2 seasons I guess. I don't think I will ever re-watch this season but I would possibly watch a movie-length fan edit if one ever gets made...

Battlestar Galactica: The Magnificent Warriors (1978) Season 1, Episode 8

Of the derivitive plot episodes, this one is still a lot of fun + Silent Running footage

[8/10 · 15 March 2023]

I was fascinated to see clever use of footage of the bio-dome ships from Douglas Trumbull's classic film "Silent Running", with viper dogfights super-imposed over the top!

This was very clearly a rip-off of various Western plots (as was the similarly-named "The Lost Warrior"), but then again, if Star Wars can do it, why not this?

As such, this episode could have been bad, like the boring "The Long Patrol", but what kept this above water was the performances and humour, which actually worked this time, and supplied genuine entertainment throughout.

I particularly like the way Starbuck's selfishness and vanity worked in his favour this time, bringing the story to a satisfying conclusion, and the relationship between Adama and Siress Belloby, which was constantly amusing and possibly an influence on ST:TNG's Picard and Lwaxana Troi?

Star Trek: Picard: Seventeen Seconds (2023) Season 3, Episode 3

More mysteryboxing

[2/10 · 2 March 2023]

Still trying to like Picard s03 but Episode 3 still has the hallmarks of rubbish.....messy direction....bad editing...terrible dialogue.... Captain Shaw: "...what Weird Sh** have you got for me now".......if only I had a penny for every time one of the old cast gets described in-show as "a legend", cant they at least think of a new word if they have to keep saying it? (and really they weren't, they were just doing their jobs)....... Raffi's re-inclusion in the show is utterly pointless, why couldn't they just have Worf doing all the stuff she's doing and leave her out? He's doing everything for her any way while she just over-acts and moans on about drug addiction.....messy plot....three captains on the ship all arguing with each other making the leadership a complete mess.....in fact everyone continuously arguing with each other and putting each other down (more Kurtzman crap)........cheap "I am your father" drama, who cares whether this Jack guy is the robot's son anyway? Picard never actually "got together" with Beverley in canon.....mysteryboxing the hell out of everything so everything is continually kept vague for false suspense (this is one of the worst things and totally not star trek, like it totally wasn't Tolkien in R. O. P.).....sorry people but this is no great improvement over seasons 1 and 2.

CSI: Vegas (2021–2024)

This show is unrecognisable now

[3/10 · 4 February 2023]

There's nothing exciting about this show now, no suspense, no quirkiness, no originality. The stupid boring plots leave you thinking "and I care about this why?". Are we really supposed to care about Catherine's nonsensical family issues (her daughter actually was a training CSI in the previous show - do the writers even know this? - and now she's doing Onlyfans, wtaf?), let alone Catherine would choose to take her toddler granddaughter to a crime scene for the day and all her colleagues were OK with this like it's just a normal thing?

The show is now almost a man-free zone, the two men who do feature in more than just bit-parts are emotionally stunted idiots who are either too socially-challanged and scared to leave the lab, or need to keep being corrected and put down for making stupid suggestions.

I understand that some modern producers and writers feel the need to "make up" for what they perceive as prejudice and stereo-typing in old TV shows but of all the shows in which to force these opinions now, CSI isn't it, which always had lots of generally well-writen, strong female roles, that were perfectly balanced by the equally talented and capable male characters.

This show is doomed. Do they think they are going to get 10+ seasons out of this rubbish like previous CSIs?

CSI: Vegas: When the Dust Settles (2023) Season 2, Episode 12

CSI Daycare - this show is unrecognisable now

[3/10 · 4 February 2023]

There's nothing exciting about this show now, no suspense, no quirkiness, no originality. The stupid boring plots leave you thinking "and I care about this why?". Are we really supposed to care about Catherine's nonsensical family issues (her daughter actually was a training CSI in the previous show - do the writers even know this? - and now she's doing Onlyfans, wtaf?), let alone Catherine would choose to take her toddler granddaughter to a crime scene for the day and all her colleagues were OK with this like it's just a normal thing?

The show is now almost a man-free zone, the two men who do feature in more than just bit-parts are either emotionally stunted idiots who are too socially-challanged and scared to leave the lab, or need to keep being corrected and put down for making stupid suggestions.

I understand that some modern producers and writers feel the need to "make up" for what they perceive as prejudice and stereo-typing in old TV shows but of all the shows in which to force these opinions now, CSI isn't it, which always had lots of generally well-writen, strong female roles, that were perfectly balanced by the equally talented and capable male characters.

This show is doomed. Do they think they are going to get 10+ seasons out of this rubbish like previous CSIs?