CSI (10/2): Part II
#1
Thread Starter
Moderator
CSI (10/2): Part II
Whoddathunk...?
Who killed the "How much do you love her" couple...?
But the subplot with the kid that found dead in the tub was quite gross.
Who killed the "How much do you love her" couple...?
Spoiler:
But the subplot with the kid that found dead in the tub was quite gross.
#2
DVD Talk Legend
Re: CSI (10/2): Part II
Originally posted by Goldberg74
But the subplot with the kid that found dead in the tub was quite gross.
But the subplot with the kid that found dead in the tub was quite gross.
#5
DVD Talk God
kind of a disappointment. would've been much better if the judge was the murderer. oh well. a decent episode.
#6
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by BlackCapTen
In last week's thread someone was pretty close to guessing it.
In last week's thread someone was pretty close to guessing it.
Pretty weak episode, especially for a two-parter.
#7
Guest
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Pittsburgh, PA
I thought it was a weak episode as well. Why would you kill the couple BEFORE a possible court trial that could put them away for life?
Anyway, Sara (Jorja Fox) had the best two lines of the night:
Catherine: It's raining man juice.
Sara: Hallelujah!
Sara: Now who's the punk, bitch?!
Anyway, Sara (Jorja Fox) had the best two lines of the night:
Catherine: It's raining man juice.
Sara: Hallelujah!
Sara: Now who's the punk, bitch?!
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Aside from affirming that Marg Helgenberger is a very hot older woman, I don't see what else this show accomplishes.
#11
Not much.
There is almost no character development (other than Grissom's hearing problem from last year, which was resolved with a 10-second dialogue between Grisson and Catherine in the first episode of this season).
The cases seem to be getting more and more off-the-wall and/or lame too. The main case here was really weak. If the guy had killed someone who was found not guilty (OJ?), then it would have been better, but the couple he killed was about to get life in prison.
OK, I'm done with my
I'll still watch the show, at least for a while longer.
There is almost no character development (other than Grissom's hearing problem from last year, which was resolved with a 10-second dialogue between Grisson and Catherine in the first episode of this season).
The cases seem to be getting more and more off-the-wall and/or lame too. The main case here was really weak. If the guy had killed someone who was found not guilty (OJ?), then it would have been better, but the couple he killed was about to get life in prison.
OK, I'm done with my
I'll still watch the show, at least for a while longer.
#12
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Columbus, OH
The reason this show gets the ratings is because you don't have to watch every one of them to know whats going on. Exactly why Law and Order does so good as well. This way it gets all the "serious" tv watchers as well as random watchers here and there. I personally need some character development to really love a show. I watch this from time to time but its certainly not must see.
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Weak ending to a two parter. Damn Catherine and her cleavage are fine.
I really hope that Grissom doesn't go through some phase of wanting to become a cop or something...
I really hope that Grissom doesn't go through some phase of wanting to become a cop or something...
#15
Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a cop, and our crime scene people were all sworn officers, and carried guns.
What I don't get is in the first season Grissom had a gun, Catherine shot somebody, etc. etc.
You still see Nick and Sarah and the other guy (his name escapes me) carry a gun, but then they all say they are criminalists, not cops?
Now Grissom is plugging away at a target?
I'll still watch it. Marg Helgenberger is damn fine, and the stories are interesting, but this whole blurred line between criminalist/cop irritates me.
What I don't get is in the first season Grissom had a gun, Catherine shot somebody, etc. etc.
You still see Nick and Sarah and the other guy (his name escapes me) carry a gun, but then they all say they are criminalists, not cops?
Now Grissom is plugging away at a target?
I'll still watch it. Marg Helgenberger is damn fine, and the stories are interesting, but this whole blurred line between criminalist/cop irritates me.
#16
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
I was wondering about the gun thing too. I thought all CSI (or whatever your local PD calls their dept) were all cops. Hell CSI Miami they are all cops, but whatabout Grissom?
#18
DVD Talk God
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 133,156
Received 897 Likes
on
741 Posts
From: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Best line of the episode: 'SOUP'S ON!'
She's a hottie. She was the daughter in Vegas Vacation and she also was on the cast of Showtime's now-cancelled Resurrection Blvd.
Hey, as long as we get to see Warrick and the 911 operator again knocking boots, I'll consider that character development.
#19
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by Cusm
I was wondering about the gun thing too. I thought all CSI (or whatever your local PD calls their dept) were all cops. Hell CSI Miami they are all cops, but whatabout Grissom?
I was wondering about the gun thing too. I thought all CSI (or whatever your local PD calls their dept) were all cops. Hell CSI Miami they are all cops, but whatabout Grissom?
#20
Originally posted by mikehunt
son of a .....
for some reason out of the 10 hours of programs I set to record while I was gone for a few days csi got skipped
son of a .....
for some reason out of the 10 hours of programs I set to record while I was gone for a few days csi got skipped
#21
DVD Talk Legend
I TiVo'd this then upgraded my TiVo this weekend and screwed something up and lost all my recordings... including this episode. Can someone give me some more detailed spoilers of what went down? Or does the 1 line spoiler at the top explain it well enough?




