Re: Blue Bloods "Two of a Kind" 5/10/2024 (was: What Did You Watch? 2024-05-10 (Friday))

On Sat, 11 May 2024 19:53:22 -0700
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
 

Blue Bloods - the penultimate episode of season 14A. Season 14B
will apparently be just 4 episodes unless the cast and producers
of the show manage to convince CBS to un-cancel it. Frankly -
forgive the inadvertent pun - if I was another network with some
holes in my Friday night schedule, I'd look seriously at picking
this up. Apparently, the ratings are still very strong (despite
the ever-weaker writing) and everyone still wants to do it so why
not?  

 

As for plot, we see the first time in a very long time where
Danny's plumper son finally got something to do but sit at the
dinner table. After being robbed on campus, he and his dad set out
to catch the robber. Also, Eddie and her partner untangle a
landlord-tenant dispute that turns out to be more complicated than
it appears. Erin discovers a legal aid attorney is not giving his
client good advice and works to take down the attorney which has
unexpected consequences for the client.  

 
Even Erin says he’d have been better off rotting in prison without her
help.
 
 
Jamie and Joe Hill actually engage in some off-duty

fisticuffs - with each other! - and Frank has to figure out how to
make them get along.  

 
Why are they even going to the same party anyway? Joe isn’t NYPD is
he? How about assigning one of them to Staten Island?
 
 

 
Gawd this was awful. None of the stories had anything resembling a
plot. Is Sean supposed to be at Columbia? The student robbery plot
was ridiculous. Danny tells Sean to wait till the next night, and
all he's going to have Sean do is wait at the police station for
the identity parade.  

 
Note that Sean never saw the face of the guy who mugged him. It was
the later guy who cut him that he could identify. So what good was he
going to do at the first lineup?
 

At the time, I assumed that the mugger that cut Sean was the same one
who had mugged him, whose face Sean had not seen on that occasion. But
given the later revelation that the Security Chief apparently had
several accomplices, I am no longer confident that is right. If the
second mugger was a different guy, you're absolutely right: Sean would
not have been able to confirm that it was the guy who had mugged him.
In fact, if I'm right and Sean never saw his face during the first
mugging, Sean wouldn't have been much use at the lineup either,
although he might still have been able to identify the guy as someone
from the cafeteria.

Let's just agree that we've got some major plot holes in this episode!

Another thing they didn't even TRY to address is to explain why the
Security Chief would start his little crime ring. He was a retired cop
with 30 years on the job so presumably got a decent pension, plus the
salary and benefits on his new gig. Why would such an upstanding
citizen go to the Dark Side? Was he paying major alimony that he
couldn't keep up with? A drug or gambling problem? Or had he been dirty
even in his cop days and simply needed the thrill of getting away with
being crooked while in a uniform?

But of course there was a lot of plot in this episode and they needed
to focus on the Reagans so I can see them not having time for the
Security Chief's motivations.

 
Instead Sean goes out that night, interferes with another

robbery in exactly the same spot, recognizes the robber as an
employee and gets stabbed. The victim thinks Sean saved her and he
gets a date. Fortunately for the purpose of Danny not having to do
any investigating, the perpetrator returns to work and gets
arrested. Based on the Law of Conservation of Characters, the
mastermind is the head of campus security who had recruited ex cons
for campus jobs then told them whom to rob. Not sure how he was
tracking student movement.
 
Wow this script goes out of its way to make Edit massively stupid.
In the landlord-tenant dispute, once again, Edit immediately
sympathized with the landlady who claimed the tenant had threatened
her on several occassions but never once filed a complaint nor did
she try to force the tenant to move. She also lied to police about
her wherabouts. The case is blown wide open because Edit and
Badillo have found all of the stolen furniture and personal effects
in a storage locker rented by the tenants. This would have required
a moving truck that no one saw despite the florist across the
street watching every movement.
 
I had no idea Edit had access to Penelope's couch database, now
updated to include storage space rental agreements.
 
The wife was setting up the landlady out of revenge for the affair
she had with her husband, wrecking their marriage. Edit helpfully
opines that the husband, only, was at fault. Last I looked, it took
two to cheat. The only thing they can think of to charge the wife
with is making a false police report.
 
Erin's story is beyond awful. She completely sympathizes with a
criminal who is facing numerous "possession of" charges as a
getaway driver, and offers the guy a ridiculous plea bargain, which
he rejects. Erin raises an objection at arraignment to the failure
to plead guilty.
 
Can she do that? Obviously the defendant has a right to trial.
 

 
When she first objected, I assumed the guy had taken the deal and
recanted, but noooooooo
 
 

The defendant keeps insisting that he's innocent, that he had no
idea what his co-conspirator was going to put into his car. Well,
he KNEW it was a burglarly, so whatever was going to be put into
his car would be stolen goods. That's kind of how burglarly works.
 
The defense lawyer is representing both conspirators but this
defendant is unaware of the enormous ethical conflict. Somehow his
fighting his own charges is better for the other defendant? It
makes no sense.
 
Surely the two men would have been tried simultaneously and the
lawyer representing both couldn't have been hidden. Even if both
defendants waived conflict, the judge sure as hell would have said
something.
 
For no particular reason, Joe Hill and Jamie get into a stupid
fight. Jamie is being such an ass that Joe is less unsympathetic.  

 
Yes. And Jamie has taken another step back from becoming police
commissioner.
 
Why are two people who don’t like each other sitting together at the
bar in a party anyway?
 
Franks

threatens to make them ride together in uniform in the highest crime
beat at night but they end up walking during daylight on a street
without crime.
 
I think I hit the lowlights. Was Baez even on episode? I don't
recall.

 
She has a walk on when Danny is chasing the mugger through the
kitchen and she blocks his exit. She’s back in the hallway and they
didn’t even bother to light her.
 
Let’s point out the Danny sees the guy (I don’t know how he knows
what he looks like.) working in the dining hall. The guy has never
seen Danny. Danny could’ve walked right up and hit him over the head
with a frying pan. Instead, he starts shouting, his name across the
room so they can have a chase. Yawn.
 
You hit all the right points, but it’s almost as if you hadn’t read my
review at all!
 

Sorry, I hadn't seen it when I wrote mine.


--
Rhino