This was a good episode -- but so were many of the ones the reviewer disliked.
@Sara -- Joanna Cassidy, who's been around in TV and movies since the late 60's.
I got the opening and could see that. In a way Booth's mother was a hero for saving herself from her cruel and insane drunk husband -- and she did at least leave Booth with his grandfather (who was notably his father's father and not responsible for her life). I could see that he was glad for her and that they really could pretty much pick up where they left off. What was, and would have really and truly have been a problem, is that she went out and found a new undamaged family happily ever after, thus letting Booth know that she not only rejected her cruel husband, but her damaged kids in order to save herself (pretty much, to me, like the mother who drowned her kids because her boyfriend, representing her chance for happiness, didn't want any). She even played that card, telling Booth how she was entitled to happiness (and, what, screw her kids?).
There are reasons for the reviewer to question how this was done.
I've been watching all the seasons of CSI:Miami of late. In one of the last episodes of Season 6 (don't remember which) a super gung ho cop is positive he knows who a killer-of-women is, so he gets some prostitute, later saying he did her a favor, and murders her to plant evidence to get the guy he's sure is the killer ... who, of course, it turns out is innocent. To be even more dramatic, I would also offer, if there's a man eating tiger who's killed dozens and dozens of people, it isn't justified taking somebody's little girl and cutting her throat and staking her out in the forest as bait (even though she's only one being sacrificed to save the many).
It's kind of like cheating on an ethics test -- there's no way to justify it.
Put me down as another one really sick of the Rigsby-Van Pelt melodrama. And I swear if this new BF turns out to be a bad guy, I will laugh and not be able to take it seriously. I love this show, but Rigsby and Van Pelt? No!
Kirkland killed the coma guy without wanting anything more from him than to be dead. That to me is the most important thing to keep in mind about Kirkland -- that whatever side he's on regarding Red John, he is just as evil as Red John (not the tiniest bit less evil).
It also seems likely that Kirkland was so quick to kill coma guy because he has some connection to Red John and/or his many minions and changed his appearance and was totally frightened coma guy would not only eventually recognize him but get word to RJ and company. He's still as evil as Red John.
I think Tony can turn out to be the one who kills Bodnar without it being cold blooded murder. A scene I can't entirely imagine/picture in detail that comes to mind is one where Tony sets up all the snipers in the night around an airfield (I think), quite ready to give the necessary order to kill -- which is only part of his job. I also picture McGee ducking around the car while being shot at when Kate was killed; and picture Ziva when she and Tony were protecting a witness who turned out to be the criminal and she stood there waiting to fire at 2 different doors while talking to Gibbs on the cell.
I kind of suspect that Tony will take the decision out of Ziva's hands by him killing Bodnar. I can see that they'll become pretty close on the trip and Tony taking the revenge out of her hands will make her mad at him all over again. The only way I can see the whole team being in trouble is if the Hanks character has evidence/reason to believe Bodnar was innocent. It may be he'll have to be proved guilty after he's dead. It would also be a reason everyone at NCIS would be in trouble.
Phil and his real estate buddy as well as Gloria's ex husband weren't bits that I much enjoyed ... and they went on and on -- that is, I thought last week's episode was much funnier! I also didn't like Haley doing the desperate alcoholic bit or the cut on Lily about not being the center of attention for a few seconds (although that might be a funny scenario if it was expanded, rather than warrant a snide remark).
@AnneM - it's something like just under 1000 characters counting spaces. If you don't want to write your thoughts first in, like, MS Word and copy into leave a comment, if you are in doubt on how much you're writing, you can select your whole comment and CTRL-C to copy it and then submit comment and if it doesn't all appear can CTRL-V paste it into comment box and delete the part that already appeared. And pretty much everybody who comments does read all the comments and care -- but McGee's not so controversial so no one may argue with you about him.
© 2013 TV Fanatic