Yes, I know there’s TMI a lot in this show, but the opening sequence with the severed, decomposing head was a bit much for me.
I thought this was an ensemble show, but there was no Nick or Sara, and very little Greg, Warrick, or Katherine. It was nice to see Gil as the City Man stuck in the Country.
I actually thought it was a well-done episode, but did they ever explain when the hole was dug? And what a gruesome way to kill someone.
There was no secondary plot in this one, unless you count Katherine trying to avoid doing Gil’s paperwork. And how cute was it that the Jackpot Sheriff thought Katherine was Gil’s wife, and Gil didn’t set him straight? Some unrequited love there, hmmm?
I think Gil didn’t bother to set the local sheriff straight because the guy was such a jerk that Gil didn’t even care…
This episode (pretty entertaining, actually) was a nice example of the Hollywood “Deliverance” cliche: The people who inhabit rural areas are surly, unpleasant, and dangerous, in comparison to the friendly, clean, and helpful inhabitants of the city.
That’s great, I didn’t know there was a name for it. Thanks!
That was the old “CSI”. Now it’s The William Petersen Show Occasionally Guest-Starring Marg Helgenberger. This week: the ladies swoon as forensic superstud Gil Grissom arrives on the scene and does everything better than everyone else. Just like last week’s episode, and next week’s episode, and pretty much the rest of Season Four. The only thing that differs from week to week is which of the other characters will commit an egregious and/or criminal mistake, thereby making Marty Stu…er, Grissom look even more superior.
Oh, barf. Not even Catherine should have to kiss that beard.
Except for the fact, of course, that (1) most of the city people the CSI team deal with are worse, (2) the killer was from the city, not the country, and (3) there was really only 2 people who were inhospitable, and for fairly understandable (though not necessarily “justified” reasons).
And that head was not nearly as gross as that episode where that beauty-compulsive lady picked and picked and picked dozens of self-inflicted gaping wounds in her face. :shudder:
Hey, could I get one of you lovely folks to share some spoilers from last nights show for me?
I watched it up until they showed the Vet’s ex wife flirting with the dead guy in the bar… leading us to believe that it was the Vet that did it all along.
But then I stepped out for a cigarette and got sidetracked and missed the rest. =(
I didn’t understand a lot of the show. THey said the dead gu had never been to Jackpot before, then how did he have a several month long affair with the dad going?
Also, I totally didn’t buy the murderer’s motivation. He might have been upset, even enough to shot his roommate, but the torutous way he killed him… nah. Someone willing to do that would probably have a long criminal history of violent behavior.
That was pretty gross, but it looked a little too fake to me. I thought the really gross part was finding the torso in the ground, with the gnawed off neck still sticking out rather TMI.
This storyline was too convoluted for me. The dead guy is having an affair with an older man who just happens to be his new college roommate’s dad? Who just happens to be the Sherriff’s brother? Who no one knew was gay? And the the son just happens to be gay, too? And it was the unrequited love for his roommate is what led him to kill the guy?
And what was that throw-away line about the waitress with the still-abusive ex-husband, who turns out to be the local vet/coroner/medical examiner?
Puh-leeeeze.
Whole lotta eye-rolling in my house last night…
The first part of your question: From what I got, the statement he had never been to Jackpot was just the sheriff covering up for his brother. The sheriff knew his brother was gay. Plus, at the end he told Grissom he had lied when they found the body - he had recognized the victim’s shirt.
I also agree the murder was a bit over-the-top for a college kid. It looked like he saw them one night, then thought it all out, got the drugs, dug the hole, did the deed, hid the car, all in one night.
I’ll second the shredded neck-stump being way grosser than the head in a jar.
Also, I think the dead guy met the dad through his roommate. The guy said something about being “used to get to [his] dad,” IIRC. I figure, he must’ve known about the affair before the guy left, from the IMs.
The abusive husband/veterinarian thing was a red herring to make the vet look suspicious. I knew it wasn’t him, though: they were making him out to be too much of a Norman Bates clone for him to be the actual murderer. Remember when he wants to do the autopsy? “I can cut!” Way too obviously creepy to be the guy.
I could try a recap, but it’s been a couple of days. I would suggest signing up at televisionwithoutpity.com. They give VERY detailed recaps of shows, along with funny and snarky observations of the plot holes.
You can pick which shows you want recapped and have them e-mailed to you, or you can visit the site a few days after the show airs. It takes them that long to get the recaps up, because they are so detailed.
Yeah, it was nice to see Mr. Combs on. My mom couldn’t understand why I was so happy to see him. Now if only there had been a cat in the freezer for Grissom to find…or a little undead eyeball-hand…
I was disappointed in the lack of other CSIers, too, especially Sara. She’s goody goody gumdrops. And Nick is a hell of an actor.
Sick stuff…the guy in a duffle bag who was poured out onto the autopsy table. I forget the episode, but…gah!
Does anybody know if any part of the show was actually shot in or around the real Jackpot, Nevada? When I was sixteen or so, I made a list of a dozen or two small towns across the country that I wanted to visit. Jackpot was one of them. I have since given up the goal of visiting them all. The two or three I’ve actually seen have all been very disappointing.
According to this local newspaper, the outdoor scenes were shot in September near Big Bear Lake in California. As an aside, at latest report the town of Fawnskin hadn’t burned in the wildfires.
The article describes Jackpot, Nevada as “fictional”, which I’m sure comes as a surprise to its inhabitants. Or maybe not.
