TV Programme: Damages
Season: 2
Episode: 4
Date I watched this episode: 29/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 7 days.
The 4th episode of Damages is not a particularly exciting prospect. I am at the stage where I was cautiously hopeful that the story would finally move in a different direction this week, but I was sadly mistaken.
Once again, a fairly predictable episode focussing on procedural stories, like Michael finding out Danny is his father, or the search for Josh. Not much action or drama. Danny Purcell is mucking about as usual. Ellen and Tom went on a road trip, which could have been quite fun, but the chemistry between the characters seemed basically zero. Still a lot of the unanswered questions weren't even touched upon (we did get a short, seemingly pointless shot of room 1910, but it almost seemed like a time filler); the FBI were not in it at all.
Even the Maddox vs Hewes court scene didn't work for me. Although Danny's reaction was unexpected, the scene in general felt a bit like a stock scene. Think back to season 1 and there were some great courtroom moments like Katie Connor's testimony (I notice that Katie is nowhere to be seen, again). Maddox is kinda hot though so it made up for it slightly.
The opening dream sequence was a rather pointless venture. Damages likes dreams; remember the one in season 1 which Patty had and recounted to Michael? There is a similar dream in this episode, supposedly showing Phil's "paralyzing fear of death" - again, irrelevant. We get that Danny is upset over his wife, and thinks he could have saved her. But this dream doesn't add anything to that, and almost seems like a bit of an excuse for an opening scene.
I think the final scene was okay compared to previous weeks. The shock that Danny was complicit in his wife's death was unexpected and well-done. (There is a WTF moment!) The in-episode story played out very procedurally though, it didn't keep you guessing which meant you had almost fallen asleep by the time you'd got to the twist.
In general this episode had a lot of long scenes which played out slowly and tried to rely on quirks (like Patty's dog barking around her heels) to carry them. This is not the style of Damages. It seems to be trying to be like a Jane Austen novel, rather than a thriller TV series.
I have to mention the title, as always. I didn't realise this but "Mr. Pibb" is a drink distributed in the USA. Tom speaks the eponymous line to Ellen. So I got that wrong. Next week's is "I agree, it wasn't funny". I'm guessing Patty for this one. Perhaps Danny is the receipient.
I think that as we are now about a third of the way through the season, it should be well on its way. It isn't, and unless it starts to deliver soon, it will have to rush through the core story in its remaining episodes.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Thursday, 22 January 2009
[DMG] I knew your pig
TV Programme: Damages
Season: 2
Episode: 3
Date I watched this episode: 22/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 7 days.
Well here we are again, another week on and no further episodes watched. In fact it's debatable whether I even had time to watch this episode, but I can't...miss...Damages....
This episode was called "I knew your pig", and not "I know you pig" as I reported last week. In fact, even if I'd have known the true name, I couldn't have guessed who the quote was between, as it involved two characters who were only introduced in this episode. Perhaps even more stupid was me not realising that Claire was the person in the car at the end of the last episode. I still hold that she looks different, but she's not that different. Danny calls her "Claire" at one point during this episode, and that obviously confirms it. So my wild confusion at the end of the last episode was rather misplaced - Danny was just burning the papers which Claire obtained for him.
Last week I listed the "WTF???!" and "Aaaaah!" moments in the episode. This week, there didn't seem to be any!! It was almost like the writers took a break for this one, to flesh out the existing story and prepare for future twists. Where was room 1910? Or Arthur Frobisher? Or Wes's crazy weapon cabinet? Or indeed, as far as I can remember, any flash forwards whatsoever??
This episode basically served to expand on Daniel Purcell's storyline with Patty. It did reveal an unexpected twist about Michael, and had a brief appearance from Hollis Nye, and a very brief (and basically useless) one from Katie Connor. The two FBI agents were dotted about, trying and failing to look cool. There was the Josh Restin thing (the reporter) which was pretty predictable from the start. But the central thread was a backstory which will hopefully serve some purpose in the story of future episodes, or this episode will have been a complete waste of time.
I suppose the story has been progressed. We know that Daniel is Michael's father, that Daniel has been arrested, that the CEO is as guilty as anyone else, and so on. But there was no real thrill, no substance, no uniqueness here. The next episode is called "Hey! Mr. Pibb!" Let's hope it picks up again (incidentally, we obviously won't know who the quote is said to, but in terms of the speaker, well it sounds like an Ellen thing to say).
Season: 2
Episode: 3
Date I watched this episode: 22/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 7 days.
Well here we are again, another week on and no further episodes watched. In fact it's debatable whether I even had time to watch this episode, but I can't...miss...Damages....
This episode was called "I knew your pig", and not "I know you pig" as I reported last week. In fact, even if I'd have known the true name, I couldn't have guessed who the quote was between, as it involved two characters who were only introduced in this episode. Perhaps even more stupid was me not realising that Claire was the person in the car at the end of the last episode. I still hold that she looks different, but she's not that different. Danny calls her "Claire" at one point during this episode, and that obviously confirms it. So my wild confusion at the end of the last episode was rather misplaced - Danny was just burning the papers which Claire obtained for him.
Last week I listed the "WTF???!" and "Aaaaah!" moments in the episode. This week, there didn't seem to be any!! It was almost like the writers took a break for this one, to flesh out the existing story and prepare for future twists. Where was room 1910? Or Arthur Frobisher? Or Wes's crazy weapon cabinet? Or indeed, as far as I can remember, any flash forwards whatsoever??
This episode basically served to expand on Daniel Purcell's storyline with Patty. It did reveal an unexpected twist about Michael, and had a brief appearance from Hollis Nye, and a very brief (and basically useless) one from Katie Connor. The two FBI agents were dotted about, trying and failing to look cool. There was the Josh Restin thing (the reporter) which was pretty predictable from the start. But the central thread was a backstory which will hopefully serve some purpose in the story of future episodes, or this episode will have been a complete waste of time.
I suppose the story has been progressed. We know that Daniel is Michael's father, that Daniel has been arrested, that the CEO is as guilty as anyone else, and so on. But there was no real thrill, no substance, no uniqueness here. The next episode is called "Hey! Mr. Pibb!" Let's hope it picks up again (incidentally, we obviously won't know who the quote is said to, but in terms of the speaker, well it sounds like an Ellen thing to say).
Thursday, 15 January 2009
[DMG] Burn it, shred it, I don't care
TV Programme: Damages
Season: 2
Episode: 2
Date I watched this episode: 15/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 7 days.
Well, I've not watched anything since the last episode of Damages. Quite predictable really. Nevertheless I had hoped to get a few episodes watched as I've just started a new job, but alas, long hours have been required even in my first week!! Anyway, here's hoping for the week ahead!!
Despite last week's disappointment, I was still pretty excited about this episode. And my final response was "good good!" In other words, I think Damages has rolled back to form, and I can extend at least some forgiveness for the season premiere which had, shall we say, certain "issues".
It didn't start well, I must admit. The scene with Daniel's (yes, I'm starting to learn the names now) diabetes was horrible, very overacted, overkill in general, and Danny almost became a parody of himself in that moment. Later on, the scene where the police are asking Danny who might have been after him had a flashback to the scene where the "problem-solver" guy (the guy from Ultima, haven't learnt his name yet though...) threatens Danny by the lake. This was overdone, the scene didn't need to be in there, it could have been in "previously on" at the very most, and it just ruins the subtlety of this whole show. Equally the fact that Ellen ends up sleeping with Wes is just too cliche for this show, a guy who she has animosity with at the start and then he grows on her...I was actually impressed in an episode of One Tree Hill where they made a conscious effort not to do that (Peyton and Chris Keller, this was further referenced in the special features) and Damages let me down a bit here.
While here is where the story really got "meaty", I still don't feel like the story has gotten going yet. We're two episodes in out of thirteen and there hasn't been any real legal stuff yet. No subpoenas or meetings with a judge (aside from Maddox's meeting with the judge, which I actually thought was quite a good scene. I notice that she dresses better to see the judge than to see "problem-fixer guy", where she was wearing practically nothing). I must admit that I was pretty surprised to see the infant mortality case dropped, although I don't think we've seen the last of it. Surely there must be some link between Julia Hewes's death and the case, which has not even been touched on as yet.
This episode more than made up for all the bad stuff by the re-introduction of what I like to call "WTF moments". ("WTF" stands for "what the flip" for the uninitiated, everyone else should know what it means ;)). These are basically the reason why I watch this show, and were plentiful in season 1. Let's have a look at the ones in this episode:
So:
WTF meter: 3
AAH meter: 1
There are a few weird things at the moment. First of all, I'm not clear what Michael's role is. He was in one scene in this episode, apparently serving no real purpose. There was also no mention of the charity or Sam Arsenault in this episode, and I wonder if they are ever returning. It seemed a bit of a shame given how hard Patty fought in the premiere, not to follow that up at all in episode 2.
A couple of things seem missing. One is the other associates at Hewes's firm. People like Andrew and Felicia were supporting, background cast in season one who didn't serve a real purpose, but you do miss them now they're gone, and the firm feels almost like just Patty, Tom, Ellen and Pete. Also, apparently Katie Connor is meant to be in this season (?!) but she hasn't been spotted yet, and I can't see how she could be worked in.
I think Glenn's acting was much better in this episode than the last, and for that I am glad. In the last episode she seemed to be trying too hard, and also giving a rather "sweet innocent girl" facade. I'm glad to see her return to form. Also the little anecdotes about the FBI guy's having a marriage breakup is pretty appropriate. In fact, I think these characters should be developed more - sometimes a character can ruin a show through complete lack of character development - I'm thinking Enterprise's "Travis Mayweather".
So this ep was called "Burn it, shred it, I don't care" - and to be honest, I should have picked up what it was referring to from last week's episode. Next one is called "I know you pig", so might be interesting to think (and continue this on a week-to-week basis) who says this quote, and who do they say it to? I am guessing: Danny speaking to Mr. Problem-Fixer Guy. Just because of Danny's known bad temper. But I'm quite prepared to be wrong.
In summary, this ep was quite a return to form - but still has a few issues with the characters which would need to be ironed out before I could rate this season as highly as the last.
Season: 2
Episode: 2
Date I watched this episode: 15/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 7 days.
Well, I've not watched anything since the last episode of Damages. Quite predictable really. Nevertheless I had hoped to get a few episodes watched as I've just started a new job, but alas, long hours have been required even in my first week!! Anyway, here's hoping for the week ahead!!
Despite last week's disappointment, I was still pretty excited about this episode. And my final response was "good good!" In other words, I think Damages has rolled back to form, and I can extend at least some forgiveness for the season premiere which had, shall we say, certain "issues".
It didn't start well, I must admit. The scene with Daniel's (yes, I'm starting to learn the names now) diabetes was horrible, very overacted, overkill in general, and Danny almost became a parody of himself in that moment. Later on, the scene where the police are asking Danny who might have been after him had a flashback to the scene where the "problem-solver" guy (the guy from Ultima, haven't learnt his name yet though...) threatens Danny by the lake. This was overdone, the scene didn't need to be in there, it could have been in "previously on" at the very most, and it just ruins the subtlety of this whole show. Equally the fact that Ellen ends up sleeping with Wes is just too cliche for this show, a guy who she has animosity with at the start and then he grows on her...I was actually impressed in an episode of One Tree Hill where they made a conscious effort not to do that (Peyton and Chris Keller, this was further referenced in the special features) and Damages let me down a bit here.
While here is where the story really got "meaty", I still don't feel like the story has gotten going yet. We're two episodes in out of thirteen and there hasn't been any real legal stuff yet. No subpoenas or meetings with a judge (aside from Maddox's meeting with the judge, which I actually thought was quite a good scene. I notice that she dresses better to see the judge than to see "problem-fixer guy", where she was wearing practically nothing). I must admit that I was pretty surprised to see the infant mortality case dropped, although I don't think we've seen the last of it. Surely there must be some link between Julia Hewes's death and the case, which has not even been touched on as yet.
This episode more than made up for all the bad stuff by the re-introduction of what I like to call "WTF moments". ("WTF" stands for "what the flip" for the uninitiated, everyone else should know what it means ;)). These are basically the reason why I watch this show, and were plentiful in season 1. Let's have a look at the ones in this episode:
- What on earth is Wes up to? He seems to have a collection of newspaper cuttings, possibly dating back to before he even met Ellen. I doubt he's working for the "other side" though, I think he just wants to kill Frobisher for some reason...
- Okay, Tom Shayes is not whiter than white as evidenced strongly in this episode, but he does have a certain amount of integrity as seen before. So to go and help Ellen with acquiring a gun, he must have a VERY good reason, or else it is some kind of setup (more likely). I did like the fact that he and Ellen sow the seeds for a better working partnership in this episode, you can just see by Ellen's body language how uncomfortable she is about tripping Tom up, and this was well done, and subtle.
- If someone could explain to me what the heck the last scene is about, I'd feel a bit less confused. Surely Danny can't be burning the files, as he doesn't even have them?! Was that lady in the car actually Claire Maddox - am I just being insanely thick?
- The eternal question on everyone's lips - who is in room 1910? A lot of forum posts I've read have said "Wes", but for me, that's just too easy, like thinking that Lila was the killer in the last season. We know for a fact that Wes was around on the day Ellen pulled the trigger, and that he has some sort of ulterior motive, but I'm thinking that this is all a bit of a red herring. My guess at this stage would be Danny Purcell. Perhaps he will do something very bad, and Ellen will learn to take out her revenge on him, rather than Frobisher.
So:
WTF meter: 3
AAH meter: 1
There are a few weird things at the moment. First of all, I'm not clear what Michael's role is. He was in one scene in this episode, apparently serving no real purpose. There was also no mention of the charity or Sam Arsenault in this episode, and I wonder if they are ever returning. It seemed a bit of a shame given how hard Patty fought in the premiere, not to follow that up at all in episode 2.
A couple of things seem missing. One is the other associates at Hewes's firm. People like Andrew and Felicia were supporting, background cast in season one who didn't serve a real purpose, but you do miss them now they're gone, and the firm feels almost like just Patty, Tom, Ellen and Pete. Also, apparently Katie Connor is meant to be in this season (?!) but she hasn't been spotted yet, and I can't see how she could be worked in.
I think Glenn's acting was much better in this episode than the last, and for that I am glad. In the last episode she seemed to be trying too hard, and also giving a rather "sweet innocent girl" facade. I'm glad to see her return to form. Also the little anecdotes about the FBI guy's having a marriage breakup is pretty appropriate. In fact, I think these characters should be developed more - sometimes a character can ruin a show through complete lack of character development - I'm thinking Enterprise's "Travis Mayweather".
So this ep was called "Burn it, shred it, I don't care" - and to be honest, I should have picked up what it was referring to from last week's episode. Next one is called "I know you pig", so might be interesting to think (and continue this on a week-to-week basis) who says this quote, and who do they say it to? I am guessing: Danny speaking to Mr. Problem-Fixer Guy. Just because of Danny's known bad temper. But I'm quite prepared to be wrong.
In summary, this ep was quite a return to form - but still has a few issues with the characters which would need to be ironed out before I could rate this season as highly as the last.
Friday, 9 January 2009
[DMG] I Lied, Too
TV Programme: Damages
Season: 2
Episode: 1
Date I watched this episode: 08/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 8 months, 13 days.
I was seriously excited about this episode. Damages was the best new programme I've seen since Lost, and that was quite a while ago now. When I was watching the first season, it was like a book which I couldn't put down; I was absolutely hooked.
Did this episode have the same effect on me? Not quite. But then, I have to give the show a bit of leeway, especially since it is the first episode of a new season. Season premieres in general are a bit of a strange beast, as they generally serve to set up season-wide storylines. Sometimes these premieres just grab you and work really effectively, such as [LST] "Man of Science, Man of Faith", whilst others leave you a bit confused and take time to grow on you ([SMV] "Crusade" and [OTH] "Like You Like An Arsonist" come to mind).
This premiere is particularly important because they are, at least to some extent, re-inventing the programme as a whole (and I can't get used to Patty's new hairstyle, but that's for another day). There's an entirely new setup, which we knew would be the case after season 1's awesome finale, and there's a new case, and new characters.
The last of these is particularly interesting for me, I always wonder when watching a new season premiere who the main characters will turn out to be. Will that creepy guy from the therapy session be back, I wonder? I would think not, whereas the philanthropist and the guy with the research papers (I haven't really learned everyones names yet) are bound to make reappearances.
It's not surprising that I can't really see where Damages is going this season. But this show has a bit of a habit of revealing things slowly and in a very clever way. One thing which strikes me initially as odd though, is there seem to be 2 separate "case"-like storylines, the infant mortality one and the chemical research papers "making people sick" one. Perhaps these are more intertwined than meets the eye, in fact I'd probably bet on that, given the nature of the show. But from a story perspective, it seems like it would be hard for the writers to create a smoothly flowing story.
I think this episode was a bit too cliche in a number of places. You knew that Ellen was going to refuse the gun (and probably take one out again at a later date), that Patty wasn't going to confess to anything specifically, and that Patty was playing fairly standard games with the philanthropist (she is a lawyer after all). There were also some cliche scenes. Ellen's line of "a month ago she tried to kill me and now she's trying to be my best friend" made me cringe a bit. It lacks the subtlety that I'm used to.
I don't think it would have been impossible for the writers to give this episode a bit more of a dramatic feel. Some incredibly complex season premieres, introducing lots of new characters and storylines and unable to spend more than a few minutes on each one (e.g. [24H]'s first season premiere) can still have the dramatic quality. In particular, here there was one important twist, namely when you found out that Ellen was visiting Frobisher in place of his wife. They could have done more with this though, I think.
What did I like about this episode, then? It did have some redeeming features. I always enjoy the way characters are developed in Damages, and Patty Hewes in particular was central to this episode. Her struggle with her own guilt, and also the way that the loss of Julia was portrayed as a ("Sliding Doors"-style) turning point, gave some interesting new character traits, without compromising existing ones (which can be a big danger in change of direction, e.g. in The West Wing Season 5). Also, Ellen was clearly starting on the journey which is going to lead her character to the final scene.
While the episode didn't have quite the "what the **** is going on" feel of some season 1 episodes, it did leave some unanswered questions. One in particular is the question of how Patty knows that guy. Obviously they have some sort of history, but it seemed like a deliberate omission not to go into more detail, so I'll look forward to hearing more.
Much more obvious is the question of who Ellen is speaking to in the final(/first) scene. It could be Patty, it could be Arthur, or it could be someone completely different who we may not have even met yet (although I expect we have met them). My guess...would be Arthur. I would predict that Ellen will realise her revenge for David's death is even greater than her revenge against her own attempted murder, and that Patty does have something to offer. But it could equally well be some random person like the philanthropist, who may well have done something we don't know about yet.
In summary, this was an interesting episode, but didn't quite satisfy my hunger. The season didn't start with a bang, but it did start with a focus.
Season: 2
Episode: 1
Date I watched this episode: 08/01/2009
Time since I last watched this programme: 8 months, 13 days.
I was seriously excited about this episode. Damages was the best new programme I've seen since Lost, and that was quite a while ago now. When I was watching the first season, it was like a book which I couldn't put down; I was absolutely hooked.
Did this episode have the same effect on me? Not quite. But then, I have to give the show a bit of leeway, especially since it is the first episode of a new season. Season premieres in general are a bit of a strange beast, as they generally serve to set up season-wide storylines. Sometimes these premieres just grab you and work really effectively, such as [LST] "Man of Science, Man of Faith", whilst others leave you a bit confused and take time to grow on you ([SMV] "Crusade" and [OTH] "Like You Like An Arsonist" come to mind).
This premiere is particularly important because they are, at least to some extent, re-inventing the programme as a whole (and I can't get used to Patty's new hairstyle, but that's for another day). There's an entirely new setup, which we knew would be the case after season 1's awesome finale, and there's a new case, and new characters.
The last of these is particularly interesting for me, I always wonder when watching a new season premiere who the main characters will turn out to be. Will that creepy guy from the therapy session be back, I wonder? I would think not, whereas the philanthropist and the guy with the research papers (I haven't really learned everyones names yet) are bound to make reappearances.
It's not surprising that I can't really see where Damages is going this season. But this show has a bit of a habit of revealing things slowly and in a very clever way. One thing which strikes me initially as odd though, is there seem to be 2 separate "case"-like storylines, the infant mortality one and the chemical research papers "making people sick" one. Perhaps these are more intertwined than meets the eye, in fact I'd probably bet on that, given the nature of the show. But from a story perspective, it seems like it would be hard for the writers to create a smoothly flowing story.
I think this episode was a bit too cliche in a number of places. You knew that Ellen was going to refuse the gun (and probably take one out again at a later date), that Patty wasn't going to confess to anything specifically, and that Patty was playing fairly standard games with the philanthropist (she is a lawyer after all). There were also some cliche scenes. Ellen's line of "a month ago she tried to kill me and now she's trying to be my best friend" made me cringe a bit. It lacks the subtlety that I'm used to.
I don't think it would have been impossible for the writers to give this episode a bit more of a dramatic feel. Some incredibly complex season premieres, introducing lots of new characters and storylines and unable to spend more than a few minutes on each one (e.g. [24H]'s first season premiere) can still have the dramatic quality. In particular, here there was one important twist, namely when you found out that Ellen was visiting Frobisher in place of his wife. They could have done more with this though, I think.
What did I like about this episode, then? It did have some redeeming features. I always enjoy the way characters are developed in Damages, and Patty Hewes in particular was central to this episode. Her struggle with her own guilt, and also the way that the loss of Julia was portrayed as a ("Sliding Doors"-style) turning point, gave some interesting new character traits, without compromising existing ones (which can be a big danger in change of direction, e.g. in The West Wing Season 5). Also, Ellen was clearly starting on the journey which is going to lead her character to the final scene.
While the episode didn't have quite the "what the **** is going on" feel of some season 1 episodes, it did leave some unanswered questions. One in particular is the question of how Patty knows that guy. Obviously they have some sort of history, but it seemed like a deliberate omission not to go into more detail, so I'll look forward to hearing more.
Much more obvious is the question of who Ellen is speaking to in the final(/first) scene. It could be Patty, it could be Arthur, or it could be someone completely different who we may not have even met yet (although I expect we have met them). My guess...would be Arthur. I would predict that Ellen will realise her revenge for David's death is even greater than her revenge against her own attempted murder, and that Patty does have something to offer. But it could equally well be some random person like the philanthropist, who may well have done something we don't know about yet.
In summary, this was an interesting episode, but didn't quite satisfy my hunger. The season didn't start with a bang, but it did start with a focus.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)