4 reviews
A justifiably good episode
I'm really annoyed at the other reviewers and low scores for this episode. Sure it's a well worn trope of most detective tv shows, having the lead of a show, whether a professional detective or amateur one, being on a jury. But it always works as that person believes in getting to the truth and uncompromising justice, and boy is McGarret one of the biggest believer in justice there is.
Sure there is some wooden acting in the episode - must have gone to the Jack Lord school of acting - or the directing was a bit off. But it still works a treat and Janis Paige is actually a highlight. Unlike the person who plays the DA, his was a strange performance. But it's certainly not a dud. It's a good mystery resolved also by a well worn closed room trope. But I'd act the same way on a jury.
Sure there is some wooden acting in the episode - must have gone to the Jack Lord school of acting - or the directing was a bit off. But it still works a treat and Janis Paige is actually a highlight. Unlike the person who plays the DA, his was a strange performance. But it's certainly not a dud. It's a good mystery resolved also by a well worn closed room trope. But I'd act the same way on a jury.
Make it stop, make it stop!
Up through season 10, "Hawaii Five-O" was a dandy television cop show. Even after all those years, the show STILL had great writing and was amazingly fresh. However, with the advent of season 11 came some changes--and plots became amazingly bad. In fact, "The Case Against Philip Christie" was the fourth terrible episode in a row!
The major problem with the plot is that it is utterly ridiculous--so ridiculous that I can't imagine viewers accepting its cockeyed premise. There is a very, very confusing murder and McGarrett is on the jury!!! Yes, you are expected to believe that the #1 cop in Hawaii is allowed to serve on a jury! Heck, even an everyday beat cop would never be allowed on a jury!!
The next serious problem with the show is that it is a rip-off of several earlier movies and TV shows (such as "12 Angry Men", "Perfect Strangers" and an episode of "The Odd Couple"). Clearly the idea of a jury NEARLY unanimous and in a hurry to convict versus a lone holdout is NOT particularly original!
If you could ignore these two super-serious problems (and who could?!), the show STILL has some problems. The acting of the victim before she was killed was terrible and seemed very fake. It LOOKED and SOUNDED like she was acting. Also, every one of McGarrett's concerns about holes in the case to convict were very, very reasonable and commonsense--yet the jurors were not to be swayed and the forewoman of the jury acted uncharacteristically belligerent.
The bottom line is that this is a horribly written episode of a once-great series...just horrible. Let's hope episode 11.5 is better...it couldn't be worse!
The major problem with the plot is that it is utterly ridiculous--so ridiculous that I can't imagine viewers accepting its cockeyed premise. There is a very, very confusing murder and McGarrett is on the jury!!! Yes, you are expected to believe that the #1 cop in Hawaii is allowed to serve on a jury! Heck, even an everyday beat cop would never be allowed on a jury!!
The next serious problem with the show is that it is a rip-off of several earlier movies and TV shows (such as "12 Angry Men", "Perfect Strangers" and an episode of "The Odd Couple"). Clearly the idea of a jury NEARLY unanimous and in a hurry to convict versus a lone holdout is NOT particularly original!
If you could ignore these two super-serious problems (and who could?!), the show STILL has some problems. The acting of the victim before she was killed was terrible and seemed very fake. It LOOKED and SOUNDED like she was acting. Also, every one of McGarrett's concerns about holes in the case to convict were very, very reasonable and commonsense--yet the jurors were not to be swayed and the forewoman of the jury acted uncharacteristically belligerent.
The bottom line is that this is a horribly written episode of a once-great series...just horrible. Let's hope episode 11.5 is better...it couldn't be worse!
- planktonrules
- Sep 3, 2013
- Permalink
Another dud
As the other reviewer said- McGarrett would have never been chosen for a jury. That makes the whole premise for the episode impossible. The actress playing the murder victim was bad too.
The locked room mystery wasn't any better. I knew the killer had to be in the room when everyone else barged in.
The locked room mystery wasn't any better. I knew the killer had to be in the room when everyone else barged in.
Perry Mason would bang his head on the desk.
- FloridaFred
- Jan 24, 2024
- Permalink