"Law & Order" Out of Control (TV Episode 1991) Poster

(TV Series)

(1991)

User Reviews

Review this title
4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
Handling the truth
TheLittleSongbird12 March 2020
Up to this point of Season 2, having a hard task but doing admirably in following on from a consistently solid first season, all the season's previous episodes ranged from decent ("The Wages of Love", "Aria") to outstanding ("Asylum", "God Bless the Child"). This episode "Out of Control" is the eighth episode of the season and, while a long way from being a season or show high point, doesn't in any way disgrace either the season or the show.

"Out of Control" has one of the more difficult cases of Season 2, with it revolving agreed around an easy case to make albeit very hard to prove and a kind of crime that is one of the most controversial of all crimes. It does admirably if not completely skillfully with a subject that was controversial back then, still is and always has been. If "Out of Control" connected more emotionally with me and was more distinct, it would have been even better than the solid and intriguing episode it still was.

There is a lot to like about "Out of Control". Not surprising considering that there tends to be a lot to like about every 'Law and Order' episode, old and new (prefer the older ones personally myself despite the later ones tending to air more). The production values are slick as usual and the music never gets over-melodramatic or intrusive.

Much of 'Law and Order', well certainly its prime years, was intelligently written and provoked a lot of thought, and "Out of Control" is no exception. Stone's dialogue is juicy as usual and the courtroom scenes leave one glued to the seat. There are enough interesting moments in the story and it is a subject handled with tact at least. The acting is very good, Michael Moriarty as is often the case the standout of the regulars and Noelle Parker gives a deeply felt performance as an interesting character who you are not sure whether you believe or not.

For all those great things, "Out of Control" is a bit ordinary and doesn't have an awful lot new. It's a familiar subject executed in an intriguing and intelligent but also familiar fashion. It could have done with more complexity, rather than being an at times he said she said sort of case, and more twists, with the outcome not to me a massive surprise.

Would have liked to have connected more emotionally, certainly felt a lot of anger especially at the outcome of the trial. But emotionally, for me that was the only emotion felt. The investigative elements are done well and thoughtful, if somewhat nothing out of the ordinary.

Overall, not a bad episode at all. It just felt like something was missing. 7/10
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Accused
safenoe28 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
A very controversial episode well before the me too era but at a time when fraternities were getting in hot water (male fraternities) over allegations depicted in Out of Control, an episode from the second season. Anyway, this episode kind of deals with so many issues that it's unclear whether the writers had an agenda or was it a case of to "let the viewer decide" or something like that.

This episode debuted three years after The Accused. Anyway, Out of Control gets you thinking about personal responsibility and relationships, and whether juries are biased one way or the other in such situations.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Hard To Prove.
rmax30482317 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
A pretty young student attends a frat party, gets legally drunk, and is gang banged by two of the fraternity brothers, perhaps with the complicity of her ex boyfriend, who may have wanted revenge.

The problem is the girl herself. She's apparently generous with her charms and has a history, as they say. Further, she tends to drink more than most and was too smashed during the party to remember the rape except in flashes. However, if she's lying about anything, neither the director nor the actress give any hint of it. Her claims seem genuine, and what physical evidence there is, seems to support them. The defendants, however, are freed. In other words, the law loses.

It's an interesting episode. Rape is an easy charge to make, and a difficult one to convict on. Anyone can holler rape, and for a number of different motives -- revenge, the sympathy of one's friends and relatives, one's picture on the TV news, and all the secondary gains that go with victimhood.

At the same time, community sentiment is solidly opposed to the victimization and brutalization of women and children. It's easy to blame our patriarchal values when rape takes place and the criminals should be punished for it.

The jury makes a mistake in acquitting defendants who are, marginally, shown to be guilty of rape. Why? Stone reads aloud a study that shows women to be unsympathetic to rape victims because they believe that they themselves would never allow themselves to be put into a situation in which rape is possible. Speaking as a sociologist I would also guess that the more conventionally attractive the victim is, the less sympathy she gets from the women on the jury. I'd be willing to do such a study if someone gives me a grant, even though I'd have to find another, more scientific-sounding name for "envy." In any case, this is one instance in which justice doesn't prevail. It's the sort of ending that lifts this series above the average. Perry Mason never lost.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A He said she said case
bkoganbing26 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This episode begins with a very intoxicated Noelle Parker coming out of a frat party into the street crying rape to the cops in a passing patrol car. In the future such a case would have gone to SVU squad, but this was in the early years of Law And Order and occasionally they did cases that did not involve homicide.

The accent here is on the prosecution and Michael Moriarty and Richard Brooks do not have an ideal client as Parker's got one free and easy history. In fact her own boyfriend after a quarrel may have been partially responsible for allowing defendants Danny Zorn and Mark Kiely to gang bang Parker. Forensic evidence indicates she had sex, but is not conclusive enough for rape.

It's a he said she said case the jury just did not like Parker, so they acquit the two Ivy League preppies charged. Michael Moriarty ends in apologizing to Parker for the system's failure. But I'm not sure if he really believed it and was just comforting her. It was a bad case to begin with and probably shouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place.
4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed