Another 70's mystery story. A client, who is Rocky's friend, is set up; A few twists and turns makes for a unbelievable, but an entertaining installment. Jim must undercover layer after layers of the mystery. Jim get's set up and Becker looks bad. What works is the viewer is guessing what will happen next. The interacting between Jimmy and the harden daughter of the client gives us the human sides of both Rocky and Jim. The character development of Rocky and Jim resonates the likability of the father and son characters with the audience, which makes for a successful series. The ending is very 70's mystery ending like a Columbo episode. The ending with the daughter is a memorable side of Jimmy. 7 out 10 stars.
10 Reviews
Houston, We Have a Problem
zsenorsock28 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Rocky's lifelong pal (that we've never heard him mention before) Pete (Dabs Greer) comes to Jim with a problem: his granddaughter Houston (Lane Bradbury) has been kidnapped. Jim investigates Houston's home and finds its been trashed and broken in to. When he goes to report back to Pete, he finds him dead. When Jim returns to Houston's home with Lt. Diehl he finds it in perfect shape with no signs of a break in. The mystery deepens when Houston turns up unharmed. Pete didn't have any money--what did they expect to get out of him?
Not a bad little mystery though things get a bit melancholy as Jim worries that Houston hasn't been able to release her grief and is "playing it tough". You also kind of wish they'd established Rocky's relationship with Pete in an earlier episode. That might have added to the emotional impact of Rocky (and Houston's) loss. But as is, its not a bad show. It has all the classic elements--Jim gets beat up, Jim gets arrested, the lovely Beth Davenport (Gretchen Corbett) gets him out of jail (in a rare scene shot outside in the rain!) and nobody quite knows why things are happening.
Greer never was an old pal of Beery's but he did appear with Garner in both "Cash McCall" and "Nichols". Charlie, one of the thugs is played by "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" star Del Monroe (he played Kowalski in the show and the movie). The leader of the bad guys is "Soap" star Robert Mandan, who played Chester Tate.
Not a bad little mystery though things get a bit melancholy as Jim worries that Houston hasn't been able to release her grief and is "playing it tough". You also kind of wish they'd established Rocky's relationship with Pete in an earlier episode. That might have added to the emotional impact of Rocky (and Houston's) loss. But as is, its not a bad show. It has all the classic elements--Jim gets beat up, Jim gets arrested, the lovely Beth Davenport (Gretchen Corbett) gets him out of jail (in a rare scene shot outside in the rain!) and nobody quite knows why things are happening.
Greer never was an old pal of Beery's but he did appear with Garner in both "Cash McCall" and "Nichols". Charlie, one of the thugs is played by "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" star Del Monroe (he played Kowalski in the show and the movie). The leader of the bad guys is "Soap" star Robert Mandan, who played Chester Tate.
Bunch of pigs
xbatgirl-3002921 February 2022
This was a relatively average episode, which is to say enjoyable because it is Rockford Files after all. What gets me are the comments that Houston should have smiled more - even though her grandfather, who raised her more like a father, was just murdered and the killer is still running around. Or that she should have had "more chemistry" with Jim, which I think means thrown herself at him, even though she's presumably young enough to be his daughter and, once again, the man who raised her was just killed. Or various comments about her body including "she looks like a dental hygienist". No idea what that is supposed to mean. But then we know certain men think women exist to please them otherwise they are useless. I guess they can't get the real thing in real life so it angers them not to also get it on tv.
I've seen better
stones7811 May 2012
I bet fans of this great show won't like this review I'm about to write regarding this episode, which isn't my personal cup of tea, but I was very disappointed in the female lead, oddly named Houston, played by Lane Bradbury, in a rather mediocre performance. An old friend of Rocky's stops by and tells he and Jim that his daughter's been kidnapped, but naturally, he doesn't want the police involved. It turns out that this man, Peter Preli, gets killed, and soon after, Houston returns from a work-related meeting, as she was never kidnapped. I'm assuming she wasn't supposed to show much emotion, but I found her annoying and even rude at times to Rocky and Rockford, as she wasn't very likable, and there was no chemistry at all with her and James Garner. There were some positives, however, especially the performances of Tom Atkins(Diel), and a cameo by Robert Mandan, who didn't get enough scenes as a crooked real estate guy, who had Peter killed because he wouldn't sell his land in order to build other projects. There was a cool scene with Rocky and Jim(said this enough already)eating in a rundown part of town, where all the other stores on the block were for sale, and a very nice scene of them talking on the beach. Rockford acts as the girl/woman's(hard to tell her age)agent in a scheme to get real value for her grandfather's house from Charles Blackhorn(Mandan), who at first agrees to the asking price, but then does what crooks do, and Houston calls the cops from a nearby location to get Jim out of trouble and the hoods arrested. The last scene has the 3 of them(Jim, Rocky, and Houston)eating, and then Houston, abruptly and rudely, leaves the dinner table and goes to her room crying, while Jim quietly shuts the door. Maybe it's me, but I simply didn't care for her character, nor for Bradbury's acting, but there were some decent scenes to almost make up for it, but not nearly enough.
I've also seen better
hmoika13 February 2019
I agree with stones78: I was less than impressed with Lane Bradbury. She just seemed miscast in this episode. I just could not see her character as a geologist. I would have guessed she was a dental assistant or something similar.
Also in line with stones78, there were some nice scenes here and there, and, in general, the guest stars performed admirably. However, Lane Bradbury really dragged this episode down as far as I'm concerned.
I was glad to see it come to an end. Although, the ending seemed "forced" (again, Bradbury not really coming through)
Also in line with stones78, there were some nice scenes here and there, and, in general, the guest stars performed admirably. However, Lane Bradbury really dragged this episode down as far as I'm concerned.
I was glad to see it come to an end. Although, the ending seemed "forced" (again, Bradbury not really coming through)
Houston is a dud.
ronnybee211222 December 2020
I absolutely LOVE The Rockford Files,the whole series.
There are very few weak or bad episodes.
This,unfortunately,is one of those episodes. Why?
The woman that played the 'Houston' character,that is why.
I guarantee that somebody lost a major bet,or owed somebody-big time.
That is the only explanation for the casting of the 'Houston' character that I have managed to come up with. This woman looks and acts like she is about to undergo a root-canal,in Tijuana!
I mean,this has to be one of the worst-cast characters of the whole series. Why?
No spark. No enthusiasm,no warmth whatsoever from this unhappy lady.
She seems miffed or put-off just by being on the show-like she was interrupted from doing something much more important. You would think that anybody that got to be on the show would have trouble hiding an
ear-to-ear grin the whole time. I know I would,anyway. This unhappy woman drags down the whole episode.
Blown Her Way to Stardom???
atomicis28 April 2024
This actress who played 'Houston' must have blown her way into the pictures... She has NO talent whatsoever, to the degree that her "Acting" in this episode completely ruins it. She must certainly have had 'known' someone (in the biblical sense) in order to "earn" her way onto the series. Makes me want to spit (although I bet Lane Bradbury had no such impediments to her "stardom")...
Remainder is a pasted review with which I agree, to satisfy IMDB's stupid character requirement_/
I absolutely LOVE The Rockford Files,the whole series. There are very few weak or bad episodes. This,unfortunately,is one of those episodes. Why? The woman that played the 'Houston' character,that is why. I guarantee that somebody lost a major bet,or owed somebody-big time. That is the only explanation for the casting of the 'Houston' character that I have managed to come up with. This woman looks and acts like she is about to undergo a root-canal,in Tijuana! I mean,this has to be one of the worst-cast characters of the whole series. Why? No spark. No enthusiasm,no warmth whatsoever from this unhappy lady. She seems miffed or put-off just by being on the show-like she was interrupted from doing something much more important. You would think that anybody that got to be on the show would have trouble hiding an ear-to-ear grin the whole time. I know I would,anyway. This unhappy woman drags down the whole episode.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this re.
Remainder is a pasted review with which I agree, to satisfy IMDB's stupid character requirement_/
I absolutely LOVE The Rockford Files,the whole series. There are very few weak or bad episodes. This,unfortunately,is one of those episodes. Why? The woman that played the 'Houston' character,that is why. I guarantee that somebody lost a major bet,or owed somebody-big time. That is the only explanation for the casting of the 'Houston' character that I have managed to come up with. This woman looks and acts like she is about to undergo a root-canal,in Tijuana! I mean,this has to be one of the worst-cast characters of the whole series. Why? No spark. No enthusiasm,no warmth whatsoever from this unhappy lady. She seems miffed or put-off just by being on the show-like she was interrupted from doing something much more important. You would think that anybody that got to be on the show would have trouble hiding an ear-to-ear grin the whole time. I know I would,anyway. This unhappy woman drags down the whole episode.
6 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this re.
A weak story plus a poorly cast female lead ruins the whole show.
Allrevvedup24 October 2023
I was ready for nearly anything after reading all of the previous reviews for this RF episode here on IMDB. I tried to do my very-best to keep an open-mind about the whole show. So what did I see,and what do I think? I must say that most of the other,earlier reviewers hit the proverbial nail right on the head with their honest,to-the-point reviews. Why? Please,do let me try to explain some-of it .
There is plenty of downright nonsense to complain about in this episode. Firstly,the writing was not good at-all on this one. I say this because the whole story is surprisingly spotty and awfully-weak from start to finish.
As if that isn't bad-enough,we also have a glaring miscast part with the actress playing the lead guest.
To be fair,perhaps she was playing her part exactly as it was written and intended ,but she and her character come across as being rude,cold,and quite unlikable. It is surely not a coincidence that she was never seen in another episode.
This is one of the very-worst episodes of RF,it is one of the bottom 5 for sure. If you haven't watched this episode yet,skip it and save yourself the time.
3/10 or less.
There is plenty of downright nonsense to complain about in this episode. Firstly,the writing was not good at-all on this one. I say this because the whole story is surprisingly spotty and awfully-weak from start to finish.
As if that isn't bad-enough,we also have a glaring miscast part with the actress playing the lead guest.
To be fair,perhaps she was playing her part exactly as it was written and intended ,but she and her character come across as being rude,cold,and quite unlikable. It is surely not a coincidence that she was never seen in another episode.
This is one of the very-worst episodes of RF,it is one of the bottom 5 for sure. If you haven't watched this episode yet,skip it and save yourself the time.
3/10 or less.
What do you expect from someone who's just lost a loved one?
feindlicheubernahme16 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I'm 100% in agreement with xbatgirl-30029 over some of the comments about the character of Houston in this episode. I can't believe it when I read things like "No spark. No enthusiasm, no warmth whatsoever from this unhappy lady." Well, yes, she is unhappy. The man who raised her is dead. If you've ever lost a loved one, just how much enthusiasm and warmth did you have in the following days?
There are comments about her being rude and cold. It's clearly stated - and at length - that she feels she mustn't express emotion because she was brought up to act like a man and she thinks men don't cry. Jim has to tell her that men do indeed cry. Then, when she does break down and cry at the end, someone complains about how she "abruptly and rudely" leaves the table! Apparently, she should instead have politely taken her leave of Jim and Rocky before going to throw herself sobbing on her bed.
As for the "lack of chemistry," I again agree with xbatgirl that that's code for "she doesn't give Jim the come-on." She met Jim one or two days ago (it's not clear) and immediately found out that her grandfather had been murdered. They don't spend that much time together, getting into and out of danger and building a rapport, as normally happens with Rockford women. But some people obviously don't care about the circumstances, they just want to see the young woman of the week flirting with Jim, otherwise the episode is ruined for them.
Even in the most unrealistic shows and films, the one thing I find really hard to suspend disbelief for is the oft-seen situation where women - and it nearly always is women - who lose loved ones have forgotten all about the loss in a few hours/days and are acting like loved-up teenagers with the hero (just watch virtually any Syfy channel movie for an example of this.) Judging by comments here, it's obvious that the makers of these shows and films know what they're doing, because that seems to be exactly what many viewers not only expect to see, but demand to see. Otherwise, they get mad and start hurling insults like "dental assistant"!
There are comments about her being rude and cold. It's clearly stated - and at length - that she feels she mustn't express emotion because she was brought up to act like a man and she thinks men don't cry. Jim has to tell her that men do indeed cry. Then, when she does break down and cry at the end, someone complains about how she "abruptly and rudely" leaves the table! Apparently, she should instead have politely taken her leave of Jim and Rocky before going to throw herself sobbing on her bed.
As for the "lack of chemistry," I again agree with xbatgirl that that's code for "she doesn't give Jim the come-on." She met Jim one or two days ago (it's not clear) and immediately found out that her grandfather had been murdered. They don't spend that much time together, getting into and out of danger and building a rapport, as normally happens with Rockford women. But some people obviously don't care about the circumstances, they just want to see the young woman of the week flirting with Jim, otherwise the episode is ruined for them.
Even in the most unrealistic shows and films, the one thing I find really hard to suspend disbelief for is the oft-seen situation where women - and it nearly always is women - who lose loved ones have forgotten all about the loss in a few hours/days and are acting like loved-up teenagers with the hero (just watch virtually any Syfy channel movie for an example of this.) Judging by comments here, it's obvious that the makers of these shows and films know what they're doing, because that seems to be exactly what many viewers not only expect to see, but demand to see. Otherwise, they get mad and start hurling insults like "dental assistant"!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
