License
to Kill
By
Hank 74
Joe-10/10
Ed-10/10
Van Buren-9/10
Jack-10/10
Borgia-10/10
Arthur-8/10
Supporting Cast-9/10
Plot-10/10
Performance-10/10
Value-9/10
Total-95/100
Notes:
To begin, it's ironic they used the title License to
Kill since that was the same title of the James Bond film which had former
L&O star Carrie Lowell in as a Bond Girl. Great use of the title
though in this one.
Wow, what a big comeback from the last two week's
duds. I liked how they used the RFTH format, but didn't use the obvious
case (in this case, the Wisconsin deer hunting shootings) as the focal point
for this ep. That's what TPTB must do more often IMO down the road in the
future.
The best thing I liked about this ep was the ethical and
moral quandary which grabbed me and didn't let go. Hence, the high value
grade. What would you have done had it been your child or relative or
friend who was being kidnapped and about to be killed? I can see both
sides presented on this issue, which was well articulated by both Joe and
Jack. It would have been interesting to see both of them in a room
debating about this. Fists might have been flying for these two Chicago
natives. The jury's verdict was predictable, although a hung jury would
have been more suspenseful.
The other thing I liked was the chemistry and conflict
taking place in both half hours. For the "Law" side, I got a
kick out of the attitude which Joe brought, be it towards the construction
worker, the Thruway guy or Van Buren. He is getting better and better
every week. I like this guy Fontana! We will obviously never forget
Lennie, but this new guy is fitting into his shoes by way of Guccis. Then
when Ed got sarcastic with the defendant and told him to put on his own cuffs
and read his own rights, that was classic! These two are a great pair
that is bringing back memories of the early years with some new age stuff.
Then as we got to the "Order" part, it was well
written as we got a little lesson about citizen's arrests and what they are.
The debate between Jack and Borgia was terrific. Just like the early Jack
years between him and Claire. The screaming match outside the courthouse
was the kind of thing missing since he and Jamie went at it in UTI. I
also liked him being the only guy against Borgia and Arthur on whether to
prosecute for the boy's death. One big thing though that needs to be
brought up. Wasn't the position which Borgia took the same kind of thing
that Serena would have taken had she stayed as ADA? I was just thinking
of what would the plot and performance had been had it been Serena arguing that
the defendant shouldn't have been prosecuted. In fact, this was a case
where it would have been appropriate for Serena to come back as the defense
atty. However the one they had was terrific in her own right and clearly
reminds me of a young Shambala Green. She needs to come back.
But quickly back to Serena. She had this kind of
situation in DR 1-102 when she risked being disbarred when she got a
hostage released. Clearly that situation and this one have some major
differences. But again it brings up of where do you stand on these kinds
of issues. We have seen where Jack stands. Do you agree or disagree
with him?
Being at the "Law and Order: Crime Scenes" exhibit
today got me to pay more attention to the dead bodies and other gruesome things
we see each week. I can only imagine what it was like for those who
played the dead bodies in the snow and for the then injured boy being sideways
in the SUV.
This was a great comeback from the last two weeks.
Next week involves a chef and murder. It would have been interesting had
Stephanie March's new husband, Bobby Flay, been in this ep.