CSI: New York--'Sweet 16'

CSI Files

Captain
Synopsis:

A flock of pigeons falls dead from the sky, taking with them a hapless parachuter. The CSIs learn the pigeons were used for racing and track down the owner of the pigeons, Ray Seeley, only to find Seeley dead outside the pidgeon coop on the top of his building, apparently killed by someone wielding a power tool. Flack discovers that Seeley's real name was Rudy Santangelo, and he was in the witness protection program, causing Mac to turn to FBI agent Candace Broadbent. She tells him that Seeley entered the program after seeing two IRA agents murder a cop friend of his, and promises Mac she'll look into the case. Mac turns towards another lead: Jesse Quinn, a teen who was helping Ray look out for the pigeons. The CSIs suspect Jesse may have been angry when he learned Seeley was planning on selling his flock, but when Mac and Flack go to question Jesse at the billiards company his stepfather, Patrick, owns, they find a skittish, nervous boy whom Mac thinks is being abused. Flack is angry when the teen runs and Mac lets him get away, but Mac is convinced the boy isn't their killer.

Across town, Stella, Hawkes and Lindsay are investigating the death of Edward Archerson, a wealthy man found dead outside his daughter Autumn's sweet sixteen birthday party in the expensive car he was planning to give her. Lindsay is taken out of commission briefly when a cobra in the backseat of the car bites her and sends her to the hospital. Stella and Hawkes work through a list of suspects: Autumn's brother Chaz, who put the snake in the car to scare his spoiled sister; Autumn's best friend, Paige, who flirted with Edward to try to get into the party; and Tim Swirsky, who Edward caught trying to spike the punch at the party and kicked out. All prove to be dead ends, but a hair found on Edward is more helpful: when the CSIs learn it's part of a hair extension, they zero in on Deborah, Edward's wife. Enraged over what she saw as a needlessly extravagant gift, Deborah snapped and strangled her husband with her hair extension.

Flack and Danny believe all the evidence points to Jesse when they discover the power saw that killed Ray at the billiards shop. Mac isn't convinced, and with the help of Flack and Danny, performs an experiment, tracing the trajectory of the one remaining bird from the billiards shop to Seeley's roof to check Jesse's alibi. Sure enough, Mac is able to prove that Jesse wouldn't have had enough time to kill Ray and then get back to the shop to release the bird. This leaves him with one suspect: Patrick, Jesse's stepfather, whom Mac is certain is abusing Jesse. Disgusted that his stepson would rather help Ray with his pigeons than work in the billiards shop, Patrick went to Ray's to poison the birds. When Ray discovered him, Patrick murdered him. Unsettled by the case, Mac reaches out to Claire's son, Reed Garrett, only to be beeped away to a crime scene before they can go to dinner. When Mac meets Flack, he's shocked to discover the victim is Candace Broadbent, who had been digging into the Seeley case. Mac recalls that he was supposed to meet her the next day to hear what she'd learned in the Seeley case and wonders if she opened up a can of worms in her investigation.

Analysis:

CSI: New York is really on a roll. The season has been barrelling full steam ahead at what feels like a very fast pace. No doubt the lack of reruns has something to do with that; going straight through November sweeps with nary a repeat was a shrewd decision. It's allowed for a great deal of continuity between the episodes.

<HR ALIGN="CENTER" SIZE="1" WIDTH="45%" COLOR="#007BB5">

To read the full reviews, please click here.<center></center>
 
Actually, Lindsay wasn't complaining about the Pinto. She said that she "loved that car." It sounded more like she was amazed at how much parent's will spend on their children for things they don't need.
 
I have to add that Lindsay never said she "only" got a pinto. Just that "I got my mom's used Pinto," and yes, that she loved that car. Otherwise, great review.
 
I agree, Lindsay wasn't complaining about getting a used pinto. She sounded more amazed at the excessive amounts of money parents spend on their children.
 
I was thinking "I wasn't even allowed to get my driver's license until I was 18, so I sure as hell didn't get my own car at 16." :lol:

Excellent review, Kristine. :) This episode was definitely about characters rather than cases...
 
I wasn't trying to imply that Lindsay was complaining about the Pinto--just that she seemed to be griping about the excess at a moment when the girl probably didn't care if her dad got her a Ugo or a Hummer. I see what you guys are saying, though--the comment just felt somewhat callous to me, and kind of spoiled, too, given that plenty of people don't get cars in the first place when they turn 16.

I do think this episode was stronger for the characters rather than the cases. I'm all sorts of excited about Mac and Flack butting heads. Unlike poor Danny, who always seems to do the wrong thing, Flack has a valid point and is coming at things from a different, but equally important, angle than Mac is. The cases were fine this time around--neither bad nor spectacular (though the crazy mom was great!), but the character stuff was fantastic.
 
Unreal! You actually made it through a review without bringing up Danny's tight pants or something similar. You didn't even mention his name! Just wow. I really would have fallen out of my chair if you hadn't included one of your usual overblown rants about Lindsay, who was (as you mention) barely even in the show at all!

As others have already stated, Lindsay wasn't complaining; but then, she could say "Have a nice day" to someone and you'd see it negatively. Kristine, when I read your take on the scene I couldn't help but roll my eyes. It was as far from how I saw it as possible. Oh well, you just don't like her and nothing seems to be able to change that. I'm not necessarily a fan of hers either, but I think these little jaunts of yours into "Danny good, Lindsay bad" territory are way overdone and throw off your USUALLY VERY GOOD reviews.

Before I get a bunch of the usual responses of "Well if you don't like the reviews don't read them, blah blah blah," well... save it, I've heard it before. I was impressed at Kristine's open-minded reply after my last message... so I gave her a pass on last week's paragraph where she drools about Danny's pecs. ;)

Other than what I mentioned, I think your reviews usually do hit the mark and make valid and well thought out points. Maybe that is why I find all the love/hate Danny/Lindsay stuff so out of place.
 
^I'm always amused when people read my reviews week after week even when the reviews seem to piss them off. :lol:

Interesting that you just focus on my opinions of two characters, but to address the points:

--See my above post about Lindsay for clarification. I can't really say any more than that; the character grates on my nerves and is poorly written and portrayed. In an otherwise excellent cast, she stands out in a bad way, and I stand by my elevator shaft suggestion. :p

--As for Danny (who as you note wasn't mentioned in this review), if the show pimps him out, I'm going to mention it. :lol: He's usually a very strong character, so if he makes an impression, again, I'll mention it. I don't always praise the character; I'd suggest looking over my old reviews for examples of this, but I don't want to raise your blood pressure too much. :lol:

Thanks for reading! :)
 
I've been reading your reviews a long time now and the only times they have irked me, I have spoken up (just twice before). So I wouldn't necessarily say they piss me off...

And I talk about two specific characters primarily because that's where we have differed in opinion. I think you go on about Flack a bit too much on occasion too, but I like his character so it's easier to take. :)

Lindsay isn't nearly as aggravating as Rosalind Shays was! But as you stated Rosalind Shays was a love to hate type of character. Like most LA Law fans I felt the same way about her (Diana Muldaur is great at those kinds of roles!)
I just think Lindsay is sort of there, not particularily well developed but not grating either.

I look forward to your next uneven review. ;)
 
dmc said:
And I talk about two specific characters primarily because that's where we have differed in opinion. I think you go on about Flack a bit too much on occasion too, but I like his character so it's easier to take. :)

Well, reviewers are human and tend to have bias towards favorite/least favorite characters. I've been reading and writing reviews for a while now, and I've noticed people who have been writing reviews for a long time tend to let their biases show more because they're more confident about their opinions. By its very nature, reviewing is essentially about promoting your own opinion. I try to talk about all aspects of the episode, but I fully admit when I feel strongly about something, I'll give it attention in a review.

Lindsay isn't nearly as aggravating as Rosalind Shays was! But as you stated Rosalind Shays was a love to hate type of character. Like most LA Law fans I felt the same way about her (Diana Muldaur is great at those kinds of roles!)
I just think Lindsay is sort of there, not particularily well developed but not grating either.

I actually find Lindsay more irritating, because Rosalind was at least a character with a purpose. It was fun to hate her. She made viewers mad, but she shook things up, too. Muldaur is one hell of an actress, too. Lindsay snivels her way through episodes, whining and complaining and taking away from the thrust of the episode. If she was a character we were supposed to hate I might feel differently about her, but I think the writers want us to like her. She's just a failure of a character, and moving on from failure and trying something new is usually the best way to go.

I look forward to your next uneven review. ;)

And I look forward to your next lambast. ;)
 
I enjoy reading your reviews, they are well thought out and actually analyse rather than just squee over the good looking men.

I'd have to say my only problem with this review was that you quoted Lindsay as saying she "only" got a car for her birthday. The word "only" was never said when she talked about the car.

Small nitpick, I know, but I always enjoy your reviews so this just kind of stuck with me and bothered me enough to have to comment.
 
Top41 said:
given that plenty of people don't get cars in the first place when they turn 16.

This actually made my chuckle, because I didn't get my first car until I was 18. My parents - since I achieved a certain gpa when I graduated high school - gave me $2000 for a used car. I bought a 1986 Taurus. I considered myself lucky! At 16, I was still begging my mom for a spin in her Chrysler LeBaron!

Also, Kristine, I would like to thank you personally for making me realize I'm not the only one old enough to remember Rosalind Shays.
:lol:
 
imaguestage said:
I enjoy reading your reviews, they are well thought out and actually analyse rather than just squee over the good looking men.

I'd have to say my only problem with this review was that you quoted Lindsay as saying she "only" got a car for her birthday. The word "only" was never said when she talked about the car.

Small nitpick, I know, but I always enjoy your reviews so this just kind of stuck with me and bothered me enough to have to comment.

I stand corrected on the "only" part; the comparison was there, but not the word "only."

Thanks for the compliments on the reviews--I'm glad you enjoy them!

audrina said:
This actually made my chuckle, because I didn't get my first car until I was 18. My parents - since I achieved a certain gpa when I graduated high school - gave me $2000 for a used car. I bought a 1986 Taurus. I considered myself lucky! At 16, I was still begging my mom for a spin in her Chrysler LeBaron!

:lol: I didn't get a car until I was 22, had graduated from college, and used my graduation gift money as a down payment on it. Going for a used car would have been much more practical--I spent five years paying it off! (Hill would not approve. ;) ) I would have been grateful to have any car at 16, Pinto included.

Also, Kristine, I would like to thank you personally for making me realize I'm not the only one old enough to remember Rosalind Shays.
:lol:

:lol: You're not alone! Rosalind's demise has to be in the top 10 most memorable TV deaths ever. I still remember being shocked when she walked into the empty elevator shaft. :lol: Did you ever see the Friends parody of that scene?
 
Top41 said:

I stand corrected on the "only" part; the comparison was there, but not the word "only."

I know it was a tiny nitpick but the journalist in me gets driven crazy by misquotes from anyone. I still understood what you were saying and where you were coming from.

I figured someone was going to eventually call you on it and better it come right after a positive comment. Keep up the great work.

On the note of cars, I just thought I'd throw it out there that being given a car when you get your license (16 or 17 depending where you are) is pretty common for country kids. I grew up in the middle of no where, I'm talking a 15 minute drive to the store, 30 minutes to school, etc.

All of my friends and myself were given used cars when we got our licenses. It was just easier for our parents to spend $500 to get some beat up old clunker than to keep driving us everywhere. Plus, I became the taxi driver to my younger siblings, which made my parents very, very happy.
:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top