or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Killing on AMC HD
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Killing on AMC HD - Page 7

post #181 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

most people seem to like the Councilman (Richmond) or one of his 2 assistants (Jamie and Gwen)...but I'm thinking that since Rosie's body was found in one of the councilman's cars that it would be way too obvious to have someone in the campaign connected to the murder...plus why would the killer dump her body in a vehicle that could easily be traced back to the campaign?...I'm thinking it is somebody not associated with the campaign (the Aunt?)

The only thing that gets to me is that they pushed the fact that they reported it stolen a perfect alibi.
post #182 of 1120
Well, I'm sticking with the Councilman as the killer .. sometimes the obvious is just the best choice and he's a bit too self rightious IMO .. Rosie met him at the casino, it went downhill from there ..

The filler episode was somewhat boring .. although there was some good acting going on, especially by Joel Kinnaman (Holder) .. I don't know if there are any plans to do another story arc with this cast, and if not, the backstories are a bit of a waste of time ..

And is Seattle really that dark and rainy all the time .. ??
post #183 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by keenan View Post

I'm wondering what the writers were thinking here with this episode. While the mother/son relationship was strained in the original Danish production, they didn't spend this much time focused on it during the whole 20 hrs of episodes. This version is a different interpretation of course so who knows where the writers are going with it.

One thing is absolutely certain though, the killer is most definitely someone we already know as I can't believe the writers would be so stupid as to introduce a new character(as the eventual killer) with less than 90 mins of airtime left.

As to whodunit, I think it was Jaimie, the councilman's aid, he seems to be the one doing dirty work for him already.

You just got done saying last week that they were moving too fast with little exposition, so you should have been satisfied here. I thought it was one of the better episodes, you learned quite a lot about the two main characters. Maybe it could have came earlier in the season, though.
post #184 of 1120
I'm also starting to wonder if maybe the mob (Rosie's dad's former associates) are going to end up being responsible. Casinos and mobs make obvious pairings....
post #185 of 1120
One other thing .. I'm assuming the story arc will end at this seasons final episode .. ?? All will be revealed .. ??
post #186 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

One other thing .. I'm assuming the story arc will end at this seasons final episode .. ?? All will be revealed .. ??

Hmmm good point, Since I havent watched the original and I am trying to keep spoiler free, I dont know....It may have to do with if they get a second season or not....We may find out who the killer is, BUT catching them and finding out thier motive is a totally different ballgame.

I still want to stick with the Councilman's male assistant. He seems to be OK with doing dirty work (at least hiring someone to do it)......If it were the female assistant it could ahve been jealousy angle.....Also, if it IS someone we havent seen yet, it may have been thought to deal with that in a future season.....It will be interesting to see how they handle the last 2 episodes...
post #187 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

Hmmm good point, Since I havent watched the original and I am trying to keep spoiler free, I dont know....It may have to do with if they get a second season or not....We may find out who the killer is, BUT catching them and finding out thier motive is a totally different ballgame.

I still want to stick with the Councilman's male assistant. He seems to be OK with doing dirty work (at least hiring someone to do it)......If it were the female assistant it could ahve been jealousy angle.....Also, if it IS someone we havent seen yet, it may have been thought to deal with that in a future season.....It will be interesting to see how they handle the last 2 episodes...

I read a synopsis of the original and it seemed to indicate it went on for more than one season on the same plot .. that's why I wondered .. and the synopsis did not reveal anything, so I'm still guessing ..
post #188 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

I read a synopsis of the original and it seemed to indicate it went on for more than one season on the same plot .. that's why I wondered .. and the synopsis did not reveal anything, so I'm still guessing ..

Much like Rubicon (which I loved) we end up not knowing, but knowing (if that makes sense)....Hopefully AMC doesnt make the same mistake twice....
post #189 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by StonesCat View Post

You just got done saying last week that they were moving too fast with little exposition, so you should have been satisfied here. I thought it was one of the better episodes, you learned quite a lot about the two main characters. Maybe it could have came earlier in the season, though.

That's sort of the problem, it's very uneven in the story-telling. I should say that my thoughts/opinions are biased on having seen the original and how much it differs from the US version. It also seemed a bit pointless to me to show the emotional devastation the loss of a child can cause, haven't we already seen that from the beginning of the show with Rosie's family? Why spend a whole episode of showing Linden possibly in the same position? Do the writers think that audience really doesn't understand how the loss of a child can destroy a family? It just seemed unnecessary to me.

As noted here and by others, this week did have some great acting, although I have to say that it was mostly from Kinnaman, Enos is just not pulling it off as well for me, she's not really grabbing the essence of the quiet, burning intensity(the Seth Bullock effect) that you got from Gråbøl in the original. Again, this could be lack of direction and or/time to develop. I agree that learning about the characters was good story telling, but I also agree with you that it should have been done earlier in the season and maybe in a few segments at a time, not a whole episode late in the season with only 2 episodes left to wrap it all up.

I definitely want the show to succeed as we certainly need more quality TV, I'm still very disappointed over losing Rubicon.
post #190 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

Well, I'm sticking with the Councilman as the killer .. sometimes the obvious is just the best choice and he's a bit too self rightious IMO .. Rosie met him at the casino, it went downhill from there ..

But something illegal had to be going on (like funneling illegal campaign money from the Mayor's campaign through the casino), and Rosie stumbled into it. Add the staged discovery in the trunk of the Councilman's campaign car, and it makes more sense. I'm about ready to "clear" the Councilman and his staff.
post #191 of 1120
My wife and I were hooked on this show from the first episode, it seemed so realistic and the acting was excellent. But as it has gone on I find it more and more bothersome (save for the acting, which for the most part has remained strong).

Most of my complaints revolve around the police. A murdered child, especially such a high profile one involving a politician during a campaign, would seemingly have more than two detectives handling pieces of the investigation. Especially if the two are a new person and another with one foot out of the door (however reminiscent of Seven that may be). It was just two episodes ago they realized Rosie called someone late the night she was murdered. Pulling her phone records would have been one of the first things done. And someone would have recognized that casino logo (I grew up where Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun now stand and everyone around there would recognize their logos) if not the name of a ferry that goes to what one would assume is a relatively popular destination. And Linden continually making mistakes is laughable - how many times has she apologized to the Larsen's?

But anyway, I've been hoping that Holder eventually cracks the case as some sort of retribution given how much like crap Linden has treated him.

As for the killer, my guess is that smarmy, young millionairre. All in an attempt to get both mayoral candidates desperate enough to promise him his stadium. He killed the girl framing Richmond, then gave Richmond the affair story about Adams. Plus he's got money which may play a role in the Rosie/ATM story.
post #192 of 1120
the killer has to be someone with an intense hatred of Rosie or her family due to the fact that she was alive in the trunk as it started to sink in the water...so someone wanted her to suffer...it has to be personal...the political angle doesn't fit the crime
post #193 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbrown13 View Post

My wife and I were hooked on this show from the first episode, it seemed so realistic and the acting was excellent. But as it has gone on I find it more and more bothersome (save for the acting, which for the most part has remained strong).

Most of my complaints revolve around the police. A murdered child, especially such a high profile one involving a politician during a campaign, would seemingly have more than two detectives handling pieces of the investigation. Especially if the two are a new person and another with one foot out of the door (however reminiscent of Seven that may be). It was just two episodes ago they realized Rosie called someone late the night she was murdered. Pulling her phone records would have been one of the first things done. And someone would have recognized that casino logo (I grew up where Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun now stand and everyone around there would recognize their logos) if not the name of a ferry that goes to what one would assume is a relatively popular destination. And Linden continually making mistakes is laughable - how many times has she apologized to the Larsen's?

But anyway, I've been hoping that Holder eventually cracks the case as some sort of retribution given how much like crap Linden has treated him.

As for the killer, my guess is that smarmy, young millionairre. All in an attempt to get both mayoral candidates desperate enough to promise him his stadium. He killed the girl framing Richmond, then gave Richmond the affair story about Adams. Plus he's got money which may play a role in the Rosie/ATM story.

+1

There are two reasons I'm still watching -- I simply want to know who did it, and for Kinnaman's portrayal of Holder. IMO, he's the standout of the series.
post #194 of 1120
We can hatch any number of theories .. Stanley Larsen (Brent Sexton) .. he's broke and his wife just found out .. the savings is drained and the business is on the skids, she's leafed thru a stack of unpaid bills ..

Stanley has a gambling problem .. the Casino has fronted him a load of cash as well and the Mafia connection wanted Rosie to "work it off" or Dad suffers broke legs or worse .. the night Rosie hits the casino for a little payback time, she's expected to hook up with the Councilman and he's into some very tabboo stuff .. thinking he's actually killed her during the "session", he panics and stuffs her in the trunk of the campaign car but she's actually still alive ..

I'll be here all week ..
post #195 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitusTroy View Post

the killer has to be someone with an intense hatred of Rosie or her family due to the fact that she was alive in the trunk as it started to sink in the water...so someone wanted her to suffer...it has to be personal...

Don't know how closely the US version is following the Danish storyline, but you can read an alternative pyschology into the way she was killed.

(And I'd thoroughly recommend anyone who hasn't watched the Danish original to watch it. It's some of the best TV drama I've seen in years with some stunning acting)
post #196 of 1120
Maybe the person responsible for putting the car in the water stole it but didn't know Rosie was in the trunk.
post #197 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOA View Post

Maybe the person responsible for putting the car in the water stole it but didn't know Rosie was in the trunk.

That's an idea. From the way out there section, I'm thinking maybe it's going to come back to that Jasper(?) family. Possibly his dad. I seem to remember a scene at the funeral that hinted at something with him and the Larsen sister. The kid was home alone that weekend with the older woman, dad has a temper, has money and connections, I believe. Or maybe I dreamt all that.
post #198 of 1120
I don't know, I just think we're all overthinking things here.

In my experience, in most cases, the writers of these shows don't worry nearly as much about clever plot twists with integrity. They just seem to look for a quick wrap-up, whether it is consistent with what went before or not. As an example, as I recall, in Rubicon, members of the conspiracy who stepped out of line were immediately, summarily dealt with: EXCEPT for Will's boss. "24" was the same way, as was House (legal resolutions that strained credulity).

If WE were tasked with coming up with a "Witness for the Prosecution"-like twist to "Killing" then it would probably be something worthy of an extensive discussion; unfortunately, it's the usual set of writers that have to resolve this in one way or the other and I'm afraid we're going to get something much simpler and trite than is being envisioned here.

I hope I'm wrong, of course.
post #199 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by StonesCat View Post

That's an idea. From the way out there section, I'm thinking maybe it's going to come back to that Jasper(?) family. Possibly his dad. I seem to remember a scene at the funeral that hinted at something with him and the Larsen sister. The kid was home alone that weekend with the older woman, dad has a temper, has money and connections, I believe. Or maybe I dreamt all that.

I had a dream that it was Jacques Renault.
post #200 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by StonesCat View Post

That's an idea. From the way out there section, I'm thinking maybe it's going to come back to that Jasper(?) family. Possibly his dad. I seem to remember a scene at the funeral that hinted at something with him and the Larsen sister. The kid was home alone that weekend with the older woman, dad has a temper, has money and connections, I believe. Or maybe I dreamt all that.

Hey, that's what I said!
post #201 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltownsend View Post

Hey, that's what I said!

I missed it, you're right. I fleshed it out for you, LOL. I didn't remember where the house was, though, you got me there.
post #202 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgkdragn View Post

I read a synopsis of the original and it seemed to indicate it went on for more than one season on the same plot .. that's why I wondered .. and the synopsis did not reveal anything, so I'm still guessing ..

Nope.
Season 2 of Forbrydelsen is a totally different -and half as long- story. Only connection is that Sarah Lunt, badly scarred from her last case, is brought back as investigator (she had been demoted to her old job in passport control) by her boss, who's willing to support her in spite of something that happened during the previous case and the jealousy of his -female- superior.

I liked the idea of giving viewers some insight into the lives and characters of Sarah (Linden) and Stephen, but it would have been much more skillful -and less disruptive- to blend this information **along** with the main plot as the story develops, rather than as an aside near the end of the series. The two tension lines kind of defuse each other...
post #203 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce73 View Post


+1

There are two reasons I'm still watching -- I simply want to know who did it, and for Kinnaman's portrayal of Holder. IMO, he's the standout of the series.

I have only watched the pilot and the Cage so far, but I really HATE the Holden character. Giving pot to high school girls? The guy is a total scum! Unless he gets much better as the series goes on, he is the last thing that will keep me watching!
post #204 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iontyre View Post


I have only watched the pilot and the Cage so far, but I really HATE the Holden character. Giving pot to high school girls? The guy is a total scum! Unless he gets much better as the series goes on, he is the last thing that will keep me watching!

That wasnt actually pot that he gave to the high school chicks. He explained that it was similar but without any pot or drug in it later on or maybe in a different episode..
post #205 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iontyre View Post


I have only watched the pilot and the Cage so far, but I really HATE the Holden character. Giving pot to high school girls? The guy is a total scum! Unless he gets much better as the series goes on, he is the last thing that will keep me watching!

Huh? I'm talking about his portrayal of the character, not the character itself. Big difference. Besides, the character isn't meant to be sympathetic, at least in the beginning.
post #206 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by iontyre View Post

I have only watched the pilot and the Cage so far, but I really HATE the Holden character. Giving pot to high school girls? The guy is a total scum! Unless he gets much better as the series goes on, he is the last thing that will keep me watching!

As another poster has explained, Holder didn't really give pot to the girls and only gave them the ersatz pot as part of his investigation of the murder. We learn a lot more about Holder as the series unfolds. He is a richly complex character who to me at least is in some ways admirable.
post #207 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by nlk10010 View Post

If WE were tasked with coming up with a "Witness for the Prosecution"-like twist to "Killing" then it would probably be something worthy of an extensive discussion; unfortunately, it's the usual set of writers that have to resolve this in one way or the other and I'm afraid we're going to get something much simpler and trite than is being envisioned here.

That's exactly why some of us like the original better!
post #208 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

As another poster has explained, Holder didn't really give pot to the girls and only gave them the ersatz pot as part of his investigation of the murder. We learn a lot more about Holder as the series unfolds. He is a richly complex character who to me at least is in some ways admirable.

I agree.

A bit overdone and totally unrealistic as a tweaker now Homicide Cop but I like the guy. Linden as primary is unrealisticly off the rails. Poor writing but I'm in to find out WhoDunIt?

No prize for anyone who long ago knew enough Hollywood PC to figure out that a black...muslim...imigrant was not the perp.
post #209 of 1120
Quote:
Originally Posted by philw1776 View Post

No prize for anyone who long ago knew enough Hollywood PC to figure out that a black...muslim...imigrant was not the perp.

That was not Hollywood's idea. It was Copenhagen's...
post #210 of 1120
fantastic episode last night!...the show actually moved at a nice brisk pace for a change and everyone looked guilty at some point in the episode...why couldn't they do this all season long?...the ending was perfect...no way Richmond can be the killer now since they made it too obvious...plus in the preview for next week's episode they teased that the last 5 minutes will be so shocking that everyone will be talking about it all summer...can't wait!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › The Killing on AMC HD