Change Your Image
oh58_D
Reviews
Very Bad Men: The Corridor Killer (2012)
Not about Steve Pennell, nor even that much about the actual killer, and even less about the victims.
This is a failure of an episode in many ways, not the least of which is the title of the episode "The Corridor Killer" when that's a name which the FBI first associated with Steve Pennell in Delaware, long before Chester Turner became a serial killer which terrorized South Central L.A. Worse, the entire first half of the episode deals with the LAPD's insistence David Allen Jones (who had an IQ of ~80--important because in several states 80 is the minimum IQ required to be considered fit to stand trial) is guilty, and is indicted and eventually convicted of 3 murders. The problem, of course, is Jones, though certainly mentally "slow" and probably even dangerous as he was a large man with little control or realization of how much damage he could cause to other human being, hadn't (and hasn't to this day) killed anyone. It's not until the last 10 minutes of the show which focuses on how the LAPD fumbled their way into finding the real killer, Chester Turner. If they would've changed the title to "The Figueroa Corridor Killer" the'd have fixed part of it. The rest could have been fixed by spending 5 minutes of ~20 minutes on Jones (after all, he was innocent), and the other 15 on Turner, not 10 and 10. To make it worse, they refer to Turner as a "prolific" serial killer. Maybe back in the Jack the Ripper days 10 kills would make you prolific, but by now we're aware of people like Ted Bundy (confirmed kills: 29--claimed kills: north of 100) JW Gacy (confirmed kills: 33 claimed kills: 1), and Jeffrey Dahmer (confirmed kills: 17 claimed kills: "I lost count after 20" and since Dahmer melted his victims in Muriatic acid, it's difficult to believe the 17 number simply because it was the number of victims they could confirm, but is based on both the number of skulls in Dahmer's lair, and the number of homosexual men declared missing in Milwaukee who were considered Dahmer's victimology), and I could go on for quite awhile, e.g. Joel Rifkin, Michael Swango, Herman Mudgett, Gary Ridgway, Andrei Chikatilo, Randy Kraft, et. al., all of whom make Turner's numbers mild, and nowhere near what should be called "prolific."
Please understand, any death of a relatively innocent victim to any killer is tragic, no matter the age, sex, or condition of the victim. Many serial killers have said they find some previous serial killer to be their IDOL! These men should not be idolized by anyone, thus putting a word like "prolific" on any killer is something about which every author ought to think carefully before doing, and why I found it repugnant when we use it as hyperbole, somehow attempting to glorify the horrid actions taken by such psychopaths.
The Guardian (2001)
Regarding Wendy Muniz as Lulu
It never ceases to amaze me when people post their opinion as fact. The writer of this long winded review spoke as though his/her opinion was the final word and absolute truth on the topic of the entire show, but that's only my first objection.
My second objection was his/her opinion on the casting of Wendy Muniz as Lulu. I'm not a casual viewer when it comes to television as I hold a Ph.D. in Investigative Psychology and Behavioral Analysis, and poor acting (and just plain BAD acting or even bad casting) sticks out like a sore thumb to me. The difference between me and the person who wrote this review is I will state my opinions as just that: Opinion! My opinion on the casting of the Guardian was similar to his in that most of the characters were well cast. Simon Baker, now of "The Mentalist," displayed every reason he's been sought after to play lead roles in television dramas (no insult intended--I'm sure he'd be just fine in movies as well).
His persona on the Mentalist and the Guardian were immensely different, yet on both shows he appears in my view(see? this isn't a claim of fact, but rather stated as my observation) to keep the viewer's suspension of disbelief solidly intact. Again, IMO, Dabney Coleman is the lone actor to not pull off his role believably, but then the writing for the part was not up to par with the rest of the show. It might be simply my thousands of hours of study on human behavior which makes the role of "The Guardian"s father unbelievable.
The casting of Lulu, however, was spot on. As the main love interest of the protagonist, Wendy Muniz was required to maintain the level of believability in the premise as established by Baker's brilliance, and IMO, she manages to do that which is no small feat. The show kept me constantly on edge when addressing the romance between the unavailable Lulu and the sometimes under-confident Nick Fallin. There's no way this show could have lasted 3+ seasons if they'd completely missed the boat when casting the love interest of the protagonist.
Anyone who's a fan of Baker and has come to the party a bit late to catch the Guardian when it was on in prime-time would be encouraged by me to see if they could find a way to catch this sleeper of a show. Though hailed by the critics, it was under-appreciated by the audience which led to the cancellation of the show (though some blame the consummation of the relationship between Nick and Lulu).
Of course, all of this is opinion, not fact... :-)