Show Tracker

What you're watching

« Previous Post | Show Tracker Home | Next Post »

'Desperate Housewives': Killers young and old on the loose

April 19, 2010 |  7:29 am


The Housewives were back after a lengthy hiatus, and one thing is for certain – they are just as desperate as ever, a joke that at this point in the season never gets old. 

Sadly, the cast and crew didn’t get to enjoy a quiet hiatus.

Almost out of the blue, my favorite killed-off housewife, Nicollette Sheridan, filed a lawsuit against ABC Studios and show creator Marc Cherry for assault and battery, gender violence and wrongful termination. Sheridan claims that Cherry struck her in an alleged incident on set on Sept. 24, 2008 (my birthday, if anyone cares), according to the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. After the 46-year-old actress complained to ABC about the incident, she was later fired, with her final episode airing last April, according to the lawsuit. 

I thought her demise was incredibly unnecessary -- her presence has been sorely missed on the Lane -- and the lawsuit has left one heck of a bad taste in my mouth. I prefer my scandals to be pure fiction; it’s not fun when they cross over into the real world with lawyers and all that unpleasant messiness.

As for the Housewives still breathing on the Lane? This was an uninspired episode full of recycled story lines – minus a few surprises.

“Torchwood’s" John Barrowman has finally arrived as the “dangerous” Patrick Logan the Bolens have been running away from all season. 

A few weeks ago, I wrote that I hoped he would light a fire under this dragging mystery and tie things up nicely. But the first taste of Patrick on Wisteria Lane was in a coffee shop asking long-lost son Danny (or is it Tyler … either way, the kid didn’t know he was face to face with his real dad) for ideas on how to finish his “book.”

You can’t be serious right? Even Barrowman has to poke fun of his own character’s predictability, being just another guy in the coffee shop working on a novel. Is this the best the writers could do? 

He’s supposed to be vicious, dangerous and ruthless, right? I mean, after all, Angie isn’t exactly a damsel in distress, and she has gone out of her way making anyone in her path aware of the danger that faces her, so pardon me, Cherry & Co., for expecting fireworks right from the beginning. He did strangle the helpless snitch in his old town, so I know the guy can play dirty; I just didn’t expect him to ham it up with Danny over cappuccinos and chats about how to end this poorly written – and predictable -- mystery.  

Admittedly, I’ve thrown in the towel on the Bolen saga. At this point, just get it over with. Kill Angie (and I’m assuming Nick has to be offed too, though he doesn’t bother me quite as much, so maybe he can survive and wind up with Julie) and let Danny run off with his father. If only it were that easy. Plus, Danny does seem to be kind of fond of his mother, so that won’t work. How about Danny (sorry ... Tyler) kills Patrick and moves away with the only dad he’s ever known? I like that scenario – sorry, but Angie dies in all of my scenarios. As we know, someone always has to die on the Lane. 

Now for the surprises. A month ago (yes, this hiatus was a long one) I asked, “Whatever happened to the Fairview Strangler, or are we just pretending like it never happened?” Well, Cherry & Co. finally revealed who the strangler is: Preston's and Danny's friend, Eddie (you know, the one all the teens went to see do stand-up). Can’t say I saw that one coming.

I’m also terribly confused, but I guess it makes sense. He strangled Julie near the time of her Bolen drama; maybe he knew and was seeking revenge for his friend. That scenario would make perfect sense as in the final moments he strangled Preston's former fiancee, Irina (score two for Lynette -- she exposed Irina as a gold digger and, like any Mommie Dearest, she’ll be pleased to know that said gold digger is lying in a freshly dug grave). I’m really hoping that revenge for his besties is Eddie’s motive, because if that’s not it, then what is? I’m sure that next week we’ll be treated to some trademark Cherry & Co. flashbacks, always my personal favorite. I’m excited to find out more about this shady guy. 

As for the other Housewives? A bit of the same old, same old. Bree is still blind to new son Sam’s ulterior motives  – oh wait, they aren’t related at all, no matter how badly she wants it. How awesome was it seeing Orson sticking up for his stepson and giving Bree a well-deserved wake-up call?

Gaby, who still seems to be struggling with motherhood, decided to be an egg donor for Bob and Lee after overhearing (eavesdropping -- and sloppily at that) about their search for a baby mama drama. However, after realizing the magnitude of what she wanted to do (no son to take shopping) and getting opposition from Carlos, she backed out, which led to Bob and Lee splitting up. I wished the writers wouldn’t have taken that route. They could have done more exploration with that story line -- just look at “Brothers and Sisters” as an example. That way we have more of Bob and Lee and not a lazy ending to a potentially great story arc.

Susan and Mike continue to be a walking cliche. His need to be the sole breadwinner is now becoming the main source of a story. Now he is in debt, and even after a public repossession of his truck, he still won’t let Susan work. Wait, again I’m confused -- why exactly does Susan work if Mike doesn’t want any of her help? Cherry & Co., it’s 2010, not 1950; they have a two-income household and he is deep in debt? How? Guess we’re missing the entire story. I’m sure the details will be good -- at least, I hope.

-- Gerrick D. Kennedy (Follow me on Twitter

Photo: John Barrowman (left) guest stars on "Desperate Housewives." Credit: ABC


Complete Show Tracker coverage of "Desperate Housewives"