Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Revolution 1.18 "Clue" Review: Who Done It?


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Revolution 1.18 "Clue" Review: Who Done It?

21 May 2013

Share on Reddit
    This week’s episode of Revolution, “Clue,” was written by Paul Grellong and Oanh Ly and directed by Helen Shaver. It’s one of the few episodes that hasn’t featured flashbacks. The core storyline was a nice murder mystery a la Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians – hence the importance of clues.
    I thought the murder mystery was well done. Admittedly, I’m busy taking notes as I watch, but it really didn’t seem obvious to me. There were clues that could have implicated any of them. Jim (Malik Yoba) doesn’t really tip his hand even when Miles (Billy Burke) tells him to go to his wife. I’d have to go back to see if we have any indication that Jim was involved in the drone attack at the time. Of course, one of the failings of the show for me has been the lack of time we actually get to know the characters. The flashbacks for the main characters do help with that, but there have been numerous peripheral characters, like Jim and Jeremy (Mark Pellegrino) among others, who I would have liked to know a lot more about. It’s difficult to be able to really gauge some of the characters’ actions.
    It was fantastic to see Daniella Alonso (Nora) really get to show off what she can do in this episode. Her portrayal of a soldier beaten, tortured, and drugged past her limits was fantastic. Nora was a great tribute to soldiers of any gender and her surrender was of a soldier who has finally passed the final limits – it didn’t make her less brave or weak. I also really liked the Raiders of the Lost Ark shout out when Monroe (David Lyons) sends her the white dress and then asks her to dinner. Unlike Marion Ravenwood, Nora has given up drinking, however. I’m really enjoying most of the women characters, but especially Nora. She returns and instead of resenting Miles for not finding her, she is filled with guilt for having broken and revealed their secrets. Yet, she isn’t paralyzed by the guilt, she’s simply eager to help make up for it. The scene in which she gets free and takes out one of the guards was a terrific fight scene for her. Having the drugs still in her system makes for another level of uncertainty in figuring out who the guilty party is, but it is stupid of Miles to let Nora go (and for Nora to want to go as she is really endangering the whole party by not being 100%).
    I was disappointed that they killed Sanborn (Leland Orser). I think the character could have brought an interesting dynamic to the Rebel side, and I really like Orser as an actor. Here again was an underused actor, who we really didn’t know enough about to truly gauge whether he could have been a double agent. Certainly, there are enough holes in his escape story – is anyone that lucky? Had he really reached his limit with Monroe? Did he suspect that Flynn (Colm Feore) would now want him killed because he’d seemingly ratted Flynn out to Monroe? Lots of good questions that we’ll likely never know the answer too. It’s a bit ironic that Revolution actually suffers from too much plot, with the result being there are often lots of storylines that will never get explored.
    Charlie (Tracy Spiridakos) once again lets down Jason (JD Pardo). Charlie is pretty quick to condemn Jason again. She immediately jumps to the conclusion that the guy Jason met in Atlanta is someone suspicious and Jason is doing something to undermine the rebels. Coming hot on the heels of him almost dying to save her, this seems really harsh on Charlie’s part. Neville (Giancarlo Esposito) somewhat gleefully jumps on the bandwagon of those ready to condemn the young man. However, and perhaps more surprisingly, both of them also try to stop Miles from killing Jason. In the end, Jason is the one to kill Jim to prevent him from killing Miles. Charlie is proven wrong and apologizes, but Jason doesn’t want to hear it. It’s hard to blame Jason, but I suspect he will forgive her before long as well.
    Monroe finds out about the Tower from Nora, and is ready to kill Flynn (Colm Feore). Feore is brilliant, as usual, as Flynn pleads for his life, pointing out all the reasons Monroe needs him. It’s always a great moment to watch Feore and Lyons play against each other. Flynn promises that he can gain access to the Tower and that it can do much more than just turn the power back on. I loved the exchange when they got to the Tower: Monroe: “False advertising.” Flynn: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” As I suggested months ago, the Tower does, indeed go down – ½ a mile – not up. When Flynn finally tries to break in, we see that there are a number of people waiting for him inside. It’s unclear who they are, but we can guess that that they are the ones who killed Grace’s (Maria Howell) guard. There was no Grace in sight, but here’s hoping we actually get to see her again and find out more about that character – though my hopes of that are waning.
    We also see that Aaron (Zak Orth) and Rachel (Elizabeth Mitchell) have made it to the Tower. Once again, and somewhat disappointingly, Aaron is relegated to the damsel in distress and spends the episode looking concerned from a distance. Rachel gets to kick some ass as she chokes out a guard to take his uniform to sneak into Monroe’s encampment to kill him. Mitchell delivers another great performance, but I still find Rachel’s character to be very inconsistent. She seems manically desperate for revenge in this episode at the cost of all else. The episode ends with her popping the pin on a grenade in Monroe’s tent.
      It seems unlikely she will succeed, but even if she does get herself killed (though the promotional photos for the next two episodes suggest that she is not the main character who dies), I’m not sure that I will miss Rachel because she has been so inconsistently portrayed – I’m tired of trying to decide whether she’s a good guy or a bad guy – though this would seem to prove she’s one of the “good” guys. I don’t believe Mitchell is responsible for the inconsistent portrayal. I think that responsibility falls at the feet of the writers. For all that we’ve spent almost an entire season with these characters now, I feel like I barely know them. I would again attribute that to having too much plot. We seem to be advancing the plot quickly with a lot of action and a large cast. There’s only so much time that can be spent on character development, and almost all of that has come through the flashbacks. We have a fairly clear idea about who Miles, Neville, Monroe, and Aaron are, somewhat less so Nora and Charlie.
    What did you think of the episode? I enjoyed the ‘who done it’ of the stranded team, and I continue to enjoy the portrayal of strong women in the show. There were some good performances and some good action in this episode. If you’ve seen the promotional photos for the last two episodes, you may have some thoughts on where we seem to be going... Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

37 comments:

  1. Meh. It was all right. There were bits I liked--such as how Randall's gone from cocky and assured to fearing for his life now that he's with Monroe--a testament to Feore's acting shops. However, one really has to wonder why he selected Monroe, of all the possible leaders out there, to give the power back to. Surely the fact that Monroe is a nutbag is widely enough known for Randall to have had some second thoughts about that one.

    Jim or whatever his name is being the killer/betrayer just clanged for me. He was introduced, what, three or four episodes ago as one of MIles's old crew (possibly the only one we ever actually saw Miles seek out, though that was what he said he was going to do--gather the old gang to put on just one more show!--though perhaps I'm forgetting someone here), he joins up, and now, he's the traitor? Well, I guess it couldn't be Neville Sr or Jr, or Nora, or Charlie, so it had to be somebody, and he was the only one left (couldn't have ben Sanborn, because the presence of the mole predates his admittedly highly imrorbable arrival with Nora), but really, what was the point of bringing him in, with all the implied backstory, only to take him out again this fast? And really? Again? The hostage spouse to make him do it scenario? *rolls eyes*

    Agreed on letting Nora go at all being bonehead dumb. But then, TV shows always do this, don't they? Have the tough character who's not 100% insist he or she is okay, go along, and then complicate things. Blech.

    The Rachel/Aaron section this week seemed underdeveloped--it's like they're trying to jam in as much as possible (hence no flashbacks?) to get it all in by the finale (or finally)--instead of pacing it more carefully all season. My confidence in this show's ability to pull it together is waning.

    Who are those folk in the Tower? Hmmm. I suspect they're not "folk" at all in any real sense but somehow bots that have been taken over/reprogrammed by the nanites. Which could be an interesting development, actually; we get the power back on and an end to Monroe (my guess for the major character about to die) but an army of nanobots to fend off! Hello, Walking Dead!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought this was a transitional episode, just moving the chess players around on the board to get them all to The Tower. The writers spiced it up a bit by throwing in the murder mystery plot, but even that wasn't suspenseful at all. I've suspected since last week's mention of a mole that it would be Jim. He wasn't in the last two episodes, then he's in this one, and he's the only one who really had a motive...he believes Miles ruined his life...twice. Add in the wife in peril angle and he was the only one that made sense. They tossed Commander Ramsey into the mix as a red herring, but he's never been enough of a character for his betrayal to have any impact.

    I really loved watching Miles get his ass kicked by Jim. Miles is always portrayed in almost mythic terms in his fighting ability, so seeing him nearly defeated, and reminding the audience that he is human and beatable, so close to the season finale can't be a coincidence.

    Did anyone else catch Jim, early in the episode, when speaking to Miles, refer to Rachel as "your MILFy sister-in-law"? Not so subtle reminder of Miles and Rachel's apparently sexual history when she may or may not have been his sister-in-law. Add in Neville referring to Charlie as 'your sweet niece' and Jason asking Charlie to "tell your Uncle I didn't do this," references to the supposed Miles/Charlie family relationship of Uncle/niece that hasn't been mentioned since early in the show, and I have to think is to have that info fresh in the viewers minds when the big "reveal" that Miles is actually Charlie's father in one of the next two episodes happens.

    As for the people in the Tower, I'm fairly sure that one of the people watching Randall try to get into The Tower was Mr. Austin, Grace's guard. The short cropped red hair is a dead giveaway and the camera angle focused on that person. As long as they aren't zombies, I'm good.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, I thought it looked like him, too, but the last time we saw him, he went down the elevator and came back up as merely a blood smear. So, if it is him, i doubt it's really him, if you know what I mean. . . .

    ReplyDelete
  4. As I said, as long as the people in the tower aren't zombies, I'm good. Personally, I'd LOVE it if the people have somehow been taken over by nanites in some fashion so that the nanites themselves are now sentient when inhabiting a human host.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm 50/50 on whether or not Miles already knows that Charlie is his daughter.


    In the episode "The Song Remains the Same," when Miles is trying to talk Rachel out of going to the Tower, she asks him to look out for and take care of Charlie. Miles' response is, "That's supposed to be your job."


    There's something about that line that just makes me believe there's more behind it than just Rachel taking care of Charlie because she's Charlie's mother. I get the sense, from the look on Rachel's face when Miles says it, that it's his way of saying to her, "I gave up my parental rights, or agreed to never tell Charlie that I'm her father, as long as completely treat her as your own, even though she's not Ben's kid."



    I'm not explaining the "gut reaction" I have to that line very well at ALL, but it sort of sounded like a disgruntled ex-husband arguing over child custody or child raising decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The guy torturing Nora in the dungeon scene (Captain Franco, I believe) was uber spooky.

    ReplyDelete
  7. At least the wounded tough character was a woman - not something you see very often...


    Like the theory about the nanites having taken people over... cool...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have to admit that I missed the MILF-y comment! Love it! I have to wonder if Miles getting beat down isn't going to be a play on his growing humanity/closeness to family being his achilles heel - like Samson getting his hair cut.
    I'm still crossing my fingers that Charlie is not Miles' daughter - that really is too predictable...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Agreed! Those were great scenes - I'm glad they didn't soften them because she's a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The clues are definitely there - but I'm so, so hoping it's a red herring. And it makes a better story if Miles changes for his brother's kid - it's more of a stretch if you see what I mean...

    ReplyDelete
  11. The writers as usual really put the bar so high when it comes to creating this stellar dialogue!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Charlie (Tracy Spiridakos) once again lets down Jason (JD Pardo).
    Charlie is pretty quick to condemn Jason again. She immediately jumps to
    the conclusion that the guy Jason met in Atlanta is someone suspicious
    and Jason is doing something to undermine the rebels. Coming hot on the
    heels of him almost dying to save her, this seems really harsh on
    Charlie’s part." Macklem...

    One, changing your side doesn't ever make you a popular person in a military situation. For example Benedict Arnold was not exactly a popular guy in the British Army. He was mostly tolerated by the English Commanders. So why should Charlie have any great belief in Jason?

    Two, the guy that Jason meet was a Monroe operative-- that is a suspicious person is it not? I think so That would be like meeting Sidney Relily and not finding it odd.



    Three, didn't really try that hard to find Charlie in the episode "Longest Day"... In fact that was sort of the reason Miles got so angry with him...



    So really why would you trust Jason?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. Charlie would have no way of knowing that that guy was a Monroe operative.
    2. While usually--rationally, even--trusting turncoats is unwise, leave us not forget that in this world, one of those turncoats has been given a senior command position, and the other one--Jason--is also Charlie's love interest. You can pick which of these scenarious is more irrational, I suppose.... But the basic point about character inconsistency stands, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Agreed! I think Miles is a less effective leader when he lets his emotions get in the way - the same with Monroe and even the Georgia republic president (her name just went right out of my head!). It's an interesting trade off but logical - if you let your humanity/emotions be front and center, it's much more difficult to be blood-thirsty and ruthless.

    ReplyDelete
  15. One. I would appreciate your answers not being so condescending - Rudolf. Perhaps you should review the site's code of conduct.
    Two. Given that Jason could barely walk, how much more was he supposed to do in looking for Charlie?
    Three. Why do you spend so much of your time on something you clearly hate.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why I do what I do is not important. What is important is that I do it well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Maybe in your own eyes. It is very easy to be hyper-critical of others without ever producing anything yourself. Those who can, do - those who cannot, criticize those who do...

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you're aiming for achievement in the realms of snark and condescension, mission accomplished. Congratulations.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Charlie-- actually we can inductively posit a few things that Charlie herself should be able to do as well from the limited interaction Jason has with that Monroe agent. The first is that she doesn't know this guy. Which is odd given that Kripke likes to put all the Rebels into one big happy little Base! So that means she should have had some interaction with this person if he was a rebel or G. Fed solider. The second is that if this guy were just a regular rebel or G. Fed solider why didn't he just come over to them and introduce himself. thirdly, you have to assume that Charlie would ask Jason back at the Base- Who was that guy? And finally why is it that Jason upon seeing this individual tells Charlie he'll meet her back at base-- giving himself time to meet with the person. In short only a person with a tie to the enemy would be someone that Jason would want to keep secret from Charlie. In fact it is odd why good little Jason hasn't told the high command about this person in their midst? They could use said spy in a counter espionage program= you know disinformation to Monroe's forces! Wait I am forgetting who's writing this story! Nix that suggestion-- instead lets have Jason broker a deal for Moxy soda and plantation in the new Monreo Georgia!

    2) If I were an Anti-Monroe Forces commander-= I wouldn't trust any one with the last names of Neville or Matheson! One reason is because the Nevilles and Mathesons are just really poor military leaders. The second reason is both are former militia. I would take some information from them but beyond that. I would never give them any position in my military organization that would potentially hurt my military operations. So yeah I find it all implausible that people throw a mutiny each week and then they switch sides and no one is saying boo about it.

    3) I find it amusing that Kripke doesn't actually have any idea of how absurd his so-called ex-Marines are acting. I wish the writing room would read a few books: The War of The Flea, On War, The Art of War both Machiavelli's and Sun Tzu's texts, and Infantry Attacks... Then after they've read them and understand something about military doctrine they could read some military manuals on unconventional warfare, fighting insurgents, and maybe even get a real military adviser on staff. Because what they are showing right now is just so bad it is painful to watch- but it also makes me laugh I often find myself wondering if this show is supposed to be a comedy at times?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am merely trying to bring back the art of criticism to the once lofty position it held in cinematic history. I long for the days of when the Cinema du Caihers was a force to be feared and praised. Today criticism is nothing more then a pale shadow of its once great self-- the domain of pseudo critics and bloggers with no understanding of the great and awful power a true critic is to world. In the end however, all great critics are truly great filmmakers!

    ReplyDelete
  21. See, I am already achieve one of my goals.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Uh huh. Well, actually write an essay or design something of your own, and maybe you can make a plausible case for that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1. To assume that the only people Jason could possibly know would be members of the Monroe Militia is only slightly more sensible than to assume that this strange guy must be a nobody. I'll grant you that Jason acting suspicious and secretive is hardly wise on his part, and that it would be sensible for Charlie to be suspicious of Jason meeting with some guy she's never seen before and then not saying anything about who he is. However, when was the last time you inhabited a world in which everyone behaved perfectly rationally? Charlie's a teenager who just became romantically (if not sexually) involved with Jason. You think she's going to go instantly to suspecting him of betrayal in that context? Do you know anything about human nature?
    2. Ever heard of Coriolanus? Clearly, the Volscians trusting him turned out to be a bad idea, but if Shakespeare can tell a story about one side giving serious military authority to a traitor from the other side, well, it can't be that absurd a narrative gambit, can it? (And no, I am NOT suggesting that the writing on this show rises to the level of Shakespeare--though it does rise to Shakespearean levels of plausibility.)

    ReplyDelete
  24. How do you know I haven't already?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, I did reverse the title. I hate when I do that in the midst of typing. Damn that dyslexia... How do you know, I didn't write a review? All you know is I call myself here: Rudolf... I could be writing reviews all over the web under different names. However, I do find this place amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. 1) Inductive Reasoning... End of story...
    all the rest of you stuff is just meaningless drivel.

    2) Shakespeare didn't write the Coriolanus as original material. Shakespeare often used source material much older that had become part of the general lexicon of the educated persons of his era. So everyone was already familiar with Roman histories of Plutarch that told the story of Coriolanus- all Shakespeare did was create the personalities of the characters to fill other needs. The fact is that Coriolanus is one of the great debated characters of Roman history. Exactly what occurred is debatable.


    However, Shakespeare doesn't really care about the overall concept of the story. His main goal is to create the characters that would embody this tragedy. Personally, I find Coriolanus not to be one of his best tragedies. However, the characters are far more interesting and rational than anything Kripke and his gang have developed in "Revolution" thus far. And not all of Shakespeare's overall plots are great: The Taming of the Shrew is a pretty weak story as is Much Ado About Nothing. The stronger plots for Shakespeare come in to play when he has either historical source material or uses some other common story history. Shakespeare's greatest strength is the ability to add depth to otherwise mundane characters i.e. MacBeth or Hamlet.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dominick Grace26 May 2013 at 05:03

    Well, I sure don't know that you have, since you hide behind pseudonyms.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dominick Grace26 May 2013 at 05:05

    1. Yes, because reasoning is the only aspect of human consciousness.
    2. Never said he wrote it as original material but that it was a story about a traitor who was trusted by the other side. It's not an inherently unbelievable narrative scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Still it doesn't mean I haven't.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Doesn't mean you have, either, and until you actually demonstrate that you have I will continue to infer that you are merely an arrogant troll, not an arrogant critic. (The arrogant part isn't inferred, btw.)

    ReplyDelete
  31. I'm your huckleberry!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbAFgD2mLo

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well, conversation over then. I have better ways to spend my time than dealing with arrogant trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Okay,,, if you say so...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dominick Grace8 April 2014 at 04:08

    Bully for you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. yeah, I do feel like the Rachel ans Aaron story was underdeveloped. It took too long for them to get to the tower, and on "The Longest Day", when it seemed like they'd have yet another obstacle with the sick boy, they just threw that away... It was like they were waiting for the rest of the plots to end up at the tower so they could finally put Rachel and Aaron there as well. I understand why they would want to do that, but I don't think they did a very good job by doing it the way they did. So, very much agreed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I see myself more like the Adolf Loos of modern cinematic criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dominick Grace8 April 2014 at 05:32

    Do you mean Cahiers du Cinema? If that's what you're after, maybe a site explicitly advertising itself as a site by and for fans is not the best place to be looking for it. Just a thought.

    You might also consider actually writing your own review rather than parachuting in to snark at somebody else's--you know, like real critics do.

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.