Episode #89 "Deliver Us From Evil"

[fakespyder]

I think some of us can see the possibility of a time break where a number of different scenarios could have played out. Others see it as one contiguous scene with no breaks and thus no room for ambiguity.

I don't think anyone is going to be convincing anyone else on this one.

Like I said a while ago, we could go round and round.

[Adrian321]

15 hours ago, fakespyder said:

I think some of us can see the possibility of a time break where a number of different scenarios could have played out. Others see it as one contiguous scene with no breaks and thus no room for ambiguity.

I don't think anyone is going to be convincing anyone else on this one.

Like I said a while ago, we could go round and round.

I remember the "Freefall" discussion, and the exact same happened here. I couldn't prove wrong the point of no one, neither could anyone say that what I said is wrong.

While this topic is mostly on debate, I choose this approach because it seems the most logical, since it doesn't leave any siggnificant problem under the carpet. The other ones MAY or may not be true, but if so, you get many more issues. So.... that gun was a huge "mistake" if you don't like the term "goof". If you take it as cannon that the final confrontation was "self-defence" then this episode looses value, and A LOT of it..... not to mention you loose SO MUCH potential in an ending and make the next 3 episodes even more "over-the-top" (not that they weren't already) and others I mentioned.

If the gun creates so many problems it can't be anything else than a "bad taste" mistake from the producers. I don't think they designed the episode around the gun and "Dark sarcasm" as it doesn't make sense to ruin that much potential in it so you can add out of personal flavour, a stupid gun and some "dark humour" that doesn't really make sense. Also, this approach ruins the whole nemesis idea about Hackman's character, and how villanous he was. Now he is just an average psycho that happened to murder 2 important character's in Crockett's character.

I also have this thought about Calderone's demise. If Tubbs shot him in cold blood, I'd give that episode a 10/10 too, since Calderone was the "engine" that began this 5 season adventure, by killing Tubbs' brother, and in that episode, we clearly see the incentive of Calderone to hurt the main characters, whereas here, the gun is just a "poor taste" mistake that did not have any place.

[ViceFanMan]

15 hours ago, fakespyder said:

I think some of us can see the possibility of a time break where a number of different scenarios could have played out. Others see it as one contiguous scene with no breaks and thus no room for ambiguity.

I don't think anyone is going to be convincing anyone else on this one.

Like I said a while ago, we could go round and round.

This is true, and I think we have gone around & around.  It just literally comes down to what was shown and done in the episode (whether network forced or not). Like it or not we have to go with that. Any-&-everything else is just supposition, what-ifs, personal wishes, alternate ideas, etc... Again, I’m not trying to state or “side” with either way being the right or best way...I’m just acknowledging the way they did do. 

Switching subjects...it’s been a while since I’ve watched this episode all the way through. Did it ever state what island Hackman had escaped to? Was it a real one, or was it supposedly just some tropical island somewhere? 

[Robbie C.]

It never says. Like everything else, it's left ambiguous. Just some tropical place where the local authorities are open to bribes. Hence Hackman's comment about arrangements concerning their pensions.

[ViceFanMan]

7 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

It never says. Just some tropical place where the local authorities are open to bribes. Hence Hackman's comment about arrangements concerning their pensions.

Yeah, I didn’t remember it stating an island (Bahamas or anywhere) specifically, but I haven’t watched this episode all the way through in a long time. I’ll have to do that soon. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Glades]

1 hour ago, ViceFanMan said:

Did it ever state what island Hackman had escaped to? Was it a real one, or was it supposedly just some tropical island somewhere? 

Tubbs says Hackkmann is on Caicos Island. This would be real, British.

[ViceFanMan]

2 minutes ago, Glades said:

Tubbs says Hackkmann is on Caicos Island. This would be real, British.

Awesome...thanks for the reminder!  I couldn’t remember if it had stated in the episode or not. I want to watch this episode all the way through again soon, but I’m considering doing another complete series run-through...and I like to do that during the summer, per more “Miami” like weather.  So, I might do it in the next few months. 

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

On 2/15/2021 at 9:00 PM, Robbie C. said:

Sorry, but based on your own "we have to see it in the show for it to be canon" standard you can't say Hackman tried to shoot Sonny. I broke the scene down for you almost second by second, and there is ZERO indication Hackman fired or did anything. If you wish to believe he did...there's nothing wrong with that. But you can't insist your position is show canon when there is nothing in the scene as released that shows it.

Show canon based on the scene breakdown is Sonny fired a shot and Hackman is dead. There was a gun close by his hand when the shot panned back (only one finger touching the gun in the first glimpse we get of it). Did Hackman produce it from somewhere or did Sonny drop it there? We don't know, because the scene doesn't tell us one way or the other. The scene breakdown also shows there was no change in Sonny's expression before or after he fired the shot.

I get that you and some others really want this to be Sonny being the faster gun and shooting Hackman as soon as his pistol clears leather. But the reality of the scene as shot is we don't know that. We also don't know if Sonny just shot him and dropped the gun there. Your chosen interpretation is as valid as anyone else's based on your concept of show canon. But it's still an interpretation.

Why show Hackman's gun in the aftermath? To satisfy the network. To create a sense of ambiguity about the scene. I tend to think it was in no small part to satisfy the network, but it was done in such a way that it created more questions than it answered. Which, visually, might have suited them better.

I don't believe Hackman had a gun, but it doesn't really bother me, since Hackman did too many vile things to inspire sympathy; plus he was a maggot (I prefer mealworms myself). Crockett crossed that Thin Blue Line though, and I don't think NBC wanted that expressed outright.

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

I don't believe Hackman had a gun, but it doesn't really bother me, since Hackman did too many vile things to inspire sympathy; plus he was a maggot (I prefer mealworms myself). Crockett crossed that Thin Blue Line though, and I don't think NBC wanted that expressed outright.

True, I think originally they were going to have Crockett cross the proverbial line, but for whatever reasons the story is the network made them change it and add the gun. Maybe originally they wouldn’t have shown a gun with Hackman?? But, thinking about him in a realistic frame of mind...Hackman was the type that would always have a gun on him/he would always be armed, regardless of who showed up or not. So, even if originally they weren’t going to show him having a gun, it’s not out-of-character or out-of-the-blue by any means that ultimately they did show him to have pulled one out.

I wouldn’t think anyone is too broken-up or saddened over Hackman’s death...I don’t think there’s too much sympathy.  He was truly evil and a horrible “person”, if you can even use that word in regards to him? It was time his character finally went by-by, no matter how it was done.  

[sdiegolo78]

On 2/19/2021 at 7:07 PM, Glades said:

Tubbs says Hackkmann is on Caicos Island. This would be real, British.

That's 598 miles from Miami coast.

[Glades]

54 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

On 2/19/2021 at 8:07 PM, Glades said:

Tubbs says Hackkmann is on Caicos Island. This would be real, British.

That's 598 miles from Miami coast.

The correct term of course would be British Overseas Territory. Northwest of Cuba. British is misleading.

[wolfie1996]

On 2/16/2021 at 12:41 PM, vicegirl85 said:

Glades, I agree.  Over the years I've gone back and forth in my mind about this (not that it consumes every waking moment, LOL).  

If it actually comes down to a question of self-defense, though...

Sonny already has his gun out, aimed, and (possibly) cocked or whatever needed to be ready to shoot.  He's in an advantageous position, compared to Hackman.  If Hackman does have a gun on him (and I tend to feel he'd always want to be prepared), it seems to me he's not in a very good position to shoot first. 

Sonny is ready to let Hackman have his chance, mano a mano; Hackman refuses.   He's smugly self-assured and certain that Crockett won't shoot him.  Hackman doesn't care about anyone else but himself, so he lacks insight into Sonny's true state of mind.  Sonny hunted him down and aimed his gun--not really in cold blood but in a desperate, knowing betrayal of his oath as a police officer, because he wants to eliminate the man who killed Caitlin and his unborn child after successfully tricking Sonny into getting him released from prison.   I think Sonny didn't care if he lived or died at this point, but he definitely wanted Hackman dead (this is my interpretation, although I'm not necessarily arguing the script tells us so).

For a moment, it seems that Sonny might change his mind about taking his own vengeance (when his hand shakes).  Ultimately, he doesn't change his mind.  He does what he came to do, and he shot first (even if Hackman drew a gun on him, he never shot it).

From Sonny's position, he was prepared and had the advantage, even if Hackman did pull a gun on him (which we didn't see).  Whatever it was, I can't see that it was self-defense on Sonny's part.

Definitely wasn't self defence on Sonny's part. Hackman lay back and I think actually closed his eyes, so confident was he that Crockett's honourable nature would prevent him betraying his professional code but he miscalculated. Sonny wouldn't have bothered to contradict him if he  could see Hackman actually had a gun. But he says "Wrong!" meaning he would shoot Hackman even if unarmed as the interests of justice demanded it by his standards and by ours too. I would have done the same.

[ViceFanMan]

3 hours ago, wolfie1996 said:

Definitely wasn't self defence on Sonny's part. Hackman lay back and I think actually closed his eyes, so confident was he that Crockett's honourable nature would prevent him betraying his professional code but he miscalculated. Sonny wouldn't have bothered to contradict him if he  could see Hackman actually had a gun. But he says "Wrong!" meaning he would shoot Hackman even if unarmed as the interests of justice demanded it by his standards and by ours too. I would have done the same.

Supposedly, originally they weren’t going to do any kind of self defense thing. Crockett originally went there to shoot Hackman, for revenge & to ultimately “end” him once and for all. But, the story goes the network didn’t like the idea of vigilante justice, and made producers add the gun scene...ultimately making it self defense & a justifiable shoot, even if Crockett originally didn’t intend on the situation going that way. The dialogue right before the shoot (whether or not originally meant to be??) is more in sarcasm...as Hackman would never be unarmed at anytime, regardless of who did or did not show up for whatever reason. 

[wolfie1996]

6 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Supposedly, originally they weren’t going to do any kind of self defense thing. Crockett originally went there to shoot Hackman, for revenge & to ultimately “end” him once and for all. But, the story goes the network didn’t like the idea of vigilante justice, and made producers add the gun scene...ultimately making it self defense & a justifiable shoot, even if Crockett originally didn’t intend on the situation going that way. The dialogue right before the shoot (whether or not originally meant to be??) is more in sarcasm...as Hackman would never be unarmed at anytime, regardless of who did or did not show up for whatever reason. 

No I know they weren't and if they hadn't been so bloody prissy about it, the whole thing would have had more impact. I agree it's unlikely Hackman wouldn't have had a gun somewhere about his person but the way the scene played out he certainly didn't have time to produce one (and it wasn't in evidence beforehand.) The idea was that Sonny had "crossed the line" in executing personal vengeance and as he said himself in an earlier episode, once a cop does that, he'd give it a year before they were finished in the job. This seems to  me that they were already laying the foundations for the day he would do the same thing (as  would we all in that circumstance, I trust) and would be finished as a cop. So that would be that forecast accurately played out. To water it down with the poor pretence it was  self-defence goes against all preparation for this scene in earlier episodes.  As for vigilante justice, I've lost count of the number of successful films which have been made since using that very subject ! They should have grasped the nettle and allowed it. A similar watered-down episode was Death and the Lady, when a very dark subject was got round by claiming the woman herself had agreed to it, of all the unlikely scenarios, because  she was seriously ill. Stick to kids programmes if they don't want to tackle serious stuff.

[ViceFanMan]

5 hours ago, wolfie1996 said:

No I know they weren't and if they hadn't been so bloody prissy about it, the whole thing would have had more impact. I agree it's unlikely Hackman wouldn't have had a gun somewhere about his person but the way the scene played out he certainly didn't have time to produce one (and it wasn't in evidence beforehand.) The idea was that Sonny had "crossed the line" in executing personal vengeance and as he said himself in an earlier episode, once a cop does that, he'd give it a year before they were finished in the job. This seems to  me that they were already laying the foundations for the day he would do the same thing (as  would we all in that circumstance, I trust) and would be finished as a cop. So that would be that forecast accurately played out. To water it down with the poor pretence it was  self-defence goes against all preparation for this scene in earlier episodes.  As for vigilante justice, I've lost count of the number of successful films which have been made since using that very subject ! They should have grasped the nettle and allowed it. A similar watered-down episode was Death and the Lady, when a very dark subject was got round by claiming the woman herself had agreed to it, of all the unlikely scenarios, because  she was seriously ill. Stick to kids programmes if they don't want to tackle serious stuff.

Yeah, I think that the network was a little apprehensive about making one of the show’s main stars turn vigilante...so they had the gun-scene integrated (I guess the boat explosion helped explain Sonny going psycho killer in the next episode ). I’m not saying I disagree with that decision, but it needed to have been done a little better. As for Hackman having time to pull a gun out...I think it was already on him and/or on/around that little side table next to his lounge chair. He used that book to try and “mask” it till he could slowly maneuver it & try to get a shot off at Crockett. 

I love the episode Death and the Lady...one of my favorites from that season! 

[wolfie1996]

2 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

Yeah, I think that the network was a little apprehensive about making one of the show’s main stars turn vigilante...so they had the gun-scene integrated (I guess the boat explosion helped explain Sonny going psycho killer in the next episode ). I’m not saying I disagree with that decision, but it needed to have been done a little better. As for Hackman having time to pull a gun out...I think it was already on him and/or on/around that little side table next to his lounge chair. He used that book to try and “mask” it till he could slowly maneuver it & try to get a shot off at Crockett. 

I love the episode Death and the Lady...one of my favorites from that season!

We'll have to disagree re the non self defence scenario I think   How do you account for Sonny saying "Wrong!" though? As for Death and the Lady- at least it had a cute ginger kitten in it, as I remember:)

[Robbie C.]

8 hours ago, wolfie1996 said:

We'll have to disagree re the non self defence scenario I think   How do you account for Sonny saying "Wrong!" though? As for Death and the Lady- at least it had a cute ginger kitten in it, as I remember:)

He claims it's sarcasm. I firmly disagree. Crockett's voice and expression never change. It's not sarcasm...it's certainty about what he's going to do. And we've heard enough Crockett sarcasm over the years to know the difference.

[Dadrian]

Sometimes the fresh comment right off the top of your heart can be mistaken for sarcasm. At least, this often happens with me... 

[ViceFanMan]

2 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

He claims it's sarcasm. I firmly disagree. Crockett's voice and expression never change. It's not sarcasm...it's certainty about what he's going to do. And we've heard enough Crockett sarcasm over the years to know the difference.

It comes across as sarcasm to me, once the gun is shown...however, you can disagree with that particular aspect.  The sarcasm is more on Hackman’s part, anyway, with his flippancy on the “unarmed” comment.

Sarcasm is not necessarily about tone of voice ‘changing’—perhaps in humorous sarcasm? But, this was anything but humorous. Serious or angry sarcasm can be stated in a very even (or even deadly) tone.  

Edited March 16, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[ViceFanMan]

10 hours ago, wolfie1996 said:

We'll have to disagree re the non self defence scenario I think   How do you account for Sonny saying "Wrong!" though? As for Death and the Lady- at least it had a cute ginger kitten in it, as I remember:)

Regardless if the dialogue was meant to be sarcastic, it comes across that way to me once the gun is shown. And the sarcasm is more on Hackman’s part, with the ‘unarmed’ comment. However, despite the dialogue, the gun-scene “makes” it self defense & a justifiable shoot, even if originally Crockett planned to kill Hackman.

Edited March 16, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

On 3/15/2021 at 4:59 AM, wolfie1996 said:

No I know they weren't and if they hadn't been so bloody prissy about it, the whole thing would have had more impact. I agree it's unlikely Hackman wouldn't have had a gun somewhere about his person but the way the scene played out he certainly didn't have time to produce one (and it wasn't in evidence beforehand.) The idea was that Sonny had "crossed the line" in executing personal vengeance and as he said himself in an earlier episode, once a cop does that, he'd give it a year before they were finished in the job. This seems to  me that they were already laying the foundations for the day he would do the same thing (as  would we all in that circumstance, I trust) and would be finished as a cop. So that would be that forecast accurately played out. To water it down with the poor pretence it was  self-defence goes against all preparation for this scene in earlier episodes.  As for vigilante justice, I've lost count of the number of successful films which have been made since using that very subject ! They should have grasped the nettle and allowed it. A similar watered-down episode was Death and the Lady, when a very dark subject was got round by claiming the woman herself had agreed to it, of all the unlikely scenarios, because  she was seriously ill. Stick to kids programmes if they don't want to tackle serious stuff.

I agree with you when it comes to the intended content of harsh subject matter: no half-measures, go in all the way and go big, or don't bother going at all. I do understand the network has to worry about the sponsors, because I believe the majority of the audience would have no issue with the content at its most severe, and it's usually what they'd want. Audiences are smart, they know when a game is being run, so they'd they'd rather have the content as honest as possible.

I think Vice did the best job it could with the two examples it gave without getting in "trouble", but I think the writers wouldn't have hesitated to completely cut loose.

[ViceFanMan]

The sequel to 3rd Season's "Forgive Us Our Debts"...and the first part of a 4-part Crockett storyline. However, I’ve personally never really gone along with this one being part of the whole Crockett/Burnett saga—to me that starts with the next episode and/or season finale...

But, going along with the producers/writers version of 4-parts, compared to the other 3 parts, I like this one the best. Crockett still knows who he is and he gives an amazing performance! A very deep, raw, emotional, and tragic episode for Sonny...especially revolving around the death of his wife Caitlin. I never really cared all that much for the character of Caitlin...but it was sad and heart-wrenching when she was shot.  

Guy Boyd once again gives a superb, creepy performance as the sociopath/psychopath Frank Hackman, and he pretty much freaks me out...NOT who you'd want breaking into your house!  He'd rather kill for the fun of it, than steal junk. The beginning was pretty horrifying for the time, with the teen girl being shot, but that also got your attention right away and kept you "glued" to the screen.

Izzy was funny in this one, as the so-called jewelry dealer, and the banter between him, Stan, and Trudy was hilarious!  In turn the "dark" and abusive scenes with Johnny Blatt and his girlfriend sort of counter-balanced the feel and emotions for this one. I love it when his girlfriend works it out with Crockett and Tubbs to set Blatt up! That piece of garbage definitely had it coming!  

I really liked the fashion, especially with Crockett & the pastels...very reminiscent of seasons 1 and 2!  I also loved the music in this one...with We Do What We're Told by Peter Gabriel, and the two songs by Sheena Easton (Caitlin): Follow My Rainbow and Don't Turn Your Back. The Jan Hammer themes are, as always, superb! However, my favorite song is the Hoagy Carmichael classic Lazy Bones!

I really liked how Crockett had his time of sorrow and depression from Caitlin’s death, but then got it together and knew what he had to do...to become cold and calculating, to find where Hackman was and deal with him once and for all. The ending was tense & awesome...where Crockett finally gets to take Hackman out. He ultimately didn’t even have to shoot Hackman out of revenge, as Hackman himself tried to pull a gun!  

Overall I really like this episode; awesome plot, performances, music, fashion, etc... I know they were getting ready to go into the whole ‘Burnett drama’ (which I don’t care for ), but in my opinion this episode would have been the perfect season finale. I originally gave this one a 9, and still do!

 

(Side-Note: A “laughing emoji” doesn’t really make much sense with this one ...and it also doesn’t make the review any less true. ) 

Edited September 12, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Jack Gretsky]

The Hack is back!  And so is Guy Boyd, playing Hackman as such an evil slug creature.  I also like Mary Fanaro as poor Julia hooked up with weaselly Don Opper as Blatt. 

Boy oh boy, I couldn't wait for Frank to shoot Caitlin to spare us that sappy ballad music!  I'm kidding!  Seriously, although the whole Caitlin runner this season was contrived, Sheena Easton was likable enough.  I actually would have liked more stories about crime in the pop music industry besides the couple we got.  

This is a "personal" one for Sonny, but the tit-for-tat revenge game between him and Hackman, his growing a Beard of Sorrow after the killing, etc. play like standard tropes.  It's more a prologue for the next few episodes.  But a nice "Did You See the Sunrise" ending.  In real life, sure, it's unethical and criminal.  But in the dream world of MV?  Sweet. 

[ViceFanMan]

3 minutes ago, Jack Gretsky said:

The Hack is back!  And so is Guy Boyd, playing Hackman as such an evil slug creature.  I also like Mary Fanaro as poor Julia hooked up with weaselly Don Opper as Blatt. 

Boy oh boy, I couldn't wait for Frank to shoot Caitlin to spare us that sappy ballad music!  I'm kidding!  Seriously, although the whole Caitlin runner this season was contrived, Sheena Easton was likable enough.  I actually would have liked more stories about crime in the pop music industry besides the couple we got.  

This is a "personal" one for Sonny, but the tit-for-tat revenge game between him and Hackman, his growing a Beard of Sorrow after the killing, etc. play like standard tropes.  It's more a prologue for the next few episodes.  But a nice "Did You See the Sunrise" ending.  In real life, sure, it's unethical and criminal.  But in the dream world of MV?  Sweet. 

“Did You See the Sunrise?”...referring to Magnum? 

[Jack Gretsky]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

“Did You See the Sunrise?”...referring to Magnum? 

Of course!  Are you on the Magnum Mania forum as well?