What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

AMC's "The Killing" - Season 3 (1 Viewer)

Some of you have been following my posts about Stray, my indie film I'm trying to finish. I thought it might be worth mentioning here that Annie Corley (Reggi Darnell in the The Killing) has signed on to co-star in my movie!

Suffice it to say I'll be watching The Killing tonight!

 
Some of you have been following my posts about Stray, my indie film I'm trying to finish. I thought it might be worth mentioning here that Annie Corley (Reggi Darnell in the The Killing) has signed on to co-star in my movie! Suffice it to say I'll be watching The Killing tonight!
Cool! You must be cosjobs' friend. I watched your teaser of Stray a few months ago, and I liked it. I hope you finish the film. Thanks for the heads up, Tommy. I didn't realize season 3 was starting this soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw a few episodes of season 1, but just never got into it. Does it get better? I generally love all of AMC's series, this one just didn't do it for me. I really disliked the lead female, does she finally leave?

 
I saw a few episodes of season 1, but just never got into it. Does it get better? I generally love all of AMC's series, this one just didn't do it for me. I really disliked the lead female, does she finally leave?
I liked the first two seasons. If you don't like shows that aren't fast paced, and it rains a lot, and you don't care for the lead female, you probably shouldn't watch the show.

 
I saw a few episodes of season 1, but just never got into it. Does it get better? I generally love all of AMC's series, this one just didn't do it for me. I really disliked the lead female, does she finally leave?
Yes, but obviously something has brought her back.

I liked it at times. At other times the gimmicky "new suspect each episode" idea fell well flat. It had a cool Nordic vibe to it similar to the Girl With...books and movies, Let The Right One In, Insomnia etc. I can't describe it but it's a mood/feel I get from it. I actually laughed when I looked it up and saw it was a Swedish show remade for North America because I had gotten that feel from it. I liked the new partner's story arc and thought he did a good job with it. And I liked the lead. She wasn't outstanding but was compelling to me, even though her character was spartan, at best. The father of Rose Lawson was very good. It was worth watching, though had many, many story flaws. I'm definitely interested in the new season.

 
Very much looking forward to this show. Watched season 1 and 2 in the past week and loved it!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?

 
Enjoyed the start to season 3.

Ray Seward on Death Row is interesting.. On one hand you have him confessing his sins and asking to be hanged to suffer for what he did.. and now the "killing field" found at the end of the show that Sarah found due to the new drawing the kid had on the wall.

But then you have someone killing, similar to the original killing, making you believe the actual killer is still on the loose and maybe Ray is protecting him/her??

All in all a good start

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, very good start to a new season. Some questions pop up, but those are probably intentional and will get answered in time.

 
the dude in jail is creepy
The nanny (au pair) from Jerry Maquire.
That was Todd Louiso from High Fidelity. Seward is played by Peter Sarsgaard. He was in Flightplan, An Education, Orphan, a few others.

Overall, I really enjoyed the first episode. I kind of lost interest in the first 2 seasons but muddled through them anyway. Hopefully this season will hold my interest.

 
the dude in jail is creepy
The nanny (au pair) from Jerry Maquire.
That was Todd Louiso from High Fidelity. Seward is played by Peter Sarsgaard. He was in Flightplan, An Education, Orphan, a few others.

Overall, I really enjoyed the first episode. I kind of lost interest in the first 2 seasons but muddled through them anyway. Hopefully this season will hold my interest.
This.

 
I thought last night's episode may be the best they've had in all of the seasons. Holder had me :lmao:

 
biggamer3" said:
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that. Season 2 was much better than season 1.
 
Never saw any of season 1 or 2 but last night was very good except for the cheesy acting in the first hour but it was worth it to get to the end/cliff hanger. Did the female lead take a leave of absence or quit. I'm wondering how she gets her shield and partner back. Looking forward to it.

 
Agree with all of the above about how Seasons 1 and 2 were sluggish at best.

So far this season looks much better.

I think the biggest problem with the first two was that they tried to tell too many stories...the investigation, Rosie's family, the political race, Linden and her kid/fiance etc. Not to mention all of the goofy red herrings they tried to throw at us. It really bogged the show down. Hopefully this season they'll stick with the crime aspect for the most part.

Also adding Sarsgaard will help. The guy is nails in just about everything he does.

 
biggamer3" said:
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show.

Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?

 
Dickies said:
I thought last night's episode may be the best they've had in all of the seasons. Holder had me
I love it when he starts getting all ghetto with his talk.

 
The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)

Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.

I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.
 
The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)

Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.

I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.
It's for that reason that I do like her character.. she is flawed beyond what is shown in 90% of today's shows.

It is possible that the case that she can't let go, changed her and as we go forward in this season we will see what happened to make her the "selfish, void of emotional attachment" person that she has become :shrug:

 
The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)

Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.

I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.
It's for that reason that I do like her character.. she is flawed beyond what is shown in 90% of today's shows.

It is possible that the case that she can't let go, changed her and as we go forward in this season we will see what happened to make her the "selfish, void of emotional attachment" person that she has become
I like her character too. I just think they could really utilize her "character" and Holder with more depth. The entire first season was filled with interesting characters, so much so that I would have been fine if the entire thing had been set up as "we will take SEVEN ENTIRE SEASONS TO SOLVE THE MURDER OF ROSIE LARSON....and you will like it because you will see how this case affects these people and how they live their lives. We are not going to make a crime show with a satisfying ending...."

 
The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)

Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.

I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.
It's for that reason that I do like her character.. she is flawed beyond what is shown in 90% of today's shows.It is possible that the case that she can't let go, changed her and as we go forward in this season we will see what happened to make her the "selfish, void of emotional attachment" person that she has become
I like her character too. I just think they could really utilize her "character" and Holder with more depth. The entire first season was filled with interesting characters, so much so that I would have been fine if the entire thing had been set up as "we will take SEVEN ENTIRE SEASONS TO SOLVE THE MURDER OF ROSIE LARSON....and you will like it because you will see how this case affects these people and how they live their lives. We are not going to make a crime show with a satisfying ending...."
IMO, I think they are building on that.. At least I hope so. otherwise the lie between them about both quitting smoking, and then showing both having a cigarette in the next scenes makes no sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GordonGekko said:
The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)

Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface.
I think Enos is perfect for the part, and I don't find her character to be a lousy human being. Her character is complex. She always puts the case above herself, which ends up hurting her personally, and sometimes professionally when she is so emotionally involved, but it's also part of what makes her a good detective.

 
snogger said:
otherwise the lie between them about both quitting smoking, and then showing both having a cigarette in the next scenes makes no sense.
They both wanted the other to think that they were healthy and doing well.

 
snogger said:
otherwise the lie between them about both quitting smoking, and then showing both having a cigarette in the next scenes makes no sense.
They both wanted the other to think that they were healthy and doing well.
exactly.. and you don't do that if there isn't "Something" going on between them that leads to, as Abraham said, " I just think they could really utilize her "character" and Holder with more depth."

 
Abraham said:
The bigger issue I see with Linden is she's pretty much an unredeeming character. She has an affair with a younger coworker, but won't move closer to be closer to her son. When she did have her son, she focused on work and neglected him. She abandoned her vows to her fiance. As her foster ward said in the episode, Linden does what Linden is going to do, and she won't listen to anyone. She regularly got Holder into difficult and compromising situations, even at times, getting his life risked. ( Get out of the car Holder, get out on Indian land where the Chief is basically a mob boss who knows we are gunning for her)

Al Sweargen is a flawed character. Christian Troy is a flawed character. Jamie Lannister is a flawed character. Linden is just a completely lousy human being. I'm not sure she's ever done one unselfish act in the entire series so far. The actress that plays her is horribly miscast, despite the Emmy nomination. There's understated and then there's not present at all. Mirelle Enos is not present at all. She mumbles. There isn't one ounce of life in her character, even under the surface. Nothing to bind the audience to at least relate to her. Joel Kinnamon isn't helping because he's stealing every scene and giving three times the depth with even less dialog and often having to be a secondary character to Linden. Veena Sud really struck out with Enos/Linden. Tragedy doesn't add depth to a character. How a character REACTS to that implied tragedy does. Broken people work for books, you have more time and more traction to create shades of that character, broken doesn't work for TV, the time and classic theme limitations are too arduous to over come.

I thought the opening episode was great, but not because of Linden, it was great despite Linden.
I agree 100% and I think it's the biggest missed opportunity of the show. She is not a good person. She is selfish and bitter and void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything (although when here kid disappeared in season 1 she did seem to care a bit). It isn't a "she's her own woman, she does what she wants and solves the case!" It's a "she's the kind of person no one would want to know for any reason because she brings nothing to the table at all except disappointing the people who count on her." And that's a missed opportunity. Most of my friends who like Breaking Bad are drawn in for a number of reasons, not the least of which being how much they hate Walter White and want to see what happens to him. Linden and Holder would have been (and maybe eventually will be) the kind of duo where you want to see Holder succeed and can't stand to see Linden on his coat tails. I don't know how it would work, but that would make a more compelling show.
I disagree with GG and you. She is not void of emotional attachment to anyone or anything. It's quite the opposite. As simey touched on, she gets too emotionally attached to her cases, to the point where the case totally consumes her. She cares too much about the victims, where it has caused her to have an emotional breakdown. As for GG saying she has never done one unselfish act in the complete series, she just put a cow out of it's misery so it wouldn't suffer. She has put herself in jeaopardy to get justice for the victims. She won't win a mother of the year award, but she does have some redeeming qualities.

 
Good points. But often in cop shows and movies the person who will throws themselves in to the case and will do anything to succeed in solving it is thought if as a hero. I think this show has a chance to be compelling because it doesn't paint her as the hero - it shows that she is wasteful and neglectful of other parts of her life in a damaging way. That can be compelling tv. I hope they spend a little more time on that and on Holder and less time hot boxing math teachers and boyfriends.

 
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?
I cannot watch a TV program like that. You watched the entire first season and where not intrigued in any way as to the conclusion of the case? You wanted the nice and tidy "CSI" type conclusion (which was never actually promised). I could understand it if you totally gave up on the show. What I don't get is you wanting back in but still having no interest in season 2. You don't care why the lead character is no longer a cop?
 
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?
>

watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?
watched season 1, hated the ending, skipped season 2. I see season 3 is getting solid reviews, is season 2 essential to understanding season 3?
You made it through season 1 and have no care about the conclusion (season 2) but now are considering watching season 3. I don't get that.Season 2 was much better than season 1.
I started season 1, when it was good and different than other shows. Then the season starting getting sucky for the most part but I stuck with it to see who killed Rosie, than they had the BS for the ending with no resolution, and I said see ya later to this show. Now I hear season 3 is solid and its a different story, so worth another crack, whats so hard to understand?
I cannot watch a TV program like that.You watched the entire first season and where not intrigued in any way as to the conclusion of the case? You wanted the nice and tidy "CSI" type conclusion (which was never actually promised). I could understand it if you totally gave up on the show. What I don't get is you wanting back in but still having no interest in season 2. You don't care why the lead character is no longer a cop?
Not sure if you are trolling me, but I will answer anyway. Like i stated, the show lost me in the latter half of season 1, and with them deceiving the viewers and not showing us anything by seasons end, they had me saying enough to this show.

Now its a new story and they promised to resolve it over THIS season, and its getting good reviews, so might be worth another crack at it. As to me caring about the lead character no longer being a cop, i could give to ships, she could be a circus clown for what I care, if the show has a solid mystery with good acting, I dont care who is and isnt a cop.

 
To each their own then. I have never watched a TV program the way you are doing this and that is why I cannot understand it.

You are skipping season 2 because random viewers on the internet led you to believe you were supposed to get a neat wrap up of the case by the end of season 1. Season 2 was easily better than season 1. In my opinion, you are doing yourself a disservice. Then again, I also know a guy who started watching "Breaking Bad" with the 43rd episode.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I liked the first two seasons with the 2nd being better than the 1st. I didn't care for how much time they spent on Rosie's family or on Linden's personal situation with her son and fiance. Other than that, I thought it was a pretty good show. I am liking the guy on death row a lot. Other than that, not seeing much of a difference between 1 & 3 after two episodes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL at people quoting posts that do not exist.

(Yes, I know Gordon Gekko is the Howard Hughes of this forum and deletes all his posts the next day or so due to some strange fear of being stalked.)

 
So I just finished the first episode of season 3....

So that's a bunch of bodies in the water at the end? The biggest hole is obviously how did Linden suddenly find the buildings/trees/pond after 4 years? She wasn't motivated to find it earlier? Is the setup supposed to be that the Dad is the killer and he took the kid with him to the pond a bunch? I presume that isn't how it will play out.

Saarsgard is excellent in his role. (Didn't know he was married to sad turtle). HE looks familiar but seeeing his IMDB page I don't think I've seen anything he's been in. As a note, his name is "Ray Seward" for two episodes and then he become "Tom Seward" towards the end of the season with a big gap in between.
All in all, I really liked it. To be fair, I really liked the first season but didn't watch the second.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top