|
||||||||
Jonathan Creek |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#101 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,010
|
Quote:
I still struggle to get this. So Jonathan knew it was the man from six years ago but we, the audience, didn't. We can't because it's revealed at the end - hence why the brother of the murdered woman wanted to kill the guy.
We didn't know they were one and the same guy so how could Creek know and inform the audience? We didn't know so therefore Creek couldn't know cos he never revealed it. And how would he know the black guy was the brother? He didn't know that too! LOL
Spoiler
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
I assumed it went something like this.
Johnathan's wife tells him that their friends husband was working at the big house and heard about this odd case. Johnathan arrives there and sees the black man working on the cameras and assumes (in a mildly racist way despite his earlier accusation that his wife might sound racist) that this is the fiends husband so he never questions who the hell he is. The audience may also assume this of course. Much later his wife shows him a picture of the friend and her husband with their scarecrow. He suddenly realizes that the man fixing cameras isn't her husband and therefore wonders just who he is and what he's been up to. He also realized from the picture that sometimes black people marry white people and that Stephens first wife had a niece who drew pictures of zebras and therefore she must live in Africa (because he hasn't heard of tv or zoos) which is of course the only country where black people like the camera man live. ![]() And he finally asks what her husband does to clear up how he had been working at the big house when the only other person there was clearly a woman. ![]() Quote:
With respect, you are half-wrong. When Creek realizes the letter signed anti-money is a variation on the chemical compound antimony - which was the content of the pill - he knew Stephen was guilty. But Stephen was missing at that time so he couldn't confront him (assuming the writer was going to write such a scene!).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,077
|
Quote:
One other point -
if the black guy had just murdered Stephen and dumped him in a field miles away from the house, and not drugged, kidnapped Alison - Creek and wife wouldn't have investigated the graveyard. It's the classic plot device where the villain over-complicates his evil scheme. Had the black guy killed Stephen and left Alison alone - and not created the pit of horror routine - no-one would have made any connection! See, you can be too smart and it backfires on you. ![]() So your advice would be - don't be too smart. ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Honiton, Devon
Posts: 1,930
|
Quote:
Thank you.
![]() You are right, at that point he realises Stephen is the murderer. I can't remember whether he has time to inform Alison between then and finding Stephen's body, however. |
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
|
Yes, it was mentioned Stephen has a career in the chemical industry (or words to that effect). The penny dropped for Creek and he saw the connection. Stephen - with a knowledge of chemicals, and the word anti-money. He put them together and realized Stephen did kill his wife.
There was a minor subplot to suggest Stephen wanted to be found guilty so that he could trick Jonathan and he (Creek) would provide enough evidence to get him acquitted. I think I'm right there. I don't know if Stephen went to prison or was waiting trial but Creek suggested Stephen was playing the ultimate mind game on Creek - baiting him, helping him escape justice. But due to the lack of much dialogue between Creek and Stephen - they hardly had a scene in the entire show - much of this subplot - the machinations of Stephen - was ignored. |
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,396
|
This really dragged for me, more than any other JC episode, and I think I've seen most of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid Wales / Canolbarth Cymru
Posts: 37,483
|
Definitely the best of the modern-era 'specials'.
Expected little beyond toxic whining on here though, which is exactly what I found. I enjoyed the explanation of the unicorn zebra bluff, and the horizontal furnace-fall idea was a good ruse. Polly/Jonathan will never ever top Maddy/Jonathan - we all know that, but on the whole this episode really worked for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
|
Well I loved it.
I did feel it dragged on a bit as I noticed Jonathan only arrived at Daemon's Roost halfway through the episode. But all in all, once things started going it was great. I always like to "play along" with a JC episode. I hardly ever guess the "whodunit" but I'm usually good on the "howdunit", which is sort of what JC is all about really. I guessed the tilted room thing as soon as we saw the trailer in the first minute or two of the episode (I assumed one of the cast would die in this exact way later on), and knew I was right when we saw Stephen die. I was also suspicious of the guy putting camera's everywhere when the housemaid woman said he "apparently was hired" by the mute old man. No evidence that the old man ever hired him, since he just appeared after he'd had the stroke. Didn't guess the mystery of why the woman's sisters and mother died. All in all, the suspense was great, and so were the mysteries. I will say that the "phone-Y" thing was really far-fetched. Just before they explained it, I was convinced the eye-flickering meant "camera phone" then "Y". As in "why are there camera's everywhere". I think this would've been a better clue than "phoney-Y". Jonathan burning a man alive seemed rather weird as well. But I liked the throwback to the killer from The House of Monkeys, who we never really got to see in that particular episode I think. However, as another poster pointed out, there is a lot of whinging in this thread. It was solid telly. I love Jonathan Creek and long may it continue. A special once every two years suits me fine as long as they're more like this episode than the last run of three which were of a lesser quality, I felt. David Renwick is a fantastic writer and I hope he'll give us more and more of his excellent mysteries. On a final note, the humour was fantastic as well. Cotton-picking, Jonathan's wife getting drunk off vodka ice-cubes, Warwick Davies' character passing buttons, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 842
|
Really enjoyed this but I do have one vital question...
How on earth does one make ice-cubes out of neat vodka? I have been putting bottles of vodka in my freezer for decades now and not one has frozen solid. A little crystallization on the inside of the bottle maybe, but never a solid frozen mass of vodka. I was convinced that was going to be a hole in the housemaid/nurse's story which Creek would pick up on, but alas, it was never mentioned again save for his wife showing the effects of sucking on the aforementioned neat vodka ice-cubes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Folkestone
Posts: 10,537
|
You just need a freezer that goes to -27 degrees C, about 10 degrees colder than most home freezers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,456
|
It was a good show (once it got moving), and Warwick Davis was the star performer in the show... the ending though... did they really let the camera man/killer just walk off to go for his plane? Also, burning alive his stalker was pretty extreme for JC to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#112 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: 1984
Posts: 7,102
|
Much much better than the earlier Creek with wife episodes,that said,they could have cut 10 mins out and it would have played better.
Loved the horror movie spoof scenes and posters. |
|
|
|
|
|
#113 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 368
|
Den of Geek review thought that the cleverest reveal was that the black guy wasn't Nina's husband (and therefore up to no good). Have to say that completely passed me by.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Echo Beach
Posts: 529
|
I loved it too. Always great to see it back for more.
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,855
|
Not bad, certainly not great, but watchable.
Did anyone ever explain how Creek or the Police managed to find evidence/arrest the bloke who spent 6 years in prison for the murder he didn't commit? Given it was a locked bedroom etc. Agree with previous comments on how the 'latest' killer overcomplicated things, sufficiently enough to lead a trail of clues. Also not sure how relaxed Creek and his wife were following their burning to death of the ex-con (especially as she seems to get the heebie-jeebies at the slightest thing). Entertaining though
|
|
|
|
|
|
#116 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 14,745
|
just seemed like an over elaborate pile of nonsense to me... full of horror show cliches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 7,319
|
A fantastic comedy drama, haven't laughed like thst for a while, kept me glued in, brilliant comedy and wonderful script.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#118 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 498
|
Quote:
The murdered woman had a sister, that sister had married the black man and lived in Africa. The painting of the zebra was done by the murdered woman's niece, who was the black man's daughter.
So he was never involved in the original murder and Johnathan wouldn't have met him. He didn't murder the woman, the woman's husband did. The question is why didn't the murderer recognize his brother on law? |
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,063
|
My quibble - would Stephen have brought his archive of research papers with him to the house? At first I thought the wife was back at her own house, but then you saw the housekeeper sitting with her.
I didn't for one minute think the film director chap was based on Vincent Price, absolutely not! |
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,920
|
I do think the guy who did it, could have found a simpler way of knocking off the husband. What a lot of trouble to go to. And how cruel to subject the poor innocent and already traumatised new wife to such an ordeal.
The guy after JC had a point didn't he, in terms of the abject failure JC had where he got a guilty man off a murder charge. The old JC would not have been so deceived! Warwick was the best thing about the show. |
|
|
|
|
|
#121 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 4,612
|
Quote:
My quibble - would Stephen have brought his archive of research papers with him to the house? At first I thought the wife was back at her own house, but then you saw the housekeeper sitting with her.
One thing I must commend them on, is that the comedy element of the episode was much better than we have seen in recent years. It delivered some real laugh-out-loud moments for me, which I haven't really had since the first Sheridan Smith episode |
|
|
|
|
|
#122 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
I do think the guy who did it, could have found a simpler way of knocking off the husband. What a lot of trouble to go to. And how cruel to subject the poor innocent and already traumatised new wife to such an ordeal.
The guy after JC had a point didn't he, in terms of the abject failure JC had where he got a guilty man off a murder charge. The old JC would not have been so deceived! Warwick was the best thing about the show. The anti-money/antimony was so obvious within about 3 seconds. Antimony, chemist husband, link much? Duh! Also assuming the first wife's body must have had an autopsy might they not have discovered what she was poisoned by ie antimony? You'd think that Jonathan might have found this out wouldn't you? If not Jonathan then the police surely? Maybe not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#123 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: I'm an oik!
Posts: 9,575
|
Among the other glaring plot holes already mentioned, why on earth did the man wanting to kill JC hide inside the magician's box (which none of the removal men noticed, of course - it didn't become heavier at all)? He looked at the paperwork, got JC's address, but didn't think to just go to the house.
I've only seen a couple of JC episodes in the past, and they've been as ridiculous as last night's which is why I won't be bothering again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#124 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,424
|
Quote:
Among the other glaring plot holes already mentioned, why on earth did the man wanting to kill JC hide inside the magician's box (which none of the removal men noticed, of course - it didn't become heavier at all)? He looked at the paperwork, got JC's address, but didn't think to just go to the house.
I've only seen a couple of JC episodes in the past, and they've been as ridiculous as last night's which is why I won't be bothering again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#125 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 4,612
|
Quote:
I was wondering how the heck he didn't suffocate with all that bubble wrap covering any air holes. I fully expected somebody (most likely the vicar) to find his corpse in the box.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:16.






