Anonymiss in DC











{January 14, 2009}   24 in DC: 24 7th Season Premiere, Part 2

I get home late Monday night, pop something in the microwave, and sit down on the sofa just in time to see Jack pummel some FBI agent and start smuggling Tony out of the building, with the help of Chloe (yay!).

So clearly I missed something because on Sunday night,  Jack was pummeling Tony.

24 hours later (haha)— on Tuesday night– I  watched the full episode and it’s making more sense. I think I’m ready to make some comments now.

Here goes…

So apparently Tony isn’t actually a bad guy after all.

Maybe.

After he didn’t die, he did, in fact, become a bad guy, but he says now he sees that Emerson’s got to be stopped, so he’s willing to help bring him down.

I’d be sold on that if it weren’t for the fact that he continues to speak so highly of the guy, and the fact that the other guy didn’t want to ditch him when he was in FBI custody. Neither of these,  I’m sure, were a coincidence: either Tony’s still evil and just messing with the CTU-ites, or eventually, he’s going to have to make a tough call regarding Emerson’s fate and he may/may not be able to do handle it. (There are no coincidences in 24).

But hey, kudos to the writers: the whole ‘not knowing for sure what Tony’s about’ thing is quite alluring.

In other news: the gang’s all back! I am happy to see Chloe; I am a big Chloe fan. She looks good– they went to an effort to make her look less crappy last season (an effort I see they’ve continued- I think she looks even better!)– and yet, they aren’t making her into one of 24‘s typical, high-powered,  sex-exuding CTU agents like svelte and sassy Agent Renee Walker, or last season’s Nadia Yasir, or even, frankly, Michelle Dessler. Chloe’s a little nerdy and she’s okay with that and doesn’t give a damn if you’re not.  She gets moody and snippy like all normal women under stress, but she’s not a winer and she sure as hell ain’t no damsel in distress. She’s the real deal.

I’m also entertained by nu-Bill Buchanan. He’s gone rogue– setting up his own little mini CTU– and apparently his appearance has followed suit. Gone is his immaculate haircut–he’s lettin’ it grow out. He’s also sporting some peach buzz on that normally immaculately clean-shaven chin, dressed all in black, and driving vans like he’s been a field agent for the last six seasons. So much for protocol!

It’s kind of funny and ridiculous, but— I can’t believe I’m saying this–  it works. I like it.

In other news, we’ve got Janis on the FBI staff, and I’m enjoying the ‘Janis is to FBI as Chloe is to CTU’ parallel. I especially enjoyed the “nerd face-off”: Chloe trying to help smuggle Tony out of the building using the FBI’s security cams and Janis trying to lock her out of the FBI security cams.

“Someone’s blocking my every move. It’s really starting to piss me off!”

Great line for Chloe– not well delievered by Mary Lynn Rajskub, unfortunately– but a great line nevertheless. (I am really looking forward to her delivering the  “Actually, I’m a stay-at-home-Mom” line that was in the season preview video. Chloe is my favorite!)

By the way, is it bad that I want to comb through and then straighten Janis’s hair? 😛

I don’t really like this new agent (I forget his name) whose butt Janis saves when he ‘fesses up to having accessed the FAA database to check on his wife’s flight, but think the relationship between he and Janis could make for some interesting intra-office drama. I wonder if they’re going to kill off his wife for good measure.

Back in the field…

The whole “So what are you going to do? Kill him? / “No, Tony, you are” conversation between Tony and Emerson was kind of typical and lame, and it made me laugh that of course Jack was onto what was going to happen and started beating the crap out of the guys guarding him before Tony could even consider going to shoot him.

I also love how Jack is never wrong about people not having the guts and/or will power to actually kill him when they’re pointing a gun at his head.  He tells Emerson to go ahead and shoot him if he doesn’t believe he’d be loyal to the team, and of course, Emerson is impressed by this and doesn’t shoot him.  Why does this always happen?

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I want to kill Jack off– but it would be great if just once Jack was like “Go ahead and kill me”, and someone actually made a good effort to do it instead of chickening out or thinking better of it. That would be massively entertaining.

Other thoughts…

I still want to laser Agent Walker’s freckles because I think she’d look a lot prettier that way, but I guess I’ll deal with it. I know I made fun of her yesterday because she’s the typical high-powered female agent, but at least she’s smart and not a wimp.  I was impressed that she wasn’t afraid to mess with that guy’s ventilator’s when he pissed her off… then again, this is clearly about Fox pushing people to (1) condone torture of suspected terrorists, (2) feel that people who are against torture simply have a weak stomach for what is necessary to protect the homeland.

*sigh*

I was kind of hoping we were going to move away from that commentary, at least temporarily, since Jack’s no longer at a Senate hearing telling off Senators. But apparently not. People keep bringing up the hearing and the pending charges against Jack, and pointing out that Jack’s a mistreated American hero.  I’m really starting to resent the fact that they are using my loyalty to Jack to try to make me condone torture.

While I’m picking this bone– doesn’t anyone feel like pointng out that Jack tortured someone  whom a substantial body of reliable evidence indicated was privy to critical information regarding an imminent terror attack? I’m not saying that’s a green light for torturing someone, but I would at least argue, especially if I were Jack– who was under fire in front of a whole room of Senators and journalists– that I did what I did because another terror attack was imminent and I needed information to save innocent civilians.   It’s not like he just sits at CTU and tortures anyone he feels like. (Probably not anyway.) But seriously, the threat of an imminent attack seems to be a more reasonable rationale for torture than say, the fact that someone’s at Guantanamo Bay.

By the way– can someone please help me here? They were questioning Jack about his torture of Ibrahim Haddad in 2002, which he said allowed them to stop a bus bombing that would have killed 45 people, many of them children.  Was that shown or referenced in any of the previous seasons? I don’t remember and I’m having trouble finding out.

Just curious. 😛

P.S. If you want a detailed and hilarious plot “summary” (it’s not SHORT), I can’t say enough good things about Television Without Pity.

Advertisements


Patrick says:

Chloe vs. Janis- I love it!

I’m so glad 24 is back and I know people who love it like I do!



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

et cetera
%d bloggers like this: