What did you think of 24: Live Another Day Episode 3?

24: Live Another Day Episode 3 Discussion
What’d you think of 24: Live Another Day’s third episode?

What did you think of the 24: Live Another Day Episode 3? Vote in the poll and leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Thoughts on 24: Live Another Day Episode 3?

Tonights episode was written by 24 newcomers Sang Kyu Kim (“The Walking Dead”) and Patrick Somerville (“The Bridge”) and was directed by Adam Kane who is also a newcomer (and Leslie Hope’s husband).

If you missed the episode, you’ll be able to watch it on FOX’s website tomorrow or catch the repeat on TV this Friday at 8:00 PM on FOX.

126 Comments

Comments Closed
Such a pity they released the final scene as a ‘sneak peek’ clip – just spoiled it all for me.

It was so good! Margot is increasingly interesting and a great villain, and Chloe’s news was so sad…

Margot might be contending with Dina Araz as best villain!

villainess*

I loved the touching Jack and Chloe scenes! Made me cry! The drama keeps getting better and better! 10/10 stars!

CHLOE STILL HAS THAT ..”JACK YOU SCARE THE CRAP OUT ME…BUT I’LL HELP YOU ‘!! NO MATTER WHAT JACK SAYS ABOUT SAVING PEOPLES LIVES ,THERS SOMEBODY WHO JUST DOESN’T LIKE HIM.

And just saying – but within 4 minutes of this being over… an ad-free version is already available for download by torrent. Lol

Yes, the reveal about Morris and Prescott got me teary eyed. Really sad seeing Chloe like that, and great to see that development with her character.

JackBauersgirl
May 15, 2014 at 3:17 pm
I don’t think they’re dead. That’s the way 24 rolls!!

Also, when Heller got up on stage in Parliament, I was really feeling sorry for the poor man…I’m scared for him. I also shouted “whoa” when Jack shot those people at the end. Intense!

WHEN HELLER WALKED IT YOU COULD SENSE THEY WERE CHEW HIM UP,BUT MAKES FOR GREAT PLOT…REMEMBER WHO TOLD THE BRITISH ABOUT THE DRONE ATTACK?

Ritter and Morgan antics this episode was pretty retarded.
– 30 seconds later Basher spills the beans.
– Few minutes later and Ritter is suddenly okay with kidnapping Basher.
– Navarro gives them the go-ahead just because.
– Yvonne Strahovski still plays an unconvincing field agent.

DON’T GET ME WRONG LOVE WHAT THE SHOW DOES WITH ACTION AND JACK BAUER STILL BEING A BAD TASTE MOST OF THERE MOUTHS,BUT YVONNE GETTING BEAT UP TO MUCH FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO TELL HER HUSBAND WAS A DOUBLE AGENT ,SHE JUST HAS THE LOOK OF A STAY AT HOME MOM WITH TWO KIDS,DIDN’T EVEN PHASE ME WHEN SHE BUSTED BASHERS HEAD……BRING IT BACK TO THE US, OF A. WERE WE HANDLE OWN .

I personally don’t think anything there is specifically unbelievable…but just curious, what about Yvonne is so unconvincing as a field agent to you?

Someone here mentioned that the scene when she broke into the interrogation room to interrogate Bauer was completely unconvincing, and I agree. It happened again this episode when she was questioning Basher’s posse, it felt so bland that it took me out of the mood.

Speaking of Ritter/Navarro CIA tactics, the CIA has historically played pretty dirty with regards to their operations. Nothing they’ve done in the first three hours is surprising to me.

WOW!!!! I don’t even really know what to say…

Tube scenes = fantastic.
Sean Callery’s score during Tube scenes = fantastic.

Cried when Chloe told Jack her sad news. Also thought that was one of the best performances I’ve seen Mary Lynn turn in.

The final few minutes…WOW! Never saw that coming at all. I can’t believe Jack shot those fucking people! When I watched it the first time I was in complete shock, when I watched it again I couldn’t stop laughing at “They’re shooting at us!”

Oh, and I’m really glad I’ve decided to not watch clips anymore seeing as though someone just said that final scene was a sneak peek. That’s just stupid.

To clarify, it wasn’t like a “hahaha this is hilarious” laugh, but more of a “Oh my God Jack Bauer is fucking insane” laugh.

Well, I thought it was a big step down in quality from last week. Maybe it was a result of the new writers and director. I don’t know… it just felt off. It’ll be interesting to see if I’m in the minority.

For one, I’m now on-board with the crew of folks who hold that Chloe is unnecessary. I understand that she’s basically the bridge between Jack and Open Cell, but I’m starting to think even the free information group is out of place here. Last week, it felt intelligent because it seemed like it was offering the writers the chance to launch a legitimate commentary on government surveillance. This week, it seems clear that it’s basically just CTU. As for Chloe… she’s too good at what she does. How in the Hell did she track down Simone to that pub? It went way too quickly. Although I give props to Rajskub for top-notch acting during that little character bit between her and Jack re: Morris/Prescott, she’s the conduit for making the show seem too familiar.

Also, I have to say that the whole chase on the Tube seemed like a waste of time. Honestly, I just saw it as a shallow excuse to get Jack on the subway so the show could feature more of London and manufacture cheap suspense.

On that note, how big is London? Margot’s estate is in the middle of the countryside; how on earth did Simone make it back there within the hour? I usually forgive this element of the show, but she’s in the middle of the friggin’ European countryside. You don’t get there from downtown London in 10 minutes (am I wrong?).

Margot looked like she was going to be a great baddie last week, and she’s continuing to impress, but I can’t help but feel like the writers are laying on the soap opera drama pretty thick with her storyline. The revenge against Heller is fine, but now we’ve got a son, a daughter, and a son-in-law who is falling into the overdone “reluctant conspirator” role all too well. Is this going to get predictable? I mean, already we’ve got a scene where they have to “retrofit the override” to work with the son’s computer setup. That smacks of the usual “re-configuring the trigger mechanism” trope that 24 leans on all the time. I don’t like it.

It was nice to get the tidbit that Heller has been in office for three years, but as a die-hard fan, I’m wondering if that time frame actually works in the universe of the show. Season 7 took place only a few months into Taylor’s term. Day 8 was 20 months later. So let’s say she resigned after two years in office. Heller would only be two years into his term, if that. I’m sorry for getting into the details here, but I think if they’re going to be specific with stuff like this, they should try to actually get it right.

On Heller… his scene with Audrey tonight was basically a rehash of an earlier conversation he’d had with Mark. Look. I love the character drama, and Heller’s story was my favourite from the premiere… but let’s actually further the story here. I think some of 24’s more seasoned writers could have done it better than the newbies. In fact, a lot of the episode seemed like filler. There was really no way to fold some of this stuff into the premiere? With only 12 episodes, the plot has to be sharp, sharp, sharp. And another gripe: Why did Mark have to be right about Heller’s performance in front of parliament? I was longing for a cathartic victory for the president. His failure to perform just wasn’t very fulfilling. If the only point of this plot was to give Heller something to do or reinforce the fact that he’s off his game, there were ways to do it other than putting Heller in front of parliament in a room that was not actually parliament (yes, that did bother me). Bleh.

On Jack’s story… Maybe I wasn’t paying attention, but did he really head to the embassy before he even had the proof that an attack was imminent? It seems like he just asked Adrian Cross to “deliver proof,” as if it’s some easy thing. That’s kind of weak.

Sorry to be negative, but gosh. It’s kind of like the show just decided to deliver a weaker version of the premiere. Maybe it will improve on re-watch. Maybe the nostalgia has now worn off and that was the only thing keeping the premiere in my good graces. I don’t know. It didn’t seem as fresh as it felt last week.

Have to agree here. My initial impression is that tonight’s episode was a noticeable step down.

The awkward pacing was probably my biggest complaint. They find Yates in the pub right away, hop in the car and track down Simone right away, get on the train and off the train, a foot chase and escape, all within a span of like ten minutes. (And then Simone gets from the city to the countryside in literally just a few minutes, a single commercial break). It just felt rushed and unnatural.

Absolutely hated the way that Simone slipped away during Chloe’s very brief distraction/moment of grieving, that was extremely lame and far too convenient.

I liked Adrian Cross double-crossing Jack and the clever improvisation that followed. One of the protesters that Jack shot in the leg was actually a rude jerk that was screaming at him just a few minutes earlier, so that was pretty satisfying payback.

The Margot stuff was mostly great, but this Naveed character sort of feels like Behrooz 2.0 to me. I can already kind of predict how this storyline turns out.

I plan to rewatch it soon so maybe it’ll grow on me. I don’t think it was a bad episode, but it was certainly a step down from the premiere.

Yeah, I don’t want to give the impression that I hated the episode either… 24 is just one of the few shows that I feel qualified to nitpick.

I also hated the way Simone slipped away. The sentimental music that played when Chloe saw the dad and son felt out of place because we, as viewers, were not yet in on Chloe’s story. It was awkward and basically telegraphed that we were going to learn something big very soon. I don’t know how else it could have worked, but I almost wish we had gotten Chloe’s back story first. Either way, it felt kind of forced. It would have made more sense to include it in the first episode when the characters were reuniting.

I agree with Clayton & 24spoilers – I thought the 3rd episode was a noticeable drop-off from the first two. Other than than the anticipated explanation from Chloe that we all suspected would come sooner or later (and Jack’s surprised reaction/response), the rest of the episode plodded along.

I also saw several signs of Season 4 being rehashed/reused:
– the reference to the “over-ride device”, which was the hot commodity in first half of S4 in it controlling the nuclear reactors.
– Margot’s motherly dominance of her child and their relationship very much felt like Dina’s control of Behrooz and his girlfriend.
– Jack having to go rogue in a foreign embassy (which will lead to some hostage/shootout scenes, according to the 4th episode clips), mimicking the S4 intrusion into the Chinese embassy.
– Not sure why some find her fascinating but the Simone character doesn’t appeal to me any more than Behrooz did in S4.
– They may not go the mole angle they did with Marian in S4 but the deception by Cross in the 3rd episode sure felt like an attempt to create the kind of internal dissension that the mole storyline of seasons past created.

Reading now, I can understand most of the complaints. Maybe I am just WAY too involved with the show while it’s on that the mistakes/continuity errors just slip by me easily. The one thing I can add is that the Parliament scene is clearly not done, it was just an introduction. I personally expect Heller to deliver successfully next week.

That’s funny. I’m kind of the opposite. I tend to enjoy the show much more when my expectations aren’t high and I can binge watch. I just finished season 6 the other day, and honestly… I really liked it! I mean, there are so many terrible things, but there are also some great moments that are easy to forget about when “day 6” carries such a negative connotation.

Sorry… I went off on a tangent there!

Day (or Season) 6 is an interesting season, it really does represent both the best and worst of ’24’ at once; the production values really are feature-quality and second to none, the action scenes are often brilliant, and that ending is still the best ending of any ’24’ season to date that we’ve seen… but we also have the Bauer family psychodrama, the heavy-handed soap operatics, and the killing way too early of some of the more interesting characters (Curtis, Graem, Hamri al-Assad).

Having Graem be the CEO of the Bauer family company – BXJ Technologies – wasn’t a mistake, having him retconned into Evil Brother Bauer most certainly was… and a very large percentage of that season’s problems stemmed from that very wrong move on the writers’ part (and HoGo stated as much in an interview back in 2010).

The other place the writers went badly wrong was in the fascinating character of Hamri al-Assad, who the writers had packed off to D.C. for some inexplicable reason, whereas he should have remained in L.A. and helped CTU track down and take out Fayed and capture the suitcase nukes, there really should have been a dramatic face-to-face between al-Assad and Fayed at some point, alas, that was indeed a wasted opportunity.

Despite these missteps, I still have a soft spot for the sixth season, it was the first season of ’24’ I watched from beginning to end on it’s initial broadcast in 2007, and thus I just can’t hate it the way some do…

S6 gets more of a bad rap IMO than it really deserves – but there are a lot of weak links to be sure, from the entire Wayne Palmer presidency to the overbearing familial thread when Philip Bauer appears. It was like a nosedive off the deep end as soon as Jack’s father became a central figure. On the flip side, the first half of the season from Jack’s release through the bomb exploding, it was riveting – and I thought Fayed represented one of the most sinister of villains to that point (P.S. Did anyone else find it odd that the actor who portrayed Fayed in S6 had a role as a different character in S4 – albeit in scenes that got deleted? He was the shopkeeper and father of the two boys that helped Jack and Paul Raines during the shootout. I think that’s the only time the ’24’ writers used the same actor to play two different characters in different seasons – by deleting the scenes they shot of him in S4, they probably figured it was safe to use him in a new role in S6).

There are actually a few more instances of actors playing more than one role. The actor who played Juma was a detective in an earlier season (I believe it was Season 3), and the younger brother in the hunting store from Season 4 ends up being the guy that Tony and his crew try to frame as a terrorist in Season 7.

There was Frank Simes (I think?) from Day 1, the agent that supervised Jack’s very temporary arrest after the Palmer breakfast, he came back as a senior Secret Service agent in Day 7 during the White House raid.

The biggest one is that Juma’s actor was the police detective in Day 3 that questioned Palmer about Sherry’s involvement with Alan’s death.

There’s been quite a few instances of re-using actors: check out http://24.wikia.com/wiki/Performers_with_multiple_roles

The record for most roles is stuntman John Meier, he has at least 15!

I actually disagree that the Bauer family as a whole was the problem. I mean, it was an obvious retcon for Graem to be Jack’s brother, but there were some fantastic, moving moments between him, Jack, and Phillip. The plot line became a problem when Marilyn and Josh got too much story and Phillip was forced into the contrived big baddie role.

I thought James Cromwell did a good job, but the Bauer family scenes would’ve been so much more electric had Donald Sutherland been available.

Donald Sutherland was both available and willing to play Bauer Sr in Season 6, but he ultimately declined the role because he didn’t want to play an adversarial part against his son, and felt the onscreen relationship between Jack and Phillip Bauer should have been more akin to the relationship between Harrison Ford and Sean Connery in the third Indiana Jones film, and I agree with that assessment, having Graem be a villain (as was already established in the previous season) would have been enough, but not also Jack’s father.

I’ve always thought that Graem should have been a darker variation of the Tom Hagen character played by Robert Duvall in ‘The Godfather’ films; in that he runs the day-to-day operations of the family business but he’s not a blood member of the family, whilst Phillip Bauer should have been more a world-weary and cynical individual who’s seen and heard it all and who has an ambivalent attitude to his work and country, and who increasingly let Graem make the big decisions regarding BXJ Technologies, to the point that he is virtually a silent chairman of that company, and who had no idea what was going on behind the scenes… and when he does, it is Graem who kills Phillip Bauer not the converse as happened.

That would in turn set up Jack to essentially be at war with his family’s business, tearing down the Bauer family legacy in trying to save his country… a much better plot development than Evil Brother/Father, Bauer family melodrama, and a derailed season that started SO good!

Judy Hendrixon
May 16, 2014 at 12:34 am
Well said my friend, well said. I too like more about season six than others seem to have and feel it gets an unfair bad rap. Yes the Bauer family soap opera was a bit much in places, but your assesment of it and rewrite made sense and was good/fun to read. Thanks for doing it, as you put your finger on what had botheree me about their plot line.

I am curious as to what they are going to develope between Jack and Audrey as it is already being set up that the husband’s control issues are going to get him in legal trouble if his forged documents are used. And it is already making a problem in his marriage. This along with his clouded perception of “what Bauer did to Audrey” is not going to bode well for him or Heller. The view has to have come from her dad and whatever twisted version of Jack, his service from Heller’s perspective, and then about his visit/’break in” to see Audrey that he concocted for their consumption! I clearly remember Heller ripping into Jack when he came to be with Audrey and part of what he did was to get in Jack’s face about how everyone pays a personal price because of being involved with him. Thank goodness Jack pushed back and got in Heller’s face about how all he did was what men like Heller had wanted of and from him, and truth be known Heller was really angry with himself over the reality that Audrey had done what he couldn’t be bothered with doing. She was the only one that had gone to China to find Jack while he and the others in govt sent out spies and never went themselves as she had done. I only hope that what Chloe revealed to Jack about how they/feds have come after her and her family because she had helped him doesn’t play into what Heller had dumped on Jack.

Loved it!! “RIVETING!”

New West Virginian
May 13, 2014 at 1:19 am
it was a great episode. I wish they had a place for fanfiction on this site or on the main Fox website though like they did in the past.

The preview was interesting with Jack actually shooting US Marines in the embassy? And its interesting to note this will now be the third time Jack is attacking diplomatic soil after the Chinese consulate in Season 4 and the Russian consulate in Season 6. The Russians wanting Jack and Boudreau trying to hand Jack over to them is similar to the Chinese wanting Jack in the past and how his brother arranged for him to be captured by them. I hope they don’t end this season with Jack headed to Russia. They also didn’t explain what happened with President Suvarov and if the evidence of their involvement in Season 8 was ever made public like President Taylor promised.

YES! ^ I want to know what consequences Day 8 had for Suvarov and Taylor. We also can’t forget Jack’s capture at the end of Day 5…wasn’t it Logan who put that in motion? I don’t think it was ever explicitly stated how they knew, but it was implied that Logan and/or Henderson tipped off China to Jack still being alive, in order to get rid of him.

I’d really like to know as well!

I get the feeling that the show’s love of “reboots” has a lot of collateral damage. In other words, the producers get it in their heads that a season was not successful, and instead of thinking critically about what went wrong, they just ditch everything and try again.

End of season 6: “Well, that didn’t work! Let’s scratch everything and take things to Washington!”

As a result, we actually lose decent characters like Tom Lennox, Noah Daniels, and Karen Hayes. I would’ve liked an update on them. I fear we’re in the same situation now. I think we’re fooling ourselves if we’re expecting any updates on President Taylor.

At least we saw Lennox and Daniels exit safely from the show. Bill showing up in Day 7 with no mention of Karen, especially after their behavior in Day 6 that nearly got them in prison, was ridiculous.

Also, we all pretty much know Logan isn’t going to be returning, but I’d still like to know whether the weasel lived or not. He’s beaten death once…

Obviously, David Palmer was the best President of the 9 seasons, in terms of a strong character and solid acting. But I think Powers Boothe’s portrayal of Daniels, both in S6 and in ‘Redemption’ was nearly as well done and on par with Logan.

All of the other Presidents in the series were mediocre at best.

New West Virginian
May 14, 2014 at 10:16 pm
At the end of season 5 it was Graem that tipped off the Chinese. At one point he told his co-conspirators that the “arrangements” he made are already in motion.

I was a bit emotional when Chloe learns about what happened to Morris and Prescott. :-(

Doesn't make sense
May 13, 2014 at 2:04 am
What do you mean when Chloe learns of it? You mean the audience learns of it

Right. Didn’t know about what that meant. Guess we will never see the last of Morris O’Brian (poor fellow). Shocking moment: Adrian outsmarted Jack as he tries to get inside the U.S. Embassy.

Question….why did they turn Chloe over to this knuckle head when she has the smarts to be in charge of this /CTU org. Adrian is a wimp behind Jacks back.just get him inside and let him take his chances.

I think his main character trait is charisma. He is charismatic and has the resources and the ideals to go against the government that in her eyes, is now immoral for killing her husband and son. She clearly isn’t brainwashed by him, as evidenced by her helping Jack.

Well on tonight’s episode I thought it was good, without being great, Adrian Cross double crossing Jack was interesting, I will look forward to the exchanges between the two, Margot plays her role well . Chloe knew that cross double crossed Jack .
I am looking forward to next week when the President and Audrey discover that Jack is in town

I thought it was another solid episode – but that Parliament scene was HORRID! Surely they could have made a better job of making that convincing?

Haha I agree! It’s like one of the writers watched a parliamentary debate and assumed thats how british politicians act all the time, even when a foreign leader comes specifically to deliver a speech. And who put two vicars in the front row of the MP’s? come on!

Also – we know we’re in England when Jack Bauer spends 15 minutes of the episode in a queue! haha

That’s also another thing that concerned me, first half was action/drama with Jack and Chloe, but then the entire last quarter was Jack sitting in line in the same spot.

I didn’t think it was that bad, but then again I don’t know British politics…what was so wrong about it?

Well Parliament doesn’t look anything like that for a start. The main political parties should be sitting opposite each other. 24 made it look more like a really badly handled press conference with jeering journalists!

Ah, I see after Youtubing a bit. Although it seems that at times, it would be totally understandable for Parliament to be acting a bit unruly.

There is no way parliament would be gathered to hear a speech from the US president and start shouting him down two words in. The debates parliament have amongst themselves do get unruly, true, and it seems that “youtubing a bit” seems to have been the extent of the 24 writers’ research into British politics!

Fair enough, I can understand that. What is the deal with the vicars being in front?

They were supposed to be members of parliament, not vicars haha! It’s like having someone dressed as a firefighter sitting on the US Senate

But what is a vicar, specifically?

Like a person who runs a church…dunno what they’re called in america…priest, minister maybe?

I see, thanks. According to this, which I just read, the 24 cast and crew seem to have taken a tour of Parliament, so I wonder why they decided to make it so different

http://www.24spoilers.com/2014/05/07/emily-berrington-24-live-another-day-interview/

As a political junkie, this really, really bothered me. If the producers could not actually acquire the House of Commons for filming, they should have found something different for Heller to do. It TOTALLY took me out of the moment.

I’m pretty sure I spotted a Vicar in one of the front rows too ha ha

That room Heller addressed the MP’s in was not intended to be the Commons debating chamber, heads of state do not address the members of Parliament in the actual Commons or Lords chambers, it’s usually in the separate Westminster Hall building (as Obama did recently) such an address takes place… but the point made about the MP’s barracking Heller almost instantly is well made, that simply wouldn’t happen, MP’s love to get stuck into each other but they would NEVER treat a visiting U.S. President with such open disdain, whatever the circumstances.

YEAH LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE IN AN AMERICAN LEGION HALL,LOL.NO FLAGS NO NOTHING.

New West Virginian
May 14, 2014 at 10:17 pm
I also didn’t find that to be believable unless the UK really is that different since an American Congressman would never be allowed to just interrupt a speech that way. Remember when Joe Wilson legitimately expressed his outrage at Obama and illegal aliens benefiting from Obamacare but he was chastised for not doing it in a “classy” way.

Wow – I hate when silly things happen like when Adrian Cross is modifying the access code for Jack Bauer’s entry and he pretends to be typing when he’s just soft touching the keys on the keyboard.

And how unrealistic is it when Chloe has surveillance access to all of these cameras, access to a consular visitor access system alongside it’s schematics.

I want the wormy Chief of Staff to get caught doing something dumb (like forging the president’s signature) and get immediately supplanted by Mike Novick, who happens to be enjoying a pint at the nearby pub (What are the odds?).

That would be a 10/10 episode.

Haha, and then when the CIA catches Chloe, the only one that can take her place is…Adam Kaufman from Day 3! Or Kim.

IF THIS WAS FILMED IN AMERICA MIKE WOULD BEEN ENJOYING DRINK AT RUTH CHRIS’S STEAK HOUSE.

Hmm. You want the wormy Beaudreau replaced with Novick? Even though Novick later redeemed himself in S4-5, I can’t forget the wormy he way he stabbed Palmer figuratively in the back in S2.

Mike made a mistake and ultimately corrected it at the expense of his job. He took his resignation with quiet dignity – I don’t believe the tears he shed were for his torpedoed career, but for the rift he caused in a friendship of twenty years.

For the good of the country Mike put aside ego and petitioned for Palmer to serve as Logan’s (highly necessary) counsel in Season 4, and of course played a crucial role in Logan’s takedown in Season 5. I don’t even consider him a gray hat – he’s a white hat who fucked up, and never once was his counsel in bad faith. You can’t compare him to a guy who presumes to act for the president.

The only truly awful thing about Novick is his indirect involvement in what happened to Lynne Kresge’s . Her fate remains an open question.

Yes! Bring back Mike. Boudreau is a pathetic inadequate predator, usurping power and fearful and jealous of Jack.

Yvonne Strahovski is just not that good of a field agent!! As another poster said she is very unconvincing…

Too bad Renee Walker is dead….

The way Jack looked at Chloe when she told him about her son and hubby just brought tears to my eyes and Chloe didn’t make it any better. Glad he was there to comfort her.

Jack shooting those people had my daughter cracking up and she’s not even a 24 fan.

Gotta love Jack Bauer!

Is Kate not convincing because she dont yell and stick guns in peoples faces all the time? Oh no, we can’t have agents like that…

Anyway, the critics seems to love her and find her more convincing as a field agent than in the office.

“One week after saying Yvonne Strahovski didn’t seem to fit in the world of 24, I would like to print a retraction.
Strahovski is terrific in this episode and she masterfully pulls off bad-ass CIA agent out in the field” http://www.tvequals.com/2014/05/12/24-live-another-day-review-100-p-m-200-p-m/

“The show seems to be more focused on what they are trying to do, and they have also brought in some excellent cast members this season”
“Yvonne Strahovski? Easily her best role since “Chuck,” and it blows Hannah McKay out of the water.” http://cartermatt.com/120159/24-live-another-day-episode-3-review-jack-bauer-continues-jack-bauer/

“Yvonne Strahovski works better in a more ass-kicking mode this week than when Kate spent much of last week petitioning Steve Navarro to put her back in the field”
http://www.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/review-24-live-another-day-100-pm-200-pm-just-say-please

“Thankfully, Kiefer Sutherland’s supporting cast continues to impress. Mary Lynn Rajskub acts her ass off as Chloe and Yvonne Strahovski remains a compelling rival for our main anti-hero.” http://screencrush.com/24-live-another-day-review-1-2pm/

Fanta,

Yes, I believe that is the problem that most people seem to have with Yvonne’s performance so far. The critics were almost unanimous in their praise of her performance in episode 3, including two critics who didn’t like her in the premiere. After just three episodes, she’s also being judged against the likes of fan favorites like Kiefer Sutherland, Annie Wersching, Reiko Aylesworth, and even Claire Danes in Homeland. Yvonne is a far

But Yvonne can certainly play a field agent, as she proved during her 5 seasons on Chuck. She’s playing Kate in a more detached manner than she played Sarah Walker, but she’s not playing Sarah Walker in 24. Of the new CIA characters, I think she’s given the best performance. Gbenga in particular hasn’t been that great IMO. I’ve heard he’s been fantastic in other roles, but he hasn’t had much to do on 24 so far.

Oops, I had mean to say that Yvonne is a far more subtle actor than people like Kiefer and Claire Danes, so her performance might come across as lacking emotion or flat. Personally, I think Danes overacts and Kiefer, as great as he is does spent most of his time on 24 either screaming or whispering. Yvonne isn’t that kind of actor.

Yes, she is very subtle, and fantastic at the non verbal parts. I guess that doing this becomes a challenge in a show like 24 where everything move so fast, and where I assume many veiwers doesn’t manage or just don’t care to pick up all those details.
In addition to this, Yvonne said she does play her character with “coldness and detachment” This of course make it even more important for the viewer to pick up those subtle details for her not to come off as too flat and boring.

Here is another critic praising her – alot: http://kotaku.com/jack-bauer-really-likes-shooting-people-in-the-leg-1575490778

I’m gonna have to agree that this is quite a drop in quality from last week.

I’ve never been one to nitpick about implausible time jumps, but LAD takes it to a whole other level.

Simone and Derrick escape the West Ealing flat on foot to a pub, which is located next to Kennington tube station which is;

46 minutes away by train,
31 minutes by car,
3h 22minutes on foot,

Yet Simone manages to get there ON FOOT in about 3 minutes?!? go fuck yourself! With Margot being dubbed “The Yorkshire Widow” I’m going to be absolutely horrified if the country house Simone escaped to is actually there… but I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it was.

As for the whole Al-Harazi household story, Clayton has already talked on this and I can only echo his sentiments. While Michelle Fairley is doing a fantastic job with what she’s been given… what she’s been given is typical 24 muslim terrorist bollocks which is so coma-inducingly tiresome. With a muslim terrorist, there’s absolutely no suspense, mystery or intrigue in what they’re doing, NONE you always know exactly where you stand with them – they want to blow shit up and that’s the end of it. Also, how did a beautiful, high-estrogen woman like Simone end up with a weasely looking low-testosterone call centre worker?

Even though I’m not a fan of Chloe, I felt bad for her regarding what happened to Morris and Prescott. I also realised how weary I’ve become of them destroying the lives of absolutely everyone on the show. It’s no longer hard edged or gritty anymore, it’s just depressing and more to the point tiresome. Chloe should not still be here today, at the end of Day 6 was the perfect time to retire the character and let her be the first one to have a happy ending. On the bright side, this has added some intrigue as to who specifically was targeting Chloe, could it be the people who “think they can take everything away from us” that Tony was ranting about?

Still not feeling the CIA at all…

I don’t like how they’re going for the “Mark Boudreau is a complete one dimensional scheming dick” approach after all.

Not feeling the way the show looks either – too many extreme closeups and bouncy running shots. It doesn’t make me feel like part of the action, it just makes me feel like battering the cameraman to death with a branch.

I still have a little to hold on to, but from being filled with hope and optimism last week, I now feel like my initial impressions of LAD were right, and I don’t like it.

I know you mentioned the camera after the premiere too, and I haven’t even noticed it while watching. As for Mark, I don’t think he’s one dimensional typical schemer either, I think he actually is desperate to protect Audrey, to the point where he will probably smother her by being overbearing and push her back to Jack, should he show up.

Speaking of Jack, I don’t see HOW he is going to have a shot at redemption after LAD: killing marines, shooting innocents?

We also must remember that although it is given to us weekly, that our impression of LAD as a whole can only be complete after the finale. We can’t really say anyone’s impressions are right or wrong until after the whole thing. Yes, Margot’s family may be the Araz 2.0’s, but we really don’t know what direction they will take with nine hours left. Same with Chloe, same with Kate, etc. Perfect example: Day 6. People commonly loved it until after the bomb went off, which couldn’t be topped.

Not saying anything about not being able to have an opinion, but be patient and don’t get too discouraged because everything is not perfect three hours in. :)

lol – had to have a little giggle at:

“With a muslim terrorist, there’s absolutely no suspense, mystery or intrigue in what they’re doing, NONE you always know exactly where you stand with them – they want to blow shit up”

I hope they don’t do the whole muslim terrorists again – for one thing it’ll spoil the pattern they’ve built up!

Odd-numbered seasons – a variety of terrorists’ nationality, motives, and threats.
Even-numbered seasons – terrorists from non-specific muslim country, killing americans because that’s what they do, with nuclear threats.

REMEMBER “Events occur in real time”.

Thinking about it, most of my criticisms can be summed up like this: This episode lacked purpose. Every scene in the two-hour premiere “worked” as a distinct unit that worked with the other distinct units to “build the story.” This week was all over the place (“let’s throw in a couple scenes with Audrey so the audience remembers she’s there”; “let’s put Jack Bauer on the Tube so he can do Jack Bauery things”).

So yeah. It was much better on re-watch.

It so was.

Lol you guys noticed how Morgan quickly believed that british guy when he named the pilot as the one who wanted to exchange the cache? she instantly drive away without pressuring him more….
So she’s like female jack except she’s not? I recall jack torturing bad guys and getting three names out of them while the fourth name was the true one…lol

well, correction: while the third name was the true one*

I am rather surprised that there is no involvement from the Russians maybe there will be some in the second half of the season

Great adrenaline rush of an episode. Fan-bloody-tastic to see the sights of London as a backdrop to Jack Bauer determined efforts to stop drone missiles from hitting their supposed targets in London with I’ve heard (spoiler alert) wembley stadium could be one of them ?? Great episode that never let up with a great pace. What is Jack’s real reason for trying to stop these drones and the conspiracy behind CIA agent Kate Morgan’s husband?? The plot thickens…

The plot thickens?! More like the text thickens. Leave it out with the caps man, Jeez!

Yes, thank you…

Yeah, no more caps lock please… I’m going to go back and “fix” a few comments like the one above.

Another storyline is why is Kate Morgan so determined to get Jack as she is getting reprimanded and left out to dry with her position with the CIA. Her husband was dealing with the Chinese which got her the sack due to her husbands dealing with one of many enemies Jack has pissed off. Damn it I hope I’m right in this??

Q/ HOW COME ALL THESE TERRORISTS HAVE BIG HOUSES AND IN THE UK AS WELL !!PS THE REAL TIME FORMAT IS A LITTLE UNBELIEVABLE ESECIALLY JACK AND CHOLE GETTING ABOUT ON THE SOUTH BANK THEN CHARING CROSS . NOT VERY FEASIBLE AS IN VAUXHALL KENINGTON ONE MINUTE THEN WATERLOO THE NEXT QUICKER BY UNDERGROUND JACK !!

Hrag Yessaian
May 13, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Lol when he shot the protestors… THAT WAS SO UNEXPECTED! I felt bad for Heller in front of Parliament he got wrecked!

It wasn’t unexpected at all for those that watched the ‘sneak peeks’ unfortunately. My suggestion to anyone that didn’t watch them – stay away from them. So many of the scenes tonight were so predictable and it’s a shame they actually put the last few minutes as a sneak peek a few days before the episode came out.

Peter Mouland
May 16, 2014 at 5:04 am
but it ruined the whole episode as it was so unrealistic. In parliament they let each other finish before taking the piss and minor heckling. And this would never to a head of state addressing parliament as the heckling goes on in the house of commons and house of lords not the poxy room shown in this episode.

The London chase scene, there is no way to get from the entry of waterloo down to that tube line in seconds and for chloe to follow in a car at the same speed as the tube is also impossible.

the episode stank

I’ve watched MP’s in parliament and they do heckle like that. They are actually really rude so you are wrong there. Sorry mate.

New fresh idea: Jack and Kate were working together from the last four years. And they are playing “the hunt for Bauer”.

Will see…

One more freak idea: She is Jack’s daughter.

As we get each episode 2 days later here in the UK, I’ve just seen the latest one.

I am loving the way the tension is building here, plus some great actions sequences. Alas, the Heller in front of the MPs scene was just plain stupid. That would NEVER happen, as the writers should have realised, if they’d done their homework.

Even in a session of the UK parliament, fellow MPs are not allowed to simply shout comments, without the Speaker’s permission, and they are reprimanded if they try. They definitely wouldn’t do that to a visiting head of state, especially not the US president, they would sit and clap politely at the end. Shame that had to spoil the episode for lack of a bit of research.

That apart, it’s got all the really good intriguing plots and sub-plots developing and I feel as I used to feel about earlier seasons – can’t wait to see what happens next.

While I didn’t have too many specific criticisms of the 3rd episode (as I did in the 2 hour premiere), I felt the episode lacked suspense and intensity which is what made ’24’ better than every other TV show. There were no ‘edge of my seat’ moments. In the better seasons of the show, ’24’ usually went into a commercial break with a suspenseful moment. I dont see that yet this season.

And I want to see Jack Bauer faced with some more moral dilemas. One of the reasons I enjoyed seasons 2, 4, and 5 so much is because Jack was constantly faced with morally questionable dilemas of whether he should sacrifice the rights (or lives) of certain individuals for the greater good of his country. In season 2, he threatens Syad Ali that he will order for Sayid’s kids to be killed one by one unless he reveals the location of the nuclear bomb. In season 5, he shoots Henderson’s wife (whose only sin was that she was married to Henderson) in the leg because Jack knew that ‘torturing’ Henderson wouldn’t yield any results. The show needs more of these kind of moments where we as the TV audience can debate whether Jack Bauer was in the right with his questionable actions.

What about shooting innocent civilians through the legs just to create a distraction?

Yes, Jack did do something morally questionable in the episode but the scene wasn’t set up in the best way. First, we really don’t know why Jack felt that shooting innocent civilians in the leg was his only option to get in. Second, Jacks’ actions occur so quickly so the TV audience doesn’t have the opportunity to debate beforehand whether Jack should do what he feels has to be done.

In 24’s previous moral dilemas that Jack has faced, there is usually someone (President, CTU Director, etc.) trying to convince Jack not to do the morally questionable action such as torturing a suspected terrorist but Jack decides to do it anyway because he feels that it is neccessary for the greater good. We dont get any of that in this instance.

So? It’s still one of the more morally questionable things he’s done. We’re here still discussing it 4 days after. Doesn’t matter to me if I debated it for a minute before he did it.

Peter Mouland
May 16, 2014 at 5:06 am
where did her get the gun from – uk polic dont carry guns

am just in lov wt da whole thing

I am amazed at how many folks on this board analyze everything and come up with criticisms. Such as “they could never get from point A to point B in such a short time”. Hey, it’s just a TV show and it’s all fiction and fun. But it happens to be a TV show that the large majority of us (including me) truly love. For me, it’smy favorite show of all time, and I have been wathcing TV since the 50’s. And one reason that I enjoy 4 so much is just that…I enjoy what is written and transformed to the screen. I just sit back and watch. No analyzation, no criticism, just fun and anticipation. If the show is not what you may have expected or wished for, there are alway other options.

+1, well spoken good sir, there’s far too much overanalysis from some folks, just sit back and enjoy the show for what it is, it may well be the very last time we can do this with ’24’… enjoy it while it lasts folks…

Well good for you Ronnie, have a medal on me!

Telling people to shut off their brains and stop being analytical ‘cos it’s just a tv show is just a reverse of “you just don’t get it” Wire snobbery, but just as annoying.

That’s not to say you should go mad with rage when they weave a certain magic that turns a 20 minute journey into a 10 minute one, but this time they are REALLY taking it too far now that it’s taking the piss. When we’re talking about a 1 hour public transport journey done in 3 minutes ON FOOT, and getting out of the biggest city in the world to the open countryside in 10 minutes, anyone who criticises such carelessness is not nitpicking… they actually have a point believe it or not, because that carelessness has obviously spilled into all areas of the storytelling and characterisation.

Did you nitpick like now when the show was set in LA, Mexico, Africa, DC, Virginia, and NYC? I bet you didn’t because you likely weren’t/aren’t familiar with the geography of those locations, so it was not obvious to you that Jack traversed great distances within mere minutes like it is when set in London, a city you are familiar with it would appear… it’s all a matter of perspective, XAM duuuude!

I don’t think you need to be familiar with the geography in this particular case. I’ve never been to London and am not too familiar with the geography, but all of that fast-travel stuff really stood out for me too (and I almost never complain about cheating time).

They show Simone in the back of the cab leaving the city at 1:19 and by 1:22 she’s already talking to her mom in the secluded countryside. Aside from that being a ridiculously short ride, it seems like a bad idea for a very suspicious lady (out of breath and bloody) to bring a cab driver right to the doorstep of their secret terrorist base of operations…

To be fair, we don’t know if she took the cab the whole way. The same way we don’t know exactly where her house is at…isn’t it possible that her trip wasn’t as long as three hours?

I agree. ^ I don’t mind discussing points of the show, but it is a SHOW…there has to be suspension of disbelief to a point.

To a point.

Although I’m not prepared to argue that being a mindless, anti-critical consumer of entertainment is some admirable thing.

Agreed, but again, to a point. As I said above, I can understand a lot of the complaints people are having above, but I just don’t let them bother me. Not to say that I’m a 24 apologist, there are many parts that aren’t as awesome as others, but I enjoy the show for what it is, which is a drama/action television show and not a GPS. I perfectly understand that the getaway was not humanly possible, and it IS a gaff, but even after reading up on the details after the episode, I’m not going to let that ruin the episode for me. People don’t watch 24 to get a travel itinerary.

I’m not saying they should be able to do anything at any time and get away with it, but I just don’t see this as THAT big of a deal…I mean, terrorists did kill 40+ in a train crash, kidnap and almost assassinate the secretary of defense of the US, gain control of a nuclear reactor and kill hundreds of thousands/severely damage the surrounding environment, shoot down and almost kill the POTUS, as well as steal, arm, and launch a nuclear warhead towards a major US city before being caught, all in one day.

Jack Bauer infiltrated an undercover homebrew terrorist cell, survived a plane crash, was tortured to death, came back to life, then proceeded to thwart a conspiracy to start WWIII all in a day.

So no, I don’t think Simone finding shortcuts should be beyond our wildest imaginations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXtqK9kW5Wc

Would suggest that Jack Bauer and this guy meet at some point. Don’t click the link if you don’t want to know who it is!

Stop being so pedantic people !! Sheesh!! It’s a TV show ffs!

Was under the impression the comments section existed to facilitate discussion. I’m sorry that I seem to be wrong.

Clayton’s right. Whether you agree or disagree with some of the criticisms here, there’s no reason why anyone should be discouraged from sharing their thoughts.

I’m in two minds about the whole travel thing.
Granted I notice it heavily now that I know the realities of travelling in London, so the glaring lack of believable travel time is much more apparent.

On the one hand, as mentioned before, at the end of the day, its fiction, so why not just enjoy these errors for the sake of the story. Which is essentially a lot more important than whether someone can get outside London from the center in less than 10 minutes. Personally for me I can just let it slide for the sake of getting the story to move on quicker due to the 12 episode season.

On the flip side though, I feel like the writers aren’t exploiting the ability to ‘jump’ time as promised when discussing how the real time format was going to work.

With the new formula, why haven’t the writers exploited the ad breaks as a means to jump larger frames of times.
If I had been tasked to format the show with 12 hours, to me, it makes sense for the premiere and final to retain the standard real time format for the entire hour (such as 11am – 12pm). However with the episodes in between, why not set them with a lot more flexibility? Possibly spanning over a hour or two? This would allow for travel to become a lot more flexible and would enable the core of the show to manage the travel time a little more realistically?
Also they could use one of the staple devices that made the show ground-breaking, the split screen, to keep the audience apprised to what the characters are doing.
Keeping the on screen parts in real time, then using the breaks to take greater leaps of time. Even events happening off screen would be pretty good as long as they weren’t pivotal.
It wouldn’t even need to be the entire episode, maybe just one segment.

Just a thought

Did you spot that when the clock on Waterloo Station showed the time as 1:50, the next countdown clock was only showing 1:18!

one thingy aren’t taking into account. If it’s meant to be real time, they Must be driving at warp speed. The pace they get everywhere especially when nor got arrived in the country from downtown London in like ten minutes. How CIA can just hop about London in give minutes despite the insane traffic there. The poor writers shoul of took that into consideration…