Here's a wise word in the putrid ear of a scrote: I am not a troll, you pisspoor, wasted piece of flesh. And I am not the one who sells himself on porn sites for money. So before you heist names at me and threaten me with ludicrous intimidations about what I write that is perfectly above-board, legal in every sense of the word and done on my time, take a look at yourself in the mirror, if you can tear yourself away from the power of the computer screen, behind which you hide because you are such an insignificant little nerd (yes, that rhymes with turd) that you couldn't hope to challenge anyone, intellectually or otherwise, in person. If you think that you hit'em up in style, your high opinion of yourself is caught up in your imagination about the power of your knowledge concerning a television show.
You've been caught playing with yourself too many times to mention. Now, off you go to look for Lucy's bag that you stated quite matter-of-factly wasn't with her body. How interesting a life is it, being a fraud? This one's for you ...
Pass the little prick his air-guitar. There's a good boy.
Now, onto the review.
This was one of the best episodes of the Messiah's tenure, but not for the reasons you think.
First and foremost, DTC employed the use of a singular themed thread weaving throughout the episode, the way previous producers did, most notably in the 1990s. The theme of last night's episode was lost children.
Think about it - Lucy lost to Ian, Ben lost to Phil, Dean lost to Shirley. Those are the obvious ones. But then, there are David and Ian, lost to Pat (David) and Pete (David and Ian); there's Shirley lost to Stan, Rainie lost to Cora, Nick lost, maybe forever, to Dot, Bella lost to Jake.
All of these weave a tangled web, peripherally running around the Lucy storyline, which should be acting as the centrifugal force driving the rest of the energy throughout the show. Sadly, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it borders on the ludicrous fantasy dish of green eggs and ham,and slightly over-egged at that.
Over-Egged and Uneasy.
Ian's daughter has been murdered. She's dead. As a doornail. He's hurting immensely. So is Peter. But why am I not moved to tears? Why am I not showing more compassion?
Maybe it's because, even though she was an important legacy character, I don't give a rat's arse about Lucy Beale's death. The character, herself, was eminently unlikeable, and played, on her last two incarnations, by actresses who were variously cold, limited and, in the case of the most recent, pretty crap, to put it bluntly.
Maybe it's because Ian Beale, himself, has been a very unsympathetic character. Let's face it, the only person who feels any sort of pity for Ian is Ian, himself, and whatever dopey, bovine woman he's duping into his bed (for financial security), and, yes, I do mean Jane the Cow ...
For years, Ian has been smug, condescending, rude, arrogant and superior, both in his dealings and reactions to the circumstances of people who live in Albert Square. He has no respect. People's considerations of Ian range from disdain to disrespect. He never learns from his mistakes until the mistakes rear up and bit him in his expanding arse, and then he starts to cry.
May I remind people of Ian's most monumental lie, concerning Lucy during her childhood? The one about Lucy having cancer in order to get Mel to sta in his bed?
Here, let me remind you ...
Lucy's death karma much?
Mostly, my unease comes from knowing what a deeply petty and unlikeable little man, who'll be back to treating people like shit sooner, rather than later; but mostly, it comes down to hating the innately subtle prejudices which Ian and pretty Peter the Prat are allowing to come to the fore, but are simultaneously hiding behind the excuse of grief for Lucy, a cold-hearted, selfish bitch of a girl who'd do anything to further her own interests.
So we are treated to yet another episode where Ian sulks and whines about losing everything, whilst sitting stiffly beside Denise from whom he's as far removed emotionally as if he were in Antarctica. Whilst his pratboy nice-but-dim son tries to extricate himself from a relationship which he initiated, but for whom he is using his so-called grief to excuse caddish behaviour.
I wish EastEnders would address these prejudicial issues - Peter's obvious problem with the fact that the girl he's initially chosen to sleep with is a charming little Cockney sparrow chav, with emphasis on the chav, so far removed from this lazy, entitled posh-sounding barrowboy, who reckons himself miles above her in social standing. Then there's Ian's more troublesome association with Denise. The actress, herself, describes Ian's attitude toward Denise as considering her as being "the Help."
Now, I realise that the term "the Help" might be lost on a legion of British television viewers, so let me show you what "the Help" means ...
Yep, that's right. From the moment Ian gave Denise that racially-charged oven glove to the moment he budged Denise out of the "family" photo to be replaced by the bovine but white-faced Jane to the instant next week where he pointedly denies Denise the privilege of sitting as family at Skeletor's funeral, Ian's racism reeks from the very pores of his skin.
Once again, however, it's Phil Mitchell - Phil Mitchell -who arrives to bolster Ian Beale's confidence and to help him deal with his grief.
Phil, not Sharon. Just as it was Shirley, not Sharon, in Tuesday's episode who dealt with Dot.
Where is Sharon?
Sharon is his long-time friend. Is she overly preoccupied with a child whom we never see anymore and this big-time bar she's been given "to bring her back to her former glory" which we've only seen once? Is this a con? A sop for long-term viewers as a scant demonstration of respect.
Not that Phil could do anything for Ian or, really, that Ian wanted him to do anything. Ian is mourning Lucy, and as much as he's mourning Lucy, he's mourning Cindy again as well, and she's someone he's never gotten over. So when Ian goes on about how much he's missing her, that's a double-edged sword. As for dead Lucy, as I've said before, there was an intrinsic difference in the two Lucies we had from adolescence onward: Suffield Lucy hated Ian, but she knew that Ian loved her unconditionally, and that whenever she got into any sort of trouble, Ian would fight hell and high water to protect her. She knew what side her bread was buttered on and knew that, whoever Ian's current wife might be, he'd choose his children over the woman. Bywater Lucy, however, hated Ian and actually believed he hated her as well - or rather, that he preferred her other siblings to her. Ne'mind the fact that she'd treated Ian abysmally when he was in the throes of mental illness and scammed his businesses from him.
Ian's still saying he's lost everything with Lucy's death, although tonight he managed to acknowledge that - boohoo - he's lost Bobby and Jane as well. Pardon me, but Ian lost Jane the day Jane decided she wanted a divorce, and Ian's losing Bobby was his own fault, admitting the truth under the duress of grief that he'd never loved Bobby the way he loved Lucy, simply because Bobby wasn't a "Cindy" child. In the general scheme of things in Bealedom, Cindy Williams Jnr ranks higher in Ian's estimation than poor Bobby, because she has the "Cindy" gene.
So forgive me if I'm losing patience with Ian's grief, which is more and more about Ian than it is about a lost child, which seemed to be the theme of the episode tonight - lost children: Lucy lost to Ian through death, Ben lost to Phil, Dean lost to Shirley and even Shirley lost to Stan.
A lot of Lucy's death has been a showcase for Adam Woodyatt's party piece of Ian Beale crying, but what annoys me most about this is the relative cowardice and sheer meanness of Ian and Peter, hiding behind grief and using it as an excuse to psychologically and emotionally mistreat women who've devoted themselves to them in a craven hope that these women will walk away from the relationship and allow Ian and Peter to play the victim. Even now, Ian bleats on about losing Jane and dismisses Denise's very existence when Phil brings her name up.
Peter and Lauren deserve each other. Last week, Lauren made Lucy's death all about Lauren, and this week it's all about Peter. Boo-hoo! Dad always liked Lucy best. Boo-hoo! He never loved me, even when he was handing me a hundred quid to buy some trainers down the street and the same amount for Lucy to buy the latest Ipod. The King and Queen of Millennial EastEnders. Lucy's death is all about them. How's poor Lauren going to run that joke of a business? How's poor Peter going to rid himself of Lola? Go on, or gwan, as Mrs Yvonne Not-Cotton Doyle, would say, talk at each other and don't listen. After all, the world revolves around your arse. It's the way you've been raised.
At least, it was something positive to see Lauren wondering what would happen if Jake really didn't kill Lucy? That's food for thought outside her capacity of self-absorption.
By the Pricking of My Thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes.
And so a newred herring suspect enters into the equation.
Yes, it's that boy again. Ben. It's always Ben. Ben is responsible for everything. Why not be responsible for Lucy's death.
The biggest highlight of the night: Ben has been released from prison! (Cue "Jaws" music).
Ben is out there somewhere. How, I'm not sure because he was sentenced in 2012 to 4 years for manslaughter. Even taking time served on remand before sentencing, the two-year minimum sentence to serve before probational release wouldn't come about until late August or September. Still, he's out. Now, notice this little subtlety of DTC. What or who is the first person we see in the next scene? Sweet Johnny Carter traipsing across the Square to the Vic after actually spending a day at uni, watched by someone in a hoodie. Well, we know that someone in a hoodie was Dean (easy peasy), but it fostered a soupcon of foreshadowing, because if anyone didn't see Johnny as the gay nephew of Shirley the Scrote, eventually coupling with the dysfunctional, manslaughtering sociopathic gay son of Phil Mitchell, the kid who brained Shirley's so-called BFF, they haven't been watching the programme closely enough.
An astute viewer wondered if Phil had been substituted for Sharon in those scenes with Ian, but I think Phil's presence was a contrivance for Ian's foreshadowed remark about Phil making good with Ben, which resulted in Phil finding out about Ben's release.
And here's another thought to ponder: Ben's been out and about for more a month, which would mean he was a free man (but not in Paris) on the night his niece Lucy met her end. Yet another suspect, as quirky and capable of murder as Roswell Ronnie rears his little pointed head. He would also have a motive, as skewed as it is. Remember Ian shopped Ben to the police for perverting the course of justice when he lied about Phil killing Stella, and Ben thought Heather had been behind this, which resulted in her death at Ben's hands.
Shirley, Queen of Scrotes.
If DTC's pet project is to turn the scrotic Shirley into Walford royalty, I hereby deem her Shirley, Queen of Scrotes.
She's certainly experienced her share of cock bags.
Another long hello with Dean comes to an end. How many duff-duffs has Dean received this time around, compared to Stacey? Interesting to note that Matt di Angelo would like to see a Dean-Stacey pairing. I've called this since I knew the pair of them were returning. They have a history, they both knew Bradley, and I'd say it's on the cards. TPTB have a way of integrating Princess Stacey into whatever family is ruling the Square at the moment - previously, they contrived to make her a Branning twice, this time around, she'll have something to do with the Carters (Stean? Stick?), rest assured.
Here's a question:- Shirley abandoned Dean as a baby. Kevin raised him and his sister. Since Shirley had no contact with Kevin and the kids, indeed no one knew where she was, it stands to reason that Kevin didn't waste any time hanging out with his in-laws, allowing his kids to get to know their mother's family. Shirley's seen Dean, most certainly before tonight - since 2008 in fact. We know that Stan's made contact with Dean, although how that was accomplished on Dean's part is anyone's guess. But all of the assembled Carters - Mick, Linda, and Johnny all stared agog at Dean's entrance tonight. How would they have even known who he was, if Mick hadn't seen him since he was a baby. Mick's only about 11 years older than Dean anyway, which would mean Linda had never seen him. Apart from baby pictures Shirley may have had, how, just how would Dean be known to them?
The obvious question is: has someone been at the retcon cabinet again?
The other revelation tonight was Stan. We're coming closer to finding out the reason behind Shirley the Scrote's animosity towards her old man. So Stan's not the ogre some people think he is. Shirley is one effed-up beeyatch, and I think the core of her problem was touched upon by Stan tonight - she's more like him than she'd care to admit or wants to admit. Stan admitted he was a drunk - and you'll notice that Mick rations Stan's booze. That was a tip to Stan's recognition that Shirley does have a drink problem, so there's yet another family on the Square with generational drink issues - the Mitchells, the Brannings and now the Carters.
Of course, the entire "big" Carter storyline is but a massive PR exercise designed to get people who deplore Shirley on the side of this marmite character. Stan had plenty of remarks to make tonight about Shirley walking away from situations or abandoning them. We know she abandoned her children. Yet Stan lied to Mick and Linda and credited Shirley with knowing what to do and dealing with Nancy when she had her epileptic episode. That's the second lie he's told to protect or promote Shirley since he came there, and that was at a time when she was prepared to pitch him onto the street.
Stan knows what to do when a person has an epileptic seizure, but was coy about his knowledge. Oh, and it's nice the Scrote finally spared a thought about her son, Jimbo.
How many clocked her presumption in packing Stan's bags and trying to kick him out of her pub.
They decapitated Mary Queen of Scots. I hope they do worse to the Queen of Scrotes.
Out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings.
I'm sorry, but Carol marrying David in white? It reminded me of Tanya's successive white weddings, and all I could think of was mutton-dressed-as-lamb. As much as Liam has got the wrong end of the stick about David having an affair with Nikki, he knows that David is throwing money at Carol to hide the fact that ... well, that he's just not into commitment. There was one line she uttered tonight which reeked of foreshadowing, and I can't remember it, but it SCREAMED the fact that either there wouldn't be a wedding or that it would all end in tears for Carol. As usual. David throws money at her and she feeds his ever-expanding waistline. Maybe she figures that if he's fine, fat and over forty, he won't be able to charm the women. Phil Mitchell, anyone?
Cracking episode. How long has it been since I've said that, eh?
You've been caught playing with yourself too many times to mention. Now, off you go to look for Lucy's bag that you stated quite matter-of-factly wasn't with her body. How interesting a life is it, being a fraud? This one's for you ...
Pass the little prick his air-guitar. There's a good boy.
Now, onto the review.
This was one of the best episodes of the Messiah's tenure, but not for the reasons you think.
First and foremost, DTC employed the use of a singular themed thread weaving throughout the episode, the way previous producers did, most notably in the 1990s. The theme of last night's episode was lost children.
Think about it - Lucy lost to Ian, Ben lost to Phil, Dean lost to Shirley. Those are the obvious ones. But then, there are David and Ian, lost to Pat (David) and Pete (David and Ian); there's Shirley lost to Stan, Rainie lost to Cora, Nick lost, maybe forever, to Dot, Bella lost to Jake.
All of these weave a tangled web, peripherally running around the Lucy storyline, which should be acting as the centrifugal force driving the rest of the energy throughout the show. Sadly, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it borders on the ludicrous fantasy dish of green eggs and ham,and slightly over-egged at that.
Over-Egged and Uneasy.
Ian's daughter has been murdered. She's dead. As a doornail. He's hurting immensely. So is Peter. But why am I not moved to tears? Why am I not showing more compassion?
Maybe it's because, even though she was an important legacy character, I don't give a rat's arse about Lucy Beale's death. The character, herself, was eminently unlikeable, and played, on her last two incarnations, by actresses who were variously cold, limited and, in the case of the most recent, pretty crap, to put it bluntly.
Maybe it's because Ian Beale, himself, has been a very unsympathetic character. Let's face it, the only person who feels any sort of pity for Ian is Ian, himself, and whatever dopey, bovine woman he's duping into his bed (for financial security), and, yes, I do mean Jane the Cow ...
For years, Ian has been smug, condescending, rude, arrogant and superior, both in his dealings and reactions to the circumstances of people who live in Albert Square. He has no respect. People's considerations of Ian range from disdain to disrespect. He never learns from his mistakes until the mistakes rear up and bit him in his expanding arse, and then he starts to cry.
May I remind people of Ian's most monumental lie, concerning Lucy during her childhood? The one about Lucy having cancer in order to get Mel to sta in his bed?
Here, let me remind you ...
Lucy's death karma much?
Mostly, my unease comes from knowing what a deeply petty and unlikeable little man, who'll be back to treating people like shit sooner, rather than later; but mostly, it comes down to hating the innately subtle prejudices which Ian and pretty Peter the Prat are allowing to come to the fore, but are simultaneously hiding behind the excuse of grief for Lucy, a cold-hearted, selfish bitch of a girl who'd do anything to further her own interests.
So we are treated to yet another episode where Ian sulks and whines about losing everything, whilst sitting stiffly beside Denise from whom he's as far removed emotionally as if he were in Antarctica. Whilst his pratboy nice-but-dim son tries to extricate himself from a relationship which he initiated, but for whom he is using his so-called grief to excuse caddish behaviour.
I wish EastEnders would address these prejudicial issues - Peter's obvious problem with the fact that the girl he's initially chosen to sleep with is a charming little Cockney sparrow chav, with emphasis on the chav, so far removed from this lazy, entitled posh-sounding barrowboy, who reckons himself miles above her in social standing. Then there's Ian's more troublesome association with Denise. The actress, herself, describes Ian's attitude toward Denise as considering her as being "the Help."
Now, I realise that the term "the Help" might be lost on a legion of British television viewers, so let me show you what "the Help" means ...
Yep, that's right. From the moment Ian gave Denise that racially-charged oven glove to the moment he budged Denise out of the "family" photo to be replaced by the bovine but white-faced Jane to the instant next week where he pointedly denies Denise the privilege of sitting as family at Skeletor's funeral, Ian's racism reeks from the very pores of his skin.
Once again, however, it's Phil Mitchell - Phil Mitchell -who arrives to bolster Ian Beale's confidence and to help him deal with his grief.
Phil, not Sharon. Just as it was Shirley, not Sharon, in Tuesday's episode who dealt with Dot.
Where is Sharon?
Sharon is his long-time friend. Is she overly preoccupied with a child whom we never see anymore and this big-time bar she's been given "to bring her back to her former glory" which we've only seen once? Is this a con? A sop for long-term viewers as a scant demonstration of respect.
Not that Phil could do anything for Ian or, really, that Ian wanted him to do anything. Ian is mourning Lucy, and as much as he's mourning Lucy, he's mourning Cindy again as well, and she's someone he's never gotten over. So when Ian goes on about how much he's missing her, that's a double-edged sword. As for dead Lucy, as I've said before, there was an intrinsic difference in the two Lucies we had from adolescence onward: Suffield Lucy hated Ian, but she knew that Ian loved her unconditionally, and that whenever she got into any sort of trouble, Ian would fight hell and high water to protect her. She knew what side her bread was buttered on and knew that, whoever Ian's current wife might be, he'd choose his children over the woman. Bywater Lucy, however, hated Ian and actually believed he hated her as well - or rather, that he preferred her other siblings to her. Ne'mind the fact that she'd treated Ian abysmally when he was in the throes of mental illness and scammed his businesses from him.
Ian's still saying he's lost everything with Lucy's death, although tonight he managed to acknowledge that - boohoo - he's lost Bobby and Jane as well. Pardon me, but Ian lost Jane the day Jane decided she wanted a divorce, and Ian's losing Bobby was his own fault, admitting the truth under the duress of grief that he'd never loved Bobby the way he loved Lucy, simply because Bobby wasn't a "Cindy" child. In the general scheme of things in Bealedom, Cindy Williams Jnr ranks higher in Ian's estimation than poor Bobby, because she has the "Cindy" gene.
So forgive me if I'm losing patience with Ian's grief, which is more and more about Ian than it is about a lost child, which seemed to be the theme of the episode tonight - lost children: Lucy lost to Ian through death, Ben lost to Phil, Dean lost to Shirley and even Shirley lost to Stan.
A lot of Lucy's death has been a showcase for Adam Woodyatt's party piece of Ian Beale crying, but what annoys me most about this is the relative cowardice and sheer meanness of Ian and Peter, hiding behind grief and using it as an excuse to psychologically and emotionally mistreat women who've devoted themselves to them in a craven hope that these women will walk away from the relationship and allow Ian and Peter to play the victim. Even now, Ian bleats on about losing Jane and dismisses Denise's very existence when Phil brings her name up.
Peter and Lauren deserve each other. Last week, Lauren made Lucy's death all about Lauren, and this week it's all about Peter. Boo-hoo! Dad always liked Lucy best. Boo-hoo! He never loved me, even when he was handing me a hundred quid to buy some trainers down the street and the same amount for Lucy to buy the latest Ipod. The King and Queen of Millennial EastEnders. Lucy's death is all about them. How's poor Lauren going to run that joke of a business? How's poor Peter going to rid himself of Lola? Go on, or gwan, as Mrs Yvonne Not-Cotton Doyle, would say, talk at each other and don't listen. After all, the world revolves around your arse. It's the way you've been raised.
At least, it was something positive to see Lauren wondering what would happen if Jake really didn't kill Lucy? That's food for thought outside her capacity of self-absorption.
By the Pricking of My Thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes.
And so a new
Yes, it's that boy again. Ben. It's always Ben. Ben is responsible for everything. Why not be responsible for Lucy's death.
The biggest highlight of the night: Ben has been released from prison! (Cue "Jaws" music).
Ben is out there somewhere. How, I'm not sure because he was sentenced in 2012 to 4 years for manslaughter. Even taking time served on remand before sentencing, the two-year minimum sentence to serve before probational release wouldn't come about until late August or September. Still, he's out. Now, notice this little subtlety of DTC. What or who is the first person we see in the next scene? Sweet Johnny Carter traipsing across the Square to the Vic after actually spending a day at uni, watched by someone in a hoodie. Well, we know that someone in a hoodie was Dean (easy peasy), but it fostered a soupcon of foreshadowing, because if anyone didn't see Johnny as the gay nephew of Shirley the Scrote, eventually coupling with the dysfunctional, manslaughtering sociopathic gay son of Phil Mitchell, the kid who brained Shirley's so-called BFF, they haven't been watching the programme closely enough.
An astute viewer wondered if Phil had been substituted for Sharon in those scenes with Ian, but I think Phil's presence was a contrivance for Ian's foreshadowed remark about Phil making good with Ben, which resulted in Phil finding out about Ben's release.
And here's another thought to ponder: Ben's been out and about for more a month, which would mean he was a free man (but not in Paris) on the night his niece Lucy met her end. Yet another suspect, as quirky and capable of murder as Roswell Ronnie rears his little pointed head. He would also have a motive, as skewed as it is. Remember Ian shopped Ben to the police for perverting the course of justice when he lied about Phil killing Stella, and Ben thought Heather had been behind this, which resulted in her death at Ben's hands.
She's certainly experienced her share of cock bags.
Another long hello with Dean comes to an end. How many duff-duffs has Dean received this time around, compared to Stacey? Interesting to note that Matt di Angelo would like to see a Dean-Stacey pairing. I've called this since I knew the pair of them were returning. They have a history, they both knew Bradley, and I'd say it's on the cards. TPTB have a way of integrating Princess Stacey into whatever family is ruling the Square at the moment - previously, they contrived to make her a Branning twice, this time around, she'll have something to do with the Carters (Stean? Stick?), rest assured.
Here's a question:- Shirley abandoned Dean as a baby. Kevin raised him and his sister. Since Shirley had no contact with Kevin and the kids, indeed no one knew where she was, it stands to reason that Kevin didn't waste any time hanging out with his in-laws, allowing his kids to get to know their mother's family. Shirley's seen Dean, most certainly before tonight - since 2008 in fact. We know that Stan's made contact with Dean, although how that was accomplished on Dean's part is anyone's guess. But all of the assembled Carters - Mick, Linda, and Johnny all stared agog at Dean's entrance tonight. How would they have even known who he was, if Mick hadn't seen him since he was a baby. Mick's only about 11 years older than Dean anyway, which would mean Linda had never seen him. Apart from baby pictures Shirley may have had, how, just how would Dean be known to them?
The obvious question is: has someone been at the retcon cabinet again?
The other revelation tonight was Stan. We're coming closer to finding out the reason behind Shirley the Scrote's animosity towards her old man. So Stan's not the ogre some people think he is. Shirley is one effed-up beeyatch, and I think the core of her problem was touched upon by Stan tonight - she's more like him than she'd care to admit or wants to admit. Stan admitted he was a drunk - and you'll notice that Mick rations Stan's booze. That was a tip to Stan's recognition that Shirley does have a drink problem, so there's yet another family on the Square with generational drink issues - the Mitchells, the Brannings and now the Carters.
Of course, the entire "big" Carter storyline is but a massive PR exercise designed to get people who deplore Shirley on the side of this marmite character. Stan had plenty of remarks to make tonight about Shirley walking away from situations or abandoning them. We know she abandoned her children. Yet Stan lied to Mick and Linda and credited Shirley with knowing what to do and dealing with Nancy when she had her epileptic episode. That's the second lie he's told to protect or promote Shirley since he came there, and that was at a time when she was prepared to pitch him onto the street.
Stan knows what to do when a person has an epileptic seizure, but was coy about his knowledge. Oh, and it's nice the Scrote finally spared a thought about her son, Jimbo.
How many clocked her presumption in packing Stan's bags and trying to kick him out of her pub.
They decapitated Mary Queen of Scots. I hope they do worse to the Queen of Scrotes.
Out of the Mouths of Babes and Sucklings.
I'm sorry, but Carol marrying David in white? It reminded me of Tanya's successive white weddings, and all I could think of was mutton-dressed-as-lamb. As much as Liam has got the wrong end of the stick about David having an affair with Nikki, he knows that David is throwing money at Carol to hide the fact that ... well, that he's just not into commitment. There was one line she uttered tonight which reeked of foreshadowing, and I can't remember it, but it SCREAMED the fact that either there wouldn't be a wedding or that it would all end in tears for Carol. As usual. David throws money at her and she feeds his ever-expanding waistline. Maybe she figures that if he's fine, fat and over forty, he won't be able to charm the women. Phil Mitchell, anyone?
Cracking episode. How long has it been since I've said that, eh?
No comments:
Post a Comment