I’m reaching the point where I don’t want to review Blue Bloods. Simply put, there’s little to say. The writers constantly use the dinner table as a crutch for further conversations, never deviating from the set structure. This leads to the usual complaints how the writers can’t think of better ways for the family members to speak, but the writers continue to have the dinner table talk every week. This week, the family gathers for the umpteenth time and talk about Valentine’s Day. There’s a good scene between Frank and Nicky towards the end, but that’s after the frustrating dinner.
There are the crimes which are never interesting or innovative. This week, there’s a case about a kidnapped girl who turns out to have orchestrated it herself to get her parents to stop fighting (yeah…). We’ve seen this happen on other television shows many times and it’s just boring.
Finally, the moral implications of the show are stupid. The Reagans are always right. Always. Not matter the torture or various questionable activites, the Reagans are always the big heroes in the end. They can question the morality of certain actions, but never the moraility of people. Why? And talk about an abuse of power. Frank uses his position to save the cleaner’s son. Regardless of innocence or guilt, Frank stepped across the line by personally meeting the detective and using selective words. If you ask me, he acts like a mob boss in this scenario, suggesting but not ordering explicitly. How is Frank portrayed, however? He’s a righteous hero, of course!
Tags: Blue Bloods