HBO The Undoing

[Anonymous]

I mean really with the hammer. That's what made it a garbage show. AND then the kid finds it and instead of throwing it in the water, he puts it through the dish washer TWICE and no one notices and then he brings it BACK home and puts it in his violin case. i mean honestly. i would have liked the ending better if he had driven off the bridge with his son.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean really with the hammer. That's what made it a garbage show. AND then the kid finds it and instead of throwing it in the water, he puts it through the dish washer TWICE and no one notices and then he brings it BACK home and puts it in his violin case. i mean honestly. i would have liked the ending better if he had driven off the bridge with his son.

The hammer was stupid. He put it thru a dishwasher 2x after arriving to a vacation home that wouldn’t have had 2 loads worth of dishes - and mom notices nothing? Or he puts it they the dishwasher at grampa’s house where the maid notices nothing?

That said...the scene where the hammer knocks the girlfriend out was extremely well done - looked very real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was interesting how the murder wasn't planned. Like he'd been sleeping with her for awhile, she came after him after the rejection.... and it almost seemed like he did it by accident. Weird twist.

accident?

no darling, it's called "in a fit of rage"

He was outraged that she hit him. How dare she!

[Anonymous]

What an unsatisfying ending!

I thought the first episode was excellent. The last episode was rushed and a let down. No way would a good lawyer let the wife take the stand, or not know about the tuxedo. Oooh look a rich person helicopter chase scene. Dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an unsatisfying ending!

I thought the first episode was excellent. The last episode was rushed and a let down. No way would a good lawyer let the wife take the stand, or not know about the tuxedo. Oooh look a rich person helicopter chase scene. Dumb.

+1. Or not know about the 911 call, or not prepare for a cross examination. The finale sucked.

[Anonymous]

I thought it was weird that hat they made Hugh Grant look so much older. In his interviews (Colbert, for example) you can clearly see he doesn’t have that weathered skin, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Like some others on here I actually thought that Hugh Grant was pretty good in the role. Yes he is obviously too old. But I honestly had no idea whether or not he did it until the very end. He does play that bumbling English thing where he kind of looks around like “who me?” and it does make you wonder. It did seem a bit unrealistic to me that someone who is so unbelievably caring in his professional life could be such a psycho – especially when it looked like he was trying to put it on the son.

I didn’t hate Nicole Kidman in this role either. I thought she pulled it off pretty well. Also too old but she obviously looks younger because of all the surgery. The lawyers acting was outstanding as was Henry’s.

Why was Nicole Kidman too old? Plenty of rich, successful women have kids when they’re older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kidman’s botox makes her look almost unrecognizable and the fillers on her upper lip are just weird.

Not just Botox - she’s had a facelift too.

[Anonymous]

None of this made any sense on a legal level. In fact there’s no reason for Grace to testify in the first place. She has no relevant fact testimony about the crime and asking her professional opinion of her husband’s character? Please. No judge would allow her to serve as an expert witness in her husband’s defense. And then the idea that this was a “statement against interest” so it was admissible? That has to be a statement made by the witness testifying, not some third person speaking in the past that she is recounting. Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay. So stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this made any sense on a legal level. In fact there’s no reason for Grace to testify in the first place. She has no relevant fact testimony about the crime and asking her professional opinion of her husband’s character? Please. No judge would allow her to serve as an expert witness in her husband’s defense. And then the idea that this was a “statement against interest” so it was admissible? That has to be a statement made by the witness testifying, not some third person speaking in the past that she is recounting. Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay. So stupid.

She wasn’t supposed to testify. She asked the defense attorney to put her up there because she wanted to sabotage Jonathon’s chance of a not guilty plea which was very likely after the Miguel’s testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this made any sense on a legal level. In fact there’s no reason for Grace to testify in the first place. She has no relevant fact testimony about the crime and asking her professional opinion of her husband’s character? Please. No judge would allow her to serve as an expert witness in her husband’s defense. And then the idea that this was a “statement against interest” so it was admissible? That has to be a statement made by the witness testifying, not some third person speaking in the past that she is recounting. Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay. So stupid.

She wasn’t supposed to testify. She asked the defense attorney to put her up there because she wanted to sabotage Jonathon’s chance of a not guilty plea which was very likely after the Miguel’s testimony.

Witnesses can't just ask to testify because they feel like it. Their testimony has to be material and relevant. My point is that no judge would have found a proffer of her testimony either material or relevant and the substance of her testimony (about the sister's death) was complete hearsay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this made any sense on a legal level. In fact there’s no reason for Grace to testify in the first place. She has no relevant fact testimony about the crime and asking her professional opinion of her husband’s character? Please. No judge would allow her to serve as an expert witness in her husband’s defense. And then the idea that this was a “statement against interest” so it was admissible? That has to be a statement made by the witness testifying, not some third person speaking in the past that she is recounting. Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay. So stupid.

She wasn’t supposed to testify. She asked the defense attorney to put her up there because she wanted to sabotage Jonathon’s chance of a not guilty plea which was very likely after the Miguel’s testimony.

Witnesses can't just ask to testify because they feel like it. Their testimony has to be material and relevant. My point is that no judge would have found a proffer of her testimony either material or relevant and the substance of her testimony (about the sister's death) was complete hearsay.

Agreed. I totally stopped watching during that scene. Mockery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this made any sense on a legal level. In fact there’s no reason for Grace to testify in the first place. She has no relevant fact testimony about the crime and asking her professional opinion of her husband’s character? Please. No judge would allow her to serve as an expert witness in her husband’s defense. And then the idea that this was a “statement against interest” so it was admissible? That has to be a statement made by the witness testifying, not some third person speaking in the past that she is recounting. Hearsay within hearsay within hearsay. So stupid.

Yep. This is when I knew the show had jumped the shark. A statement against declaring interest was not what nicole testified about. I mean Grant’s mother was the declaring and she was not on trial. Sloppy, sloppy at the end. And Nicole’s face did not move once during her entire testimony. WTH. Her entire face was plastic, and I have no problem with Botox and filler in moderation. It’s obvious she went overboard on her usage.

[Anonymous]

Can we talk about how beyond the tough "Yass Queen" exterior, Jonathan's lawyer was incredibly sh!tty and just got completely dunked on in court?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we talk about how beyond the tough "Yass Queen" exterior, Jonathan's lawyer was incredibly sh!tty and just got completely dunked on in court?

She seemed to make every decision on the spur of the moment and by group consensus.