Season 2 Episode 16


Aired Friday 10:00 PM Mar 03, 2006 on CBS

Episode Fan Reviews (10)

Write A Review
out of 10
180 votes
  • Does everything its says on the tin

    Not the best episode, but still one of quality. Those interest in the storyline and the reoccurance of anti-war terrorism from Viet, to the present day will think this deserves a greater mark.

    The whole thing works well and the finale is a few points above average, though these is no sense of satisfaction and thus you will be left feeling - what was that about!

    Overall, the trail of clues are pretty logical in their conception, and do a decent job of exciting the viewer. The threat overhanging the team and public is real, if somewhat contained by the bombers rather low goals!

    Dialogue is about average.

    The only really intriguing aspects in this episode was Charlies dad being involved with the original unibomber and the problems that causes for him on the job. The other is the boys relationship with their father who tries to explain their then reasoning for anti-war and never ever wanting any part in the violence, but understanding that there was a need for it, to get their message heard, but w/o hurting anyone one - a fine line to tread!

    Worth a watch, but dont expect much in the way of high octane action!
  • Review

    I didnt think there was any useful math used during the duration of the entire episode. There was no cool analogys used to explain the interactions of what Charlie was talking about, which took a lot away from the episode for me. The daughter and Charlie seemed to have a really good on screen connection, though I doubt it will ever turn into anything serious in the episodes to come. The case in question seemed far to random and the conclusion was one that there was no way for us to even "connect the guilty" during the duration of the episode...if that makes sense. With most crime drama you can guess the bad guy, but in that there was one random twist at the end of the episode and then all of a sudden they had there bad guy. I wasnt really buying into the case, the tension at home seemed kind of over dramataic, and the only really part that saved it for me was Charlie and the Daughters on screen connection...which was about 2 minutes of on screen time.
  • A serial bomber seemingly reappearing after 30 years causes problems between Don and his father.

    This was another great episode. Judd Hirsch is finally allowed to flesh his character out and into something more than a slightly over-protective father.

    I like how they went into the FBI's shady past. A lot of shows make it seem like these various agencies can do no wrong, so it was nice of them to acknowledge the crimes of the past.

    This episode shows just how good a person Don is. He's not going all John Wayne on us, but rather he is allowed through his dialog to make social commentary that shows he is a thinking man and not just part of a machine.

    However, I don't think the bombing of the statue at the college was a copycat bombing like everyone thought. It was totally an art critic. And you KNOW that everyone (while "shocked" at the bombing) was secretly rejoicing at the destruction of the horrid thing. Admit it.
  • Great Episode with a funny bit of trivia - Robert Forster (Thomas Larson) Says \\\"I was Sisco\\\" - He was Marshall Sisco on the shoe Karen Sisco.

    This episode showed that Don and his father may be differnt but that Don trusted his father to be a good man at heart to the extent that he never took the time to fully read his fathers FBI file. This episode was more about personal issues then some math problem Charlie could solve. Don and Charlie had to prove the guilt or inosence of a man that was a friend of their father and he was convinced the man was not guilty. In the end they cleared Stirlings name and caught the true criminals of the 1970 and the current bombings. The funny thing in this episode was the line from Robert Forster (Thomas Larson) when he says \\\"I was Sisco\\\" - he played a character named Marshall Sisco in an earlier tv series.
  • This was an okay episode but it left me confused.

    They talked about what happened 35 yrs ago, Don mentioned being 3 yrs old when Alan was arrested. Does that mean that the Don character is 38 yrs old or did this happen after 1971. There suppose to be 5 yrs between Don's and Charlie's character, does that mean that Charlie is 33? Then he has aged 3 yrs in 2 seasons. Oh well, it was a pretty good episode anyway.
  • Not the best episode of Numb3rs.

    Here are my thoughts on the episode.

    - I really thought they need more math. I really can't remember any real math they did. They had some good places they could of used math.

    - The previews were very misleading. I was expecting more of a plot with them suspecting Alan, but all they really did was talk about Alan's past as a protester.

    - I did like how they talked about Alan's past though. It made some touching family moments.

    - Not very 'on the edge of your seat' episode. I knew that the old agent was the one guy (yes, I forgot the name).
  • Not one of the best Numb3rs episodes, but I still enjoyed watching it.

    This episode was pretty interesting. We learn a little bit more about Alan in his youth. I think the episode promo was misleading. I thought it was going to be an episode where Alan was going to be a prime suspect, and it was going to test Don and Charlie. But, it turns out that he merely was an aquantince of the person the FBI was looking for. The episode is more driven towards FBI investigating than actual math, which is a break from what the show normally does. I think it was a good move. I mean, every case can't have a magical formula that will solve the mystery.
  • More math needed!

    As much as I love this show, I was slightly dissapointed. There was hardly any math involved and that's the cool part of the show. First season, and the first few of the second, did a lot better concentrating on the math. The character interactions were not bad and the storyline was good, but more math needs to be involved. Drift back to the math!
  • Decent episode with minimal attention to the mathematical side that makes this show different.

    Decent episode with minimal attention to the mathematical side that makes this show different. It stands to reason that they can't whip out odd-ball math theory in depth for every show, so every now and then you get "average". The old-timer FBI agent was cardboard cutout stuff. We've certainly gotten better efforts over the course of this series. The writers could've played more toward the relationship of the activists with the Judd Hirsch character, a missed opportunity to heighten tension and further flesh out the characters. Anyone else notice "Essays on Revolution" cover listed the show's writers as the authors? I always enjoy finding things embedded in shows/movies in that way.
  • Um.. why?!? What show is this again? Childish and agenda driven soap-opera episode. (spoilers, but better to read them then watch the episode in my opinion)

    Ok, first off, there was no real ‘Numb3rs’ stuff, just regular TV-investigation stuff, and even that was small. The episode was just a political statement, soap-opera that had nothing to do with anything but agendas. You can agree with their view or not, don’t really matter; it was a BAD episode of Numb3rs. Also another TV show this week, Criminal Minds, did something very similar, bring in an ‘old-school’ detective that is closed minded and the focus of the ‘bad-agenda-driven-cop’.. If it’s a bad idea it don’t matter if it’s popular in Hollywood at the time, we are the ones that have to watch the crap till they get a new bandwagon to jump on. Childish, and crap I’m tired of from Hollywood. F’n get your head out of you’re a**’s Hollywood and make the show.
No results found.
No results found.
No results found.