Spoiler not needed put anyway..............












Without giving anything away since the title is: Mr Monk Gets Drunk...this
episode's last half is just too, too funny. Especially with the Captain.

BsT

"Beowulfie" <enigma@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11f8b4ikhludc20@corp.supernews.com...
> Spoiler not needed put anyway..............

> Without giving anything away since the title is: Mr Monk Gets Drunk...this
> episode's last half is just too, too funny. Especially with the Captain.


Gotta say, I really liked it.
Again though, Traylor with the weird clothes - what was that red sweater all
about? (the yellow one at the beginning was much more, well, normal).

Anyway, this episode takes my much hated plot device - that of the detective
going somewhere on vacation or whatnot, and, what are the odds, a murder
happens. How convenient. However, this is the way to do it if it has to be
done (and it did have to be done) - that is, there wasn't really a murder,
only a disappearance, and the real murder happened elsewhere - and then the
two coincide - I like that much better - seems a little more plausible.

I noticed the poker "tell" right off, and I knew that the digital photo
would have something to do with it. But I was actually beginning to believe
they were all playing a friendly trick on Monk because of his solving the
previous year's murder mystery - they were all in on it trying to trip him
up - little did I know they'd all be "in on it" in the end.


Is this the first murder he solved "by proxy"? - he caught a murderer, whose
case he wasn't working - before he actually solved (i.e. found - which
Natalie actually did) the disappearance.

Only really bad thing I thought was Natalie taking on a "Professional Hit
Man" who has a gun on her with the Drunken Monk in tow - not a very safe
thing to do. I would think a hired killer would likely be able to overpower
her.

Steve

Steve Latham wrote:
>snip<

> I noticed the poker "tell" right off, and I knew that the digital photo
> would have something to do with it. But I was actually beginning to believe
> they were all playing a friendly trick on Monk because of his solving the
> previous year's murder mystery - they were all in on it trying to trip him
> up - little did I know they'd all be "in on it" in the end.

The part that I thought was dumb was that the innkeeper was in on it,
too. She told Natalie how Monk solved a previous year's murder mystery
weekend puzzle in such a short time (can't remember if it was minutes
or hours) and said that they would make sure NOT to plan any more while
he was visiting. Surely she must have known that it wasn't a good idea
to cover up the death while he was there. I know that they wanted him
to think he was crazy for insisting he had met the man the previous
night, and that seemed to be too similar to what happened to Sharona in
Cried Wolf, in season 3.

--
Liz

"Elizabeth Blake" <poodlebone@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1123340388.995051.231400@g14g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

>
> The part that I thought was dumb was that the innkeeper was in on it,
> too. She told Natalie how Monk solved a previous year's murder mystery
> weekend puzzle in such a short time (can't remember if it was minutes
> or hours)

12 minutes IIRC

and said that they would make sure NOT to plan any more while
> he was visiting. Surely she must have known that it wasn't a good idea
> to cover up the death while he was there.

You would think so wouldn't you. She'd be like, I don't know if we should do
this, this guy Adrian is here and he'll figure it out. Then of course
someone else said, 3.1 million dollars - she did seem a little bitter about
having to issue refunds last year, maybe she was trying to get back at him.
And people do a lot of non-sensical things for a lot less money.
Furthermore, they probably justified it by saying to themselves "we didn't
kill him and if no one knows he has this money, no one will miss it".

The flaw to me is that, they could have taken the money, split it up, and
then just discovered the body (but maybe they were afraid it'd get into the
papers and someone would miss that amount of money.

I especially loved the car bit - taking of the wheels and hitting it with
the hammer!

Steve

> Is this the first murder he solved "by proxy"? - he caught a murderer, whose
> case he wasn't working - before he actually solved (i.e. found - which
> Natalie actually did) the disappearance.

There was the episode when he was reading the newspaper, and read about
the murder in France (the victim's hands were cut off, and it involved
antique handcuffs in a museum), and solved that murder and phoned the
French police then went back to the case at hand.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 11:26:38 -0700, mpoconnor7@aol.com
<mpoconnor7@aol.com> wrote:

>
>> Is this the first murder he solved "by proxy"? - he caught a murderer,
>> whose
>> case he wasn't working - before he actually solved (i.e. found - which
>> Natalie actually did) the disappearance.
>
> There was the episode when he was reading the newspaper, and read about
> the murder in France (the victim's hands were cut off, and it involved
> antique handcuffs in a museum), and solved that murder and phoned the
> French police then went back to the case at hand.
>

He also solved a hit and run murder that was unrelated in that episode
didn't he?

In article <iUXIe.586$2j.144@trnddc07>, Steve Latham
<llatham@verizon.net> wrote:

> I would think a hired killer would likely be able to overpower
> her.

Not necessarily, if he's used to having a gun against unarmed amateurs.
A low level hit man sent after the fat guys who dabble in fraud against
organized crime. That would make a person cold blooded, but doesn't
suddenly turn them into Bruce Lee.

Personally, *I* get weary of the uber-hitman character with mad kung fu
skillz of the gods able to dodge bullets like he's One with the Matrix.
See the movie Collateral for a particulary ridiculous example.

A freind of mine used to be a cop, and he told me plenty of stories
about these thug killers. They may have a dozen murders under their
belt, but in a physical brawl they're no better than anyone else.
Worse, even, if they are dependent unequal situations.

In article <1123340388.995051.231400@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>,
Elizabeth Blake <poodlebone@earthlink.net> wrote:

> The part that I thought was dumb was that the innkeeper was in on it,
> too. She told Natalie how Monk solved a previous year's murder mystery
> weekend puzzle in such a short time (can't remember if it was minutes
> or hours) and said that they would make sure NOT to plan any more while
> he was visiting. Surely she must have known that it wasn't a good idea
> to cover up the death while he was there.

Pfft. People *murder* for the contents of a wallet. You think $3.1
million isn't going to make them even less rational?

And it's what drove the whole scam. If not for Monk, they could have
just buried the guy and never worried about it again. Their elaborate
charade was specifically because she knew Monk would be hard to fool.
Erase the guy's existence and put the body somewhere hard to find until
the heat was off.

The Aqua Velva in the wine was a great "Ewwwww!" moment. :)

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:23:58 -0700, Quiet Desperation
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:


>The Aqua Velva in the wine was a great "Ewwwww!" moment. :)

Why were they drawing directly off a casket of wine? I can't remember;
was that wine out of a carafe or bottle?

"Brian" <drmorrisnospam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:494bf1h1s0m64eakjeclv99p1f9nptborr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:23:58 -0700, Quiet Desperation
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The Aqua Velva in the wine was a great "Ewwwww!" moment. :)
>
> Why were they drawing directly off a casket of wine? I can't remember;
> was that wine out of a carafe or bottle?

That was the house wine... remember, the "foot wine". It was in bottles but
that's why it was being served. There were only a few barrels of it.
That's also why Monk would never have found it, he wouldn't drink it after
he saw how they made it.

Tom P.

Yes, I remember now!

Thanks

Steve
<mpoconnor7@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1123352798.678015.296170@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
>> Is this the first murder he solved "by proxy"? - he caught a murderer,
>> whose
>> case he wasn't working - before he actually solved (i.e. found - which
>> Natalie actually did) the disappearance.
>
> There was the episode when he was reading the newspaper, and read about
> the murder in France (the victim's hands were cut off, and it involved
> antique handcuffs in a museum), and solved that murder and phoned the
> French police then went back to the case at hand.
>

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:24:50 GMT, "Henry Padilla"
<padillah@hotmail.com> wrote:


>That was the house wine... remember, the "foot wine". It was in bottles but
>that's why it was being served. There were only a few barrels of it.
>That's also why Monk would never have found it, he wouldn't drink it after
>he saw how they made it.
>
>Tom P.
>

Right. Thanks.

In article <iUXIe.586$2j.144@trnddc07>, Steve Latham
<llatham@verizon.net> wrote:

> Anyway, this episode takes my much hated plot device - that of the detective
> going somewhere on vacation or whatnot, and, what are the odds, a murder
> happens. How convenient. However, this is the way to do it if it has to be
> done (and it did have to be done) - that is, there wasn't really a murder,
> only a disappearance, and the real murder happened elsewhere - and then the
> two coincide - I like that much better - seems a little more plausible.


I liked this one, too.

There was a whiff of -- no, not Aqua Velva, but familiarity about this
episode. There's an ancient urban legend about a hotel guest who makes
friends with another woman staying at the same hotel. Then the friend
disappears overnight and no one seems to have ever seen her or heard of
her. Eventually it comes out that the friend came down with some
horrible disease (smallpox or the plague) and she was made to disappear
in order to prevent a panic. There's a first-season (1955-56) Alfred
Hitchcock episode based on this story. It's called "Into Thin Air."