"Murdoch Mysteries" On the Waterfront: Part 1 (TV Episode 2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Dockers, doxies and doctors, all getting out of hand
miles-3310821 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Richard Dawkins has invited several businessmen from around the Toronto docks, where he himself runs a chandlery, to a meal at the Queen's Hotel. It seems that he has an important announcement to make, but just as he is about to speak, two men dressed in black with masks burst into the hotel dining room and beat him to death with cudgels in front of the dinner guests, who are too shocked to intervene. Inspector Slorach, the replacement for Inspector Brackenreid, arrives at the scene and Murdoch diplomatically helps him avoid creating a poor impression when he helps himself to a bread roll from the dinner table.

Margaret Hale, a leading light in the movement for women's suffrage, has visited Dr Julia Ogden to persuade her to join in, because she is a prominent figure in Toronto society. Dr Ogden points out that she may not be an asset to the movement, given that many folk are likely to think of her as notorious, rather than famous.

The widow, Mrs Dawkins, is rather unforthcoming when interviewed by Detective Murdoch, though she does suggest that her late husband had been intending to sell his chandlery business to Lionel Jefferies, one of the dinner guests. When Detective Murdoch visits Mr Jefferies, he, too, has little to say about why Mr Dawkins may have wanted to sell his chandlery.

When Murdoch calls on The harbour master, Mrs Cecily McKinnon, another of the dinner guests, she is much more talkative. She begins by commiserating with Murdoch about what happened to Inspector Brackenreid, giving Murdoch the chance to ask her if she knew what he had been investigating at the docks, but she thought it was only a spate of petty vandalism. Mrs McKinnon tells Murdoch that Dawkins was anything but a saint, and had been involved in prostitution at the docks, which might be a clue in solving his slaying. In response, Murdoch arranges for Constable Slugger Jackson to walk his beat in the docks, but he, too, is set upon and is badly beaten by two thugs. This seems to support Murdoch's hypothesis that the men who beat Inspector Brackenreid are the same ones who killed Dawkins. Inspector Slorach visits Constable Jackson in hospital, bearing as a get well gift a jar of Káposzta, but Slugger has clearly never seen anything like it before, and looks unlikely to eat it.

When a dead woman is found at the high tide mark, snagged in fishing nets, on the shore, Murdoch learns from Mrs McKinnon that Richard Dawkins had a reputation for being rough with some of his doxies. Mrs Dawkins is continuing with her late husband's business, and does not take kindly to Detective Murdoch suggesting that he had been involved with loose women.

Margaret Hale, Kathleen King, and Drs Ogden and Grace visit provincial parliamentarian Eldon Foster, asking that he will present their petition to the Premier, asking that women be given the vote in the forthcoming provincial election, but after considering the matter for the briefest moment, he tears the petition up. Disgusted by this treatment, the women contemplate staging a protest in front of the Legislature.

Dr. Grace determines that the woman snagged in the fishing nets was killed the night before Dawkins and had been manacled before she died.

How will all these strands be brought together? When will William and Julia tie the knot? What did Slugger do with the Káposzta?
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
But...WHY that name?
katherinemch23 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I am so curious why they chose to name a victim after a living, very famous biologist and author. There must be billions of potential names they might pick from. Surely if they use a famous one it's not just coincidence, there's some reason? Yet nobody is talking about this. Is it just that the scriptwriter resents the real life Richard Dawkins, likely for his notoriously abrasive social media presence? I know back in highschool writing classes we sometimes got a giggle out of naming an ogre after our brother or having our frenemy's namesake soil themselves. Maybe someone just took childish amusement in having a Richard Dawkins be beaten to a pulp, and then his reputation as a bringer of light (candle seller) reframed as the facade of a truly repulsive beast. Cute that they let 14-year-olds write for this show, but ugh, it is distracting to have the characters constantly saying a famous name. What next, will someone named Kim Kardashian be murdered? I just think it would benefit the story greatly if whatever silliness led to this "homage" had been stifled.

As for the plot, yikes, lots of hate from other reviews. I don't think it's that odd that the stories focus on the women's rights movement, since it actually WAS a big background event for the time, plus two of the core characters are women in "men's jobs" who would have had to fight tooth and nail against misogynists just to have a chance at living their chosen life paths. Only the most stubborn, enthusiastic, norms-violating women could have made it to becoming doctors back then, so it's impossible Ogden and Grace would ignore such a thing as debate over their being treated as real human beings by their government. And why wouldn't the male characters who know full well from working with Grace and Ogden that women can be exceptionally brave, skilled, etc, but are often treated like children, why wouldn't they too be very interested in achieving gender equality? So if an issue was percolating in society in general at the time, and would be very dear to every heart in the gang, why is it unnatural that this issue would often be lurking around the edges of the plots? I just don't see it as all that forced. Hamhanded though? Perhaps. EVERY episode EVER from this show was a bit hamhanded. MM is a light, fun, cheesy show, not high art. Don't order McDonald's and then complain it's not gourmet. But it's not just the social progress moments in history that get shoehorned into the plots, we've seen cars and metal detectors and other inventions, as well as Houdini and other celebrities. MM is a bit like that song "We Didn't Start the Fire", listing off every bit of history they can think of. But nobody's here crying about the cars among the carriages, they only mind when women's lib gets mentioned, sigh.

I thought the juxtaposition of the suffragist protesters and scofflaw dock thugs getting simultaneously thrashed by cops was nice. Shows the two sides of authority: subduing criminals to protect society, and keeping oppressed groups down to ensure those in power stay powerful. The sight of cops physically attacking peaceful picketers, in my country, sent me down a bit of a google rabbit hole! I did find one serious incident of suffragist protesters being abused, in the UK and one also in the USA, but didn't see anything here. Of course there are bad apples, and cops do get biased when protests interfere with profit (see the current efforts to keep our last few acres of Old Growth forest from becoming particleboard, and back within the general period of the MM, some strikers got attacked badly) but to assault people for picketing on the steps of the government buildings, basically the spot designated for such use? Having done that multiple times myself, I am shocked at the very thought that police would do anything more than keep protesters and counter-protesters from attacking each OTHER. I don't think Canadian cops have ever started handing out fractures to peaceful protesters at the government steps. At least, I can't find any record of it in an hour of looking. Perhaps they hadn't got any documentation is all, as in the story- a suffragist gets charges for fighting BACK against the cops beating them, because there is no record of the cops beating them. Hmm, now that I put that in words I realise the odds are pretty good for something like that being what really happened. Imagine fighting against a government that sees you as subhuman, just because of the bodily details you were born with. It would be so terrifying and infuriating. And unfortunately it is still the case for many visible minorities- BUT on the bright side, we have cel cameras now, so it's way less likely police brutality suppressing freedom of speech could be kept off the record these days.

OK, so now shall we look at the actual plot?? There are a couple perhaps-related murders, naturally, but we're all here for Thomas Brackenreid's revenge! OK, so we go to the O'Sheas' turf, the docks! What's our first move? Casually leaving one constable, assigned to walk around alone among the gang that nearly killed Brackenreid, ALONE, by himself!?! Their meekest constable too! At first I assumed he was being used as bait with a dozen heavily armed officers hidden nearby but no, we're supposed to accept that nobody realised he'd get jumped. An annoying plot hole.

Also annoying was the way they hinted for as long as they could that Brackenreid had died (someone mentions his "being done in") and then when we finally see him halfway through the episode, he's sitting in his wheelchair so we think he may be paralyzed. They just want to worry us to add suspense, which is a cheap, lazy way to raise emotion. And after thinking he was dead or paralyzed, we're relieved to find he's "just" dead inside. If they'd presented things without the trickery we could feel the true weight of what's befallen him, without that 'wow, he's alive!' reaction taking the wind out of the sails of the 'oh no, he's lost himself!' reaction.

And then it turns out the "dead inside" thing was also just illusion. He actually can't act to punish his would-be-murderers or else they will kill his family. Yawn. Seems awfully familiar, Thomas having to give up his destiny to appease murderers threatening his loved ones, so soon after that plot arc where Julia had to give up her destiny to appease a murderer threatening her loved one. And silly in both cases, that they didn't have enough faith in their colleagues to know they could best the villain legally instead of submitting. But I suppose their motivation is something like 'a 0.01% chance of my love being killed is too high!'

It does make sense that *SPOILER!* he eventually snaps and loads a gun, presumably heading out to murder the O'Shea boys -that is the best way to guarantee Margaret's and the kids' safety. And Thomas has always been, shall we say, a bit more of a honey badger than the average person. In fact it may only be down to analgesics' calming effects that he didn't murder the O'Sheas sooner. But luckily he arrives to them trying again to kill a cop, the perfect excuse for him to shoot them and not hang, so it's nuts that he doesn't shoot them. I guess he's rusty, being away from he shooting range, and physical combat, since his injury, so he was momentarily stunned when he walked into the brawl, giving them time to fight their way out. Well, you know how rare it is for any show to let their hero actually willingly kill. But fear not, everyone gets their just deserts in the end.

Something I found especially fun was Murdoch going a little gritty. Punching, trash talking, even imo sincerely implying he'd cover up the murder of the Big Bad if the Inspector chose to go for it. It's like he's finally learning that a tiny bit of moral flexibility can be good, even though too much is of course bad.

Crabtree casually subdued a few unrulies here and there, so skillfully it seems he hasn't forgotten the inspiration from the Kung Fu episode and has been training. I like it when he isn't just used as comic relief or a sidekick but actually proves himself good at his job.

Overall I give the 2-episode story full marks, but dock two stars for that inexplicable and distracting use of a famous person's name for some random character, and for the silliness of reusing the "I can't tell my friends a murderer's threatened me" plotline so soon after the first time.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good except the feminist putting down men
tert7210 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
We get it. It's great that they are showing the women's movement get started, but why do they feel they have to keep putting down men? We are better than men blah blah blah. Hear enough of man hating everyday from the feminazis they have now.... Can a show show strong women without brow beating and bashing men?
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The basic story is good, execution falls far short
PupillusPerpetua26 August 2020
I get the sense that here was a major change in the writing team.

I also get the sense that this director was a total novice, based on the bizarre selection and application of music, questionable edits, and overall ham-fisted delivery of what should have been a nail-biter first episode in a two-last follow-up to last season's nail biter cliffhanger episode.

There is so of much of import to deal with in response to Brackenreid's brutal beating as an almost natural consequence of his usual tactics when handling criminals, but instead we get confused, grossly underplayed handling of his emotional and physical fallout and recover and a weirdly garbled visual attempt at contrasting a women's suffrage march with the Toronto Constabulary marching on the emergent dock gangs.

Supposedly there is also a murder plot in there for Murdoch to solve, too, but I can barely remember what it is.

Even the music is jarringly overdramatic and somehow never takes a break, like this is some strange, wearyingly melodramatic music video.

Even the subtext Of the dock master's (mistress's) attempts to seduce Murdoch came off as awkward and unconvincing.

Usually, the performances in this show feel natural and deliver on chemistry, but it's liked whatever new team swooped in decided their first priority was to suck all of the chemistry out of every si fake relationship in the series.

Very disappointed, after 7 seasons of loyalty to the show and investment in these characters and turn-of-the-century Toronto as both a setting and a character in its own right.

The most scurrilous part is how little this episode devotes to Brackenreid's recovery, but ultimately there is almost nothing to applaud here.

Even the acting takes a dive, which can't be ascribed to a sudden drop in the qualities of actors, as the cast hasn't changed. The most likely culprit is, again, bad direction.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Political tone getting counterproductive?
sfoyoitt13 January 2019
Not a bad follow-up to last season's dreadful cliffhanger (the "cliffhanger" aspect of it wasn't what was terrible though), but I'm beginning to think the writers don't know the definition of moderation.

The constant inclusion of feminist and women's issues in these episodes is beginning to strain credibility. Women, women, women, women, women, women, women, women, women women.... okay, we get it already! I'm a woman and I understand these issues (trust, dearies!), but I think even the male half of the audience only needs to hear this stuff once or twice a season. Hitting the viewer over the head with it constantly only makes it look like you are doing precisely that. Let the show breathe, and let the ideas about women's equality move around on their own in people's minds.

As usual, Dr. Julia Ogden arrives on scene, smiling from ear to ear, as Dr. Grace and Murdoch are ending a conversation about a man's brutal death by bludgeoning. Do these writers and directors actually put this in the screenplay!?!? ("No, Helene, you aren't acting whimsical enough. When Murdoch tells you about the child's death by incineration followed by slicing, I wanna see that big, bright smile!")

Enjoyed the Brackenreid subplot for a change. It isn't the best of stories for the Brackster, but Thomas Craig deserves every moment he' s on camera. Best actor on the show, and no one is close.
14 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Very violent cops against dock thugs and women suffrage movement
ctyankee111 May 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Part 1--This is a very violent and emotional episode.

A man gets killed at a dinner table and later it comes out that this business man was selling his business but also had prostitutes on the side.

A new man comes in to take Inspector Brackenreid's position while he is healing. Brackenreid looked like he was going to die or near death and his replacement Inspector Hamish Slorach is not professional at all.

Murdoch visits Inspector Brackenreid who is now home and does not want to be a cop. Brackenreid's wife has a tender and emotional talk with him to convince him to go back to police work. The men that beat him up were two brothers, the O'Sheas. They also beat up another cop and have the men on the dock threatening the police when they are there looking for suspects.

Dr Ogden and Dr Grace are joining the suffrage movement and at the same time this group is like a bunch of loud mouth women like the the dock men, marching carrying signs, protesting on the steps of a building. conflicting with the police and more. They are like groups today that want to blame the cops and men for everything and want a lot of attention. Too bad the cops back then did not carry guns.

Murdoch gets beat up by the same men Brackenreid was beaten by. Brackenreid makes a surprise entrance on the scene and helps Murdoch. A number of these videos are on Youtube. Now I have to watch Part 2.
3 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed