Fringe Review: The Cure

This episode begins with a gripping though rather graphic scene that establishes an X-Files-style mystery. The major characters arrive and quickly solve the case. This involves their knowledge of “fringe” “science” and their lack of personal chemistry.

In short, it’s a Fringe episode.

Title: “The Cure”

Cast and Crew

Written by Felicia D. Henderson and Brad Caleb Kane

Anna Torv as Olivia Dunham
Joshua Jackson as Peter Bishop
John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop
Lance Reddick as Philip Broyles
Jaskika Nicole as Astrid Farnsworth
Chris Eigemann as David Esterbrook
Maria Dizzia as Emily Kramer
Marjan Neshat as Claire Williams
Alok Tewari as Dr. Patel
Blair Brown as Nina Sharp

Synopsis

A white cargo van dumps off a distressed woman who then microwaves diner (not a typo). This brings the Fringe Force on the scene. The mystery links to questionable science, a second kidnapping, a corrupt corporation, but (thankfully) not to one of Doctor Bishop’s experiments from the 1970s.

High Point

I’m relieved that just this once, the fringe experiment isn’t (so far as we know) a direct outgrowth of Dr. Bishop’s past research. Of course, he’s an expert on it, and can develop the necessary cure. That, however, is part of the show’s comic-book premise.

Once again, we have a mysterious, disturbing introduction that promises well for viewers with strong stomachs.

Low Point

It’s a great opening, but if you were running a highly illegal experiment and things went awry with a still-living, super-powered subject, would you just drop her off in the middle of a populated area and hope for the best?

Everything after the opening is lackluster, but more on that below.

The Scores

Originality: 3/6.

Effects: 5/6. The location-tags remain mostly unnecessary, but at least they’re slightly less obtrusive now. The special effects themselves are dramatic, if slightly gross.

Story: 3/6. The story has potential, but our heroes make key discoveries very easily, and this episode suffers from an excess of information-dumping dialogue.

Acting: 3/6. The distressed victims have been handled reasonably well. The main cast remains without chemistry. Noteworthy embarrassments in this episode: they give Anna Torv a few emotionally sensitive scenes in this episode, and she’s simply not up to them. Alok Tewari as Dr. Patel is similarly uninteresting, even when he blows his head off.

Production: 6/6.

Emotional response: 3/6. Making the scenes bigger, grosser, and overwrought does not make the show better. Good actors make a scene, however small, work.

Overall: 4/6.

“The Cure” receives twenty-seven out of forty-two.

Possible Plans

I’m thinking of alternating discussions and reviews of Heroes and Fringe until I lose interest entirely, the shows improve, or I go crazy. Discussions will continue, whether I’m watching or not, while Bureau-crats feel like discussing either show.

9 replies on “Fringe Review: The Cure”

  1. Inside joke?
    Is there an inside joke to misspelling Torv as Dorv? If so it’s too subtle for me.

    My low point: If I followed Walter’s explanation correctly, the syringe he gave Olivia contained a bonding agent that would stop the drug in the blue liquid from activating the radiation capsules. If that’s right, then injecting the patient should only have stopped the radiation levels from going up, not dropped them completely. If it was supposed to bond with the radioactive particles themselves and render them inert, then he could have had this cure a while ago, it wouldn’t matter what was causing the capsules to release.

    • Re: Inside joke?

      Is there an inside joke to misspelling Torv as Dorv? If so it’s too subtle for me.

      Nope. It’s a stupid typo I keep repeating.

  2. Agree about Torv
    I agree about Anna Torv, she’s just not up to the part. Joshua Jackson, John Noble the rest of the case do the best with what they’re given but since she’s as weak as she is, I don’t think it’s going to make it much past the 1st season.

    And David Esterbrook was played by Chris Eigeman.

    • Re: Agree about Torv

      I agree about Anna Torv, she’s just not up to the part. Joshua Jackson, John Noble the rest of the case do the best with what they’re given but since she’s as weak as she is, I don’t think it’s going to make it much past the 1st season.

      And David Esterbrook was played by Chris Eigeman.

      An unclosed bracket made his name disappear. Fixed. Thanks.

  3. acting
    While i generally agree that the guest actors have been outshining the regular cast, I would temper that with one comment.

    Peter Bishop is a character most identified by general apathy. I don’t know how anybody could show "apathy" better, but I haven’t even been in the same room as an authority on acting and such matters… what do _I_ know.

    And be it for good acting, or just off-beat writing; I do enjoy the shots where Dr Bishop has significant lines.

    .

    • Re: acting

      While i generally agree that the guest actors have been outshining the regular cast, I would temper that with one comment.

      Peter Bishop is a character most identified by general apathy. I don’t know how anybody could show "apathy" better, but I haven’t even been in the same room as an authority on acting and such matters… what do _I_ know.

      And be it for good acting, or just off-beat writing; I do enjoy the shots where Dr Bishop has significant lines.

      I agree. My favorite character is Dr. Bishop, with Peter being fairly interesting, too. For instance, Walter sounds so proud of himself when he remembers that Astrid’s name starts with an "A".
      If it weren’t for Walter, and to a lesser degree Peter, I wouldn’t be watching this show anymore.

  4. Wahuh?

    It’s a great opening, but if you were running a highly illegal experiment and things went awry with a still-living, super-powered subject, would you just drop her off in the middle of a populated area and hope for the best?

    Umm… apparently you were out of the room when Walter discussed that this was probably a field trial. You must have also been out of the room when the Evil Guy Of The Week told the Evil Doctor Of The Week that the first one (victim) was a trial.

    So, things did not go awry, they went wry just as planned.

    • Not the point

      It’s a great opening, but if you were running a highly illegal experiment and things went awry with a still-living, super-powered subject, would you just drop her off in the middle of a populated area and hope for the best?

      Umm… apparently you were out of the room when Walter discussed that this was probably a field trial. You must have also been out of the room when the Evil Guy Of The Week told the Evil Doctor Of The Week that the first one (victim) was a trial.

      The issue isn’t whether they planned to have things go awry. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to drop off the subject where she might (a) reveal information about the experiment or (b) do something that will call attention to the fact of the experiment, like, say, blow up the customers in a diner.

      • Re: Not the point

        The issue isn’t whether they planned to have things go awry. The issue is whether or not it makes sense to drop off the subject where she might (a) reveal information about the experiment or (b) do something that will call attention to the fact of the experiment, like, say, blow up the customers in a diner.

        Well, you can’t have field trials in a controlled environment, it negates the purpose of the field trial. Also, arrogant Evil Dude probably assumed nobody would be able to figure out what happened. It did look like they had planned on using this technique as a form of traceless assassination, possibly of a group of people as neither of the girls appeared to be targetable. Which has it’s own problems, as you don’t get an unknown person exhibiting odd behavior close to someone valuable enough to assassinate for what this development project probably cost.

        Either way, the plan was weirdly flawed, but executed as it was envisioned.

Comments are closed.