Maybe its because I'm a man but, I thought Matt's (I mean Tom....show is almost a year old and I literally had to look at the original post to get his name)response had to have been almost expected. Lynette has been AWFUL to him about this and plenty of other things. Granted, he should have been forthcoming about hiring his ex (or just never hired her) but, he was right that Lynette would have gone batshit regardless of when she found out. I could almost feel the frustration that he was going through, not having a wife that trusts you has to be awful!

Believe me, I'm not saying Matt was right in hiring the ex in the first place, I just think that he was right about some of the things he said to Lynette during the argument.

Felicity Huffman and Doug Savant acted the hell out of that scene too.....I haven't been that uncomfortable during a 'tv fight' since Carmela told Tony she didn't love him anymore.

Todd at May 2, 2005 09:50 AM

I think he was right about some things. But saying that she was going to make him leave their marriage was so wrenching - obviously he's had that thought before if it came out of his mouth. I like his character but sometimes he is such a pussy. But I guess since the name of the show is Desperate Housewives, the male characters are sort of secondary here.

freakgirl at May 2, 2005 10:15 AM

I'll second the notion that Tom's response to Lynette was right on the money. Even though I feel for Lynette in some respects, I also get the feeling that there's some part of her that wants to force her marriage to fail just so she can be justified in her suspicions about Tom's inability to be faithful.

And did I miss something: what makes you think that it was Zach and not Paul that set fire to Susan's kitchen?

Chris at May 2, 2005 10:49 AM

Well, her suspicions about him being unfaithful ARE true.

At the very end, Chris, there was a close-up of Zach in his room, looking at a tres creepy shrine of Susan's daughter and flicking a zippo lighter on and off. :: shiver ::

freakgirl at May 2, 2005 11:29 AM

I like the new Lynette story, it's muuuuuuuch less irritating than the last, oh, 17 or so. The way she manipulated her kids into drawing the happy picture of the family was actually funny instead of vaguely stomach-churning.

Edie was great this week. I loved how she folded like a house of cards when Paul came over to question her.

The Mary Alice/Angela stuff felt like a little bit of a retcon to me. When Mrs. Huber's sister had her first few appearances, it seemed like she was only beginning to piece together that Angela was Mary Alice. But this week's flashback made it seem as if she had much more foreknowledge. I didn't mind, though, since I'm hoping this means they're at least TRYING to shape a coherent conclusion for the season.

I don't think the Bree storyline really makes much sense with its on-again off-again Rex thing but I'm most willing to suspend my disbelief for those segments since all the actors are so frickin' awesome. Poor Ginger, I hope she doesn't end up dead or something.

brian w at May 2, 2005 01:08 PM

They are sorta setting up everybody for a "dun dun dunnn!!!!" finale.

Will George finally go kookoo for cocoa puffs and knock off Rex and/or Bree?

Will Zack set fire to Susan and/or Julie? Or, will Paul sneak up on Susan with a blender in the middle of the night?

Was the big "bad thing" that Tom confessed to his father a long time ago the hiring of his ex-girlfriend? I'm assuming so. And Tom and Lynette's relationship will obviously sour in the next three episodes -- something's gonna happen.

... And what about Gabrielle? I cannot believe that her big season-ending storyline is her being pregnant. They've been teasing the pregnancy for months now -- it's nothing suprising. There has to be a twist here.

Keith at May 2, 2005 01:26 PM

I'm still sure that the "bad thing" Tom did was cheat on Lynette. Maybe with the ex, maybe a one-night stand during one of his many business trips. I don't think hiring his ex was a bad thing for him to do; it was only keeping it a secret that was wrong.

I guess it could be the hiring, though. I just looked up exactly what he said to his father, and it was, "There's something that Lynette doesn't know about, Dad. Something that I did. And don't know what's going to happen if she ever finds out."

I just assume he was cheating because that's what that entire episode was about.

freakgirl at May 2, 2005 01:39 PM

But wouldn't Tom cheating on Lynette be a bit...plain for a big DH-style secret? I'm not at all convinced that that's what he was talking about (which is why Lynette's suspicions rankle me so much at this point). Of course, Tom hiring the ex would be even plainer, so that would disappoint me even more. We shall see.

And I missed the Zippo completely--thanks for the heads up. Interesting. But again, if we've learned anything at all so far from this show, it's that the writers love to screw with our heads and that there's misdirection a-go-go...there's not much that's truly what it first appears to be. So, I'd be a bit surprised if it really turned out to be Zach who torched the house.

Chris at May 2, 2005 01:45 PM

From Tom's rant, I actually got the fidelity vibe, because he was so "I've never given you reason to doubt me, but you still do you insecure freak" about everything. It made me think he was clean in the cheating department. So much conviction. Though, something's up, since he's not a full cast member.

Why can't anyone see that Zach is SUPER crazy and really does need treatment? They just kind of gloss over the obvious rage and delusion.

Gabrielle is pointless.

Bree is such a bitch. She's all about making her marriage work, and Rex being honest, unless it gets in the way of her having fun. I hate her.

J.Go at May 2, 2005 02:42 PM

I hate her, but I love her.

As for Zach, J.Go, NO KIDDING, right? He is such a troubled young boy and Susan knows his father is crazy; why isn't she trying to help him? He's just a kid. A potential sociopath, but really, just a kid.

freakgirl at May 2, 2005 04:34 PM

Wasn't Zach in some sort of mental hospital at some point? I mean, maybe he could do some sort of outpatient thing? He clearly needs some help, not just Susan kicking him out. There's no way that Tom didn't cheat on Lynette, though, it has to be something worse than the fact that he hired his ex and didn't tell Lynette. Which I would be really mad about, in fact. And HA! on the caterers, FG, you're right. That whole scene was weird - first, she's cooking (which I doubt ever happens) and she grabs a bottle of champagne and a glass on her way to go throw up? Who does that?

Joanne at May 2, 2005 06:27 PM

"Though, something's up, since he's not a full cast member."

That's what I want in MY LIFE - scary music to warn me when something bad is coming, and knowledge that if you're not in my credits, you're not to be trusted or expected to make it through to the end.

And maybe some "bow chicka bow bow" bass when the right certain someone passes by, especially is we're equally billed.

Janet at May 2, 2005 09:46 PM

And tubas that honk when you're doing something really stupid. :)

freakgirl at May 2, 2005 10:04 PM

I thought it was kind of a joke / shoutout that he's in the credits as a guest star or whatever, since Heather Locklear was listed that way the whole time she was on Melrose Place.

Joanne at May 3, 2005 10:49 AM

I love that soundtrack idea so hard, Janet! Fun. Freakgirl, I fear some days that I'd send the oompah band to emergency care from all their exertions. Wait, is the sound just in our heads?

Michael at May 3, 2005 05:20 PM

I thinks Tom's cheating in a big way. All of those business trips . . . maybe a second family somewhere?

ellen at May 3, 2005 11:15 PM

Okay, I think Tom hiring his ex was a horrible thing to do. Trust and love are very important, but why introduce difficult situations? Statements like "Don't you love me?" or "Don't you trust me?" are just manipulations to get the other person to do what you want. Issues with trust grow over time and creating a situation (hiring an ex that your wife feels uncomfortable about) breeds mistrust. Why even do that? Is the ex being part of the corporate team worth family discord? If so, then they're through anyhow, regardless of any infidelity because the relationship will just fall apart eventually.

Anyway, it's not like the ex was hired and Tom just didn't tell, he RECOMMENDED the ex to his boss and had a big hand in hiring her. And then lied to his wife for 3 months. None of that is okay to me.

Maggie at May 4, 2005 12:22 PM

I enjoyed the "Oh my God, someone got thrown in the pool!" homage to Melrose.

J.

J. at May 4, 2005 05:17 PM

Maggie, I would be okay with something like that if my husband first approached me with the idea and determined how I felt about it. If he lied or went ahead with it after I had said that I'm uncomfortable with it, there would probably be hell to pay.

Of course Tom has proven himself to be quite the corporate toad and is afraid to stand up for himself in the workplace.

freakgirl at May 4, 2005 10:18 PM
An email address is now required to post comments; addresses are not displayed.






Remember personal info?