lood Money
lood Money
Present day events mirror the past when the head of the prestigious financial investment firm that controls Nick's secret fortune is murdered. Stolen from a highwayman two centuries ago, the fortune is again the target of greed, as a local criminal kingping frames the dead executive's son for the murder. LaCroix's teachings ring true as greed once again, breeds tragedy--a lesson the master vampire preached centuries ago.
For an episode with an unprecedented three guest stars (Gordon Curie as Sean Du Champs, Andrew Gillies as Feliks Twist, and Bernard Behrens as Charles Du Champs), I was disappointed by how simple and predictable it was. Except for the initial murder, we were given all the facts just before they came into play.
Schanke's actions are a loose parody of the actions of Sean Du Champs, as he tries to gamble away money that isn't his -- by trying to talk everyone in the precinct into his little lottery scheme. And just like Sean, he ends up losing, suffering humiliation as two other officers win.
I can't understand Sean's attempt at embezzling the entire trust fund of some 450 million dollars. Didn't he think anyone would notice? I can see taking a little from each fund, but an entire fund, managed seperately from the other funds, worth so much? His gambling debts couldn't have been anywhere near that amount, since in the opening scene, he was asking his father for just one million -- if his debt had even been ten million, one million wouldn't have made much of a difference. If he's really that stupid, he certainly shouldn't have been written in as Charles's successor...
The flashbacks were slightly different, with Nick acting as a thief and a traitor -- and LaCroix trying to convince him that he shouldn't bother stealing all that money. Not only that, but Nick decides to take all the money, rather than splitting it with his partner in crime. I can understand that one would pass through many different philosophies and beliefs during such a long lifetime, but in all previous flashbacks (to time periods before and after this one), he was never quite so callous. His comment to LaCroix that "you taught me to take what I want" (as versus what he needs) was true, but never a belief that Nick followed very strongly.
Throughout the episode, LaCroix keeps saying that "material wealth is a burden". It does seem to be a burden at times, but if Nick has been contributing as much as he could every year for decades, the money has also done a lot of good. Perhaps it's not quite as great a burden after all.
Episode rating (0 to 10): 3
Please feel free to leave your own comments on this episode.