Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (TV Series) Part 33 (2019) User Reviews

An interesting departure from the formula

[moni_ma · 7/10 · 4 June 2023]

People don't seem to like this episode for two reasons: 1) It doesn't stick to the typical SVU formula, and 2) It's too "introspective".

However, both points are exactly what was intended with this episode. It's meant to make you think. It's nuanced. Is it ok to murder someone? Of course not. But should someone who is a victim spend life in prison because they fought back against their attacker? It's a question SVU has played with in probably 50% of episodes to date, but instead of playing it out through the investigation or in the courtroom, we see our protagonists just make their case to each other, in a room, waiting to testify. It asks you the question, who's side are you on? What would you do?

I enjoyed it. Sure, it isn't your typical SVU episode, but after 20 seasons, what's wrong with that?

Watching since 1999 and ...

[MrsTheFrog · 6/10 · 11 February 2019]

I understand why many of you are disappointed in this episode (myself included). I wouldn't throw it away on a 1 star review, but it definitely falls short in several ways.

I love a good bottle show, but for starters, the case in this episode is a terrible choice for an argument about moral grey-area. Is emotional abuse as bad as physical abuse? Yes. Anyone who thinks otherwise has apparently not been paying attention since about 1985. Was it justifiable homicide? Yes. Not only that, we have seen more than a handful of other episodes with the same basic premise go down on SVU and it was hardly even a question (Persona, for example). It's not even the first time we have seen Liv struggle with the idea of perjuring herself (anyone remember American Dream/Sanctuary?).

What trips this episode up, right from the get-go, is the leap the audience is expected to take in regards to the characters' attitudes. Finn's blasé act is a lie right out of the gate, as fans are aware of him admitting his feelings on abusers in the past. Rollins was six degrees colder than usual, as well, even though we all know she can show sympathy for victims despite her family issues. And Stone? Are we really supposed to believe him calling Liv a bleeding heart, after he's spent the last 3 shows following her around like a puppy? Not only that, but him going off on the defendant on the stand? The eff is he even doing near SVU, with what he said? Gross.

I would have given this episode 8 stars, if only Liv had lied at the end. I would have loved to see her character grow more diverse that way, after 20 years in the unit. Instead, the first 40 minutes of this episode are wasted, as we watch the same old ending. Such a shame. I think a much better bottle show would have been that one where the kid ejaculates on the girl's leg, and is still taken to court for penetrative rape, if we want to watch 4 seasoned detectives (in the most sensitive unit of the entire NYPD) argue about whether victims are human or not.

Great acting, and not much else, unfortunately.

Hi, David Mamet?

[lauriejeangamble · 5/10 · 9 February 2019]

This episode felt like a Mamet play staged by acting students. In fact, it would make a great onstage performance. Not sure what SVU is aiming for in this season but episodes like this ain't it, Sis. That being said, SVU is still the greatest show ever and I lovingly take the bad with the good...after 20 seasons they've certainly earned the right to be experimental.

Boring

[kimberlyrathbun4 · 4/10 · 11 February 2019]

Best part was Charlie the court officer asking about a donut for his wife. He is a great husband.

Real Horror and Pure Judgment

[yazguloner · 10/10 · 21 April 2021]

With the desperate looks of the defendant and the pressure of the hot air where the air conditioner did not work, the 12 angry men movie was mentioned.

There are now women instead of just men.

I had always wondered about courtrooms, which are centers of moral, ethical, and legal power. This point of view is well conveyed in this section.

Fin's wisdom from the school of life.

Amanda's armors.

Carisi's insights.

And of course, Olivia's unwavering mountain-like accuracy that has weathered all kinds of storms.

It is an episode where the decision is release to the audience, not the jury. In the 6s 8e doubt story, like this story, the audience was made a jury.

Summary of this chapter: Conflicts about how to use his power in courtrooms.

Questions:

• Should we read between the lines of a case?

-Is a case as simple as it seems?

• Where do mercy and empathy begin and end?

-Where does the justice begin and end?

• Should it be a liar for good or good for bad?

• Compassion and empathy our strength or our weakness?

And Maybe ... maybe we ... we are all victims of our past. Empathy is... our strength, is it?

Finally; Remember that you swear on the holy book.

A great bottle show

[ronroc-1 · 9 February 2019]

A bottle show is an episode that usually only involves the regulars in limited settings. This is very close to that idea. It's more like a Playhouse 90 filmed stage play. That being said, I found it compelling. Each of the characters spoke from the place of conflict between their professional obligation and the moral inclinations. Some fans are rattled because it breaks with the usual format to present a simple moral argument with disturbing implications. I remember an episode of the flagship Law & Order show that began with all the main characters attending an execution and how the events effected their emotional lives. Benjamin Bratt's character had an affair to re-affirm his humanity, Lennie got drunk, Van Buren wrote an emotional letter to her son about her own mortality. At the end of the episode Clare gave a ride to a clearly drunk Lennie and her car was hit and she was killed. It was the season finale of that year. Excellent stuff. This reminds me that the potential to explore the humanity of the characters is always lurking in the background which is why the original show could easily do crossover episodes with the greatest police show, Homicide: Life On the Street, which always explored how the job affected it's characters.

Definitely Different

[llove42000 · 6/10 · 23 October 2019]

I"m going to deviate from most folks here and say I didn't hate this episode. I did, however, try to figure out if Quentin Tarentino directed it. It's a deviation from the normal show. But, I don't think in a totally bad way. Just very different.

Out of the box

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 9 June 2023]

There is no bias against a show doing something different once in a while. 'Law and Order: Special Victims Unit' have done quite a number of changes of pace, for example scaling it down to one location and focusing on one or two characters rather than a whole team, and it has been done brilliantly before. Season 6's "Rage" being a classic example of how to execute different right. Here in "Part 33", the structure is different than the usual and the story is told from all different perspectives.

"Part 33" had all the makings of a very interesting and good episode, but ended up being a big missed opportunity and waste of potential. As far as Season 20 goes, it is one of the worst episodes (following on directly from two of the season's best episodes) and one of the most frustrating ones because of what it had going for it and because of its ambition. What sounded so good on paper turned out to be rather disorganised narratively, over-written and disrespectful to most of the characters to the point of distaste.

It's not all bad. The opening is absolutely great and really appreciated its, the episode's that is, ambition. "Part 33" is actually also one of the season's most ambitious episodes in the way it's structured, the different perspectives and the subject.

Photography while very close up doesn't come over as too static or filmed play-like, while the production values are typically solid and have subtle atmosphere while not being drab and keeping things simple. When the music is used it is haunting and has a melancholic edge that is not overdone. The acting is very good all round.

However, a lot doesn't work. The topic covered is a difficult and controversial one and one that should be seen from all perspectives and not take sides too much regardless of how strong feelings are. "Part 33" doesn't tackle it very tactfully, it tries try very hard at presenting more than one point of view, which was laudable, but expressed a few of them in a way that saw characters go down in my estimations, especially Rollins so it came over as judgemental and very on the surface. It was very interesting to hear the different perspectives and the very varied reasoning, but some of the arguments didn't strike me as tasteful. Really did lose respect for Rollins, who comes over as very unsympathetic and self righteous and her argument left a bad taste in my mouth with what it implied.

Furthermore, there is too much bickering and talk and too much of it is very full blown sudsy soap opera instead of the gritty and uncompromising writing needed for this topic. The argument between Olivia and Rollins is really over-heated in every sense. We never really get to know the defendant, the episode should have dialled down the bickering and given her more depth, like through flashbacks to interrogations or even the lead up to the crime. The story structure is interesting, but felt a bit jumpy in how it was executed and the pacing was a mix of too hurried and drama low.

Making the episode a two parter, with what happens here spread out over two episodes and flashbacks in my view would have made things better. Really disliked Stone's handling of the case, the evidence is quite flimsy and he didn't seem very prepared or professional. Especially towards the end where some of what he says borders on dodgy. The ending is incredibly rushed and abrupt, which made the episode feel incomplete.

Overall, disappointing. 4/10.

10 for character development... 5 for the ending.

[audaciousness · 10/10 · 17 July 2019]

The character development here was superb. We saw Olivia and Amanda at their most vulnerable, and an entirely new side to their pasts and how it affects their jobs. The case was fascinating, and the trial proceedings were too. It certainly wasn't a "regular" episode, and it tested the boundaries of what SVU can do. I was skeptical for the first few minutes, but then about 3/4 in, I was mesmerized and honestly thought this would be a 10/10 episode...

...And then it ended. On the worst possible cliffhanger. No resolution to the case, nor any indication of whether this woman would be going to prison. They spent so much time building it up, and so much time spent by Olivia trying to convince everyone that Annabeth Pearl was a victim, only to have it end in such a predictable and unsatisfying fashion.

If Olivia had lied on the stand at the end, showing us that her character has maybe grown a little from 20 years with the SVU, I would have given the episode a 10.

Edit: After the fantastic season finale "End Game", I have changed this episode's rating to a 10 since I now see that the ending was actually setting us up for something much bigger.

Part 33

[bobcobb301 · 6/10 · 28 February 2019]

This was certainly a different episode and it featured the characters actually acting like police and not just believing every initial perp or suspect is automatically bad.

It just wasn't a good story though. It ventured into boring and repetitive at times.

4 angry detective witnesses

[kat12986 · 2/10 · 9 February 2019]

While the detectives wait downstairs to be called up testify, their bickering just reminds me of 12 angry men. the Bensen and Rollins were arguing I pretty much tuned it out. Also, I was confused by Bensen's pseudo confession of being raped and Rollins bringing up Lewis. The crime in the episode is about a woman who was emotionally abused and murdered her husband. Kinda reminds me of Criminal Minds S3 E18 when Hotchner and Rossi interview an emotionally abused woman murdered her husband. Overall, a really boring episode of arguments over moralty.

A different view

[stitch_groover · 10/10 · 1 October 2019]

This episode is fascinating. It moves away from the usual procedural style of the show and delves into the psychology of the main characters, showing us different sides to them but also explaining why they are the way they are.

What on earth...

[angel-w-pappas · 1/10 · 8 February 2019]

I was so confused when watching this. It was not like any other SVU episode. Like another reviewer said, this was like watching a soap opera. The dialogue was awkward and too forceful. Worst episode ever.

This is not SVU as we know/want it!

[nick-blakemore · 4/10 · 25 February 2019]

Someone needed to strangle this idea in the script meeting. This is not what L&O SVU is about - I tune in to see fantastic police procedural and accept there is some necessary character story arc within the series.

However this has moved too far. This was navel gazing, introspective and a vanity piece. Give it 25 minutes and switched off.

Please can things return to normal next week

You decide

[victoria-05147 · 8/10 · 8 February 2023]

Part 33 is like a well- written one-act play. We learn a lot about the characters we think we know and we watch them struggle with what seems like an easy decision. We watch the show because of their passion and moral compass ( which is exhausting to them and us), and this episode shows that black and white decisions may or may not exist. The characters stay true to themselves and you get to examine what are they going to do? What would you do? Do grey lines exist or not? And where do you draw the line? Or is it even your job to draw that line? Some parts of this show is reminiscent of "12 Angry Men", ie when people are compelled to share the same space and make difficult decisions and decide what truth is.

Truly awful

[imdb-597 · 1/10 · 12 February 2019]

This really was L&O:SVU at it's worst. No drama, no mystery, no story. Just a lot of unrealistic hand wringing, bad soap opera and poorly written dialogue. All at a snails pace - to go nowhere.

What are these reviewers talking about!? It's a great episode.

[nelsonamy-63548 · 9/10 · 7 November 2019]

No, it's not like "every other SVU episode." Why is that a bad thing? This episode pits our protagonists against each other over the exact questions that, whether implicitly or explicitly, most assuredly *are* at the crux of so many past SVU episodes. If you aren't interested in the topics of ethics, justice, morality vs the law - you know, the sort of topics around which SVU is built and through which its message is and basically has always been conveyed - then sure, maybe you won't love this episode. There aren't any fast-paced chases, or shoot outs, or even actual crimes committed during the episode itself. Are those really the reasons why people watch SVU, though?

DO NOT listen to these other reviewers if you haven't watched "Part 33" yet. Please take the 45 minutes to watch the episode and judge it for yourself (a task Itself which the episode certainly asks us to complicate / problematize!)

Hilarious episode

[dmanmotherf · 4/10 · 20 March 2022]

I have no idea what I watched. I have watched literally every episode of the law & orders to this day and this is definitely the worst one. This is not like the other character development episodes in the series, mainly because this didn't have a plot... really nothing. This episode is these cops semi incoherently speak to each other like it was a back street play and the directing, writing, set design, and acting followed the same. It's like some wanna be student film. That being said, this episode is so bad it's hilarious, so it's still worth watching if you're into the series. It's not bad in the detectives breaking the law, contradicting themselves, being biased, or being preachy way you expect from the show at times. More like what happened this week if they were able to maintain a better episodes during the pandemic.

Most misunderstood SVU episode ever

[facelit · 8/10 · 19 July 2020]

After checking all previous comments I get to one and only conclusion: people hate being driven out of the common and very well known path.

I do like this episode, it shows regular characters' depth throughout vibrant dialogues. Of course it's not like any other because the aim here is not the case itself but rather how the truth may have multiple colors, not just black or white but I guess not everyone is ready for that kind of critical reflections, most of the people just want same plot over and over, no need to think more than required

Awfull

[ahgato · 1/10 · 19 March 2019]

This has to be the worst episode of this franchise. I hope that the writer will never write for this show again. It is painful to watch the actors interacting for 40 minutes with this story line, I'm sure they hated it also.

Pathetically irrational cops...

[reality42 · 1/10 · 9 February 2019]

I usually don't bother commenting on subpar episodes of shows, but this episode was pathetic enough to comment on. Given the facts as stated in the episode: the episode consists of pathetically irrational cops mindlessly supporting a confessed murderer who chose to kill her husband rather than peacefully leaving a bad marriage. Usually they at least make some effort to portray both side of an argument, but this time they took way too seriously the idea that women should be allowed to kill their husbands without ever bothering to find peaceful alternatives.

There was no claim there was ever any physical abuse, merely a bad marriage where he verbally insulted her and she chose not to leave, but to instead kill him. Using their logic, any woman should be able to get away with killing her husband just by claiming "but I had to!" with no evidence or logic to support it and she should be mindlessly believed and not punished.

There is no evidence she couldn't have merely left him, merely claimed fear of doing so with absolutely no evidence to indicate he would have caused any problems if she did so. There was a statement that none of their friends saw problems in the marriage, and she told no one, so basically they were taking her unsubstantiated word that her killing her husband was justified. Any woman could similarly make unsubstantiated claims, regardless of the truth. So if people actually reasoned the way these cops did, it would allow any woman to get away with killing their wife.

They had the woman claiming that she never told her husband that she didn't want sex. Yet she claims because she didn't want sex after they were married, that means she was raped ever since they married. The implication is that that somehow in the 6 years they were married he was supposed to have magically read her mind to know that she didn't want sex without her bothering to say so. For all we know if she'd bothered to say something, he'd have left her alone, and perhaps the marriage would have ended. The inability of a woman to act like an adult shouldn't give them license to kill someone instead since they find it easier to kill than to engage in an adult conversation and say "no".

The mere fact that the cop husband had a gun he didn't lock in a gun safe was supposed to magically make the case he was evil, even though many people concerned about self defense choose to not lock up their guns, especially those trained to use them. Its entirely possible in such a situation that the gun was merely for self defense and was never meant to be an implied threat against the wife.

An amazingly different episode

[starlight172006 · 10/10 · 7 March 2021]

This one is different than the usual SVU flow. Instead of going through a normal timeline, this one revolves around a highly emotional case of a woman who killed her husband and whether she, too, was a victim. All four of SVU agents are stuck in a waiting room prior to testify, and they all wrestle against their own doubts, their conscience and their morality, and what consists a truth in the eyes of the law. The four of them argue heavily, and point at their own biases, giving us the opportunity to dig into their experiences both as cops and human beings. This episode is gripping, fascinating and questions the entire moral compass of the SVU.

SVU

[eileen1370 · 20 February 2019]

Has SUV, run its course? This episode was pretty poor, more like a soap opera. Very disappointing.

SVU has gone astray.

[jrigler-52145 · 2/10 · 8 February 2019]

I never thought I'd see Olivia Benson willing to lie under oath. This episode was terribly disappointing. All the yelling among the characters was over-the- top and hard to even watch.

just watch it

[schmandrea · 8/10 · 26 February 2019]

I completely disagree with most reviewers here. This episode is much better than most are saying. The story gets pieced together as you watch and leaves you wondering what decision each detective will make. There's no murderer to catch here, just an engaging storyline with your favorites from SVU.