His review of Bells Toll at Noon (a classic!) makes no sense. His claim that Five-O is too anchored in reality to tolerate atypical episodes is absolute nonsense! Where is this coming from? How many weirdos and psychos and schizoids have Five-O dealt with over the years? But for some reason he has a problem with a killer who has a fascination with Cagney??? What about Arthur who killed people who resembled comic book characters? That’s not more far fetched? I think so. Wonder what he thinks of that one. And besides what does he consider to be the “typical” Five-O episode? Or one that’s anchored in reality? Episodes about drug dealers and organized crime? I for one am glad that we got more than just that from this show. Otherwise it would be a pretty dull show. Variety is what made this show great. He also complains about the Leslie Nielsen episode as being too “wild west”? I guess he doesn’t realize that there are ranches in Hawaii and paniolos (Hawaiian cowboys). And he complains about the Susan Dey episode too in the above review. I’m not even sure what his beef with that one is. Hard to understand. But I guess it’s another example of not a “typical” episode.