Great Episode!! Such an interesting mix of scenes. Good direction and story telling. So many characters being in Wilmington. Especially enjoyed Murtagh's reaction to Fergus unexpected arrival to warn him; Murtagh smile once realizing who he was.
Love scene between Brianna and Roger, so sensitive, sexy. The ensuing argument causing separation was very unfortunate. Who knew Brianna would be the victim of a violent attack, directly following so much tenderness. Clare's interaction with Governor Tyron and onlookers while performing surgery. Meeting George Washington. Clare's comical remark about cutting down the cherry tree and explaining the history to Jamie. Historical comments regarding the theater production and decision to feature Bree's attack rather than flashbacks. Very well done!!
21 Reviews
Comparison of the book and show
amanda_parsons8 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This episode was bone chilling, especially at the end. It's a bit harder to write.
Breanna and Roger do meet and they do partake in the hand fast before becoming intimate. It is important that Lizzie sees Breanna struggle with Roger as in the book Breanna returns to her room after her argument with Roger and Lizzie spots blood on Bree's dress and she thinks Roger has done something to Bree.
Bree does brush past Bonnet where she catches a glimpse of Frank's ring and its inscription. Since the rings were swapped in the show, Bree sees Jamie's ring. I haven't read yet of a rape.
The performance on the table with Claire happens earlier in the book. She is wearing the same clothes and is part of a party, but it's at River Run and not as we see in the show.
Overall, I found it really breathtaking.
Breanna and Roger do meet and they do partake in the hand fast before becoming intimate. It is important that Lizzie sees Breanna struggle with Roger as in the book Breanna returns to her room after her argument with Roger and Lizzie spots blood on Bree's dress and she thinks Roger has done something to Bree.
Bree does brush past Bonnet where she catches a glimpse of Frank's ring and its inscription. Since the rings were swapped in the show, Bree sees Jamie's ring. I haven't read yet of a rape.
The performance on the table with Claire happens earlier in the book. She is wearing the same clothes and is part of a party, but it's at River Run and not as we see in the show.
Overall, I found it really breathtaking.
A piece of art
lucidorb14 July 2019
Horribly Written Episode
jpl110514 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The incredibly horrible writing of this particular episode has made me so annoyed that I don't want to watch the show anymore 🙄 Really? Roger travels back in time 200 years to Scotland...sails for two months across the Atlantic to find Brianna...they get married and profess their love, then he hurts her fragile feelings, so she tells him to sail back across the Atlantic, travel forward 200 years to go home, leaving her behind. That's a bit harsh...no? Meanwhile she gets brutally raped in a bar whilst she was pouting for telling him to go home 🙄 What a stupid, poorly written plot line...
Female Power. Briana best and worst day
anagalilea24 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Briana owned the episode tonight. Best day of her life. Worst day of her life. But Briana is no Claire. Roger is not Jamie. Too intense, scenes of sexual violence / take place off screen/ are hard to watch but they follow the book events. The episode is one of the best. We get to see George Washington and wife. Fergus baby. Claire is less irritating than usual. I really liked Fergus in this episode.
Magnificent
siposlorka23 December 2018
Watch this episode with warning
elizabethkoh25 December 2018
This is not just some episode you can happily just watch. Heart-breaking.
The other events and 'what could have been' contrast with the intimate scenes and seem out of place, or disturbingly poignant. But this is outlander after all... drama and romance. And the story threads must unfold...
book similarities? too much in a day?
anagalilea24 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Sexual violence, too much in a day. But for some ackward reason the goos one doesnt seem all that good, and lack of chemistry, and the monster behaviour does in fact show chemistry, albeit negative and weirdly there seems to exist some real attraction. On a different behaviour, if he had been more charming and not a rapist, there would have been potential. You cannot choose you are attracted and have chemistry with
Blooper/Response to Criticism
pa_morado2 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Blooper... The scene with Brianna and Roger in the shed toggles between each of their faces/shoulders when they're talking about hand fasting. Every time the camera shoots Roger's face, his shoulder strap is buttoned. Every time it's shot from behind, it's unbuttoned.
One reviewer spoke about a lack of foundation for the Roger and Brianna love story. Having read the books several times, I didn't focus as much on that in the episode, as it was paid much more attention in the books. Knowing that particular back story, my mind was able to fill in the gaps.
The rape scene in the episode felt much more violent and graphic than in the book. That may be due to the lack of visual in the book.
One reviewer spoke about a lack of foundation for the Roger and Brianna love story. Having read the books several times, I didn't focus as much on that in the episode, as it was paid much more attention in the books. Knowing that particular back story, my mind was able to fill in the gaps.
The rape scene in the episode felt much more violent and graphic than in the book. That may be due to the lack of visual in the book.
Brianna is despicable
dresmiles30 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Brianna is such a childish and selfish character. After Roger explains that he kept her parents death a secret(for her to not have to grieve twice) she lashes out at him and starts the painful timeline of Roger being beaten, sold, beaten more and tortured. All because Brianna is a brat who will act like she is the only one who matters In a relationship. Theirs is not a love story. If anything it's an Emotionally abusive relationship and Brianna is the abuser. It's quite perverse if they make them out to be meant for each other. Brianna hasn't done anything for Roger except alienate him whenever she feels like it. Please kill her off and let the baby live. That's a pretty bad character if she gets raped and still somehow is the villain.
A Truly Despicable Episode
jmansmannstjohnslrev28 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Do you know why Jaime and Claire's relationship works so well? Why their marriage and feelings for each other are so believable, even though their marriage starts out as an arranged marriage, one for survival rather than love? It's because Outlander puts in the work and builds a foundation to make it believable. Jaime and Claire have a friendship, have a connection before the marriage. It's not outlandish to think that Jaime and Claire would marry each other under the circumstances in Season 1 because the showrunners put in the work to build a relationship between the two. That's why when Claire decides not to return to Frank after the witch trial it's believable. You know that Jaime and Claire are in love not because you've been told they are, you see it, their relationship evolving from their original friendship.
The showrunners clearly need a reminder because everything about this episode with respect to Brianna and Roger is just so poorly constructed. You see, with what we've seen on screen up to now, there is absolutely no reason why Brianna would marry Roger, no reason to think that she would love him considering the way he's treated her, and honestly the way that she has treated him. This culminates in what can only be described as a toxic and emotionally manipulative relationship that does no justice to the original characters from the books. Clearly the showrunners need a refresher. First, the lead up to Brianna and Roger's marriage was all wrong. In the book, they actually did things together and dated for much longer than in the tv series. It was never a matter of love between them, but rather Brianna not being ready to marry Roger in 1970. Roger isn't happy, but agrees to wait for her, because there is no question that he loves her. That's why when they reconnect in the past, it makes much more sense that Brianna would agree to marry him. Without that foundation, Brianna's decision in the tv series doesn't make any sense.
Second, the tv series completely bungles the reason why Roger doesn't tell Brianna about her parents' death. The show inexplicably makes it a weird sort of selfish paternalistic matter, Roger saying that he and Fiona decided not to say anything because her mother was dead for 200 years and he wanted her to be happy so he could marry her. Once again Roger's character is tarnished for no reason. In the book, he had a legitimate reason for not telling her, he didn't believe the past could be changed. Based on Claire's story and her failure to stop Culloden, Roger didn't believe that telling Brianna would do any good, because the past couldn't be changed. It makes much more sense in the book for Roger not to tell her because why should Brianna risk injury and death when she couldn't save her parents anyway.
Third, because Brianna's character hasn't been built up at all, her rape by Stephen Bonnet is so incredibly hollow and manipulative. Jaime's rape at the end of season 1 works because it impacts his character without defining him. He has a personality and a story outside of what Black Jack does to him. Unfortunately, because Brianna is largely sidelined in the tv series and doesn't really have a character outside of being Claire and Jaime's daughter and now Roger's wife, Brianna's character largely gets overtaken by the event for the rest of the season. Her status as a rape survivor becomes her defining character trait which is just a shame considering her status as a main character in the books.
All in all, this formula leads to an emotionally manipulative episode that doesn't deliver any real connection with the characters. And, for the life of me, I can't understand why the showrunners think it is a good idea to draw comparisons from Brianna and Roger to Jaime and Claire. When Roger tells Brianna she's the most beautiful girl he's ever seen (call back to Jaime and Claire's reunion in Season 3) I want to throw up in my mouth because the show has done nothing to illustrate that Brianna and Roger would have anything close to what Brianna's parent have. It's even worse because the other half of the episode is Jaime and Claire at their absolute best, navigating the governor's social circles and working together to save Mr. Fanning and Murtagh. Cait and Sam once again completely dominate the episode and make you forget that the emotional investment is supposed to be with Brianna and Roger.
This episode is just so bad, not in the sense that it's poorly acted or produced, but just because this massive moment in the story does not resonate because of the writers inability to lay the appropriate foundation. And because the events of this episode set up the rest of the season, this episode is largely responsible for the collapse of Season 4 in the latter episodes.
The showrunners clearly need a reminder because everything about this episode with respect to Brianna and Roger is just so poorly constructed. You see, with what we've seen on screen up to now, there is absolutely no reason why Brianna would marry Roger, no reason to think that she would love him considering the way he's treated her, and honestly the way that she has treated him. This culminates in what can only be described as a toxic and emotionally manipulative relationship that does no justice to the original characters from the books. Clearly the showrunners need a refresher. First, the lead up to Brianna and Roger's marriage was all wrong. In the book, they actually did things together and dated for much longer than in the tv series. It was never a matter of love between them, but rather Brianna not being ready to marry Roger in 1970. Roger isn't happy, but agrees to wait for her, because there is no question that he loves her. That's why when they reconnect in the past, it makes much more sense that Brianna would agree to marry him. Without that foundation, Brianna's decision in the tv series doesn't make any sense.
Second, the tv series completely bungles the reason why Roger doesn't tell Brianna about her parents' death. The show inexplicably makes it a weird sort of selfish paternalistic matter, Roger saying that he and Fiona decided not to say anything because her mother was dead for 200 years and he wanted her to be happy so he could marry her. Once again Roger's character is tarnished for no reason. In the book, he had a legitimate reason for not telling her, he didn't believe the past could be changed. Based on Claire's story and her failure to stop Culloden, Roger didn't believe that telling Brianna would do any good, because the past couldn't be changed. It makes much more sense in the book for Roger not to tell her because why should Brianna risk injury and death when she couldn't save her parents anyway.
Third, because Brianna's character hasn't been built up at all, her rape by Stephen Bonnet is so incredibly hollow and manipulative. Jaime's rape at the end of season 1 works because it impacts his character without defining him. He has a personality and a story outside of what Black Jack does to him. Unfortunately, because Brianna is largely sidelined in the tv series and doesn't really have a character outside of being Claire and Jaime's daughter and now Roger's wife, Brianna's character largely gets overtaken by the event for the rest of the season. Her status as a rape survivor becomes her defining character trait which is just a shame considering her status as a main character in the books.
All in all, this formula leads to an emotionally manipulative episode that doesn't deliver any real connection with the characters. And, for the life of me, I can't understand why the showrunners think it is a good idea to draw comparisons from Brianna and Roger to Jaime and Claire. When Roger tells Brianna she's the most beautiful girl he's ever seen (call back to Jaime and Claire's reunion in Season 3) I want to throw up in my mouth because the show has done nothing to illustrate that Brianna and Roger would have anything close to what Brianna's parent have. It's even worse because the other half of the episode is Jaime and Claire at their absolute best, navigating the governor's social circles and working together to save Mr. Fanning and Murtagh. Cait and Sam once again completely dominate the episode and make you forget that the emotional investment is supposed to be with Brianna and Roger.
This episode is just so bad, not in the sense that it's poorly acted or produced, but just because this massive moment in the story does not resonate because of the writers inability to lay the appropriate foundation. And because the events of this episode set up the rest of the season, this episode is largely responsible for the collapse of Season 4 in the latter episodes.
I don't like to write a specific response to another reviewer but AquamanUK is wrong, it was about taxes.
VoyagerMN198626 December 2018
Contrary to claim by "AquaumanUK" review here, in fact the US revolution was about 1) lack of representation to and ignoring of right of colonists to petition the G. British Government; and b) TAXES.
The claim by "AquamanUK" that the motive for the US Revolution was so the colonists could abrogate treaties is spurious. The Brits were already breaking virtually every treaty with native people around the world, as were the French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese.There is a context for the US Revolution. There was the development of an entire new school of philosophy about liberty, and anyone who any .education in the history knows this is also the time of Thomas Paine, Locke and for that matter the French Revolution.
We know it was about taxes because British Historians even acknowledge this. The British were in a huge financial hole from wars they promoted on the European continent and also fought all over the world to expand their empire. Culloden occurred slightly before the Seven Years War(in the North American Theater called the French and Indian War) but was part of this general warfare. US colonists had more than paid their fair share in that British war in tax and lives, yet Britain was taxing all classes of colonists at increasing rates and in every type of transaction. Britain WAS massively breaking treaties and seizing native land in the 1740's in order to place colonists on those lands and collect huge taxes and rents to be sent back to Britain. Britain was also MASSIVELY increasing slaves sent to and working in the new world, mostly in the Caribbean at this time. The slave business was an integral part of British economy, more than it ever was in the US economy. In fact of the 12 million African slaves sent to the new World, only about 6%, about 700,000 ever went to all of North America between 1500 and 1850.
Now about the episode: This was one of the best Outlander episodes to date. Yes it deals with sexual assault and that can be painful. But the rape by the British ship captain, just like the rape in an earlier season by the British Army officers, is about the reality women faced.
The claim by "AquamanUK" that the motive for the US Revolution was so the colonists could abrogate treaties is spurious. The Brits were already breaking virtually every treaty with native people around the world, as were the French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese.There is a context for the US Revolution. There was the development of an entire new school of philosophy about liberty, and anyone who any .education in the history knows this is also the time of Thomas Paine, Locke and for that matter the French Revolution.
We know it was about taxes because British Historians even acknowledge this. The British were in a huge financial hole from wars they promoted on the European continent and also fought all over the world to expand their empire. Culloden occurred slightly before the Seven Years War(in the North American Theater called the French and Indian War) but was part of this general warfare. US colonists had more than paid their fair share in that British war in tax and lives, yet Britain was taxing all classes of colonists at increasing rates and in every type of transaction. Britain WAS massively breaking treaties and seizing native land in the 1740's in order to place colonists on those lands and collect huge taxes and rents to be sent back to Britain. Britain was also MASSIVELY increasing slaves sent to and working in the new world, mostly in the Caribbean at this time. The slave business was an integral part of British economy, more than it ever was in the US economy. In fact of the 12 million African slaves sent to the new World, only about 6%, about 700,000 ever went to all of North America between 1500 and 1850.
Now about the episode: This was one of the best Outlander episodes to date. Yes it deals with sexual assault and that can be painful. But the rape by the British ship captain, just like the rape in an earlier season by the British Army officers, is about the reality women faced.
Wilmington
bobcobb3012 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Well, that was quite graphic and yet it came off as professionally done, unlike how some premium cable shows would have handled sexual assault. This show can create powerful moments when they want to, the problem is just that there is so much filler week to week of people walking and talking about nothing that those moments get few and far between sometimes.
Probably worst episode to date
zeroja21 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers ahead
This was probably the worst episode of the show. Together with the last episode it makes Brianna look like a complete idiot. She goes through the stones an hurts her foot. Almost dies, gets saved. Later gets locked in a room, almost gets taken as a witch (implied), gets saved again, this time by a little girl. Gets delivered to her uncle, who gives her gold and clothes. Furthermore, he gets her onto a boat. After she arrives in Wilmington it is implied that she is stuck, trying to get to where she needs to go. Hooks up with Roger, gets into a fight over a pretty petty thing (compared to the fact that they are both alone in a dangerous world with nobody else to trust). As soon as Roger leaves she, pretty much, goes to the most bad-news looking guy in the whole room and tries to interrogate him. Then gets raped.
And we are supposed to believe that she is sharp and witty, smart and capable, yet every time she is left alone she gets into trouble that could have easily been avoided. If it is like that in the book it should have been done better in the show. This is just trying to shock people for no real reason.
Truly disappointing.
I want to knock their heads together like coconuts to see if they sound as hollow as I suspect.
marit-4405724 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Can we just get Ian back instead of the Disaster Twins, Roger and Brianna? (Yes, I realize we're stuck with them, let me dream.) Roger was right, Brianna was acting like an absolute child, and he isn't far off. For supposedly intelligent people (an MIT engineer, Brianna? REALLY?) they sure do seem to try hard to be dumb. Again, I am sure the actors are not to blame, but good lord.
That was an impressive needle that Claire must have used to stitch up Fanning, I can't even fix a pair of pants without one snapping. Maybe I need more rum.
Fergus and Murtagh reuniting was a nice little moment.
So Lizzy is going to predictably be a problem, it seems. I suppose that will mean she'll be a regular for eternity as well.
Ed Speleers is wonderful at being a truly awful character. Bonnet just had to have been the worst person possible for Brianna to run across.
That was an impressive needle that Claire must have used to stitch up Fanning, I can't even fix a pair of pants without one snapping. Maybe I need more rum.
Fergus and Murtagh reuniting was a nice little moment.
So Lizzy is going to predictably be a problem, it seems. I suppose that will mean she'll be a regular for eternity as well.
Ed Speleers is wonderful at being a truly awful character. Bonnet just had to have been the worst person possible for Brianna to run across.
Final scene ruins the show
cgullickson2 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Don't ignore the rating at the beginning of the episode. It says rape scene and it means it. I realize you should be used to this now given the 1st season prison scene. But this one is worse. Breanne is helpless. Nobody comes to her rescue despite the screams. It's unbearable. I turned it off mid-scene and I'm not sure I can continue watching. I get the point but why go to that level? At some point it's just shock theater. I don't need those kinds of images in my mind & now they're stuck there forever.
Silent
donfinnotdolphin24 December 2018
Horrible
NothingSacred_com29 March 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This episode of the previously excellent series OUTLANDER was very bad. I'm giving it two stars due to Claire's heroic hernia surgery; otherwise, it was complete crap. The scene where Brianna screws Roger after they perform there own version of a marriage was cringey due to total lack of chemistry between the two; the silly argument afterward resulting in their instant divorce was unbelievable, badly written, and shoddily acted. Its obvious they're setting Roger up to be apprehended for Brianna's assault. CONTRIVED is the best word to describe this series-low. DO BETTER!
this was the worst episode I watched so far
gabriel-lichtenstein13 October 2020
Wow, for so many years watching this show, and I never felt so cheated by the screenwriters. They just forced the story to fit and somehow justify the deeper plot, that I hope it has later. But it was like the writers said - yeah the audience will believe in anything, let's just make these events so they fit to the larger plot, don't be elegant just make it fit so we can continue with the schedule. Its like they took the audience for fools, at least I felt that way after watching this episode, I hope the next ones justify this horrible and forced story plot.
Filler episode
lars-hultqvist-535-11367230 March 2020
Historical social nudging that never was... Stop saying Taxes!!! It was Never about taxes.
aquamanUK24 December 2018
Taxes taxes taxes... I have heard this mentioned since their arrival in the colonies.
The War of Independence was NOT about taxes.
The War was fought as a work-around to circumvent the Treaty of 1761 and the Royal Proclamation of 1763. These were to prevent the colonists from settling west of the Appalachian Watershed the European powers had to prevent the westward hoe as per agreements/treaties with the First Nations Peoples.
Everyone wanted western expansion as a manifest destiny, so the ONLY way to get colonists to the west without being stopped by the European Powerhouses was to have a faux war... have it last 6 to 7 years - to socially nudge the mindset of the colonists, then to all of a sudden have the British Military loose. Voila = a New Country is created and it is neither tied nor bound by the treaties and agreements made by others. This new country was the solution to the 'Indian Problem' as it was viewed. The country was created and the colonists... well went all the way to the Pacific Ocean slaughtering the First Nations Peoples with each advancement westward.
To present the story as needing taxes to be raised/paid to build grand homes, is FALSE. They had slave labour and Indentured Servants, so the cost of buildings were just man-hours which the land owners already possessed.
Over 80% of Europeans arrived as Indentured Servants and 100% of Africans were sold to the slave traders. Slave / Indentured Servant... treated the same with the exception the IS's would be released at age 21 or 25 (if they had not married nor any pregnancies - if so tied to the landowner for life) and would be granted 40 acres and a mules for their years of servitude typically from the age of 8 or 9. If you were 10 or 11, you were sold into IS as a 8 or 9yo.
Stop glazing over the real historical facts and stop perpetrating the myth of taxation as the cause of the faux war of 1776.
*The Proclamation of 1763 angered the British colonists because it prohibited colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountain range. Furthermore, those who had already settled in the region were required to relocate to the eastern side of the Appalachians.
*The Proclamation of 1763 angered the British colonists because it prohibited colonial settlement west of the Appalachian Mountain range. Furthermore, those who had already settled in the region were required to relocate to the eastern side of the Appalachians.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
