Leona Lewis
Banned
Omar so genuine and bro that the actor who plays him is also named Omar.
More like trying to find a jobIs Mike back at the taco place to finish the job?
It's funny that by the end of just 6 episodes of Breaking Bad, Walt had already killed a man in a basement.
Saul's descent is a more gradual one.
breaking bad was pretty balls to the wall for the most partIt's funny that by the end of just 6 episodes of Breaking Bad, Walt had already killed a man in a basement.
Saul's descent is a more gradual one.
Walt killed a guy in the first episode. Emilio.It's funny that by the end of just 6 episodes of Breaking Bad, Walt had already killed a man in a basement.
Saul's descent is a more gradual one.
Walt killed a guy in the first episode. Emilio.
More like getting some tacosMore like trying to find a job
cool lolAs a worker at the Hinky Dinky, it's not that bad
definitely feel like it flew byShorter than usual episode.
To cripple Salamanca.in the sneak peek: why is mike staking out the place?
To cripple Salamanca.
Feels like Mike is the cause of Hector's condition in Breaking Bad.in the sneak peek: why is mike staking out the place?
Feels like Mike is the cause of Hector's condition in Breaking Bad.
in the sneak peek: why is mike staking out the place?
To cripple Salamanca.
Man that would be amazing if that's the case.Feels like Mike is the cause of Hector's condition in Breaking Bad.
Feels like Mike is the cause of Hector's condition in Breaking Bad.
Good points. I don't think Mike doing that is super obvious because I didn't even think of it until you mentioned it. Makes sense though and wouldn't mind seeing it.-- Certainly looks like Mike is going to snipe Tio Salamanca like Nacho described taking out Tuco, leading to Tio's stroke / wheelchair / bell setup. But now it seems too obvious so who knows. It's too obvious now, right?
-- I'm guessing we never see Kim and Jimmy practicing law in the same building. No way.
-- We're still on track for Chuck suing Jimmy out of the McGill name, forcing the Saul Goodman name.
-- Jimmy's now former boss really was decent to him. Nice writing there by having him asking what the audience is wondering: Why didn't you even try to make it work? And equally good writing in his response, which is the entire point of the show: "I'm just a square peg."
-- LOVED the montage.
-- LOVED wacky inflatable arms guy, clearly setting up wacky inflatable Statue of Liberty during BB.
-- Ok, I'll admit here I was wrong about Mike's daughter-in-law when it came to her imagining / faking hearing gun shots. That's not PTSD. That girl is scandalous AF and manipulative as hell. Surprised they didn't show her smirking after he walked away just to rub our noses in it.
-- Jimmy throwing the can in the trash instead of the recycling! YES!
-- We (or whoever I was talking about it with) were right about Kim being from Nebraska-ish based on her Royals shirt. Again this feels obvious but are we supposed to think she survives this mess and now we have an anchor in Omaha for a post-BB Saul/Jimmy-Kim meetup?
-- I don't think Kim breaks bad, ever. I hope I'm wrong because I want to see her really fall as the cause of Jimmy's full fall and if we get a post-BB story, maybe his redemption.
-- Yes this was the best BCS episode yet. And I'm guessing the next three are E X P L O S I V E.
Preview spoiler --Pretty sure we saw Chuck having what we're supposed to think is a heart attack in HHM's lobby. OOH THE SUSPENSE
Is Mike back at the taco place to finish the job?
didnt hector have a stroke?
i dont think mike made him how he is in BB
Also I'm not sure what Kim's end-game is here. She doesn't want to bend the rules, so why is she going with Jimmy?
but his rule bending won't affect her professional life.
Maybe, but they aren't sharing a practice, they will just each have their own offices in the same building with their own names and incorporation or whatever, they won't legally be connected. They could get offices next to each other in a multi-story office building and nobody would probably make any connection between the two.But that's wrong. If she's attaching her name to him under the "one roof" she's pretty much going to have a reputation hit if anything he does comes to light because she's "associated" with him. Again, I don't get why she would do that if she purposely knows he's gonna flaunt the law.
Maybe, but they aren't sharing a practice, they will just each have their own offices in the same building with their own names and incorporation or whatever, they won't legally be connected.