SiftPop

by Jake Bourgeois, Contributing Writer

Whodunnits are certainly having a renaissance right now, and season one of Hulu’s Only Murders in the Building was not an insignificant part of that trajectory. It took the viewing public by storm and even forced me, as a person who doesn’t usually pay for the service, to purchase a month to catch up.

It was such a phenomenon that there was no way I wasn’t going to be there for the follow-up. But could Only Murders catch lightning in a bottle twice? 

To briefly answer my own rhetorical question: in streaks.

What made the show such a pleasant surprise was how well the interplay worked between Steve Martin’s Charles Hayden Savage, Martin Short’s Oliver Putnam, and Selena Gomez’s Mabel Mora. The fact that Martin and Short worked wasn’t a surprise; there was a long history of collaboration that proved that to be the case, but just how well Gomez fit (both on and off screen) was. The way these characters interact continues to work like a charm, and wanting to spend time with these characters remains a major draw. 

In addition to that, each of them has their own personal storylines that really work for their characters in this season. As teased in the finale, there’s a reconnection between Charles and his ex-girlfriend’s daughter, Lucy (Zoe Colletti). In a season that doesn’t include many new faces, she was by far my favorite. I adored the dynamic of their relationship and Lucy as a character. The other major newcomer, Cara Delevingne, plays Alice, an art gallery owner and Mabel’s love interest for the season. As shown in her flashbacks, there’s no shortage of trauma in Mabel’s past, and her relationship with Alice and her art continues to be a way that the show strives to explore that in a way that deepens her character. Lastly, Oliver spent the season trying to connect more with his son (Ryan Broussard), who’s following in his footsteps on a slightly smaller scale. As someone who found it took a while to warm to Oliver as a character, I enjoyed him much more consistently than I did in the previous season. I found his interactions with his son this season really softened his edges for me. 

The rest of the supporting cast, from the residents of the Arconia, to podcasting mogul Cinda Canning (Tina Fey), and members of their superfan group, I found gave enjoyable performances once again. 

Where I found this season lost steam a bit was in the mystery itself. I found myself fully engaged in the search for the killer from start to finish last season — something that I can’t say here. Part of the problem is the show itself seemed less focused on the mystery. While there was always a balance between the murder they were trying to solve and the side storylines in the first season, the investigation seemed to be pushed to the back for a significant chunk of the middle episodes in the season. While in season one, it felt like I always had a sense of where the investigation stood and the potential suspects, I never felt I had a terribly good grasp on things in this season.  

There are a couple of possible explanations why I think this hit me particularly. First, this season (thanks to a promotion pushed by Hulu aimed at getting more people get the service throughout the whole season), I watched week to week instead of just binging the entire season. Second, last season, I also tabbed the killer ridiculously early, much to the chagrin of my sister. So I promised to see if I could do it again, and held on to my initial thought longer than I knew prudent. Though I’m more inclined to think that this was just a symptom of what I mentioned earlier: that the process of cycling through suspects is less defined. 

Perhaps I’m overthinking things and the show was just a victim of its own success. No episode comes close to what we got last season in “The Boy from 6B”, despite Theo (James Caverly) being a significant part of one of this season episodes. However, that episode was in what I felt was the midseason valley and just served to highlight what I felt was this season not quite being able to capture the same magic or telling the story in quite the same, clever way. 

Along this same line of thought, there’s a fine line when you’re trying to be self-referential and witty between coming across clever and grating. While it worked in season one (and I still enjoyed the podcast being used as a framing device), I largely found myself thinking most of the self-referential dialogue was the latter in season two. There’s a lot of commentary about how hard it is to make a sequel and multiple jabs taken at the fact that the mystery appeared to be taking a back seat. However, when the second point happens to mirror my own issues with the show throughout a major chunk of the middle episodes, it didn’t play well. Maybe that says more about me than it does about the show, but either way, I found much of this season’s attempts at cheeky meta-commentary falling flat. 

Through that combination, I found myself losing enthusiasm for the show and falling behind a couple episodes toward the end of the season. It does rebound at the end to conclude on a high note, with its final episode being my favorite. This allowed me to come away with no qualms about having positive feelings about season two on balance. My enjoyment of the characters provided enough investment to keep me hanging on through the low points. Even more important is the fact that as the show sets the scene for a third season, I’m more than willing to return to watch the gang unravel a third mystery. 

Trying to take the season as a whole into perspective, the rebound of the show’s final hour does not allow for me to completely overlook the real issues I had before it rediscovered its stride. Though, it did do enough to bring me back for more and encourage those that may have been waiting to binge it in its entirety to jump in. 

Score: 6/10

You can follow Jake Bourgeois on Twitter and Letterboxd