N.P. Edition is Commentary Review with “no plot” (N.P.) explanation; best for people who watched the episode.

COLD OPEN: I have no idea whether I like this show or not. It might be too heavily demo’d for girls, but I’m for sure not that intrigued by the long-term storyline anymore.

ACT ONE: Firstly, for a guy to randomly help a girl living next door of whom he rarely talks to at all seems ridiculous. What’s also ridiculous is someone calling the phone of the LSAG (long story-arc girl) when everyone and their mother knows she was murdered. Also, impersonating a lawyer is not the best thing for a law student to do, especially when you (again) don’t know the girl AND you’re not even sure whether she’s innocent. Pretty much when they revealed the “ex-boyfriend rich, girl poor” argument, I knew which case Keating was taking. But was this convincing enough to give Wes Gibbins a trophy over it? I don’t know. Seems emotionally-charged. And the flashforwards: As far as the alibi factor goes, it’s a good, necessary addition, but kind of “yawn”-ville.

ACT TWO: Asher’s constant drive for approval is really off-putting…which I guess is the point, so okay fine. And where the heck is he during all these flashforwards? The only thing that this episode brought for me was a surprise of the episodic plot. I was admittedly thrown for a loop by the way this story ended. Yeah, I got it: the defendant mom was thrilled her former lover (and bomber) lived his life full of excitement. But we grow up. And most importantly, we realize killing people isn’t cool. But in Shondaland, these characters must be horribly flawed, so I guess it’s okay. Speaking off flawed, this whole Annelise Keating collapsing when it comes to personal struggles is just…well, let me put it this way: I hate two-faced characters, or the concept of a secret identity, that can be easily detectable. It reminds me of Gregory House from House (FOX). House acted the same way at home as he did at work. Yes, he was messed up, but I didn’t feel like I was dealing with two completely different characters. But on HTGAWM, Prof. Keaton feels like two completely different animals: the cutthroat one, and the unstable one. And I’m not a huge fan of it. But again, this is for a girl-demo, so not for me.

ACT THREE: The storyline between Michaela and her fiancée was finally revealed today, which was nice, but when we find out that the fiancée may have add sexual relations once with Connor, I’m like…jeez, how small is this world? Michaela reacts horribly, and with the case of the week ending the way it did, trust became a huge issue. The case of the week speaks to how horrible people can become, but this was such an insanely extreme outlier in human behavior. Michaela went to the extreme there, and while her speech of destroying her fiancée felt empty, it might have been a set up for what’s to come.

THE CONCLUSION: So what did I think about episode 3? I mean, it was snug and tight and took me to 90 different stages and emotions. But for the most part, I’m just not connecting with the characters. Also, the long story-arc of the season was weak in this episode. We got an alibi and we have Michaela losing her ring (and losing her cool way more than everyone else). So…I don’t know. This show’s a sure thing to get renewed for a season 2, but I’m not sure I want to keep going.

But what do you guys think? Is the series headed in the right direction, or has the show lost your interest? Do you like the case-of-the-week, but not the season-long story arc? Or perhaps you find the season-long mystery better than the episodic cases? Enjoy both stories? Dislike both?

Previously: Episode 2 Review
Following: Episode 4 Review