A Man. And His Blog.

Season 3, Episode 22 (68)
Date of airing: Apr 29, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.97 million viewers, 1.7/4 with A18-49

Wow… What a ridiculous season finale. And how constructed and fake were those cliffhangers? I especially have to deal with Kalinda’s for a bit, because that is definitely one of the most horrific season cliffhangers I have seen for a while.

Okay, just let us get behind it now: Kalinda (Archie Panjabi) has a husband? That twist literally came out of nowhere, and I cannot believe that no one was suspicious of it. When a guy like Blake was able to find out about Kalinda and Peter in season two, then either he or somebody else would have been able to find out about her husband. That twist is just ridiculously stupid, I don’t even know what to think of it. And since it was obviously a well-kept secret in Kalinda’s life, she sure as hell made it easy for Alicia (Julianna Margulies) to find out. Kalinda just told her like that? I don’t buy that for a single second. The next problem I had with Kalinda is that she glides from one threat to another. First the IRS, bit this story was discontinued like that. Then the threat coming from Bishop, but he wasn’t even mentioned in this episode-very lame. And now, all of a sudden she has a husband, who seems to be even more dangerous than Bishop? I don’t buy that AT ALL. While the Bishop threat disappears into Neverland, the writers create a complete new problem for Kalinda, which was created out of nothing, and now serves as the cliffhanger for her character? I can’t even begin to tell you how bad the writing was here. I’m stretching so far out and say that the script for this episode was the worst of the whole series so far. It’s interesting – and pretty much unbelievable – how a great show like THE GOOD WIFE can sink to such a low, just to serve a few cliffhangers.

Because the show didn’t even need cliffhangers. Alicia’s phone ringing during the first season finale was a subtle one, because it made her make a decision right there. In the second season finale, with Alicia and Will wanting to go at it in a hotel room, she made her decision and lives her life. This season finale could have been about Alicia living the decision she has made. Like, going into her house and having dinner with her family, instead of just standing outside and looking through the window. THE GOOD WIFE doesn’t need cliffhangers, and the final scene was always Alicia-centric. But now the writers chose to put Kalinda in front and Alicia in the background? Someone didn’t think that through at all. I’m very disappointed.

Same goes with the actual case of the week. It could have been more of an internal fight between Lockhart & Gardner and their enemies, when Louis Canning (Michael J. Fox) and Patti Nyholm (Martha Plimpton) would have followed up on their plan to destroy the firm, and not just steal their wealthy client(s). It was another ridiculous and terrible twist, when both Will (Josh Charles) and Diane (Christine Baranski) thought they would have won the duel against the suckers, when they really haven’t. First off, why would Patric Edelstein change law firms anyway? There was no reason for him to abandon ship and go with the competition. I remember the case about the Syrian protests, but like I said back then, Patric’s involvement in that case was ridiculous, and why he would be “angry” at his lawyers wasn’t even implied back then. And it wasn’t implied in this episode either. So I really cannot understand how it was possible for Diane and Will to lose Patric as a client, without even noticing any of it, and without realizing that Patti and Louis might be up to something more than just suing them. It’s stupid for me, because I don’t get behind the logic of it all.

The rest of the episode also didn’t follow through, but they weren’t as bad. I liked the scene between Eli (Alan Cumming) and Jackie (Mary Beth Peil), and I was almost thinking that Jackie was up to something again (or still), when she was all sorry and stuff. I just hope the story has an end now. I already said I don’t like Jackie anymore, and it’s time to finish her off. Giving te kids the opportunity to own the house makes it easier for Alicia to accept Jackie’s faults and for the writers to say goodbye to her, because Alicia has arrived at the point, where she wanted to see her kids: in a good position for the future. They are basically happy; Peter (Chris Noth) is back in their lives; and even Alicia seems somewhat happy about recent events. Who knows, maybe the campaign storyline in the fourth season will bring back Alicia to Peter again, making the next season somewhat more family-themed (which I would like to happen). I just don’t understand why Eli was interested in Jackie’s apology to Alicia in the first place. Isn’t Peter able to hide his anger against his mother in the future campaign? That makes him shine weak, right?

All in all, very disappointing season finale. Who would have thought that? But at least I know now, why the last episode was also ridiculous at some parts. I just hope the writers don’t take it with them over to the fourth season. 3.5/10

“Hello, we are your charming enemies.”

“Hello, I’m the new lawyer, sitting with the crowd.”

Season 3, Episode 21 (67)
Date of airing: Apr 22, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 10.42 million viewers, 1.9/5 with A18-49

Wow, what a boring episode. Cary’s (Matt Czuchry) return to Lockhart & Gardner basically came out of nowhere (I know he was unhappy in the state’s attorney’s office, when Alicia visited him), Lemond Bishop (Mike Colter) came out of nowhere, the threat hanging above Kalinda’s (Archie Panjabi) head came out of nowhere, and the case of the week was boring. During the first act, I thought that Judge Cuesta (David Paymer) would be in the middle of some real prosecutorial wrongdoing, but at the end it was just the effort of blaming somebody else. Every now and then, the writers are good to mishandle a story and make it more unimportant than it is during the beginning. What looked like an interesting piece of legal drama during the first act became a boring step-by-step and paint-by-numbers legal case, which doesn’t even get the characters very far. Cuesta was noticing that he believed in the law, and now he met the lawyers in the business. But did it change him? Did it change Alicia’s (Julianna Margulies) point of view?

Yeah, the case was boring, so I don’t even need to continue talking about it. The development of Judge Wicks (Stephen Root) was interesting though. From a supposed “idiot” (quote Cuesta) to a judge becoming a prosecutor, when he was questioning the witnesses and Judge Cuesta. I always wondered if judges were able to do something like this. They might be kings and gods in the courtroom, but I believe not even the judges can do anything they want. Questioning witnesses by themselves might be a logical response in non-jury trials, since the judges have a dual role here, but what about jury trials? Questions I wanna have answered in the fourth season. Or you tell me now those questions get answered in L.A. LAW and I start watching it right fucking now.

The side plots were okay, but not thrilling. Why would Lana (Jill Flint) be interested in Kalinda’s background story while asking Bishop? Why would she even risk in approaching Bishop, when he’s clearly the “criminal” among the criminals? I would understand if the FBI is behind Bishop and his company, but it seems like Lana is only after Kalinda. So I cannot understand why she would go to Bishop. I also cannot understand why Bishop would try to hurt Kalinda after this situation. Did I miss something, or was it just a scene of showing how dangerous Bishop is? There seriously needs to be some explaining here, because I’m standing in the rain. At least the intimate moment between Kalinda and Lana was good. No pressure, no manipulation, no mind games here. Just Kalinda from her emotional side, and an FBI agent doing her job while she gets finger-fucked.

Cary’s return… Well, I don’t know about this one. It would probably have been better to keep him outside of Lockhart & Gardner, to guarantee developing storylines, which have nothing to do with the firm. But I also want to see how Cary is going to do back with his old guys after the two-year stint as Deputy ASA, and how his friendships to both Kalinda and Alicia will redevelop. I wouldn’t mind for a threesome Cary/Kalinda/Alicia to rule most of the fourth season, having something of a dream team here. That would also mean that Alicia is not always alone. And Cary would be somewhat of a replacement for Caitlin. Since she is gone, Alicia didn’t really have somebody to talk to in the firm.

And finally, the whole power business in the firm, which is still going on. Boring. Julius and Eli (Alan Cumming) obviously can’t stop talking about it, but they also can’t seem to make a move. Is it just a preparation for the season finale, or a way to keep Eli busy until Peter’s campaign? All in all, it was boring. Same goes with Will (Josh Charles) and his little fling with Callie (Julianne Nicholson). It brought a bit of a conflict into the story, when Callie was on a short list for new hires, but the fact that the story was resolved way too easily at the end made her character even more useless. 4.5/10

An elevator full of Blackberrys

Let’s get the action going

Season 3, Episode 20 (66)
Date of airing: Apr 15, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 10.16 million viewers, 1.8/4 with A18-49

This was a very interesting episode. I expected for the governor race to begin near the end of this season, just to have a clean bridge to the fourth season, but I haven’t expected it to begin like that. It’s the 66th episode, and I’m pretty sure that painting Mike (Matthew Perry) as the evil guy was not a coincidence. His scene with Alicia (Julianna Margulies) was such a burner, I was asking myself hat was wrong with him. He behaved like a true devil right there, defending his supposed lie as the truth, and made Alicia even more confused than she already was. Fantastic scene, and that’s how I want the race for the governor’s chair to be. What a shame that Matthew Perry won’t have time to do the fourth season though. He shouldn’t have looked for a starring role in a new sitcom, instead he should have signed a contract with the Paramount guys, just so he can recur in the fourth season, giving me (and Alicia and Peter, and maybe Eli) hard times, because he’s such a stinker and an asshole. I didn’t expect for Mike to be like that after the last episode.

So, my face, when he announced his candidacy for governor during his press conference, was pretty much … down on the floor. It came so surprising and as a WTF moment, I didn’t anticipate it, because I was still waiting for the report to blame the state’s attorney’s office for covering up a murder. Alicia giving her husband hard times, because she is not doing anything to stop the report from coming out (well, she CAN’T do anything to stop it), but instead she is giving him hard times, because she hasn’t expected the evilness of Mike at all. Neither has Eli or Peter for that matter, but that’s another issue. I just hope that the remaining episodes won’t use Mike like in this episode. Now that he’s established as the villain, the story can continue and the writers can focus on the first steps of the race for the governor seat. By the way: I was surprised that the governor seat is being given away in 2012. That means the race won’t be for long (I expected a full-season long race, similar to Peter’s race for the state’s attorney’s office in season two), and the bigger part of the fourth season would be dealing with Peter as governor. When the series is actually taking that route (which it should – accompanying Peter on his way to the Oval Office should be one big goal of the show).

The case of the week was okay. There wasn’t much to see here, and most of it as mainly an investigation led by Kalinda (Archie Panjabi). And once again I was surprised that Kalinda is the almighty, seeing everything, solving the case within minutes, what the coroner’s office and the State lab couldn’t do in years. It’s just a silly twist, and every time I see those kind of twists, I’m rolling with my eyes. The unfortunate thing about the case was that the more interesting story, the Alford plea, was not in front and center of the episode. I wouldn’t have minded to see a psychological duel between the three women and their lawyers, trying to figure out whether to plead guilty, to follow a suit and get money, or to continue stay in prison. It could have been great character drama right there, but instead Kalinda went investigating and found new evidence. Pretty lame.

Also, Jackie (Mary Beth Peil) is getting on my nerves. I wish her Cholera and the Pest now, because her character is not leading to anything anymore. She is still crazy and plotting, she still doesn’t like Alicia and loves Peter too much… I know all that shit for three years now. It’s time to end her. Maybe that’s the reason for her stroke to be in the script – maybe the writers are planning to kill her off, just so she doesn’t get the chance to annoy me anymore. As funny the scene between Jackie and Peter (Chris Noth) in his office might have been, she still is a big fucking rock in the way, bringing character development to a halt. Let’s get rid of that old woman.

Meanwhile, Eli’s (Alan Cumming) mess was a bit more interesting. Of course he lands in bed with Vanessa (Parker Posey), and of course the writers would play on Alan Cumming’s sexual orientation during that scene (“You sleep with me, but you think about Peter”). Just the way of getting rid of Vanessa was lame. I was wondering how Eli could hold his position with managing Peter’s campaign, and still consulting Vanessa’s campaign, and I can’t buy that an outside character had to remind him to take only one campaign – luckily somebody did, because the romantic subtone between him and Vanessa was not believable enough. But only because I see Alan Cumming as the gay guy, and not somebody who would start a romance with a woman. Thank you very much, THE L WORD! 7.5/10

There’s sex in the air

But not between those two alpha men

Season 3, Episode 19 (65)
Date of airing: Mar 25, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.77 million viewers, 1.8/5 with A18-49

Those dudes writing for THE GOOD WIFE know what they are writing about. I haven’t even heard of a blue-ribbon panel/commission before, and now it seems I know so much about a previously unknown topic now than before. Interesting how television shows can widen my horizon. Even though the legal business is not always an intriguing thing to follow in the media, it is definitely good enough to bring up soe controversy and drama in a TV show. And since I’m starting to like legal dramas more and more (L.A. LAW climbs higher and higher on my to-do list), it doesn’t hurt to learn more about this part of governmental “ruling”.

And the episode was actually interesting. After reading the Wiki about blue-ribbon panels though, I found the police shooting to be a silly case to use for a complex matter like that. There was a scene of some emotions, to make either Alicia (Julianna Margulies) connect with the victim or the audience connect with a case once more, but it didn’t really fit into the whole complexity of an unknown topic like the panels. It would have had been more of a political episode, when the case for the panel would have been political themed. I understand that, with Peter’s involvement near the end, it went on the streets of politics with the dropgun twist, but this story would have been wasted for Alicia’s “conflict of interest”, if this is not going to be used for the rest of the season or as a background story arc for the fourth season, serving as a slippery stone for Peter on his way to the governor seat. I really hope this story is going to be used, because I was waiting for Alicia to slip in front of Mike (Matthew Perry) and slap her husband right there, but then the disappointment came and she came with her “conflict of interest”. This scene would have been proof whether the writers have balls and go deep into the story in the fourth season, or if they would have chickened out, followed their (actually really sweet and interesting) flashbacks and made Alicia decide in favor for her husband. But let’s be honest: The first choice would have been awesome story-wise.

The rest of the episode was okay. This time I didn’t like the fight of power in the firm. Eli (Alan Cumming) and Julius (Michael Boatman) are still fighting for Will’s office and the name on the letterhead, and Will (Josh Charles) is still not outside the office and enjoying life. Lame story, and the ending wasn’t surprising either. All of a sudden a Fyvush Finkel kinda guy appears, which we haven’t even seen before, and he is Will and Diane’s (Christine Baranski) rescue for the remainder of Will’s suspension? Pretty lame development. At least the story with the house was neat, but only thanks to the flashbacks. I liked the moments with the happy Florricks, and they were so in contrast with the actual show, they showed how Alicia was before she went back to the legal system. In those short moments, she was a mother and a wife, and a good one at that – there was a sense of family, love and freedom. Something I liked, in contrary to what THE GOOD WIFE has been over the past three years. Those flashbacks are so different from the whole show, and it was nice to see them, just to know that Alicia was (and still is) a wife – whether a good one or not is a question to be answered soon.

And finally, there was Kalinda’s (Archie Panjabi) story, which was a bit lame. I liked Lana’s (Jill Flint) return though. I saw Jill Flint’s name in the credits, and I knew who she was, but I couldn’t connect her with THE GOOD WIFE. As soon as she was standing in front of Alicia, I remembered her and figured out by myself that ANOTHER love interest from one of the main characters has returned to the show. First Diane’s two guys, then Will’s guy, and now Kalinda’s FBI girl? I don’t really know if I wanna see that story, because Kalinda was in shit during the second season already (and an investigation into her financial records would just be a repeat of the investigation against her investigating methods), but I wouldn’t mind for some of the lesbian action to continue. The scene between the two (Kalinda sexually “attacking” Lana) was pretty hilarious. 7/10

All eyes on Alicia…

… and the way she crosses her legs

Season 3, Episode 18 (64)
Date of airing: Mar 18, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.58 million viewers, 1.9/5 with A18-49

This episode was okay. Felt like a usual stand-alone episode with nothing happening in the realm of ongoing storylines. The former friendship between Alicia (Julianna Margulies) and Kalinda (Archie Panjabi) was mentioned, Diane’s (Christine Baranski) old flames returned, Will’s (Josh Charles) old flame returned, Louis Canning (Michael J. Fox) returned, his job offer for Alicia returned… It was literally an episode with returners. I wonder if the writers have something new to offer in the fourth season. At this stage of the show, they have way too many recurring guest characters and side plots, it would be good to end some of them for the sake of starting something new.

I like Louis Canning, and I like that he’s the only “enemy” staying true to Alicia (and not just because of his repeated efforts to get Alicia to come to his firm), but it’s the same with his character for, like … ever. He didn’t develop over his appearances, and he’s still the guy who rather loses a case, just so he can win crucial information and tactics for his future in the legal system. How many cases did Louis lost now, just so he has something for the future? I don’t really know if that’s a good thing to do, especially when you have a new client about to sign. What does a guy like Louis tell that new client? “I’m sorry, but I have to lose your case, just so I can win that and that lawyer, and this and that information about a future case, unrelated to you. Sucks, right?” Well, that’s really awkward story-wise. And in terms of character development. Alicia was kick-ass though. I never saw her hunt for a big pay raise and a bonus as stabbing a knife into Louis’ back. I didn’t see it coming that Alicia used Louis’ offer to get a raise with Lockhart & Gardner. It’s interesting how schemic Alicia has become over the years. Earlier she took the cases and went full-heartedly into them. She hated wife killers and drug dealers, and now she accepts them and even helps them win. Now she’s backstabbing a potential friend (and let’s be honest: She’s understanding Louis and the circumstances he is in) just for her personal sake. THE GOOD WIFE is not a white-vest show anymore, and the characters aren’t heroes. That’s what I love about this show in this season. It didn’t stop in depicting Alicia as the woman gaining a win for her own sake, no matter if she is going against her principles.

The case itself was boring. You are suing hockey, and this comes out of it? Another episode with a ridiculed ending, because the writers weren’t sure how to end the suit in the first place. A suit against a hockey league is a pretty big deal (judging from the hockey stories Kevin Smith told in his podcasts, e.g. the story of the World Hockey Association, and how the hiring of Bobby Hull changed hockey in general) in the sports business, but here it wasn’t treated as such. A suit like this should be used for a double episode, making it more of a political business. But here it was just a lazy-ass way to deform a suit of a guy, who snow-ski’d his wife to death, to a suit against a hockey league, because the guy was a hockey player once. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Also, the settlement at the end literally came out of nowhere. Like I said, it’s a way of abruptly ending the story, because the episode can only be 43 minutes long, and the case must end some time. Really, really lame.

The side plots were okay. Hilarious was Diane’s two-way, only because of the phone call she had with both Jack (Bryan Brown) and Kurt (Gary Cole). I wouldn’t mind for it to continue for the sake of the comedy, because it is funny to see Diane handling two guys. Especially in a US TV drama, where it is normal to see Twentysomethings engaged in two- or threeways like this, but not the older generation. CBS might be an old-skewing network, but sometimes they get the stories right and are out for something completely new. I also didn’t mind the return of Tammy (Elizabeth Reaser), but what was the reason for that? Her little conversation (plus mean, evil face at the end) with Alicia didn’t lead to anything, and the audience didn’t even get a conversation between Tammy and Will. And I would have thought he was the reason why she came back in the first place.

At the end, Tammy’s storyline was questionable and a waste of time, but as long as Louis is continuing hunting down Alicia for his firm, I will overlook it. But I can’t overlook anything, when I see some gaps in Eli’s (Alan Cumming) character development. During the equity partner meeting in the last episode, Eli was ready to bowl Alicia out of the firm, because she’s asking for a raise, and during the equity partner meeting in this episode, he would do anything to keep Alicia in the firm? What the fuck? It still was a good episode. 6.5/10

Back to old places

Not having phone sex

Season 3, Episode 17 (63)
Date of airing: Mar 11, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.88 million viewers, 1.7/4 with A18-49

It was a good episode. Seems like the character of Colin Sweeney (Dylan Baker) is used to bring some awkward black comedy into the show, and I’m surprised myself that it’s still working. His charm and the whole evil twist behind his character are interesting, and I would love to see him again. Preferably not with a dead wife at his side, because that would be just too much.

Well, the case was kind of too much, especially at the end. I found it intriguing that Colin is in the middle of a paternity suit, and then David Lee (Zach Grenier) tries to argue a conception fraud. I mean… hilarious. You should bring that in a movie, and make the legal drama a de facto comedy. Or bring it in another episode of FRANKLIN & BASH, where the writers could play it out as a comedy (in that case, I’d watch FRANKLIN & BASH again). What a shame that the paternity case wasn’t a comedy at all. And when there were funny moments, it was just thanks to Colin and his comedic behavior (his cat movies, after Alicia [Julianna Margulies] and Victoria [Kate Burton] were battling it out in court). But the ending? Very ridiculous. I didn’t know if both Colin and “CEO slut” Isobel (Morena Baccarin) had an agreement, and it wasn’t mentioned for the audience, or if this was a way to quickly end the story. The “He said, she said” theme at midpoint was interesting, and it could have led to an interesting battle about the paternity, and how Colin’s future as CEO could be at stake because of that, but at the end the case was basically gone, Colin and Isobel raise a child now, and there’s fear that Isobel will end up dead in the future. Because Colin is still a wife killer. Supposedly.

What a shame that Caitlin (Anna Camp) is gone now. I kind of expected the secrecy thing, mentioned during the beginning by Kalinda (Archie Panjabi), would be a topic sooner or later, because I wanted Caitlin to be in focus more. And now she’s gone from the show. And I wanted her to be a recurring or regular in the next season. Well, dreams crushed, but at least the writers can focus on something else in the show. Now that the supposed competition for Alicia is gone, the writers can focus on her character again. Because this episode seems to be the first after a very long while, which actually had Alicia in front and center again. I just question the way Caitlin is written out of the show: pregnant, and about to marry. Pretty lame.Also, pretty quick, like the conclusion of the paternity case.

The story in the SA’s office was not that interesting though. The little touch of Peter’s (Chris Noth) bias against black people was intriguing though, but I don’t believe this to be a factor in future episodes. But I liked that Cary (Matt Czuchry) was questioning himself for a few seconds, and wanted to be suspended, just to get an answer about Peter’s bias. The story could have been more elaborated though. A typical B-arc, which has nothing to do with the next episode. As I expected, last episode’s rivalry between Eli, Julius and David was completely gone here. Which brings me to ask: Where the writers chickenshit to write out Will for the rest of the season? What is he doing in the office, when he’s suspended. I find it really lame he’s still there to”consult”. At the end, Will’s presence is something of proof that the writers don’t go all the way. 7/10

The supposed wife killer is a comedian

Confused lawyers

Season 3, Episode 16 (62)
Date of airing: Mar 4, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.83 million viewers, 1.9/4 with A18-49

Another interesting episode. This time a better episode than the previous ones, because the story was compelling. It was not only emotional at some points, but it was also pretty much surreal and definitely interesting. The suicide theme in TV dramas is always a great way to get the characters invested in something, and the writers did nice in getting Caitlin (Anna Camp) invested in this story, making her more and more a character, which could eventually return as a regular in the third season. When she was hired to work for Lockhart & Gardner, I was reminded by how Alicia started with the firm. And Caitlin could eventually become something of a competition for Alicia, like Cary was in the first season. Who knows, maybe Caitlin’s story is leading up to this, or something else. But at the end, I was happy that Caitlin got the time to shine here, and not Alicia.

Like I said, the case of the week was great. Interesting how my questions about plot holes were answered five minutes later in the episode. E.g. all the cameras on the bridge: Were they mounted and recording, just because for the one girl to jump? A few minutes later I got the answer that the cameras were up there and filming for nine months. Next question: Were the filmmakers not even interested in saving the lives of the jumpers? A few minutes later the 911 call was twisted into the story. That’s how you should write scripts: If you ask yourself those questions while writing, either go back and reform the story, making it more consistent with logic, or put the answers (the audience is definitely questioning) right there into the script, after the question was asked. That’s what I liked here. I also liked the little standoff between Caitlin and Nancy Crozier (Mamie Gummer). Blond against blond, and both play stupid. I was laughing, when the two stood in front of Judge Serena (Josh Hamilton), and were arguing the case, while Alicia (Julianna Margulies) was laughing about the fact that Caitlin wins the argument against Nancy with her own tricks. A hilarious moment, and I wouldn’t mind for a moment like this to come again in a future episode. I just found it a bit ridiculous that Caitlin’s win in court was responsible for her getting a promotion. I understand that Wil’s absence calls for some measures from Diane’s point of view, but Caitlin getting a promotion that fast? And after one great day in court? Not really logical.

With that, Will’s (Josh Charles) absence could have been written better. The two demanding sisters were clichéd characters, and even though I like Merritt Wever, she didn’t have much to give here. The Q&A about Will’s potential girlfriend at the other end of the line was pushed to be comedy, and it was annoying because of it. Especially when Kalinda (Archie Panjabi) came and both Aubrey and Sara (Nadia Dajani) were dancing in a sea of happiness. You could probably do this, when you have the characters established, but in their first episode (and it seems like their only episode), the sisters came off very over the top and agitated. But it was nice that Will was shown at home. I was actually expecting for him to not appear in the show for most of the time until the season finale. But now it seems like he still has a say in what’s going on in the firm.

At least the fight of power in the firm was hilarious, even though the laughs were missing. Julius (Michael Boatman) versus David Lee (Zach Grenier), and in the midst there is also Eli (Alan Cumming). What a shame that the writers didn’t savor the moment of Will getting crazy about the fact that Eli is fighting for the office too. Like he said, he was expecting Julius and David behaving like little girls, but Eli? Other than that, the whole story could have been way better though. It didn’t feel like part of the show (especially since the B-arcs in the show are usually stand-alone plots, completely forgotten the next week), and after what I’ve seen, I cannot expect something else to happen. I don’t really think that the fight about Will’s office will have consequences in the next episode…

I’m not mentioning Peter’s (Chris Noth) story here. Fighting to get a keynote speech, and nothing comes out of it. Very boring. Also, I wonder why Peter doesn’t have friends anymore. How did he become state’s attorney in the first place? Where have all his friends disappeared during the first half of the season? 7/10

Being home is awesome

Being in a competition is awesome

Season 3, Episode 15 (61)
Date of airing: Feb 19, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.73 million viewers, 2.1/5 with A18-49

This episode could have been better, if I would have been more focused on it. Because the whole time I didn’t see the connection between the protests in Syria and what a software manufacturer had to do with it. Even after the reading of the synopsis, I still don’t know why the supposed death of a young woman brought Will (Josh Charles) to prosecute against Gross (John Benjamin Hickey), who had nothing to do with the protests in Syria at all. Those episodes make me realize that the writers want to be sophisticated, that they want to challenge their audience, but they should do something to make it easier for the audience, which can’t be challenged like that. Make the story more easy-going, explain what it is all about, establish the connections early on, so that the audience (me) doesn’t have to ask themselves multiple times why a software manufacturer is being blamed for the death of a woman. Which wasn’t even dead to begin with.

One reason why the whole Syrian storyline wasn’t working for me was the returning of some of the guest characters. Neil Gross is back (and I couldn’t even remember him), and because the story involves some unimportant software, Patric Edelstein (Jack Carpenter) can’t be missing (at least I could remember him, since he had that “villainous” character drawing in his episode). Also, the return of Viola Walsh (Rita Wilson) was pretty much out of place – as if the writers wanted me to remind that she offered Alicia (Julianna Margulies) a job. Who knows, maybe it was part of getting the season story forward, reminding the audience that Alicia’s job with Lockhart & Gardner is still in question (especially now, with Will suspended), and that the story will actually continue now. But I like how Caitlin (Anna Camp) was “introduced” into the storyline. With the job offer under her nose, no matter what Alicia was telling her about trust, her character seems to be more important now. As if Lockhart & Gardner will be at stake in general.

Like I said, I couldn’t get into the case of the week at all. Too much was going on, and thanks to the missing connections, I didn’t know who to root for. I didn’t know if I should have taken the “sister alive” twist seriously, because I can’t imagine how Jimmy (Jonathan Groff) was thinking she was dead, even though she was just taken by the Syrian government. For a class action suit like this, there should better be proof of death. But it seems like the writers weren’t even thinking about that. In my world of logic, this case should have blown up in everyone’s faces during prep, because without proof of death, Jimmy can’t sue the company for the death of his sister. Or was there a proof of death, and it was forged? If so, then this was a storyline completely missing from the script.

At least I’m getting Eli’s (Alan Cumming) stories. It’s nice that Vanessa Gold (Parker Posey) also decided to return to the show, and I’m quite happy that she might stay a bit longer. With Eli back into campaign mode, his character could be more interesting again, and the writers could eliminate those boring-ass B story arcs within the firm, which were annoying during the first part of the season. I think it’s not a coincidence that those secondary cases have vanished from the show, and the writers have decided to bring Eli back into campaigning mode. And with his ex-wife at his side, the dynamic of his character could be completely different. Also, Stacie (Amy Sedaris) is just funny. I love how filthy she is, and how she thinks about sucking Eli’s dick all the time. Hopefully the writers don’t go much into it, because a whole truck of comedy gold within a few episodes would be too much for a show like this.

Will’s story was also good. Does his suspension mean he will be gone from the show for the rest of the season? It seems like a ballsy move to cut one of the major characters for one third of the season, but it would also give the writers a chance to bring some more attention to Alicia and her stand in the firm. During the grand jury hearing last episode, it was mentioned that Alicia will be an equal partner of the firm in the future, and I always wondered if the series might end with her name on the letterhead. Does Will’s exit prepare such a storyline here? When Cary can be a deputy within three years, Alicia definitely can be a partner in that time. Other than that, I hope the whole background story involving Will is over now.

And finally, some rumbling going on in the state’s attorney’s office. It’s cool to see Cary (Matt Czuchry) as the “boss”, and that he’s conflicting with his colleagues. I never put much into his “relationship” with Dana (Monica Raymund), but I hope she’s gonna be pissed at Cary during the remainder of the season, giving her something to do, instead of just standing beside Wendy or Cary, or teasing her as a lesbian besides Kalinda. 5.5/10

Not singing, just crying

Will is ready for a beating

Season 3, Episode 14 (60)
Date of airing: Jan 29, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 11.08 million viewers, 2.2/5 with A18-49

Dammit. I wanted this episode to be awesome and superb, but that didn’t happen. The grand jury was boring as hell, the twists were kind of ridiculous (especially the first one, more to that in just a sec or two), and I never think that Alicia’s (Julianna Margulies) simple walk-out (DEFINITELY a bad thing to do in the judicial system) would lead to an out-of-control grand jury, leading to such a shitty ending. I was surprised that the indictment would be over so fast this season. I really thought it would be the back story for the whole season. Now it’s over and the writers have to come up with something else. I wonder what it is.

So, the grand jury. I really wondered why it was treated as a twist, when Diane (Christine Baranski) kinda revealed the friendship between Will (Josh Charles) and Judge Parks (David Fonteno), and how it led to Will taking the one case about the dead child. Isn’t it normal and the usual thing among top lawyers in top firms to switch around the lawyers to the judges they can understand? I thought it would be normal for a lawyer team to switch lawyers, when one of them knows what the residing judge is up to. Isn’t it always better when a lawyer handles a case with a judge he knows? So, that one I didn’t understand. Second thing I didn’t understand why the prosecution didn’t even think about the evidence, given by Kalinda (Archie Panjabi), could be fake. With all the investigation into Will, and his connection to Alicia, did no one think about Will’s connection to Kalinda? Or Diane for that matter? I found it to be kick-ass, that Kalinda forged the evidence (I so fucking knew something would be up with last episode’s last scene), and the slapping moment was pretty much THE highlight of the episode (and one of the best dramatic moments of this season), but why was the prosecution so hot in believing everything Kalinda gave them? Dana (Monica Raymund) should have known not to completely trust her. And finally, the whole twist ending. Why would Wendy Scott-Carr (Anika Noni Rose) even think about answering question, when she’s not allowed to do so? And why isn’t she allowed to answer question? This is a grand jury, which handles cases a bit differently, so the jury should know a bit more about what is actually happening. But like Alicia said, when she walked out: Wendy is out of control. Seemed like the whole indictment was out of control. Only Cary’s (Matt Czuchry) face was questionable, when the jury started to ask questions: Was he thinking about how to go into the case against Will in the future, or was he just wondering how fucked-up his job is? Was that a moment of foreshadowing the rest of the season? Is Will’s case not over yet?

Eli’s (Alan Cumming) story was okay. I was laughing during the restaurant moment, when Stacie (Amy Sedaris) put whipped cream on his fingers and was sucking them like she sucked a cock. I mean, THAT’s how you show somebody that you want to fuck them right here, right now. I had the feeling that Stacie wanted to rip her clothes off and suck off Eli right in the restaurant. Thing is just, there were way too many witnesses for a suck-fest like that, which is why she only sucked on the whipped-creamed fingers. But it was definitely a hilarious scene. Other than that, I didn’t get the story much. Either I was unconscious for a moment and missed a scene, or I didn’t get that Eli was lied to the whole time (by Stacie), so that he doesn’t get the crisis managing job. Maybe there was something missing, because the moment I actually got the whole story was when Caitlin (Anna Camp) came and explained what was happening. Problem is just: I didn’t know AT ALL, what was actually happening with GLAC and Eli’s involvement. I was distracted by the whole thing going on between Eli and Stacy.

Finally I have to say that I’m glad to see the little angry conversation between Alicia and Peter (Chris Noth). Now he knows for sure that she and Will had sexual relations. I always wondered if the writers were dancing around that topic, because they didn’t want the moment of Peter finding out the truth and nothing but the truth. I think that’s the first scene in this season, where Peter really learned the whole thing (despite his suspicion and talks of the town) – or maybe the revelation came to him already and I have forgotten it? Anyway, he knows, and I know he knows. But fuck, I was angry, when Alicia chickened out in telling her kids. I wanted to see that scene. I wanted the kids to shrug their shoulders and ask “So what? You fuck your boss? What’s the big deal?” Now I’m hoping the writers will go into the whole mother-thing though. Now that Alicia has mentioned it, she really wasn’t much of a mom to her kids (thank God!). Does that mean the writers have created a way to make the kids more annoying again? 6.5/10

The best dramatic moment of the season?

After-sex means holding a picture of the ex-wife in your hands

Season 3, Episode 13 (59)
Date of airing: Jan 15, 2012 (CBS)
Nielsen ratings information: 9.45 million viewers, 2.0/5 with A18-49

It seemed like an interesting episode, but it kind of wasn’t. I had a problem with the story, because it was so ridiculous. Maybe not at first, but as soon as I was thinking about it a bit harder, the story fell apart for me. The writers deal with a new currency, which should be a bi deal for the government, the treasury, and people in general, but it wasn’t treated as such. Instead the whole Bitcoin thing was mostly a situation, which was dealt by the involved – as a thing of jealousy and “I did it”-fame. In addition, the search for Mr. Bitcoin seemed like an investigation, which should have been part of a crime show, and not a legal drama.

Meaning: I didn’t like the main plot. I was surprised to see Jason Biggs though, but unfortunately he didn’t get the best character from the writers, while most of the guest stars do get the better characters. Even more, Biggs didn’t have much screentime to work with his character. The only mentionable scenes were his first two, when he walked in to Lockhart & Gardner and put his money on the table. The rest was meh. It was interesting to see how the story turned out to be a bit for Kalinda (Archie Panjabi). Stack was pretty much gone after the midpoint of the episode, only showing his face for a few seconds, and then Kalinda was in the middle of the story. People crush on her, she is the suspect for a few seconds, and in the middle she is responsible for everything. I believe that Kalinda is drawn too much as a hero in this show, with conflicting character material, just so the writers can deliver scenes like the last one of this episode. It’s getting annoying. Especially since I don’t know where Kalinda stands as a character. She was always back and forth, when it comes to her work for Lockhart & Gardner and her relationships, but I want at least a bit of consistency for her character to root for her.

The side plots were okay though. The investigation against Will (Josh Charles) went nowhere, and instead we just had another scene with Elsbeth (Carrie Preston) – to prove she is in fact a recurring character, and to show that Wendy Scott-Carr (Anika Noni Rose) is still interested in banging Will to jail. The few scenes the story had in this episode were a waste of time though. I mean, Wendy only mentions the names of the three judges in question, Will feels uneasy and scared, and that’s it? I don’t even give a fuck about the final scene, because I already see it coming that Kalinda is not really out to burn Will in front of his enemies. There is something else going on, and I believe the writers will play on it in one of the next episodes.

Zack’s dating life is funny though. Maybe a bit stupid, when you hate the kid characters in the show, but I was laughing, when Alicia (Julianna Margulies) came with her moral talk, and Zack (Graham Phillips) was probably just thinking “Are you scared of my black, younger girlfriend? Do you want me to be gay instead?” Also, Alicia’s shock when Zack mentioned the race thing was hilarious. Even better, the story got more hilarious when Jackie (Mary Beth Peil) came with the same speech. Seriously, what would a horny teen like Zack think in this situation, when both his mom and grandma came with the same speech about his girlfriend within a few days? You can write jokes about it, and they would all be funny.

Yeah, it was pretty much a forgettable episode. Next one, please, and hopefully stories like the Bitcoin “scandal” will be used by the writers to be more political-edged. It could have been a real TV thriller (when used for multiple episodes), but instead there just were a few people edging out the world wide web, and out of it came anger from the treasury department. Boring. 5.5/10

The badges are there for Kalinda’s amusement

Hot chicks with hot laptops are hot