Spoilers for "Life" coming up just as soon as I watch some "Top Chef" with my chimp...
Ah, now there's the "Life" I remembered so fondly.
After a season premiere that spent too much time on Charlie Crews For Dummies, followed by a second episode with a case as confusing as it was uninteresting, episode three finally lands in the very narrow but rewarding target that the show was hitting towards the end of its abbreviated first season.
The tableau of the frozen, blue scientist was another one of those beautifully macabre crime scene images the show does so well. (And Crews accidentally shattering the guy was funnier for me than it may be for you, since I watched this episode a few weeks before "Heroes" tried a similar gag.) The juxtaposition of the activists (who treat animals like people) and the scientists (who treat people like animals) was nice, and led to some sparkling Crews/Reese dialogue. I was simultaneously amused and horrified by the notion of "Jim shoes" (shoes stitched from the skin of the group's dead founder), and I got a kick out of Reese asking whether Crews' shiner was from the monkey or another punch, as well as her explaining that sleeping with a woman with two different names "doesn't count as a threesie." Sarah Shahi's turned out to be a fine deadpan comedian, in addition to her usual role as Damian Lewis' straight woman.
The ongoing storylines also got some traction. Though Crews and Jen making out in the back seat of her car in episode two felt a bit rushed, Crews making an ass of himself to get "permission" from her new husband was very much in character. And Reese going against her father -- in the same episode where we're reminded how much steering wheel-banging DNA they share -- was just as interesting a development as Jack Reese being warned, "Not for nothing, there was six. There is five. There could just as easily be four." (Was Kyle Hollis the sixth? Rachel Seybolt's real dad? The detective who worked the case?)
On the other hand, I'm not loving the Donal Logue character, despite my previously-stated affection for Logue himself. His lust for Reese is just too blatant, even when wrapped in dialogue that the writers meant as double entendres. Unless the payoff is going to be that Logue doesn't want to get into Reese's pants, it's not a great intro for the new boss.
Finally, is there a worse possible character witness in the world than Charlie Crews? Sure, he's great if you need a box full of unapproved cancer pills for your kid, but when you need him to show up, on time, and sober, and be able to speak coherently about your good qualities, the guy's just an epic failure. Sigh...
What did everybody else think?