Review roundup for 3x03, Competitive Ecology

[myr_soleil]

Fair warning: these reviews are all over the place! Some quite liked it and called it the best episode this year, others absolutely hated it and thinks the show is going down quickly. There's a consensus that the main story of the group fighting was sort of repetitive, but some liked it and some didn't. I think the majority thought the Chang storyline hilarious, but there are some very vocal haters too. Something positive that came back more than once is that Michael K. Williams as Professor Kane was better used in this episode than the premiere.

• Todd VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club really liked his namesake - "a character named Todd, who is, if we’re being honest, the greatest character in the history of television." He was a fan of the episode in general (giving it a B+), because the A-story never became "wholly predictable" even though it played on a lot of sitcom clichés, and also because it was "solidly, roundly, across-the-board funny". He also appreciated Chang: "The B-story doesn’t really have any of this thematic richness or commentary on the way TV works, but it doesn’t have to have that: It’s just really funny."
• Alan Sepinwall of Hitfix calls the episode "the most satisfying, cohesive episode of the three to air so far in season 3" and thinks it was a lot like Cooperative Calligraphy. He also calls the Chang subplot "extremely funny".
• Daniel Carlson of the Houston Press Art Attack blog mentions Dan Harmon's eight-point wheel narrative arc while explaining why the episode "felt more like a technical victory than a comedic one". Even though he thought "there were some great jokes in the episode" and liked Chang's story, he says the episode "wasn't a ton of fun".
• Cory Barker at TV Surveillance thought the episode "repetitive" (the group being horrible and hating each other was a big theme of Season 2) but he thought it still worked. Like the critics above, he calls the Chang B-plot "very funny".
• Jesse Carp at Television Blend seemed excited by Chang's storyline but then says "It wasn't too bad but it definitely doesn't rank up there with a solid half of any of the better episodes", so I'm not sure what we're supposed to understand here. Apparently s/he's not sure it was "consistently funny or smart enough for this show". Conclusion: "I don't think I'd fail this one but I'd meet after class and tell them that they can do better".
• Willa Paskin of Vulture deems the episode "weird", which is saying something since "A show that spent significant time talking about an existential emergency diarrhea incident on the set of Cougar Town has set the bar pretty high on weird." She thought the episode was funny but "sort of a whiff".
• Our favorite double-duty reviewer, Andrea Towers, wrote in TVOverMind that the episode was "not only enjoyable in all its plots but also in what it gave us as viewers" (referencing the Troy/Britta nods and the study group fighting "in a rather hilarious way".) She wants a "Detective Chang spin-off", which would certainly be something. In The Voice of TV, she also references Cooperative Calligraphy but says it "took things one step further" by baring everyone's personality issues. She misses Dean Pelton and enjoyed the return of Michael K. Williams.
• Mark D Curran of TV Geek Army recaps the episode, pointing out that "now that they're halfway through their respective degrees, you’d think that the students at Greendale would start taking on class projects other than dioramas".
• Emily Cheever of TVology recaps and gives the episode 7/10. She was reminded of Paradigms in the "mockery of the Community formula", but didn't "beam with joy".
• Kelsea Stahler from Hollywood.com opens with "Oh how the mighty have fallen. Somehow one of the best shows on television has suddenly become frustratingly mediocre." She thinks that the Chang storyline "was easy and it didn’t make sense for the fantastic Chang character we’ve come to know", that Michael K. Williams is "wasted" and adds that only Britta made her giggle.
• Leigh Raines of TV Fanatic agrees with Kelsea above. She thought the Chang storyline was not only incoherent but boring: "He is taking himself too seriously. I prefer my Senor Chang as the bitter, backbiting lunatic who greases himself up and crawls through the vents." She's also annoyed that the group is "always fighting". The episode gets a 3/5.
• Eric Koreen at the National Post's The Ampersand noted that "Community is repeating itself just a bit" but adds that it works. He praises Ken Jeong's "wonderful physical comedy". Even though he calls the episode "very enjoyable", Parks and Rec still wins this week's match-up.
• Sean Gandert from Paste Magazine gives the episode 7.1. He was disappointed by the repetition of the show telling us again about "how dysfunctional it thinks its cast of characters is" and felt that a lot of the characters reverted to their earlier self, with a disregard for their evolution. He calls the Chang subplot "pretty entertaining" but wonders why it was in the same episode as the main one.
• Robert Canning at IGN disagrees with the above and thinks that "episodes that focus on their bickering can be so much fun. These aren't real fights, they're friend fights." He liked the self-referential moments of the beginning, and calls the Chang story "funny, even if a bit one note". The episode gets 8 out of 10.
• The TV Obsessed gives the episode 9.1/10 and writes a quick review where they call the main plot "very funny" and the Chang one "pretty clever".
• "Community asked a lot of good questions, showcased a lot of great performances, and thankfully had a lot of laughs! " says Luke Gelineau of Daemon's TV. He "absolutely loved Chang’s story" and "laughed every time [Todd] opened his mouth". He calls it "by far the best episode so far for this short season".
• Yiannis Cove from Sound on Sight says "overall this was a solid episode, though not a great one" and thinks "this season has significantly dropped in quality from the previous two", which is a big statement to make three episodes in.
• Lastly, Amy Lee from the Huffington Post recaps the show.

Ratings-wise, we went down 17% to a 1.5 rating in 18-49. 3.37 million people watched. Interestingly, that's only half of the people who watched Charlie's Angels, but our ratings were still better. Here's to hoping that show stays on the air forever to keep us from fourth place!

Phew! Is it just me, or do we have more reviews this year? I'm sure I missed some, too, so feel free to link in the comments.