Six pre-existing reviews when there usually are none? Then I read them and not only did *every* one of them rate this episode a full 10/10 (meaning that in their opinion, NOTHING can be better than this, only equal at best), they also all *seem* to be written by rabid Twi-hards. And those of us who are not Twi-hards know for a *fact* that they are not the most objective people around. Evidence for the prosecution: most of the six reviews consist mostly of drooling over Jackson Rathbone (who, ironically, *is* brilliant here) than objective observations of the episode itself. Now, it may be only a matter of days before 10,000 Twi-hards answer the question "Was this review useful to you?" with a click of "No", just because they disagree with this review.
To be clear: THIS EPISODE HAS A GREAT CONCEPT AND JACKSON RATHBONE'S ACTING IS BRILLIANT HERE. The opening and closing quotes come from a refreshingly unexpected sources - and fit the episode better than most "profound" quotes in other episodes. But that does *not* mean this is as good as anything can possibly get. The main fault? Like the previous episode, this episode is also written straight into the standard Criminal Minds mold and directed according to the standard Criminal Minds mold. Yet again we are fed with formulaic lectures given to the local police and the overlays of the murder upon the BAU agents at the scene of the crime, which is completely unnecessary. Showing what happened earlier while simultaneously showing the agents explaining what happened still equals insulting the audience's intelligence.
The formulaic nature by definition means that this episode *cannot* be unexceptional. The final twist is not without antecedent nor is it presented in a completely new way. There is no real *innovation* here or re-invention of the crime procedural drama genre here, "only" a great story that could have been a 8/10, but because of the formulaic nature it's "just" 7/10 (still very good).