It'd be a tall order for Heroes, returning tonight to NBC, to win back all the fans it made during its awesome first season. But can the show — so bogged down by superfluous characters, time-travel overkill, and ridiculous inconsistencies in its tumultuous (and crappy) second season that creator Tim Kring actually felt the need to apologize for it — win us back? Encouragingly, reviews for tonight's premiere have been largely positive. But they also point out that expectations have been so dramatically lowered that pretty much anything Kring could have written would've been an improvement.

The Star-Ledger's Alan Sepinwall pretty much sums it up: "The first hour of Heroes season three is more exciting than most of the 11 hours of Heroes season two combined. Considering that Heroes had one of the worst sophomore slumps of all time, though, that's not a high compliment." Elsewhere, the Times gives Kring points for following through on fixing season two's mistakes, the London Free Press applauds the fact that there are no new major characters introduced, and RedEye breathes a sigh of relief that "Heroes is still worth watching."

Could Kring, knee deep in the muddle of the second season, have tanked the rest of the schedule, like a sports team angling for draft picks, in order to take the heat off for the show's third season? He knew he could always partially blame it on the writers' strike, after all. Is this why Claire is still alive?

Sepinwall on TV: 'Heroes' season three review [New Jersey Star-Ledger]
Supernatural Powers, Yes. Gen-Y Problems, Also Yes. [NYT]
'Heroes' is still worth watching—plus, super spoilers for Season 3 [Show Patrol/RedEye]