AOQ Angel Review 2-6: "Guise Will Be Guise"
Arbitrar Of Quality
episodes in these review threads.
ANGEL
Season Two, Episode 6: "Guise Will Be Guise"
(or "Pryce takes charge")
Writer: Jane Espenson
Director: Krishna Rao
I'm going to have to go on record saying that the pun in the title is
beyond terrible. It's so bad it's bad.
I realize that a long-running series can't be doom and gloom all the
time. Some stories benefit from being stretched out over many
episodes, and most shows need their down moments and lighter fare.
Being a Mutant Enemy show, it also needs to poke fun at its
self-important side once in awhile. None of that really takes away from
my disconnect with being made to endure a whimsical comedy at a time
like this. It's not what I'm in the mood to see after the powerful
ending of "Dear Boy," with our protagonist out for blood. Besides,
I kinda don't think ATS is really suited for this kind of story to
begin with. Now, the raid on the W&H building, taken on its own, is
both amusing and intense (i.e. the games with the elevator door, and
"see?... what?! *That's* the plan? Walking real quick was the
plan?"). But starting with that scene may have been a mistake, since
it did a lot to get me in entirely the wrong mood for the rest of the
show.
As for said humor... well, mistaken-identity comedies don't do much
for me, so I'm not the target audience. But does everything have to
be so stupid and broad? Rather than dissecting every joke I didn't
like, I'll just mention two examples. The first is the cross in the
shop. The scene starts with a closeup of the cross. The characters
drift towards it for several minutes, and hover around the area, before
Wesley slowly reaches out and touches it without noticing, then has the
predictable delayed overcompensated reaction. Har de fucking har. The
second is the sunlight, which doesn't need to be described, but
I'll just say that I found it pretty painful.
Allowing a little bit of credit, there are a few places where the show
could've gone overboard and didn't. For example, many shows would
have allowed the opening scene with Wesley tripping over things to go
on twice as long as it did. The script also allows for a few chances
in which our hero-wannabe can plausibly fight off attackers through a
mix of skill and idiot luck: he scores one victory through bluster, and
another through the opponents relying on a spell that presumably
doesn't work on humans.
Yes, I did laugh from time to time too. Cordelia's imitation of
Angel (one day, I expect a whole script that consists entirely of the
main cast doing impressions of each other. It'll probably be pretty
funny). "I'm rescuing you! Key ingredient: we leave!" Wesley
trying to take over the planning session is good, and Cordelia sort of
tentatively trying out a bottle of wine as a weapon is chuckle-worthy
too. And I can spare a smile for "so not a eunuch." Rao has fun
filming Wesley as if he were Angel (that gag is set up in the very
first shot of the episode), even doing the face-half-shadowed thing a
few times.
In theory one of the main thrusts... ugh, the punning is contagious.
That wasn't intentional, by the way, but I'm leaving it in. In
theory, one of the main thrusts of the story is the relationship
between Wes and Virginia. Big who-cares there. Almost every scene
between them is totally by-the-numbers, from the initial mistrust to
the gradual growing feelings to the inevitable scene in which the truth
comes out. The main part which I'm sure is "funny" is that
Wesley succumbs to his human weaknesses ("you know, this whole curse
thing has been widely misinterpreted...") - normally I feel like he
takes his job more seriously, but whatever, the character's always
been horny. I kinda like how he clearly is going to tell her the truth
at least once, before thinking better of it. And also, the fact that
her sex life means the ritual was doomed to failure before AI even got
involved is I guess supposed to be cliché-subverting and/or funny.
Have I mentioned the big who-cares yet? Part of my problem is with
Virginia herself, who's not a very interesting character - girl
pampered by her rich father and protected against her will, yearning
for nothing more than freedom, yeah, yeah. Been there, done that,
finished the video game and sold it. Brigid Brannagh doesn't suck or
anything, but she doesn't really hit the big emotional moments, in my
mind.
Meanwhile, in the parallel story which I haven't mentioned yet, Angel
seeks spiritual enlightenment from a swami. The guy he learns from
initially plays the role of the sweaty, unpretentious, crusty guy who
has surprising wisdom. I find it interesting that he's convincing
enough in that role that I bought it, but I guess if he weren't good
at putting on this kind of show, he wouldn't have been the one chosen
to replace the real Magev. This story played out better for overall
than the other one. Not great, just better. The insights into our
hero aren't all that deep, but the show does make something of a case
that he's got a fair amount of worry about appearances underneath his
persona, regardless of whether he's in Caring Protector or Badass
Avenger mode. This is, however, probably the first time I can recall
getting annoyed at a BTVS reference.
This story gives us easily the best moment in the show: "Magev"
standing outside in the sunlight, revealing all after having been
caught attacking Gunn, convinced that he's safe. Enter the fishing
line. It's a dose of brutality that suggests that Angel has not
exactly been mellowed out by this experience, even if we do play him
for comic relief again later. More violence like that, that's what I
want, less of the farce stuff. Blood good.
Still more mockery over the hair gel, for the first time that I can
recall since Jane's last ATS script, RWAV.
So...
One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
AOQ rating: Decent
[Season Two so far:
1) "Judgment" - Weak
2) "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - Decent
3) "First Impressions" - Good
4) "Untouched" - Good
5) "Dear Boy" - Good
6) "Guise Will Be Guise" - Decent]
One Bit Shy
news:1150236832.8...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Guise Will Be Guise"
Angel: Where you in Virginia?
Wesley: That's beside the point.
A moment worthy of Firesign Theatre. If that doesn't seem funny, then I
guess then there's no helping you here.
> Now, the raid on the W&H building, taken on its own, is
> both amusing and intense (i.e. the games with the elevator door, and
> "see?... what?! *That's* the plan? Walking real quick was the
> plan?").
One of the funnier scenes I've seen in Angel thus far, IMO. It's got some
decent lines like, "Walking real quick was the "plan"?" But it's more the
physical comedy of fighting over the elevator door and the general comic
timing. It's just well staged.
> As for said humor... well, mistaken-identity comedies don't do much
> for me, so I'm not the target audience.
That, of course, opens the question of what kind of comedy does it for you?
Inquiring minds want to know.
> But does everything have to
> be so stupid and broad?
It's a classic style. In film, probably harkening back to screwball
comedies of the 30's and 40's. A lot of peple appreciate it, though it
needs to be executed with elan to work well.
> Rather than dissecting every joke I didn't
> like, I'll just mention two examples. The first is the cross in the
> shop. The scene starts with a closeup of the cross. The characters
> drift towards it for several minutes, and hover around the area, before
> Wesley slowly reaches out and touches it without noticing, then has the
> predictable delayed overcompensated reaction. Har de fucking har. The
> second is the sunlight, which doesn't need to be described, but
> I'll just say that I found it pretty painful.
Well, you picked up on what I thought were the two poorest executed routines
in the show. In any case, the Wesley part of this little farce was quite
uneven. Some things worked nicely. The opening sequence with the balky
file drawer played well. As did reconnecting with Angel and the subsequent
rescue. I think the romance part is kind of sweet. I like Virginia myself,
and I think they looked good together.
Wesley's intermediate comic moments, however, were kind of tepid. There may
be a structural problem. As a stand alone show, this script should really
be played even more broadly with more over the top characterizations from
the thugs and, especially, from Wesley. But this is an ongoing series, and
you've got to stay in character with Wesley. So we get what we got.
> Yes, I did laugh from time to time too. Cordelia's...
Cordy: Damned skippy! He's getting famous off this! Reflected glory -
that's my thing!
---
Angel: Hah. Squired - who says squired?
---
Bryce: Be a good girl now. This is hard enough already.
Benny to Virginia: He's really torn about it.
(It's Benny's delivery while strapping Virginia to the altar that makes it
work.)
---
The notion that there's a company called "Consolodated Curses".
> And also, the fact that
> her sex life means the ritual was doomed to failure before AI even got
> involved is I guess supposed to be cliché-subverting and/or funny.
I think it's mainly supposed to be farce. The concluding rescue I think
works very well - especially everything around the virgin status, which is
propelled with terrific comic timing as we see everybody in a tizzy for
their own reason. (And you do notice the pun of Virginia's name too.) The
demon repelled by it. Bryce outraged at it. Virginia appalled that her
father could be that stupid and amoral both. Gunn laughing at the
ridiculousness of the notion. Wesley grateful for it. Cordy upset that
Wesley was getting some so easily. And Angel moaning that he's not a
eunich. 7 unique perspectives delivered in rapid fire - all situationally
amusing. (8, if you include Rick scurrying away.)
I laughed a lot.
> Meanwhile, in the parallel story which I haven't mentioned yet, Angel
> seeks spiritual enlightenment from a swami. The guy he learns from
> initially plays the role of the sweaty, unpretentious, crusty guy who
> has surprising wisdom. I find it interesting that he's convincing
> enough in that role that I bought it, but I guess if he weren't good
> at putting on this kind of show, he wouldn't have been the one chosen
> to replace the real Magev. This story played out better for overall
> than the other one. Not great, just better.
These are the best scenes in the show I think. That the Tish Magev looks
more like a loan shark enforcer than a guru works nicely by itself -
especially when he exhibits guruish type of wisdom. The whole conversation
about the car and appearances is priceless. I got a real kick out of
watching Angel consistently kept off balance by this strange fellow -
Angel's eyes darting around looking for help.
> The insights into our
> hero aren't all that deep, but the show does make something of a case
> that he's got a fair amount of worry about appearances underneath his
> persona, regardless of whether he's in Caring Protector or Badass
> Avenger mode. This is, however, probably the first time I can recall
> getting annoyed at a BTVS reference.
I think that's the first time the fake Tish Magev stumbles, though he
recovers nicely with a couple more zingers. Even so, I love the moment -
again watching Angel as he hears a proposal that amazingly recounts one of
his life's great tragedies. It's appallingly wrong on one level. Comic on
another. Yet also serves to oddly confirm this weird guru's insight into
his nature.
> This story gives us easily the best moment in the show: "Magev"
> standing outside in the sunlight, revealing all after having been
> caught attacking Gunn, convinced that he's safe. Enter the fishing
> line. It's a dose of brutality that suggests that Angel has not
> exactly been mellowed out by this experience, even if we do play him
> for comic relief again later. More violence like that, that's what I
> want, less of the farce stuff. Blood good.
And that scene did very little for me. <shrug>
> So...
> One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
> AOQ rating: Decent
I thought it was a delightful good humored episode that I thoroughly
enjoyed. I'd rate it Good.
OBS
George W Harris
movie "Cast A Deadly Spell" (1991), a noirish detective
story set in LA in the '40s, starring Fred Ward as private
detective Howard Lovecraft. It's an LA where everyone
uses magic; everyone except Lovecraft. Also stars David
Warner (Evil Genius from "Time Bandits", Dr Necessiter
from "The Man With Two Brains" and Master Control
Program from "Tron", among many other credits), Julianne
Moore ("Safe", "Boogie Nights", "The Big Lebowski", "Far
From Heaven", "The Hours") and Clancy Brown
("Highlander", lots and lots of voice work).
--
Never give a loaded gun to a woman in labor.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Lord Usher
> The insights into our hero aren't all that deep, but the show does
> make something of a case that he's got a fair amount of worry about
> appearances underneath his persona, regardless of whether he's in
> Caring Protector or Badass Avenger mode.
They aren't all that deep, no, but they're fascinating nevertheless.
They take aspects of Angel's character that we tend to take for granted,
to dismiss as mere stylistic fillips, and force us to consider them
seriously for the first time.
Why would a creature of the night ride around in a convertible? Why
would a guy who can't see himself in a mirror care how trendy his
clothes are? Suddenly there's a better answer than "Because the
producers wanted Angel to look cool." Suddenly these things *mean
something* to the character and the story. That's no small
accomplishment.
> This is, however, probably the first time I can recall getting annoyed
> at a BTVS reference.
G'ah! You can't be talking about the "How to get over Darla" speech, can
you? That's the best scene in the episode, man! Hell, it's the twenty-
eighth best ANGEL scene of all time! :)
I've mentioned it before and I'll probaby mention it again: the scene
has the distinction of being the only moment in the history of the
Buffyverse that actually caused me to leap from my chair and shout,
"Omigod, yes!" at the screen.
Which is to say, I was deeply, deeply impressed that the episode would
have the balls to contradict the party line with regard to Angel's
relationship with Buffy, and suggest that just maybe, what Buffy meant
to him was something a lot darker, but also a lot deeper, than an
inexplicable True Love for All Time.
--
Lord Usher
"I'm here to kill you, not to judge you."
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
George W Harris <gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
> I'd just like to take this moment to recommend the
> movie "Cast A Deadly Spell" (1991), a noirish detective
> story set in LA in the '40s, starring Fred Ward as private
> detective Howard Lovecraft. It's an LA where everyone
> uses magic; everyone except Lovecraft. Also stars David
> Warner (Evil Genius from "Time Bandits", Dr Necessiter
> from "The Man With Two Brains" and Master Control
actually mcps chief henchmen
also played jack the ripper in time after time
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Massimo Luciani
wrote:
>G'ah! You can't be talking about the "How to get over Darla" speech, can
>you? That's the best scene in the episode, man! Hell, it's the twenty-
>eighth best ANGEL scene of all time! :)
After watching that episode I loughed for weeks just remembering
that scene! :-DDD
--
Ciao :-)
Massimo
Nell'indirizzo, sostituire "micio" con "mc"
gree...@gmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
There are a couple more "humorous" episodes coming. That's a warning,
not a spoiler.
> AOQ rating: Decent
Yeah, okay. I liked it more than that, but it's not something I go out
of my way to rewatch. But if you don't find the next episode to be
Excellent, just walk away.
Terry
peachy ashie passion
> And also, the fact that
> her sex life means the ritual was doomed to failure before AI even got
> involved is I guess supposed to be cliché-subverting and/or funny.
> Have I mentioned the big who-cares yet?
You know, what made this for me wasn't that she'd lost her virginity
and so it was doomed, it was that she had a freakin LIST.
X and Y and Z AND...
peachy ashie passion
> Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
>
>
>>One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
>
>
> There are a couple more <deleted> episodes coming. That's a warning,
> not a spoiler.
>
>
>>AOQ rating: Decent
>
>
> Yeah, okay. I liked it more than that, but it's not something I go out
> of my way to rewatch. But if you don't find the next episode to be
> <deleted>.
>
> Terry
>
You do realize those are precisely the kind of things AoQ has said
he does consider to be spoilers, and has asked not to hear?
Elisi
> One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
>
>AOQ rating: Decent
Disposable? Harmless??? This one I actually went back to re-watch! OK,
so I fast forwarded through much of the Wes stuff, but still I found
some bits of that story to be fascinating:
1) He looks (when his glasses are off, and he's not worried) very, very
young. Like 21 or something. I think the character is really older, but
I think it helps to remember that it's a young man we're watching.
2) Wesley is (generally) at his peak when he doesn't have time to think
and just acts on instinct - which might seem odd for such a cerebral
guy, but note how effortlessly he takes out the 'new
guards'/kidnappers. When he stops to think, he often fumbles. Keep this
in mind in future.
Secondly - the swami stuff is *utterly* fascinating! The guy might be
an evil imposter, but still his analysis is very, very, very good. Who
is Angel? Why does he almost see the vampire part of him as something
completely different?
Magev: "Yourself. You're fighting yourself. Fight me! Why are you
holding back? Why can't you let go?" [...]
Angel: If I let it, it'll kill you."
Magev: "It?"
Angel disengages and steps back: "The demon."
Magev: "Ha! But the demon is you!"
Angel: "No."
Magev: "Yes! That's the thing you spend so much energy trying to
conceal!"
Angel shakes his head: "No, I just - I can't let it control me."
Magev nods: "Ah. I see. (Hits Angel's knee hard then hooks the staff
behind his legs to drop him onto his back) You *don't* think it
controls you?"
Trust me - in the future you'll come back to this episode and look on
this conversation again!
cry...@panix.com
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> > The insights into our hero aren't all that deep, but the show
> > does make something of a case that he's got a fair amount of
> > worry about appearances underneath his persona, regardless of
> > whether he's in Caring Protector or Badass Avenger mode.
>
> They aren't all that deep, no, but they're fascinating
> nevertheless. They take aspects of Angel's character that we
> tend to take for granted, to dismiss as mere stylistic fillips,
> and force us to consider them seriously for the first time.
>
> Why would a creature of the night ride around in a convertible?
> Why would a guy who can't see himself in a mirror care how
> trendy his clothes are? Suddenly there's a better answer than
> "Because the producers wanted Angel to look cool." Suddenly
> these things *mean something* to the character and the story.
> That's no small accomplishment.
Am I the only one who thought the fake Tish Magev was full of it?
I was cringing the whole time, listening to his "insights". Like
both of you say, they aren't all that deep; I'd argue that they're
as superficial as possible, and serve only to waste Angel's time.
Nothing useful came out of that sequence.
--
-Crystal
gree...@gmail.com
peachy ashie passion wrote:
> You do realize those are precisely the kind of things AoQ has said
> he does consider to be spoilers, and has asked not to hear?
Well, AoQ's a big boy, he can speak for himself. But just out of
curiousity, did you dispense a similar spanking to those people telling
AoQ how good season two was before he started watching season two?
Terry
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Guise Will Be Guise"
> (or "Pryce takes charge")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Krishna Rao
GWBG was actually the very first Angel episode that I ever saw. It
probably wasn't the best introduction possible. I actually like the
episode (certainly more than AOQ does), but it certainly doesn't display
the series at its dark, broody, tragic best. Fortunately, I was
distracted by another show that night (Bush vs. Gore, Day 1), so I didn't
pick up many false preconceptions about Angel. And since I hadn't seen
Untouched or Dear Boy, GWBG didn't feel like a comedown to me.
> I'm going to have to go on record saying that the pun in the title is
> beyond terrible. It's so bad it's bad.
"He who would pun would pick a pocket."
I liked most of the humor in this episode, but some of it was borderline.
I can see why AOQ might not like the opening scene, featuring Wesley's
misadventures around the office. That was almost a reversion to the
buffoonish Wesley of the Parting Gifts era. But what saves this scene,
for me, was Wesley's exasperated and slightly depressed reaction. He's no
longer the arrogant know-it-all who doesn't realize how he really comes
across. Now he recognizes his own buffoonish moments and regrets them.
It's actually a sign of the real progress the character has made.
My favorite joke was probably Wesley-as-Angel walking into Magus's
mansion, then leaping franticly back as he remembers he's supposed to be a
vampire, as Benny portentously intones "I invite you in." That was farce
done right. The blood drinking was almost as funny, as was his dumping
the blood into a vase, only then realizing it's clear glass. But I agree
that the sunlight bit was going too far; it would have been better if
Wesley had just dropped the pretense at that point. Still, give Wes
credit for not giving up easily.
Notice we have one more bad father here, as a sort of lightweight followup
to Family. I found the actor, Todd Susman, to be distracting, since I
immediately recognized him from any number of shows I watched while
growing up: Barney Miller, MASH, St. Elsewhere, Newhart, etc. But aside
from that, I thought he did a good job with a role that didn't have a lot
of depth to it. And while I'm at it, Virginia was played by Bridget
Branagh, who went on to play a soldier's alcoholic wife on Over There ...
where I found her distracting because I kept thinking of Angel. But
that's not the actress's fault -- she did a decent job on both series.
I liked both story lines, but the Tish Magev one definitely had more
substance. The swami who doesn't look like a swami, who turns out NOT to
be a swami after all, was a satisfying plot twist. Nothing
earth-shakingly brilliant, but entertaining. And here we have the most
extensive example yet of that old Mutant Enemy theme, the villain who has
more insight into the heroes than they do themselves. (Or who at least
brings up truths that the heroes have been pretending they don't see.)
Really, if you're living in the Buffyverse, the best psychologist is an
evil psychologist....
Some of my favorite jokes (aside from the majority of Wesley's Angel
impresonation):
-"You're deeply ambivalent." "Well, I am and I'm not." Obvious, sure, but
I laughed anyway.
-"My great-grandfather created our first spell in his garage. A simple ...
tallness illusion."
-Wesley's expression when Virginia tells him she knows about the curse,
his sort of humorless smile and bitter chuckle. "Yep, it's official,"
he's thinking. "I have no luck whatsoever."
-Rick quietly slinking out.
-The "in Virginia" line
-And, of course: "Right. So here's what you do. You go out and find
yourself some small blonde thing. You bed her, you love her, you treat
her like crap, you break her heart. You and your inner demon will thank
me, I promise." "Ummm...." (The "ummm" is perfect.) I guess the
pseudo-swami isn't quite as insightful as we thought; or maybe third
blonde's the charm? AOQ, surely this isn't the Buffy reference you hated?
> funny). "I'm rescuing you! Key ingredient: we leave!" Wesley
> trying to take over the planning session is good,
Note that he really does as well here as Angel would have.
> and Cordelia sort of
> tentatively trying out a bottle of wine as a weapon is chuckle-worthy
> too.
I loved that they did *not* have her accidentally hit Gunn over the head.
> been horny. I kinda like how he clearly is going to tell her the truth
> at least once, before thinking better of it.
I don't think "thinking" is the right word here!
> One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
Disposable but quite entertaining, in my book. I'd give it a lowish Good,
or at least a very high Decent.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
George W Harris
:
So that makes it all right for you to be a fuckup?
:
: Terry
--
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar." -Wash, 'Serenity'
gree...@gmail.com
George W Harris wrote:
> So that makes it all right for you to be a fuckup?
Are you really that dense?
Terry
peachy ashie passion
Oh, I'm sorry! Totally MY mistake.
I mistook you for someone who was decent, and made an error
mistakenly. One that you wouldn't want to repeat if you knew about it.
My bad, I know better now!
One Bit Shy
news:1290j0k...@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.tv.angel Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> -"You're deeply ambivalent." "Well, I am and I'm not." Obvious, sure, but
> I laughed anyway.
Not so obvious that it didn't slip right past me! Thanks for pointing that
one out. Another good line to add to the list. Angel and the swami were a
hoot.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
> You do realize those are precisely the kind of things AoQ has said
> he does consider to be spoilers, and has asked not to hear?
I don't know if I'd call them "spoilers," really, but it is true that I
generally (ATS's hopefully-passed "suck" period certainly produced some
exceptions, though) like to have as few expectations as possible going
in.
As for the discussion below this, play nice, people.
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
> I liked both story lines, but the Tish Magev one definitely had more
> substance. The swami who doesn't look like a swami, who turns out NOT to
> be a swami after all, was a satisfying plot twist. Nothing
> earth-shakingly brilliant, but entertaining. And here we have the most
> extensive example yet of that old Mutant Enemy theme, the villain who has
> more insight into the heroes than they do themselves. (Or who at least
> brings up truths that the heroes have been pretending they don't see.)
> Really, if you're living in the Buffyverse, the best psychologist is an
> evil psychologist....
As we see, though, a lot of it is blind luck. He starts with the
obvious surface stuff like the car, which happens to be the kind of
stuff Angel doesn't think about too often. It spins his head a little,
but I don't think an extended retreat would've helped him all that
much.
> -And, of course: "Right. So here's what you do. You go out and find
> yourself some small blonde thing. You bed her, you love her, you treat
> her like crap, you break her heart. You and your inner demon will thank
> me, I promise." "Ummm...." (The "ummm" is perfect.) I guess the
> pseudo-swami isn't quite as insightful as we thought; or maybe third
> blonde's the charm? AOQ, surely this isn't the Buffy reference you hated?
Why is everyone so nuts about that? It's not very funny, and going
over the Buffy story yet again seemed like a waste of time. In
retrospect it has a purpose as a suggestion of how little "Magev" knew,
but it annoyed me at the time.
-AOQ
peachy ashie passion
>
> As for the discussion below this, play nice, people.
>
> -AOQ
>
I'm cranky AOQ, I don't wanna be nice!
And besides (wait for it...)
He started it!!!
Apteryx
> >news:1150236832.8...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
>episodes in these review threads.
>I realize that a long-running series can't be doom and gloom all the
>time. Some stories benefit from being stretched out over many
>episodes, and most shows need their down moments and lighter fare.
>Being a Mutant Enemy show, it also needs to poke fun at its
>self-important side once in awhile. None of that really takes away from
>my disconnect with being made to endure a whimsical comedy at a time
>like this. It's not what I'm in the mood to see after the powerful
>ending of "Dear Boy," with our protagonist out for blood.
I doubt there is anyone here who really expected you to like this. It is
there for light relief at a time in the series when there are Great Things
Afoot. And I can see why that would be especially frustrating for you when
you are trying to get through the series as quickly as possible to see how
it turns out. Anyone watching it as it aired (which I didn't either) would
know exactly when they would see how it turned out - episode 22, mostly. But
you just have to accept that this won't be the last time that Whedon will
offer you a treat, then make you wait for it. Builds character.
>predictable delayed overcompensated reaction. Har de fucking har. The
>second is the sunlight, which doesn't need to be described, but
>I'll just say that I found it pretty painful.
A bridge too far perhaps.
>In theory one of the main thrusts... ugh, the punning is contagious.
>That wasn't intentional, by the way, but I'm leaving it in. In
>theory, one of the main thrusts of the story is the relationship
>between Wes and Virginia. Big who-cares there.
Well Wesley for one. Virginia was a pretty implausible virgin before that
encounter, but maybe Wesley?
>One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
>AOQ rating: Decent
Its a Good to me. Not a spectacular Good, but enough to make the grade. To
me, the 29th best AtS episode, 11th best in season 2
--
Apteryx
Elisi
> Well Wesley for one. Virginia was a pretty implausible virgin before that
> encounter, but maybe Wesley?
Angel remarks how he can smell that Wesley slept with a bottle blonde a
few episodes before this!
George W Harris
<tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
:chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
:
:> -And, of course: "Right. So here's what you do. You go out and find
:> yourself some small blonde thing. You bed her, you love her, you treat
:> her like crap, you break her heart. You and your inner demon will thank
:> me, I promise." "Ummm...." (The "ummm" is perfect.) I guess the
:> pseudo-swami isn't quite as insightful as we thought; or maybe third
:> blonde's the charm? AOQ, surely this isn't the Buffy reference you hated?
:
:Why is everyone so nuts about that? It's not very funny, and going
:over the Buffy story yet again seemed like a waste of time. In
:retrospect it has a purpose as a suggestion of how little "Magev" knew,
:but it annoyed me at the time.
It's Angel's reaction to it that's hilarious.
:
:-AOQ
Apteryx
news:1150354583.8...@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
So he does. Clearly Wesleys growth from the ineptness of S1 is not limited
to investigations :)
--
Apteryx
kenm47
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for future _Buffy_ and _Angel_
> episodes in these review threads.
>
>
> ANGEL
> Season Two, Episode 6: "Guise Will Be Guise"
> (or "Pryce takes charge")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: Krishna Rao
>
> I'm going to have to go on record saying that the pun in the title is
> beyond terrible. It's so bad it's bad.
>
First: I liked the pun and thought it clever in context. Second:
episodes when first aired did not have titles for general consumption
<SNIP>
> So...
>
> One-sentence summary: Disposable but harmless.
>
> AOQ rating: Decent
>
> [Season Two so far:
> 1) "Judgment" - Weak
> 2) "Are You Now Or Have You Ever Been?" - Decent
> 3) "First Impressions" - Good
> 4) "Untouched" - Good
> 5) "Dear Boy" - Good
> 6) "Guise Will Be Guise" - Decent]
I liked this episode quite a bit. I thought DB turned in one of his
better performances. Nice little break from the sturm und drag of the
Darla arc, but with references to it. The only problem in my mind was
just how Yoda the impostser was; seemed too in touch to be such a bad
ass. And yes, some bits were pushed, but I can forgive that.
I go with Excellent(-)
Ken (Brooklyn)
gree...@gmail.com
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> I don't know if I'd call them "spoilers," really, but it is true that I
> generally (ATS's hopefully-passed "suck" period certainly produced some
> exceptions, though) like to have as few expectations as possible going
> in.
Surely given our nearly diametrically opposed views on good and bad,
your expectations would have been diminished for the upcoming episode
based on my recommendation.
> As for the discussion below this, play nice, people.
Busybodies. Life is too short.
Terry
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>> -And, of course: "Right. So here's what you do. You go out and find
>> yourself some small blonde thing. You bed her, you love her, you treat
>> her like crap, you break her heart. You and your inner demon will thank
>> me, I promise." "Ummm...." (The "ummm" is perfect.) I guess the
>> pseudo-swami isn't quite as insightful as we thought; or maybe third
>> blonde's the charm? AOQ, surely this isn't the Buffy reference you hated?
>
> Why is everyone so nuts about that? It's not very funny, and going
> over the Buffy story yet again seemed like a waste of time. In
> retrospect it has a purpose as a suggestion of how little "Magev" knew,
> but it annoyed me at the time.
I don't see any great significance to it. I just thought it was
absolutely hilarious the way the swami suddenly, unexpectedly said
something so absolutely *horrible* to Angel, especially with Angel's
response. I'm grinning now just thinking of it. But no joke can work for
every viewer.
KenM47
>On 14 Jun 2006 15:15:52 -0700, "Arbitrar Of Quality"
><tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
>:chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>:
>:> -And, of course: "Right. So here's what you do. You go out and find
>:> yourself some small blonde thing. You bed her, you love her, you treat
>:> her like crap, you break her heart. You and your inner demon will thank
>:> me, I promise." "Ummm...." (The "ummm" is perfect.) I guess the
>:> pseudo-swami isn't quite as insightful as we thought; or maybe third
>:> blonde's the charm? AOQ, surely this isn't the Buffy reference you hated?
>:
>:Why is everyone so nuts about that? It's not very funny, and going
>:over the Buffy story yet again seemed like a waste of time. In
>:retrospect it has a purpose as a suggestion of how little "Magev" knew,
>:but it annoyed me at the time.
>
> It's Angel's reaction to it that's hilarious.
>:
>:-AOQ
Agreed. DB does a lot of terrific takes in those exchanges.
Ken (Brooklyn)