(I should start off with a disclaimer that I've never read the "Thor" comic books, so I won't be comparing the two for accuracy and contradictions)
Two-And-A-Half Stars
There are two schools of thought when it comes to reviewing movies: one that takes them for what they are, and another where they are judged critically. Action movies tend to get good reviews when seen through the lens of the former, and less-than-stellar reviews when seen through the latter. This is due, mainly, to the fact that actions often are more interested in telling a decent, exciting story that compliments the action well, rather than trying to be both "The King's Speech" and "James Bond". A combination like that is incredibly hard to pull off, though not impossible.
"Thor" is no exception to this. It's very much an action flick, and thus it has both the strengths and weaknesses of that genre. The movie follows the eponymous Thor, a super being from the realm of Asgard, and an heir to that world's throne. After nearly and foolishly inciting a war with the Frost Giants, enormous blue ice-wielding creatures from another planet, Thor is banished to Earth by his father and left there without his powers or his mighty hammer. Jane Foster, a beautiful astrophysicist, has been tracking the interstellar movements of Thor and his companions, unaware of the true nature of these astrological findings. As fate would have it, Thor and Jane cross paths in New Mexico, where Thor lands after being banished, hoping to reclaim both his powers and his honor.
As an action movie, "Thor" delivers as you would expect it to: fantastic action sequences spurred by special effects, a straightforward plot with a romance mixed in, and an easily identifiable villain. If you like big fights and grand battle sequences filled with explosions and stunning visuals, this is the move for you. It is clear who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and why they are the way they are. Our protagonist is on the path towards redemption, and along the way there are breakthroughs, setbacks, laughs, and tears.
But when you peel away the action movie label and look more deeply at the film, it turns out to be not so great. Don't get me wrong, I liked the film overall (though there were a few parts that were just too melodramatic and overdone), and I probably nit-pick a bit too much when it comes to action movies, but I'm just trying to be honest. I found that the movie struggled to find a balance between Thor's mystical realm of Asgard and our real world of Earth. The opening scenes that explained the universe of "Thor" and its many characters felt too fantastical to fit well with Jane and her friends back in New Mexico. I know that establishing the film's setting requires a rather lengthy introduction filled with exposition, but it still feels a bit overwhelming.
And while the film picks up after it moves beyond Thor's backstory, there are still other issues at play. The inevitable romance between Thor and Jane comes off as incredibly forced, thanks in large part to it feeling like Jane and her friends were barely in the movie. It didn't seem to me that Jane didn't interact with Thor long enough for a romantic connection to be built between the two of them, in particular for Thor. We don't see much of him acclimating to our culture, one that is completely different than his native one, and it's hard to believe that his cultural understanding of love would be so compatible to our own (and since we never see how love is depicted in his culture, that makes it doubly hard to grasp his feelings for Jane).
Another problem I had were some of the secondary characters, and how they weren't put to very good use. Without spoiling anything, there are a few critical moments when Thor's comrades are in the midst of battle and I found myself let down by the decisions the filmmakers made regarding what happens to them. Jane's friends, a professor and an assistant, don't get enough screen time or backstory to convince the audience of any sort of deep, emotional connection between the three. When Jane's friends' lives are put in danger, this lack of a connection keeps me from genuinely caring about what happens to them. They haven't been shown to mean enough to Jane for me to worry either about them, or what their possible deaths would mean to Jane. I'm sure she'd be sad, but there'd be no emotional resonance as an audience member when it comes to what Jane loses.
All that being said, I still enjoyed the movie. The acting was superb, with Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston meshing well together as protagonist and antagonist. Natalie Portman is, as always, very good considering how much I thought her character was underdeveloped and poorly written. It was fun seeing Anthony Hopkins in an action-oriented role rather than a cerebral one. And I love Stellan Skarsgard no matter what role he plays. I figured that S.H.I.E.L.D. would have some sort of role, and was glad to see not only that it did, but brought agent Phil Coulson from the "Iron Man" movies with it to provide some continuity as part of the eventual "Avengers" movie. And speaking of that, stick around after the credits for a short scene concerning S.H.I.E.L.D. that was directed by Joss Whedon, who wrote the screenplay for, and is set to direct, "The Avengers," which is due in theaters 2012.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Friday, May 27, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
In Defense Of Derrick Rose
Look, I know that Derrick Rose hasn't played very well against the Heat during the Eastern Conference Finals. He hasn't played up to his MVP-caliber play that brought the Bulls to the conference finals for the first time since the Jordan years. But there's been too much criticism of Derrick Rose as of late, thanks largely to the Bulls' failings against the championship-level team from Miami. I'd argue that the Bulls' failings are largely not due to Derrick Rose, but due to the rest of the team, as I will explain.
First, it needs to be pointed out that Derrick Rose doesn't have a legitimate scoring threat for him to balance off of. The criticism levied towards Russell Westbrook for shooting too much makes more sense. He has Kevin Durant, the NBA's scoring leader and one of the best shooters in the game. Rose doesn't have a Kevin Durant to play off of. Luol Deng is pretty good, but he's nowhere near the caliber of offensive player that Durant is. And Carlos Boozer? Too inconsistent, like Deng. The lack of a true scoring threat outside of Rose himself forces him to have to handle the offensive load for this Chicago team, resulting in a bevy of shots taken.
And speaking of his supporting cast, let me get to point number two: nobody is shooting well. Keith Bogans misses too many open threes to be counted on night in and night out. Ronnie Brewer is a defender, not a scorer, and the same goes for Joakim Noah as well as Taj Gibson. But the biggest culprit has to be Kyle Korver. The Bulls signed him to be an outside threat, someone for Rose to dish to when he's driving to the basket and drawing defenders away from perimeter shooters like Korver. Except, Korver has been terrible against the Heat. At the moment, he couldn't knock down an open three to save his life. Rose can count on some production from Deng and Boozer, but when there's no tertiary scoring at all, it puts an even bigger burden on Rose to force a lot of shots.
My third point has less to do with Rose's actions, and more about what drives those actions. Tom Thibodeau has had a terrific first year as an NBA head coach, but he seems to be in a bit over his head here against the Heat. He's made a number of poor coaching decisions, particularly when it comes to personnel and drawing up plays. He's either played players too long or not at the right moments. And what was with that final play at the end of regulation last night? Putting LeBron James on Derrick Rose was a brilliant move by Erik Spoelstra, and Thibodeau played right into the Heat's hands by letting Rose go one-on-one with a guy who has at least a six-inch height advantage. There are other players who can score in the clutch, Thibs.
I do, however, recognize that some of the criticism regarding Derrick Rose is fair. His shot selection hasn't been very good (firing a bunch of threes that rarely go in), and he's taken some wild shots around the basket. Give credit to Miami's defense for forcing Rose into these situations, and he (and Thibodeau) has done nothing to adapt. If Rose had a legitimate perimeter shooter or a low post scorer or any kind of consistent scoring threat (20+ points a game) to play off of, we'd no doubt see Rose play as a more traditional point guard: facilitating and running the offense while scoring only when the team needs him in beast mode. But until the rest of the team raises its level of play up, Rose will be forced into an Allen Iverson-like player because that's the only way Chicago can win.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
First, it needs to be pointed out that Derrick Rose doesn't have a legitimate scoring threat for him to balance off of. The criticism levied towards Russell Westbrook for shooting too much makes more sense. He has Kevin Durant, the NBA's scoring leader and one of the best shooters in the game. Rose doesn't have a Kevin Durant to play off of. Luol Deng is pretty good, but he's nowhere near the caliber of offensive player that Durant is. And Carlos Boozer? Too inconsistent, like Deng. The lack of a true scoring threat outside of Rose himself forces him to have to handle the offensive load for this Chicago team, resulting in a bevy of shots taken.
And speaking of his supporting cast, let me get to point number two: nobody is shooting well. Keith Bogans misses too many open threes to be counted on night in and night out. Ronnie Brewer is a defender, not a scorer, and the same goes for Joakim Noah as well as Taj Gibson. But the biggest culprit has to be Kyle Korver. The Bulls signed him to be an outside threat, someone for Rose to dish to when he's driving to the basket and drawing defenders away from perimeter shooters like Korver. Except, Korver has been terrible against the Heat. At the moment, he couldn't knock down an open three to save his life. Rose can count on some production from Deng and Boozer, but when there's no tertiary scoring at all, it puts an even bigger burden on Rose to force a lot of shots.
My third point has less to do with Rose's actions, and more about what drives those actions. Tom Thibodeau has had a terrific first year as an NBA head coach, but he seems to be in a bit over his head here against the Heat. He's made a number of poor coaching decisions, particularly when it comes to personnel and drawing up plays. He's either played players too long or not at the right moments. And what was with that final play at the end of regulation last night? Putting LeBron James on Derrick Rose was a brilliant move by Erik Spoelstra, and Thibodeau played right into the Heat's hands by letting Rose go one-on-one with a guy who has at least a six-inch height advantage. There are other players who can score in the clutch, Thibs.
I do, however, recognize that some of the criticism regarding Derrick Rose is fair. His shot selection hasn't been very good (firing a bunch of threes that rarely go in), and he's taken some wild shots around the basket. Give credit to Miami's defense for forcing Rose into these situations, and he (and Thibodeau) has done nothing to adapt. If Rose had a legitimate perimeter shooter or a low post scorer or any kind of consistent scoring threat (20+ points a game) to play off of, we'd no doubt see Rose play as a more traditional point guard: facilitating and running the offense while scoring only when the team needs him in beast mode. But until the rest of the team raises its level of play up, Rose will be forced into an Allen Iverson-like player because that's the only way Chicago can win.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Monday, May 16, 2011
Rise Against
I like punk rock. That being said, let it be known that I enjoy it for what it is: music, nothing more. I happen to like fast, guitar-driven music and sometimes I'm in the mood for rebellious, in-your-face lyrics. Ergo, I like punk rock, as I said. But it's just another branch on my tree of musical tastes. I understand the message within the music, but the punk rock lifestyle or look isn't for me. And there's also the amusing and inherent irony concerning punk rock being genre of music that promotes non-conformity and yet at the same time is quite popular and whose fan base is united around this idea.
There's a good chance that I just don't understand the punk rock culture, and if that seems to be the case, please forgive me for sounding like I'm railing against it. I find it hard to fit into any sort of lifestyle, music-based or otherwise. I want to be defined on my own terms, which invariably leaves me unable to fit into anything. I guess I value my individuality a little too much. But maybe that's just me. I've been called picky before.
Anyway, what sparked this little soliloquy was a concert I attended the other night. Four Years Strong, Bad Religion, and Rise Against played the last show of their tour at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago on a cold and rainy Saturday night. As I stood in line waiting to get in, and as I stood amongst the crowd once the doors did open, I was very much conscious of how much passion everyone seemed to have for these bands and punk rock itself. This isn't to say that I'm not passionate about certain bands or musical genres, but I tend to view music solely as performance art.
It's sort pointless to argue this however, as there may be nothing more subjective than one's own musical preferences. Sometimes they're easy to explain, and other times they're not. And once you get past this, as I have, it's so much easier to enjoy whatever you listen to. And if you happen to go to a concert, you can find yourself having a tremendously fun time, as I did.
It was loud, it was hot, at some points it was violent, but most of all, it was fun. I went to the concert with a friend, and it's always easier to let loose when you know someone and not alone. But before the first Rise Against song was over, we were already separated by the monstrous crowd. And you know what? It didn't even matter. There I was, surrounded by thousands of passionate (and sweaty), having the time of my life for a good hour-and-a-half.
I have found that there are some bands that don't translate well from your iPod to your ears unless you go to see them live. It's one thing to hear the clean-cut studio tracks from your computer or CD player. It's another to hear them played in their natural element: live, too loud (if there is such a thing), and being belted out in front of diehard fans. I'm a pretty reserved guy and I don't like drawing much attention to myself when I'm out in public or surrounded by people I don't know. And yet there I was, jumping up and down, waving my hands in the air, moshing, and screaming my head off. Because Rise Against, who are from Chicago, know how to put on a good show.
As you might expect, they played fast and furious. For a good hour the music was unrelenting and overpowering. At around the sixty minute mark, the band slowed down and played acoustic numbers, a welcome change of pace that gave people such as myself a chance to catch our breath and rest for a minute before they kicked it back up again for the second volley of the performance.
By the time the night was over, I was exhausted, covered in sweat, and had a killer ringing in my ears. When I went to bed a few hours later, I could still feel the swaying of the crowd, like how you can still feel the slight rumbling of a plane after taking a long flight. It's hard for me to remember a concert I've been to where I've had this much fun. And I wouldn't have had this much fun if I hadn't decided to let loose and just enjoy Rise Against's music, and just listen to it. Listen, nothing more, nothing less. That's my approach to music, and it's worked so far.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
There's a good chance that I just don't understand the punk rock culture, and if that seems to be the case, please forgive me for sounding like I'm railing against it. I find it hard to fit into any sort of lifestyle, music-based or otherwise. I want to be defined on my own terms, which invariably leaves me unable to fit into anything. I guess I value my individuality a little too much. But maybe that's just me. I've been called picky before.
Anyway, what sparked this little soliloquy was a concert I attended the other night. Four Years Strong, Bad Religion, and Rise Against played the last show of their tour at the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago on a cold and rainy Saturday night. As I stood in line waiting to get in, and as I stood amongst the crowd once the doors did open, I was very much conscious of how much passion everyone seemed to have for these bands and punk rock itself. This isn't to say that I'm not passionate about certain bands or musical genres, but I tend to view music solely as performance art.
It's sort pointless to argue this however, as there may be nothing more subjective than one's own musical preferences. Sometimes they're easy to explain, and other times they're not. And once you get past this, as I have, it's so much easier to enjoy whatever you listen to. And if you happen to go to a concert, you can find yourself having a tremendously fun time, as I did.
It was loud, it was hot, at some points it was violent, but most of all, it was fun. I went to the concert with a friend, and it's always easier to let loose when you know someone and not alone. But before the first Rise Against song was over, we were already separated by the monstrous crowd. And you know what? It didn't even matter. There I was, surrounded by thousands of passionate (and sweaty), having the time of my life for a good hour-and-a-half.
I have found that there are some bands that don't translate well from your iPod to your ears unless you go to see them live. It's one thing to hear the clean-cut studio tracks from your computer or CD player. It's another to hear them played in their natural element: live, too loud (if there is such a thing), and being belted out in front of diehard fans. I'm a pretty reserved guy and I don't like drawing much attention to myself when I'm out in public or surrounded by people I don't know. And yet there I was, jumping up and down, waving my hands in the air, moshing, and screaming my head off. Because Rise Against, who are from Chicago, know how to put on a good show.
As you might expect, they played fast and furious. For a good hour the music was unrelenting and overpowering. At around the sixty minute mark, the band slowed down and played acoustic numbers, a welcome change of pace that gave people such as myself a chance to catch our breath and rest for a minute before they kicked it back up again for the second volley of the performance.
By the time the night was over, I was exhausted, covered in sweat, and had a killer ringing in my ears. When I went to bed a few hours later, I could still feel the swaying of the crowd, like how you can still feel the slight rumbling of a plane after taking a long flight. It's hard for me to remember a concert I've been to where I've had this much fun. And I wouldn't have had this much fun if I hadn't decided to let loose and just enjoy Rise Against's music, and just listen to it. Listen, nothing more, nothing less. That's my approach to music, and it's worked so far.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
"Angel" Review
If given enough time, Joss Whedon will kill every single character he has ever created. Cracked.com said it best when they wrote that Joss Whedon will "slaughter everything that makes you happy inside."And "Angel" is no exception. In fact, I'm pretty sure it has the highest body count among main and recurring characters of any Joss Whedon show. So know this: no one is safe on "Angel," regardless of how cemented within the Buffyverse a character appears to be.
"Angel" is the only spin-off of Whedon's critically acclaimed series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and follows the character of Angel, a vampire with a soul, as he moves from Sunnyville, the setting of "Buffy" where Angel was a main character for the first three seasons, to Los Angeles. In LA, Angel sets off on a path towards redemption, as he tries to atone for the horrifying crimes he committed in his past as a soulless vampire, his monstrous alter ego known as Angelus.
Along with Angel, the supporting cast expands and changes over the course of the show's five seasons, including Cordelia Chase, previously a main character on "Buffy," and Doyle, a part-demon who receives visions from The Powers That Be, one the mysterious guiding forces that are a central focus of the show, that are meant to help Angel's quest for redemption. These visions of the future usually consist of someone in danger from a supernatural creature or force that Angel must try and save, and are a major part of Angel Investigations, a detective agency Angel sets up in LA.
At the end of the first season, it is revealed that, if Angel follows the path laid out by The Powers That Be, it is possible for Angel to fully redeem himself and have his human self restored, something he desperately wants. As part of a curse that restored his soul and forced him to feel guilt and remorse for his actions, he cannot have a single moment of true happiness, lest he lose his precious soul and turn back into the bloodthirsty and vicious Angelus.
Over the course of the series, Angel is joined by Wesley Wyndam-Price, a recurring character from "Buffy," Charles Gunn, a local demon hunter, Winifred Burkle, a brilliant scientist, and Lorne, a karaoke-loving demon who has empathic abilities. The show's antagonists usually are connected with Wolfram & Hart, an evil law firm that represents various demons and foes that often come in direct conflict with Angel Investigations.
This is one of the main distinctions between "Angel" and its parent show, as Angel has to take more sophisticated and omnipresent villains than Buffy has had to. The Big Bad, the term commonly used to refer to a season's overall major villain, is usually in some way connected to Wolfram & Hart, and the law firm is almost always heavily involved in the major story arc for each season. Lindsey McDonald and Lilah Morgan, two of Wolfram & Hart's lawyers, are excellent cerebral antagonists for Angel and his team, and stand in contrast to the stereotypical powerful monster villains found in the Buffyverse. And without giving too much away, Wolfram & Hart and its mysterious Senior Partners are much more than simply lawyers and a law firm.
Another major distinction is the darker tone of "Angel." Angel cannot save every single person The Powers That Be send visions of. Major characters die, often sadly and unexpectedly. Angelus makes a few appearances, and at times Angel himself is no better than his demented alter ego. Even the theme that runs over the main credits is slower and more somber than that of "Buffy." One of the themes that plays at the heart of the show, at least early on, is moral ambiguity. When characters find themselves seemingly at their lowest points, it is interesting to watch how they choose to either pick themselves up, stay where they are, or try and dig deeper into the darkness, and whether or not they ignore the moral implications of doing so.
Other concepts explored on "Angel" include the idea of free will, trust and deception, the cost of violence, and the notion of the Champion, with Angel serving as one on behalf of humanity. Free will is constantly at play thanks to The Powers That Be and particular prophecies that concern what is to come. While Angel firmly believes in free will, his viewpoint is constantly challenged by the presence of The Powers That Be and the visions they send down. Trust and deception become major themes explored in the later seasons, as connections and bonds between various characters become fragile and sometimes break, often leading to disastrous consequences.
Four of the five seasons of "Angel" were very well thought-out and constructed, with Season Four being the only weak link. Season One establishes the tone of the show, and while not having as detailed a season arc as the rest of the series, does set up how Angel can truly and fully redeem himself. Season Two sees the return of Darla, Angel's sire, as she and Wolfram & Hart work together to try and bring down Angel Investigations.
Season Three also sees the return of someone from Angel's past, a vampire hunter from the 1700s named Holtz seeking revenge on Angel, who, as Angelus, brutally killed Holtz's family. Season Four, the only dud, was not very effective due to no permanent Big Bad, instead jumping from one villain to another, as well as poor use of one of the main characters. The final season puts the show back on track and builds to a fantastic climax, one that's infuriating yet brilliant.
All that's left to talk about is the cast, and the cast is great. David Boreanez does a superb job reprising his role as Angel, and is able to show off a wider array of his acting skills than he could on "Buffy," as his character is finally able to emote more now that his former love interest is gone. Glenn Quinn, as the enigmatic Doyle, is quite fun to watch onscreen. The adorable Amy Acker (Winifred Burkle) shows off a fantastic range as the series progresses, and Alexis Denisof (Wesley Wyndam-Price) also is remarkable as the character of Wesley changes dramatically over the course of the show.
Finally, if you're looking for "Buffy in LA," this isn't the series for you. "Angel" is more violent, more cerebral, and isn't afraid to go places where "Buffy" never would. This isn't to say that "Buffy" is a lesser show, or that "Angel" delves too far off the path from its parent, but merely to point out that they shouldn't be compared. It would be unfair to do so. One should take them as two entirely separate shows that happen to inhabit the save fictional universe.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
"Angel" is the only spin-off of Whedon's critically acclaimed series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," and follows the character of Angel, a vampire with a soul, as he moves from Sunnyville, the setting of "Buffy" where Angel was a main character for the first three seasons, to Los Angeles. In LA, Angel sets off on a path towards redemption, as he tries to atone for the horrifying crimes he committed in his past as a soulless vampire, his monstrous alter ego known as Angelus.
Along with Angel, the supporting cast expands and changes over the course of the show's five seasons, including Cordelia Chase, previously a main character on "Buffy," and Doyle, a part-demon who receives visions from The Powers That Be, one the mysterious guiding forces that are a central focus of the show, that are meant to help Angel's quest for redemption. These visions of the future usually consist of someone in danger from a supernatural creature or force that Angel must try and save, and are a major part of Angel Investigations, a detective agency Angel sets up in LA.
At the end of the first season, it is revealed that, if Angel follows the path laid out by The Powers That Be, it is possible for Angel to fully redeem himself and have his human self restored, something he desperately wants. As part of a curse that restored his soul and forced him to feel guilt and remorse for his actions, he cannot have a single moment of true happiness, lest he lose his precious soul and turn back into the bloodthirsty and vicious Angelus.
Over the course of the series, Angel is joined by Wesley Wyndam-Price, a recurring character from "Buffy," Charles Gunn, a local demon hunter, Winifred Burkle, a brilliant scientist, and Lorne, a karaoke-loving demon who has empathic abilities. The show's antagonists usually are connected with Wolfram & Hart, an evil law firm that represents various demons and foes that often come in direct conflict with Angel Investigations.
This is one of the main distinctions between "Angel" and its parent show, as Angel has to take more sophisticated and omnipresent villains than Buffy has had to. The Big Bad, the term commonly used to refer to a season's overall major villain, is usually in some way connected to Wolfram & Hart, and the law firm is almost always heavily involved in the major story arc for each season. Lindsey McDonald and Lilah Morgan, two of Wolfram & Hart's lawyers, are excellent cerebral antagonists for Angel and his team, and stand in contrast to the stereotypical powerful monster villains found in the Buffyverse. And without giving too much away, Wolfram & Hart and its mysterious Senior Partners are much more than simply lawyers and a law firm.
Another major distinction is the darker tone of "Angel." Angel cannot save every single person The Powers That Be send visions of. Major characters die, often sadly and unexpectedly. Angelus makes a few appearances, and at times Angel himself is no better than his demented alter ego. Even the theme that runs over the main credits is slower and more somber than that of "Buffy." One of the themes that plays at the heart of the show, at least early on, is moral ambiguity. When characters find themselves seemingly at their lowest points, it is interesting to watch how they choose to either pick themselves up, stay where they are, or try and dig deeper into the darkness, and whether or not they ignore the moral implications of doing so.
Other concepts explored on "Angel" include the idea of free will, trust and deception, the cost of violence, and the notion of the Champion, with Angel serving as one on behalf of humanity. Free will is constantly at play thanks to The Powers That Be and particular prophecies that concern what is to come. While Angel firmly believes in free will, his viewpoint is constantly challenged by the presence of The Powers That Be and the visions they send down. Trust and deception become major themes explored in the later seasons, as connections and bonds between various characters become fragile and sometimes break, often leading to disastrous consequences.
Four of the five seasons of "Angel" were very well thought-out and constructed, with Season Four being the only weak link. Season One establishes the tone of the show, and while not having as detailed a season arc as the rest of the series, does set up how Angel can truly and fully redeem himself. Season Two sees the return of Darla, Angel's sire, as she and Wolfram & Hart work together to try and bring down Angel Investigations.
Season Three also sees the return of someone from Angel's past, a vampire hunter from the 1700s named Holtz seeking revenge on Angel, who, as Angelus, brutally killed Holtz's family. Season Four, the only dud, was not very effective due to no permanent Big Bad, instead jumping from one villain to another, as well as poor use of one of the main characters. The final season puts the show back on track and builds to a fantastic climax, one that's infuriating yet brilliant.
All that's left to talk about is the cast, and the cast is great. David Boreanez does a superb job reprising his role as Angel, and is able to show off a wider array of his acting skills than he could on "Buffy," as his character is finally able to emote more now that his former love interest is gone. Glenn Quinn, as the enigmatic Doyle, is quite fun to watch onscreen. The adorable Amy Acker (Winifred Burkle) shows off a fantastic range as the series progresses, and Alexis Denisof (Wesley Wyndam-Price) also is remarkable as the character of Wesley changes dramatically over the course of the show.
Finally, if you're looking for "Buffy in LA," this isn't the series for you. "Angel" is more violent, more cerebral, and isn't afraid to go places where "Buffy" never would. This isn't to say that "Buffy" is a lesser show, or that "Angel" delves too far off the path from its parent, but merely to point out that they shouldn't be compared. It would be unfair to do so. One should take them as two entirely separate shows that happen to inhabit the save fictional universe.
Until next time, Orange Hat Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)