he definately didnt like aly...............

norman | February 24, 18:03 CET

Geez, I hope she doesn't read that! But the journalist also dissed Aly's performance in BtVS so how much taste can she really have?

marmoset | February 24, 18:09 CET

One of my pet peeves is reading reviews that criticize acting. The reviewers should criticize scripts, direction, costumes, and music. Actors, though, are under the director’s jurisdiction. They act how the director wants them to act. The directors also usually make the final decision as to who should play these roles. I’m not saying critics shouldn’t praise actors’ performances here and there. However, they should try acting the scenes out on stage with the blocking before they say something like that about an actor. That was just tasteless.



(whimpers and tears) “When I heard that Angel was cancelled, I was having fruit punch, and I thought well Spike and Angel and those other vampires will NEVER HAVE anymore fruit punch that looks like blood EVER!!! It’s stupid. It’s mortal and stupid, and no one will explain to me WHY!?!?!?” (turns evil and all-powerful and causes computer equipment to overload)

[ edited by G Thing on 2004-02-24 17:47 ]

G Thing | February 24, 19:45 CET

"...by a leading lady with all the comic sensibility of Iain Duncan Smith."

Oooh there is no other word for that than dry!!!

For those Americans. The gentleman in question is the Tory (Conservative Party) leader.

Hembie | February 24, 19:59 CET

Hello, Hembie, a pedant writes: Iain Duncan Smith is the former leader of the Conservative Party. The new leader is Michael "something of the night about him" Howard.

Blimey! This critic really does not seem to have seen the same play that I saw last week. I took two non-Buffy fans with me, and they thought Alyson was great. If anyone reading this is in the UK and wondering whether to buy a ticket, please do.

JudithS | February 24, 20:04 CET

ouch! I don't guess he liked his grandmother much either....

jeebs | February 24, 20:27 CET

Sorry JudithS,

My bad, I admit I'm only a Canadian trying to keep up with the British political scene. Hmm must check out this new development.

Hembie | February 24, 20:33 CET

Well I obviously haven't seen the play, living here in LA, but knowing Aly's capabillities and natural charm I can pretty much guarantee I would disagree with this review. (Well, the Luke Perry thing could be true. Never really understood what was supposed to be so good about this guy)

But then it was't much of a review to begin with. It's very short and mainly consists of namecalling. And while that can be fun up to a point, a review shouldn't CONSIST of it. It doesn't really say anything constructive or in-depth. And comparing someone to your dead grandmother isn't really all that witty either.

Also funny how the reviewer bashes the original movie as 'barely forgivable in the 80's' yet holds it up as the pinnacle of what SHOULD be when it comes to the play. And since when are angst and neuroticism a thing of the 80's anyway? Just about any soap/drama/sitcom of today still focuses on it. Hell, half the cast of 'Friends' is at least as neurotic as the 'When Harry met Sally' characters.

And as stated, the reviewer clearly just dislikes Aly, including her Buffy work, whereas I've always considered her among the best of the Buffy cast, so I really can't care all that much about this opinion anyway.

EdDantes | February 24, 21:40 CET

I went to the play and thought it was excellent! It was funny, sweet and I enjoyed every minute of it!!!! All the people I spoke to there enjoyed it, so all I can say is, if you havent seen it, go see it!!! It was wicked and I think Alyson is very talented! Maybe we should ask the critics to act out the part of Sally! I would LOVE to see them try and fake an orgasm on stage and keep a straight face while doing it properly!

Joss rules! | February 24, 21:41 CET

I doubt she reads the reviews and if she does? Takes them with a grain of salt. Years ago, when I was in a play and got a bad review, a professional actor pulled me aside and told me not to pay any attention to critics. He said, most actors learn to ignore them - because if the reviewer raves about you, you get cocky and it hurts your performance. If the reviewer rants about you - you get depressed and it hurts the next performance. So what they do is save the reviews for when the play closes, don't read them, or take them with a grain of salt.

Ian McKellan on Inside Actors Studio once stated that he never took critic's reviews of his work seriously. He took a directors or fellow actor's review seriously. The critic has no understanding of what was involved in the performance and is reacting to whatever they project on to the show from their own background or experience. No critic is objective. He finds directors to be far more objective. Or the audience sitting in front of him as he performs - the energy they give off.

So...since Hannigan is a professional actress who has done tv and movies since she was 4, I doubt she paid that much attention to what a London critic thinks of her first appearance on the London stage. I'm sure Alexis told her to ignore the London critics as did Anthony Stewart Head who have done lots of London plays and had good and bad reviews. Theater critics are notoriously rude and usually are much worse than film and tv critics. To be an actor/actress you really need to be thick-skinned.

s'kat | February 24, 22:11 CET

Theater critics are notoriously rude and usually are much worse than film and tv critics. To be an actor/actress you really need to be thick-skinned.

True. I always found that a ridiculous situation. Nothing wrong with reviewing a play or a movie or anything else, but the power critics have in the theater world is ridiculous. A movie can get bad review but if people like it they'll still go see it. If a play is on broadway and gets slaughtered next morning in the papers, you can already bet it's not going to last.

Critics are fine but they shouldn't think they're more important than they are (not very) and certainly shouldn't have any direct power.

EdDantes | February 25, 00:03 CET

[From The Scotman review:] The first question that springs to the minds of most theatre- and cinema-literate people on hearing that the delightfully intelligent When Harry Met Sally is being brought to the West End stage, is, of course, why?

My thoughts exactly when I heard Alyson Hannigan was going to do this. Peculiar career choice.

Why take a quintessentially 80s-America, middle-class masterpiece, a diffidently murmured poem to interpersonal navel-gazing, played out in close-up and tight two-shots, and whack it on one of the biggest stages the 21st-century West End has to offer? Why? Why?

The reviewer has a point. If you care about the theatre being theatre, why waste an opportunity in this way? I can't believe there aren't new plays out there that would take a theatrical space and put something in it. They would be more deserving of a platform than a rehash job like this.

For people who love the London theatre, this is the kind of stuff that will kill it in the long term. No more British stage talent, no more nurturing of performers like Alexis Denisof, Tony Head, Sir Ian McKellen, Bernard Hill and half the bloody cast of "Lord of the Rings". Cinema and tv will therefore also be poorer.

Opportunity sacrificed for mediocre vanity projects for State-side visiting superstars.

c lake | February 25, 03:48 CET