EW review gives "Angel" a "B"
"It's sad that for a show with so much complex talent on and of screen, we'll never be able to watch it group up." Registration Required.
Ken Tucker gives a decent and thoughtful review. Although he heaps plenty of praise on the show, he also finds some fault. For example, he describes the show as a "teenager suffering an identity crisis."
The "B" rating, however, is undeserved. Ken Tucker gave "Wondefalls" an "A-" while another EW writer gave "Charmed" a "B+". Also, I should mention that there is a discrepancy. In the actual magazine they give Angel a "B", but on the webpage, it's a "B+".
April 17 2004
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
Invisible Green | April 17, 17:13 CET
[ edited by mai on 2004-04-18 16:19 ]
mai | April 17, 17:29 CET
norman | April 17, 18:29 CET
The only drastic shift was to this current season in "Conviction," which I have to admit bothered me at first. But after seeing most of the rest of this season, I cannot complain.
I really don't get how Charmed can be placed on the same level as Angel though.
Invisible Green | April 17, 18:45 CET
RavenU | April 17, 18:59 CET
I completely agree, Invisible Green and RavenU (by the way, both of you write very well!) that Charmed can't even be placed in the same league as Angel.
fate's bitch | April 17, 19:18 CET
"What began as a vampire noir morphed into a sci-fi wig-out, which in turn became the current supernatural law-office series".
I don't know about anyone else, but that's why I loved it so much. I'd sooner praise the show for finding so many different ways to reinvent itself each season then knock it for failing to find an individual identity, which I have no doubt it has. It's such a silly comment to make, especially when "Buffy" made so many similar changes:
What began as a freak of the week coming of age slayfest morphed into a story of self discovery in a college setting, which in turn became the orphaned daughter family drama, which finally became the slayer boot camp.
And while I agree I've always thought of "Angel" in the back of my mind as the spinoff to "Buffy" I can honestly say I haven't at all this season.
Also, I'm not sure what a "sci-fi wig-out" is either, lol. I see...we've resorted to name-calling have we? Well...Ken Tucker is a TV-critic wig-out. Awwww, snap!
WalrusSAS | April 17, 20:35 CET
And although Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayer certainly have gone through many changes, which may seem drastical to the occasional viewer, the changes about about as naturally and realistically as the changes the characters go through.
In life we go through all sorts of changes. And you know all those kids you were friends with when you were seven? How many of those are you still good friends with? Probably not many, if you're like me.
And Charmed has certainly gone through a lot of changes also, though I can't comment on the recent seasons. I will admit that the sudden loss of Shannen Doherty was very gracefully handled, which really surprised. (In fact, that's probably one of the few times I was actually surprised by Charmed. The first season had the whole cop angle with Andy and Darryl (then Andy was killed off). The second season was like a dating show--should Piper go out with Leo or the neighbor guy? Better genre ideas actually started to develop in the third season, the first season to truly have a story arc. Um, I've actually almost completely forgot the fourth season. And after five episodes of the fifth season, I realized I needed to stop watching.
IMHO, Charmed deserves a B-. I can't understand anything higher than a B or less than a C-. It is a highly entertaining show with a talented (and yes, very attractive) cast.
Oh, one more thing while I'm rambling about Charmed:
No TV show has ever had worst guest stars than Charmed! Oh my God! Do the casting directors know what acting is?
[ edited by Invisible Green on 2004-04-18 09:20 ]
Invisible Green | April 17, 21:24 CET
But I totally agree with you. I never knew where Angel would go next. If I got bored with one plotline or dramatic trend, it would change 8 episodes later. This is reminiscent of the classic series "Wiseguy," which doesn't suffer from the same critical backbiting. Such is the critic's relationship with fantasy.
[ edited by DaveW on 2004-04-18 04:42 ]
[ edited by DaveW on 2004-04-18 04:42 ]
[ edited by DaveW on 2004-04-18 04:42 ]
DaveW | April 17, 21:41 CET
As for the "No TV show has ever had worst guest stars than Charmed! Oh my God! Do the casting directors know what acting is?" Maybe you best have a look at their list of guest stars cause at least 80% of them have also been guest on Buffy and/or Angel - so what was that about the guest stars acting abilitiies, although it does go to show the weakness of the writing and directing of the show, if you think these same guest did a bad job on Charmed but a good job in the verse.
RavenU | April 17, 21:53 CET
I'll admit, I still watch Charmed. But it doesn't amount to anything more than cheesy hour-long fun. Pure mindless entertainment. But I've learned to appreciate cheesiness and bad stories long ago. I'm a rare breed, I'm sure. Regardless, I typically couldn't tell you what happened last season let alone last week. It's definite filler.
WalrusSAS - Great point about Angel reinventing its identity each year, and that being a factor that draws us to it. I agree completely but couldn't word it as such. It certainly keeps things feeling new, as well as real. Things in the real world don't remain constant for too long, so why should they on TV?
Personally, I've never been one to simply think of Angel as the spin-off to Buffy. I've never fully thought of it as mama-show and baby-show, I've just felt they were part of the same story in the long run. They're two different shows, but tied together. And being that they're different, one is neither superior to the other. They may have elements that are superior, just as they have weaknesses as well.
They're their own world, not just a set of shows.
Greyflowers | April 17, 22:45 CET
Invisible Green | April 18, 02:26 CET
By the way, I love Sarah Michelle Gellar, but unless I'm forced helplessly into some kind of "Clockwork Orange" situation, I'm never going to see "Scooby-Doo." I honestly don't think I would survive. However...."Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed" is another story altogether. Call me crazy...but any movie with Ruben Studdard in the cast, spells "q-u-a-l-i-t-y" to me.
WalrusSAS | April 18, 04:46 CET
Tycho | April 18, 13:50 CET
Invisible Green | April 18, 15:29 CET
punkinpuss | April 18, 16:00 CET
splay | April 18, 16:31 CET