The Ring 10/19/2002
What’s Good: Naomi Watts has a great screen presence. Even in crap like this.
What’s Not: The film looses steam by the second half and has a silly payoff.
Directed by  Gore Verbinski
Plot Outline: When her niece spontaneously dies of fright one week to the day she watched a disturbing video, a cynical journalist (Naomi Watts) travels to the Pacific Northwest in search of the tape's origins.

     This is the film that “Blair Witch 2” should have been. "The Ring" is a neo gothic, technophobic head trip of a movie that involves a cursed VHS tape that renders its viewers moot a mere seven days after they watch it... see, I told you VHS was evil. Why does the tape kill, you ask? Well, that's never really made clear. My only theory: after seven days the viewer of that tape is forced to sit through all of "The Lord of the Rings" and enjoy it. Which, of course, is nearly impossible so they drop dead from boredom. At any rate, the film lacks the exquisite horror logistics of “Final Destination,” the novelty scariness of the first “Blair Witch” and the down right unsettling nature of the Playstation game "Silent Hill" but it still worked for me on two levels. One being the lead performance by Mulholland Drive's Naomi Watts, an actress that can make the silliest material believable by just breathing heavy (man, what a good breather). The other is the slick presentation of the film which has that 24-hour David Fincher rainy quality. And while the scares in this picture are obligatory and obvious, director Gore Verbinski seems to be making a statement about horror films and society as much as he's making a horror film for it's own sake.  

      “The Ring” makes even the ringing of a phone eerie and annoying and I suppose Gore Verbinski should not be credited for this, it’s Watts, stupid. Verbinski is nothing but a hack with a sick sense of humor; how else could you explain "Mouse Hunt" and "The Mexican?" So the fact that this Australian import (send your thank you notes to David Lynch) takes Verbinski's film so seriously and does such a convincing job with putting up with the script's inconsistencies that I was always on board with this film, even when it turned into a rickety mess. In truth, Watts’ beautifully anxious bravado (and breathing) distracted me from an otherwise unfilled horror film. She plays a workaholic single mother named Rachel Keller who, after being asked by her sister to investigate the cause of her niece’s untimely death, comes across that urban legend video tape whose contents look like deleted scenes from Nine Inch Nails’ “Closer” video. I still maintain that for effectiveness sake we should have never been allowed to see what was on that tape but that's just me.
     It seems that finding outrageously impossible clues is no problem for Keller since she is a journalist (uh-huh) and once she watches this reverse "Faces of Death" tape strange things start to happen a la “House on Haunted Hill.” Since the character knows she’s going to die, this countdown to death casts a macabre shadow across Watts' performance and the whole movie. I should mention that Keller had a psychic son with a deadbeat father who turns out to be a great ally and he is played nicely by a scruffy Martin Henderson. I enjoyed Watts' scenes with her ex but I still question the motives of giving this character a young child prophet. Though it’s not really necessary and Watts could have been even better if her character was isolated, at least the Haley Joel Osment factor gives Watts’ Rachel Keller more of a Ripley-like maternal drive to solve the mysteries of the tape. Which  leads me to…  

     The fact that the watch and your dead premise sounds flawless yet the filmmakers never seemed to know what to do with it. At about the half way point it felt like a blocked Verbinski just started making shit up that sounds supernatural (a spooky man with a barn/ a horse that goes crazy) and basically ripped-off, wholesale, the much better angry ghost elements of “What Lies Beneath;” a film that, in turn, jacked Hitchcock but with a more knowing wink. This is disappointing because if the film’s second and third acts held any water, “The Ring” could have been a true horror classic instead of just a decent film to see around Halloween if your bored.

     There is a point towards the end of the film that involves an angry spirit and a deep dark well and the logic here becomes so screwy, so baffling and so down right lame that you are virtually taken out of the picture. But what director Verbinski and writer Kruger (he wrote “Arlington Rode” and “Scream 3”) do here that’s compelling is that they’ve crafted a thinly guised horror film that actually carries quite a walloping social message. Yeah, a social message. When you think about what object the well is directly under things  start to make sense, in a Robert Wiene/German expressionist sort of way. In defense of me liking the film I will try to argue that this film is really about a numb electronic culture of blue tinted slaves who are "like, loosing brain cells" as they feed off of rampant media exploitation. And it is this lack of human contact that comes with allowing television to raising our demented children that creates what is essentially (and literally at one point in the film) a ghost in the machine. It is no accident that one of the last lines of the picture is “I’m going home.” A phrase I would have been thinking half way through the the film if it wasn't for Watts.  

Grade: B

Punch-Drunk Love 10/11/2002
What’s Good: Along with Samantha Morton in "Sweet and Lowdown" and Ben Kingsley in "Sexy Beast," Adam Sandler gives one of the best performances of the last ten years. / P.T. Anderson directs this quasi romantic comedy with a dazzling absurdist's skill. / Though I could guess the ending would not be tragic I never really knew where this film was going till it got there. Even if you hate the film you will be surprised by it.
What’s Not: Unlike the expertly written ensemble of characters in "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia," supporting characters in this film lack dimension. Though this is deliberate (and that's kind of why I love the film) it still takes the film  into a more detached, Cohen brother's territory.
Directed by  Paul Thomas Anderson
Plot Outline: A beleaguered business owner embarks on a romantic journey with a mysterious woman who plays the harmonium.

    Sandler is not off the hook. If anything he’s worse off. Now that it's clear the performer is capable of such nuanced strides of humanity, nervousness, rage, and eccentric love, I can no longer bring myself to understand why he would go beneath his talents again for a big paycheck. Because of this magnificently filmed fantasy, I imagine it will be impossible to sit through Adam Sandler's endlessly one-note characters in inevitable productions of “Mr. Deeds' goes to Washington,” “Waterboy: the Next Season,” “Big Granddaddy,” or “Billy Madison goes to High School.”

     The key to getting through this movie with a happy face is to leave whatever feelings you have for Sandler the comedian at the door. This is a bizarre film in so many ways. For one, I can't believe it worked out this way but the last person “Punch-Drunk Love” was intended for is the typical Adam Sandler fan. To appreciate the film you should be indifferent to the man's psychosis but the effect is even better if you hated him. I fall into the second category and thus I loved the film.
Somehow-- maybe I felt I owed it to director P.T. Anderson to place my trust in his reliably abstract storytelling-- I got into the film and saw beyond Sandler's normally shallow comic persona. It seemed reasonable that ninety minutes was all P.T. and Sandler are asking of us. The tagline should say "Believe in Sandler for less than two hours and afterwards go back to hating the man all" but before you do that know this: my greatest fears came true with "Punch-Drunk Love." In letting my Anti-Sandler guard down, a floodgate of empathy for the actor was opened and due to this resonant film, my panoply could be down for good. Let's hope not though.

     Sandler fills in a portrait of intense nervousness with an uncanny skill that I have never seen implemented with this much isolated passion. Being a chronically nervous and twitchy person myself I saw a beautiful and harsh truth come out of this complex performance. Ever Sandler spasm is artful, every non-sequiter (and there are a lot of those) doesn’t seem like some forced manner of indy weirdness that we see so often in Wes Anderson or Todd Soldenz's cinematic universes, but something that the unstable outsider from this film would actually say.
     While Sandler's performance could have gone all over the map (as Robin Williams or Jim Carrey would of done in a part like this) it manages to say grounded thanks to the more "normal" players in his dreary life. For starters, Sandler, playing a dweeb named Barry Egan, has seven abusive sisters who grew up calling him "gay boy" and now wonder why he's so maladjusted (one sister is played nicely by Mary Lynn Rajskub who was in “Larry Sanders Show” and “Mr Show"). Also along for the ride are two PT Anderson vets: Barry makes toilet plungers and his co-worker is played by the always welcome Louise Guizmon who doesn't bat an eye at Sandler's erratic behavior (Guizmon is the Tom Cruse to Sandler's Rain Man); the other is the antagonist of sorts, Phillip Seymour Hoffman who is playing Dean Trumbell, a vicious phone-sex extortionist (don't ask). What Trumbell and Barry's sisters represent more than anything is an aspect of Barry's insecurity that he must overcome or perish at the hands of.
     The only character in the picture that actually connects with and on some level understands Barry’s idiosyncratic personality is Lena Leonard played by Emily Watson in a tricky and winning performance. If Watson's character is not as filled in Sandler it’s because, like Hoffman, no character in this piece should be taken at face value. Besides being equally lonely, we never truly understand who this love interest is and why she can't resist this seemingly crazy man but that may be the point. This is Barry Egan’s movie and the film views the people in his life as inconsequently and standoffishly as he does. It seems that every crevice of P.T. Anderson's cinematic pallet, from John Bryant's gorgeous staccato music to the unreal dialogue to the jittery camera movement and finally to Emily Watson's character, all of this coalesces with Barry’s inaccessible personality. Similar to the skewed first-person tone of last year's "Memento," we perceive the film in exactly the same distortions as Barry perceives the world and that is a scary prospect.

     "Punch-Drunk Love" may not be a full fledge romantic comedy but, like “Magnolia” and "Boogie Nights," it contains tasty elements of both. For one, there are overwhelming moments of unabashed romance harkening back to the vibe we get from classics like “Roman Holliday.” And Barry's only need of having "someone to talk to" is touching in it's small minded simplicity. But is the romance meant to be read with an ironic underpinning? I'm still not sure of this but I have a feeling that for the first time Sandler is not being condescending to his audience. There are also facile bursts of bittersweet comedy... each time something sets Barry off we see him holding in all this rage and sadness until it bubbles out in the form of compulsive twitches, back and fourth pacing, and uncontrolled facial jerks. This repressed rage--something that was met in the Santa Monica screening with an equal mix of laughs and audible compassion-- is no doubt a critique of all the characters he has played thus far. So more than anything, this film is a deconstructionist exploration of a national comedian that was never funny until this point.

     P.T. Anderson has created an odd and striking world here. With the main character's lucrative scheme that finds a loophole in buying inexpensive pudding snacks to collect frequent flyer mileage, Barry is a busy man but besides that plot the film isn't really about anything concrete. Barry spends just about all his time nervously talking on the phone with his antagonizing sisters, Watson, the people at Healthy Choice that are offering this financially flawed discount, and porno hotline thugs that are blackmailing him for money. It is no accident that Sandler’s character is seen on the phone more than a dozen times. Five minutes didn’t go by without the image of Sandler talking to some hostile entity on the other end of the line and this aspect of the film  never grows tiring. This character has zero social skills and there seems to always a division between Barry and whomever he's interacting with so, yeah, a phone symbolically makes perfect since. The film is saying that this character talks to everybody as if he is on the phone with them and Barry's primary conflict is that, only when he learns to stop disconnecting himself from humanity can he find true love (Sandler does a miraculous thing with a broken phone at the end of the picture). Like the young hero in "Spirited Away" Barry goes through life in his own fantasy world and like that girl he wouldn't be a naturally sad person if the would didn't beat the shit out of him until he conforms to society's tumultuous rhythms.

     As you can probably tell, "Punch-Drunk Love" does not confine itself to the logic of our world. Unlike the pandering and somewhat empty “Signs,” bizarre things happen in this film that don’t need to be addressed directly by the filmmaker. Life isn’t like that. There are loose ends. And contrary to Ibsen, there can be a gun (or harmonium in this film's case) above the fireplace but, out here in Barry's world, it doesn’t necessarily have to go off.
     With this film there are moments of exquisite randomness that rival, in poignancy, the work of Jean-Pierre Jeunet (“Amelie” "City of Lost Children," "Delicatessen"). We see random occurrences of turbulence-- two surprise car crashes, Guzman hits the ground suddenly as his chair collapses, Barry suddenly breaks his sister’s window at a family get-together. We see random acts of passion --a stolen kiss between two kindred spirits, a surprise visit to Hawaii out of love. And best of all, you never know what Sandler's character will say or do from moment to moment.
      But perhaps random isn’t the right word, that implies a sheen of laziness of the creator's part. This film and it's lead performance is anything but lazy… so even if the odd occurrences are not explained or assigned a proper amount of logic, nothing felt arbitrary. For example, the glairing metaphor besides the telephone is that harmonium or "tiny piano" as Barry likes to call it. This object is like a deus ex machina in the way that, one day, it comes from from nowhere for an unknown reason when what looks like a cab throws it in front of Sandler's office just before Watson's character arrives and just after a unexpected car crash. This occurrence is almost cosmic. Watson drives past the piano and asks "is that a piano in the middle of the street?" Barry says something like "Yeah... I don't know" changes the subject then after she leaves, sprints for the instrument like it was made of gold and brings it back to the safety of his office. Like the ducks in "The Sopranos" the piano in this film gives Sandler's tired character much solace. It is something good and pure and almost holy yet we know not why. In any other film the director would have some splaining to do... Shyamalan and his illegitimate father Steven Spielberg would have told us exactly who put the piano there and precisely what it meant in the context of the story but not Anderson.
     So does the piano represent Barry's inner happiness, his soul, does it fill in his void of love or is it simply someone's trash? Like poetry, searching for specific meaning or logic in this film may be missing the point. It's about feeling and like a well constructed poem, this film, for whatever it's worth, worked on an intuitive level for me. Forget specifics, is the feeling we get from that piano and from Sandler’s unpredictable reaction to it that counts. And like all great signifying movie objects (the briefcase in "Pulp Fiction," the sleigh in "Citizen Kane," the blue box from "Mulholland Dr.," Jennifer Love Hewitt’s breasts) the mini piano of "Punch Drunk Love" will be talked about, respected, and possibly even hated for years to come. 

     As with “Mulholland Dr,” warming up to this film is not as simple as it sounds. This letter grade calls for a massive concession on my part and there’s something both thrilling and maddening about loathing a director or performer's style only to be be forced, despite yourself, to revel in the quantity craftsmanship they now exhibit. This film is like seeping with a sworn enemy and, yeah, I expected this kind of precision from P.T. Anderson, but Adam Sandler? Have I missed some hidden significance in Sandler's previous body of work. I doubt it. Did he get lucky with this film? Again, no way. So besides Sandler selling his soul for some serious acting chops, the only thing I am sure of is that the Adam Sandler I knew yesterday couldn’t have whipped up one of the best film characters to come out of the last ten years with such brazen ease.

     I see this film as being the ultimate example of a director's language inspiring and leading a performer to achieve on-screen greatness. "Punch-Drunk Love" proves that if Mr. Sandler can "do ett" then there’s hope for any idiot out there. Jonnie Knoxville, Britney Spears and Tom Green-- pray that P.T. Anderson has your number.   

Grade: A

Red Dragon 10/04/2002
What’s Good: Not a bad film. Just a mediocre one with some great moments.
What’s Not: Truth be told, this film bored me. Nowhere near as good as the original film adapted from Tomas Harris' Red Dragon titled "Manhunter."  Plus, Edward Norton is not right for the part.
Directed by  Brett Ratner
Plot Outline: FBI agent Will Graham seeks the help of Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter to help solve the case of "The Tooth Fairy".

    A question that shrouds Red Dragon is why? Why remake Michael Mann’s exquisite 1983 thriller? Why would Hopkins go back to this exhausted character after Ridley Scott’s noble but failed effort that was "Hannibal" not only did a disservice to the dimension of Dr. Lector and good old Clarisse but to fans of Harris’ sweetly morbid novel? And best of all, with all the competent directors at this company's disposal, why would Universal and producer Dino De Laurentiis hand the franchise over to Brett Ratner, that grinning twit who imposed "Rush Hour 2" and "Family Man" on us? Sure this particular tale may have been woven before serial killer narratives were all chic, but the fact that this film left me indifferent cannot be ignored. As is, "Red Dragon" is not as innovative as Michael Mann's "Manhunter," not as affecting as "Silence of the Lambs," and its not as campy as last "Hannibal." So what is it besides a moneymaker?   

     I should mention that I find it impossible to dislike the film outright. It is anything but a lost effort thanks to worthy actors who are able to overcome a script with endless clichés and a directorial effort that lacks an original insight. With each labored twist-and-turn, Ratner is trying too hard to be Demme with his measured pacing, curoscurio lighting, and eerie score by Danny Elfman, but it's all lip service. At least with the last Hannibal film, Ridley Scott had enough vision to create his own distinct movie. The studio obviously allowed Ratner to do this film because his last three projects (two with Newline, one with Universal) have made hundreds of millions dollars but a prolific moneymakers rarely have the patience for this kinds of delicate projects. And as such Ratner fills the screen with unconvincing visuals. Norton, Keitel, Hoffman, Watson, Fiennes... right, four of the best performers in America (and one from England, Watson, playing a blind potential victim) are going to listen to Bret Ratner’s creative input because, what, he has displayed a keen eye for character dimension when he worked on three films with Chris Tucker? If anything, these five actors should have been allowed to direct the film... what am I saying, they probably did more than Ratner. 

    The story is more of the same as the film is a prequel to the events of "Lambs." But just because this film takes the structure of "Silence" and story of "Manhunter" I don't think it should really be considered a prequel. More like a marriage of those two better films. At any rate, "Red Dragon" opens when the the respected psychologist, Hannibal, got busted by an gifted FBI profiler (Edward Norton as Graham Nash) with an uncanny “imagination.” Actually, as we'll come to see throughout the film, Graham isn’t that good a detective, he just looks good when surrounded by vacuous co-workers whose clue spotting skills are about as keen as the blind Watson. After that nasty Hannibal run in (he almost died but caught the monster) Norton is retired and living a comfy suburban life in Florida but after he gets that obligatory “you’re the only one who can do this” speech by his ex-boss (Keitel) the guy is on the case. Graham is then convinced to assist a bunch of idiot cops track down a brutal killer that seemingly chooses his victims at random. His first destination is searching the house of the first murdered family and how much you want to guess that he finds glairing clues that the bounty of investigators in the house prior to him totally missed? Graham, of course, does this search in the middle of the night for reasons that are unclear but obviously done for maximum spine-chilling effect. It the small illogical moments like this that fill up this silly, rather unaffecting, and mostly boring thriller.
     The best stuff, of course, comes with the two villains of the piece. Hopkins and Ralf Fiennes. We all obviously know Hannibal's MO but Fiennes is playing the Buffalo Bill of the piece and though Hannibal reluctantly agrees helps Norton's Graham find the guy, he is really is helping Fiennes kill the Fed who caught him. Like Bill, Finnes' character, dubbed the Tooth Fairy, is also is demented recluse except in this film Fiennes finds love in a fellow “freak,” a blind lamb played with bittersweet gusto by Emily Watson. The scenes that involve this killer’s love life are clearly the most rewarding thing about the movie. Fiennes and Watson make one fascinating on-screen couple as we see that her wide-eyed innocence and unconditional acceptance of the Tooth Fairy brings out the only human qualities left in the monster. It's just too bad this aspect of the film doesn't get much screen time. It is the cop stuff that the film focuses on and ironically, Norton, one of the best actors alive, is the worst thing about the film (that's probably the last time I'll ever say that about a Norton movie but it's true here). Unlike prior protagonists in the series, Foster and Moore, the mousy Norton seems ill-equipped here and his near prophetic problem solving is more a contrivance of the story than an organic, Daryl Zero like trait. Foster was flawed and complex and yet displays a minimal amount of personality as agent Graham. The actor has too many scenes where he's sitting around pondering (unconvincingly) how to catch the Tooth Fairy and fend off Hannibal. I never believed in this main character and if Norton reflects the genre's generic qualities then Fiennes and Hopkins represent the limitless and ageless creativity of of movie killers.   

     Ratner is working from a script by Ted Tally, the guy who won an Oscar for his "Silence" script and declined to do "Hannibal" because it was too violent and downtrodden (cough—homo—cough) but this film is fine with Tally because the violence is artistic (a typical scene involves the Tooth Fairy mouthing an annoying reporter played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman while he bites off his tongue... all this is before he sets him on fire mind you). Right, artistic, sure it is.
     While I read both Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal I never touched Red Dragon, but based on Harris' writing it seemed to me that Michael Mann successfully milked so much pure energy from that crime novel that Tally being asked to go back to this story after Mann did is a redundant act that makes as much sense as if, oh let's say, in ten years someone had the bright idea to adapt Tim Burton’s already remade version "Planet of the Apes." I am convinced that the franchise should have taken a break after last year's "Hannibal" but behold the power of money. Wherever Dr. Lector is right now he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Grade: C

The Scorpion King  9/28/2002
What’s Good: The only thing praiseworthy about this adolescence romp is that it's so dull that I will surely forget about it by 2003.
What’s Not: Yes, this Egyptian themed action fable doesn’t take itself as seriously as the “Mummy” pictures did but that’s not enough for me. Be flippant, fine, but be flippant with a purpose.
Directed by  Chuck Russell
Plot Outline: A desert warrior rises up against the evil army that is destroying his homeland. He captures the enemy's key sorcerer, takes her deep into the desert and prepares for a final showdown.

     Maybe I could see a reason behind “The Scorpion King” existing—a hipster Conan knock off with a cocksure bronze wrestler at the helm—but I must admit that while I got the joke, I aint laughing.

The Rock plays a wronged warrior who gets his revenge against some evil English chap with a mullet (woo, scary, a BBC actor is going to kick the Rock's ass) and proceeds to steals that warlord's comely sorceress and rallies the plebs to overtake this malevolent force. Where the story goes is of no consequence because whichever way the plot unfolds, The Rock is so annoyingly convinced that he’s dishing out hilarious material while looking so damn fetching that he seems to be on the same sort of hammy actor frequency that Mario Van Peebles touched upon on when he did "Highlander 3" and "Solo" (ha ha ha, LOOSER!!!).

In "The Scorpion King," this bitch-ass WWE puppet (two guesses as to whose ass Vince McMann's hand is up) is not acting the part of the fearless Scorpion King he’s acting as if he’s the Rock doing Scorpion King in a WWE skit and the final product smells like the Rock is cooking a crock of steaming camel shit. And I hate to say this but after ten minutes of Dwayne’s consciously bad dialogue I was harkening back the glory days of “The Mummy Returns” when the taciturn Scorpion King was only in the film for ten minutes and, best of all, wasn’t even allowed to speak.

Grade: D-

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Selfless                              Directed by David Solomon  ~  Written by Drew Goddard
First Impression: A (9.8/10)
Esther's Impression: 9/10
Synopsis: Anya's breakup with Xander has driven her to return to her vengeance-demon ways with, well, a vengeance.
Theme: Coming to terms with the past can feel like a sword in the heart. Literally.  
Best moments/lines:
-Those unresolved season two issues between Xander and Buffy. 
-"The Troll is doing an Olaf impersonation! Hit him with fruits and various meats!"
-"Ripped out the heart. My God! Hey, did you get that physics class that you wanted?" Buffy.
-And another great closing shot. This time, that much used yet always effective cut-to-black just as a character walks off screen shot. Remember when Xander walked past Cordilla at the end of "The  Zeppo?" Same thing here only it's Anya, and Xander in the background now.  

     See. This is why men should be writing Buffy. The season seven anxiety I exhibited last week has been quelled big time by, of all people, Anya. Similar to the episodes that centered on William the Bloody or Angel the Irish rogue with a bad accent, "Selfless" chronicles Anya's sinful history and parallels various demonic indiscretions with a contemporary Anya reeking the same havoc only, you know, with a weighty conscience this time around. Amazingly, we gain insight into a more tragic figure with a hamartia that dictates the slighted Anya "has a job to do" regardless of human morality. It seems that without love in this gal's life, she's as much a "nobody" as Patrick Bateman or Thomas Ripley ever were. For only a nobody could have been such a prolific vengeance demon.

     This episode could have been all humor or it could have been filled with the same maudlin strokes of the last two estrogen enriched episodes (written by Rebecca Kirshner and Jane Espenson) but instead of easy laughs or throwaway tears "Selfless" goes for a season six inspired method of homogenizing the two tones as if they were ingredients in a super tasty double meat burger. Less monsters more melodrama, that internal turmoil I love so much, bloody frat-house fracases, wickedly funny French revolutions, a great Buffy/Anya throwdown and of course that sleepy musical number that ends with a disturbingly macabre shot. This is "BTVS" at it's most thought-provoking! And besides the significant Aud the angry Sweed subplot, what puts "Selfless" over the top is a monumental confrontation between Xander and Buffy with Willow caught in the middle. The scene ends with a incising blow from a superior sounding Buffy; "There's only me. I am the law" Buffy Dredd tells Xander after she vows to put Anya, the demon who just caused the death of a dozen frat boy, down. Should Buffy kill Anya when she was all too willing to help evil Willow last season? Yes, she should have killed Anya three seasons ago. But does Buffy really feel that she is the law? No. Well, maybe but she hasn't felt that way before... I seem to remember Buffy wanting to turn herself in to "the law" just last season after Warren's girlfriend died. A swaggering line like that sounds more like it would have come from the friendless, alternate universe Buffy from Cleveland, and we all know how she ended up. Regardless, the slayer also has a job to do and I could sympathies with both Buffy and a Xander's conflicting positions-- Xander does, after all, "love" Anya. Buffy's attack mode here mirrors the same Slayer-over-friendship duties that she begrudgingly called upon in the last three episodes of season six and pitting one beloved character against another is a taut device that the show wisely revisited. Point is, conflicts like that in episodes like this make for a lot of great discussion among fans. And besides Clem getting his own genisis episode, what else could we ask for?  

     Back to Anya for a moment. We get to know her better than ever when we discover bits of info like Anya being "strangely literal" even before her human transformation. We also finally know what it means to be Anya the mass murdering femme Nazi, Anya the communist, Anya the doubtful lover, and Anya the semi loyal friend. Anya up until this point has been a tool of the writer, inserted into a scene to compliment or react off of other characters and yet never being a fully realized character on her own terms. Well, finally Anya gets some color. Thanks to this episode she is no longer afraid of bunnies for random reasons but, in a Freudian sense, we see these things played a part in her past life precisely because someone finally took the time to give her one. A life that is. Bunnies aside, this character has found purpose for the first time since that season three cameo where, because of an Anya vengeance spell, Buffy never set foot in Sunnydale. 

     As you can tell, Anya has never been a favorite of mine (she's too arch and ironic; Cordelia without the breasts as I like to say) but episodes like help fill-in Buffyverse gaps in a gently comprehensive way. By gently, I mean to say that it never felt like the writers were shoving Anya's history down our throats. So this is first and foremost an episode that fans will cherish and I for one garnered as much enjoyment here as I did in Spike's BTVS/Angel crossover episodes. "Selfless" manages to incorporate all major character arcs while slightly emphasizing one and I imagine this was no easy task. Seriously, this episode is skillfully handled because it gives us much to chew on without ever loosing it's focus. On-the-nose dialogue by novice writer Drew Goddard necessitates multiple viewings of this episode. For instance, I must go back to glimpse Willow turning to the dark side for a moment and consider how that will be handled; I must think more about Anya's brashly truthful question to Buffy "Are there any friends of yours left that you haven't tried to kill?"; and I must recount all the ways in which characters get called on weaknesses of seasons past. In that afore mentioned Buffy/Xander conflict, watching Xander finally get busted for something he did five years ago marks a HUGE moment if your an ardent fan. Xander telling Buffy to kill Angel dispite the fact that Willow was working on a spell has been, for me, a lingering blemish that has stood unresolved these many years. But I totally mean that in a good way, loose ends like this can be enriching. And though the matter was not resolved --nor should it be-- simply acknowledging what Xander withheld makes Buffy seem even more complex because I finally grasp the notion that a part of her has been harboring this resentment all this time. A small moment like Buffy revealing that she knows of Xander's destructive lie shows that Goddard has a reverence for "BTVS" history and an equal desire to propel the plot forward because it is only left as a moment. A brief but much appreciated nod to the show's own past. 
     In summation. The open-eyed clamoring of characters in this episode makes for a rousing time. And at the heart all this slick chaos is the miracle that Anya, like Weadon's once awful and soon to be cancelled "Firefly," can grow on you even if you don't want her to.

Air date 10/22/2002 Viewing date  10/25/2002
I'll try not to write as much next time.

Review for “Selfless” by Esther Liberman-Cuenca

        Anya owned this episode but very, very important developments also happened with the Scoobies that had a long time coming. Major props to first-time writer Drew Goddard, who not only has a good grasp of the characters but is probably also, as is evident in his script, a huge fan of the show before he got the job.

        I always liked Anya but I never empathized with her, mostly because she’s on screen for such a short while and seemed only involved with the Scoobies because it was important to Xander. Yet I always knew she was a bit of a fringe Scooby, not unlike Spike, because she wasn’t there from the beginning and her manners make her sort of outsider from the group – though I think she was beginning to really find herself in “Two to Go” and “Grave,” when she used her vengeance mojo to help fight against Willow, in my opinion, quite selflessly. But sadly that wasn’t enough for her acceptance as a full-fledged Scooby. Of course, as we learn early on in this episode, it’s always been like this: Aud (Anya) was just as quirky as she was when she was breeding bunnies and pouring mead as a medieval Swedish housewife, and was just as much an outsider in her little village as she is in Sunnydale. We knew from “Triangle” that Anya got her vengeance job by turning Olaf into a troll but we finally get to see the hilarious payoff in this episode and her first meeting with (my favorite demon) D’Hoffryn.

        Scenes of Anya’s past are spliced between current scenes of her latest act of vengeance, or as D’Hoffryn put it “the slaughtering of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue.” Twelve frat boys are dead because of Anya, who was probably trying to foolishly overcompensate for the lousy vengeance work she has done thus far. Her burdening guilt and shame over this act sparks a sort of self-identity crisis that ultimately leads her to act on her death wish. Hence, the title of this episode not only refers to Anya’s selfless act in sacrificing herself to undo her wish but also her failure in establishing herself as a person independent of a job or a man that she would conveniently use to define herself. The little musical number “I’m the Missus” encapsulated this very idea, that her self-identity rested on her relationship with Xander, and sadly she wasn’t able to start discovering herself until after Xander left her at the altar and no longer found that vengeance was a satisfying line of work. The last scene with Anya and Xander being friendly to each other but walking off into their own directions is an interesting start to Anya’s search for a life independent of but not cut-off from her friends.

        I want to address this quickly because I just can’t let it slide: Is Buffy becoming less of a person and more of a Slayer? This question has been knocked around on a couple of boards but there has to be a reason why Buffy is so utterly unsympathetic (and bitchy, but that’s not new) to Xander and Anya. We know, as Xander and Willow and Buffy know, that there are other ways to stop Anya that doesn’t involve killing her. They could have stomped on her pendant. Or sought out D’Hoffryn, like Willow chose to, or tried to reason with her. It didn’t look like she was beyond reason – in fact, Anya felt downright guilty about what she had done (and now we finally know that Vengeance Demons do indeed have souls) and maybe some sense could have been talked into her. But Buffy never considered any of these options and went into full Slayer mode. Her callousness was even more apparent with her small scene with Spike, where the juxtaposition of the real Buffy and the sweet and understanding Imaginary Buffy made the real Buffy’s advice to “get out of the basement” sound more cold rather than practical. Spike mentioned in “Fool for Love” that Buffy’s ties to humanity – her friends and family – make her different from all the other slayers since the others before her only lived for the kill. We saw a version of this friendless Buffy in the alternate universe of “The Wish,” where Buffy was a black-eye shadow-wearing killing machine not unlike the way she was presented in this episode.

Her undying declaration of love for Angel veered a bit on the pathetic side since 1) Angel is clearly over her and 2) it would be rather sad to admit that the height of your emotional/romantic life ended at 17. Is Buffy clinging to these old emotions because she can’t generate new ones? I saw Xander finally being victim to his black-and-white demon worldview, which was directly challenged because of his ties to Anya. While it looked as if Xander finally came to the realization that what he knew in high school does not in any way relate to his current situation, Buffy seems like she’s in arrested development. Is this a set-up for a major breakthrough that will change the way Buffy sees and deals with the people/demons in her life? We have yet to see a proper post-soul revelation scene involving Buffy and Spike that will show us how this revelation rocked the foundation of knowledge Buffy has about vampires and demons.

Best cameo appearances: Evil Willow and D’Hoffryn.

Worst cameo appearance: The fake-looking cgi spider.

Most troubling question: Will we ever know the connection between Halfrek and Cecily?

Best scene: So hard to choose. It’s a toss up between the Aud/Olaf scene and the scene where the Scoobies throw out references to “Becoming II” and call each other on years of bullshit. The Spike/Anya and Buffy/Xander parallels were great.

Still a mystery to me: So how did Anya develop bunny-phobia?

Grade: 9/10 Emma Caulfield rocked my world. She was just brilliant. This episode struck a very personal cord with me: Being insecure and unsure of yourself in your early 20s; establishing your own identity independent of boyfriends, parents, jobs, limitations. Great stuff here, though this episode would have been better placed after “Same Time, Same Place.”

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Help
Written by Rebecca Rand Kirshner ~ Directed by Rick Rosenthal
First Impression: C- (6.4/10) Note: Even a C- "Buffy" is better than, say, an A+ "Friends."
Esther's Impression: 7/10
Synopsis: Novice counselor Buffy gropes for words of wisdom for Sunnydale High students, but is left speechless by Cassie (Azure Skye), a teen who calmly predicts her own death.
Theme: The burden of sometimes not being able to help. Fate's a killer (so is Faith).
Best moments/lines: Once again the (silent) closing shot is too satisfying for words to describe. In this one, simply seeing Buffy in her closed in office from a distance makes for a meaningful, chill inducing visual. Besides that, the "lets Google her" line is a keeper. And Cassie's final "she will tell you" prophecy to Spike was thought provoking.

     After last week's hiccup came the after vomit. This week, an invigorated Buffy, in her new youth counselin' shoes, tries to help a "pre-cog" high school student that has received some sort of vision that she's going to meet her maker by the end of the week. Well, the young girl is right but luckily (or not) Buffy is on the case... which is exactly what this episode felt like, a case. I too can see into the future and I'm getting a sense that way too many episodes will center around Dr. Buffy hearing a student's woes then taking action.

     The slayer's new role as a counselor has found the character taking on a more meditative, reasoned approach to her life's work. For instance, Buffy and Xander go to talk to the doomed student's abusive father: "Buffy the vampire slayer would break down this door" she says of her brazen older self. "And Buffy the councilor?" Xander inquires. "Waits" she says with a bittersweet cadence. Me likes. That's a nice comment on this characters newly refined arc. Buffy is now helping others without hesitation and she may be the true hero that Giles always knew she could be. I am moved by this and glad to see that Buffy is taking such an grown-up initiative but my problem is not with Buffy. I do take issue with this: for the first time, a season of "BTVS" seems constrained. Up until this point, all six seasons seemed to organically evolve into whatever they eventually became. With the last two below average episodes, however, I get the feeling that in an attempt to go the opposite way of last season, forces seem to be steering this season into a presubscribed tone (the big bad saying something like "going back to the true beginning" is self reflexive in the way that it is also a comment on where this season might be going) and while there's obviously enough time to turn things around, the effect seems a bit artificial at this point.

     "Help" offers many moments of Buffy doing her best to help this poor student named Cassie but at least when Summers was self-involved last season we had some emotional investment in what she was self-involved in (questions of mortality, morality, secret loves, past loves, loss, and a growing pressure to raise her sister properly... fucking great stuff). This episode found me indifferent because the show is now simply differing Buffy's angst to various guest stars because, what, a few whiney bitches couldn't handle the deep psychological gravitas of last season? 
     Another throwback is that this episode's poorly written denouement came straight from season two's "Reptile Boy" where a group of cloaked frat boys tried to kill chicks by raising a nasty demon to do their bidding. The only difference here is that we get cloaked high school students and one of them is, gasp, that dip shit kid from "Home Improvement." With something that scary no monster was necessary but for the third straight episode the writers felt compelled to throw one in if only to make up for last season's human infested plots-- which I am greatly missing right about now. 

    Remember the line from the musical "I was always brave and kind of righteous/ now I find I'm wavering?" Well, I see that many fans are relived to find that Buffy has stopped wavering and is back in that ho-hum riotous mode but in "Help," when Buffy utters lines like "You have to tell us everything you know. Please help us!" to ironically detached students (played this week by the one-note Azure Skye), I can't help but think that if this is truly the show's last season, time cannot be thrown away with characters we don't care about (or, as with "Same Time, Same Place, time can't be wasted with characters we care about doing things we don't care about). Only four episodes in and already this season needs more Willow. More Giles. A lot more Spike. More Buffy/Spike. More Buffy/Willow. More Buffy/Dawn. More Buffy/Willow/Xander/Giles. More Buffy/Clem. Not more Buffy/Cassie. But forget about all that... Tara's last name is McClay?

Air date 10/15/2002 Viewing date  10/17/2002

Angel -Ground State 
Written by Mere Smith ~ Directed by Michael Grossman
First Impression: A- (9.1/10) 

Where as "BTVS" going back to the beginning has been a shaky prospect these last few episodes, this episode of "Angel" also reminds me of the old days, only in this show's case that’s a good thing. Good because "Angel" started of as a noir deceive vampire show, lost sight of that last season, and it is this exact return to form spirit that energizes this episode which finds our newly invigorated hero looking for Cordy, who, of course can't be found due to the fact that she’s trapped in a higher dimension. But since when did interdimensional travel stop characters in this show from getting what they want? Just get yourself an “Axis of Pythia” and your all set. I'm all for Angel finding Cordelia but if and when she does come back, lets hope the high beings in this heaven place gave her a better haircut.   

It is Angel's eagerness to find his possible love that sets off a heist scene that pits the morose vamp and his crew against an X-Men-like femm fetal who is after the very same dimensional cell-phone--I hope to see that character back on the show very soon. Throw in a great hate-fuck scene between Wesley and Lila, an even better--literally heart pounding-- hate make-out session scene between Angel and that electro girl, some axe play and a dead Gunn and you’ve got one electrifying hour of television. Light on the meaning but true escapist fun. I want more. And hooray, Phantom Dennis had a cameo! I just love P Denny.

Air date 10/13/2002 Viewing date  10/18/2002

Review for “Help” by Esther Liberman-Cuenca

     The aptly titled “Help” did not disappoint but it was also an episode
that neither resolved nor started anything in regards to the current
season storyline. Buffy begins her job at SD High as a counselor; this
challenges her not because she’s without the proper training but
because she’s used to taking action against the supernatural, and the teenagers
who come looking for her help have realistic problems. I think it’s
important to note that Buffy herself, though she dispenses conventional
advice and understanding nods, doesn’t really help anyone in solving
their problems and is finally learning to take her head out of her own
self-absorbed worldview and really listen for a change.

   When Cassie (short for the mythic seer Cassandra?) Newton is sent to
Buffy’s office and tells Buffy that she isn’t doing her assignments
because she’s going to die the following Friday, Buffy jumps at the
opportunity to help her, though Cassie never really did ask for her
help in the first place. Cassie is very endearing one-shot character, and I
didn’t mind that this episode be all about her. Yet I had a little
trouble buying her semi-melodramatic speech about never having the
chance of living a full life, mostly because of Buffy’s reaction to it
and because I remain unconvinced that someone as hardened and distant
as Buffy could be so broken-hearted about it. Call me cynical, whatever,
but I still need to be persuaded that Buffy’s depression and
almost-suicidal mentality that plagued most of last season was suddenly
forgotten when she had a flowerpiphany at the end of “Grave.”

   Though Buffy does her best to help Cassie and takes action like she’s
accustomed to (including wrongfully accusing Cassie’s dad of wanting to
hurt his daughter) her help cannot prevail against the wishes of the
Fates. Buffy manages to fight off a bunch of boys and a demon – a Skip
clone who probably never got the call back for Angel’s show – from
using Cassie as a sacrifice. Buffy also stopped an arrow that would have
killed Cassie but she dies anyway— from a heart condition— and leaves
Buffy feeling quite helpless in the end.

The theme is summed up nicely when Buffy asks what is she to do if she
can’t help someone despite all her efforts? What is she to do when she
feels helpless when there are external factors preventing her from
doing her job – both as a Slayer and a counselor? She answers her own
question in the next scene that takes place the next day, when she quietly sits
down at her desk to awaits her next case, willing to help and listen.

I love Rebecca Rand Kirshner’s writing, whose credits include the funny
and very entertaining “Tabula Rasa” – the Scoobies with amnesia episode
– and “Out of My Mind,” yet this episode was a bit slow and Sarah
Michelle Gellar’s delivery of some of the dialogue was a little forced.
It just didn’t feel right, especially her scene in the basement with
Spike where she could have been directed to play Buffy a little more
sympathetically and less like someone who just uses him to get
information. And speaking of Spike: What are we to make of Cassie’s
cryptic message, “Someday she’ll tell you” ? Someday Buffy will tell
Spike that she was a flaming bitch to him all of last season? Or that
someday she’ll forgive him for all of his wrongdoings of the past 5
years? Let’s hope there’s not a half-assed payoff of this line in the
near future. I’m intrigued. It seems like Joss (the big tease) is
throwing the Buffy/Spike ‘shippers a bone.

Best line: “Doogie Howser fanfic.” Hee! Willow said fanfic! Mutant
Enemy’s little nod to the fans, I think, since they can’t very well say
“Buffy fanfic,” right? Yet has anyone actually read Doogie Howser
fanfic?

Best scene: Willow’s intimate one with Tara’s headstone.  I got a
little teary. Apparently, Willow sometimes performs random acts of Jewishness
here and there so placing the rocks on top of her headstone would have
been the right thing to do. I think Rebecca Rand Kirshner is a Jew so
her Willow tends to be more Jewish than Wiccan.

Grade: 7/10
 

Buffy: Same Time, Same Place  Directed by  James Cotner ~ Written Jane Espenson / Air date 10/08/2002 Viewing date  10/10/2002
First Impression: C (6.6/10) 
Esther's Impression: 7/10
Synopsis: Buffy, Xander and Dawn are unable to find Willow, whose return to Sunnydale is marred by a demon who relishes the skin of his victims.
Theme: Forgiveness. It comes at a price. Yeah, no shit.
Best moments/lines: "My mouth saved the world." Xander on his heroics last season.
-"What! She didn't finish being NOT evil."  Dawn on Willow's hasty return.
-- And my favorite moment: A small one. After an Anya/Willow spell session, Anya casually blows out a candle. This humorous moment clearly paralleled Tara blowing the candle seductively in season 4 episode after she too had a "sexy" witchcraft session with Willow.

     For a professional writer it's got to take talent of Joe Eszterhas proportions to screw up Willow's return but Jane Espenson did just that. Even I could imagine countless better ways to better execute this week's plot: When Spike was talking to a newly invisible Willow and he cried "Someone isn't here... my money's on the witch," I thought, "that's is," Giles and His Mystical Limey Posse (hey, that's great name for a music band) are giving Willow one final test to see that she doesn't abuse her power in real world situations. I was half expecting the episode to conclude with the sagely Giles ending the exercise and delivering a fatherly line like "you are now ready my child," but alas, that was not the case. What is the case, I'm afraid, is another monster metaphor crisis episode where a contrite Will, on her way back to Sunnydale, doesn't think she's ready to "see" Buffy and Xander and, POW, wish fulfillment come true because now neither can see each other. And what are the odds that a totally random yet cool looking fiend-- one part hook-nosed Nosferatu vampire, three parts Gollum from The Hobbit and "Lord of the Rings-- comes into town to take advantage of the Scoobies chaotically purblind situation?
    When novelties go sour. A few things from the "BTVS" universe stole this episode's thunder: (1) A similar invisible plotline occurred last season when Buffy got a haircut then accidentally zapped by the nerd trio's invisible ray gun. (2) Before that, another similar episode during season 5 found one of Tara's spells accidentally rendering demon's invisible to the befuddled gang. Methinks that the writers (the usually reliable Jane Espenson) have used up all their invisible man chips for this fiscal year and I haven't even mentioned that lame invisible girl episode from the high school years. Enough already, we get it. People can feel invisible at times, right, move on.

    Due to the dry and underused monster of the week, a hasty Willow return (the Willow/Giles in England arc should have been explored more) and the all too obvious state of mind metaphor mentioned in the above paragraph, the concept and execution of this episode grew tepid even before the ripping title sequence. Even Buffy is out of character with her total forgiveness towards Willow; I see, it's unacceptable for Faith to kill a human on accident but if Willow kills two people in cold blood then comes back and reeks havoc once again with her untapped mental powers, everything's fine for some reason. Seriously, I love Willow more than any other "BTVS" character but I hope future writers light a guilt fire up under her wicca ass. And though I'm as nervous as the next guy (I mean gal since no real man would watch Buffy for something other than the chicks) to see see a semi-rehabilitated Willow make her precarious return to the the glowing land of Sunnydale, if she's got to come come back now, a face-to-face dramathon would have been the way to go here. I'm thinking something along the lines of the first episode of season three where it was Buffy who sought after and eventually earned the forgiveness of her friends after selfishly leaving town at the end of season 2.

    After the first two Glorificous episodes, "Same Time Same Place" had all the proper narrative elements to contribute to a three episode hat trick but as you can see the plot never managed to take off. Willow had some nice acting moments (on the bed with Buffy... hey now) and Anya was useful for once but at this point in the series, isolated "X-Files" monster episodes seem to be an afterthought anyways so why not dispense with them altogether? Funny, how you can tell just by looking at the characters weary faces that the pesky demon things are just getting in the way of these drama queen's inner crises'. After Xander called on Buffy "right away" to investigate a skinned body at the local high school, she glances at this newly trashed carcass with a fatigued expression and sighs before saying "I got to get a job where I don't get called right away for this stuff." My thoughts exactly.  

Air date 10/08/2002 Viewing date  10/10/2002

Angel: Deep Down  
Written by: Steven S. DeKnight/ Directed by: Terrene O'Hara / Air date 10/05/2002 Viewing date  10/11/2002
First Impression: A (9.4/10) 

     I could see this series being around longer than Buffy. Quite a rewarding episode if I may say. Coming off such a killer season finale (Angel went down Cordillera went up) I eagerly awaited season four but was trepanations because, as the rule goes, the better the payoff at the end of the season the harder it is to recover the next... "The Sopranos" started off perfect television and had nowhere to go but down after that. So with this edition of "Angel," aptly titled "Deep Down," the show opens with an idealized version of Angel's family. We see the whole gang in a thanksgiving like dinner setting when suddenly, whoosh, we see that Angel is trapped in an aquatic hell and all he has left is his warped memories. From there we see that Gunn and Fred (how cute is she?) have been roughing it out in the hotel. They are all alone except, surprise, they're joined by Angel's son Conner, the very dude who punished his father so brutally last season. I see that Conner, played by Vincent Kartheiser, is now a season regular. Great move, this show needs more shady characters. Speaking of which, another aspect I liked was the Wesley's dark salvation. He saved the day and I actually learned something new about Weadon's vampires lore when Wesley informed us that "A vampire can exist indefinitely without feeding but the damage to how their brain functions with prolonged starvation can be catastrophic." Good to know. 

     Okay, I'll stop the tedious summary there but I will say that this episode leaves you with a feeling of hope and anticipation. I know the show can't sustain material this worthy but it's certainly off to a great start. From what I saw today, this season has all the makings of a classic; it may even top the shows thrilling second season though I doubt it. With this episode, "Angel" is for the first time fully independent of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and bravo on that count. Each character is vivid and Boreanaz finds the right balance between brooding indifference, unrefined heroics and self depreciation. The character is better here then he ever was on "Buffy" and because of this character growth the production has risen above being called a spin-off. "Angel" is, and I mean this as a compliment, the best mediocre show ever!

May David Greenwalt take Angel's place in hell.
Amen

Review for “Same Time Same Place” by Esther Liberman-Cuenca

Willow returns to Sunnydale only to find that she can’t find Xander,
Buffy or Dawn. In fact, the Scoobies were waiting for her at the
airport, but since they’re invisible to Willow and they obviously can’t
see each her – much less get the inevitable reconciliation on its way.
As it turns out, Willow’s bout with invisibility is probably her
deep-seeded desire to not be forgiven for the atrocities she committed
last May, to not really be seen for who she is by her friends. And when
the Monster of the Week, a flesh-eating parasite, skins one of its
victims alive it’s also difficult for Buffy and Dawn to really accept
and see that Willow had indeed changed and trust her to not go
black-haired and vein-y again.

As it is in the Buffyverse, the Monster of the Week is usually a
representation of an unconscious wish or fear, and many times a
depiction of a societal truth. Since Evil Willow’s modus operandi was
flaying her victims alive (the image of Warren comes uncomfortably to
mind), then Gnarl -- our Monster of the Week – is the embodiment of her
fear into succumbing to dark magicks. Gnarl wasn’t so scary as he was
really freaking disgusting, but its power to paralyze Willow – both
figuratively and literally – into thinking she was all alone in the
world and that her friends had abandoned her was a way that Willow was
able to fully come to terms that redemption is not an easily attainable
goal, and that living up to some fearful truths – that some people
might not forgive her – are part of this harsh reality. Fortunately, the
Scoobies do come to the rescue with Anya’s help, who is able to see Willow,              and Willow is back in her room at 1630 Revello Drive (presumably mooching                off of Buffy again) by the end of the episode and seemingly already forgiven.

Yet all in all, I was rather disappointed. After coming off that
incredible high induced by “Beneath You” and “Lessons,” perhaps my
expectations were a little too high, even for such a gifted writer as
Jane Espenson. Though the scene with Spike, Willow, Buffy and Xander in
the school basement was this episode’s highlight. When Spike is
speaking to Willow, he is sometimes also speaking to Buffy and Xander, both of
whom Willow can’t see. And, of course, Buffy and Xander think Spike’s
completely off his rocker because it looks like he’s talking to
himself, even though it’s clear to us that he’s speaking to Willow. Spike
appears to be insane to the Scoobies but is he really? He’s unstable,                          no doubt about that, but it was he who figured out in his so-called insanity
that one of them wasn’t there, and I also think it was a tad squicky of
Buffy to use Spike as her personal bloodhound to sniff out Gnarl’s hiding
place while poking fun at his hygiene (though I think Spike got the
last laugh on that one: “I’m insane. What’s his excuse?”). But I suppose
most of my disappointment stems from the fact that there was no real
continuity between this episode and “Beneath You,” almost as if this
episode didn’t even need to follow the events of the last one and could
have been placed in any episode slot in the first half of this season.
Buffy came off as a little indifferent, a little cold, which is not
necessarily the writer’s or even Joss’s fault because of the ridiculous
November sweeps factor, the time period where all major emotional and
story developments must take place and therefore stunts the natural
flow of the story.

Mutant Enemy is making me like Xander again, which is a major plus. I
liked Anya’s “sexy spells” with Willow – didn’t see that HoYay coming.
Dawn is also beginning to be a very likeable character, though the less
screen time she has the more likeable she is. Final thought: OK for a
filler episode, but I need to see some major character developments
with Buffy and Spike soon.

Buffy: Beneath You  Directed by Nick Marck ~ Written by Doug Petrie / Air date 10/01/2002
My first Impression: A (9.5/10) /Esther's Impression: 9.5
First Impression from last week's "Lessons": A

Note: I never, never, ever read spoilers and I don't even look at the trailer for next weeks episode. 
--This journal is not really a review, it's more of a stream of consciousness that I write right as I see the episode.
This episodes theme: Darkness under the surface. Both literally and in our souls.  "They put the spark in me and now all it does is burn" Spike says in a line that reveals the complexity of human consciousness. That closing image sums up the theme beautifully.
Best moment (a tie): Besides Spike slouching on a burning cross the moment came when the new girl asked "is there anyone here that hasn't slept together," cut to Spike and Xander looking at each other uncomfortably.  The other moment is a small one and it occurred when Dawn finally stepping up to protect someone other than herself when she threatens Spike. "You will wake up on fire" she says with a surefooted aggression that we haven't seen before. 

     The first two flurried episodes of BTVS seem to be proudly announcing the shows return to form. The dark pathos of last season was entirely necessary (I for one still believe s6 to be the shows pinnacle) but maybe the jaunty innocence of seasons past will emerge this year to see Buffy and all she stands for finally walking through the dark fire to break that estrangement spell that was cast so successfully last season. Indeed, s6 saw both the viewer and the characters detached and left alone to wallow in their own troubled psyche and here's hoping that this time around we all find each other at the other end. I believe that a break from the chilly isolation will do them Scoobies (and the shows ratings) some good. EM Forster once wrote "only connect" and here's hoping that the characters follow that lead.
     At any rate, the episode entails an rumbling of evil that takes shape in the form of a Tremors-like giant worm with the teeth of that sand pit monster from "Return of the Jedi." The giant worm seems to an evocation from the stressed-out vengeance daemon, Anya, but when Buffy and Spike say "from beneath you it devours" they are not referring to the worm but rather hinting at something grand with a forlorn gaze that only characters from this horror soap opera could could deliver. And while the action involving this subterranean creature is uninspired that does not lower the episodes grade. Like every other monster it is only meant to be taken as a metaphor that mirrors the characters inner state. Besides, it is the complex interaction between the show's ensemble that saves the episode once again.

Just two episodes in the can and I cannot recall the show ever having this much mystery. Who or what is the big bad? Who are those cloaked figures chasing Run Lola Run (couldn't be the nerds from last season... na)? The new principle, evil or a possible love interest to B? And what up with Spike's Beautiful Mind dementia (my dumb theory: Spike is being inhabited by the very same pure evil from that glorious Christmas episode from the third season)? Things are so unclear at this point that I feel like I'm watching a sanitized version of "Mulholland Drive" but how great it is to see that, already, the two-week-old season has found form and consistency (both visually, with warmer earth tones, and tonally with more wry smiles coming at us)? Writer Doug Petrie wants us to brace ourselves for something big and why do I feel confident that exec producer Joss Whedon is going to deliver just that? Bit-by-bit, episode-by-episode I cant wait to solve the puzzle. When Spike said "something brewing," he was right. A great season, that's what.

Review for “Beneath You” by Esther Liberman-Cuenca

This beautifully-written episode almost serves as a companion piece to Doug Petrie’s other fabulous episode “Fool for Love,” where the audience is treated to Spike’s history and transformation from a lovesick poet to a daring vampire.

“From beneath you it devours,” so says the young Run Lola Run wannabe before she is stabbed in Buffy’s prophetic nightmare, and so says Spike  to Buffy toward the end of the episode when his “costume” is shred to  pieces and is left only the shell of his former self. One cannot forget Buffy’s cutting words to Spike in the famous alley scene from “Fool For Love,” where she throws money at him after he told his engaging tale of killing two slayers. “It would never be you, Spike. You’re beneath me,” echoing the words William the bloody awful poet heard from his ladylove, Cecily, before he ran out into the night and transformed himself into a ruthless, “sod all else” vampire – Spike. In this episode William – now Spike’s alter ego – has come alive after 122 years and has split the vampire in half, a dangerous dichotomy that could be wrapped up nicely in a blue shirt until the mask comes crumbling down and all is revealed. There are many different “costumes” that he wore throughout this episode, brought on by external circumstances beyond his control. Crazy Basement! Spike is replaced by the calm and collected BlueShirt!Spike after the Monster of the Week, a giant worm causing tremors beneath the streets of Sunnydale, compels him to go to Scooby Central (Buffy’s house) and offer his assistance. At the Bronze, when Anya’s demonic nature allows her to see Spike’s soul, he quickly becomes RocksBack! Spike, the bad-ass vamp from early season 4 and tries to desperately shield his secret with sexual insults thrown Buffy’s way. “Beneath You” not only refers to the giant predator worm underneath the streets (Mutant Enemy certainly has a hard on for phallic-shaped monsters), but also the various personalities that lie beneath Spike’s newly souled exterior.

The loose ends of the previous season seem to come together in this episode: William’s voice is distinctly heard in the last scene in the church where Buffy tries to touch his self-inflicted wounds. “No touching!” He backs away and asks her if he’s only flesh to her, and we in the audience finally get a glimpse of Spike’s tortured sexuality brought on by his volatile relationship with Buffy all last year. He starts to unbutton his pants, sadly resigned that he will have to
"service the girl" until Buffy stops him and throws him across the pews.
This scene serves as a perfect counterpoint to Buffy’s flashbacks of her attempted rape, showing that Buffy was not the only victim of a sexual crime last season and that Spike was also left traumatized to the point where Buffy’s touch would only mean sexual objectification to him. Also, Xander is paying dearly for his treatment of Anya(nka) last year now that her vengeance mojo is in place again; Willow’s poignant scene with Giles in England shows that her feelings of guilt and anxiety are, of course, the consequences she has to deal with now after her crazed and evil power-trip from last May (though Evil Willow is so freakin’ hot I hated to see her go).

The end scene in the church ultimately tears any illusions Buffy had about Spike, and perhaps about the nature of vampires as a whole. He takes off his shirt, symbolic that he is tired of the “mind games,” and tired of running around trying to be something other than what he is – broken. Buffy learns that Spike got the soul in order to be the kind of
man she might deserve, and want, and respect. Yet the only thing that having “the spark” of humanity has taught him is the irony that he would never be good enough, and the thing beneath her – Spike in all of his manifestations – is there, too, but wants to be forgiven. When he tiredly drapes his body over a large cross, his flesh burning, and asks
Buffy whether they can rest now indicates that their dance from “Fool For Love” is over, and their “mind games” have ended. Yet there is a message of hope there in the end that in my opinion is what defines the superior quality of this season’s episodes with that of last season’s, which were sometimes unbearably too dark for my taste. Last week’s episode “Lessons” ended ominously with a shape-shifting demon whose speech about power might have foreshadowed the future evil that is to inevitably come to Sunnydale. Perhaps Spike’s speech about love and forgiveness in “Beneath You” foreshadows the mending of broken relationships within the Scooby Gang and their coming together to fight
the evil that threatens to overpower them. Like what the image of the first slayer told Buffy in “Intervention” during her vision quest: “Love, give, and forgive.”

Favorite line: “Is there anybody here who hasn’t slept together?” with Spike and Xander looking awkwardly at each other. I laughed until there were tears in my eyes. I think this was Mutant Enemy’s little nod to
Spike/Xander slash fic.

Grade: 9.5/10. I give out 10s very rarely and this almost took the whole cake. James Marsters should get a goddamn Emmy for this performance – what an incredible range! This season's off to a great start and I'm ready for some extended Willow action next week. Also am wondering if Buffy is going to tell the rest of the Scoobies that Spike deliberately got a soul. I'm also glad that they dealt with the soul so early on in the season instead of dragging it out until November sweeps or even until February. Joss wrote the last scene in the church and, boy, did that make all the difference in the world. I managed to read Petrie’s original version of the church scene and it sucked major ass because it didn’t do any justice to the characters, but I will say this: “Doug Petrie, you are hereby absolved from all sins committed in writing last season’s piece of shit episode ‘As You Were,’ AKA as ‘Mutant Enemy Adores Riley.’ You rock.”