I thought the episode was novel and inventive, but hardly a classic. I liked the attempt at originality by filming the show backward, but I just wished it had been a more interesting story. First of all, did they really have to set half the show in India? I found the whole church sequence to be mostly unfunny, though the part with Elaine making the sign of the cross and then waving it off as though to say "never mind" was mildly amusing. Second, the running battle between Kramer and "FDR" seemed really stupid and childish, even for Kramer. The scenes with the lollipop growing in size and Kramer spilling the cereal in the drawer were obvious gimmicks. They were cute, and I guess part of the show's schtick is to make fun of itself, but didn't it remind you of the old 3D movies where actors would be tossing things toward the audience to exploit the effect? I was hoping for something a little more original. As for that whole bit about Elaine having slept with the groom in the past, what was the big deal? Is it really likely the wedding would be cancelled over that? That was maybe the most unlikely part of the whole show. It just didn't seem that interesting or important. Ditto George and his little triangle thing with his girl-friend who had slept with Jerry. Technically, she was Jerry's friend first, so I don't really buy George's pique over it. And that bit about George not going to the bathroom the whole time he was in India -- in addition to being something of a physical impossibility, it just seemed like a self-parody, something you would expect to see in a Saturday Night Live takeoff on Seinfeld. I don't know, the whole plot just didn't really grab my interest the way I thought it would (though I give them "A" for effort for trying to do something novel). The only real neat parts for me were Susan's appearance at the very end (or was that the beginning?), the reference to the internet and email (which even today Jerry doesn't really seem to understand), and that first meeting between Jerry and Kramer where Jerry tells Kramer to help himself to anything in his (Jerry's apartment). Even that scene could have been improved. If you watch the early Seinfeld episodes carefully, you'll see Kramer really had a different personality back then. He seemed very withdrawn and moody, even spacey, and he really seemed to be in another world (even more so than he does now). In the final (first) scene last night, although they tried to make Michael Richards up to LOOK the way Kramer did 8 years ago, he really didn't act the same. The Kramer from 1989 definitely wouldn't have been that friendly, probably wouldn't even have introduced himself. I thought the Kessler line was funny, but I was actually waiting for a reference to Hoffman, which is how Kramer was supposedly referenced in the pilot (though I don't think the name was actually mentioned). These are really minor quibbles. It was certainly an innovative and original episode, and I suspect I'll like it more on second and third viewings...
More reactions to the "Betrayal"
i think just the oppisite i thought it was one for the history of seinfeld and i hate you
I think you have summed up the feelings of many people, including myself.
Justin T.
"Rick Marshall" wrote:
Rick Marshall wrote in message ...
She was Jerry's friend first, but not his girlfriend. There is a big difference.
If you and I were friends, does that give me the right to sleep with any women you date -- while you were dating them -- whom I just happened to know first platonically? I am assuming monogamous relationships here, as is implied is the accepted norm on Seinfeld.
On 21 Nov 1997 16:13:20 GMT, "Rick Marshall" wrote, in part:
I believe the movie upon which it was based was set in India. No? <snipped>
Really? Remember this is a guy who had the idea of a car with a periscope and a restaurant that only serves peanut butter and jelly sandwhiches. <snipped>
Doesn't it just how deep their hatred for each other has become over the years? It was believable to me.
Jerry had *never* slept with her and then suddenly, right after George is starting to date her, he does. IMHO it is right in character for George to react the way he does. I think I would feel the same way - without the *revenge* part. <snipped>
Yes, for me it was even better the second time.
Rob