I never really get these TV episode "reviews". The writer spends almost all of it providing a synopsis for the events in the episode - after warding away people who haven't seen it with the warning of SPOILERS - and then includes their actual thoughts as a footnote. I mean, is this really a review? A pretty shoddy standard if it is.
And the Escapist isn't exclusively weird in this regard - I've seen lots of other episode "reviews" do the same thing. Pretty much the only part of them worth reading is the last paragraph, where they actually state whether the thought it was a good episode or not and the reason for that opinion.
On topic, I watched the first two episodes back-to-back (which is how they aired here in Australia) so I can't really separate the two in my mind, but I do remember liking the second episode more because it had a lot more character development and team dynamics, which is what Whedon is reputed for.
And the Escapist isn't exclusively weird in this regard - I've seen lots of other episode "reviews" do the same thing. Pretty much the only part of them worth reading is the last paragraph, where they actually state whether the thought it was a good episode or not and the reason for that opinion.
On topic, I watched the first two episodes back-to-back (which is how they aired here in Australia) so I can't really separate the two in my mind, but I do remember liking the second episode more because it had a lot more character development and team dynamics, which is what Whedon is reputed for.