The Snowmen | Review - Spoilers Ahead!

This blog will be full of spoilers. Lots of them. So if you haven't seen this episode - leave now. If you have - welcome.

I could also call this blog 'Why I love Clara Oswin Oswald/Jenna-Louise Coleman'. A large majority of it will be singing her praises. But I will try and give the episode a full and developed review as well. So I'll start with the general opinion I have. It was an OK Doctor Who episode. It wasn't great, and I wasn't really a fan of the actual monster/villain/snow storyline. But considering that this episode only really served the purpose of introducing Clara, I should judge the episode on that. Perfect. I thought that The Snowmen was a perfect introduction episode for a companion, possibly one of the best ever. If ever you want to introduce a companion, future Executive Producers, watch The Snowmen. It is a perfect example. It's perfect because of lots of factors. One is Clara/Jenna. Another is the Doctor and her relationship with him. Another is the relationship they have. And another is the fact Steven Moffat didn't mess about when getting Clara as a companion. But more of that later.

The whole 'army of ice/snow' thing and origin of something which might become the thing that controls the Yeti but might be after that but might be powerful but might be not powerful but might still be Wilfred Simeon didn't work great for me. Supposedly, the Intelligence is the Great Intelligence, and this is how it came to being. Which is fine. But I felt that Moffat, who rarely brings back classics as pure classics anyway, missed an opportunity. Or at least, didn't do the Intelligence justice. Their story of origin was essentially just last year's Christmas Special, a wishy-washy reason about a lonely boy dreaming of.. world conquering.. Either way; it's a wishy-washing-not-really-proper concept, and so for an origin for the Intelligence it's strange. I felt the explanation of the Intelligence and being Simeon's dream was all over the place basically, the storyline of it was typical Christmas Who (not very good), and the whole evil globe bit just... Didn't work. The monsters weren't great. The storyline with them, therefore, wasn't great. However - their presence, and the idea of evil snowmen, and certainly Richard E Grant - was great.

So if we move on from the Intelligence, and perhaps imagined they were replaced with some other, stronger, plot, then we can see a perfect episode. The way the Doctor and Clara meet is typically accidental - but I like it. The best thing about The Snowmen, is it introduces a new companion properly, and yet acts as a parody of previous companion-meeting episodes. The Doctor normally messes about, and on saving the world invites someone with him. But this is different. The Doctor, from the very first brief meeting with Clara, can see himself travelling with her. He wants to get to know her, and because of her curiosity, he knows the same applies to her. That means they can just agree to go away together. The Doctor wants to travel with Clara, he immediately likes her, and she immediately likes him. They don't need big long conversations about the consequences of leaving home - they just agree 'cos they're mates (or a little more). The idea of the Doctor falling in love with Clara to move on works quite well, I feel. I would have completely rejected the idea of love in Doctor Who before, but with the Doctor so distraught after losing Amy (a feeling I don't share), it makes sense that the only way he can move on is if he actually kind of falls in love with someone. And River Song? What about her? He's finally got someone who looks the same age as him.

The Doctor gives Clara a key incredibly early on. That makes it more poignant than giving it to her later (and I mean, who actually likes the stupidly over-acted scene in '42' where Martha gets the key?) and it means something. The Doctor acts brilliantly around Clara. He cares a great deal for her - and the fact he, I should think, fancies her from the word go means that any 'getting to know you' stuff isn't that necessary. There's a mutual friendship, perhaps a mutual attraction, and Clara acts not only as the Doctor's friend - but also the kind of therapy he feels he needs to move on. It was great having Vastra there to not only help the Doctor realise he needs to move on, but to push that idea of a parody further. Vastra is almost narrating the Doctor's
recovery process, and notices when he meets someone new. Clara is a source of hope. And she's brilliant.

Clara is cocky and sarcastic, but I don't find her annoying, because she's acted so well and with a great deal of charm.  Jenna-Louise Coleman was initially a terrible choice for me. I completely take that back and apologise. She is one of the best companions ever. She is the 'feisty' companion, but with something extra, with an extra dynamic between the Doctor and her. You could compare 11/Clara to 9 and 10/Rose - but with them it was more an unspoken love. 11/Clara are just having a laugh, and falling for each other as they go along. So it's minimal but present - perhaps that's why I don't mind the 'love' story.

The new TARDIS is amazing. The spinning circley bits, the console, the lighting, the balcony, and that amazing shot where the Doctor and Clara walk into it - it all looks incredible. It is as good as the original TARDIS. In fact, it is the original TARDIS - but more modern and with less clocks... The new title sequence isn't great, unfortunately. It is wonderfully colourful and mad, and it reflects the 3rd Doctor's titles in that sense. And there's a face!! The face is brilliant, though brief, and it' good to see it there. The vortex thing which is played for the credits and after the logo in the opening is great. If the titles were mad, but kept contained in the vortex, then they'd be great. But the planets and stars and weird ashy things and confusion don't work for me. There's no place for it, it's just a mad colour rush - and it fails to achieve what it needed to. They don't feel like Doctor Who titles. The new music, which is only for the opening it seems, is good, with wonderful 80s sounding whooses and sound effects. But it is just a remix - so not full marks there.

So overall: this episode is only great because of the characters. Richard E Grant and Ian McKellen, though not used that much, are great. Vastra, Jenny and especially Strax are brilliant, and all of Strax's lines are fantastic. The "I've been run over by a cab!" line was fantastic. For the first time in ages, character and script have come together brilliantly. The new companion is wonderful, and the look of the episode was amazing  (the cloud, the TARDIS, the Victorian streets, all brilliant). The only thing that let it down is the slightly out of place stuff with the Intelligence. It's just not that great, and is a bit all over the place. But purely for the companion - this episode is pretty damn good.

10/10 for Clara - and I look forward to the incredibly exciting (it appears) Series 7 Part 2....

Did You Say Something About Mummy? Time and the Rani

DID YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT MUMMY? (the line is of course taken from Vampires of/in Venice) is a new feature on this Blog, that includes me, sitting down with my mum, watching various Doctor Who episodes. We'll be watching out of order, we won't watch all of them, and then I'll record her comments and various things of interest here.

Our first story is Time and The Rani. I've never seen past Part One of this, I couldn't cope, so it was a new experience for both of us. I told her that this was Colin Baker's final story. For those who believe it is, there may be some spoilers ahead...

PART ONE

Me: so this is Colin Baker's last story.

Mum: So you've never seen it before either?

Me: Nope.

The episode begins.

Mum: Oo er. Aha! It's right at the beginning. Oh no, i thought it was right at the end! But that's ok. I like Sylvester McCoy

Me: This is the story Colin Baker didn't come back for.

Mum: so they put him (McCoy) in a wig? *laughs loudly* You couldn't tell.

Yeah. She's serious.

Me: This was voted something like the second worst story of all time.

Actually, it was the third worst, followed by Timelash and The Twin Dilemma, but never mind.

Mum: Really?

The Rani appears.

Mum: She's a Time Woman-y Lord isn't she?

I nod my reply.

The Seventh Doctor appears.

Mum: He's very different here. Very young and enthusiastic, very 'ooh yes', whereas by the end he was 'meh'.

Me: But that was deliberate, not because he'd got bored.

I then fill mum in on the Darker Doctor idea.

Mum: How long did he do this for?

Me: Three years.

Me: Are you looking forward to seeing Bonnie Langford as Mel?

Mum: Yeah... she'd been with Colin Baker most of the time?

Me: For six 25 minute episodes.

Mum: Oh right.

Me: What do you think of the 1987 graphics?

Mum: It's amazing.

That was sarcasm, obviously.

Then the Rani dresses up. I look at Mum. I actually don't think she's realised... that or she thinks the Rani dressing up is a good plot device.

When Real Mel appears, she still says nothing. Clearly thinks it's just a good plot device.

Mum: Were they in an old quarry somewhere?

Me: Mhmm.

Mum: I love watching old Doctor Whos. There appears to be a handy cement tunnel. That's useful.

Then - at last...

Mum: She's doing a good impression of Bonnie Langford. *laughs* Bouncy bouncy.

Yeah. She's serious.

She laughs at the Doctor's Napoleon outfit.

And then louder when he dresses up as Tom Baker.

Mum: Was that Tom Baker's coat? Haha, Jon Pertwee, very funny.

She's serious.

She laughs louder as he dresses as Peter Davison.

Mum: They were having a bit of fun with this one. Haha, Patrick Troughton!

Mum: So by rights she should blow up? But she won't.

Me: You never know.

Mum: It's very good, makes a change seeing a new one. You've not seen the next bit?

Me: Nope.

Mum: Why not?

Me: I don't think it's very good.

Mum: I really like it, if you look past the terrible 80s graphics.

Me: They're not bad, actually.

Mum: yeah. (then she later repeats) It's very good.

She's serious.

PART TWO

Me: Should he have stayed like this, or become a Darker Doctor?

Mum: I don't know, there are bits of 'him' in it. He's only silly for the first two minutes, he becomes more 'Sylvester McCoy' later on. I don't think it's one of the worst stories.

She later adds: I like Sylvester McCoy he's good. I keep forgetting you met him.

Mel is saved by water.

Mum: She's supposed to blow up! Haha, lucky for her!

Back in the Rani's pad.

Mum: Is he pretending that he doesn't remember her? ("Mel")

Me: No.

Mum: Ah.

The Tetrap arrives.

Mum: Ooh. The scream'd be enough to scare him off. Blimey.

Mum leaves the room while the Doctor and Mel wrestles. I think this was more coincidence, but I wouldn't blame her. She returns a few seconds later.

Mum's silent for the rest of the episode, except for pointing out when the cliffhanger will be.

Me: What do you think so far?

Mum: I like it, it's really good, it's keeping me quiet. I'm completely into it. What do you think?

Me: It's ok.

Mum: Do you not like it?

Me: Meh... I'll show you the best one one day, you'll hate it. You seem to like all the ones everyone else hates.The best one isn't very Doctor Who-y.

Mum: This one's Doctor Who-y. I like all the ones like that; Keeper of Traken and Logopolis. I love them.

I agree.

PART THREE

The cliffhanger is resolved.

Mum: I knew he was gonna turn up.

We return to Mel.

Mum: Bonnie Langford's actually good.

Me: Yeah, she's better than a lot of people think.

Mum: I just assumed she'd be really bad.

Me: She gets worse, in this season.
Mum: I need to watch some of those, there are serious gaps in my education.

The Tetrap turns up again.

Mum: His helmet looks really plastic-y though.

The Doctor trips Beyus up.

Mum: Aha. Is he a baddy really then?

Me: I don't know.

Beyus and Faroon have a heart to heart.

Mum: I think he's in on it.

The cliffhanger comes.

Mum: *gasps* We're absorbed, we're keeping quiet.

PART FOUR

Mum: We''ll have to watch more of these.

Me: We'll do The Caves of Androzani next.

Mum: That's the worst one?

Me: No, the best one. Peter Davison's in it.

Mum: Oh right.

Me: I hated it the first time I watched it but I like it now.

Mum: I really like this one. I don't see why it's one of the worst ones, Sylvester McCoy's really good.

Me: Yeah, it's not as tacky as I thought it'd be, it's less silly.

Mum: She's (The Rani) really good.

Me: Oh yeah.

Mum: After that (Androzani), we'll have to watch the worse one.

Me: I've only ever got through fifteen minutes of that.

She is again, silent throughout the episode.

She gives it a round of applause at the end.

Mum: That was really good! Really enjoyed that, jolly jolly good.

She gives it an 8/10

As you read, next time we'll be watching The Caves of Androzani. You can share any thoughts on this commentary on the Comments section of Blogger, or on my Twitter, @cookiemonsta_eg. I'm hoping that after Androzani and Dilemma, we'll watch a few fan films (the 'we're trying to be professional' ones) and I'll write up the thoughts on those.

The Picture of Dorian Gray | Review

The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde. It's, if you don't count a read-out-of-order Great Expectations, the first 'classic' novel I have ever finished, and certainly the first one I've read by choice. It was probably Big Finish, with their announcement of a Dorian Gray audio series, that reminded me to read this, and initially I expect it was hearing about the concept of the book that interested me. It is, though not a completely original idea, a very strong idea and it is a new take on an older idea, that of 'selling your soul to the Devil'.

This review won't contain any spoilers, and I find it difficult to criticise something written so long ago. I aim to watch the movie made a few years ago (which I can see myself disliking because it's meant to deviate from the plot of the book), and I'll be able to offer a more complete opinion of that. But - for now it's the book, and I will try my best to review it well.

It is a typical 19th Century novel (although this is the first one I've finished, it's by no means the first one I've started, and I have knowledge of lots of other novels of the period), and it revels in being, to a modern reader, over the top and elaborate. For me, the 'over the top' side to it adds richness to it. It's delightfully full of words and language, it's easy to follow and it's fascinating. It's not just the characters that are fascinating, but it's also the descriptions. We aren't told action as it unfolds, but it's shown initially by the reaction of the character, and then explained later on through speech, as or as some insignificant sentence amongst the description. The descriptions also describe thing is in incredible detail, fully conveying the idea of the importance of 'beauty' with the book.

The characters are wonderful. Lord Henry, or Harry to his mates, is fantastically over the top and elaborate, with pretty outrageous views even for modern day. He's a character that is practically the embodiment of controversy, and this book and its author carry a lot of that. Dorian Gray starts off as an over the top, emotional 'boy', and his speech does change and develop, he does become more mature in how he speaks, and less irrational. However, through the descriptions, in which we are given an insight of how he thinks, and through the underlying theme of what he says and occasionally how he speaks, there are always hints of emotion and the 'boy' that he looks like. The trick of never-ageing is only really used once, when someone threatens Dorian many years after a certain event. It's also something that isn't really mentioned. People accept Dorian's eternal youth (that's not a spoiler, the blurb will tell you that much), and they think that a man of his position, and his lifestyle, will of course look young forever. Lord Henry believes he has some secret - but doesn't question it, because - well because basically he probably enjoys staring at Dorian's face all day.

The other character of note (though they are all full, developed, and wonderful to read about) is Basil, the painter. He is the 'innocent' character, whereas Henry is all for sin, and Dorian is somewhere in the middle of the two. He provides the 'angel' side of the arguable angel/Devil symbols of Basil/Henry. He, again, is a full and well written character, and the care he has for Dorian is really quite touching. It's even more touching when the book develops and the stakes are raised. That's the other thing. It is a fairly linear story, albeit with some strange and complex ideas, but there are twists along the way that change the way you perceive things within the book.

The thing that I dislike in books is when you skip years within the space of a page, or in between a chapter. Dorian Gray does this a lot. First it skips a month, then a large section of years. It didn't annoy me as much as I thought it would, though the 'catch up' chapter, in which Wilde describes Dorian Gray's escapades and indulgence in various beautiful things, is quite long. In fact - very long, and it drags out, with long, elaborate sentences, describing historical items in great detail. My eyes did blur a couple of times while reading that chapter, but the action soon picks up again after, and the gap of years is referenced and also included well in the rest of the book.

A few other things to mention then. The references to other works of literature, such as Hamlet and Romeo & Juliet, are brilliant. There are a lot of references to, not just beauty, but also sophisticated things, literature, history, poetry, music. It is a highly sophisticated book, with properly strong ideas. I can see why it caused controversy at the time - and I've no idea whether the book I read is the 'full' version with all the controversial bits still in (not sure I did), but I can find various controversial items in there.

I'm not sure if this is the book for everyone. I loved it, but then I'm interested in literature, and the idea of 'beauty' is something I'm currently trying to pick out for my English coursework, so the theme of Dorian Gray was something I was interested in. It's also a book that's ahead of its time. It talks openly and daringly about things, it portrays Victorian life fantastically, and it shows you inside the head of the character, while still developing all of them. The story moves along well, there's a suitable amount of action, and it's all contained and believable. If you like developed, classic books - then this is for you. If you prefer lighter books - this is not the book for you. As um, the characters do like to go on... And on...

I really, really enjoyed this book. I finished it - so that's proof. I'm not sure whether I'd tackle Wilde's 'Importance of Being Earnest', but I'd definitely read Dorian Gray again. It's my kind of book, and I loved it.

I don't really rate things 10/10 that often, and there is the long 'catch up' chapter to consider so - 9.5/10

And something to watch out for: the end of the chapter where Dorian faints in the garden. The last few sentences of the chapter are truly chilling.

A Doctor Who Fan's Responsibility

An alternative title may be: Why Doctor Who Fans Shouldn't Say "I'm not going to watch it". But that's probably a bit too long for Blogger.

My one complaint when it comes to Doctor Who 'fans', is not their obsession, not their compulson to collect, nor is it their dressing up at conventions. It's the time when they don't behave like fans. We all have opinions... including me, if you follow this blog, or have flicked through any other entries I've written, then you'll realise that. My opinions tend to be quite strong. And no, I don't like every aspect of Doctor Who. I'm not a huge Tom Baker fan (shock!), or a huge David Tennant fan (shock!), but I can appreciate the merits of the Doctors and most of their episodes - even if they're not something I watch regularly. The point is - I try and give everything a chance. And when it comes to Doctor Who on TV, even if I think it'll be awful, I have to watch it. I hope, if I'm not optimistic, I'll be proved wrong, and if I am optimistic, I'll be proved right.

I realise that some classic fans don't like the modern series (mostly Matt Smith), and I realise some modern fans haven't even tried the classics. I don't have a problem with the latter, as long as they're open minded.  And I appreciate that classic fans may not like the modern series - but they have to give it a chance. The thing I find really annoying are those who follow other fans, who make Figure Adventures, or do blogs, or write fan fiction and are quite good at it, and they take their opinions as their own. If someone says "oh I hated that episode. The whatever was rubbish - 2/10", then it's often followed by a row of comments saying "oh I agree, absolute rubbish, hated it". Maybe that's their opinion - maybe I'm being unfair. But often the ratings are the same, the comments are identical, and you often wonder whether these are their own opinions.

Whether it is the opinions of them, or the opinions of those who they follow religiously, the point is, it's the same people who say: "I've decided not to watch it". Or "if this is rubbish, I won't watch Doctor Who again". The latter comment is fair enough, it's giving it a chance - but you could argue their mind is made up. Doctor Who should be embraced - it may be hated afterwards, but you should give everything a chance, especially if you are a fan. There's no harm in trying something you think you might not like. And with the former comment, people who decide not to watch it from a trailer is the most annoying. I've seen it recently. I'll admit - I'm not confident about evil snowmen, snowmen aren't scary, they can't really be scary, there are other ideas to exploit, and in an opening episode for a companion it's a dangerous thing to try. But I'm going to sit down, with my party food and my paper hat, and watch The Snowmen at Christmas. I want it to be better than I expect. I will definitely watch it. But I saw one person say they won't be watching The Snowmen because dodgy snowmen on the trailer look silly. Yeah, they do. But you're a Doctor Who fan!

The other point I need to address is the dislike of Matt Smith. Lots like him but dislike the scripts, and I'm kinda with them on that one. They haven't been great for him, Amy and Rory's exit wasn't brilliant (in fact it was really quite poor), and the idea of a 'darker' Doctor is again, not quite going to work, I feel. But Matt Smith acts whatever he's given brilliantly. How is it not a delight to watch him just be brilliant? A fantastically Doctor-ish Doctor. So people should give him a chance, if nothing else.

There we have it. All those who don't want to give Doctor Who a chance - remember, you are fans. Not giving it a chance is what caused the viewing figures to drop in the 80s - and look where that got us (if you don't know where that got us, us as in fans, google it). Viewing figures are considered important by all those head Drama Commissioning people (probably) - so tune in. But the main reason should be: tune in because you are a fan. A Doctor Who fan. So there.

Doctor Who Dark Eyes | Review

I'll start off with a confession. The only Eighth Doctor audio I've listened to, in full, is Blood of the Daleks Part One. Because I downloaded it for free on some special offer day on the Big Finish website. I've got lots of others, such as Neverland, Situation Vacant and so on - but I've never finished them. So to listen to Dark Eyes, a direct continuation from the Lucie Miller arc and the more recent Eighth Doctor series, may seem a bit odd. But Dark Eyes has so often been called a good 'jumping-on' point, and honestly the concept interested me a lot more than the other 8th Doctor stories have. So I've bought it. (And the Doctor's costume always interests me anyway, so that was an added bonus.)

I'll go through each part individually - so Part One. Imaginatively entitled The Great War and set in.. The Great War. And we meet Great War VAD Molly O'Sullivan. And we see The Doctor again. And a Time Lord. And we meet a nice VAD called Isobel as well. That's very nice. But it's what I expected. Part One of Dark Eyes is very much what I expected. Molly is the fiesty, Irish character I expected her to be, the Doctor is fairly predictable and not particularly dark - and I know there are dark moments but these are expressed in a normal angry 8th Doctor way. I don't think the 8th Doctor has the layers of darkness that the 7th Doctor has - the 8th Doctor is either happy or angry, and in Parts One and Two he flips between the two quite easily. Part One is mainly a story of the Doctor convincing Molly to trust him - the Daleks turn up when you expect them to, and it's a fairly linear storyline. When you get to the cliffhanger, it feels like it's stopped you half way through a story. Which it has, in a way, to be fair, but the story doesn't stay at WW1 for Part Two. The Daleks' appearance in Part One is short and fairly predictable, unimaginative, and they do what Daleks do best. Shoot things. There's no real menace or mystery - Dark Eyes: The Great War is simply a standard Doctor Who audio story, with no real twists.

Part Two is by far the best part. It allows the Doctor and Molly, rather strangely, to relax a little bit in between fighting the Daleks, and there are some lovely Doctor/Molly moments, and the Doctor gets to be happy for a short time. Which is nice - but again short lived and he's back to being angry. The best thing about Dark Eyes would have to be the sound design and the music. It's incredible, the music is brilliant in Parts One and Four especially, and the sound design is fantastic in Part Two. The underwater bits at Dunkirk are by far the best from the whole thing. It feels real, and not copied out of a text book. Molly's reactions to another war are, though obviously predictable, handled and written, and acted, well. Part Two is perhaps the most convincing, the most enjoyable out of all of the parts - though it still offers nothing exciting or imaginative, really.

Part Three I expected to be my favourite, I enjoy a companion-back-drop story - but the whole 'what happened to Molly when she was two' storyline is solved fairly quickly. Again, there are no twists, there's not really any excitement. It's exactly what you expect it to be. And perhaps the most disappointing thing, is that after three hours of Dark Eyes, the plot hasn't moved forward at all. Parts One, Two and most of Three are a lead into the end of Part Three (slightly) and Part Four, when something, though small and easily solved, happens. Dark Eyes is not a big story, it's a story that's simple, easy, that's been done before though not under as much scrutiny, and is linear. It refuses to let itself go from the blurbs that have been written almost, it doesn't have any twists. I only listened to Part Three today, and all I can remember is the ending - which shows how linear and unfortunately forgettable it is. Oh of course! I remember! Yeah Part Three tries to do something different - it has a fairly predictable and reused idea of nice Daleks, with a fairly predictable resolution that I guessed with no real difficulty. If you're well versed in the ways of Doctor Who, and perhaps recognise a Doctor Who's audio's penchant for inventing alien worlds with weird names and strange four-eyed aliens, then Dark Eyes is really nothing special. Part Three's attempts to do something differently only work once or twice, and for about a second. Then everything becomes that old age story telling device, that you can guess even from the front cover.

Part Four is perhaps the worst part. It doesn't use the sound design to give at atmosphere, like Parts One and Two did, nor does it offer an idea that, although reused, tries to be different. Part Four is simply the resolution. It has cocky, annoying Time Lords, and a plot resolution to the mission set by the Time Lords at the very beginning of Part One. There have been no changes to the plot, no added twists - and yet the writer still feels the need to remind us of the Dalek's plot every five seconds. The ending is also irritating. Basically - SPOILER - Molly leaves the TARDIS with everything never-having-happened. Not only is this the most useful plot device ever, but it means that Molly's care for the Doctor, although only shown a little, has no meaning earlier on. She doesn't stay to ask if he'll be ok. She just leaves. The day is saved, and the Daleks promise revenge. Like they always do. The only attempt at a twist in Part Four, which is that two characters are the same person, is a simple enough revelation that doesn't really enhance the action. It just causes more cocky Time Lord-ness.

So did I enjoy anything? Well, yes, actually I enjoyed Dark Eyes, and I wanted to know what happened. It interested me. But it didn't excite me as much as I wanted it to, it didn't offer any dramatic twists, and it didn't live up to it's potential. For Part Four, a world is shown to us where Time Lords can't regenerate. This is an AWESOME idea - and yet they barely use it. It's mentioned for five seconds - and then forgotten about, except at the end when it's again mentioned for five seconds. Molly has the potential to have a wonderfully complex background - but it's exactly what you know it will be. You've practically got the answers from Part One, and the whole 'dark eyes' idea seems... well, it's good, but gets a little tiring. Dark Eyes simply does not live up to it's potential. Toby Jones, an incredible actor, is just being... well, another rubbish henchmen who thinks he owns the Daleks. He's been augmented with Dalek DNA. It is practically the Curse of Fatal Death. The Doctor isn't given enough of an emotional journey, he just collapses occasionally and cries for Lucie. I feel a character like Isobel from Part One would have engaged with the Doctor more, talked to him about Lucie more. I don't like the idea of dwelling on dead companions much in stories - but there needed to be more of it here. It's too jolly I think. A big race around the universe, with the Doctor and fiesty companion Molly, in an exciting adventure with the Daleks! Yeah there's a bit of emotion, yeah it's always acted well, but it's... just a bit meh in comparison.

The acting is brilliant. The sound design, the music, they're brilliant. The dialogue is also, on the whole, rather good. It's just the plot, though it keeps me interested (probably in hope there will be a twist soon) - it goes nowhere, offers little excitement, and fails to live up to potential. The Time Lords are quite annoying, and the Daleks - well. I'm not their biggest fan, and I don't agree that following their appearance in the finale of the last lot of 8th Doctor audios they needed to reappear here. This could have been the story of the Doctor emotionally rebuilding - Dark Eyes is the story of a prolonged relapse, almost. He doesn't really heal emotionally because he isn't given the chance to. The Daleks prevent him healing. And they couldn't even prevent him healing with an imaginative plan.

I've attempted, in the past, to write Doctor Who audios. And I've always thought repeating the plot lots in dialogue, and using cliched-Dalek speak, and inventing planets with weird names and aliens are overused things to avoid. Dark Eyes uses them all, and it doesn't use the chance it had to give us a real character journey.

The most annoying thing of all is the ending. Because it feels so... lacklustre. Everything is undone, practically, lives are sacrificed, predictably, the Time Lord in the story gets shot, predictably, and the Daleks promise to destroy the Time Lords. Boring. But the most annoying of all the most annoying things within that - is that the Doctor did not need to be in this story. He is, ultimately, pointless. All he does, and to be fair all he is told to, is find Molly. He finds Molly, then follows the story around for the next three and a half hours. The Time Lords control it all, and whatever the Doctor does, the Time Lords would always win. He isn't even the main one who stops the destruction of all the Daleks, it's some incidental character we've only known for an hour. The Doctor does nothing, he's merely along for the ride. And that's irritating, because this could have been his story. It should have been. And I think we've missed out on his story of recovery, I think they could have done something really good with it.

Instead, we get a good (ish) story - but one that we've seen before. It fails, and has left me feeling disappointed. So I'm sorry, Nick Briggs and Big Finish, but Dark Eyes could have been so much more.

Paul McGann and new companion were excellent though. Great acting. 10/10.

But Dark Eyes, the story, itself: I'd struggle to give it a 5. And most of that would be based on Part Two.

GoldenEye | Review

GoldenEye is one of the best Bond films. No doubt. I was a little doubtful it'd be any good after the disappointment of Tomorrow Never Dies - but all my doubts were proved wrong, it was excellent. It's long been a favourite film of my brother, and it really is an excellent film. Perhaps it's not directly a Bond film, and it hasn't got the typical Bond things in it, but neither has Skyfall. In many ways, it's very similar to Skyfall, and yet also to The Living Daylights. All three are semi-reinventions, and GoldenEye is a reinvention in the middle of them. It goes some way to complete change, it's confident in changes - but it doesn't revamp everything, keeping the big base and the evil mastermind firmly in place.

To start off with then, my one negative. The one thing which may stop it from taking the place of 2nd best Bond film ever (first is still Skyfall). Perhaps it's one and a half negatives. My half is that perhaps it's not engaging enough, I mean in the way Skyfall is. When you watch Skyfall, through fast and slow parts, you can't take your eyes off the screen. In GoldenEye, though I'm not watching it in a cinema, you don't get the same effect. Some scenes seem a little out of pace (eg, the pre-titles should be longer, the tank scene, though awesome, should be shorter). But that's one tiny fault - even Skyfall has slow parts (last comparison I hope). My main problem - and it is a fairly major problem, is Xenia Onatopp. I can't stand her. She is properly annoying, she is an amalgamation of everything that shouldn't be in a Bond film. Maybe in some X-rated spy movie she'd be great, but kids go and watch James Bond! Xenia's various.. um... 'noises' when she kills people is, though I realise you're meant to feel it's this but, sickening. Her killing people with very little clothes on (both parties are wearing very little in most cases) with her legs is just... wrong. It's not for James Bond. I'm not the greatest Bond girl fan anyway - but Xenia seems to have such a big part in the film, and it just annoys me. What annoys me more is that she's ADVERTISED as a Bond girl. And what annoys me further is that Bond is INTERESTED in this woman! That really, really irritates me, her character really irritates me (you might have guessed), and she just degrades the whole film and turns it into some disgusting... whatever it is. Not good, though.

So to the rest of the film, the actual Bond film, the actual important components of a Bond film. It's awesome, it is really rather good. Pierce Brosnan doesn't give the best performance as Bond, but that's personal preference. He makes quips better than he does in Tomorrow Never Dies - but it's a story that requires emotion, and I don't believe Brosnan provides this quite effectively. He's good though. His relationship with Natalya is also good - and she is an excellent Bond girl. She's strong, she hates him at first, and again they make her relationship into a proper one with Bond, like Bond/that girl from The Living Daylights in, believe it or not, The Living Daylights. She is really good. Brosnan is good. And a huge special mention to the marvelous Sean Bean - he's awesome. He plays Alec fantastically, as both SPOILER good and bad guy, and he's brilliant. Oromouv (or however his name is spelt...) is good as well, a nice evil General that fits well into a Bond film.

Which leads me onto the plot and the big battle scenes. All the big battle scenes are well done. Finding the satelite under a pond echoes You Only Live Twice - but this doesn't need a big all-guns-blazing battle, they instead pick something that's personal, that fits, which is where Tomorrow Never Dies fails. The battle between Bond and Alec at the end is great, it works really well. The plot is also good, relatively simple, handled well, the action fits perfectly into it - and it's also very Bond like. It doesn't set itself up for a fall (again, like Tomorrow Never Dies does).

Other things worth talking about are Boris... and Boris. Boris is.. interesting. He's a good character, he provides comedy. So... he's good. Not significant enough to discuss further though. The American, Wade I think his name is, is quite irritating so I'm glad they didn't use him further. They handle everything well. The script works, it's realistic, and it's taken seriously. There are appropriate scenes chosen to end the film, not pointless battles, and the chase with the tank (though a bit long and ultimately pointless) is quite awesome. It has the action, the *sigh of annoyance* romance which I guess is important, and it has good characters!

Most of all - I enjoyed it, and except from Xenia, it didn't let me down.

So maybe this has become third, after On Her Majesty's Secret Service in second.

Vengeance on Varos | Review

Taking a break from my review of Bond films/watching for now (although I have rewatched but am yet to review Dr No and Moonraker), I'm reviewing the third 6th Doctor story Vengeance on Varos. It's the first time I've seen it - ever, meaning I have just one more story to finish before I have seen all of Colin Baker's stories. But forgive me for not watching it Who fans - because it is after all, The Twin Dilemma.

Vengeance on Varos is a good story - but it isn't really any more than that. I enjoyed it, and it has some great scenes, but it fails to deliver on a couple of things. I'll start with the good things. The concept, for one. It's inspired. Commenting on corrupt politics, video tapes, profit and if you look deeper; hallucinogenic drugs and experimentation. The latter are done more for effect, but the first three are undoubtedly key themes. It puts them in a standard alien planet setting you'd expect from Doctor Who, and Philip Martin delivers his message in a very Doctor Who way. That's the key thing about this story I think - it is a standard Doctor Who story, it is a combination of everything you need. It should be a classic, and certainly it's concept and attempts to take Who in a new direction help to push it in that way. It is good ideas at the centre of it, and as I said, there are some excellent scenes. The hallucinogenic scenes in the green tunnel for one, practically all the scenes with the Governor are good too (especially where he tries to convince the guard to give him and Peri their freedom), and the Doctor gives some poignant speeches. Sil is brilliant, though he gets a little boring in Part Two. There a few other good scenes, and it is scattered with good bits. It has the ingredients of a classic.

The story is like a Jon Pertwee story. You have the Doctor wielding a gun, which actually works quite well, and you have him rescuing his companion, who's busy screaming as she watches a man die in front of her eyes. It does take a classic formula. There's even the threat of an alien invasion later on in it. The Doctor makes quips after people fall into acid, again fitting into the Jon Pertwee being like James Bond sort of thing. But this is where the problems start. Jon Pertwee may have used a gun a few times, may have killed an Ogron in cold blood in Day of the Daleks, but he was compassionate deep down. You don't get that from the 6th Doctor in this story. It's a dark story, with a Doctor who suddenly has no moral compass, no way of making us see right from wrong. He fights the enemies by employing someone (who thinks he's on stage, by the way) to shoot the bad guys. The Doctor in this story is wrong. He doesn't have much to do, except become a victim and get free very easily, and he's written quite poorly. Colin Baker acts him perfectly, the best he can - but the script lets him down. It's out of character, even for a colder Doctor. The 6th Doctor isn't so cold that he'll push people into an acid bath. He should try and save them. His Doctor, every Doctor, would try and save them - so the Doctor is wrong in this story, and that, unfortunately, is down to the writer.

The characters of Sil, The Governor, and the bald bloke with the moustache who's name I don't know, and even the two characters watching the whole thing on their TV - they're all great characters. They've got great dialogue. It's funny, entertaining, it's poignant and in the case of Sil, it's repugnant. Their dialogue fits the characters perfectly. So maybe this story would have been good for some spin-off, some new sci-fi show. Because here, the Doctor is simply a figure to promote revolution, he's a symbol of hope. That could be anyone - and in the way he's written, it certainly shouldn't be the Doctor. Peri seems ok - but again, she's got a very standard, classic Who role. This story, with it's ambitious ideas, should be pushing Doctor Who in a new direction. Instead, the Doctor's written poorly, the sets don't look great (and are helped only by quite excellent lighting), and not a lot happens in the story at all. Problems are evaded easily, and the main story seems to be a mix of a political power struggle, which is resolved fairly easily with only minor hiccups along the way, and escaping Sil's evil death methods very easily. Good ideas - but the plot needs more, it needs to support the characters, and the characters need to fit the show. Maybe that's all Vengeance has. Ambition, and quite a good monster. But where's our dramatic Doctor/Sil confrontation? There's kind of one - but where's the sparring dramatic dialogue? You wouldn't find that in this story - because the Doctor is wrong.

Characters like Jondar and his wife/fiancee/girlfriend, whoever she is, aren't great. Again, they have potential, but the person acting Jondar treats it like he's on stage. The Doctor's got a few stage-esque performances as well.

So. The story is good, on paper I expect. It's ambitious. But it's a story trapped in bad sets, it's a script that hasn't been tampered with enough to make the Doctor Doctor-ish, because people wanted him to change. The change is too quick. It's a classic story in the sense it doesn't do anything imaginative with the 'classic' ideas, that it could've reinvented so well. For me, the biggest let down is the Doctor. I'm sure he does do stuff, but he just feels a bit useless in it, a bit pointless, and because he's written out of character I noticed he wasn't being used effectively. In The Happiness Patrol, which is similar to this story in lots of ways, they experiment with strange characters and ideas, and the Doctor is actively protesting against the government. In this, he just puts his face in front of the camera and does whatever he needs to.

Colin Baker is wonderful, all the actors are wonderful. Most characters are very good - but the scripting for the Doctor is poor, and the plot just doesn't develop enough. It doesn't use it's characters well enough. Good ideas - but not realised well enough, unfortunately.

PS It's interesting that the Nice or Nasty? documentary on the DVD talks about Revelation of the Daleks, another story focused more on other characters than the Doctor. It's interesting that in Revelation you get the Doctor/Davros scenes anyway, and the Doctor's scenes are small but memorable, he's written well. Vengeance tries to be like this and isn't. And the documentary also picks up on Androzani-inspired stories, carrying on the idea of darkness and bigger supporting characters. Again - it works in Androzani/Revelation, but not Vengeance.

PPS I don't mind the violence in Vengeance at all - it's a small part of it really. It's a grim setting, you expect it, it doesn't bother me at all. It just again, perhaps isn't Doctor Who-y enough. And I think the scene where the Doctor has the gun is perhaps the best scene the Doctor has in Vengeance because he's doing something!

Overall rating: A 'Meh' out of 10.

Tomorrow Never Dies | Review

Tomorrow Never Dies is my dad's favourite Bond film, and my mum thinks it's really good as well. For them, Pierce Brosnan is the best Bond. I've only really seen about half an hour/forty-five minutes worth of the film before, and I really enjoyed what I saw. Having now watched the whole thing, it seems less good...

The introduction is exciting, even though it gets a little 'aah there's gonna be a war' too quickly. Pierce Brosnan gets to be his Bond, with witty lines, and casually shooting machine guns and doing all the things that Bond does. This is intercut with M and Colin Salmon, along with various other boring official people and one slightly comedic Russian, and a Miss Moneypenny who's haircut's awful, and who seems to only function with a good read through her metaphorical Little Book of Cliches. The role of M in this is rubbish. Though it's never been great in the past, it's always been a joy to see M, when he was a male, for small little scenes. Now a female M, though a good idea, gives a good performance, and Judi Dench is brilliant - but it just seems to be lacking a bit. She doesn't get any good lines, and she doesn't have any real connection to Bond. Miss Moneypenny's a bit over the top. Samantha Bond is a good actress to pick for the role - but she's just a bit... cliched. She only speaks in cliches, she has no proper role. They've tried to make her character more dynamic, or at least copy the original, but haven't done anything different with her so she seems a little pointless.

We then hit the title sequence, and one of the most boring Bond songs of all time. It doesn't pick up at all, it's quite slow and drags along. Though Skyfall doesn't really ever pick up, there are clear Bond-theme elements in it, and it works amazingly well with the titles. Tomorrow Never Dies' titles aren't as good as they could be. Rather than being imaginative, we yet again focus on girls with no clothes on, this time painted in circuit boards. It's boring. Move on.

The story from then on goes really well. Carver is a brilliant idea for a modern Bond villain. He's a proper British villain, and he's a newspaper editor. He's got charisma, he has a personality, and he's realistically evil, not over the top. He's everything I expect a modern Bond villain to be, and the idea of a newspaper editor being the bad guy is inspired. The whole plot, in fact, though predictable, is fantastic, and you wonder why Bond had never done anything like this before. It is a fantastic idea, and it begins really well executed. As we go further on, the character of Wei Lin is fantastic - we need more Bond girls like her (though again it annoys me she has to kiss Bond at the end), and she is really good. Her dialogue with Bond is excellent. The motorbike chase, the remote control car chase, they're all really good. The film manages to be funny as well - the scene with the German assassin is brilliant, he's a great character, and Bond's quips and witty lines are well delivered.

Now onto the criticisms. Because this should be a fantastic Bond film. It has all the right ingredients, a fantastic plot, good dialogue, good characters - and yet there are let downs. This feels like a failure at a reinvention. It starts off, in my eyes, as to how Bond should be modern. It's got the action sequences, the witty lines, but in a really modern setting. But then it mixes in old fashioned ideas, things that need to be reinvented but haven't been. The Bond/Paris thing is predictable and boring - and Brosnan's portrayal of Bond during his scene with Paris (the bit before he starts undressing her) is poor and almost out of character. The characters of M and Miss Moneypenny haven't been reinvented enough, and as much as I love Q - you kinda feel a new one might have fitted better. You have old things, old ideas, in a new setting and it doesn't work. The other old ideas you have are Bond's dialogue (which I'll come to later) and the finale. All it is, is a big showdown, which is a bad copy of pratically every Bond finale we've ever had. This is a story about a corrupt news reporter - so an all out battle in a big ship doesn't fit it at all. It's trying to be too much like old James Bond, and if it was a little braver, it would feel like old James Bond and reinvent itself all at the same time.

I realise that then reinvention wasn't as important to the series as it is now (when to be fair, though awesome, the films don't perhaps have enough of true-Bond-ness in them), but there are noticeable signs of attempts at reinvention in TND. So why not go all the way? And I realise that Goldeneye is perhaps more of an attempt at reinvention - but I don't see how much different that will be to this, in terms of new ideas. (We'll wait and see though - I watch that next.)

So then - that just leaves Bond. I've never really been a big fan of Brosnan's Bond, even though he was the Bond I watched while growing up. Craig didn't really inspire me until I was the age I am now, but Brosnan seems.... perhaps worse than he did when I was younger. I get that a Bond needs to make witty lines, it's something lacking from Craig (who, though, when he does have them, delivers them MUCH better), and Moore's witty Bond lines always worked fine for me. There weren't too many. Brosnan's Bond takes it too far. The script has given him a pun after every single villain he gets rid of, every single guard, unless he's facing like ten, and out of that we'll still get one at the end and a few in between. The constant witty lines get tiring and though funny at first - just lose their edge. It makes Brosnan seem like the whole thing's a joke. He's too witty - he doesn't have any of the seriousness that Connery had, and he certainly can't deliver the witty lines as well. It also means that when he does try and be serious, such as the Bond/Paris scene, it doesn't work. This is more of a criticism at the script than Brosnan's acting - but there are ways of making the witty lines seem less of an effort and less samey, both of which they become. Aside from the witty remarks, which frankly seem to make up 90% of his Bond, he's actually not too bad. The witty lines do dominate his performance, but in... erm... fight scenes he's quite good. Um... and he acts well against Carver and Wei Lin too. When he's not trying to be funny.

So it's safe to say Brosnan isn't my favourite Bond. While he doesn't make TND worse, he makes it less serious, and his Bond kind of feels out of place with the plot. It is a good film, the plot is enjoyable, Carver is awesome, but it just tries to be too funny, and it's too much of a mix. When I come to rank this film, I'll remember it more for the attempt at a really good film than I will the bad bits - but the comedy will let it down, and the mix of old and new will let it down. It is a shame - because this film has the potential to be so, so, so good. It just lacks originality (in reinvention, not plot) and doesn't have the emotion I feel a Bond film should have. At least somewhere. Even if just for a scene - I can't find any in TND.

So if this was a really really really good spoof - it would be the best around. If this maybe didn't even have the comical remote control car - this would be better. Anything to make this less of a joke, or anything to reinvent Bond a bit further, would mean I'd have ranked it as one of the best of all time.

At the minute, I'd give it a respectable 6 or 7 out of 10. Good - but lacking.

Skyfall | Review

 MINOR HINTS AT SPOILERS INCLUDED - NO REAL PLOT GIVEN AWAY

It's here! At last I have seen Bond 23, Skyfall, and I can confirm... it is amazing.

There really isn't that much more to say about it, except to bask in it's brilliance. I didn't expect it to live up to the hype and the incredible reviews it's had - but it did. It was as brilliant as people are saying. In my recent reviews I've moaned about how emotion/action aren't always balanced, and though emotion isn't present in the same ways as it has been before, it is undoubtedly key in Skyfall, and certainly as you get towards the end. The emotion is put in all the right places, the tension is built perfectly, and the film opens with such an awesome introduction that you are hooked from then on. You might fall asleep a bit in the middle, as the action does slow down, but tension comes in it's place.

In terms of anything bad about it, it's difficult to pinpoint. Everything has it's strengths. The plot is not only interesting, it's also very easy to understand and conveyed in an exciting way. There are no big plot discussion scenes, and any of these that there are hints of soon veer towards character rather than plot. This is a character-driven film, but I didn't notice it as dramatically as I did with On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale. It's a character-driven film, not about new characters, but about characters you already know and love. There's no need to get to know them, as you did in OHMSS and Royale, with characters like Tracy and Vesper.

That's the other thing missing from Skyfall. Bond girls. Though they are there for a bit (and to be fair the scene that one of them is in is.. frankly the worst the scene in the whole thing), they aren't important. This is about Bond, about M, about the Secret Service and about Silva, who is portrayed brilliantly. He is a truly repulsive villain, who's got proper character. He doesn't need a hollowed-out volcano - because he has the power and the character, and that's enough. Everything in Skyfall is fully formed, everything is understandable, and everything is routed in either things you already know or things you quickly learn.

The nods to the past are great, and M's comebacks to a lot of them are just as great. Though I felt Bond's quips were completely in place, some of them weren't as sharp as they could've been. Eve (who's a character I'm sure we'll get to know more) doesn't really succeed in delivering the fast lines at first, but she picks them up, arguably as Bond's one-liners get less sharp. There's a sense of balance between the two of them, and both of them are truly modern characters.

On the subject of modern characters, we have Q. Who is bloody brilliant. He's superb, just as I imagined him, but absolutely superb. His relationship with Bond is fantastic, and it's good that Craig's Bond hasn't been given John Cleese as Q, because it allows Craig to develop his own relationship with the Quartermaster. M is fantastic as well, Judi Dench is incredible in the role. And she finally gets to fire a gun! That just leaves characters like Tanner, who is awesome, and Mallory who... isn't that great. I can't say I warmed to him particularly, which could be a potential problem, especially since Skyfall allows you to get so close to Judi Dench's character.

The action in this film is great. It all works well, it feels real, and you can follow it. It feels more comfortable, and rather than making the film seem like an old-style Bond film (as perhaps Quantum of Solace did), it brings Bond action sequences into a new age. The whole film finally completes Bond's rebirth - and it's done brilliantly.

So in short. Go and see it. Sam Mendes' direction is perfect, the music is also fantastic (and not as out of place and noticeable as it was in Quantum), and all the actors perform their parts to their very best abilities. Though perhaps characters like Eve and certainly Mallory feel a little lacklustre at times, and some of the returns are good but not as sharp as they could be, these are minor problems. They're covered by the sheer brilliance of plot, character and direction.

Oh - and the title sequence is the best one they've done. Ever.

So is this the best Bond film forever? I always felt nothing could beat OHMSS. But Skyfall gives the OHMSS treatment, which is a good mix of emotion and action, to characters we know. OHMSS didn't do this as much - and it's not only Bond we see affected in Skyfall. The development of all the characters, the outstanding action sequences which are simply fantastic lead to me saying that yes.

This is the best ever Bond film. It's Bond for a new age. And long may it last.

Quantum of Solace | Review

Quantum of Solace is disliked by a lot of people, and most of the reviews or comments I've read on it have said how it just didn't work. When I saw it in 2008, it seemed fine, quite enjoyable (probably more so, then, than Casino Royale). Watching it again - I still really enjoyed it. I'm not with the group saying it was rubbish, and nor am I going to stick up for it even though I know deep down it is rubbish. I truly believe it's actually good.

There are criticisms - and one of these is the direction of the chases. Though it's nice to see them after their lack of presence in Casino Royale, the car chase at the start is way too confusing and it just made me switch off. Then you have the boat chase, which is edited a bit madly but better, and then the plane chase. It feels like a typical Bond movie, sticking chases in wherever it can. Though the plane chase feels a bit like overkill, I can see why it's there. The boat chase is by far the best, as it's actually exciting. Though for the car chase, I've no idea what the director was thinking. Another criticism is Agent Fields. She's pointless. She serves no purpose in there, and while she's good, she just feels like a copycat Vesper. Her very brief fling with Bond is utterly pointless and seems to be nothing more than something for the trailers. It is good to see Bond getting a bit more character, as it seems to be missing for most of Quantum, and the scenes with Fields evoke the kind of dialogue he had with Vesper. But it's not quite the same.

The rest of the film is great. I honestly don't have a problem with it, and to me it feels like a proper Bond film. Craig's performance as an emotional, revenge-driven Bond (though not particularly original) is perfectly fitting with Casino Royale, and Craig performs it really well. The script's a bit iffy in places, and the dialogue isn't as sharp as it is in Casino Royale (though you could argue that's because he doesn't have Vesper to bounce off), but Craig manages to portray Bond realistically and consistently. He continues to be a very good James Bond indeed - though perhaps, yet again, not as good as in his previous film. This is purely down to the fact that he's a bit less charismatic as he was in Casino Royale, and this fits with the film but just seems a bit disappointing. Strangely, he's given more one-liners than he was, which despite perhaps being out of place, is nice to see. Craig is a brilliant Bond, and he works best when he mixes being serious with being flippant and funny. A completely focused Craig would be in danger of being too boring.

The supporting characters are also good. Olyga Kurylenko is Camile - and she's brilliant. There are two different types of a 'good' Bond girl. Both types have to be stong-willed and determined, but one type is falling in love with Bond and the other is just driven by herself. Vesper would fit into both. Camile fits into the second - and her kiss with Bond at the end is also utterly pointless. But avoiding that, she is a very strong character. She's well played, her scenes with Bond are excellent, and her character is perfect to accompany Bond on his revenge mission. Dominic Greene is an interesting villain. He's a weird choice for a film like Quantum of Solace, yet there's something about him that means he's absolutely awesome. When he's on screen you can only watch him, he is brilliant. He looks (and no disrespect to the actor) like one of the more pathetic Bond villains, yet he has the power and he has a menace that make him a good villain. Perhaps, just for this film, it would've been better to have Mr White as the villain. He would work, and he would tie in better to Casino Royale. To set up an organisation like Quantum for one film that's a sequel and never use them again (so far) is quite strange - but they do strangely work. Their presence makes the film more like a proper Bond film.

The meeting at Tosca is fantastic, by far the best scene in any Bond film for a long time. When I watched it in 2008, it stuck in my head, and it's the main scene from the film that's remained in my head. I've wanted to watch it again because I was struck by how awesome it was. Watching it back, I realise it's a little underwhelming to how my head had made it, but it still works well. The silence as the shots are fired through the restaurant is brilliant, the set for the opera is brilliant, and it just works so well. This is the kind of scene that should be in all Bond films.

So just a few more notes. The film works as a sequel and it flows on really well from Casino Royale. Craig's Bond works well in it, and the balance of humour and seriousness, though rightfully smaller, is still there in part. The supporting characters work well, it has action and emotion throughout, rather than shoved at different ends like in Casino Royale, and I really enjoyed the film. Perhaps a more... dynamic plot, and a slightly more dynamic villain was needed to make it appeal to the majority of the public, but it really did work for me.

Though - the title sequence-y bit and the theme song doesn't fit at all. It's a relatively good song but completely out of place with the theme of the film.

Next Review: Skyfall......

The Living Daylights | Review

Instead of doing something worthwhile in November, like NaNoWriMo (which I forgot about again this year, and I probably am no way near organised enough to write a 50,000 word novel in thirty days anyway), I'm watching Bond! Last night, Halloween, or to all those who think it's pointless, October 31st, I watched The Living Daylights, in full, for the first time ever. I'd seen bits of it before. Bits of the ending, bits of the beginning, bits of the bit in the mansion with the bloke strangling people with his headphones, but not the whole thing as one coherent piece. I can't say I followed it completely, and I wasn't concentrating that much near the beginning, but I concentrated more as it went along, and have certainly got opinions on it.

I can't really comment on the plot, 'cos I only roughly followed it. I get the reason the opium's being sold, I get the idea about the defection, and I get lose ideas - but it's tricky to gel them in my head. That's more of a problem because it means one - this Bond film actually requires me to concentrate on it and two - it's a Bond film reliant on the plot and the characters. From what I can gather, the plot isn't anything exciting or special. There's no world domination, just arms-buying from opium-selling, which is probably more suited to a Bond book than an all action Bond film. It does feel, in many ways, as I imagine an original novel will feel. Timothy Dalton plays a slightly more determined Bond, with less quips and jokes, and the plot isn't melodramatic, it feels very real.

So yeah - this is another one of those character driven plots. It's less character driven than something like OHMSS (which remains my favourite because it balances melodrama and character), and Casino Royale, but it's still based around Bond's relationship with Kara, and her discovering that her previous boyfriend is basically the bad guy. Along with this there's war and diamonds and things - but it boils down to just being about the characters. Dalton is fantastic. He's a very, very serious Bond and any jokes he makes are first of all minimal, and secondly done seriously so they don't always work. But they don't need to - he's a serious Bond, and quite rightly he states that he's driven on instincts. His relationship with Kara is completely believable, and it echoes the relationship between Bond and Vesper in Casino Royale. Though Kara isn't nearly as dynamic as Vesper is, and she can be... a bit pathetic on occasion, the simple fact is that she admires and probably loves Bond, and he feels that for her. I read a review of this somewhere complaining that there was only one Bond girl - and that's exactly how it should be, I feel. If you can make the relationship between, in this case Bond and Kara, believable then you don't need thousands of Bond girls. Bond/Kara both work brilliantly together.

The supporting cast are less great. The enemies aren't really that engaging or interesting at any times, and the only villain who is vaguely good is Necros, who manages to perfect the role of killer-you-wouldn't-expect. Of course this is a Bond film - so if you see a random tall man jogging, of course he's going to be an enemy. But there isn't much there for the other characters to use. Georgi Koskov is ok, he's acted well, but again, his character isn't much of a villain. You can like the characters, when they're pretending to be good, or dislike them, but it never goes much further than that. They aren't as evil as they could be. The new Miss Moneypenny just doesn't work for me, she's too... normal. But Q, as always, gives a good performance.

The thing I enjoyed most about The Living Daylights (which, sorry Bond fans, I still think is a rubbish title for a book or a film), apart from the Bond/Kara thing being slightly more indepth than other Bond/Bond girl relationships, were the action sequences. The start was fairly normal, but the car chase across the ice and the end where men on horseback attack trucks and chase planes, and then cars drive onto planes and Bond and Necros hang from mid air, barely clinging onto a net full of opium packages, were really really good. Thoroughly enjoyed them.

So The Living Daylights is a good film. It's not exciting enough to be one of my favourites, as I have a soft spot for others, particularly Moore and Connery ones, that I grew up with. The Living Daylights needs more of a plot. It has the action, but it feels a little out of place in a plot that's fairly standard and uneventful, and if the plot was a bit more... exciting, or even melodramatic, then it would've worked alongside the characters and alongside the action that was there. The plot, and the unexciting enemies that it creates, aren't really good enough - but there are moments to be treasured in this film. It is just a shame they can't be accompanied by better.

I'm moving onto Licence to Kill next, before I rewatch Quantum of Solace and then see Skyfall on Saturday.

Casino Royale | Review

I may be wrong, but on watching it today I realised that it was only the second time I've ever seen the film. As in, ever. The first was when it was released and I went to see it in 2006 (which, being six years ago, and being younger than 18 now, means I was very young when I first went to see it). Up until I went to see Casino Royale, I had been a Bond fan. I'd seen Die Another Day in more recent years, and I'd also seen Dr No, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice... the list is gonna go on for a while. But up to, around and after Casino Royale I'd seen a hell of a lot. I'd even braved Licence to Kill (though.. I've never finished it). I've also got the Bond 50 box set now, which means at last I have all the Bonds together, not half-finished collections on VHS (you remember that?) and DVD. But before I go through all of them again, this time watching the ones I've previously avoided or not finished, I turned to Casino Royale, to prepare me for Skyfall.

I know Royale (as I shall refer to it as) has a good reputation. Before watching it a second time, I couldn't see it, and I think watching it when I was a lot younger in the cinema - it must have seriously messed my head up for about a week. I only have rough memories from the first time (and probably trailers I've watched again afterwards), and they were: Bond getting poisoned, Bond's fight on the stairs, Bond and the woman he has a fling with for all of about thirty seconds, the card game (obviously), the ending and the torture scene. Well. You're hardly likely to forget that. But I had fragments of memories of those things - and so I knew what was going to happen, roughly when it was going to happen, and how it would all end. This hasn't stopped my enjoyment of it. I'll admit I didn't expect much from watching it again, and I was expecting to be underwhelmed by Craig's Bond, who I don't remember really liking very much.

I was wrong. And watching it from an older perspective has helped me to enjoy it more, I believe. I'll start with Craig's Bond. He's brilliant. He's much more of a character and less of a kind of little-speaking-and-when-he-does-he's-quite-boring Bond than I thought he might be. He comes out with one liners, he does all the typical Bond things - but he does it in a much more natural, relaxed and modern way. He isn't some posh guy with instant good looks, instead he's just a man who's got a personality, but one he's selective with. He isn't the same to every person, and yet there's an underlying theme which somehow makes you feel you'll know how he'll react. That doesn't make him predictable, it makes him understandable. Bond feels like a human being, not a cliche (as certain performances (like Brosnan's for example) had made him become). He's believable, and he is human, so more weight is added to the decisions he makes. He's got too much emotion, too much attachment to make him become some happy-go-lucky Bond who quips when he electrocutes people (as he does. I was expecting a 'Shocking', but am glad there wasn't one said). That's not being detrimental to other Bonds, it's just saying how individual, how different Craig is. He's a Bond I want to watch - and he isn't as one dimensional as I believed he would be.

Of course, the emotion his Bond has and the weight his decisions carry would be nothing without Vesper Lynd. She is, by far, one of the best Bond girls. In fact, you probably can't call her that, as she isn't the type of person to be a possession, she is her own character. That's only really worked well once before, or even been tried, and that was with Diana Rigg as Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And Bond falls in love with her. So it's believable that Bond can fall in love with Vesper. Her character doesn't try and be glamorous, in fact she tries to do the opposite, and she is, like Bond now is, a real character. She questions what Bond does, and the dialogue that they have when they first meet on the train is fantastically written. It's good to see a Bond girl being a real character, and there being real emotional decisions connected to her and to Bond. She's portrayed amazingly by Eva Green (who kind of reminds me of Lara Pulver, who played Irene Adler in Sherlock), and her character is great. Her betrayal at the end is not only done well, not only fitting in with the character, but it's reacted to excellently by Craig.

The film itself doesn't feel as long as it is. The plot moves along well, with everything tying in, with the chases fitting in (although... perhaps the truck one, and also the Parkour chase, are a little too long), and there's a good balance between the actual card game and the action around it. The direction seems good to me, though not amazing. I'm sure the director could've made the card game look a bit more exciting than it was, but overall it's good. The music works as well, and I'm a fan of Chris Cornell's theme tune (and the opening sequence to it as well - that amazed me when I was younger, and it still does now).

The idea of a reboot is an interesting one - but it's done well here. You couldn't have given this film to Brosnan to do, and certainly not witty Roger Moore or Sean Connery. You also couldn't have continued the same continuity with it, Vesper's death at the end would have been too similar to the death of Tracy in OHMSS. So the decision for a reboot was a wise one. Perhaps a new M should have been found though... I love Judi Dench's performance, but. Well - she belongs with Brosnan.

I understand that Quantum of Solace, which is up next, doesn't continue the high standards, and it will only be the second ever time I've seen that one too when I watch it (the first being in the cinema in 2008). As long as Craig's performance keeps mixing the lighter side, where his personality comes out, to the more emotional side, then it'll work. If it's just one or the other - it won't.

Casino Royale is probably going to become one of my favourites. The characters drive it, and while I think it's not as good as OHMSS (my favourite, because it balances typical Bond action as well as emotion and Royale is more focused on emotion), I think it will probably end up being quite high on my list. I enjoy all-out action Bonds like A View To a Kill (others may not like it as much, however) and You Only Live Twice, but the ones where character is brought forward and sits side by side with the action work the best. By that logic - Casino Royale should be in my top five Bond. I should write a list when I've seen them all.

I'll review Quantum of Solace, and then Skyfall. Skyfall's meant to be a similar character story to Royale, so I hope that'll be as good as people have made out (with a bit more action/emotion balance though, rather than shoving all the action at the beginning). Casino Royale isn't a perfect film, all in all, there are little tweaks to be made - but it works as a reboot, it works with the Bond they've chosen, Vesper is perfect - and there are moments throughout the film (locations, bits of music) that echo the very first film from 1962.

(I won't give the film a rating. But I will end the blog with my favourite line from it.)

"Vodka Martini."
"Shaken or stirred?"
"Does it look like I give a damn?"

Planet of Evil Review

Aha, 'tis my first Doctor Who review for this blog! Rather than a review of every single aspect, this will be a general look and a kind of 'why you should watch it' thing (more for Who beginners). A quick bit of background: Planet of Evil, by Louis Marks (writer of a Dalek episode and everything) was shown in 1975, and it was the second story of 'Season 13'. It's also the first story that sees the 4th Doctor/Sarah Jane on their own, they'd previously been with UNIT Member Harry Sullivan.

For "Planet of Evil", the 'why you should watch it' part is really quite easy. You should watch it because it is undeniably Doctor Who. It's almost a stereotypical Doctor Who episode, it epitomises everything that it is Doctor Who. The general checklist for classic episodes is: do the Doctor and companion get separated and/or blamed for crimes? Is there a human colony somewhere? Is there a scientific concept that very loosely plays on real science? Admittedly the last question is more flimsy for Planet of Evil, but the other two questions are ticked. I normally find the whole Doctor/companion blamed thing really boring, and it happens a fair bit during the 26 years of the classic series. Planet of Evil does it in the traditional way, complete with human soldiers who are as arrogant and annoying as they should be. But for once, the arrogance isn't as annoying, and the annoyance is therefore less present. Yeah, so the Commander of the soldiers goes over the top - but the thing is there are those who don't go over the top to calm him down, to argue with him, and you'll like them a lot more because they're telling the over the top Commander he's wrong.

The actual monster itself, anti-matter, is one that's popped up before. The Three Doctors is a good episode and uses the idea of anti-matter a lot - and so in many ways Planet of Evil should recycle the same ideas. But it doesn't. It takes a relatively simple idea, threads it through and makes it seem more complicated than it is. The effect of the 'pure energy creature' is done really quite wonderfully, and the separation of a certain Hyde character (you'll know who I mean when I get to Part Four) is a really good effect. The set is stunning (and everyone will say that about this story). The planet looks amazing, the direction on it is amazing, and while things look a bit less good when you get to the spaceship, it makes it feel all the more Doctor Who-y.

Now for the negatives. (otherwise I'm in danger of sounding like Robert Shearman backing up 'The Space Museum' (discreet Whovian joke)). It's slow. There isn't much of a plot, and you feel that you're missing something when you watch it because it is uneventful. It's just the same plot line, reused, shifted round a bit, and running after the other. There's no overlap, there's only one storyline, and it a little too simple, a little too focused. If it expanded to create another plot (perhaps the planet was becoming more and more absorbed by anti-matter too so there was another anti-matter infection in danger of spreading around), then the four parts would feel justified. Though it may have felt slightly squashed as a two-part, it would have been incredibly action-packed and there'd be a sense of urgency. Taking two parts off and squashing the story would be a challenge, but I think that perhaps this story would be appreciated for plot and set and direction, rather than just the latter two.

So it is a good story, and I would recommend it for.. not a new Whovian, it's probably too slow. They should watch Genesis of the Daleks, or The Caves of Androzani, or The Five Doctors (or buy the Revisitations 3 box set and watch all of them, 'cos they work in that capacity), but if you're used to Doctor Who (and it's occasionally varying standards, pace and tone), then this would be good to launch you into the rest. It wouldn't be a favourite - but it should certainly be admired.

Book Blog and Blood Rush

This probably won't be as exciting as the title makes it sound. I hope this to be the start of my more in depth blog entries, and in fact my girlfriend suggested I call the blog "Insight". In the end I went for my generic username thingy - but of course Insight would have been a very apt name for it. If not an insight into anything particularly deep, then it's an insight into my brain/thought processes/ideas.

This is, as the title suggests, a look at books. Specifically James Bond books, and to write about this now, about a week before I go to the cinema to see Skyfall, seems fitting. I've never read, or got very far, in the Ian Fleming novels, despite my attempts. I've tried Casino Royale, and the description and.. French, gets me down. Dropping French phrases into an English book sounds sophisiticated - but a bit difficult when you're trying to get what's happening. I've also attempted 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service', because that's also my favourite film, but that was great until Bond visits the place that Casino Royale is set, and the French words return. I've nothing against the French language, it just distances myself and the book.

I do own all the Ian Fleming novels, and have taken an occasional interest in the past of the ones written by other authors. I bought Sebastian Faulks' 'Devil May Care' when it was released, and got up to the point where someone's tongue is cut out. There have also been others, such as Carte Blanche and another one recently I can't remember the name of. Aside from these, I've been vaguely interested in the other ones, but never assumed I'd find or buy them on the shelves. That is until a couple of weeks back, when I found four of John Gardener's books in a shop, and bought three of them for five quid. Though my mum accurately predicted that I'd never read them and just wanted them for my collection... But that's beside the point. It interests me to occasionally flick through and see how others have written Bond, and to see whether I can get into those books and later the Ian Fleming ones.

What interests me as well, slightly weirdly, are the chapter titles. I've always gone by the principle of 'you can only have a good chapter title if it's obscure'. Most of mine are either non-existent or one word. This always works, I feel. But the Bond titles have never been one word, but always obscure and strangely engaging. In several English Lit tasks I've had to do, I've had to give chapter titles to chapters of Birdsong or names to scenes of Journey's End by RC Sherriff. My Birdsong ones have been one word, but I've given my Journey's End ones more obscure names. One of these was "Blood Rush", a kind of title that gives away nothing but sounds interesting. It wouldn't look out of place in a Bond novel either. I often try quotes from the book/play as well, so today I went for "Gently Snapping Jaws", from the moment in the play when Osborne reads from Alice's Adventures In Wonderland.

So that's what the Bond books have done for me. I may have never finished one or get very far, though I plan to one day, but I've taken chapter title inspiration from them, and hopefully I'll put a lot more effort into them as a result of it. Of course - I'll have to put effort into the books I write as well though.

That's normally quite useful.

Autons N Things

Greetings.

This is probably my twentieth attempt at a Blogger, and in the gap since I've had the last one I've had a Tumblr, which I'll still use to review occasional things on. The Tumblr can be found here: trilbywearingauton.tumblr.com.

On this blog I'll be generally talking about general things, generally moaning about geeky things, and generally reviewing random things that I'm interested in. All of the things I post will be advertised on my Twitter, @cookiemonsta_eg. I also have an Instagram... with no photos. At the minute. But that also goes by the name of triblywearingauton.

So quick thing about me then. I'm not an Auton, though they're my favourite Doctor Who monster (which makes me sound about ten but I don't care), and I'm an aspiring writer of TV and novels and stuff. I wear trilbies (obviously), and occasionally big glasses I don't actually need. I also occasionally hold writing competitiony things so keep an eye out for them.

JR Mortimer

A quick note on two blogs that are worth a look as well, just 'cos I look at them occasionally and those writing them talk about quite interest things (if you like books, TV or writing). Those are ex-Doctor Who Script Editor Andrew Cartmel and YouTube Figure Adventure maker Tom Newsom.