Now Showing - DalekbusterScreen5's reviews

Toy Story 3D

It's hard to believe Toy Story is twenty years' old. It is one of those rare films that despite the advancement in technology and changes to society, it never shows its age. Toy Story is an animated classic that can be enjoyed by any age, from zero to one hundred and six. It is the Citizen Kane of CGI animation and certainly doesn't fall into the pit of many animated films of being strictly 'kids only'.

Toy Story tells the tale of toy cowboy Woody (Tom Hanks), who - as Andy's (John Morris) favourite toy - is the leader of a group of toys living in Andy's bedroom. One day Andy is given a new toy for his birthday - 'Space Ranger' Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), whose many features including a karate chop action and retractable rings make him Andy's new favourite toy. Woody becomes jealous of Buzz's popularity with their owner and decides to knock him down the side of a desk using a table lamp. His plan goes awry however when the lamp instead sends Buzz falling through the window and Woody finds himself accused by the other toys of murder. Can Woody find Buzz and convince the other toys that it wasn't an attempt of murder?

One of the things I love about Toy Story is the character journey Buzz and Woody both embark on. Both have very strong character arcs and development and neither are the same at the end of the film as they were at the beginning of it. Woody goes from a self-obsessed sheriff consumed by jealousy to a loyal, selfless cowboy who is happy to let Buzz save himself from scary toy-torturer Sid (Erik von Detten), whilst Buzz starts as an arrogant, cocksure action figure who believes he is a real 'Space Ranger' to a vulnerable and depressed man who discovers the harsh reality that he is in actual fact a toy, finally ending with acceptance for who he really is. These toys don't feel like toys, they are real people who go on very real experiences: experiences of jealousy and disillusionment that many face in day-to-day life. Toy Story may be about toys that come to life but at its core it is a true-to-life story that many can relate to - and that's why it works so well.



Of course, a lot of these themes are helped by Randy Newman's score. I know a lot of people complain about how Randy Newman's music tends to point out things which are obvious and whilst in some cases this can be true (his songs for James And The Giant Peach, for example) his songs for Toy Story in my opinion enhance the narrative more than they hinder it. You've Got A Friend In Me is a classic but many tend to forget I Will Go Sailing No More, a song that highlights Buzz's self-denial about not being a toy and help to up the emotional stakes for the character.



If the scene where Buzz tries to fly doesn't plug at your heart string, then you're not human. The Toy Story series is full of many emotional moments and Buzz's self-denial is definitely up there. It's a scene with so much heart that it's impossible not to feel sorry for poor Buzz.

It's not all about tearful moments however. Toy Story is also a film with a great sense of humour. This is something that can be appreciated more when you go back as an adult and notice many jokes that went over your head when you were younger. One of my favourite lines has to be Woody's retort to Buzz 'The word I'm searching for I can't say because there's preschool toys present'. As a twenty year old it's obvious when watching this scene that Woody was referring to a swear word - my suspicion being the 'c' word. Then there's the hilarious moment Bo Peep says to Woody "Whadda ya say I get someone else to watch the sheep tonight?" - it doesn't take much imagination to work out why Bo Peep wanted somebody else to look after the sheep. Even the jokes kids will get, such as 'That's not flying. It's falling with style!' are genuinely funny, rather than the stupid potty-humour some animated films fall back on.



Besides the humour, there are a great variety of memorable moments to be had. There's the iconic race to get to the moving van, for instance, where Buzz (with a rocket strapped to his back) is holding onto Woody with the RC Car.



Then there's the scene where Woody reveals to Sid that he and the other toys are alive in an attempt to save Buzz from being burnt to cinders. I dread to think how messed up that kid became before he was hired as a binman:



That's what's great about Toy Story though: it knows it's a family movie but it's not afraid to add a few dark moments to the plot. It doesn't treat kids like idiots, it treats them as intellectuals. That's what all the best family films do: they play to the inner intelligence of children. Because children are clever and they don't require pussy-footing to understand serious themes.

It's also a film that gets the voice-acting spot-on. You can't imagine anyone else voicing Buzz Lightyear or Woody as the voices of Tim Allen and Tom Hanks are perfect for the characters. They are Woody and Buzz.



Don Rickles is perfectly cast as Mr Potato Head too. His voice just sounds right coming from the character's mouth. Even Wallace Shawn as Rex, who arguably doesn't have as great a part as the other actors, is basically exactly how you would imagine Rex would speak. It's like every one of those actors who voiced these characters were meant to provide their voices for this film, almost as though it was meant to be. It's the lightning-in-the-bottle of animated films and there will never be one any more well cast than here.

I have owned this film on 3D Blu-ray for a while now and decided to give the 3D a go the other day. Well, let me tell you something: I don't regret owning the 3D Blu-ray at all. The 3D is more depth than popping-out-of-the-screen 3D but it is an incredible experience and actually manages to add new life to the movie. The 3D somehow gives it the feel of an animated movie released in the 2010s' rather than 1995. There's an amazing 3D sequence near the end of the film where it actually looks as though the snow is falling in front of you.



If you have a 3D TV, it's well worth buying the 3D Blu-ray.

Overall, Toy Story will always be one of the greatest animated movies of all time. It's funny, it's heart-warming, it's exciting, sad, thrilling and has a dark undercurrent: everything a family movie should be. The film also boasts great character development for its lead characters with Buzz and Woody, who go on satisfying character journeys that fundamentally change the (toy) people they are. Every character in this movie is perfectly cast and Randy Newman's score is like the icing on-top of a plastic toy cake. I Will Go Sailing No More should really be regarded more fondly as one of Disney's best film songs, even if it's not as good as You've Got A Friend In Me. The film was re-released in 3D back in 2009 and I would definitely recommend grabbing hold of the 3D Blu-ray version. It is mainly depth 3D with a few pop-outs but it helps enhance the narrative of the film - and the 3D effect with the snow at the end is amazing.

Nice review

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Thanks.

Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel

The latest issue of Doctor Who: The Complete History covers School Reunion, The Girl In The Fireplace, Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel and this year is also fifty years since the Cybermen's first appearance so today I thought I'd review the Rise of the Cybermen two parter. One of the interesting things about the Cybermen is how drastically their design evolves over their appearances in the show. Their Tenth Planet appearance, for example, is completely different to their look in The Moonbase:





Their 'Cybus' redesign is arguably the most radical change for the Cybermen:



Because of this, many Whovians are not fans of the Cybus look - in my view, however, they are forgetting how it has always been a staple of Cyberman history for the look to fluctuate between designs.

Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel has a good reason for the Cybus design too. The story takes place in a Parallel Earth, where Rose's (Billie Piper) Dad Pete Tyler (Shaun Dingwall) is still alive and is a successful businessman running a health drink business called Vitex - a subsidiary of Cybus Industries. The TARDIS falls through the time vortex and crashes in the Void, rendering the machine lifeless as it is outside the universe where it can claim energy from the rift. Mickey (Noel Clarke) leaves the TARDIS and finds they are in a parallel version of London. Meanwhile, the Doctor manages to find a small part of the TARDIS that is still alive and gifts it some of his own life energy. Elsewhere, Cybus Industries leader John Lumic (Roger Lloyd-Pack) is working on an experiment to upgrade human beings into Cybermen...

First, I'm going to come out and say it: I like the Cybus Cybermen. I think the design by Peter McKinstry works extremely well for 21st century Doctor Who. It's cool, it's modern and it works within the context of the two parter. These Cybermen aren't our universe Cybermen, they are parallel universe Cybermen where they were invented by John Lumic. They look like somebody's invention too. Some Whovians tend to forget that the reason for the cloth face in The Tenth Planet is because the production values at the time were poor. They couldn't afford a design like the Cybus one - and if you put a cloth-faced Cyberman in front of the cameras today it would look ridiculous. Can you imagine a kid taking this seriously:



John Lumic is possibly one of the new series' best human villains too. He is absolutely despicable; an arrogant, cold and heartless businessman who ironically is not too brilliant to a Cyberman himself. He's pretty much the polar opposite of Pete Tyler and the exact kind of cruel man you could imagine inventing something like the Cyberman. John Lumic is played expertly by Only Fools And Horses actor Roger Lloyd-Pack and I cannot imagine anyone else in the role. When he becomes the Cyber Controller it is such a satisfying pay-off to his character.



It's not all about returning to the classic era with the Cybermen however. The story is also hugely inventive with the way it represents a parallel London. There's zeppelins in the sky, the UK has a President and everybody wears ear pods (before ear pods came a thing - this is a parallel 2006). In many ways it reminds me of Back to the Future Part 2's optimistic take on 2015, although in this case we have a parallel version of what the present at that time could have looked like had we gone down another path. Then again: maybe that's what 2015 really is in Back to the Future Part 2? Maybe we are actually seeing a parallel 2015 Hill Valley? Nevertheless this is probably among Doctor Who's most inventive settings. The optimistic outlook on what a parallel world would look like is a lot more interesting than a dystopian one and it's fun to see Pete Tyler's previously mentioned get-rich-quick schemes actually come to fruition.



Talking about fun, this is a Doctor Who episode with a great sense of humour. Writer Tom MacRae injects some great lines throughout, such as how the Doctor's line 'We fell out of the vortex, through the Void into nothingness. We're at some sort of no-place, a silent realm, a lost dimension...' is immediately followed by Mickey looking outside and replying 'Otherwise known as London'. Then there's the brilliant moment Rose discovers that in this parallel universe she is a dog, played with great humour by both Billie Piper and David Tennant (who are great throughout this two parter - David Tennant demonstrates EXACTLY why he is the best Doctor).



The second episode of the two parter, Age of Steel, even manages to do something better with the Cybermen than was done in the classic series. There's a great sequence that really highlights the horrors of Cyber-conversion, as you see how the Cybermen in this world are created:



It is a very dark sequence with blades and pincers swirling around in the conversion chamber. This is a scene that wouldn't look out of place in a horror movie: a true hide behind the sofa element, even if they likely wouldn't have got away with it in the classic series without Mary Whitehouse complaining.

Speaking of the classic series, this two parter features a brilliant companion exit that feels like one you would get in a classic series serial. Noel Clarke's Mickey Smith decides to stay behind at the end of Age of Steel in order to help fight the resistance against the Cybermen, an exit which bares many similarities to Susan Foreman's exit in The Dalek Invasion of Earth. It's a companion exit that highlights his growth as a character: no longer is Mickey the 'idiot' from Series 1, now he's a full-grown hero. He's the underdog who against all those who doubted him has become a figure of bravery and nobility. Like the Doctor, neither cruel or cowardly. Mickey is perhaps the new series male companion with the most character development of them all. Over the course of series one and two you see him go on a real journey and Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel feels like a natural conclusion of that.





Overall, Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel is unfairly criticised for the redesign of the Cybermen but within the context of modern audiences and the story's plot it makes so much sense. The Cybus design is extremely effective and has a very modern, very cool look you wouldn't have got with a more faithful take on the Cybermen. This is a two parter that conveys the horrors of Cyber-conversion better than any Cyberman story that came before it; with John Lumic you've also got a villain who as with Tobias Vaughn in The Invasion is no more than a Cyberman himself, through the way he conducts his behaviour - unlike Vaughn, he even becomes one himself: a high-ranked Cyberman, no less, as the Cyber Controller. There's a wonderful sense of imagination and humour in this story's representation of a parallel 2006 London; seeing Rose as a dog is one of the highlights of the new series of Doctor Who. Mickey Smith's exit is also perfect for his character, demonstrating how he has gone on a more impactful character journey than any new series male companion that has followed after. No longer the 'idiot', Mickey is now a hero and the brilliant conclusion to his character is one of many reasons I would recommend this story.

Mickey would later return in Rise of the Cybermen/Age of Steel and The Stolen Earth/Journey's End but unlike Rose Tyler his return appearances do not detract from his original exit from the show.

My understanding is that many fans reacted against the extremely robotic nature of these Cybermen. Davies just took the Tin Man analogy a bit too literally in presenting them for a new audience, possibly an overreation in making them different to the Borg in Star Trek.

I don't think the decision to use a cloth face was budgetary – I'm sure they could have run to a metallic mask if necessary, and in The Moonbase only months later the whole head was covered with a mask.

Also, on the subject of scariness, here's a great quote from around 2009 from Gallifrey Base member Beano:

I totally agree with this and it's also why my favourite Cybermen are the ones in Sword of Orion, just because of how they sound. The cloth faces were so appropriate because it evokes a surgical mask and the implication of surgery in their creation. That, combined with the emotional emptiness might not be scary for kids but I think it would stick in their imagination and make them think.

I'd say that's more a sign of the times though. In a world full of computerised devices it makes sense that the show would start to represent Cybermen as being more like robots. Plus they have the parallel universe angle to explain why they are different to the classic series Cybermen.

I'm not so convinced, especially when the Daleks were going to have pincers but they resorted to suckers.


I didn't think of that. That's a good point. I wonder if there's anything you could say the suckers on the Daleks evoke?

Yes it's a good point that devices and especially wearable devices were worth thinking about. The thing I don't like is that it was at the expense of really defining what the Cybermen are about, parallel universe versions or not.

And yet they could afford the 'lamp' ray gun device and all the other metallic components for the Cybermen outfits ? It's not always about financial compromise. They were supposed to have a proboscis coming out of their chests as well which would have looked really creepy.

The sink plunger on the Daleks is more of an argument, you're right. It might have been a technical consideration as well if it would be too costly to use pincers if they could spend the money elsewhere – plus, they didn't know the Daleks would take off like they did.

I'm just trying to think of some Hartnell robots or creatures that did have pincers – I'm sure there will be some – oh I know: the Mechonoids (kind of).

Well with suspension of disbelief (i.e. not seeing it as something for unblocking the sink) a sensor of some kind. I quite liked what they did during the McCoy era with the cutout sections on the Imperial Daleks' suckers, allowing it to also act as a key to open doors. And obviously how they used it in Dalek was pretty good. In the Hartnell era they did a good job of alternating what the Daleks had on their sucker arm – geiger counters, cutting tools etc.

I do wonder how the Daleks change what is on their arm though. Do they use each other's suckers to swap things over?

Nice review on Toy Story. I'm a big fan of the whole trilogy with number 3 being my favourite. My little boy also loves them, and has numbet 2 on repeat in our house all day.

__________________

Thanks. Toy Story 3 is also my favourite. It's rare when a sequel manages to beat the original but both Toy Story 2 and 3 manage to take the same themes from the first movie and improve on them. I never thought there'd be a better Toy Story film than Toy Story 2...how wrong was I.

Do you remember in Death to the Daleks when the Doctor says "they're great technicians" – I think they've just got the mechanics down to a fine art, with all these things automated for them. If they need a temporary change they just have machines to swap the tools over for them. I'd forgotten about the machine guns actually – I liked that idea.

I'd like to see them do something creepy with the replacement of the sucker one day, like in a future episode they replace it with the dead hand of the last person they exterminated. I don't know why they'd need a dead hand though.

That reminds me of the 'gory bit' in The Apocalypse Element

Gravity

As part of this forum's 'Movie Chain' I was challenged to watch the 2013 sci-fi thriller Gravity, directed by legendary Harry Potter director Alfonso Cuaron. The film received glowering reviews from the critics and was the winner of numerous awards, including seven Oscars and a Golden Globe for Best Director. It is generally considered the Avatar of 2013; a film that combined effective 3D with strong storytelling. The version I watched was in 2D; a free copy I received through Google Play. Whilst I don't think it's as good as its reputation suggests, I still found it a hugely enjoyable movie - especially in comparison to many terrible modern movies such as Alvin & The Chipmunks and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.

Gravity sees biomedical engineer Doctor Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and her commander Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) performing a routine spacewalk to service the Hubble Space Telescope. Houston Mission Control warn them that a Russian missile strike on an abandoned satellite has created a chain reaction that has created a cloud of debri. They are advised to abandon the mission and return to Earth. The debri hits their space shuttle The Explorer and the Hubble Space Telescope, sending the pair tumbling into space. Will they survive? And most importantly, will they manage to return home?



One thing that I found surprising about this film was the horror element to the plot. There are two jump scares in the film involving dead astronauts, neither of which I ever expected. The make-up department have done a great job with the astronaut with a hole through his head; it looks extremely realistic - so realistic, in fact, that it is a wonder that the film managed to achieve a 12a rating instead of a 15.



Gravity is a film that many times reminded me of The Blair Witch Project; it may seem like an odd comparison to make - one's a found-footage horror, the other a thriller set in space - but to me the similarities are obvious. Both focus on the fear and paranoia of their respective female leads - in Gravity Ryan's terror of being lost in space, in The Blair Witch Project Helen's fear of finding herself lost in the woods - and are more about playing with that emotion than utilising a central antagonist as with most movies. In fact, in both films it can be argued the antagonist is the environment. It's the environment our protagonists have to conquer - that's their key to success.

Gravity is at its best when it uses sound to convey the horror and loneliness of space. Random cuts between music inside a space shuttle (for example) and the lack of sound outside (bar radio communications) help to create a convincing atmosphere that sells just how traumatic the experience of being trapped in space would be. This means when Ryan is later able to contact an Eskimo, we feel her joy at finally being able to hear something different. As with any film the music also plays a big part in telling us how to feel but often with Gravity it's the lack of sound followed by sudden music or new voices that convey a bigger sense of emotion.



The use of sound is nothing compared to the stunning cinematography however. Gravity is one of those movies that probably needs to be seen on a cinema screen to be fully appreciated; its CGI shots in space are absolutely breath-taking, creating an expansive vista that helps compliment some stunning cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki.



In my opinion this is the best cinematography in any film I have ever seen and I am baffled that the university lecturers aren't showing it as part of the Advanced Cinematography module. It seems exactly like the kind of film the lecturers would not only admire for the storytelling techniques but also have a deep appreciation for for the sheer beauty of the shots that it is composed of. Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (a film that is being screened as part of the module) has great cinematography but nothing that can rival Gravity.

Many films would spend ages of exposition before they get to the jaw-dropping scenes in space - but no, not this movie. Gravity throws you straight in at the deep end, with the crew already in space. There's no messing about here. Gravity is the kind of film that gets straight to the point, allowing for a strong pace that eliminates many of the unnecessary padding some films can be the victim of. In no time at all, Ryan and Matt are at the Russian Space Station - in any other movie it would have probably taken them forty-five minutes to get there. It helps that this film is kept to a wise running time of an hour and a half, as opposed to the two hour standard of most recent movies. Sometimes ninety minutes is all that's needed to tell a good cinematic story - this is certainly the case with Gravity.

As with any film, it is helped largely by its cast. Both Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are amazing in their roles; it's worth noting that this movie is largely a one hander with Sandra Bullock, although like Peter Capaldi in Heaven Sent she is so good that you barely notice that she doesn't interact with anybody else on-screen for 90% of the movie. She has a certain amount of screen presence that an actor in a one-hander needs in order for it to work. Peter Capaldi and Sandra Bullock both have that presence - in fact, wouldn't it be great to see them in a film together? Whilst I would have liked to have seen more George Clooney, this is really Sandra Bullock's movie - her chance to shine.



So how come I don't think it's as good as the critics made out?

Well, for two reasons.

The first is that the film feels too much like it was made to be viewed in 3D rather than a movie in its own right. Many of the shots come across as though they were made with the 3D effects made in mind and it hinders the viewing for anyone such as myself watching in 2D. One shot sees Ryan swinging around on the detached arm of The Explorer: a shot that would have looked amazing in 3D with Ryan coming out of the screen but in 2D comes across as gimmicky without the gimmick being present.



From watching it in 2D, it seems as though I'm missing something - as though I'm watching a theme park ride without actually being on the ride. It's a shame because this movie would have the potential to be a five-star film had it been made so it could be experienced the same watching it in 2D as the impact would have been with the 3D visuals.

Another issue I have with the film is that the characterisation of Ryan appears somewhat sexist in its portrayal of a female astronaut. I get that she's supposed to be inexperienced and getting lost in space would be a terrifying ordeal but half of the time Ryan comes across as useless - especially when the other character is male and is a space veteran, thereby making the more experienced of the pair. Why couldn't Ryan have been the veteran and Matt the inexperienced one (although the casting would have to have been different)? Or why couldn't they have both been the same gender? In fact, there's a much simpler solution to this: have Ryan do something other than panic and flap her arms about in Matt's presence. The only time Ryan does anything remotely intelligent is towards the end of the film when she's trying to return home and uses a fire extinguisher to propel her to the Chinese Space Station.

Overall, Gravity is a wonderful film with great use of sound and possibly the best cinematography I have ever seen. It is impressive how the screenplay by Jonas Cuaron rather than opting for exposition to introduce the characters dives straight into the space setting. I also like how the plot takes inspiration from The Blair Witch Project in the way that it explores the fear and paranoia of being lost in space and utilises the setting as the central antagonist rather than introducing a moustache-twirling villain. The film is mainly a one-hander with Sandra Bullock, who has a great amount of screen presence meaning that you forget that she's the only character in 90% of the film. Unfortunately the film suffers from many of the shots being geared too much towards creating a compelling 3D experience, meaning many of the shots lose their intended impact in 2D. I'm a big fan of 3D so watching a film that was clearly made for it in 2D is frustrating when you can tell the shots were made with the medium in mind. The characterisation of Ryan also suffers, coming across like a callback to the sexism of the 60s rather than a modern female character. Overall, I would definitely recommend Gravity, even if certain factors let it down.

Super Cafe: Who's A Hero

With the recent news that Canadian actor Justin Chatwin will be playing a superhero in the Christmas Special of Doctor Who, I wanted to review an already-existing piece of Doctor Who media where the Doctor meets one. I have yet to see 1968's The Mind Robber (Yeah. I know.) and the Doctor hasn't actually met any superheroes in post-Mind Robber stories, comics, or memorabilia....apart from LEGO Dimensions (which I will review at a later time) - and the brilliant episode of YouTube series Super Cafe 'Who's A Hero'.

Super Cafe is a regular YouTube series featuring Superman (Daniel Baxter) and Batman (Daniel Baxter) hanging out in a cafe, where they discuss their superhero exploits and, most recently, Batman's version of Pokemon Go known as 'Batman Go', which helps him track down criminals in Gotham.



For Doctor Who's 50th anniversary in 2013, the YouTube channel behind the Super Cafe series - How It Should Have Ended - decided to release two videos in celebration: How Doomsday Should Have Ended starring the 10th Doctor and Who's A Hero, featuring the eleventh Doctor.



Super Cafe sees the Doctor (Daniel Baxter) hanging out with Batman (Daniel Baxter) and Superman (Daniel Baxter), where they discuss various subjects including the events of the Doctor Who Series 7 finale Name of the Doctor and why the Doctor couldn't save Krypton.

Whilst I don't think it's as good as Super Cafe's past episodes, it is still one of the funniest videos on YouTube. Batman's visit to the TARDIS to ask Clara if she wants to know his secret identity is hilarious, as is his insistence that he would have saved Amy and Rory from the Weeping Angels. The Doctor's putdown of Superman's offer to help him defeat the Daleks is also a very memorable moment; he tells Superman it is hard to snap a Dalek neck given that they don't have one, referencing Clark Kent's controversial murder of General Zod in The Man of Steel.

The animation is also of a much higher standard than many other animated shorts on YouTube. The amazing thing about the HISHE animations is that they feel like a hugely professional production, despite how (as with everything on the video sharing site that isn't a trailer or advert) they are made by a group of amateurs. You could imagine this being broadcast on, say, ITV2 or Cartoon Network. The movement of the characters may be limited but they are drawn to such a convincing style that you tend to forget that all they're really doing is sitting and occasionally moving their hands.



It is unfortunate however that voice-artist Daniel Baxter can't quite get the 11th Doctor's voice right. Whilst it is impressive how he manages to make each character sound distinctive and different from one another the Doctor doesn't sound like the Doctor in this incarnation. In fact, he sounds more like Johnny Depp's Willy Wonka and it is distracting combined with the 11th Doctor's animated body (which bears a very strong resemblance to Matt Smith). It feels like rather than trying to copy Matt Smith's speech patterns Daniel Baxter instead opted to voice him as a generic eccentric character. It is disappointing considering Batman and Superman both sound perfect but hopefully the Super Cafe series will return to the eleventh Doctor in future so he can have another chance at trying to get the right voice (although if the Doctor does return to the Super Cafe, I would imagine it would be as the 12th Doctor this time).



Who's The Hero does miss a few tricks also; for example, when Superman asks the Doctor why he didn't save Krypton, why doesn't Batman then question why he doesn't go back in time and save his parents? The Doctor is a time traveller, from their point of view he should have the power to bring Bruce Wayne's parents back from the grave (even though we know that wouldn't be possible because their deaths are likely a fixed point in time) so it seems strange that Batman is more bothered about saving Amy and Rory. Also: why doesn't Clara speak at the end of the video?



It's strange how she just stands there, especially when Clara is probably the Doctor's most talkative companion. Why doesn't she comment on the fact that Batman's in the TARDIS? It's flipping Batman! Clara says more when you save her in LEGO Dimensions than she does in this video...and she only has one line in that. I am sure HISHE could have hired a voice actor for Clara Oswald, even if it were someone who sounds nothing like Jenna Coleman. The eleventh Doctor doesn't sound like the eleventh Doctor here anyway.

Overall, Who's The Hero may not be as good as the other Super Cafe videos but it still makes for a very entertaining watch. Batman's obsession with how the Doctor didn't save Amy and Rory is hilarious, even if it seems weird that he cares more about the Doctor's inability to save them rather than his own parents. The animation is also top-notch, above the rest of the animated videos on YouTube - even if the characters' movements in them appear restricted. Whilst Daniel Baxter does a good job of voicing Batman and Superman, however, he clearly struggles with the eleventh Doctor and provides too much of a generic eccentric voice rather than something that strictly sounds like Matt Smith's incarnation of everybody's favourite Time Lord. It's also odd how Clara doesn't speak in the scene where Batman enters the TARDIS; for arguably the Doctor's gobbiest companion you would think she'd at least comment on Batman in the TARDIS console room - this is the same Clara Oswald who would later fangirl over meeting Robin Hood, for crying out loud! Surely she'd have something to say about meeting Batman? Who's The Hero is definitely worth a watch but don't expect it to be as good as other entries in the Super Cafe series.

Dalekbuster Screen 5 Reviews is now on Facebook:

http://dalekbusterscreenfivereviews....-facebook.html

This year's Doctor Who Christmas Special is The Return of Doctor Mysterio, featuring a "comic book superhero". Initially I thought they were talking about a real comic book character but this seems to be a bit like the Ninth Doctor audio Night of the Whisper. Not crazy about the name, given that I just think of Mysterio the Spider-Man villain, and there's an obvious pun on 'Doctor Who' into the bargain.

I quite like the idea itself but it seems a bit late to the party given the wealth of comic book revivals we've seen recently, especially on TV.

Essentially I just feel exhausted by the ongoing disappointment. I look at what's being offered and mentally switch over.

Yeah, I don't like the title. Like 'The Husbands of River Song', it feels a bit tacky - almost as though Moffat couldn't think of a title to call it and just named it the first thing that came to his mind.

To me it seems like a bizarre thing to do at Christmas, especially in a year where this is the only episode to air. I would have rather seen the Doctor and Captain Jack have a Christmas reunion - in fact, they could have just called it 'Christmas Reunion' and made it a spiritual successor to School Reunion. Christmas is about family and Jack is like a part of that given how he served as a companion and is sort of like a modern Brigadier, so it would have felt more festive.

Tacky's a good description.

I think you're right, it probably should have been at least a one-off return for Jack.

I think a one-off is all anyone wants for Jack in the Moffat era. I'd be fine with Jack just appearing once in the Chibnall era too, so long as he appears.