Now Showing - DalekbusterScreen5's reviews

DalekbusterScreen 5 is back for a new review!

Coming sometime this week, there will be a review of La La Land. The LEGO Batman Movie review will come a little later because unfortunately the local cinema is not showing the movie this week.

La La Land

Musicals appear to be making something of a comeback currently, so it is of no surprise that the recently released La La Land - nominated for twelve Oscars and winner of eleven BAFTAs - has been a major success for Lionsgate. That didn't stop me from naively assuming that an evening screening the night after the BAFTAs wouldn't be popular, of course. Thankfully I still managed to book seats the night before (even if they weren't the ones I'd hoped for), but at the time I was astonished at how many had been sold. In hindsight I probably should have seen it coming, but I hadn't been to a packed cinema in a while. La La Land was perhaps the biggest audience I'd been in for a film since 2012's film adaptation of Les Miserables.

La La Land tells the story of two aspiring lovers. Mia (Emma Stone), a waitress who works in a coffee shop, dreams of being a successful actress. Seb (Ryan Gosling) - a pianist who plays Christmas music at Lipton's restaurant - wants to open his own jazz club. Their paths first cross when Mia takes a shine to Seb's music, however their first encounter takes a rough turn when Seb rudely ignores Mia's approach and barges past. A chance encounter at an 80s-themed pool party where Seb is performing as part of an 80s tribute band leads to the beginning of their romance. But can the pair sustain their relationship with one another when Seb becomes part of a successful touring band, and subsequently spends a lot of time touring away from his partner?



The most important thing about a romantic movie is the chemistry between the main stars - and Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling have so much of it that you begin to wonder if they're secretly a couple in real life. This is the very definition of perfect casting for a romantic couple and it makes me glad that the original leads of Emma Watson and Miles Teller never happened. Whilst I am sure Emma Watson could have played the wide-eyed and innocent character of Mia, Miles Teller as the nostalgia-driven Seb I find much harder to imagine. Ryan Gosling is the perfect match for Seb; with just one look he gets across the character's unhappiness with the music he's playing as part of The Messengers, clearly doubting whether the old style of jazz he is nostalgic towards is still popular given the effect this very modern version of jazz music has on the crowd. With just one look at the end of the film (I won't spoil the ending for those of you who haven't seen it but it's not what you'd expect for a film like this) he gets across his feelings for Mia.



Emma Stone's Mia arguably goes on a bigger and more interesting journey than Seb however. Mia is a woman who views her romance with Seb almost as a fairytale fantasy; a type of escapism if you will from the real world, away from her failed auditions and towards something more exciting, and must learn that life is not a fairy tale and that in order to be the successful actress she desires to become she must accept the realities of the ‘real world’. Mia learns through her romance with Seb that being successful will mean she will have to deal with lengthy periods of time away from her husband and in screenwriting terms her ultimate sacrifice she has to make in order to achieve her dreams is her romantic relationship. Emma Stone does a good job of portraying this, although between the two Ryan Gosling is clearly gives the stronger performance.



I've talked a bit about the romance, but it's important not to forget that this is also a musical - and all good musicals need great songs. So, how do the songs shape up?

Well, there aren't as many songs as you would expect from a traditional musical - most of them are variations of the same song - but the songs featured in the movie are ridiculously catchy. My favourite is probably City of Stars. This song appears quite often throughout the film, but with good reason. It's a hummable, instantly recognisable tune that's impossible to get out of your head after hearing it once. Another favourite is the opening number Another Day of Sun, a lively song that echoes classic musicals like Little Shop of Horrors and Singin' In The Rain.

Speaking of Another Day of Sun, the routine to the song is perhaps one of the most colourful and vibrant openings to a musical ever. The way it turns something incredibly mundane (a gridlock of cars) into a bright, cheery moment echoes the brilliance of Singin' In The Rain's infamous dancing in the rain sequence. Hopefully it won't make people want to get out of their cars during a car journey and cause a massive gridlock just so they can copy the dance routine but it's a real crowd-pleaser and an excellent way to immediately grab your attention.



Songs such as Another Day of Sun and Someone In The Crowd are so seamlessly slotted into the screenplay that they don't feel out of place either. It helps that they're original songs unlike the music featured, say, in Mamma Mia but every song feels like it serves a purpose in the script. Another Day of Sun for instance directly foreshadows the ending of the movie, with lines such as . Someone in The Crowd is sung by Mia's roommates as they try to persuade her to go to a party with them after Mia's failed audition. It flows naturally, and it's clear the director Damien Chazelle has taken inspiration from the excellent routines in Mamma Mia.




La La Land is a film that I imagine will become a permanent fixture on university courses. Take the cinematography by Linus Sandgren, for example. The cinematography is breath-taking, aided with some stunning visual effects. One of the most memorable scenes is in the planetarium, where Mia and Seb find themselves dancing through the stars and planets of space.



It is hands down the most visually impressive scene in any musical and with its broad use of colour brings to mind films popular with university lecturers such as The Red Shoes and the iconic Wizard of Oz.

The production design is also on-point, giving a sense of heavy nostalgia for the golden age of movie throughout the film. Movie posters for old Hollywood films dominate Mia's flat, costumes are very 'old' in style and the Lighthouse Cafe feels like it belongs in a 1930s musical.



Perhaps the best bit of production design is the logo Mia draws up for Seb's dream jazz club. It's a logo that makes a poignant return at the end of the film and is a very clever design, showcasing Mia's smart and inventive ideas. A lovely touch is a musical note used in place of an apostrophe; it feels exactly like the kind of logo you'd expect to see for a jazz club, adding to the film's believability.



Overall, La La Land is without a doubt a cinematic masterpiece. The chemistry between the lead actors is the most perfect it could have been and the broad sense of nostalgia towards the golden age of Hollywood comes to life in a satisfying way through the excellent production design. The cinematography is also on point, providing many scenes that are hugely satisfying on the big screen, and the screenplay effortlessly slips the songs into the story without any of them feeling out of place. This is a wonderful romantic story with an ending that plays well to the wants and needs of its characters. La La Land will go down in history as not only the best musical of the 2010s but also one of the best musicals of all time.

The LEGO Batman Movie

When I first saw The LEGO Movie in 2014, the one character who stood out to me was Will Arnett's LEGO Batman. It was to no surprise, then, that Warner Bros. announced a LEGO Batman movie spinoff in October of that year. What remained to be seen was whether this would be another Minions situation - where the main character (or in the Minions' case, characters) works better as a supporting character rather than the sole focus of his own film.

Well, after seeing the film on Saturday I'm happy to say that this absolutely isn't another Minions. The LEGO Batman Movie may not be as good as The LEGO Movie, but it succeeds where most spinoffs don't in justifying why we need to see more of this character. This isn't just LEGO Batman shoved into his own movie for the sake of his popularity, this is a movie that has clearly been made because there's a story to tell.



After Batman (Will Arnett) fails to recognise The Joker (Zach Galifianakis) as his greatest enemy, the Joker manipulates Batman into imprisoning him in the Phantom Zone, where he finds some of the LEGO universe's most dangerous enemies lurking inside. Together they team up to destroy Gotham and take over Wayne Manor. In order to stop the Joker and his army of monsters, Batman must team up with his loyal butler Alfred (Ralph Fiennes), newly adopted son Dick Grayson (Michael Cera) and the new police commissioner Barbara Gordon (Rosario Dawson) and learn that sometimes it's not always possible to work alone.



Of course, it's a family movie so there's a lot of strong moral messages - mainly the importance of family and teamwork - but it's not as overbearing as some family animated movies. It doesn't feel forced either. It feels natural with the narrative of the movie, and especially the character of Batman, whose most recent iterations have seen him working alone rather than with sidekicks. In fact, given the family friendly nature of the movie it would have felt odd if Batman's tendency to work alone wasn't addressed.



There have been some complaints from the website Voice of the Family that the film is 'pro-gay propaganda' and whilst I don't see the issue with a family film presenting its lead character as gay, this is absolutely not the case here. LEGO Batman is not gay - even if he was, so what? - and the only hints at homosexuality is the complex relationship shown between Batman and the Joker.



The relationship between these characters is fantastic. Batman and the Joker are basically shown in this film to be more like frenemies rather than a standard 'hero-enemy' relationship. This is exactly how Batman and the Joker should be; to me, they are like Sherlock and Moriarty, or The Doctor and The Master. The friend within the enemy, the enemy within the friend. Batman completes the Joker, and vice versa. It is essentially like a romantic relationship, only fuelled by hatred rather than love - which is exactly how the film plays it. Batman's line at the beginning - 'I like to fight around' - is such a cleverly scripted piece of dialogue that is further enhanced by the Joker's well-animated bottom lip, quivering at the thought of Batman fighting other villains.



The quivering lip may sound like an extremely small detail that's barely worth mentioning, but it's the little details that are sometimes the most rewarding parts of blockbuster movies - and this movie is no exception. There are many geeky references throughout the film, particularly to the 1960s Adam West Batman. The famous Bat symbol transition and action sound bubbles appear. At one point, Alfred even wears a LEGO version of Adam West's Batman costume.



It's not just references to Batman either. There are references to TV/film properties such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Doctor Who, Harry Potter and King Kong. Even Godzilla makes an appearance. The LEGO Batman Movie is a film that's not just a love letter to the 'world's greatest detective', but a love letter to geekdom in general. Yet it does it in a way where you don't have to understand the geeky references in order to enjoy the fun and insanity of it all. It's not about what you know, it's about how fun it is to watch on-screen.



The animation as a whole is also very strong, but it is let down by certain inconsistencies that don't make sense within the logic of the universe shown in The LEGO Movie. In the former, water was made out of bricks; here, it's real water. The LEGO Movie was revealed to have been taking place in the imagination of a young kid called Finn, yet there's no hints of whether this takes place within the boy's imagination in The LEGO Batman Movie. There's also strangely no mention of Wyldstyle - surprising given that she was previously Batman's girlfriend. There are lots of hints at Batman being in love with Barbara but nobody brings Wyldstyle up once.



There's also a sequence of Batman on his own in Wayne Manor/the Batcave towards the beginning of the film that goes on for way too long. I get the point was to emphasise Batman's loneliness but the sequence could have easily been cut down without it losing any of its meaning. The scene where Batman is waiting for the lobster to finish in the microwave in particular could have been a few seconds longer, as could Batman eating the lobster in the Batcave.



These aren't movie-destroying complaints, but they do mean the film is a four star movie rather than a five star like The LEGO Movie. One thing that this film does as well as that film is the voice cast. The voices are perfectly suited to their characters, especially (no surprise here) Will Arnett as Batman. Will Arnett again shows that he is the perfect choice for the LEGO version of Batman and provides many of the film's funniest moments; one of my favourite gags was Batman taking credit for the Michael Jackson song Man In The Mirror. Who knew Michael Jackson could be so cruel as to plagiarise Batman.



Possibly the stand-out star other than Will Arnett's Batman has to be Ralph Fiennes Alfred. Ralph Fiennes is a natural fit for LEGO Alfred; he's exactly the kind of caring, father-like figure Batman's butler should be and has a certain calm tone to his voice that works wonders for the LEGO version of the character. I don't think there's going to be a LEGO Alfred Movie anytime soon but it would be fun to at least see him appear in The LEGO Movie's sequel. I have a feeling if any character crosses from The LEGO Batman Movie into the main movie it'll be Michael Cera's Robin though. Michael Cera does a good job with Robin, capturing the childlike innocence of this take on the character well. This Robin is one of those annoying kids you try your best to avoid at Secondary School, but at the same time you can't help but like for his natural quirks. Michael Cera's Robin has a boyish enthusiasm that is impossible not to love, miles away from the older, more grown-up and (in comparison) rather stiff Robin of the LEGO Batman games.



Rosario Dawson is okay as Barbara Gordon. Her voice acting panders more to the kids than Will Arnett's, Michael Cera's or Ralph Fiennes. She's not quite as bad as I feared judging from the trailer for the LEGO Dimensions Story Pack, but it's still like she's in the 'This is a kid's movie' state of mind.



Overall, The LEGO Batman Movie may not be as good as The LEGO Movie but it is still a very entertaining animated movie in its own right. There's lots of geeky references to enjoy among the madcap mayhem, and the voice acting is very strong. There are however some inconsistencies with the logic of The LEGO Movie's world and the sequence of LEGO Batman on his own near the film's beginning goes on for a little too long. This doesn't hinder the enjoyment that The LEGO Batman Movie provides however, especially compared to some animated movies that cater a bit too heavily for the kids. If anything, it caters more for geeks than it does children - and it definitely doesn't contain pro-gay propaganda. So what if it did?

The Greatest Show In The Galaxy

In two weeks' the greatest show of the galaxy will return. But what of the actual serial called 'The Greatest Show In The Galaxy'?

This is a serial often held within the Whovian community as a classic, at a time when the show was struggling during its original run. The fact that this story was even made is incredible. A discovery of abestos led to the temporary closure of various studios at the BBC - but rather than leaving the story unfinished as with Shada, the production team instead resorted to filming a large majority of the scenes inside a tent at the BBC car park. Without a doubt this production team were determined to make sure this story saw completion - the kind of determination that would be seen years later when Russell T Davies revived the show in 2005.

The Greatest Show In The Galaxy sees The Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) decide to take part in the titular circus show's talent competition after receiving junk mail from a 'junk bot' in the TARDIS, despite his companion Ace's (Sophie Aldred) reluctance. This is a Doctor Who story however, so obviously something more sinister is under way. The Gods of Ragnarok are the judges, and failure to entertain results in death.

Having watched the story, I don't really understand the love the serial has within fandom. That's not to say it's terrible, it's just not as good as I expected. The main problem is one that plagues many of Sylvester McCoy's serials - the performances from the guest cast are too over the top and it makes it hard to take anything in the story seriously. The main culprits are T. P. McKenna as Captain Cook and Deborah Manship as Morgana. Their acting comes across as very two dimensional and they are little more than caricatures - another common issue with this period of the show.


The pacing of the story is also an issue. It takes way too long for the Doctor and Ace to reach the circus tent, and the first episode's big cliffhanger is 'Well Ace, are we going in [to the physic circus] or not?' rather than Mags screaming (which would have surely made more sense). Quite why the writer Stephen Wyatt decided to make the cliffhanger whether or not The Doctor and Ace enter the psychic circus I don't know, but it's a terrible decision as it doesn't make sense as a cliffhanger moment.

The fourth episode of The Greatest Show In The Galaxy is perhaps the best. The pacing improves considerably in episode four, with so much happening that there's barely time to breath. Sylvester McCoy displays a great talent for magic tricks and escapism routines; at one point he is even hanging upside down. If Sylvester McCoy hadn't become an actor, he could easily have been a magician.


The visuals of this story are very good - in fact, they are actually on the high end of the classic series' visual effects and aesthetics. This is a nice surprise given that the production crew resorted to filming in a car park, but it genuinely looks and feels like filming took place in another country such as Spain. The well of energy is amazing and wouldn't look out of place in the new series, and the Gods of Ragnarok with the bolts of energy they fire from their hands equally wouldn't look out of place in either the Russell T Davies or Steven Moffat era of the show.


One common criticism of the story is Whizzkid (played by Gian Sammarco). Whilst many don't like the character because he is a clear dig by John Nathan Turner at the show's fans, my issue is not so much that it's insulting towards Whovians but more that Whizzkid only exists in this story for that very reason. There's no clear narrative reason for why he dresses in 80's geek fashion, or rides a bike. He's literally just written as an excuse for John Nathan Turner to channel his fury at the time of the fanbase's negativity through Stephen Wyatt. The line about 'It's not as good as it used to be' is clear arrogance of the then-current production team's ignorance towards the criticism the show had been receiving. It's not so much that it's lashing out at Whovians but more that it shows a certain holier-than-thou ignorance that is pretty unforgivable.


Having said that, the story does have some good ideas. The bus conductor robot is cool, and the use of music works very well. I can't imagine raps will ever work as well in the show as they do here; the raps make sense for the ringmaster's (Ricco Ross) character and are extremely catchy unlike the awful drivel most rapping consists of. The good ideas just don't outweigh the bad. Although there was clearly something not quite right about Captain Cook, I'm not sure I liked him as an antagonist - why was he so cruel towards Mags, for instance, when it is said in dialogue that he had previously saved her? I'm also not sure about the bizarre notion that Ace can hear Mags' scream in part one but not The Doctor. Unless I missed it, I don't believe it was ever explained why this was the case. Surely it would make more sense had the Doctor heard it and not Ace, given that The Doctor is of a different species?

Overall, The Greatest Show In The Galaxy isn't a terrible story but it isn't as great as its reputation suggests either. It's marred by problems, such as characters who are too over the top to be taken seriously and pacing issues. There are a few good ideas in the story though and the visuals are breathtaking despite the fact that it was filmed in a BBC car park. It's certainly an improvement on the writer's previous serial Paradise Towers, however that's not saying much. The Greatest Show In The Galaxy is not the Genesis of the Daleks of Sylvester McCoy's serials but it's passable for the state the show was in at the time.

The Pilot

It feels strange writing this review two weeks after the episode aired. I did see The Pilot as soon as it was broadcast, and I have seen both Smile and tonight's episode, Thin Ice - but I haven't found time to review them. I was planning to one or two days after broadcast, but I have been extremely busy with my 90 page dissertation (yes, that's right: 90 pages. I'm writing a feature film screenplay). It's kind of fitting, because the title of this episode is odd itself.

Doctor Who has already had its Pilot in An Unearthly Child, yet this episode claims to be the beginning. In some ways, it's right. This is our introduction to Bill Potts. The start of her story, just after Clara's ended. In other ways, it's like claiming 2016's The Jungle Book is the original Disney Jungle Book. It isn't. Regardless, that's the title Steven Moffat chose - and its probably this pedantic analysis of the title that he wanted fans to give. There is a literal pilot in the episode - a puddle that possesses the body of Bill's (Pearl Mackie) crush Heather (Stephanie Hyam) - but the character is not really the major focus of the episode despite being the primary antagonist, so I doubt Moffat is referring to her. More on the puddle pilot later.





The Pilot is interesting in that much like The Return of Doctor Mysterio it creates a large gap between the last episode and this one. Moffat's Doctor Who has done this often to accommodate Big Finish but this time it's different. We are told The Doctor (Peter Capaldi) and Nardole (Matt Lucas) have been guarding a Gallifreyan vault for somewhere between 50-70 years, and during this time the Doctor has been posing as a university lecturer at St Luke's University in Bristol. We find out in the following episode Smile that he swore an oath not to leave Earth. This is perhaps the most compelling mystery of the Moffat era, and arguably the most unpredictable story arc the 2005 revival has done.



During his time lecturing at St Luke's University The Doctor notices that a canteen worker has been regularly sneaking into his lectures, and has been reacting differently to his lectures compared to the students. The students look puzzled when they don't understand something. The canteen worker smiles. Her name is Bill Potts, and The Doctor decides to make her a student - with himself as her private tutor. Meanwhile, Bill's crush Heather notices something strange about a puddle. Instead of reflecting, it shows the same symmetrical face back. The puddle chooses Heather as its pilot and pursues The Doctor, Bill and Nardole across time and space hoping to take Bill with her on its space journey.



The puddle monster is a fun threat, but much like 2005's Rose the episode is more about introducing Bill than it is the monster-of-the-week. This can lead to the puddle monster feeling a little under-developed compared to other Moffat creations such as The Silence and the Weeping Angels. It's a cool concept that does what the best Moffat monsters do - take an ordinary childhood fear like stepping into a puddle and turn it into an alien menace - but because it isn't the episode's primary focus, it never feels like a credible adversary for The Doctor. It's for this reason that I hope the puddle monster appears again - I'd like to learn more about its origins and if it has any connections to The Flood from The Water of Mars (it bears striking similarities). Hopefully next time the puddle monster won't be played by Stephanie Hyam though.



Stephanie Hyam is terrible. She is possibly the most wooden, dull, uncharismatic actor ever to appear in Doctor Who. Every line she speaks is said in an emotionless monotone voice that makes it sound like she's under a Cyber-conversion process - in fact, maybe she was about to become a Mondasian Cyberman before the puddle monster took over? They are returning in the two part finale. I have no idea what Bill sees in Heather because Stephanie Hyam's portrayal ironically makes her come across as wet and boring. Couldn't the puddle monster have chosen someone more interesting as its pilot?



Thankfully, Bill Potts is a very interesting character. Bill is a wonderfully inquisitive companion brilliantly played by Pearl Mackie. She's the companion who asks questions that have never been asked before, such as why the words on the police box exterior are in English and 'Where's the toilet located in the TARDIS?'. The latter is something I've personally always wanted to know. Why has no companion asked that before?

As for The Doctor's other companion Nardole...well, he's just kind of there at the moment. Matt Lucas isn't given anything of note to do, and it's hard to form an opinion either way. I'm not sure what the point was in bringing back Nardole: he was barely in The Husbands of River Song, made little to no impact in The Return of Doctor Mysterio and in both Smile and Thin Ice he features even less. He may as well not even be there. Matt Lucas isn't really needed when Pearl Mackie does such a good job as Bill.



The Pilot contains some of Steven Moffat's best writing for the show. Just look at this pre-titles sequence, for example:



It's probably one of the best exchanges between Doctor and companion (even if it feels like it should have come later into the episode) and definitely one of the Moffat era's finest scenes. Much like Rose there is generally a slower pace to this episode, but it's a wise decision that helps us get to know who Bill is as a character. After the frantic pace of Series 9, it's a very welcome change of pace too. Having episodes where a lot of things happen is very fun to watch, but it runs the risk of becoming exhausting for the viewer if done too often.



The Pilot's main focus may be to introduce new viewers to the show, but there are plenty of nice references and call backs for those of us who are already fans. For instance, the Movellans from 1979's Destiny of the Daleks appear briefly fighting a war with The Daleks, and Nardole is given the Fourth Doctor's Sonic Screwdriver. There are even framed pictures on The Doctor's desk of his granddaughter Susan Foreman and wife River Song.



Intriguingly the camera lingers for a very long time on Susan's photo. Could it be foreshadowing her return? The Doctor did say that one day he would return to her...

Probably the best piece of fan service in the episode is the Impossible Girl theme playing when Bill refuses to have her memory wiped by The Doctor. It's a touching moment as the Doctor remembers his own memory being wiped, and hopefully is foreshadowing the Doctor beginning to recall who Clara is. It would be a shame if this incarnation of The Doctor regenerates without remembering his most significant companion.



Overall, The Pilot is a good introduction to the character of Bill Potts. Pearl Mackie does a great job at playing the part of Bill, especially in the knowledge that it's her first proper TV acting role. The puddle monster is a cool if underdeveloped concept and there are some nice callbacks to earlier episodes. However Matt Lucas as Nardole seems like an unnecessary inclusion and Stephanie Hyam is dreadful as Bill's crush Heather. The Pilot is essentially the 'Rose' of the Moffat era, and does just as good a job at introducing us to the new companion. If Bill is going to be the new 'pilot' leading new viewers into the world of Doctor Who, then I think the show is in safe hands.

Good luck with it – don't get distracted .

Thanks. I'm enjoying it a lot - I may have mentioned it before, but it's a Beatles musical about an evil female octopus version of Simon Cowell and a shop assistant called Jude, who finds herself in a fantasy world under the sea that appears to have modelled itself after The X Factor.

Smile

It's fair to say that many were feeling apprehensive about Smile. The writer Frank Cottrell Boyce's previous work for Doctor Who - In The Forest Of The Night - was arguably the most controversial episode since Love & Monsters. I, on the other hand, was vastly looking forward to Smile. In The Forest Of The Night was one of my favourite episodes of Series 8, and I couldn't wait to see what Frank Cottrell Boyce would write next.



Robots known as the Vardy have been helping to prepare the planet Gliese 581d - a planet that bizarrely enough actually exists in real life - for human colonisation, working with their computer interfaces the Emojibots and a small skeleton crew. The Doctor (Peter Capaldi) and Bill Potts (Pearl Mackie) arrive on the colony world to find the skeleton crew have been murdered by the Emojibots and turned into fertiliser for the planet's crops. Investigating the deaths, they discover that not only do the Emojibots communicate in emoji but that these robots also kill anyone who displays an emotion other than happiness.

Strangely for a 21st century episode of Doctor Who, this episode often feels more like a classic series serial than a forty-five minute new series story. The slow pace may be off-putting to younger viewers, but for this reviewer it was a welcome breath of fresh air. I love fast-paced episodes but every once in a while it's nice to get an episode like The Rings of Akhaten or Deep Breath that gives the audience a breather from non-stop action. Those are the nearest new series parallels, but this story's pacing bears much stronger similarities to 1975's The Ark In Space. Just like that classic Tom Baker serial, Smile takes its time to explore the world of the narrative and is more focused on the Doctor-companion relationship as opposed to the episode's monster.



With any other Doctor/companion pairing, I'm not entirely sure Smile would have worked as an episode of the new series. The Doctor and Bill however are such a strong double act that you don't notice the slower-than-usual pace; every time they are on screen together, they are captivating to watch. Peter Capaldi and Pearl Mackie have a lot of chemistry together, and are exactly the kind of pair the show needs right now during its tenth series on air. Handled by a bad actor Bill's questions could easily become annoying, but Pearl Mackie makes them endearing and often they are the kind of questions you're surprised no companion has asked before. Why is the chair in the TARDIS nowhere near the controls? Why is the police box exterior signage written in English? Why does The Doctor go back to help after successfully escaping from the episode's monsters, instead of leaving in the TARDIS?



That's not to say the episode would be rubbish without Peter Capaldi and Pearl Mackie. Far from it. Frank Cottrell Boyce's writing is fantastic, often very lyrical and poetic. He makes any line of dialogue sound like it was written by a famous poet, and the show is lucky to have such a skilled writer working for the show. It's also clear from this episode's classic series similarities that Frank Cottrell Boyce knows his Doctor Who; sometimes that is detrimental to the story, as the inspiration the episode owes to The Happiness Patrol is very clear in its central premise and sometimes hard to ignore, but for the most part it feels more like a love letter to Classic Who rather than a direct copy.



One thing the classic series wouldn't have had is the rich production values of this episode. Smile was filmed in the City of Arts and Science Museum in Valencia (Spain) and the choice of filming location is so strong, it makes Doctor Who look higher budget than it actually is. The Emojibots are generally a very good design too, if perhaps a little too small for them to be seen as a dangerous threat to The Doctor and Bill.



Speaking of the Emojibots, it's a very believable idea that emojis survive as a universal language. What many viewers may not realise is that this aspect of the plot was based on actual research the writer conducted on what our language may look like in the distant future, and it makes a lot of sense given the past use of hieroglyphs by the Egyptians.




Unfortunately, Smile is let down considerably by its solution. The conclusion of the episode involves and it leaves you wondering why The Doctor didn't just do that in the first place. It's certainly less drastic than his first suggestion - to blow the entire utopian compound up - and would have saved both Doctor and companion a lot of time. Not to mention .



Overall, Smile is another solid episode of Doctor Who and bares surprising similarities to the classic series of the show. The pace is more reminiscent of The Ark In Space as opposed to the episode's nearest new series equivalent in The Rings of Akhaten, with a stronger focus on world-building as opposed to the monster-of-the-week. After the first episode of Series 10 'The Pilot', Smile is another episode where the Doctor/companion relationship is the main focus over the monsters featured, and the pairing of The Doctor and Bill manages to hide the slow pace that may otherwise be a turn-off for younger viewers of the show. Disappointingly however the episode has a very weak resolution and Nardole barely features. Matt Lucas' Series 10 involvement so far feels more like a last minute addition to the cast rather than a natural inclusion.

I wasn't exactly thrilled at the similarity to my favourite story but it's good that, from what I can gather, Smile seems to be coming from a slightly different perspective. I quite liked the robot threat in Embrace the Darkness for example, with the Doctor having to try and reason with it.

Yeah, I can see how that might happen. Good thinking.

Yeah, it's definitely a different take on the same idea. It does feel very similar to The Happiness Patrol though.

What's that phrase? "Too soon" .

Thin Ice (TV)

The best instalments of anything - be it television or film - make controversial decisions in their content likely to divide their viewers. That's what I like about Sarah Dollard's latest episode for Doctor Who, Thin Ice. Within those 45 minutes, you have The Doctor saying Jesus is black, Bill swearing, a kid dying.... All things you would expect the BBC wouldn't allow the show to do. Sarah Dollard certainly isn't afraid to upset her audience, given she - not Steven Moffat - was also the writer to kill Clara Oswald in 2015's Face The Raven. Clara may have been 'extracted' from her death in Hell Bent, but she still has to return to the moment she died eventually. Sarah Dollard's episode still remains Clara's main exit story.



In Thin Ice, The Doctor (Peter Capaldi) and Bill (Pearl Mackie) find themselves in Regency Era London during the time of the last frost fair. Under the frozen Thames lurks a chained sea creature belonging to Lord Sutcliffe (Nicholas Burns), who is using its poo as fuel to mine and sell to the local residents. Bill must make the ultimate decision: save the sea creature and potentially place others' lives in danger, or leave it trapped under the thames and deny the creature its freedom.



What's interesting about the creature is that it isn't alien in origin. It's just an ordinary sea creature that hadn't been discovered by anyone other than Lord Sutcliffe before this episode, like the mythical Loch Ness Monster (or the Skarasen, as those of us who are Whovians know it to be). It makes a refreshing change for the new series to deviate from the alien threat angle; the classic series of the show had done this more frequently with the introduction of species such as the Silurians and the Sea Devils. The last time the new series had introduced something from Earth as a threat without any alien interference was In The Forest Of The Night with regular trees, and even then they weren't a new species of tree as this is a new species of fish.



This isn't the episode's only earthly threat either. Nicholas Burns may not feature a great deal as Lord Sutcliffe but in the short space of time he does appear in he instantly makes an impression. Sutcliffe is the kind of villain you love to hate, and Sarah Dollard writes him as such a despicable human being that you punch the air when The Doctor punches him for making a racist remark. If only he would do the same for Donald Trump or Nigel Farage.



Those who didn't like the slow pace of the previous two episodes will be pleased to know that this episode has a much faster pace. With its strong focus on investigation and exploration it feels like a Jules Verne story, especially 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea. The bigger supporting cast give a more communal sense of atmosphere than the wonderfully lonely and mysterious one of Smile; this is a completely different episode of the show, and offers the kind of variety that is expected from Doctor Who.




The faster pace is definitely welcome, as it feels like since the previous two episodes we have really got to know who Bill is as a person. This episode is more an exploration of The Doctor's questionable motives and the darker aspects of travelling with the Time Lord; for example, after the child's death Bill asks The Doctor 'Have you ever killed anyone?'. The Doctor tells her that he has; a great moment no doubt for new viewers. Pearl Mackie continues to play Bill brilliantly; as I said in a previous interview, she really feels like someone who you would meet in real life. It makes a change to see a more inquisitive companion than the likes of Amy or Clara.



Unfortunately The Doctor's other companion, Matt Lucas's Nardole, is still being sidelined. In Thin Ice, he only appears in the final couple of scenes mixing coffee into cups of tea (which really should be a crime) and guarding the vault, and it continues to make Matt Lucas's involvement seem like a waste of time. Doctor Who Magazine put it perfectly: essentially his role in the series so far is little more than 'Matt Lucas cameo of the week'. It would be nice to be given a chance to form an opinion other than indifference towards the character of Nardole. Hopefully he'll feature more in Knock Knock.



The show's SFX also suffers in this episode. The new series of Doctor Who generally has very good special effects, but post production company Milk's effort this week is poor. The SFX of the giant sea creature are consistently unbelievable (although the giant eye is impressive), as are the special effects of people falling through the ice. Doctor Who's low budget clearly shows here more than ever before; sadly it is a case of the show being over-ambitious with its visual effects.



Overall, Thin Ice is probably my favourite Sarah Dollard episode so far and definitely destined to be one of the most controversial episodes of the show. After The Pilot and Smile established the character of Bill Potts, Thin Ice is allowed to have a much stronger pace and has a conveys a nice Jules Verne-esque feel. It also makes a nice change for the threat to be earthly rather than alien, and Pearl Mackie is once again brilliant as Bill Potts. Unfortunately the episode suffers from yet another 'Matt Lucas cameo of the week' (as coined by Doctor Who Magazine) and surprisingly terrible special effects. These special effects are Invisible Enemy-levels of bad, and by far the worst of the new series.

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2

All together now.

Aah aah ah
I'm hooked on a feeling
I'm high on believing
That you're in love with me

Hooked On A Feeling by Blue Swede doesn't appear in Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2, but it is probably the first song that comes to mind when you think of the Guardians films. Hooked On A Feeling may not have been specially written or composed for Guardians of the Galaxy, but it is arguably the most iconic comic-book movie theme besides the famous 1978 Superman score. It is partly the use of that song in the first Guardians movie that made me want to see the sequel, and whilst none of the tunes in Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 quite match the heights of Hooked On A Feeling the film definitely didn't disappoint.



The second volume of Guardians of the Galaxy finds the Guardians fighting a massive space octopus creature called an Abilisk on behalf of a gold-skinned race called the Sovereign. In exchange for destroying the Abilisk they are given custody of Nebula (Karen Gillan). Relations with the Sovereign are however tarnished when Rocket Racoon (Bradley Cooper) decides to steal some valuable batteries from them, provoking a space battle between the Guardians and Sovereigns which results in the Milano crashing into the planet Berhert, where Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) meats his father Ego The Living Planet (Kurt Russell). Is Ego really the loving father he seems, or is something more sinister at play?



That synopsis showcases exactly what is great about the Guardians of the Galaxy films. Like all the best stories (Doctor Who, Ghostbusters, Elf...) its premise is completely barking mad and needs to be seen to be believed. A planet being somebody's father sounds totally ridiculous, but it makes sense within the world of the movie - plus it is addressed how a planet could make love with Peter Quill's mother. Equally it helps that these movies have a strong 'Just roll with it' tone; they never take themselves seriously, and they never expect you as the audience to either. It's good-natured fun in the spirit of 80s feel-good blockbusters.



Somehow Volume 2 manages to feel more 80s, in fact, than the first movie. There are numerous references throughout to the decade that Quill came from. Knight Rider is referenced, Pac-Man appears and . In the opening scene with the Abilisk there is even green slime, bringing to mind the Ghostbusters movies. The Sovereign's ship sees Sovereigns playing arcade machines to fire at the Milano. The 80s is obviously a clear inspiration for James Gunn, and who can blame him considering a lot of the greatest movies came from that decade?



The first Guardians Of The Galaxy was hilarious. The second is even funnier. There are an abundance of great gags, from Rocket accidentally insulting the Sovereigns ("We thought you were a bunch of arseholes, but you're actually alright,") to Drax (Dave Bautista) and Mantis (Pom Klementieff) laughing at Peter's romantic feelings towards Gamora (Zoe Saldana). My favourite scene is probably



Speaking of Mantis, she is a great new addition to the cast and nicely played by Pom Kementieff. Her ability to feel others emotions by touching them is an interesting concept, whilst her naivety and inability to understand social interactions makes her a great character for James Gunn to pair with Drax. As with Drax, Mantis feels like a character that due to my autism I can really relate to. Both characters bear autistic traits. Drax takes things literally, whilst Mantis doesn't understand certain aspects of human behaviour. Both are good role models for autistic cinema-goers such as myself, and certainly more representative than The Accountant's emotionless killer.



But enough about The Accountant showing autistic people as emotionless killers, let's return to Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2. One thing that struck me about the sequel is that it is a much more human story than the first movie. And I prefer that. This film is about Peter Quill's relationship with his father, and that gives it real heart and soul than had it just been a repeat of the first volume. The best sequels do something different with the central premise whilst also maintaining enough of the central ingredients for it not to lose its identity. Men In Black 3 for instance kept the concept of a shady government organisation keeping aliens living among us a secret but added time travel into the mix. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 maintains the central premise of a dysfunctional bunch of outlaws working together to protect the universe, but adds in Peter Quill discovering his father. The secret to a good sequel is making it different enough to feel like its own movie, but keeping enough from the previous instalment(s) for it to feel the same. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 does this with ease.



Chris Pratt and Kurt Russell play it beautifully. They truly feel like father and son; it's a surprise that Kurt Russell isn't Chris Pratt's actual real life father. Chris Pratt has fast become one of my favourite film actors; he has the charm of Jeff Goldblum, the presence of Harrison Ford and the awkwardness of Michael J Fox as Marty McFly. It's a perfect combination, and makes him a natural lead for blockbuster films like this one. Kurt Russell has very similar mannerisms to Chris Pratt; you can see instantly why they cast him in the role.



Thank God they keep casting Stan Lee for his obligatory cameos also. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 contains not one but two of his very best, one in the actual film and the other in a post-credits sequence. The way these cameos work hint at something that will melt your mind, potentially linking together his cameos in every Marvel movie including the Fox and Sony ones. Stan Lee's appearances are no doubt a punch the air moment for many cinema-goers, and will spark internet debates for years to come.

I think many of these same internet commentators will also agree that Volume 2 contains the best special effects of any Marvel Cinematic Universe film so far. The film is gorgeous. The planetary environment of Ego is stunning, as are all the space sequences and the opening scene with a dancing Baby Groot on the planet Sovereign. Without a doubt this film will look stunning on Blu-ray, and for those lucky enough to own a compatible disc player, 4K Blu-ray. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 was literally made to be viewed on High-Definition screens.



My only criticism relates to the characterisation of one of the key players in the film. Whilst Karen Gillan is fantastic as always as Nebula, her motivations aren't always entirely clear and seem to stem more from plot conveniency than anything else. At one point in the movie she goes from trying to kill her sister Gamora to suddenly being on the same side as her with no explanation. I have discussed this on an internet forum and a poster suggested her to be 'lashing out in anger at everything that happened, but then when they find a worse father, it shakes Nebula out of it' but even so it feels like there's a whole scene missing between Gamora and Nebula's brawl and the pair discovering the pile of bodies on Ego.



Overall, Guardians of the Galaxy is another fun feel-good blockbuster from James Gunn, with real heart and a great sense of humour. Chris Pratt and Kurt Russell are great as father and son, and the special effects are stunning. Unfortunately the film is let down by Nebula's unclear character motivations - a shame given that Karen Gillan gives such a strong performance. Hopefully Volume 3 will see an improvement in one of the MCU's most engaging characters, but before then Karen Gillan is set to return in Avengers: Infinity War alongside Chris Pratt and Dave Bautista.

Knock Knock


Since Doctor Who returned in 2005, it has featured many big name actors from the world of television and film. Bernard Cribbins, Michael Gambon, Timothy Dalton and many more have made guest appearances...yet David Suchet, arguably one of the country's most famous TV actors, has not starred in the show before now. For this reason alone there was quite a lot of buzz surrounding Knock Knock, the fourth episode of Series 10.

Did it live up to the hype?

The answer to that question is a resounding yes.



Knock Knock sees Bill (Pearl Mackie) searching for student accommodation with her friends Shireen (Mandeep Dhillon), Harry (Colin Ryan), Paul (Ben Presley), Felicity (Alice Hewkin) and Pavel (Bart Suavek). After a number of failed attempts to find somewhere suitable to live, Bill and company are on the verge of giving up when they are approached by The Landlord (David Suchet), who believes he has a suitable property. It's dirt cheap and its rooms are very spacious. The group sign a contract to stay in the house, but it soon becomes clear that all is not what it seems. There's no central heating, the plug sockets are old and they are unable to pick up a mobile signal inside the house. There are also some very strange noises during the night, and Pavel hasn't left his room since they arrived. The Doctor (Peter Capaldi) is curious, and decides to investigate.



I haven't been scared by Doctor Who in a while. The last Doctor Who episode I found genuinely horrifying was 2009's The Water of Mars. This isn't intended as criticism towards the show, it's just that I am older now than I was in 2009 so I am not scared as easily as I was before. Knock Knock, however, absolutely terrified me. The sound design in this episode is spot on, with lots of tense music and creepy creaking noises creating a typical horror atmosphere. There is a binaural (3D surround sound) version of the episode available on iPlayer; I haven't tried it, although I could imagine it adding a nice extra dimension to the episode. Knock Knock's use of sound is very effective without the binaural surround sound though, and helps make the show's latest attempt at a haunted house its most successful by far.


It helps that this episode's writer is Mike Bartlett. As a playwright, Mike Bartlett will no doubt he used to writing small self-contained stories that use a single setting for maximum impact as opposed to the bigger scale stories of the new series such as The Stolen Earth/Journey's End or The Day of The Doctor. His experience as a playwright therefore shows through in Knock Knock in the way his script plays with the horror behind the unexplainable strange sounds many of us often hear during the night in our own homes. In Knock Knock's case these sounds are explained to be alien woodlice the Doctor calls 'Dryads' entering through the woodwork to feast on whoever is currently living inside the house. Unnervingly their victims also become a part of the woodwork once consumed, which is a surprisingly dark concept after the lighter episodes of Series 10 (The Pilot, Smile and Thin Ice).



Of course, some will complain that the actions of Bill's friends are stupid. I've already seen some comments about how you wouldn't buy a house with so much wrong with it, or you would be a bit more concerned if somebody had stayed in their room for a day and never left like Pavel. I would point out however that characters doing stupid things is a trope of horror. Look at The Blair Witch Project, for instance. The filmmakers all act dumb in that, but that's what allows the horror situation to escalate. The actions of the characters in Knock Knock just show how much Mike Bartlett understands on how to make a scary episode of Doctor Who. This is a guy who clearly knows exactly what he's doing, who clearly has a deep understanding of genre and who clearly (in my opinion at least) should be invited back to write for the show again.



The cinematography of this episode is fantastic, its moody and atmospheric lighting helping to successfully convey the familiar haunted house aesthetic. The Director of Photography Damian Bromley should be applauded for the visual aesthetic for this episode, which conveys the tone of previous haunted house episodes such as Ghost Light and Hide. Shadows are cast over the actors' faces, and the camera work often tightly framed to give an almost claustrophobic feel that works well with a hide-behind-the-sofa-style episode of Doctor Who.



Pearl Mackie continues to impress, but the highlight of the episode is David Suchet as The Landlord. David Suchet is a revelation in the role, and gives possibly the best guest star performance since Michael Gambon in A Christmas Carol. I was so impressed by The Landlord, in fact, that I started a petition to bring the character back (https://www.change.org/p/doctor-who-...ter_responsive). The Landlord is a captivatingly creepy, sinister villain and the payoff with his character at the episode's conclusion puts a lot of his behaviour into perspective. It is understandable why he's feeding students to the Dryads, but unlike the previous three episodes' monsters/villains he isn't a misunderstood character. His actions are still evil - feeding students to some alien insects is still wrong, David Suchet plays 'evil' very well, and I hope they can find a way for him to return.



My only complaint about this episode is that again, Matt Lucas only appears briefly at the episode. I'm not the biggest Matt Lucas fan, but he is being completely wasted in his role on Doctor Who so far and I wish the writers would feature him more so I can form a proper opinion on Nardole other than indifference. Nardole's cameos feel strangely like Steven Moffat owed Matt Lucas a favour than the character having any sort of narrative reason to be included in Series 10. His role so far amounts to moaning at The Doctor because he's not staying on Earth to protect the vault, and it comes across as more of an awkward intrusion on the episode than a scene you particularly look forward to in each story.



Overall, Knock Knock is a very creepy episode of Doctor Who and one that I reckon will be considered a classic in ten years' time. Mike Bartlett's debut as a writer for the show is possibly the strongest since Jamie Mathieson with Mummy On The Orient Express, and I certainly hope that he will write for the show again. The combination of Mike Bartlett's writing with the excellent sound design and dark cinematography allows for an episode that perfectly captures the 'haunted house' feel, more so than 1989's Ghost Light or 2013's Hide. David Suchet is the one standout element of the episode however; he is fantastic as The Landlord and gives the strongest guest star performance since Michael Gambon 2010's A Christmas Carol. Knock Knock is without a doubt one of the greatest episodes of the Peter Capaldi era so far, written by one of the show's greatest guest writers.

When I saw David Suchet in A Perfect Murder there was something about him that made me think he would have been great as the Master. It is insane that nobody has ever approached him to be in Doctor Who until now, on TV or in the audios.

I liked The Waters of Mars as well. Very scary. I just couldn't stand the ending. Flatline's also a really good modern horror concept.

I actually saw quite a few theories before Knock Knock aired that David Suchet was The Master. Sadly he's not, but it would have been a fantastic twist.

I loved The Water of Mars' ending. I wasn't as big a fan of Flatline as everyone else, but I did enjoy it. The Boneless were a great concept.

I'm glad there are fans that remember what the Master used to be like .

I didn't like the Doctor's speech at the end of Flatline but the Boneless are class villains.

Have you read any of the Titan comics? They brought the Boneless back in the 12th Doctor comic that I reviewed previously, The Fourth Wall.

No I haven't but it's good that they're being used. I hope they come back in the series.

I suppose it depends if they fit into Chris Chibnall's Doctor Who or not. I think of the Steven Moffat era we'll see the Weeping Angels, Kate and Osgood again.