Now Showing - DalekbusterScreen5's reviews

→ in
Tools    





I'm always going to go by the classic series DVD titles rather than how the stories were referred to in production paperwork because the DVD titles are more universally recognised.


Agreed. I'd feel weird calling The Daleks 'The Mutants'.
Yeah, agreed. It was strange when the same problem was reintroduced in the new series – The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances et al.



Fun fact: if you count books as canonical, there are two Human Natures and two End of Times.
What other End of Time is there?



Jurassic World review

The latest Jurassic World is a surprise but a pleasant one nonetheless. The film is rated 12A, yet it features a number of graphic moments that are disturbing for a grown man, never mind a 12 year old. If this makes it sound similar to Jaws, then that's because it is. Indeed, the scene in which the Mosasaurus bursts out and bites Claire's PA (who was looking after the kids) could easily have come straight out of a Jaws film.

The film is great fun throughout, with Chris Pratt as charming as ever in the role of Owen (although as stated in a previous review, arguably it's Bryce Dallas Howard's Claire Dearing who the film's about). There's loads of nice little nods to the original Jurassic Park, the best in my opinion being the original Jurassic Park theme blaring out as you see the park. It brought a smile to this reviewer's face. The finale as well between a certain T-Rex (not going to spoil it but let's just say she's familiar to Jurassic Park fans), the raptors and the Mosasaurus was brilliant.

However, there is one silly moment involving the kids and a jeep (again, not going to spoil it) but not enough to ruin the film. Even the original Jurassic Park has its odd moments of silliness and it's still not as daft as the talking raptor dream sequence in Jurassic Park 3.

As for the 3D, the 3D effects are absolutely breath-taking especially when the Pterodactyls are flying alongside a jeep. It feels as though you could actually step into the park, making it unnerving whenever the Indominus Rex and the raptors cause trouble.

Is it better than the original? I'm not sure. But it's a bloody great sequel. Let's just hope Jurassic World 2 doesn't feature militarised raptors as hinted at here because nobody wants to watch what would be the Jurassic Park equivalent of a Michael Bay film.




That's a bit ridiculous isn't it? A book with the same title as the Tenth Doctor's last story, virtually coinciding with the TV episodes! They hit themselves right in the Krashoks with that one.



That's a bit ridiculous isn't it? A book with the same title as the Tenth Doctor's last story, virtually coinciding with the TV episodes! They hit themselves right in the Krashoks with that one.
It's an unfortunate coincidence. The book will have been written before Russell T Davies had even decided what to call David Tennant's last two episodes.



It's an unfortunate coincidence. The book will have been written before Russell T Davies had even decided what to call David Tennant's last two episodes.
It's not too late – they should get a novel written called The Time of the Doctor.



How about a 11th Doctor book called Mummy On The Orient Express?
Why the hell not?

Actually you've just reminded me about the phenomenon of the Witch from the Well being used in Hide, when it had only just been the basis of a Big Finish audio, and a pretty good one as I recall.



Doctor Who - The Movie

Doctor Who - The Movie is a curious part of Doctor Who history. Intended to launch a new TV series produced by the BBC, Fox and Universal, instead due to poor viewing figures in America it has become something of a missing link between the classic and new series. So what was at fault?

Well, it feels like it was a mistake to include Sylvester McCoy as the Doctor at the beginning of the movie. This would no doubt have been confusing for new viewers who didn't previously follow the series; the TV movie did, after all, air seven years after the last episode of the classic series. The mistake was later corrected when Russell T Davies brought the show back in 2005, when he opted to start without a regeneration.

It's a shame that executive producer Paul Segal made the decision to include Sylvester McCoy although it's understandable. He is a Whovian after all, so the temptation to include a regeneration sequence was likely too much to resist. Overall, he did make a great movie though with an engaging plot and great actors.

The plot of the Master trying to steal the Doctor's remaining regenerations and nearly causing the end of the world by opening the Eye of Harmony is a good one that feels largely in character for the Master. Paul McGann and Daphne Ashbrook are fantastic as the Doctor and Grace Holloway too; so believable in their roles that many wish to see them reunited in the form of a Big Finish audio. I don't even mind the idea that the Doctor is half human on his mother's side; it makes sense given his fascination with Earth. My only real complaint besides what probably didn't work for new viewers is at times the Master appears more Count Dracula than the Master himself; this is largely down to Eric Roberts' performance, who seems too theatrical and hams it up a little.

Overall, the Doctor Who TV Movie is a great film that should have been successful but is let down by a couple of poor decisions like bringing Sylvester McCoy back as the 7th Doctor for a regeneration scene and Eric Roberts playing the Master too much like Dracula.




the Master appears more Count Dracula than the Master himself; this is largely down to Eric Roberts' performance, who seems too theatrical and hams it up a little.
Actually Dracula isn't that bad a reference point given that the Master is to all intents and purposes, undead. He can't regenerate and has to steal bodies that quickly decay (as we see at the end).



Actually Dracula isn't that bad a reference point given that the Master is to all intents and purposes, undead. He can't regenerate and has to steal bodies that quickly decay (as we see at the end).
True, but I don't see him as Dracula in terms of his personality. I see him more as a sort-of evil James Bond: cool and suave.



Little Fockers

With a stellar cast like Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro and Owen Wilson you would think Little Fockers would be a fun comedy. It's not. Little Fockers doesn't even deserve to be called a 'comedy' for it is so devoid of humour, it's like watching Piers Morgan trying to tell a joke.

In Little Fockers, Gaylord and Pam Focker now have kids; however, Jack Byrnes still (STILL) doesn't trust Gaylord especially after seeing him with another woman and automatically suspecting him of cheating on his daughter. No hilarity ensues. Instead, what follows are a number of boring scenes where there there are seemingly no jokes (unless I've missed some that were supposed to be 'funny') and just a lot of talking.

A cast like this deserves a much better script, especially Ben Stiller who has to be one of my favourite American comedy actors at the moment. This has to be Ben Stiller's weakest moment yet and it's entirely the script's fault. I only laughed once during the entire film and that was during the Jack Byrnes remix song that plays through the credits. If the rest of the 'comedy' had been as funny as the line 'Hey Focker, I've got nipples. Can you milk me?', then this movie would without a doubt have been one of my favourite comedies of all time. Instead, you'd find more laughter watching the worst TV sitcom of the 2010s (so far) Vicious and that's saying something.

There are no redeeming qualities in this film other than the song. Even the climax, which is supposed to be funny with Jack and Greg in the ballpool whilst the Jaws theme plays, isn't even mildly amusing. I nearly saw this film at the cinema and I'm glad I didn't for it is nothing compared to the far superior Meet The Fockers.

Overall, Little Fockers is a terrible 'comedy' that's about as funny as walking down the freezer section at a supermarket without a jacket on and subsequently freezing to death. You know something's wrong when the best part of any movie is the end credits.




True, but I don't see him as Dracula in terms of his personality. I see him more as a sort-of evil James Bond: cool and suave.
It will always come back to Roger Delgado who was definitely both of those.

The thing is, every version of the Master since has been designed as "insane" like a millstone round each actor's neck. Delgado's Master wasn't like that at all. Added to which is the snag that the Master never gets to regenerate and be as different with each incarnation as the Doctor does.



It will always come back to Roger Delgado who was definitely both of those.

The thing is, every version of the Master since has been designed as "insane" like a millstone round each actor's neck. Delgado's Master wasn't like that at all. Added to which is the snag that the Master never gets to regenerate and be as different with each incarnation as the Doctor does.
Certainly every classic series Master can't regenerate but the new series Masters can. We've seen Professor YANA regenerate into Harold Saxon, we just haven't seen Harold Saxon regenerate into Missy.



Certainly every classic series Master can't regenerate but the new series Masters can. We've seen Professor YANA regenerate into Harold Saxon, we just haven't seen Harold Saxon regenerate into Missy.
Yeah, I wonder what John Simm thought about that?

I've always taken it that Roger Delgado's Master could still regenerate, but that it was his incarnation that was badly injured offscreen. Also, I've always thought of Delgado as the Twelfth Master, mainly because in The Deadly Assassin the Doctor reasons that the Master was on his last life. So Peter Pratt's Master could be the same incarnation trying to regenerate but failing because of his damaged cells. Of course he gets enough energy to heal himself to a point, and they did a good job of showing that when Geoffrey Beevers took over. There's a more recognisable personality and physical form under the makeup, suggesting a regeneration of sorts.



Day of the Doctor

How do you celebrate 50 years?

That's the question that Steven Moffat had to answer with this TV movie and boy was he successful. The film begins with the original Delia Derbyshire opening titles and it's amazing how well they hold up today, even on a big screen (this was shown in cinemas as well as on TV). The opening features many homages to the William Hartnell era of the show, including a policeman walking past a familiar junkyard sign and Coal Hill School. My only criticism of this sequence is that they missed a trick in not having William Russell as Ian Chesterton be the one who leaves Clara with the Doctor's current address.

The plot feels like a wonderful blend of the classic and new series. On one hand, you've got Zygons trying to populate the Earth as their new home by taking on the forms of others. On the other, the end of the Time War and debate over whether the Moment is the only option or if there is another way. What is great about both of these elements is how they not only look to the past but also set future elements in motion. The Zygon plot sets up Invasion/Inversion of the Zygons and the Time War segments set up whenever they decide to return to the 12th Doctor's appearance alongside the other Doctors (and isn't that a great sequence? 'All 12 of them', 'No sir, all THIRTEEN').

Talking of the Doctors, all three of the main ones are as great as you would expect from such brilliant actors. John Hurt is incredible as the War Doctor, David Tennant shows why he is truly the greatest Doctor so far (in my opinion, of course) and Matt Smith is on top form as the current Doctor of the time the 11th Doctor. Whilst the other Doctors do appear, it is as archival footage towards the end (apart from the 12th Doctor, who appears in new footage albeit with just his killer eyebrows in shot).

SPOILERS COMING UP.

WARNING: "Spoilers" spoilers below
Oh, and Tom Baker is magnificent as the Curator. His voice sends shivers down any Whovian's spine when you first hear it before he appears. What's especially good here is how it is not outright stated he is a future incarnation of the Curator (although it is hinted), it is left mainly up to individual interpretation so if you want to say it's the 4th Doctor aged due to time differential (my preferred theory), you can.


SPOILERS OVER.

The writing is possibly Steven Moffat's best also. Day of the Doctor features some of the best lines in any film I've seen (not just in Doctor Who, although admittedly I am a bit biased) including 'Great men are forged in fire. It takes the privilege of a lesser man to light the flame' and 'Clara sometimes asks me if I dream. Of course I dream, I say. But what do you dream about, she'll ask. The same thing everybody dreams about, I'll tell her. I dream about where I'm going. She always laughs at that. But you’re not going anywhere, you’re just wandering about.That’s not true. Not anymore. I have a new destination. My journey is the same as yours, the same as anyone’s. It’s taken me so many years, so many lifetimes, but at last I know where I’m going. Where I’ve always been going. Home. The long way around.'.

Overall, Day of the Doctor is a brilliant celebration of 50 years from 1963-2013 and essential viewing for anybody, not just Whovians. My only complaint is no Ian Chesterton.




The interesting thing about John Simm is that he actually wanted to play the part as more sinister and calculating but Russell T Davies insisted he played the Master as a raving lunatic.
I really liked him, mainly because his Master was so smug – I thought, yeah that's him. I haven't read or seen much in the way of interviews on the subject but if that's how Simm wanted to play him it's a great shame that he wasn't given the opportunity.