Reviews

Four episodes in and I had high hopes of the new series after the specials and Tennant reminding us of who The Doctor should be.

I don't either hate or love the nu-nu-who, I'm just indifferent, I don't care anymore.

It feels like a long-term relationship where gradually you realise that the two of you have grown apart. No matter how much you try, how much you want to make it work, the spark is gone.

I don't feel it's the fault of the actors, it's the overall approach to the show. If RTD and Disney are trying for a whole new younger fan-base then maybe they'll get it - I wouldn't know, I'm too old 'my' Doctor was Tom Baker, of the reboot Doctors it's between Tennant and Smith, probably with Smith just edging it.

I think it's time for me to end my love affair with Dr Who, there will always be a place in my heart for it and I may even occasionally visit but my feelings of commitment and connection have gone. I hope you find a new lover Doctor, someone that loves you as you are now. Don't worry about me Doctor I'll be fine, we had a great time together but it's time for me to move on - or perhaps I'll stay single and just reminice about the old days with Tom and Jon on the iPlayer while sobbing gently and considering getting an 11th cat.

I don't think anything can replace you, so I'll be better on my own, it's sad but these things happen. All the best for the future eh? Oh and by the way, I'm keeping K9.

I knew nothing of the books so had no expectations at all.

Samantha Bond is pretty much always an actor worth watching and that led me to give it a go. Jo Martin I only knew from Dr Who, so not much to go on there.

The show is very much in the British groove of slower paced, gentle murder. It's a style that I enjoy very much for relatively unchallenging and 'pretty' crime.

I thoroughly enjoyed both parts, the acting was, I thought, very good, the plot was strong enough and it did of course look suitably 'British' - or to be more precise, 'English'. Nothing wrong with that, England does have some very picturesque towns and villages.

Less comedic than Father Brown and Sister Boniface, perhaps a little lighter than Midsomer Murders, I would happily watch more if they choose to make it.

Good, watchable and enjoyable, but maybe never going to be amongst the greats, it's still miles better than so many other shows.

If you're not sure, I'd certainly advise you to give it a go.

I'm not even going to try and give you an opinion of each Doctor or each companion, much less each story.

I am probably (certainly) going to meander off into an anti recent 'New Who' rant.

'New Who' started so well, the future looked rosy, it was like picking up where we left off... THEN, all canon was thrown out of the window and for the many that grew up with the show all links were severed.

I am writing as we await the return of Russell T. Davies as showrunner. Not since its cancellation in '89 has the show been at such a low ebb. This seems to me to be entirely due to the writing - patronising, preachy, yes possibly, but worst of all DULL. No-one cares about the companions, no decent *new* monsters, too much trying to be clever with the history and long-established pillars around which the show has for decades been built (grown?)

I don't care for one second about the gender or colour of The Doctor, what I do care about is enduring watching the show become dull. Being dull is the death knell of any form of entertainment, but maybe especially television. Just give us an adventure, a good plot, likeable/hateful companions, maybe even a character or two we can care if they live or die, not the dross that the last few years have been - can it be possible that there is not a single soul on Earth capable of writing a 50 minute show with a story, a beginning a middle and an end, a decent sci-fi/fantasy concept, an even remotely threatening baddie/monster?

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for 2024 because I'd hate to see the show I grew up with get cancelled again, this time for being boring instead of having a head of the BBC that simply didn't like it (not 100% true, but not far off).

Sorry, not much of a review, but I feel better...

Many reviewers comment on the 'changing heads' of several characters through the series and I don't disagree that it does distract sometimes.

What does need to be taken into account is that, in the case of older characters, the actors sadly died, so there was no option but to recast.

One reviewer is of the opinion that the actors should have been put under multi-year contracts. That would prove difficult when a show is renewed year-on-year, there was no plan for four seasons of the programme, 'let's do one series and see how it goes' was the standard procedure back then (in the UK anyway).

Young actors are always desperate to work and would be understandably unwilling to turn down other TV or theatre work on the strength of 'we might do more, we don't know yet'.

The binge watch didn't exist in the UK in the early 90s, the idea of arcing stories over several seasons didn't really happen either (some period series might, 'Upstairs Downstairs' being one), dramatic storylines were contained within one episode or one series - a whole new story being started if a show was successful enough to get a second run at it.

There are exceptions, Dr Who being a series of serials, and the odd two-parter would creep in to a lot of shows, but the idea of a 4-year, 4 season show did not exist in the UK.

So while I agree the varying faces jar sometimes, it does at least have a logical explanation.

After all that, is the show worth watching? Oh yes. It's a wonderful send-up of the lazy rich, the young, bored men-about-town with nothing to do but get drunk and find a 'nice gel', preferably whilst getting up to jolly japes and into stupid, easily avoidable scrapes, while those that actually have to work for a living dodge the flying olives and the servants silently raise their eyebrows and sigh.

Don't take it seriously in any way, don't watch too many at a time (it can get repetitive if you watch three in quick succession, better to watch something else for a couple of weeks and then go back), remember that the show is of it's time and the books are of theirs.

There's no point in letting little things annoy you, just remember - it's gloriously daffy!

Catherine Tate seems to be an 'all or nothing' performer to me. Sometimes her characters are very funny, sometimes they fall flat as a pancake. She does have a tendency to stretch a one-joke character so thin that eventually it snaps and the original joke becomes so overworked that it just isn't funny any more.

"Queen of Oz" doesn't seem to have a joke or a character that hasn't already been bent out of shape to fit into a shaky framework that just isn't funny. Some will love it I guess, but it's not for me.

The whole premise is so far-fetched as to be ridiculous, it's neither based in reality or interestingly surreal, it's just one of those ideas that seemed funny when you were drunk one night, but really can't stand the harsh light of day.

It's interesting how many people have given their opinion on a whole series after they have evidently watched less than half of it. For those that bemoaned the lack of a guest appearance by Father Brown, perhaps you should have waited. For those that said there was no back story to the characters, maybe you should pay a bit more attention.

No. It's not 'Father Brown' - that would be because it's a different show. A spin-off is not intended to be the same as the original. If 'Frasier' had been a replica of 'Cheers', would it have run for 11 years? If 'Torchwood' had been identical to 'Dr Who', would that have worked?

This is more comedic in places than 'Father Brown', it's not intended to be a labyrinthine 'no idea whodunnit' show. It's just a fun way to spend a bit of time.

For some reason, US audiences seem to think that everything that comes out of the UK is 'Downton Abbey'. Well it's not - some of it is light entertaining fluffy stuff, you know, like 'Murder She Wrote' or that blatant Father Brown rip-off (Father Brown has been on TV before in the 70s), 'Father Dowling Investigates'.

Just stop being so petty and enjoy stuff - it's much less tiring!

Gridoon did so well with their review until it got all sexist. For me, the movie with the redoubtable and fabulous Angela Lansbury didn't quite work. Everybody did their job, but, much as I adore her, Miss Lansbury was not right for the role. It's taken me some time to get used to Julia McKenzie, but I'm enjoying her now. I like that the UK television versions are less 'Hollywood', but I also love the glossy Peter Ustinov movies. Overall, I reckon that this is true enough to the book to be valid, the acting is as good as any and the production has a lot more dedication to the original. The Agatha Christie stories will never be bettered, the books will remain the best. Modern audiences demand a different pace and are perhaps not as willing to accept that these mysteries are not, and never were, written to be on screen, they are not fast paced or high drama. Each adaptation has to stand or fall on it's own merits, I don't see any reason for this one to fall, I enjoyed it and I'm old school.

Fans of the books need to get a grip on the fact that a movie can never follow every wrinkle of a book. They would all be 24 hours long.

I've enjoyed all the films in the series, some of the effects are a bit too 'games console', but the story is good, the acting is reasonable.

They are all audience fodder - stop hoping for them to be art, or even what you expected. Just go with the flow and stop whining.

I've read so many analytical essays amongst the reviews on here. You know what? Stop watching every film as if it's a challenge to something else. Just let the present experience envelope you. I saw this on TV and immediately went online to buy a copy. All the actors do a good job, the plot is not 100% new it's true - but hey, c'mon, go with the flow. Visually it is stunning, beautiful, terrifying, glorious. Too many people look at films to find the flaws - every film has flaws, but this one overcomes any you may pick on. Sit back, relax, then realise thet Vincent D'Onofrio give Hannibal Lecter a run for his money.

Wrapped in the shiny yet disposable wrapper of Kenneth Branagh's remaining talent, we come to the strangely dry and weird-tasting layer of the 'names' pretending to be the chocolate that should be the best bit. FINALLY, we arrive at the cheap and disappointing core. Oh look! It's Kenneth Branagh's ego. We soon got bored with that didn't we children?

Given the choice between Blade Runner 2049 and this, I'd go for Mortal Engines every time. At Blade Runner 2049 I was bored rigid, clock watching and waiting for the tedium to end, I loved this and the time flew by. A shame it didn't make it's money back, so no sequel I'm guessing.

A lot of people seem to be annoyed about the fast 'MTV' editing. I do understand what they are saying, but I just loved it! from beginning to end, I felt it brought a sense of chaos which was welcome - though I cannot deny I am probably too old to suddenly get into this stuff, I don't look to a film of this concert to be static and subtle. I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to see them live, but (despite the post-production effects), this movie just makes me want to be, maybe not in the middle , but in the suburbs of the energy and madness of the crowd. One thing I didn't like - the titles of the songs coming up. I didn't need that interruption to continuity. Still loved it.

As this is currently being repeated on UK television, I thought I'd chuck my hat into the ring with an opinion. I bought the DVDs a few years ago, and do enjoy them. I agree with some other reviewers that Franchesca Annis is indeed, a bit OTT, I also think that this should be forgiven - otherwise, the two of them are the most boring people on Earth. It was also the 80s - the perfect detail and devotion to authenticity that is demanded now, did not exist then. Theatricality was allowed, and this series certainly exploits that! If you can look past the 'staginess' of it, try to allow that TV audiences then were much more acquainted with television plays, then there is a lot of fun to be had here. Please just relax and accept that it is 'actorish' and overplayed in a lot of ways. It's still jolly fun chaps!

I am watching this in 2020. So far, a difficult year. I have no religious belief, but I am, and have been for many years, a huge admirer of Della Reese's immense talent. I feel that this episode demonstates touchingly the far-reaching, and terribly difficult to understand, effects of Alzeimer's Disease. I can see past my lack of spiritual belief to the very human story beyond. Few shows really face up to the almost insurmountabe frustration of such an illness. Whether I think God exists or not is irrelevant - people do.

The other reviewers seem to be regarding this as some sort of Rosetta Stone to Gene Roddenberry's ST intentions.

Sorry, I was just a bit bored. Isn't this show about getting to ship and the crew home? Most of season 6 seems to be dedicated to weak plots and anything that doesn't actually involve the 'voyage'.

One character episodes tend to be dodgy. Whilst this isn't as bad as the Harry Kim solo flights, it is just dull. Back to the storyline please...

Over all the series, the holodeck episodes interest me the least. A cheap excuse to provide some different scenery, they never add to the actual purpose of the crew's mission, or provide any link to the rest of the series. If there are not enough real Star Trek scripts for the season, then just make less shows. These are nonsense and whilst supposed to be a holiday for the cast and crew, are just an insult to the audience that wants to see the future, not a skewed and/or idealised version of the past.

Utter waste of time, it contributes nothing to any character or the story. Waste of time all round - and no, it's not funny.

It is interesting to read the different reviews fron the US and the UK. The fast-moving US cop shows are good fun - some are good drama. It seems a shame that American audiences are so unaccepting of the different tempo of a UK series. I see many critics of John Thaw's performance - one even saying that he 'phoned it in'. The acting is, in the UK, perhaps expected to be a bit more subtle. In the intervening years, I would say that US drama (Amazon Prime etc.) has given much more subtlety and nuance, and is better for it, If you want to enjoy the older UK detective series, then you do have to slow down. If you take the time, these are great characters, wonderfully acted.

It's just so DULL. A waste of Ray Walston as the guest star as well.

I remember watching the original when I was a kid and enjoying it. A remake seemed a reasonable idea, then I saw who was starring in it and my heart sank. I had never been a fan of Reeves and Mortimer - I just didn't get their humour. This series casme as a bit of a revelation, I love it. Okay, okay, the two are not the greatest of actors, but they have charm and appeal in this. Entertaining, silly, quite dark at times, just don't look for great depth or meaning and you'll be fine. Well produced and some (I think) pretty good story lines. Sit back with a glass of something and just go with the flow.