Leave a comment

setsuled April 24 2013, 22:28:03 UTC
It's like 'The Vampires of Venice': good ideas; great cast and characters; looks completely lovely; memorable enough to mull over during the week - but, scene by scene, strangely unremarkable.

As I said, I thoroughly loved "Hide", but that's exactly how I felt about "Vampires of Venice". Maybe it's me.

It's like 'The Vampires of Venice': good ideas; great cast and characters; looks completely lovely; memorable enough to mull over during the week - but, scene by scene, strangely unremarkable.

Oh, yes. It kind of reminds me of Stones of Blood or Curse of Fendahl. Some people are desperately speculating they'll get Tom Baker to do voice work for the 50th anniversary and gods I hope that's true. The more I think about the exclusion of the classic Doctors, the angrier and sadder I get. From some set photos it seems like they're getting Ingrid Oliver to play some kind of incarnation of the Fourth and while I think she actually looks a bit like him and the idea in itself might be intriguing it's so not the fucking same.

for trying to make it a wacky fast-paced romp with wisecracks

I ought to've mentioned I didn't like the zaniness at the beginning. Though partly I see it as the ongoing problem of one hour being too short a time for a Doctor Who story.

But then: the final twist. I dunno.

Heh. I gotta admit, I thought that was cute.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up