Skip to main content

Just one small question. Why do you want to blow up the world?


Doctor Who
The Underwater Menace: Episode Two


Any thoughts that TUMmight be aiming high in any way other than budget are dashed with Episode Two. We slip into a groove of escapes, captures and attempts at reasoning with various authority figures. In its favour are Julia Smith’s ability to keep the momentum up and the performances of Troughton and Furst. What could become ponderous drivel is never allowed to fall into a rut, partly because there’s a director who cares and partly because there are performances and dialogue to keep it never less than entertaining.

Zaroff: You er like my laboratory, yes? You find all this very impressive, no?
The Doctor: Not a bit, not a bit.
Zaroff: What do you mean?
The Doctor: I expected nothing less from the great Professor Zaroff.


It’s a story that is at once inventive and knowing yet almost elementary in its B-movie plot. Like Tim Burton recreating scenes from Ed Wood’s pictures in the film of the same name.
The Doctor manages to cause a distraction allowing Polly to escape fishification and, despite Damon’s suspicion of him, he is able to question Zaroff regarding his plan to raise at Atlantis. It seems the Doctor isn’t certain of what the Earth’s core contains (he only says that it is “believed to be” a white hot molten core, so he’s obviously not been there looking for those prehistoric monsters he wants to see At the Earth’s Core). Zaroff tells the Doctor that if he can’t lift Atlantis, he must lower the water level, by draining it into the core.

The Doctor: The water will be converted to super-heated steam. The pressure will grow and crack the Earth, destroy all life. Maybe even blow the planet apart.
Zaroff: Yes. And I shall have redeemed my promise to lift Atlantis from the sea. Lift it to the sky. It will be magnificent.

Well who are we to argue with a couple of geniuses?

The Doctor: Just one small question. Why do you want to blow up the world?
Zaroff: Why? You, a scientist, ask me why? The achievement, my dear Doctor. The destruction of the world. The scientist’s dream of supreme power.


Wonderful stuff. How inspired and batty that he’s so mad he wants to destroy everything for the sheer achievement of it.

The meat of the episode has the Doctor attempting to persuade others of Zaroff’s lunacy. He convinces Ramo easily, as the latter considers Zaroff a destroyer who, “ appeals to all that is base in our people”. That said, Ramo’s willingness to sacrifice the TARDIS crew could be classed as fairly base. Troughton gets to indulge in more business as he waits for Ramo to come back to him regarding an audience with the king. He tootles on his recorder, then is told by Ramo he should don ceremonial garb for his meeting. Of course, he’s enamoured by the headdress.


The Doctor: How do I look?
Ramo: What?
The Doctor: Never mind.


When he gets his audience, the Doctor makes a point of announcing himself as a man of science. To the Atlanteans, there’s not much difference between them. We’ve already seen the Doctor struggle to be heard in the face of an advanced adversary offering the locals just what they need in The Power of the Daleks. Coming after The Highlanders’ Doctor von Wer (“Urr ay-es!”) it’s quite appropriate that he attempts to expose Zaroff’s insanity the way he does.

The Doctor: But, have you noticed his eyes lately?
King Thous: No.
The Doctor: When he talks of his project. Have you noticed his eyes? They LIGHT UP like this.
King Thous: What does this mean?
The Doctor: The professor is as mad as a hatter.

The Doctor’s about as successful as he is in Power, with Thous returning from his deliberations, Zaroff in tow, giving the cliffhanger instruction “Do with them what you will!


Elsewhere, Polly spends most of the episode having a nap in the temple (the stress of near-augmentation). Meanwhile Ben and Jamie, in an indication of just how multi-cultural the series is becoming under Innes Lloyd, meet up with Sean and Jacko when they’re sent to work at the drill face. Jacko’s on the belligerent side initially, labelling Jamie “Jock!” Sean tries to smooth over troubled waters, commenting that the Jacko is “a bit like that you see” (like what? A racist? Or just angry?)

Before long, however, they’re all getting along famously. They duck out of the work party and spend the rest of the episode exploring tunnels (including a nice time-filler rescue of Jamie from a fall to his doom) until they luckily end up entering the temple by a secret door and meet up with Polly. I like Ben’s incredulous response to Polly explaining what was to have befallen her (“A fish? Ha ha!”); it accurately mirrors our reaction to the Fish People.


I’m not sure the recovery of this one is going to be ranked as a lost gem (Episode One is much closer to that level), but it’s a lot of fun whenever Trout or Furst are on screen. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Repo Man (1984)
In fairness, I should probably check out more Alex Cox’s later works. Before I consign him to the status of one who never made good on the potential of his early success. But the bits and pieces I’ve seen don’t hold much sway. I pretty much gave up on him after Walker. It seemed as if the accessibility of Repo Man was a happy accident, and he was subsequently content to drift further and further down his own post-modern punk rabbit hole, as if affronted by the “THE MOST ASTONISHING FEATURE FILM DEBUT SINCE STEVEN SPIELBERG’S DUEL” accolade splashed over the movie’s posters (I know, I have a copy; see below).

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.