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

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …