Skip to main content

You’re still thinking in Earth terms, Commandant.


Doctor Who
The Faceless Ones: Episode Four


Another spy yarn device makes an appearance in this installment, the weakest of the six. Spencer disables Jamie and Sam and they awake with the Doctor, immobilised with a deadly laser beam inching towards them. Crumbs.


 This sequence is reasonable, if uninspired (Jamie deflects the beam with a mirror provided by the Doctor). The Doctor’s conclusion that they were to die because “We were too dangerous” covers for the inconsistency with Ben and Polly being duplicated, but not very well. He asserts that this means the Chameleons’ plans are almost complete, but setting an elaborate Bond villain method of killing them, which couldn’t be easily explained as an accident by anyone discovering the bodies, suggests logic is secondary to filling out an episode.

Oh goodness me, I'm a hoppity bunny.

Particularly as next we have the trio splitting up again, Sam sent to observe Spencer at the Chameleon Tours kiosk while the Doctor and Jamie go to the medical centre.


 While this is occurring, ratface is being duplicated.



Jamie: How am I doing, Doctor?
The Doctor: Very well, but don’t over do it.


 Their incursion is truncated when the Chameleon nurse informing them that someone is coming for an X-ray, while Spencer and ratface observe his activity.


 Further running in circles occurs with the Commandant expressing disbelief in the Doctor’s explanation for what is going on. While none of this is exactly tedious (Colin Gordon is always entertaining), it is place-holding.

The Doctor: However, you know what I think has happened.
Commandant: Yes, and you know what I think about your ridiculous theory. People from outer space, indeed.


 A glimmer of plot progression occurs when Jean reveals she has done some investigating of her own. She called all the other airports and learnt that Chameleon Tours didn’t deliver any passengers to any of them. The Commandant suspects they’ve been taken to a secret airfield.

The Doctor: You’re still thinking in Earth terms, Commandant.
Commandant: And I intend to continue doing so.


 The ever-aggravating Sam’s bolshy desire to embark on the next Chameleon Tours flight shows how cloth-eared she is. Jamie’s light-fingered purloining of her ticket by acting all amorous is amusing though (particularly as it’s a Scouser getting stolen off).

Sam: Hey, kid!

As is his reaction to the cost of the flight (£28); “That’s a fortune!


 Ruses are the order of the episode, with Jean faking faintness in order to entice Nurse Pinto to leave the medical centre. So the Doctor can have a proper nose around.


 The real Nurse Pinto is revealed behind a wall, and the Doctor discovers some control device cuffs that he will later threaten Meadows with. But the whole Meadows thing is so roundabout as to be reckless. He’s been allowed to do as he pleases for several episodes now without restriction.

The Commandant’s defensive response to being accused of keeping Jean too busy to eat is very funny.

Commandant: I’ve never stopped her having her lunch!


It’s a testament to slack ’60s airport security that Jamie embarked as S Briggs. I suppose he was wearing a skirt. Spencer holds the real S Briggs at ray gunpoint.


The episode enlivens a little with a queasy Jamie heading for the Gents while the rest of the passengers are miniaturised (was there any reason why the Doctor, Jamie and Sam couldn’t have been put aboard the plane rather than laserised?)


 Dispatching the pilot of the pursuing fighter by frying the electrics in his plane is suitably ruthless, and the disappearance of the Chameleon flight off the radar screen allows the Doctor to press his point about where the passengers have been sent. The Commandant informs him that a fixed point on the radar screen means that a plane is going straight down (crashing).


The Doctor: What about straight up?
Commandant: Darn thing would be in outer space.
The Doctor: Exactly.




A mostly inessential episode, with escape and capture and investigating that yields results we knew already or could have been dealt with a week or so earlier. Fortunately, things are about to improve.  

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

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

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.