Review - "Doctor Who: The Bells of St. John"

"The time has come," the blogger said,
"To talk of Doctor Who:
Of time - and space - and Dalek ships -
Of bow ties and the TARDIS oh so blue."

Please excuse my terrible attempt at poetry, but I was just so excited for the return of Doctor Who to our television screens, that I wanted to make this review as interesting as possible. Well, anyway - Doctor Who is back. Matt Smith has returned and he is this time accompanied once more by Jenna-Louise Coleman as the ever mysterious Clara Oswald in Steven Moffat's "The Bells of St. John."

London is under attack - the citizens just don;t know it yet. Something is uploading human beings to the wi-fi network. Luckily, Clara Oswald (Jenna-Louise Coleman) needs help with her computer and somehow ends up phoning the Doctor (Matt Smith). Once everyone's favourite Time Lord has had a change of clothes, he's off to discover what's amiss in the city.

I suppose that I should warn you now - if you have not yet seen "The Bells of St. John" then you should certainly go see it before continuing this review. Now then, onto the episode itself. "The Bells of St. John" is immensely enjoyable. Steven Moffat wonderfully creates an episode full of twists, turns, never-ending excitement and fun. That's what makes the episode so great. The whole episode is a non-stop thrill ride, from the beginning until the end. Moffat has crafted some wonderfully witty dialogue and Matt Smith and Jenna-Louise Coleman have wonderful screen chemistry together. Clara is a head-strong, independent character and she really goes toe-to-toe with the Doctor in this episode. What's more, the episodes doesn't dwell on to much back story - partially because Clara is the central mystery of the upcoming seven episodes, but also because it moves at such a brisk pace.

While Steven Moffat said that this episode would be Doctor Who's take on James Bond, I don't really see it. Sure, the episode is fun and light from end to end and features a lot of great set-pieces, but it is not Bond-esque. The scene with the Doctor and Clara aboard the crashing airplane is genuinely exciting, and seeing the Doctor on a motorbike racing through London cannot help but bring a smile to your face. In addition, there are some great villains. Miss Kislet is an interesting antagonist and the return of Richard E. Grant in a cameo as the Great Intelligence was a genuine surprise. On the negative side, the Spoonheads are something of a wasted opportunity - but do put in an interesting appearance. And the introduction of the anti-gravity motorbike really came out of nowhere, but was fun.

I keep coming back to the word fun. Quite honestly, when it comes to Doctor Who that is really what I am looking for. I am not going to critique and nitpick the way I would do with Sherlock Holmes-related media. To me, Doctor Who is pure, first-class entertainment. And "The Bells of St. John" certainly delivered, kicking off the second part of Season 7 in grand style. I therefore award this episode 3.75 stars out of 5.

Coming Next Week: "The Rings of Akhaten" (Click here for a little something to wet your appetite)

Peter Cushing - The Immortal Sherlock Holmes?

To me, Peter Cushing is invariably linked to "The Hound of the Baskervilles." Quite a few years ago, shortly after I first became interested in the character of Sherlock Holmes, a community theater chose to put on a play of "The Hound." Not knowing the story, and perhaps too young to read Conan Doyle's original, I settled for a movie version which was being broadcast on television. It just so happened to be the 1959 film with Peter Cushing as Holmes and Andre Morrell as Watson. It was my first real exposure to "The Hound" and to Holmes media, aside from the Jeremy Brett television series.

Looking back on it now, the 1959 version of the "The Hound of the Baskervilles," could possibly be my favourite. Despite the fact that it doesn't follow the plot of Doyle's novel, Cushing's performance is grand, and the atmosphere of Gothic horror and suspense is beautifully created. Even though Cushing is perhaps not everyone's first choice as Holmes (and he is currently losing in the poll), I still wanted to include him and give dear old Peter Cushing his fighting chance to be considered for the honour of The Immortal Sherlock Holmes on this blog.

Hammer Film's "Hound of the Baskervilles" was perhaps a long-overdue film for Sherlockian fans. It had been twenty years since the last adaptation and 13 years since Basil Rathbone had left the role of Holmes. Sure, there had been television versions of the Sherlock Holmes stories, but nothing spectacular. So, along comes a studio who had just made a name for itself by recreating Gothic masterpieces such as "Frankenstein" and "Dracula," and their next project was a Sherlock Holmes film - in Technicolor nonetheless. In the role of Holmes was Peter Cushing - the Baron Frankenstein and Professor Van Helsing from Hammer's previous two outputs. As Watson was Andre Morrell - best known to audiences as Professor Quartermass. As for Sir Henry Baskerville - there was Christopher Lee, the long, lean actor who had beautifully pantomimed the role of Frankenstein's Monster and delivered chills as Count Dracula.

Honestly, the 1959 version of "The Hound" is spectacular. If you are a self-respecting Sherlockian and you have not seen it, I highly advise you do so now. Everything about it is wonderful. The costumes, the sets, the acting (for the most part) and most importantly the atmosphere. I feel that this version of the film is the only one so far which has nailed the atmospheric overtones the novel was permeated with (even if that meant creating a ruined abbey, an abandoned mine shaft and giving the villain a set of webbed hands). What's best about this movie is Cushing's acting though. He plays Holmes as cold, condescending and rather prickly. Nevertheless, it's brilliant. Sherlock Holmes was never supposed to be a warm and friendly guy, and think that Cushing's acting is inspired. That's why I know use his picture for my Google Profile. But that's beside the point.

I really ought to give this movie more time, and hopefully I will in the future. Sadly, "The Hound of the Baskervilles," performed badly at the box office and Hammer's hopes of continuing the Sherlock Holmes series were squashed. However, Peter Cushing would return to the role of the detective in 1968 for "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes," a television series commissioned as a follow-up to the highly successful run with Douglas Wilmer as Holmes. Watching, "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes," one cannot help but interested. Though the production values aren't fantastic, the show is fascinating in that it was the Granada television series' predecessor. While Cushing wasn't the cold, prickly man he was from the Hammer film, he continues to excel in the role - slowly us a more relaxed and down-to-Earth detective. Cushing felt so passionate for the role, that he involved himself with the script-writing process and even costuming.

It is unfortunate that a number of the episodes of the show no longer exist. It was the BBC's policy in the late '60's to "junk" a number of film reels after a show's transmission. Therefore, a great chunk of the detective's history is lost. To Sherlockian worldwide, we hope the lost episodes turn up sooner or later. Peter Cushing returned to the role of Sherlock Holmes one last time before his death in the 1984 television movie, "Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death." Today, many fans consider this Cushing's finest hour as the detective.

In summation, I have a special place in my heart for Peter Cushing. I am very fond of his performances, and look to him as one of the very best Sherlockian actors. While criminally underrated, Cushing continues to shine as one of the best for Sherlock Holmes fans.

Basil Rathbone - The Immortal Sherlock Holmes?

Interestingly, of the three men who I considered possible candidates for the Immortal Sherlock Holmes, Basil Rathbone was the one I discovered last. Nevertheless, Basil Rathbone has settled a place in my heart as one of my very favourite Sherlockian actors. Whether he was acting in 20th Century Fox's series or Universal's, he consistently portrayed the detective wonderfully.

What makes Basil Rathbone perhaps most interesting is he was truly the first actor to be identified with the role of the detective. Granted, British character actor, Arthur Wontner, was associated with the character for six years in the early 1930's, but sadly Wontner is forgotten today. So, that makes Rathbone perhaps the first actor who was known for playing the detective. Rathbone wanted to lose the shadow of the detective later in life, but he was forever in the character's debt. Prior to 1939's "The Hound of the Baskervilles," Basil Rathbone was mainly known for playing villains. At the time, he was perhaps best known for playing the evil Sir Guy of Gisbourne in Warner Bros.' "The Adventures of Robin Hood" in which he ended up skewered on the end of Errol Flynn's sword.

History was truly made in 1939 when 20th Century Fox went into production on "The Hound of the Baskervilles." It would be the first sound film to feature Sherlock Holmes in his proper Victorian milieu - and he wouldn't return there for another 15 years. To this day, the 1939 version of the story is perhaps the best remembered and most enjoyed by fans. Rathbone looks wonderful in his debut role, truly becoming the part like no one had done before. Even in his first few moments on screen, Rathbone showed himself to be the epitome of thousands of reader's imaginations - wonderful encapsulating the detective's potentially stiff, upper-crust nature.

Looking back on it today, it's odd that Basil Rathbone, the star of the film as Sherlock Holmes, is actually billed second under Richard Greene, a relativity inexperienced actor who was playing Sir Henry Baskerville. Perhaps in Fox's mind, Holmes wasn't the romantic lead of the movie and therefore didn't deserve top billing. Nonetheless, this was rectified in the studio's second film, "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" which is quite possibly Rathbone's finest hour (or rather hour and 21 minutes). Once more he was looks wonderful in the role and he plays the detective with such style, one's liable to become memorized by his performance. He is able to draw the viewer in so well - much like Jeremy Brett did and Benedict Cumberbatch continue to do.

Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson
(From 1944's "The Pearl of Death")

Everything changed when the series moved to Universal studios in the 1940's - except for Rathbone's performance. He still played the role with style, and even though the series was set in the (then present day) 1940's, Rathbone still brought the same Doylean fidelity to the part. It was only in his last few films could you see Rathbone's interest begin to fade in his character. The part had lost the appeal and the challenge, and of course he feared typecasting. In 1946, Rathbone stepped away from the role. He didn't return to the screen until 1954 after a hiatus on the stage. It was during this time that Rathbone won his a Tony for Best in a Play for his work as Dr. Sloper in 1948's "The Heiress."

So - Basil Rathbone is surely one of the most famous actors to have taken on the role of Sherlock Holmes. he is highly regarded in Sherlockian circles and is certainly worthy of that honour. Despite the fact that I came rather late to Rathbone's work as Holmes, I certainly enjoy his performance, and he is tied for my favourite Sherlockian actor. However, I think that Tom Weaver, Michael Brunas and John Brunas summed it up best in their magnificent book, "Universal Horrors" which chronicles the Universal horror and mystery films from 1931 to 1946. They wrote:

...Their enduring charms have not been lost on generations of film fans. Until the popular...television series with Jeremy Brett in the '90's, Basil Rathbone was virtually unrivaled as the quintessential screen incarnation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's master detective.  

Jeremy Brett - The Immortal Sherlock Holmes?

It may sound hard to believe, but sometimes one liable to forget just how good of an actor Jeremy Brett was. During his run as Sherlock Holmes on the Granada television series, Brett established himself as one of the greatest performers in Sherlockian history - bringing the great detective to life like few have before him or since. He remains one of the most beloved actors to Sherlock Holmes fans, but is he the immortal Sherlock Holmes?

Much like I did with the "Audio Holmes who Shall Reign Supreme" back in late February, I shall look at the three nominees who could deserve the title of The Immortal Sherlock Holmes. Today, we shall begin with Jeremy Brett.

24 April, 1984 - this is a momentous day for Sherlock Holmes fans. They probably don't know it yet, but the history of Sherlockian entertainment is about to change. Granada has mounted a Sherlock Holmes television series, which they hope will be the Sherlock Holmes series of all Sherlock Holmes series. Michael Cox is the man behind the mission who was determined to bring the television show to life. The conception of the show might have started on troubled grounds, having been sued in 1983 by the producers of the two made-for-television movies starring Ian Richardson as Holmes, but Cox persevered. In the all important role of Holmes was Jeremy Brett, who was determined to bring the detective to life, and remain true to Arthur Conan Doyle's original creation.

On the 24th of April, history was made as "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" debuted starring Jeremy Brett and David Burke. To the Sherlockian enthusiast, this show was certainly some of the best entertainment to come their way until "Sherlock" in 2009. The show was brilliantly executed and Jeremy Brett was perfectly cast as Holmes. He closely resembled the original illustrations of Sidney Paget from the Strand Magazine, and even some scenes mirrored his drawings exactly. David Burke as Watson will revolutionize the portrayal of the famed medical practitioner for years to come, leaving behind him the portrayals of Nigel Bruce and others.

Jeremy Brett from his final season as Sherlock Holmes

As a Sherlockian fan, I think that "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" is some of the best television shows of all time. Jeremy Brett and David Burke are wonderful as Holmes and Watson and both men seem to be having such a fantastic time in the roles of detective and his faithful Boswell. I feel that any self-respecting Sherlock Holmes enthusiast must watch this series. While the following three series and the made-for-television adaptations do have their moments, it hardly compares to the level of excitement and fun which is generated from watching "The Adventures." However, as the show progressed, it became obvious that the quality began to drop. It is quite sad that as Jeremy Brett's physical and mental health decreased, so did his ability to firmly grasp the character of Sherlock Holmes. Just when the best of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories were gone and an actor was needed to carry the show, they did not have one.

"The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes" - Jeremy Brett's final season as the detective - is very hard to watch. Brett is obviously struggling to finish, and his final few episodes are a far cry from the great moments which the earlier episodes were able to inspire. On 11 April, 1994 - a little less than ten years since the show's start - Jeremy Brett made his final appearance as the detective in "The Adventure of the Cardboard Box." Brett died at the age of 61 a little over a year later.

So, do I consider Jeremy Brett the immortal Sherlock Holmes? I honestly cannot say. That's the sole purpose of this series and poll. Over the next few days, I'll look at Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing and see if any of these three actors truly deserves the title as the Immortal Sherlock Holmes.

Take the Poll: So, is is Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone or Peter Cushing? Of these three actors, could any of them be considered the Immortal Sherlock Holmes - the one who shall transcend time and be remembered for years and years after as the one and only Sherlockian characterization? So if you feel so inclined, take the poll and leave a comment.

Doctor Who Season 7 So Far Part V

Well the time has come to finally say good-bye to Amy Pond and Rory Williams. As these two leave the TARDIS for good, we are faced with the question whether Steven Moffat  has written a script which is good at all. So, without further ado, let's take a look.

The TARDIS crew arrive in present day New York City. However, their pleasurable trip to the city that never sleeps turns sour when Rory is abducted by an alien race known as the Weeping Angels, who have sent Rory back in time to the 1930's. Teaming up with the Doctor's other stalwart companion, River Song (Alex Kingston), the Doctor and Amy must save Rory before it's too late.

Personally, I believe that "The Angels take Manhattan" is a tour-de-force. Everything about it, is wonderful - from the performances by Matt Smith, Karen Gillan, Arthur Darvill and Alex Kingston, to the mood created by the Weeping Angels is genuinely creepy. The fact that the story is set in the noir-like 1930's is great, and this really lends some nice atmosphere which permeates the episode. The Weeping Angels have been considered one of the scariest "Doctor Who" monsters of all time. They debuted in Moffat's episode "Blink" universally recognized as one of the show's best episodes. They returned with great effect in "Time of Angels/Flesh and Stone" where they encountered the Eleventh Doctor.

The Weeping Angels Attack

(Spoilers Ahead) The only negatives concerning this episode is the gimmicky nature of one of the film's twists. The fact that the Statue of Liberty is supposed to be a weeping statue, is rather hard to believe. The scenes featuring the evil Lady Liberty are certainly interesting to look at, but it really does not add anything to the plot. As for the ending, it is perhaps a bit rushed and abrupt, it still packs the emotional punch that it needed. "The Angels Take Manhattan" is was certainly the wonderful send-off that Amy and Rory deserved. (End of Spoilers)

So, to sum up - "The Angels Take Manhattan" is a great send-off for the Doctor's companions. It features wonderful performances and a well-written script. This episode is rewarded with a 4 out of 5 stars.

Well, that's all folks - this has been a great look back at the five episodes which made up the first part of "Doctor Who's" seventh series. Next week marks the return of the show to the air, and you can be sure that a review will be posted shortly thereafter.

Review - "A Big Hand for the Doctor"

To celebrate 50 years of "Doctor Who," the BBC and Puffin Books have collaborated on creating a series of 11 e-books, all written by famous authors who will tackle a story for each of the eleven Doctors. First up was Eoin Colfer who tackled the First Doctor in "A Big hand for the Doctor."

1900 - the Doctor and his granddaughter, Susan arrive in London on the trail of the infamous Soul Pirates. In his last battle with the cursed intergalactic beings, the Doctor lost his hand, and is now on the search for the pirates in an effort to reclaim his missing appendage. However, the Soul Pirates are a dangerous gang of men and the Doctor surely has his work cut out for him this time.

To most audiences, Eoin Colfer is best known for writing the "Artemis Fowl" books. I have never read the series, so I cannot say if Colfer's style of writing is typical for this story. Nevertheless, I just didn't like it. He makes everything seem as though it isn't all that important and even when he dealing with dark, serious material, he deals with it in a flippant and rather non-serious manner. Even in situations where children have been abducted by the Soul Pirates and are facing death, the tone is still a light one. This felt at odds with the rather dark story being told. Furthermore, Colfer seemed to be parodying the First Doctor. In some ways, the First Doctor perhaps the hardest to write about. He's a stuffy, upper-crust man who really portrays a somewhat cliche pompousness. He is really at odds with any of the other incarnations who followed him.

Nevertheless, the First Doctor is important to the history of the show, and should be treated with some respect. I feel like if Colfer was going to write in a more relaxed, comedic style, he should have selected a later Doctor. However, instead we get a character who really doesn't act like himself. We have an energetic Doctor going cane-to-sword in a fight with a pirate and acting in your stereotypical action-hero kind of way. This is certainly not the way that the First Doctor was portrayed - a man who left most of the legwork up to his companions.

William Hartnell as the First Doctor

So, can I find any things to like in this story? There were occasions when the humour was funny, and the way that the standoffish nature of the Doctor was examined was interesting. The ending which featured J.M. Barrie writing about the events he witnessed (a man fighting a pirate with a hooked hand a children covered in what appears to be star dust) was quite clever, and I liked the way it was presented. Aside from that, I really cannot think of much more that was truly "Doctor Who"-esque about the story.

To sum up, "A Big Hand for the Doctor," is a rather underwhelming beginning to a potentially great series. Eoin Colfer handles the character of the First Doctor rather poorly, and one is inclined to think that if he had written a story featuring a different Doctor, would it have been better? That's a what-if, and I don't like to indulge in them too often though. I give "A Big hand for the Doctor" a 2 out 5 stars.

Coming Next Time: "The Nameless City" by Michael Scott

Some "Sherlock" Season 3 News!

I can certainly empathize with the poor chap in the above e-card. However, the wait for Sherlock is slowly but surely getting shorter. Yesterday, Monday the 18th, filming began for the third season of the show. And today, the title of Mark Gatiss' season opener was revealed. It is..."The Empty Hearse."

Mr. Gatiss, you are a genius! On the off chance you stumble across this blog, you should know that. Aside from the wonderfully punny title, we know little about the other top episodes for the upcoming third season, aside from the fact that Steven Thompson is writing the second episode and Steven Moffat is writing the all-important season finale. 

I honestly do not have much more to say with this post. I just had to spread the news while it was still new. As soon as more information becomes available, I'll continue to post here.