WeeClaude

I must be getting soft in my old age. Indio 2 is an objectively terrible film, but I enjoyed it. In this context, a "5" rating means: "Hey, this wasn't as awful as I expected!"

Apparently, I'm not alone in my positive assessment of this film. As of 2024, ten million people have watched Indio 2 on YouTube. (Or at least, one person has watched it ten million times, ha.) It can't be *that* obscure or universally hated.

Of course, Indio 2 is obscure in my home country of the United States, because (most) Americans are uninterested in foreign films and can't wait to make fun of them for having lower budgets. And yet, I'd argue that Indio 2 isn't that much cheesier than 1980s Hollywood fare like Commando. Also, Americans really ought to take an interest in this film, because it stars Marvelous Marvin Hagler - arguably the greatest middleweight boxing champion ever! What a bizarre novelty.

The bad news is, Hagler can't act. His line deliveries are so flat, he makes Arnold Schwarzenegger sound like Laurence Olivier. BUT Hagler still has a great physique and a likeable screen presence. Besides, nobody else in this movie can act except for the villain, so he's in good company.

The plot, meanwhile, reminds me of old Star Trek and Doctor Who episodes - you know, the ones where Captain Kirk or the Doctor inspire an exploited population to rebel against a colonizing force. In the case of Indio 2, Hagler leads a local tribe in battle against an Evil Mining Corporation that is destroying huge sections of rainforest and forcing the native population into slave labor.

This plot makes Indio 2 rather trendy, since it wears it anti-capitalist heart on its sleeve. They ought to screen this thing at Bernie Sanders rallies. That said, this film doesn't really make grand political statements; it's content with settling its big issues through a series of gun battles and Enormous Explosions.

The first Indio has a similar plot, making this a virtual remake. Story-wise, the original film holds together better than this largely pointless sequel. However, Indio 2 features superior action scenes and a much larger role for Hagler. So, if you can only watch one of these turkeys, I heartily recommend this one!

What's more, Indio 2 contains one of the greatest "WTF" moments in cinema history, when Hagler gets into a vicious brawl with a middle-aged madam/arms dealer named Mama Lou. I'd argue that Mama Lou gives Hagler the toughest fight of his entire career. If you thought his epic clash with Tommy Hearns was violent, prepare yourself for something far more brutal. (Hint: metal teeth are involved.)

That part alone makes Indio 2 worth checking out. The battle scene at the end is pretty exciting, too. This may sound like faint praise, but I've seen much worse and much cheaper movies than this. Marvelous Marvin was onto a winner here. And I bet you Sugar Ray Leonard is super jealous, because he sure isn't in any cool Italian action movies.

Creed III is...certainly another Creed movie. It's fine entertainment but not actually good.

I like the premise, though. Adonis Creed's childhood friend Damian Anderson gets out of prison after nearly 20 years, and decides to take a shot at the heavyweight championship. At first Adonis is happy to have his friend back - but he struggles to cope with Damian's more aggressive personality, and he doesn't like being reminded of his troubled past. Naturally, these former friends must ultimately settle their differences in the ring.

Damian is a fairly interesting character - and, as far as I'm concerned, he has legitimate reasons for resenting Adonis Creed (who did, in fact, get him into trouble and then completely blow him off)! The film tries to make viewers dislike Damian because he fights dirty in the ring and insults Adonis on TV, but to be honest part of me was rooting for the guy.

Adonis, meanwhile, remains a boring protagonist after three movies. I loved his father Apollo Creed, because Apollo was a great motivational speaker and a proud fighter. Meanwhile, I loved Rocky Balboa for his folksy charm and underdog status. Adonis has none of their likeability. Throughout most of this series, Adonis lives in a mansion (first his mom's, then his) and is married to a gorgeous musician. He's not an everyman, he's not charismatic like his dad, and I just find it hard to care about his so-called problems. In this film, I'm supposed to be on Adonis' side because...his friend is an ingrate or something? Who cares?

The film has other problems, too. Like a lot of modern entertainment, it's simply too dark - as in, full of shadows. The characters sit around talking to each other in 95% dark rooms. Doesn't anyone want to turn on a lamp? I know dark lighting is used for its dramatic impact, but it's so overused here I found it humorous. Even the boxing scenes have mood lighting. Meanwhile, on the real Planet Earth, boxing matches are brightly lit so the audience can see what's happening! My advice is, don't even try to watch this movie in daylight, as I did; you need the contrast of night to see what's happening on screen.

The film gets its boxing lore wrong, too. No real boxing match would be billed as "Anderson vs. Chavez," if Chavez is the famous reigning champion and Anderson is an unknown who hasn't fought in 20 years. "Chavez vs. Anderson," if you please guys. Also, the film initially presents Chavez as just the WBC champion, but somehow Damian becomes a unified champion by defeating him. I know these are small problems, but attention to detail matters. Don't the people who make these movies know how real boxing works?

A few small changes would hugely improve this film. It needs more scenes showing Adonis and Damian as children, so the audience can become more invested in their friendship. Tessa Thompson (Bianca, Creed's long-suffering wife) should have been given more interesting things to do. And ditch the silly angle that Damian gets a title shot he doesn't deserve; this is the fourth time in the series that an undeserving nobody gets to fight the champion! Have Damian truly earn his shot, that's more exciting anyway.

One thing I didn't miss is Rocky himself; the series needs to move on, and he sucked too much oxygen out of the earlier Creed films, especially the first one. At this point, just give Rocky a separate movie if there's a reason for his story to continue. Meanwhile, I don't see a reason for Adonis' story to continue either, unless they come up with a better film than this one.

The Munekata Sisters is possibly the most obscure film in writer/director Yasujiro Ozu's postwar filmography. But it doesn't deserve to be, because it's actually a great comedy-drama that should have a wider audience.

The film revolves around the relationship between older sister Setsuko (Kinuyo Tanaka) and her younger sibling Mariko (Hideko Takamine). Setsuko is more reserved and adheres to traditional Japanese values, while Mariko embraces modern trends and enjoys sassing people. Naturally, their personality differences bring them into conflict.

Takamine gives a fantastic and genuinely funny performance as Mariko, which is light-years different from the reserved heroines played by Setsuko Hara in Ozu's more acclaimed films. She does funny voices, sticks out her tongue, and even dismissively flicks a suit of samurai armor. (I assume that's a big no-no in polite society.) Yet underneath all this joking is a sensitive character who loves her older sibling, despite their obvious personality clashes.

By contrast, it's initially easy to overlook Tanaka as Setsuko. But as the film goes on, Setsuko's struggle with a loveless marriage starts to dominate the plot, and her character becomes compelling.

Speaking of the plot, it contains more romantic melodrama and unexpected twists than usual for Ozu - possibly because it's based on a serialized story, rather than an original creation. But Ozu directs it with his usual sensitivity and prevents the material from becoming corny or saccharine. Ozu also makes effective use of his graceful transitional or "pillow" shots in this film, which are even more beautifully composed than usual.

Some viewers (understandably) dislike the film's unusual ending. I won't spoil it here, but suffice to say that I actually liked it, and indeed thought it was the most honest way to resolve the story. Ultimately, this film is about two sisters who are very different people but very committed to each other, and the ending does justice to their relationship and its place in the story.

I was a fan of Ozu for 20 years before I bothered to check this out - because, who ever talks about The Munekata Sisters? (Its lack of U. S. availability didn't help, but it's on the Criterion Channel now.) Imagine my surprise when I discovered that this is a witty, wise movie that rounds out Ozu's filmography quite nicely. It's not an all-time great like Late Spring, sure, but a movie doesn't need to be a legendary classic to be awesome.

I'm not a huge fan of reality TV, so I'm not the best person to review At Home with the Furys. On the other hand, I love boxing, and I've admired Tyson Fury since he defeated longtime heavyweight champion Wladimir Klitschko in...gosh, was it really 2015? How time flies.

Spoilers follow...if you know Tyson Fury, you should know that this Netflix sort-of documentary was made at perhaps the dullest point in his career. Watching his dramatic comeback in 2018, when he overcame depression and substance abuse to reach the top of the boxing world a second time - now, that would make an interesting subject for a documentary. A series on his legendary trilogy of fights with Deontay Wilder would have been great, too.

Instead, we get a post-Wilder TV show, which begins with Tyson Fury in semi-retirement. So, we get the dubious privilege of watching Fury sit around his surprisingly tacky mansion and complain about being bored. He makes big speeches about wanting to spend more time with his wife and six (!) children, but you know that deep down he yearns for a return to boxing glory.

As a result, the first few episodes of "At Home..." are somewhat insufferable. The depressed and inactive Fury treats his wife and children poorly, and comes across as unsympathetic. The show gets more interesting around its midpoint, when he starts thinking about boxing again and becomes far more energized.

Some of the side characters are pretty interesting. Fury's father John provides gravitas and folk wisdom, though no mention is made of his infamous eye-gouging brawl from 2010. Tyson Fury's wife Paris comes across pretty well. She's pragmatic and essentially plays the role of Adrian in a Rocky movie, by repeatedly telling her husband he shouldn't box any more. Some viewers find Paris very sympathetic, but I'm on the fence about that; she is curiously unmoved when Tyson's cousin is killed in a bar brawl, and her insistence on taking her young kids to see their father's boxing match with Derek Chisora seems odd.

In short, nobody here is particularly relatable - except perhaps brother Tommy Fury and his partner Molly-Mae, who aren't as wealthy or out-of-touch as the show's stars. But they're really not in it enough to make a big impression.

So why watch this show? Well, you might like it if you're interested in Fury as a personality, or in his frank discussions of his mental health struggles (particularly with bipolar disorder). Or you can view it as a slice of (somewhat inessential) boxing history. Or maybe you can simply bask in the lifestyles of the rich and famous (but if you ask me, the Furys spend way too much time at boringly pristine resorts and beaches).

For me, this show was a mediocre but nice distraction. Overall, it's about as exciting as watching Fury-Chisora III - which as boxing fans will attest, was not really that exciting.

"Hell Drivers" is about the macho and ultra-competitive world of high-speed gravel trucking. It's a rather silly movie, but wildly entertaining, and the cast is terrific.

What's silly about it, you ask? Well, the plot, for a start. I find it hard to believe that so many heavily laden trucks could tear up rural roads in England - and cause repeated accidents - without the police ever interfering. Don't they have traffic cops in the U. K.? And don't the local residents get tired of nearly being run over by Patrick McGoohan, 18 times a day?

If you can ignore these improbabilities - and the equally unlikely explanation of the villains' schemes - you can have considerable fun with this movie. Stanley Baker is excellent as the lead character, who has a compelling and tragic backstory. Meanwhile, the supporting cast consists of the greatest U. K. stars and character actors ever. Look, it's the first Doctor Who, the original James Bond, that intense dude from The Prisoner and Columbo, and the lady from Gun Crazy and Night of the Demon! Avengers Endgame has nothing on this cast.

It also helps that Cy Endfield's direction is strong, and the black-and-white photography contributes to the film's aura of grittiness. Thanks to so many positive factors, "Hell Drivers" evolves into more than just a macho action movie and manages to pack an emotional punch. It's goofy at times, sure, but it's also pure 1950s movie magic.

I've seen Night Moves twice, 20 years apart. Both times, I felt strangely obligated to love this movie, for two reasons: (1) Gene Hackman is one of my favorite actors; and (2) I enjoy detective stories, especially those featuring Philip Marlowe or Lew Archer (the primary inspirations for Hackman's character, rather than Sam Spade, who is misleadingly name-dropped here).

Unfortunately, both times I was frankly bored by this movie and struggled to get into it. What's the problem? Well, detective stories are a funny genre. They tend to have very little action or incident, and instead rely on character development and witty dialogue to sustain interest. For this approach to work, the dialogue must sparkle, and the cast of characters must be really compelling.

Night Moves gets this all about half right. Some of the dialogue is sharp, but the seduction scenes have rather laughable "deep" and "sexy" lines. The movie is also weighed down by a protracted marital infidelity subplot that goes nowhere interesting.

I'll say this, though - the violent finale is terrific and really sticks in the mind.

In short, it's hard to write detective fiction as well as Raymond Chandler or Ross Macdonald, and this kind of pale imitation / updating of their work mostly just annoys me. Hackman is great, and the story kind of holds together, yet somehow this movie fizzles rather than frizzles.

Babylon 5 is one of those obscure TV treasures that not many people know about. Since its initial broadcast in the 1990s, it has consistently been overshadowed by Star Trek - not for any good reason, but rather because Trek is the more famous and heavily marketed franchise. However, the good news is that Babylon 5 is enjoying an unlikely renaissance in 2023; an animated movie is coming out this summer, and rumors persist of a live-action reboot.

We don't really need a reboot, though, because the original series is arguably the greatest science fiction TV show ever. The premise is simple. The title space station is basically a floating city that hosts an outer-space version of the United Nations. Various alien species congregate at Babylon 5 to negotiate and pursue their own agendas. The station is also a thriving spaceport - and a hotbed of resistance to the totalitarian government back on planet Earth.

So, there's plenty going on here: diplomacy, intrigue, politics, war, romance, etc. It's not all about the plot, though. The show's greatest strength is actually character development; the human characters are fairly compelling, while the aliens are off-the-charts awesome. G'Kar, Londo, and Delenn in particular are three of the most memorable alien characters in sci-fi history. It helps that the show's costumes and makeup are (generally) excellent and enhance the aliens' credibility.

J. Michael Straczynski wrote most of the episodes - so Babylon 5 has a remarkably cohesive feel, and rich ongoing storylines that evolve over multiple seasons. While lengthy story arcs are common in today's TV, they were rare in the 1990s; network executives were concerned that casual viewers would lose the thread. Also, while story arcs on other TV shows are often poorly planned and ultimately disappointing, I'm pleased to report that Babylon 5 really pays off and is worth watching in full. (Yes, even season one!)

It's not a perfect show, however. The computer-generated special effects were groundbreaking at the time but have not aged well. B5 also suffers from distracting cast changes (the station's commander is swapped out between seasons 1 and 2), the occasional bad episode, and a sometimes too-goofy sense of humor. Like most sci-fi, it can also get pretentious.

I am nevertheless giving Babylon 5 a perfect 10 rating - because at its best, it's intelligent, socially and politically aware, and downright exciting. It fires the imagination and packs an emotional punch, too. Sure, one might argue that B5 is very dated and very 90s. But its themes are timeless, and I continue to find value in the show today, 30 years after becoming a fan.

Kamen Rider is a long-running, popular superhero TV series in Japan that has only recently been released in the U. S. Over the past year, I've watched and enjoyed dozens of episodes from the show's original nine seasons, collectively known as the Showa Era and produced between 1971 and 1989. While I don't think any version I've seen qualifies as classic television, these early seasons are at least highly entertaining.

After 1989, Kamen Rider went on a long hiatus - not returning until the season in question, known as Kuuga (2000). So, this season was a major reboot of the franchise for a new generation. Generally speaking, it gets excellent reviews. (That said, Kamen Rider has mostly been reviewed by enthusiastic fans, and all the seasons tend to get excellent reviews.)

Unfortunately, I just watched seven episodes of Kuuga and decided that I kind of hate it. Where to begin? It looks simply hideous. The early seasons of Kamen Rider were shot on normal film, while Kuuga was shot on poor-quality video. I'd say that it resembles an infomercial or a sitcom, but that would be generous. Actually, it looks like it was shot by your Uncle Fred, using that cheap camcorder he's kept in the attic for about 20 years.

Adding to the pain, the digital special effects in Kuuga are absolutely dreadful. The early Kamen Rider shows featured fun practical effects, real pyrotechnics, and occasionally impressive stunts and wire work. Kuuga, on the other hand, has cheesy digital explosions and corny computer animation instead of real stunts. It reminds me of PlayStation 1 graphics, and is therefore part of a trend that I really hate: movies and TV shows that start to resemble video games.

I don't like the hero either. The actors in the 1970s and 1980s versions of Kamen Rider tended to be handsome cool guys, who wore fashionable clothes and looked good riding motorcycles. But the hero of Kuuga, Yusuke Godai, is an unappealing slacker who looks like he'd rather be sleeping than fighting evil. In fact, the show's closing credits actually show him taking a nap in the park! Heroic, eh? In theory, the idea of casting a nerdier and more sensitive actor as Kamen Rider is interesting, but in practice it falls flat for me.

It doesn't help that his origin is dull; he puts on a magic belt and becomes a superhero, yay. Where's the backstory, the trauma, the...anything? I don't much care for the villains either, who seem like a bunch of goth nightclub people hanging out in an aquarium. Seven episodes in, and I have no idea why I should care about any of these people.

Mercifully, I did enjoy a few aspects of Kuuga. There's a policeman character who is pretty cool. Some of the monster scenes work well and are surprisingly violent. There's even a scary found-footage scene in the opening episode that I thought was effective. Unfortunately, the negative aspects far outweighed the positive for me.

I know I'm in the minority, since many fans really like this version. However, I would caution old-timers such as myself to perhaps avoid Kuuga and investigate the earlier seasons of Kamen Rider instead. For me, this season is an ugly digital nightmare - a bunch of pixels coughed up on the screen, rather than a real TV show. Someone put on the 1971 version instead, please...

Why would anyone seek out a corny 1970s horror movie like The Beast Must Die in the 2020s? Well, maybe it's 11PM and you're tired and you don't have the energy to watch a good movie. Under those circumstances, it can't hurt to stream this junk and switch off your brain for 90 minutes.

What hurts is that this movie actually has a cool, fun premise. A big game hunter invites a group of eccentric people to his remote estate. Each person in the party has a shady past. The hunter is convinced that one of them is a werewolf, and he intends to stalk the creature by night and destroy it. It's up to the hunter - and YOU, the viewer - to figure out the werewolf's human identity.

Of course, these kinds of mysteries are almost impossible to solve. Most of the characters are creepy, volatile, and hairy, so pretty much any of them could be the werewolf. I guess you're supposed to keep track of who shows up in their dressing gown during a werewolf attack - and who doesn't - and solve the mystery that way. Riveting, eh?

Most of the party guests are played by character actors you may recognize from other, more famous genre films. Look, it's the guy who played Grand Moff Tarkin in Star Wars, doing a silly accent and dispensing exposition! And is that...Albus Dumbledore? And Blofeld too? Gosh. Too bad these solid supporting actors are largely wasted in tiny, do-nothing roles. Oddly, the best performance is given by Tom Chadbon, who played Jeremy's mother's boyfriend on Peep Show. Go figure.

Perhaps the most ridiculous cast member is the werewolf itself; it's played by a big, furry, sweet dog that looks about as menacing as your childhood teddy bear. Maybe I'm fussy, but I tend to prefer human-wolf hybrid makeups rather than, um, somebody's real dog.

In short, The Beast Must Die is kind of cheesy. It's also slow and not as much fun as you want it to be. But...I still don't hate it. It's perfect light viewing for aficionados of cheesy horror films. Just don't expect it to actually be good, and you might get a few laughs from it.

I really didn't know what to expect from this movie. The trailer was great. But the critics savaged it. Audience reviews were more positive, but often for reasons like "I enjoyed the Christian parts." So...is this thing actually worth the time of a serious cinema (or boxing) aficionado?

Well, sort of. The opening act of Big George Foreman is quite good. He's very sympathetic when he's mired in poverty and forced to enroll in the Job Corps, a weird 1960s boot camp for jobseekers. I also like how they handled the first phase of George's boxing career, when he was a powerhouse young knockout artist feared by everyone but Muhammad Ali.

So where does it go wrong? Amazingly, the film rushes through Foreman's astonishing comeback, 10 years after his initial retirement. In real life, his triumphant return to boxing was one of most improbable but awesome events in the history of sports. But in this cheesy movie, it's nothing special; he comes back, he wins, roll credits.

Two things would make this movie better. First, it needs more jokes. The real George Foreman is hilarious; watch any interview with him, and you'll see he cracks jokes all the time. Not so here. Second, it needs more Muhammad Ali. Why dramatize his early antagonism with George, and then their reconciliation, but not their later friendship? Both the Will Smith Ali movie, and this one, shy away from showing Muhammad Ali when he was older and sick. But I think that's a poor dramatic choice. Ali got sick as a consequence of boxing, that's the reality of it, and they shouldn't keep refusing to show it.

I suppose the overall problem with this movie is that it's exactly the wrong length. It should be a full miniseries, which would give each phase of George's life more room to breathe. Or, it could perhaps be 15 minutes shorter and more exciting. As it is, it's an okay 2-plus hours of entertainment that's not as good as watching George Foreman talk about his own life on YouTube.

It's been 25 long years since the release of Subspecies IV, so it's hard to believe this sequel even exists. Better still, it's actually a good movie! We live in an age of disappointing reboots, but this isn't one of them.

Of course, you have to grade movies like Subspecies on a curve. Is Blood Rise a conventionally good film? Probably not, but it's solid by B-movie standards. The music, costumes, and cinematography all exceed expectations; clearly, this was a labor of love for the production team. The makeup and special effects are more erratic, but still admirable given the low budget. The location filming in Serbia is excellent and preserves the unique European flavor of the series.

Most importantly, Anders Hove effortlessly slides back into the role of Radu - a repulsive yet somehow sympathetic character, and one of cinema's coolest vampires. As with the earlier entries, he's the best thing in the movie by miles, but the supporting cast is pretty solid. Notably, Hove plays the role seriously this time and isn't as campy as before, which might disappoint fans who enjoy the more overt comedy of the previous films ("Muuuummy!")

The plot of Subspecies V is merely okay, alas. It jumps around in time a lot, meaning that some situations can feel rushed and underdeveloped. Also, there's a conspicuous lack of action and crowd scenes - betraying the limitations of making a period-piece movie without enough money. Still, the film is good at glossing over its weaknesses and playing to its strengths, like mood and character.

I think Ted Nicolaou wanted to make a strong directorial statement with this film, by demonstrating that it's possible to create a serious and impactful Subspecies movie in 2023. While I personally prefer the more fun approach of the previous films, I was impressed by what he achieved here. This is probably the best Subspecies movie since part 2, and it's a nice blend of nostalgia and new ideas.

So...can we get a sixth one?

Good grief, is this silly action movie really the highest-rated Star Trek film on IMDb? Higher than Wrath of Khan, First Contact, and the amusing whale one from the 80s? How revolting!

Star Trek 2009 is one of those films that demands absolutely nothing of its audience. It's all pretty people, explosions, and pretty people causing explosions. What little plot there is, is surprisingly nerdy - did they really need to include two timelines and two Spocks? And I suppose it would be churlish to point out that the storyline is recycled from the previous, much-loathed Star Trek film, Nemesis (a Romulan guy in a big spaceship heads toward Earth to blow it up).

For years, I had to listen to people talk about what a wonderful reboot this is, and isn't it great that Star Trek is finally cool and popular and mainstream, blah blah. Well, now that Star Trek: Into Darkness was a box office disappointment, and Star Trek: Beyond was a miserable box office failure, is it okay to look back at this 2009 scrapheap and admit that maybe it *wasn't* so great?

I think the sequels were box office disappointments, because nobody really cared about these characters and their stories. They were amused by this shallow reboot only for the duration of one movie! Eat your popcorn, go home, and forget the whole thing happened, right? Pretty feeble compared to the massive pop-culture impact of classic Trek.

I know what this film's defenders will say - this is still the most financially successful version of Star Trek ever made. To which I would reply, "only sort of." The economics of blockbuster films have changed since the 1980s. Back in the day, Wrath of Khan could be considered a big success when it cost 11 million bucks and made $97 million (unadjusted for inflation, of course). Khan's 9x return on investment made it far more profitable than, say, this movie or Star Trek Beyond, which lost money! Also, the first four Trek films were all among the top 10 movies of their respective years at the U.S. box office. You can't say the same for the reboot Treks, which underperform compared to rival blockbuster franchises.

Indeed, Star Trek remains - and always will be - less popular than other major film franchises. That's because it's nerdy and brainy, and that's a good thing! We need nerdy Star Trek as an antidote to all the stupid entertainment out there.

Which is why this film's dumbing down of Trek is unacceptable. And, considering how much they dumbed it down, this new series has been remarkably unsuccessful. Shatner and Nimoy would never have lost the box-office battle to Ant-Man, Doctor Strange and King Kong! If you're going to go dumb, at least have the dignity to make $750,000,000 and guarantee a sequel...

I'll admit it: part of me loved Thor 3. I certainly got my $15 worth of action, spectacle and laughs from this movie. The trade-off was that I lost an equivalent 15 brain cells while watching this dumb schlock.

My biggest problem with the movie? It's a comedy. Worse, a comedy based on the premise that characters such as Thor, the Hulk and Surtur are innately ridiculous and don't deserve to be taken seriously. The movie laughs at them, not with them.

Why does this bother me? Because I've read and enjoyed the far more serious Thor comics written by Walt Simonson and J. Michael Straczynski. What Marvel has done here is take a bunch of those great comics, stitch them together into a clumsy Frankenstein's Monster of a plot, and add tons of corny punchlines. It's fun, yeah, but it sure ain't a 10/10 masterpiece.

My ideal Thor movie would have a realistic, primitive, gritty feel - like Conan. And it would focus on the violent power politics of the Asgardian royal family - like Game of Thrones. Presumably, Alan Taylor was trying to do something like that with Thor 2, before Marvel re-edited that unfortunate film into one of their kid-friendly joke fests.

The problem with the comedy approach is that nothing has dramatic weight. Several tragic things happen in Thor 3, but none of them carry any emotional impact. That's because, five seconds after every tragic event, someone cracks a joke. 5...4...3...2...1...joke! Whew, I was kinda sad about that major character's violent death for a moment there, but thankfully the emotion passed!

Of course, there's nothing wrong with a film that's content to be light entertainment. Not everything needs to be violent or heavily emotional. But, I personally would've preferred a Thor sequel with more weight than this. Alas, Thor 3 takes the same campy approach as Batman & Robin - it merely has somewhat better jokes and special effects.

"Blood for Dracula" clearly has its fans, hence its relatively high IMDb rating (for a horror movie) and the many positive comments describing it as a clever satire.

Alas, I would consider it a poor satire -- and a smug Z-movie that's more concerned with being "subversive" and "shocking" than telling a decent story with good characters. Some reviewers claim it's a masterpiece of camp, but somehow I don't see it as camp. Adam West's Batman is camp, while this thing is far more...what's the word? Blargh, that's it. Not camp, but blargh.

Not that "Blood for Dracula" doesn't have a few good points. The location filming (I presume actually in Italy) is gorgeous, and once in a while, the script serves up a clever line or a glimmer of proper characterization. But none of the good parts last. About 90% of the film's running time consists of repetitive nude scenes, boring exposition, casual sexism, and Dracula writhing while coughing up blood. Suddenly, "Dracula AD 1972" doesn't look so bad!

Bizarrely, two great directors appear in cameo roles: Roman Polanski as a local rube who sasses Dracula's incredibly annoying servant (a very enjoyable moment), and Vittorio De Sica as a hammy patriarch with florid speech patterns. It says something awful about the movie that these two cinema giants, chiefly known for their skills behind the camera, are in fact the best actors in the whole thing! Try not to compare their relative naturalism to Arno Juerging and Maxime de la Falaise, who have much bigger roles but can't act their way out of a wet paper bag.

As for Udo Kier as Dracula -- gosh, what can I say. He looks pale and depressed the whole time, as he frets and longs for a taste of "wurgin" (as in, virgin) blood. And his dialogue consists of very non-Dracula observations, such as "it's very important for a girl to study homemaking." Or something like that. Move over, Bram Stoker, your brilliant undead aristocrat had been replaced by a pallid wimp who loses a fight to a communist farmhand. (If only I could purge that image from my memory!)

Of course, the film's fans will tell you that its awfulness is all deliberate. Like Andy Warhol stacking his soup cans, the people who made this travesty were playing a brilliant joke on us all, and we're just too dumb to figure it out! Silly us, expecting things like a compelling plot and decent acting. We're all so bourgeois and unimaginative, we just don't deserve a great movie like this.

Okay, rant over. To be honest, I didn't totally hate this thing, I was just...reduced to a state of shock and wonderment by it all. Could such a movie actually exist? And could people actually consider it good? Well, well. What a wide and weird and wonderful world we live in.

But you'll forgive me if I prefer Horror of Dracula -- it's due entirely to my middle-class lack of bad taste!

Lieutenant Hornblower is a fun, fast-paced adventure novel -- not that you could tell that from watching this turgid, dreary TV adaptation that crawls along at a snail's pace.

In addition to being boring, this adaptation misses the whole point of C.S. Forester's original story. In the book, Hornblower seizes the opportunity to fill a void in leadership when his captain is incapacitated, and the ship's first officer proves to be an incompetent replacement. By devising a series of brilliant tactical maneuvers, Hornblower salvages his ship's mission, saves the day, and proves that he deserves the command of his own vessel.

This stupid version of the story totally ignores all that. For one thing, Hornblower is depicted here as nothing more than a brave, pleasant young man, with little resemblance to the neurotic genius from the books. (He's Sherlock Holmes at sea, not a swashbuckler!) Also, the emphasis is shifted from Hornblower proving himself, to a lot of clumsy melodrama about the mentally ill captain and the mutinous act of removing him from command. Cue 700 scenes of David Warner overacting as the wacky Captain Sawyer, endlessly terrorizing his crew and, by extension, the bored viewer who is tired of watching his shenanigans.

There are other things I could complain about - the direction is flat, the dialogue is unrealistic (Royal Navy officers wouldn't be so openly critical of their captain), everything looks too clean, the music is annoying, Mr. Bush has too small a role, etc. It beats me how fans of the novels generally regard this series as a good adaptation; I think it lacks the psychological depth of the books and just plain stinks. My advice is, leave this corny relic of the early 2000s un-viewed and read the book instead.

I wanted to like Wonder Woman, but I just can't get aboard the hype train. It's really the same as every other cartoonish, overblown comic-book action movie, except with a female protagonist.

Actually, this is worse than the average comic book movie, because it preaches to the audience about pacifism but then hypocritically celebrates "heroic" violence. In other words: Wonder Woman is an alleged pacifist who kills a bunch of people. Wonder Woman is also an alleged feminist, who allows Steve Trevor to drive the entire plot and basically steal the movie from her. Really, this thing is about as progressive as Dick Cheney's great-great grandfather.

I could forgive Wonder Woman's flimsy social commentary, if it were any good in other respects. But the plot is loose and shabby, the CGI is poor, and about half the scenes were shot in front of a green screen. Sometimes, I couldn't tell if I was watching a real movie, or Patty Jenkins playing God of War on her Playstation 2. (When exactly did cinema and video games blend into this horrible hybrid art form, which has none of the beauty and charm of old-school cinema?)

And don't get me started on the villains. The World War I era Germans are depicted as cartoonishly eeeevil, while the same era's British Empire is held up as a heroic ideal. Meanwhile, the main villain is a nightmare of bad CGI, who looks like he belongs on a 1980s heavy metal album cover. Naturally, they got a wonderful actor for this stupid part and wasted him entirely.

Perhaps I'm going overboard on criticisms, but we need some balance to the rapturous praise this film has received. Movie fans often accuse professional critics of being too harsh, but lately, I think critics have actually become too lenient. Mainstream movies get dumber, louder and tackier all the time, and they are increasingly substituting mawkishness for real emotion and character development. And yet the critics have given this thing a great Rotten Tomatoes rating! I guess we've all lowered our standards to rock bottom?

Shin Godzilla was a huge hit in Japan. As a lifelong Godzilla fan, I was really excited to see the movie finally reach the U.S., and due to its success I sort of assumed it would be great.

How wrong I was! Shin Godzilla is a dull, over-long and meandering mess. Godzilla hardly appears in the film, and when he does bother to show up, he (a) initially takes the form of a laughably tacky tadpole monster; (b) evolves into a CGI zombie-chicken thing that moves stiffly and isn't scary; and then (c) falls asleep. I very much wanted to join him in his nap.

Now, I want to assure you that I do have the attention span to appreciate human drama, and I didn't need Godzilla to be on-screen all the time. However, the problem with this film's human drama is that it takes the form of tedious meetings between politicians with no personality and minimal character development. Even the protagonist is a cardboard cut-out, with no discernible personality traits beyond being driven and patriotic.

So, once I absorbed the film's very obvious message (bureaucrats are incompetent) I quickly tired of the human drama and started yearning for more monster action.

On the positive side, I did occasionally appreciate the film's social commentary. And two of the action scenes involving Godzilla are pretty spectacular. But if you've watched a few trailers on YouTube, you've probably seen most of the best action shots already.

I honestly wonder why this poorly paced and low budget film was such a huge hit in Japan. I think it's probably because the film's message taps into the recent wave of patriotism there, and the desire for Japan to disassociate itself from the United States. So this political stuff may be fascinating for Japanese viewers, but it's a snooze for Americans.

Stick with the classic 1954 Godzilla instead, which is a much more intelligent and artistically satisfying film than this. Geez, most of the "B" Godzilla movies of the past 60 years are preferable to watching this thing's boring non-characters talk endlessly in conference rooms. Wake me up when it's over...

Geez, I wanted to like this movie. I love the Rocky saga, and I was intrigued by the idea of introducing Apollo Creed's son as the new protagonist. And once the film started getting rave reviews, I got *really* pumped to see it.

Unfortunately, I feel like I saw a different movie from everyone else. Sure, "Creed" has some good acting and a good heart, and it's somewhat respectful to the Rocky legacy. But, drat it, this film is really just a lazy remake of the first Rocky film, with Adonis Creed in Rocky's role and Rocky in Mickey's role.

Worse than that - "Creed" rips off literally every preceding Rocky movie. It contains not a single original idea. Indeed, I recognized every scene - the illness subplot is recycled from "Rocky II," the boring office job material was previously seen in "Rocky Balboa," the training montage was in...well, all the old ones...and so on. Just changing the protagonist isn't enough to make this ancient material feel fresh.

There were some opportunities to explore new directions, but the filmmakers squandered most of them. For example, the beginning of the film builds up Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad) as a compelling new character - but then she gets dropped like a hot potato about 1/4 of the way through the movie. And Adonis Creed's potentially interesting romance with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) develops in a very clichéd fashion; all Creed ever does is lie to Bianca or spoil things for her, yet somehow she loves him anyway. Why?

Even their "meet cute" scene didn't work for me. Bianca wakes Creed up by blasting music in their apartment building at 3:00 AM - which in a movie is charming behavior, but in real life would be incredibly annoying. Somehow, Creed is the only person in the building who comes to complain. Yeah, right.

On a more depressing note, I really don't like what the film does to Rocky's character. If you thought Rocky was a sad old man in "Rocky Balboa," you ain't seen nothing yet. The Rocky in this movie has given up on life, and that's not easy to watch. At least in "Rocky Balboa," we got to see Rocky rebuilding his life after losing Adrian, by drawing closer to his son and developing a friendship with Little Marie. But in this movie, his son and Little Marie are gone, and Rocky is just...waiting' on death. Ugh, how bleak. And I guess I'm supposed to believe that Rocky's forced, chemistry-free friendship with Adonis Creed gives him a reason to live again. Yikes.

I'm not sure why the critics are so into this movie - usually, they vilify sentimental, lazy remakes like this. I think perhaps they were really jazzed that Ryan Coogler of "Fruitvale Station" fame directed it. All I can say is, I hope "Fruitvale Station" is better than this. "Creed" is as unoriginal as a Star Wars movie about blowing up the Death Star. Worse yet, it reminded me of the inevitable passage of time in a sort of downer way. Yeah, I think I'll just pretend it doesn't exist, and toss it in the same bin with other passing-the-torch films like "Star Trek: Generations" and "Batman Forever." It's a better film than those, true, but no less of a drag.

I have a new rule to propose. There should never be another episode of Doctor Who where the Daleks don't kill anyone. Because when the Daleks don't manage to kill anyone - when all they do is stand around, shriek and act like idiots - their credibility goes right out the window. I mean really, how lame were they in this episode?

Watch out, spoilers below. So...

• The Daleks can't penetrate Davros' forcefield. Lame.

• The Daleks thought they killed Missy and Clara last week, but instead, their victims simply teleported about 500 yards away. And despite all their advanced technology, the Daleks didn't detect this. (Note, by the way, that Missy and Clara's "deaths" were about the 405th and 406th false deaths in New Who history, respectively.)

• The Daleks thought they blew up the TARDIS last week, but they didn't. The TARDIS shifted into Hostile Action Displacement mode, a safety feature that I believe all TARDISes have. Despite having fought an extensive Time War with the Time Lords, the Daleks somehow don't know about this.

• Despite the fact that the Daleks can fly, they are ambushed and killed by sludge from their own sewer system. Guys...just...fly to safety. A bunch of you are already flying over the city in those three CGI shots, anyway.

Here are a few more problems I had with this episode, that have less to do with Dalek lameness than a lack of consistency/credibility:

• Davros relies on his chair for life support, not just movement. How does he survive when the Doctor rips him out of it? And if he has a force field that repels Dalek firepower, how come it can't stop the Doctor from manhandling him?

• Daleks rely on their shells for life support, not just movement. So how can thousands of Daleks survive outside of their shells in a sludge-like state?

• The Daleks, as noted above, fought a huge Time War with the Time Lords. Yet somehow, they have never had access to Regeneration Energy before this episode. That's...daft. Did they never take a Time Lord prisoner before? And speaking of Regeneration Energy, how exactly does it make the Daleks more powerful? We see their domes shine for half a second, and that's it. Yeah, Moffat, don't bother to explain the plot or anything.

• My final bullet point: how did the Doctor guess what Davros' plan was going to be, in advance? Really, how did he know? In "Remembrance of the Daleks," the 7th Doctor sets an elaborate trap for Davros. Here, the 12th Doctor seems to clairvoyantly know what Davros is planning in advance. There's a difference, and it's the difference between good writing and lazy writing.

My overall point is...nothing that happens in this episode makes sense. Like a lot of New Who writing, it feels like a first draft, overstuffed with "cool" ideas that don't necessarily make any sense when considered in the context of the show as a whole. And at times, my gosh, it all plays like self parody. All of Missy's lines about the "pointy stick," and her jabbing Davros in the eye, are just two examples of the show not taking itself seriously at all. Poking in the eye is Three Stooges territory, guys; you were only missing the comedy sound effect.

Still, I shouldn't complain too much. At least I got to see the Dalek corridor from the 1963 William Hartnell episode, lovingly recreated here (though not used to its best, claustrophobic effect). And hey, I got to see Skaro again, my favorite planet in Doctor Who. It didn't have a cool petrified forest, like in 1963, or a cool lake full of mutations. But at least it had some sludge and some dumb Daleks and Davros, played by a good actor with bad lines.

These days, I have to take what I can get with Doctor Who.

Another year, another season of Doctor Who. That's 35 seasons in 52 years. Impressive.

And yet, I can't help feeling the show has lost all direction. This episode, in particular, has the most gimmicky plot imaginable. Watch out, because I'm going to drop spoilers here.

So...

I'm supposed to believe that the Doctor abandoned Davros to die, when Davros was still a child, and trapped in a minefield. But Davros survived, in a hideously scarred form, and went on to create the Daleks. So really, the Doctor is directly responsible for the creation of his own arch enemies.

Aargh. First of all, the notion that the Doctor would leave a child to die is...revolting. And totally out of character. But that's all right, everyone is out of character here. Indeed, at one point, the new Brigadier stands by and lets the Master get away with murdering several people - something the original Brigadier would never have done. So now, Doctor Who has heroes who are total cowards and morally bankrupt to boot.

And while the core of this storyline is horribly depressing, it's amazing that the tone of the script is so goofy and inconsistent. At one point in this bizarre episode, the Doctor holds a rock concert in the Middle Ages, and makes a series of cringe-worthy puns. Later on, the Master drops some casual sex references to the Daleks, and makes a silly joke about male vanity in the middle of a scene that's supposed to be scary. So is this show supposed to be a relentlessly grim drama, or some kind of ridiculous farce?

The original series could, at least, inject a few jokes into an episode without destroying the atmosphere and tension. In "Genesis of the Daleks" - the classic episode that this nonsense is partly based on - Tom Baker had some good one-liners. But overall, that episode maintained a serious, brooding tone. Not so here. "The Magician's Apprentice" drunkenly veers from unfunny comedy to overwrought melodrama from moment to moment, never pausing for breath or bothering to be consistent.

And Peter Capaldi, a promising Doctor last season, is awful in it. I hated watching him panic when he realized that he was on Skaro. I hated watching him plead with Davros for Clara's life. He's so hammy he makes Colin Baker look subtle. Besides, the real Doctor wouldn't plead. He'd simply defeat Davros and save Clara himself.

Meanwhile, I have to wonder who the intended audience for Doctor Who is now. This episode contains a huge number of callbacks to the original series, which fans of the new series probably won't understand. The Sisterhood of Karn, last prominently featured in Season 13, pop in for a scene here. The planet Skaro, as seen in 1963, makes a reappearance as well. And Davros - a villain who was important to the original series, but has barely featured in the new one - is the focal point of the whole thing. In short, it's one nerdy reference to old episodes after another. I can't imagine how alienating this is for newer viewers - who, in my experience, don't care about the original series at all.

As an old Who fan, I should be happy about all this. But I'm not. I resent that I'm supposed to happily salivate, like one of Pavlov's dogs, at the sight of the 1963 Dalek city. All I can say is, the Dalek city looked better 50 years ago when it was a model, instead of cheap CGI junk green-screened in behind Jenna Coleman. Yes, I honestly think the show's special effects have hardly advanced at all, while the scripts have regressed considerably.

Anyway - I see that the ratings for this episode were down from last year. No surprise there. The 2005 reboot of Doctor Who built a new audience by introducing soap-opera drama to the show, and casting pretty-boy Doctors who flirted with their companions. I hated that formula, but I understand why it was successful. Now we have an older, angrier, almost evil Doctor in Peter Capaldi, trapped in nerdy sci-fi plots that only a lifetime fan of the show can understand. This is a disaster...if Moffatt keeps it up, he'll alienate the whole audience in a matter of weeks.

Which might not be a bad thing. If the show crashes and burns, maybe a kindly, better writer will come along to fix it.

I enjoy "Day of the Doctor," and I understand why it has such high ratings. It's got a lot to love: multiple Doctors, a superb guest cast, decent special effects and a nice feel-good vibe. But is it the best episode of Doctor Who ever made? I don't think so.

First, I'll accentuate the positive. John Hurt is fantastic as a "guest Doctor," and gives a very warm, funny performance with plenty of gravitas at the right moments. Billie Piper is also good in her guest role as The Moment; I'm not surprised that she's enjoyed some major acting successes since moving on from Who. And let's not forgot Tom Baker, who gives his usual wacky and lovable performance in a random-but-awesome scene near the end.

These actors bring a lot of emotional punch to a story that is compelling but sappy at the same time. Basically, the plot revolves around the Doctors teaming up to change history and avert the tragic end of the Time War, a conflict that wiped out the Doctor's species. The story is well constructed, and there's a nice buildup to the moment when our heroes figure out how to save the day.

However, I have a problem with the overly cheerful notion - often advanced by the new Doctor Who - that death and destruction can be "cured" as if by the wave of a magic wand. By undoing the tragic end of the Time War in this episode, Steven Moffat lifted a huge burden off the Doctor's shoulders and made the overall tone of the new series much more optimistic. But he also, y'know, used a magic button solution to wipe away a major tragedy, for about the 15th time.

This notion that death and tragedy can be overcome, as if by magic, is a direct contrast to the much more cynical and realistic worldview of the original Doctor Who. For example, compare "Day of the Doctor" to "Caves of Androzani." The former is a fairy tale about war that ends happily; the latter is a gritty war story that ends tragically. Sue me, but I think Androzani is a lot better, and more reflective of how life actually works.

And "Day of the Doctor" has other problems, apart from the usual magic-hokum solution. The Zygons are under-used, the UNIT characters are dull, the Elizabeth I material is silly, and the Tenth Doctor gets nothing to do (which I suppose fits his super-bland character). Also, most of the exciting action is front loaded. The episode opens with a generic but quite cool battle between the Daleks and the Time Lords, but ends with grainy stock footage of the old Doctors and some CGI renditions of the TARDIS whizzing around. In other words, the ending is...kinda flat, isn't it?

One last complaint. The Doctor does not, himself, come up with the solution to his dilemma. The Moment takes him by the hand and walks him through the entire solution, from step 1 to step 100. This fits with the trend in the new series that the Doctor is much dumber than he used to be, and he rarely saves the day without considerable help. Would it be asking too much for the writers to just make the Doctor a super-capable genius again, instead of a mildly clever blunderer?

OK, I've complained enough. Each of these nitpicks drags the episode down for me, but on the other hand, I can't deny that it's super-fun and cleverly scripted. Besides, it's got John Hurt! And Daleks, and explosions, and Tom Baker going "oohaaah!" It's hard not to get swept up in the excitement of it all; but whenever I pause and switch on the critical part of my brain, I do find several things to fault here.

I appreciate that "Vincent and the Doctor" is a popular - even beloved - episode of Doctor Who, which often makes lists of the 10 top stories ever. But I have strongly dissenting opinions about it.

In my view, this episode is a really schmaltzy mess, which explores (exploits?) van Gogh's horrible mental agony in a trite way. I feel as though Richard Curtis' brilliant idea for the story boils down to this: "Wouldn't it have been nice if the Doctor gave van Gogh a pat on the back a few months before he committed suicide?"

Well...yeah, I guess. I suppose you could make an argument that van Gogh's awareness of his posthumous fame makes his life (and suffering) more worthwhile, somehow. But the whole concept leaves me cold. For one thing, we all know perfectly well that van Gogh died in total ignorance of his future impact. For another, not all mentally ill or suicidal people can be comforted in this way, of course. "Don't worry, dear, you'll be famous after your death." Yeah, but what if you're ordinary and not talented and you'll never be famous? In other words, this strikes me as a shallow exploration of mental illness, relevant only to the very unusual case of van Gogh.

Also, why doesn't the Doctor just save the guy's life? At the end of the episode, why doesn't Amy insist that they travel back in time and make a real effort at rescuing van Gogh? In a sense, it's quite cruel of the Doctor and Amy to breeze into his life, cheer him up for a few days, and then leave him to die! What's so inspiring about that? I guess they really needed to move on and fight some rubber Silurians or something.

Of course, you could argue that the Doctor is forbidden from changing history. Sometimes. Okay, but I think that issue should have been the focal point of the entire episode. The Doctor could've declined to save van Gogh, while Amy could've insisted on trying. That would've been good drama - like The Aztecs, a way smarter episode of the original series. But instead, Curtis focuses most of his attention on a stupid invisible monster that adds precisely nothing to the plot, apart from feebly echoing van Gogh's inner demons. (Is the production team really too chicken to drop the monsters for even ONE story?)

In short, the emotion in this episode feels...fake to me. I don't think that Curtis really challenged his audience to confront the realities of death and depression in a meaningful way. Instead, he constructed the script as a kind of cathartic tear-jerker. Yes, it makes the viewer a BIT sad, to see emo van Gogh crying with (temporary) joy while emo music plays in the background. But once you've shed your emo tears, what happens? The Doctor moves on and lets the guy die!

Uh...lovely, I guess. Inspirational, I suppose. To some people. But not me. This is not the best, but rather one of the worst episodes of the show. It makes something awful from history into an excuse to tug on heartstrings for no real purpose. Ugh.

Watch out, spoilers below.

So...the Doctor Who series finale. Let me start by reviewing the positive elements. There is some powerful imagery in this episode, particularly when the Cybermen emerge from their graves. Sure, it's ripped off from zombie movies, but it's effective. Also, Michelle Gomez is great fun as the Master. I don't even mind her bonkers plan to present the Doctor with an army, since it's an interesting take on the concept that the Doctor and the Master are competitive best buddies. Finally, Rachel Talalay's direction is solid and the special effects and spectacle are pretty sweet for a TV production.

I'm afraid there endeth the positive elements of the episode. So what went wrong? Well, Steven Moffat's script - despite containing some good lines and emotional moments - makes absolutely no sense when you really think about it. Here are just a few inconsistencies that I noticed:

A. At the beginning of the episode, the people of Earth think that Cybermen are fun, safe and cool, and are okay with taking selfies with them. However, minutes later when additional Cybermen emerge from their graves, a newscaster is heard discussing how the Cybermen are dangerous and have invaded the Earth before, and he notes their newfound ability to fly. Sooo...are humans aware that Cybermen are dangerous, or not? Apparently Moffat didn't care about consistency here.

B. The Master's whole plan is to present the Doctor with an army and make friends with him again. Yet in the middle of the episode, the Master tries to kill the Doctor by blowing up the UNIT plane, and seems upset when he survives (in a ridiculous manner, of course). Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. Does she want him alive or not?

C. Why are Danny Pink and Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart the only Cybermen to retain their human emotions? None of the other millions (billions?) of Cybermen loved someone enough to retain their humanity? Never mind that it's hard to accept the usual New Who nonsense that the power of love always conquers evil. One wonders how the Cybermen ever effectively convert anyone, if commonplace love is enough to cancel out the process.

D. Speaking of the Brigadier...did anyone really want to see this beloved character from the original series resurrected as a Cyber-zombie? I think not. And does it make any sense to have a character who hasn't appeared since 1989 (!!) take down the main villain of Doctor Who in 2014(?!) Nope. I can't even imagine what new viewers, who don't know the Brig, made of that.

E. How was the kid from Afghanistan resurrected at the end? I couldn't follow that bit about how the bracelet could bring someone back from the dead. Sure, I can just about accept that the Master turned the kid into a Cyberman at some point - but how could he come back in perfect physical condition?

Now, maybe I missed some of the explanations for this stuff. And maybe I didn't. A major problem with New Who is how rapid-fire the writing is; the series finales, in particular, zoom from one wacky idea and surreal scene to another, barely pausing for breath. Anyway, I don't think the plot would make sense to me, even if I watched this thing 10 times and wrote down every line of blurted-out dialogue. It really is nonsense.

It's worth noting that even the cheapest, lamest Colin Baker episode of Doctor Who had a plot that made sense, and advanced from point A to B to C in a way you could follow. And even on the rare occasions when old Who didn't make sense, it was never as sentimental and ludicrous as this episode. For example: Danny Pink feels guilt over killing a young Afghan boy, but the power of sci-fi nonsense gives him a chance to resurrect the kid he killed. Um...yeah, that's not how life works. PTSD and guilt and murder can't be undone with a wave of a writer's magic wand. And old Who never, ever was ridiculous enough to suggest such a thing. The power of love literally conquering death - the most persistent theme in New Who - indeed spits in the face of the far more realistic depiction of death from classic Who.

So...if you're okay with Doctor Who being a sentimental fairy tale with plot holes big enough for Iron Man (sorry, Cybermen) to fly through, you will enjoy this more than I did. And hey, even a cynic like me enjoyed parts of this episode...Capaldi is a good Doctor, Gomez is a good Master, and it's nice to see the show looking glossy and cool. But really...they need to start writing scripts that make sense. And they need to start depicting human emotion in a more honest, less sentimental way. Otherwise, this show is gonna remain a poor excuse for a drama, as well as a poor excuse for science fiction.

I'm not a huge fan of 21st-century Doctor Who, but I must admit, I admired this episode.

The first half of "Listen" contains some of the best scenes in the show's history. The prologue - which focuses on the Doctor talking to himself in the TARDIS - sets the scene beautifully, and has a nice creepy vibe. Later, there's an extended sequence in a children's home that's both eerie and fascinating.

The highlight comes when the Doctor reassures a child who has been scared by a monster, by explaining how fear and adrenaline actually make the kid stronger. It's a very cool speech - one of the best ever written for the Doctor - and it's quite touching to see the character comfort a child. But thankfully, the comforting isn't too sentimental; like a true scientist, the Doctor gets the kid excited about his fight-or-flight response to the monster.

Unfortunately, the storyline then proceeds to lose its way, becoming too self-consciously clever as it goes along. The ending is contrived, and there's some weird time paradoxes and coincidences that just don't work for me. I think "Listen" would've worked better had the story been kept simple, but Steven Moffat seems to honestly believe that Doctor Who plots get better the more convoluted they are. They don't, as a rule.

Another slight limitation of the episode is that it's very meta-fictional. The whole thing is an exploration of the irrational childhood fear of monsters under the bed; and this irrational fear is self-consciously linked to the appeal of Doctor Who itself, a show that's best-known in England for scaring kids. But this doesn't quite work for me, for several reasons: (a) I don't remember ever being scared of phantom monsters under the bed, so I can't fully relate to the theme; (b) I don't agree that the primary function of Doctor Who is to scare kids; and (c) Doctor Who villains, generally speaking, represent real and present dangers (militarism, prejudice, etc.) and are not just phantom bogeymen. In short, this episode's deconstruction of Doctor Who falls somewhat outside my personal interpretation of the show, and seems a little simplistic to me.

Still, that doesn't detract much from the fact that this is an atmospheric, well-directed episode with some solid scares and a handful of hilarious jokes. Perhaps the best part is Peter Capaldi; he gives one of the greatest-ever performances as the Doctor here, and recaptures the character's essential qualities of genius and witty humor that were (ahem) largely absent from Smith and Tennant's interpretations.

If only series 8 stayed this good! Unfortunately, none of the subsequent episodes aired to date can touch "Listen." Though imperfect, this is a very good story that is sadly surrounded by inferiors.

Nowadays, the original version of Doctor Who (1963-89) is often mocked for its bad special effects, allegedly slow pacing and lack of popularity...even though it was popular, for most of its run.

However, the new version of Doctor Who (2005-??) tends to get a free pass for its goofy soap opera dramatics, shallow "arc" plots, lame CGI and dumbing down of the Doctor's character. Well, I know one cranky Internet review will hardly tip the critical balance in favor of Old Who, but I'm gonna contribute my two cents on the subject anyway.

In case you haven't guessed it, I LOVE classic Who. When I was a child, the original series intrigued and amused me, got me interested in history, and gave me a great intellectual/heroic role model in the Doctor. Certainly, the show lost some steam (and ratings) over the years, but it actually made a nice recovery in its final, flawed-but-fascinating seasons.

Since 2005, I've followed this revived version of Doctor Who, and basically hated every second of it. I fundamentally disagree with the new show runners, who focus all of their storytelling efforts on the Doctor's young human companions. They've literally dragged a once high-concept show "down to Earth," emphasizing tedious plot elements like shallow romances, family dynamics, and the companions' boring jobs. Sue me, but I liked the show better when it was primarily about the Doctor - the magical character. The interesting one. Not the mere mortal.

Indeed, all of the sci-fi elements in New Who are just window dressing. For example, the Doctor's sonic screwdriver can now solve all of his problems, because the new writers don't know anything about real science and need an easy gimmick to get out of tough spots. Also, the Doctor hardly ever visits alien planets any more, and when he does, he rarely encounters an interesting or well-developed alien culture. Alas, these far-off worlds end up being mere CGI backdrops for the latest round of arguing and flirting between the Doc and his companion.

And how about those new villains? In the original series, the Daleks represented the Nazis, while the Cybermen reflected our anxieties about technology taking over our lives. But what do the mighty Weeping Angels represent? They're...um...creepy statues that freak you out. A nice image, but a totally hollow idea. That's why they were only good for their first two appearances. And don't get me started on the Slitheen, who combined flatulence with far-out 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Does anyone else miss Roger Delgado?)

Now, many of New Who's defenders say that it represents a more emotional, human take on the concept than Classic Who. But I don't think the emotions represented here are genuine. Characters in New Who are largely shallow and dumb. They fall in and out of love and lust, seemingly at random. (For example: Amy suddenly hating Rory in "Asylum of the Daleks." I bet he regretted that whole Lone Centurion thing!) And when characters die, they are often resurrected by the power of LOVE, combined with sci-fi nonsense. Geez, pass me the air sick bag.

Speaking of death, it isn't handled very seriously in New Who. In the classic series, death was violent and final. This hammered home the human cost of fighting evil forces like the Daleks. In New Who, characters tend to get brought back to life by pixie dust. Or, the violent deaths are hardly shown. It's such a toothless re-imagining of the whole concept.

Of course, I'm in the minority here. Longtime Who fans like Steven Moffat and Gareth Roberts are the ones writing this stuff, and claiming that it's faithful to the spirit of the original series. But it isn't. It's sold out to get higher ratings. So we'll never see a really smart episode, like Kinda or The Aztecs or Ghost Light again. But we will see nonsense like dinosaurs coughing up the TARDIS, Rose becoming a goddess by looking into the heart of the TARDIS, and the Doctor saying "bow ties are cool" several hundred times. Goodbye intelligent writing, hello stupid catchphrases.

Thankfully, the show's production team changes so often that there's always hope it will get better. But as of October 2014, we have a great Doctor in Peter Capaldi who is being badly served by lame scripts. Even when they get one element right in New Who, there's about 15 other elements they have wrong.