I agree with both of you; an absolute stinker of an episode. Michael, in particular, is spot-on in nailing-down the lack of ambition that seemed to characterise this episode. I think that's a problem to do with the show's popularity (this episode got both terrific ratings and audience appreciation) which means the writers don't really feel they're up against anything and consequently don't try. The only people saving it are the likes of Moffat who obviously seem to *care* about the episodes they're writing beyond how many of the viewing public like it on the night; these are writers with one eye on the show's legacy as well as it's immediate impact.

Having said all that I quite liked Tate, but I'm probably in a minority there. And Cribbins was ace; I loved that he was doing Proper Acting whilst everyone else was in gurning CBBC/sitcom mode.

I basically agree with you, as I wrote in my own review of the episode. It is a shame that this revival's high points are so rare, and that they are so isolated. Torchwood, I think, has improved greatly since its first fumbling steps (although still has a long way to go). Unfortunately for Doctor Who, it's just getting more and more boring. Except for those aforementioned standout episodes. 'Blink', for example, was extremely clever, well-written, well-acted and ultimately just glorious. Unusual in its choice of main cast member I'll admit, but wouldn't it be nice to see more episodes of that quality.

It's a shame that several commenters on my review said they thought it was good. I wonder if my perspective is different as my introduction to Doctor Who was with the proper stories - the original series with stories that would routinely span three, four, five, six episodes (depending on policy at the time). Most of the new series just feels too quick, everything crammmed in, and Catherine Tate is not going to help.

I'd give it 2/5. Definitely lighter and more kid-orientated than average. I hope CT doesn't spend the entire series trying to outgurn Tennant - that would be painful to watch.

Good: One or two nice jokes, CT less annoying than I remembered, music, foreshadowing
Bad: CT still annoying, Supernanny impression, scene with Bernard Cribbens going on four times longer than it should, lack of excitement

Em, I think you're all being a bit harsh.

It was well-constructed, well-paced enjoyable piece of nonsense. RTD has always made these kind of episodes. What's wrong with a bit of fast camp fun one time in thirteen? It had a good villain (nice performance from Sarah Lancashire), Catherine Tate was less shite than expected (I'm not going to defend her, it was a terrible idea, I don't like her, I was angry when I got cast, it's a piece of in-house stunt casting from hell, all I'm saying is she was not a shite as I thought she would be, still not totally happy but I'm dealing with it). I had a good time watching 'Partners in Crime'. I certainly don't mind the new series being too quick or cramming too much in - you get a mini-epic each week and as the series has progressed they've really worked wonders with the format. It's far too early in Series 4 to talk about this 'no longer striving for greatness' stuff. Admittedly it's no 'Smith and Jones' - the idea wasn't quite that inspired (but then that episode was one of the best) - but it was still pretty solid. 3/5.

And this stuff about the Doctor having no companion - eh, isn't the Doctor travelling through time and space with a companion DOCTOR WHO? I don't want Catherine Tate either but it belongs more in a discussion about the direction of the series in the future rather than directed towards this episode in particular.

Also, that bit with Rose was great. Totally unexpected.

> why do I need to watch Catherine Tate walk to work

I thought she was headed to Adipose, for alien conspiracy reasons?

Still: hero in a cupboard. Dumb fucking climax.

But: I liked Tate quite a lot. And I was never a fan.

Yet: I still don't rate Lancashire. At all.

And: I dunno about old Who comparisons. Sometimes it seems unreasonably deified. Was the WORST ep of old Who really significantly better than this? (I was, to be fair, entertained.)

Anyway: Two and a half stars. It was a mess. And the A-plot sucks.

> it seems more likely that Series Four will mimic Series Three in that the good bits seem to exist in their own little bubble, incapable of redeeming the whole.

There was a lot of 'Series 3 beats 4 hands down' talk at the time, though. Me, I preferred 2...

Um, that should be 'Series 3 beats 2 hands down'. Obviously.

Series 3 was definitetly the best series so far for me but then we've talked about this before. Obviously, I can't defend Lazarus Experiment and 42 but the rest of it was of very high quality, even the Dalek 2 parter came good after a messy start.

Whoooo's being a bit of a Moaning Michael tonight??? (and a, er...Jaundiced Jonathan...)

> "I'm watching a programme aimed at children. A programme which used to straddle age divides and unite families, but now exists solely for the very young and very old, and does not treat me with any intelligence whatsoever".

Yes you are, well done, it's taken you 739 episodes to realise. It still does, the viewing figures speak for themselves. No it doesn't, that's The Paul O'Grady Show. Oh, go watch Deal Or No Deal, well intelligent that.

> they still haven't quite figured out how to do "light" episodes like this one, mind

Yeah they have. Smith & Jones springs to mind. I also thought they did a good job with The Runaway Bride, aside from the shit villain.

> Can DOCTOR WHO not just be the main character of an episode of DOCTOR WHO for a bloody fucking change?

When the episode is re-introducing a companion, no, not really. Btw, you CAN'T say the Doctor hasn't taken centre stage on a large number of occasions in the last three seasons.

> Series One had it's flaws, but even the clunkiest episodes gave off the feeling that they were striving for greatness.

Correct. Though I feel Eccleston should largely be thanked for saving the weaker offerings (e.g. Boom Town). Billie too, of course. She's still the best regular actress to grace Who. I also stand by the statement that Aliens Of London/WWIII is the best first-half-of-series-2-parter so far. Considering the other two feature the Cybermen and the Daleks...that really is maddening, but it's true.

> Tate showing off she's not only a shit comic but also a shit actress.

This I agree with, to a degree. She CAN act but she can also make crap acting choices (like going into her character voices in the middle of scenes). I've rarely found her funny either. Watching her show is often like listening to nails being scraped across a chalkboard. However, with 12 episodes left I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt. There is such thing as character growth and development. She still needed to give the Runaway Bride vibe in this episode to an extent. It would have been ridiculous if she was a completely different person.

> Catherine Tate pops up and starts shouting “I DANT WANT TO MATE WIF YOU, SUNSHINE!” and I break out in an anger sweat.

Maybe it's because she actually says 'You're not mating with me, sunshine!' OK OK it was still one of the worst moments in the episode! Slipping into her characters is a thing she needs to stem somewhat.

> hated her in The Runaway Bride and now hates her just as much after her first proper episode

I see this Saturday's Fires of Pompeii as her first 'proper' effort.

Yeah yeah YEAH it was fairly poor overall but I think we can be safe in the knowledge that the 12 episodes that follow Partners In Crime will all better it, some of them DRASTICALLY (Moffat, RTD's final 4 (not to be confused with those Baltar calls the Final 5...)) Maybe RTD didn't have as much time to perfect this one seeing as he was suddenly lumbered with an extra episode to write (4.10 - Midnight). God, I'm such an RTD apologiser it's untrue. I don't care, I reckon he's done a good job so far (Last Of The Time Lords was just a...a bad dream...)

> unless NTS is performing better than I'm aware of in the mentally subnormal or 10 years and below brackets.

Well you said it.

Yes you are, well done, it's taken you 739 episodes to realise. It still does, the viewing figures speak for themselves. No it doesn't, that's The Paul O'Grady Show. Oh, go watch Deal Or No Deal, well intelligent that.

What the fuck are you talking about? Yes it was always a childrens programme but it used to entertain people who weren't children and didn't ask them to lower their intelligence anywhere near as much as this episode. There have not been 739 episodes of Doctor Who as childish as this and if you think there have, well done, you're on heroin!

"Yeah they have. Smith & Jones springs to mind. I also thought they did a good job with The Runaway Bride, aside from the shit villain."

The music in The Runaway Bride is godawful. It's like a sub-par Danny Elfman having a painful cuban phase, or something. The music in Smith and Jones is alright I suppose.

"When the episode is re-introducing a companion, no, not really. Btw, you CAN'T say the Doctor hasn't taken centre stage on a large number of occasions in the last three seasons."

I don't think anyone needs that much reminding about who Catherine Tate is, do they? And I was more annoyed that The Doctor often seems to play second fiddle in the first episodes when really, it's not necessary anymore.

"Correct. Though I feel Eccleston should largely be thanked for saving the weaker offerings (e.g. Boom Town). Billie too, of course. She's still the best regular actress to grace Who. I also stand by the statement that Aliens Of London/WWIII is the best first-half-of-series-2-parter so far. Considering the other two feature the Cybermen and the Daleks...that really is maddening, but it's true."

Eccleston ruined a few episodes too, though. He's a COCK in The End Of The World. It wasn't him that saved them, I don't think, at least not entirely - can you imagine Christopher Eccleston saving "42"? I can't. The writing was just a bit less formulaic then. Why have something interesting like Dalek, when you can combine a few barmy concepts into something that sounds good in the Radio Times and then write the episode in an afternoon? It's HOSPITALS ON THE MOON! It's LAODS OF TINY CUTE ALIENS! It's POSEIDON ADVENTURE ON THE TITANIC IN SPACE LOL! It's WEERWOLVEZ and QUEEN VICTORIA!! It's SHAKESPEARE and WITCHES!

"> unless NTS is performing better than I'm aware of in the mentally subnormal or 10 years and below brackets.

Well you said it."

Which are you?

"What the fuck are you talking about? Yes it was always a childrens programme but it used to entertain people who weren't children and didn't ask them to lower their intelligence anywhere near as much as this episode. There have not been 739 episodes of Doctor Who as childish as this and if you think there have, well done, you're on heroin!"

Apart from anything else, Davies himself has said that it's not just for kids anymore "it's for children and adults now". He's explicitly stated that this should entertain a whole age range, not just be aimed at ten year olds and entertain adults as some sort of sideline (and given that most people watching are over 16 according to BARB this is a practical priority as much as anything else). If he makes some sort of stupid CBBC episode then he deserves a kicking for it because he's failing most of his audience.

It's completely stupid to write drama aimed specifically at kids anyway. Ask anyone of my generation what they watched as kids and they'll tell you James Bond, Blackadder and stuff like that. Kids are extremely easy to entertain; all you need to give them is clear good guys, bad guys and some explosions. There is no excuse for dumbing-down series to "make sure" it appeals to them.

I genuinely don't believe this episode was a deliberate attempt to dumb down. Or to aim young. (Wouldn't the victims be kiddie-friendly teen fatties? As opposed to utterly wasting the brilliant Martin Ball?)

It was massively unsuccessful in its main plot, childish in much of its execution, but I don't think it's fair to slam it on the basis that this was part of a specific aim. National obesity satire? Attempted. And woefully fucked up. But yes, attempted, absolutely.

I get why the Warner Bros. comedy fall seemed like a good idea. It wasn't, it was a line-crossing moment, but I see how the decision happened. This ep fell victim to a dozen errors in judgment, but poor motivation wasn't one of them.

Oh: And Tate was just fine, Eccleston never ruined anything, and there's no way the episodes alluded to were cobbled together in an afternoon. So ner. :-p

It's completely stupid to write drama aimed specifically at kids anyway.

But if you followed this rule, then loads of great shows would never have been made. Woof!, for instance, which is one of my favourite shows ever.

FWIW, the Warner Bros comedy fall was one of the few times the episode came to life for me. The main sin the episode committed - apart from the issues I have with Tate - was simply being boring.

"But if you followed this rule, then loads of great shows would never have been made. Woof!, for instance, which is one of my favourite shows ever."

Hmmm, well fair point but that was a CBBC/CITV (sorry but I can't remember) show so it was never explicitly intended to entertain anyone else. I should have been more specific and said if you're going to broadcast something outwith the kids' TV ghetto and therefore aim it for a family audience (which is the case with Who) then you shouldn't aim it specifically at kids. Animated films learned to do this a long time ago: there are very few made now that don't conciously try to entertain "the grown ups" at the same time with the result that everyone wins. If they'd taken this approach with "The Tripods", for example, it might not have been the crap-acting fest it was.

> there are very few made now that don't conciously try to entertain "the grown ups" at the same time with the result that everyone wins.

Depends MASSIVELY on the film, I'd say. Some attempts are just embarrassing. (Dreamworks Animation, this means you.)

> Which are you?

Both.

> unless NTS is performing better than I'm aware of in the mentally subnormal ...

Oi!

Regarding CT, I must be one of very few people who finds the fact that she is not in her early-twenties and horny for the Doctor far outweighing the problems of her "being" Catherine Tate. I never really watched one of her Catherine Tate Show episodes for long enough to get annoyed (just turned it off) so I'm not getting haunted by her being terrible in this. I think that objectively she doesn't gurn as much as people think - she just reminds everyone of the potential she has for it.

The only single thing that REALLY irritated me about the episode was the sudden "AHA Doctor I have one of those metal pill things too, which means we can save the day after all!" It's a story problem that faces most RTD-scripted episodes, along with the "magic wand" capabilities now granted the sonic screwdriver. Make it a key that can get through any door (and a device that can resonate concrete) and leave it as THAT, or stamp on the fucking thing for evermore.

Theme tune - totally overcrowded and lacks excitement. I don't know why they brought the Delia Derbyshire element back in only to clutter it like this. What was creepy about it was surely the quality it had on its own? The 80s version was more sinister and mysterious than this.

> I get why the Warner Bros. comedy fall seemed like a good idea. It wasn't, it was a line-crossing moment, but I see how the decision happened. This ep fell victim to a dozen errors in judgment, but poor motivation wasn't one of them.

I didn't cringe at this - I don't think I even saw it as bad. Perhaps I would think differently if I saw the episode again but for me, the light beam turned off and there was a bit of a lag before whatever was holding her in the air turned off. I didn't think "Oh you only fall if you look down like in the cartoons, tsk." I don't think there was a break in the rules of physics but did she really flail her arms like Wile E Coyote? That might have been annoying. Totally forgotten if that's what happened, though.

> Regarding CT, I must be one of very few people who finds the fact that she is not in her early-twenties and horny for the Doctor far outweighing the problems of her "being" Catherine Tate. I never really watched one of her Catherine Tate Show episodes for long enough to get annoyed (just turned it off) so I'm not getting haunted by her being terrible in this. I think that objectively she doesn't gurn as much as people think - she just reminds everyone of the potential she has for it.

Yep. All of this. Totally.

But the pendant thing was fine - it was set up earlier that they were both there collecting the same evidence. Properly set-up and utilised. Just a shame they set the climax in a damned cupboard.

> But the pendant thing was fine

The pendant thing was fine, except that the Doctor and Donna both received them without much difficulty from office staff who presumably had them by the bucketload. Weren't they intended to be free gifts for Adipose customers, or was this all untrue? I'm just surprised that there were only two of them, or that they were so easy to get hold of, given their power.

> - it was set up earlier that they were both there collecting the same evidence. Properly set-up and utilised.

I think RTD would think it was good storytelling, as it was "set up earlier" in a way. But actually just saying "I have a magic thing to solve this when it happens" at the start of the episode doesn't excuse the solution being solved by that magic thing later. I don't think this is proper setting up. It was a thing that they had in their possession that could suddenly solve the crisis when there were milli-seconds to spare. If they had known they needed two in advance, and Donna had to go out of her way (into danger) to get hold of one, the climax of the episode might have created more tension than it did.

I reckon that if they hadn't had those pendants, and that particular crisis had emerged earlier in the episode rather than being "the main one" near the end, the Doctor would have been able to solve it with his sonic screwdriver. It's all quite arbitrary, really, what does what - I think this is what pisses me off the most about RTD episodes, outside of the suddenness of most of the resolutions.

> Just a shame they set the climax in a damned cupboard.

Normally it's TEH END OF THE WOLD OH MY GOD, featuring spaceships, everything going ballistic plus screeching. I'm glad to see a bit of cupboarding every now and then, to be perfectly honest. Reminds me of the good old Gordon the Gopher days. That was a broom cupboard, but still quite similar.

> and Tennant's Doctor is obviously, by now, down pat, and had a nice moment alone in the Tardis.

I agree - this moment alone in the TARDIS stood out - a very striking and nuanced contrast to the rest of the episode. Talking to himself briefly and then (if I remember correctly) breaking off mid-sentence and just continuing without commentary or explanation of what he needed to do. Quite excellent, showing that he needn't think aloud when there's nobody else there, and it departs from the norm of irritatingly providing exposition in this way (I'm thinking of other programmes). This did, I admit, make me crave for at least one companionless episode for this Doctor. This would have come best at the start of series 3 though, after his loss of Rose, or in the Christmas Special immediately before it.

I also think that Tennant makes a great Doctor, but is let down by poor scripts rather a lot.

> Just a shame they set the climax in a damned cupboard.

I think we can live with that considering the settings of some of the upcoming episodes.

Looking forward to tonight's episode. I know people who've seen screeners aren't too impressed but I think the combination of New Who's first foreign filming and Peter Capaldi should keep me perfectly happy. I have seen reports that Planet of the Ood is actually pretty good, anyway, which is encouraging as it'd be nice to have a new writer that isn't a bit shit.

I thought "Fires of Pompeii" was great. I'll elaborate once the review appears here.

> I thought "Fires of Pompeii" was great.

Ditto.

> I'll elaborate once the review appears here.

Ditto.

> The whole 'Pompeii or Earth' thing was good, too, and I thought it darkness done VERY well. However, I was slightly ticked off that the Doctor ended up saving the lives of the family., I thought the Pompeii disaster was 'fixed' in time? Surely rescuing a doomed family is going to fuck something up?

I always consider in such stories that the events created by the episode *always* happened that way. The Doctor caused the Pompeii disaster (without him the entire world would have been destroyed instead), and the family had *always* survived it. While the Hartnell line "you can't change history, not one line" doesn't rest with what we've encountered in other Who series, there have been a fair few where the Doctor has created the history as written, and I'd argue this is one of them. So the family being rescued wouldn't have fucked anything up as they were never originally doomed.

> Sorry, you miss my point - he made the comment, and Phil Davis' character remarked on what a clever comment it was. But in Latin - which is what he would have been hearing - it would have been completely irrelevant, and not clever in the slightest.

Well, translation is a difficult thing - it's not always a word-for-word process - some translations go more for the poetic qualities of an original text (in rhythm or rhyme), or aim to retain something of the "foreignness" of the thing they're translating from. I didn't notice the problem as you saw it, and agree with you, but if it helps you dislike that moment less maybe you could accept that the TARDIS had translated the son/sun pun by finding a way in which it would have worked in Latin?

I liked Donna and the Doctor's meeting being done through mime... although it did go on too long.

Perhaps I would think differently if I saw the episode again but for me, the light beam turned off and there was a bit of a lag before whatever was holding her in the air turned off. I didn't think "Oh you only fall if you look down like in the cartoons, tsk." I don't think there was a break in the rules of physics but did she really flail her arms like Wile E Coyote? That might have been annoying. Totally forgotten if that's what happened, though.

Same here, I interpreted it as a delay between the light source switching off and the levitation itself stopping, and don't remember any arm-flailing.

Re: entertaining both children and adults:
Depends MASSIVELY on the film, I'd say. Some attempts are just embarrassing. (Dreamworks Animation, this means you.)

This reminds me of a comment from Cinephobia's review of Horton Hears A Who:
I often see such pop-culture jokes described as having been put in “for the adults;” they’re something, apparently, that will tide adults over as they sit through a film they brought the kids to. But who are these adults for whom sitting through Horton Hears a Who will be made more palatable by the fact that a line from Apocalypse Now is reworked to refer to bananas rather than napalm?

I realize that this episode is now old news, and I really meant to post this as soon as the review was written. I don't know why I left it so long.

But firstly, while this wasn't the best episode of Doctor Who, I wouldn't say it was "shit". For starters I am a fan of Cathrine Tates and I think she doesn brilliantly here.

Also while there were times when the episode was slow, it's ok, it's the first of the new season/series. Give it chance. I'd put this epsiode on the halfway mark, not brilliant, but not all that bad either.

Finally, I maybe wrong, but I strongly believe that the reason, the fall was done that way, was supposed to be sad. It worked for me anyway.

Whilst I agree it's a little rough to criticise a season opener for slower pace, new Who showed us last year that it *can* sustain a quick jump into the action. As a result, what is otherwise a good episode ends up feeling disappointing, in my opinon.

On the other hand, Tate didn't annoy me at the time and has since impressed me, so it's not all bad.