Doctor Who (2005) s04e02 – The Fires of Pompeii

It’s a big episode of “Doctor Who,” at least in terms of getting some of the show’s time travel “rules.” At least in the current series; I’m not sure about the original (though David Tennant implies there may be different rules between now and then).

When Tennant and Catherine Tate find themselves in Pompeii, the day before the volcano, before—per “Doctor Who” history, which the wife did advise probably shouldn’t be taken as fact—the residents don’t even have a word for volcano. They’ve never seen such a thing; there’s just the mountain.

Unfortunately that bit comes back into play later, for James Moran’s teleplay’s last bit of Romanophilia (but a very British actors playing Romans Romanophilia), which ought to send the episode out on a low point but there manages to be an even more quizzical epilogue. Despite featuring these philosophical arguments between Tennant and Tate, Pompeii really is about the Roman “My So-Called Life” Moran really wants to be writing.

See, after they land and realize it’s almost volcano day, Tennant wants to get out of town… only someone’s sold the TARDIS out of its parking spot. I swear the Doctor didn’t lose the TARDIS every third episode in the first season just so they’d have some inherent drama.

Anyway.

Peter Capaldi is a successful stone merchant who buys the TARDIS because it’s modern art. Tracey Childs is his wife, Francesca Fowler is the teenage daughter who’s in the soothsayer academy, François Pandolfo is the listless son. They have antics and arguments throughout the episode, with everyone apparently thinking Capaldi and Childs are just parental enough for the scenes to work without much writing.

It’s sort of right? More right about Capaldi and Childs being able to carry the scene than the scenes working without the writing. A lot of it is based on the actors’ likability more than anything else.

And it takes them a while to get likable because there’s a whole weird showdown between Tennant, Fowler, and Pompeii’s leading soothsayer, Phil Davis. The scene plays very weird.

But so long as it gets to Tate challenging Tennant, it’s fine. Tate is paying off. Though two good episodes for a companion isn’t a streak or anything yet.

Rather good production values—albeit not the best lighting or effects—on the Pompeii stuff. It feels big enough.

Captives (1994, Angela Pope)

Nearly seventy percent of Captives is a fantastic romantic drama. Julia Ormond is a newly divorced dentist who starts working part-time at a minimum security prison, where she begins a liaison with inmate Tim Roth. Frank Deasy's script concentrates primarily on Ormond and her experiences–with occasions scenes for Roth amongst the inmates, but that first seventy minutes of the film is from Ormond's perspective.

Director Pope carefully, meticulously presents Ormond's story, from her experiences with her ex-husband, her friends, her family, herself. The romance with Roth is an otherworldly occurrence, much different from the noise and movement of Ormond's regular life. Most of their initial scenes–he's on a release program so he can attend college (the film establishes him as an okay guy real fast)–are in static environments. It's actually after that seventy minute mark, when Ormond disappears for a week of the present action and Roth becomes the protagonist, where Pope finally brings Roth into Ormond's motion-filled world.

It's a terrible scene too; they're arguing on a busy roadway. The acting's great, but the scene's bad, because after the seventy minute mark, when Captives all of a sudden becomes a thriller and no longer a quiet mediation on class and marriage and other such things, the movie falls apart.

Ormond's work here is indescribably fantastic. Roth's great and everything, but Ormond's performance is singular.

Pope's direction is solid; good supporting turns from Keith Allen and Colin Salmon.

Excellent photography from Remi Adefarasin.

Captives misfires, Ormond and Roth do not.

In the Loop (2009, Armando Iannucci)

In the Loop is a spin-off of a British show… I didn’t know about that connection when I watched it. I guess it doesn’t matter, since In the Loop is–apparently–something of a prequel. The show’s called “The Thick of It,” for those interested.

Now, where to start.

In the Loop is, without being specific with names, about the rush to the Iraq war in 2003. As an anti-war film, it’s probably the most effective one I’ve seen about that war, because it portrays the people behind it as self-serving and callow. It’s hilarious. It’s also rather depressing when one realizes the state of government, but it’s definitely funny.

As really funny–and here’s where In the Loop gets a lot of laughs–is a Scotsman swearing. The film opens with Peter Capaldi and this torrent of obscenities just starts rushing from him. A lot of his particular insults are well-written, but it’s Capaldi’s performance–that accent–is still the most important part.

He’s not really the lead in the film, but the film doesn’t really have one so maybe he’s the closest it does have.

It sort of opens and closes with Chris Addison’s career, but he’s so unlikable after a certain point, it’s hard to call him a protagonist.

The best performances are from David Rasche (a standout), Tom Hollander, Gina McKee, James Gandolfini, Mimi Kennedy (another standout) and Steve Coogan.

It’s great.

But it’s sad the British cast Americans better than Hollywood.