Rating: 
Oh my god, they killed Rory.
You b******.
There’s a lot to like about The Angels Take Manhattan. It looks fantastic, with director Nick Hurran making excellent use of the opportunity to go on location in the USA. The regulars are all on sparkling form – it’s a pleasure just to watch the three of them sitting in Central Park and teasing each other. The opening hard-boiled narration is atmospheric and captures the spirit of the novels and movies it’s referencing without being smug, and the story as a whole acts as a fine finale for the era of the Ponds and Amy in particular, with enough references to key episodes from the past two-and-a-half seasons to engage the regular viewer’s sentimentality without being key to understanding the episode.
That brings up what for me is the key point though – who is this really aimed at? On the one hand, clearly the regular viewer. The character of River Song blithely referring to the Doctor as her husband and Amy as her mother would be baffling for any casual or new watcher, and the emphasis of the whole story is very clearly on the departure of Amy and Rory – even to the point of just letting an Angel keep roaming around free, the Doctor is apparently entirely unbothered by the thought that the paradox they have created may not have been entirely successful in eradicating them. So clearly, this was made for the regular viewer then.
One the other hand, only a casual viewer would fail to spot that we’ve seen all of this before. The Weeping Angels first return in The Time of Angels brilliantly added to their powers and qualities while preserving their original Grandmother’s Footsteps appeal. This simply reprises scenes from Blink, when it isn’t ignoring established Angel lore altogether (like having Rory transmitted only in space for no reason at all except that it makes the plot work). Likewise the relationship between River and the Doctor is never explored in any new way at all, it’s just minor variations on themes played again and again by Steven Moffat in previous scripts – the Ming vase is simply a lesser version of the “Hello Sweetie” message in The Pandorica Opens, and the novel is just River Song’s diary rehashed for example.
There’s also a tendency in the episode for things to be true only because someone, usually the Doctor, says they are, rather than because they flow naturally from other story elements, or because they fit with things already established. Once you read something it becomes true. Really? Okay, I guess. The Doctor has healing hands now? Uh-huh. New York is messed up with time… things… so it’s hard to land a TARDIS there. Really? Didn’t seem to be an issue in The Chase, but I suppose. If you voluntarily go back in time, I can never come and visit you again. Huh?
When I overcome the aching familiarity of it all, then it does kind-of work – at least up to the moment of old Rory’s death. Honestly, has any character in fiction other than South Park’s Kenny McCormick died more frequently and less permanently? It’s impossible to take the sight of an emaciated Arthur Darvill seriously, given that he’s already been aged to death in a previous episode (as well as shot, turned into an Auton, desiccated to death, erased from history etc), and even Rory commenting on his propensity for resurrection can’t overcome the feeling of “here we go again”. Amy and Rory chucking themselves off the ledge is nicely done and is moving for as long as you ignore how fast-and-loose the show is now playing with the rules of the Angels (they basically obediently wait for you to finish being noble now, whether you blink or not) but tarnished slightly by the fact that we then get the same damned scene again in the graveyard. Only Rory Williams could exit the series dying three times in the same episode.
And yet, and yet, and yet… there is energy and power and pace to this episode. Moffat’s use of structure is as elegant as ever – “break mine” is if not a fresh melody then at least a nimble variation and Amy’s “afterword” is both a nifty idea and a nice bit of writing. And, following-on from the Doctor’s erasing of himself from history, maybe a bit more of a clean break with the past is what’s needed. The Ponds living a quiet life as a media couple in New York makes sense, and is a fitting departure for them –clearly the Doctor was never going to leave them alone. But what on Earth is the Doctor going to say to Brian…?
So, now I suppose I have to give this episode a star rating, which I find almost impossible. If I’d never seen Blink or the various other episodes plundered for ideas, I think I would have loved it. If I judge it on the basis that every episode this year is supposed to be a completely original “mini-movie” then clearly it falls very far short. If I didn’t truly believe that the Ponds were gone for good, I would have found the abandoning of the evil-Angels plot maddening, but equally if I hadn’t mourned Rory a dozen times already I would feel the loss of him and Amy more keenly.
It’s generally been quite a strong half-season, although nothing has absolutely hit it out of the park so far. We began with the impressive and vibrant but rather uneven Asylum of the Daleks followed by the rather clunky Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, redeemed by the thoughtful if not perfectly-realised A Town Called Mercy and the excellent, save for the hasty ending, The Power of Three. I think ultimately The Angels Take Manhattan is far more successful than Dinosaurs, but far too flawed to get the four-star treatment meted out to Asylum and so I think three-and-a-half stars is fair. But I want to watch it again, and I shall be interested to see what commenters make of this one. I’ve a feeling it may divide opinion.
We are currently seeking Doctor Who contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Doctor Who contributor, click here.
8 Comments
Some people it seems keep forgetting that this is a kids show :)
Including, it seems, the BBC, who have always made it under the aegis of drama and never within the Childrens department.
The Doctor using the “regeneration energy” to heal Rivers broken wrist was a bit weird, by far the weirdest thing in the episode (as to why he hasnt healed the sick/dying before in a similar way, is any ones guess)… though didnt during the RTD/David Tennant era, The Doctor absorbed energy from the sub ether network to defeat the master and do a bit of unecessary flying? (Plus I supose, River isnt really human more like somekind of time lord/human hybrid, (oh.. is it not Rivers regeneration energy anyway? She gave him all of hers, when she nearly killed the Doctor with a kiss)..but I digress.)
Rory dying again makes perfect sense, its been one of his running themes of the character, so much so its even a joke to the characters within the show. So yes we would hapily watch him die a few more times. When Amy and Rory chose to commit suicide together, that was moving, no matter how many times we had seen him die before (no diggity, no doubt about it).
The “who is this aimed at” statement is a bit moronic (I apologise for my slander, but could not think of a more apropriate word). To end an “era” for some much loved characters, that have been on TV nearly three years, which have grown, learned and travelled with the doctor.. then of course its for the regular viewers!
“The character of River Song blithely referring to the Doctor as her husband and Amy as her mother would be baffling for any casual or new watcher”
Yes maybe it would. But so is a Dalek to a new viewer, so is the Master to a new viewer. So is a 1100 year old time traveling alien, who regenerates every few years to a new actors face. So is a magic blue box thats bigger on the inside. Perhaps you see my logic?
Otherwise it would make no sense at all, why bother showing them depart? why not have a bunch of new companions each episode? If a new viewer has decided now is the time to start watching Doctor Who, well they need to get over a couple of verbal references the dont understand and perhaps just watch the christmas special, when a new compainion is introduced, clean slate, less self referencing etc or even get the blu-ray and catch up. I found it very difficult to get past that paragraph of yours.
By any chance are you an american contributor?(use of the word “season” to refer to a British show, made me hazard the guess). In the UK there are not really any shows at all that have completely stand alone episodes, (bar crime/sherlock/detective type shows). Thats why we dont have a “previously on doctor who”, or “last season on Doctor Who” or a voice over saying something akin to “space and time the final frontier these are the voyages of the tardis”, because the viewers are not treated like they are mentally challanged. Why shouldnt the gran moff -Steven Moffat reference earlier episodes and the family of characters he has created?
We, the regular viewers are being rewarded by the writers.
By your logic we should have a long convoluted explanation everytime we see a Dalek in case of a new viewer watching.
“It’s generally been quite a strong half-season, although nothing has absolutely hit it out of the park so far. We began with the impressive and vibrant but rather uneven Asylum of the Daleks followed by the rather clunky Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, redeemed by the thoughtful if not perfectly-realised A Town Called Mercy and the excellent, save for the hasty ending, The Power of Three. I think ultimately The Angels Take Manhattan is far more successful than Dinosaurs, but far too flawed to get the four-star treatment meted out to Asylum and so I think three-and-a-half stars is fair. But I want to watch it again, and I shall be interested to see what commenters make of this one. I’ve a feeling it may divide opinion”
Can you actually make an opinion, or do you like just sitting on the fence? I assume you do have one, but dare not write it, instead chosing to inspire somekind of debate below. Asylum, impressive! vibrant! Uneven? (that makes no sense following the two previous words, do you think its good or not?) Dinosaurs- Clunky (what does that even mean when talking about a TV show?, noisy? oudated?)not perfectly-realised A Town Called Mercy – how would you realise this? and the excellent, save for the hasty ending, The Power of Three, excellent save for the hasty ending??
Id be very interested to read you reviews of the Russel T Davies era program, where each episode ended with either a Deus ex machina or a magic red button to press. That and all the companions were really characters from Eastenders/any crap soap.
Since im a life long Who fan, pretty much watched every episode ive managed to get my hands on, the best writer, best show runner, best episodes have all been during Moffat run (even during the RTD era). Finally when the proper fans (ie the ones of us who bought the books/dvds/figures/listened to the radio/comics/fan fiction for the hiatus years) are happy with what we are seeing on TV, critics start turning on the show negatively “its too complicated” or swooning girls cant get over David Tennants departure.
But most important, Moffat can pilage any previous Doctow Who episode espicially ones he has written like blink….And guess what, every idea has been rehashed from old who anyway, what do you think the writers grew up watching?
************************************************************************************************************************************************
For my next rant.
“mr rudeforth says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Some people it seems keep forgetting that this is a kids show :)”
The above comment is pathetic(although it does seem in jest). Why bother posting a comment like that? Why waste your time?(its a common theme for non who fans “its a kids tv show”, well so is the premise of Lost, so is Heroes, so was the biggest grossing film of all time “The Avengers” and that other behmouth nolans Batman movies, stop saying “its just a kids tv show” because you dont get it or like it.
I think most sports are a waste of time, learning facts and figure, transfers between teams, who won the cup/league for the last hundred years is boring, and a waste of humanity, but i dont bother posting my opinions on them. Ranting not just online but on TV about referees being scared of fergie is sad and geeky also.
Apart from me, the writer of this article, who else has read that? And of them (since most are going to be doctor who fans, that are in fact adults, as more adults watch DW than children) who is going to be laughing or even smiling at your comment.
************************************************************************************************************************************************
Apologies for any gramatical or spelling errors.
Some responses I think are in order.
// So yes we would hapily watch him die a few more times.
Provided we don’t take the idea seriously. It’s not in someone’s “character” to repeatedly die and be resurrected. It’s bad plotting, not a personality quirk, and the more times you do it, the more it becomes a joke. Which is fine if you want your episode to be a bit of fluff, but fatal if you want it to be a heart-moving farewell to a long-standing character.
//”The character of River Song blithely referring to the Doctor as her husband and Amy as her mother would be baffling for any casual or new watcher”
Yes maybe it would. But so is a Dalek to a new viewer
But Daleks even have catch-phrases which tell you what they want to do! It doesn’t make a difference if you’ve seen them before or not. But the interactions between River and the Doctor need a detailed understanding of their relationship or they are entirely meaningless. You can’t say that about a malevolent tin-can crying “exterminate” and then shooting at you.
// So is a 1100 year old time traveling alien, who regenerates every few years to a new actors face.
But you don’t need to know he’s 1100 years old, or that he regenerates every few years to understand the story. You do need to know how River Song is to understand why she is reacting to being healed in this bizarre way.
// Perhaps you see my logic?
Not at all, no. You seem to think I am asking for the entire series to be rebooted every episode, when actually I am complaining about a few very specific elements which would be confusing for new viewers. Those elements I did not mention, it is safe to assume I *don’t* think would be confusing for new viewers, so listing a lot of those and pointing out that they wouldn’t be confusing for new viewers doesn’t attack my position in any way at all.
// By any chance are you an american contributor?(use of the word “season” to refer to a British show, made me hazard the guess).
No, I am British, but Doctor Who, especially the Classic Series has been generally split into “seasons” rather than “series”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_serials
http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/episodeguide/index_first.shtml
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Season_12
// Can you actually make an opinion, or do you like just sitting on the fence? I assume you do have one, but dare not write it, instead chosing to inspire somekind of debate below.
My opinion is exactly as I’ve stated it – I find it hard to make up my mind on this one – very unusually for me, as I’ve written clear and strong opinions on every previous episode this year and felt no fear in so doing.
// Asylum, impressive! vibrant! Uneven? (that makes no sense following the two previous words, do you think its good or not?)
I think it is good in many ways. It’s visual style is impressive. It’s pace and characterisations are vibrant. But this is not always the case, so it’s also rather uneven. It isn’t as simple as GOOD or NOTGOOD, I’m afraid. I prefer to write a detailed review, considering the episode from various angles rather than just saying IT WAS GOOD AND I LIKED IT or IT WAS NOT GOOD AND I DID NOT LIKE IT.
// Clunky (what does that even mean when talking about a TV show?, noisy? oudated?)
No, it means the structural problems which I spelled out in my full review.
// not perfectly-realised A Town Called Mercy – how would you realise this?
By creating an ending with the same moral complexity as the first 35 minutes – again, see my full review.
// Id be very interested to read you reviews of the Russel T Davies era program, where each episode ended with either a Deus ex machina or a magic red button to press.
Poor devices, both. But what’s your point?
// But most important, Moffat can pilage any previous Doctow Who episode espicially ones he has written like blink….And guess what, every idea has been rehashed from old who anyway, what do you think the writers grew up watching?
Moffat can do anything he likes of course, but the best thing about Blink was that it wasn’t like any previous episodes. Why should I now be satisfied with rehashes of earlier stories? Why not just watch Blink again, instead of this remixed version?
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment, but I’m not completely convinced your aggressive tone is warranted. Half the time you seem to be arguing with yourself!
I’m a Moffat fan, but am a little unconvinced by the “mini-movie” aim of this series. They do generally look fantastic, but it’s generally resulted in big set-ups and disappointingly rushed endings: with the exception of Dinosaurs on a Spaceship, I think all the stories could have benefitted from being two-parters. For example, here the idea was thrown out that the Statue of Liberty was an Angel, then that was never explored. That’s a pretty big omission, even if they did want to focus on the Ponds’ goodbye.
I know they wanted to give Amy and Rory a definite point-of-no-return farewell, but I much preferred the send-off they got in The God Complex. It felt interesting, new and different. This was essentially a rehash of Sally Sparrow’s friend disappearing at the beginning of Blink.
Speaking of Blink. Isn’t the idea of the Weeping Angels actually that they have to cover their eyes so they can’t see each other? Which lead to the resolution of that episode? It feels like that detail has been conveniently forgotten in the follow-up stories.
Its not really an agressive tone,I was being nice, especially to some bloke on the internet, not working for an established real world paper or website, thats suddenly decided he’s a TV reviewer(im not trying to offend you, but to me why should we listen to your opinions? what qualifies you?) youve put up your review, you finish with your, intereseted in peoples comments tag line.
So a few responses is in order.
Unfortunately some people are going to disagree with your writing. Especially when you stand directly in the middle ground. Its good, but could do better approach. Which is how I feel about your article. (Ever been to Kasterbourus? Little to no brain food in any of their articles, yours is much better) See, I’m trying to be positive…
I agree with you on a couple of points including the using of time energy to heal Rivers hand(something I would probably have slammed for most of your peice if I had written it, its comparable to Superman kising Lois to make her forget, I know I put the logic behind in my last torrent of abuse, but it was daft). Going on about River calling the doctor “husband”, and Amy “mother” rediculous, this has been set up since David Tennants era (husband) and the whole point of last series was that River turned out to be a Amy’s daughter, its not blithering at all, and strange you have a bee in your bonnet about it.
And as someone who never misses an episode, I dont care much for casual veiwers who want to spoil my favorite program, by not understanding a couple of lines of dialogue. Which I think is a very stange thing to be going on about. As I made my poit with a dalek, the tardis etc Its just the same, the viewer has to make assumptions. River has her catch phrases too, along with the Doctor.
Back to Rory, you dont like a character repeatedly dying and being resurected? So I assume you hated Captain Jack and torchwood (as all that was just a rehash of doctor who/xfiles etc)? As Rose becoming a god and making Jack immortal is a little bit silly? No? Well even so, yes its part of Rory, so much so, that the Silence even refered to it, in (now a reference to my last paragraph) “the wedding of river song”, (what another reference to the “husband” conumdrum? I hope there is an explanation to that episode title for the casual veiwer somewhere.)
If you are into old Who, then yes as we full well know it was called seasons up until (correct me if im wrong season 26?..(and ah the cartmel masterplan that never was!) but back then they were in 1/2hr serials) new Who has always been in series form, named as series 1 and so, sure im probably being pedantic, but I only picked on that as i thought you were one of cousins across the pond(but that wasnt in a negative way)
Im all for using wikipedia(im not a wiki hater like some), but surely you can tell by my writing style, I am a massive WHO geek. No need for any links.
// Id be very interested to read you reviews of the Russel T Davies era program, where each episode ended with either a Deus ex machina or a magic red button to press.
Poor devices, both. But what’s your point?”
My point here is although Im greatfull for RTD regenerating old Who into new Who, its not a stitch on Steven Moff’s era, the writing is much better, much more intelligent, much more cerebral, not pandering to new viewers. That was my point. Im intrigued to what you thought of that era, as if you think it was better back then, we will never agree. I never understand what reviewers are comparing too? I hope the david tennant episode “fear her”
Blink was probably the best episode of new who ever, but its all been done before, a doctor lite episode, nothing new about that, a new scary alien that was popular enough to bring back(thats not new). It was very well written an acted. But I fail to see how manhatten stole from this. By using a now established big bad? with established timey wimey powers? (of course Id assume the baby angels, being babys can’t send you that far back in time. And theres nothing to say that rory didnt travel further back in time, but by minuites/hours not years).. So if a Dalek shoots you or a Cyberman converts in one episode, the writers shouldn’t use this plot device in future episodes? as its a rehash?
I think you should up your game. Your article started well, but the ending wasnt very good. Too clunky… (not agressive, jokey) I think my real beef is, we are getting the best Who we have ever had, probably because its really being made for the Who fans, by the best who writer. This is not for the Eastender fans(anymore), not the Big Brother fans. Reviews like the above, (which i consider wishy washy, which as your entitled to your opinion, I am to mine) will only push back Who, due to these (just slightly) negative reviews. We will be given a new show runner to increase its popularity and probably make the show awfull, so that new viewers/casual veiwers can understand the plot easyer.
************************************************************************************************************************************************
Damien..
“Speaking of Blink. Isn’t the idea of the Weeping Angels actually that they have to cover their eyes so they can’t see each other? Which lead to the resolution of that episode? It feels like that detail has been conveniently forgotten in the follow-up stories”
I dont think there was a point at which angels directly faced each other to time lock themselves in either of the three other episodes they have apeared in?..
Also the two parters never worked at all (not that i have a problem with them, I thought they were great), for the simple reason (along the lines of your article) if you miss the first part, you probably will find it harder to follow. And always in general the set up is better than the pay off (especially with the magic button David T and Russel TD had).. and of course veiwing figures dropped dramatically on the second part.
I do understand you expected more from the departure of the ponds, but I liked the twist, you thought they had got away with it, but they hadnt.
Oh more than anything. Even if you see a dead body, in sci-fi, no one ever is dead.
Fin
// I dont think there was a point at which angels directly faced each other to time lock themselves in either of the three other episodes they have apeared in?..
As Damien says, it happens at the end of Blink and that’s how the story is resolved. Maybe that’s why you disagree with me that this episode felt familiar – you can’t remember the episodes which have been raided for ideas…?
;-)
Thank you for sharing superb informations. Your web-site is so cool. I am impressed by the details that you have on this web site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this web page, will come back for more articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I found just the info I already searched everywhere and just couldn’t come across. What a perfect web-site.