angel-clare

If this programme didn't contain characters with the names Athos, Porthos, Aramis, and D'Artagnan, nobody would think twice about considering it an adaptation of anything.

One could argue that the aforementioned characters are, in fact, based on those of the same names found in Alexandre Dumas' masterpiece "The Three Musketeers," but the only similarities are found in the base stereotypes and character tropes that could be boiled down to apply to any thousands of characters through literature and television for hundreds of years.

Therefore, it is a shame that the creators of this programme believed it necessary to use these iconic names, and to call this programme inspired by "The Three Musketeers." This assertion causes literary buffs like myself to look forward to a retelling of a greatly loved tale, and to new portrayals of characters and relationships that I have come to deeply admire.

Alas, it is because of these expectations that I have come to be disappointed by this programme. I admit it: I watch adapted material judging more on the basis of adaptation than individual product--and without a doubt, this is a poor, poor adaptation. It is a squandered opportunity; for I believe, with the programme's production values and decent cast, the creators could have created something fresh and exciting. Instead, they have labelled this an adaptation and, instead of forging new characters, have butchered characters much loved by many.

Imagine--a brand new period piece on television: marvellous costuming, rollicking plots, flashy sword fights, brand new characters establishing their own original quirks and worthiness. *Sigh*. Rather, we are made to wait for contrived reveals about characters "reimagined," and for bits of familiar plot clumsily inserted into what could have been original story lines.

Perhaps, if I pretend that this is simply a television programme about three unknown musketeers in the service of the king at *around the same time but not necessarily when Athos, Porthos, and Aramis were musketeers* I will be able to enjoy it. If nothing else, Tamla Kari plays a wonderfully refreshing female character. I hope she doesn't lose her quirks and depth as she inevitably develops into a love interest.

"The Time of the Doctor," or "The Time When The Doctor Took The Easy Way Out For A Whole Episode And Never Really Mentioned Why And Dragged The Episode On For A Great Deal Of Time Without Ever Doing Really Anything At All."

The Doctor doesn't save anyone, he doesn't have any plans, he doesn't allow himself any friends (not even the TARDIS), he doesn't have any last adventures; he doesn't give any reasons, he doesn't give any explanations, he doesn't give his fans a reason to continue watching the show.

This is the worst episode of Doctor Who I have seen since the television movie; perhaps worse. At least the TV movie had an engaging Doctor who actually tried to save the world by doing something. "The Time of the Doctor" has a Doctor who sits around and grows old because apparently that's the only way to save Gallifrey--or was it Trenzalore? The names of these now-meaningless planets are all jumbled around in my head.

I'm sorry, Matt Smith, that you had to go like this. It's a shame--a great shame. What a sad, sad development in the world of Doctor Who. I only wish I could dismiss this episode from my memory.

While the production quality was excellent and the acting above par (the actors did what they could with the script), this mini-series was a huge disappointment.

I was an enormous fan of the previous series ("The Pillars of the Earth")--indeed, enough of a fan to sludge through the tastelessly pretentious and mind-numbingly boring novel afterwards--so I was keen on a sequel series. Alas.

Major issues: None of the protagonists had *any power whatsoever* the entire length of the series. None. I understand the whole "rising above the odds" trope that the plot was going for, but this series took it too far. "The Pillars of the Earth" used this trope, but perhaps due to actors with less charisma, or a weaker script, or something else, "World Without End" was simply painful to watch. Even the conclusion was weak--bad guys die in a hurry, hooray. The protagonists are never empowered. The antagonists, of course, are both many and powerful, and even receive the better half of the script.

I couldn't cheer for any of the protagonists. One, because they never won anything; and two, because they were hardly given enough character for me to cheer for.

You could call this a "sprawling epic," but I would place the emphasis on "sprawling." It overreached itself and fell on its face, sprawled on the muddy floor to be--hopefully--forgotten.