Chris Chiswell may be cool, but he's no Doctor Who! :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdOjF2sYbBI

This reminds me a lot of the Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" (perhaps we can get a rebuttal letter signed by over 200 economists named Steve) and a similar letter drafted a few years ago to make it appear as if there was real scientific dissent to the consensus on anthropogenic global warming. Methinks I've seen this theatre before!

Alan Grayson called Poltico "a rag that they use to wrap fish with in his office." (To which I replied "Remind me not to buy fish from Representative Grayson; I like to eat food that's been treated properly.")

though in "Terror of the Autons" the two of them appear to have little prior acquaintance, something which has probably been retconned since I didn't get that impression. I got more the impression that they hadn't interacted in a while. I believe the Time Lord told the Doctor that "an old acquaintence" (or something like that) was around making trouble. But more importantly, in TotA, the Doctor casually remarked that vanity (or one of those related vices, maybe pride?) was "always the Master's weakness" and likewise the Master casually remarked that "curiosity was always the Doctor's weakness". To me that suggests that they already knew each other pretty well.

To be fair to Moffat, in the DWC, he did say that he intentionally left The Silence unresolved as that will be the overarching theme for next season.

Since Amy was able to bring Rory back, bring her family back, bring the Doctor and Tardis back, and essentially bring the whole universe back, how soon before she remembers the Weeping Angels?

was it an evil killer or a poor, frightened wretch? Even the Doctor didn’t seem to be able to make up his mind While I can sympathize with your frustration, I actually think that this seeming contradiction worked. Since the creature was (in my estimation) a metaphor for the inner demons that many people with mental illness constantly fight, it was only proper that its true character be mysterious. A savage, remorseless killer which turns out to be blind and scared; an invisible creature which can be seen only by a madman or in the reflection of a mirror that reveals one's true nature; a frightened invalid whom you don't want to hurt, yet are compelled to battle against. It seemed appropriate to me.

KaBh said: "What I liked about this episode is how Van Gogh's genius was shown to be separate from his madness. Too often, genius is depicted as a product of madness, but I didn't get this here." I completely agree, though I did find it interesting that the episode seemed to suggest that Vincent's synesthesia was a contributing factor to his genius. What makes this particularly interesting is that I can't find any confiration that Van Gogh actually was a synesthete; perhaps this was Curtis exercising artistic license.

Plus, at least it wasn't John Denver's Starry Night. Did you mean Don McLean's Vincent? I really liked this episode. It worked on so many levels. And Tony Curran was outstanding!

Continuing on Londonjustin's point, I think the metal masks were time and budget saving props. On Confidential, they showed just how painstaking and time consuming it was to the actors with their scaly rubber faces. It would be quite a project to do that for every Silurian soldier. Or they could just give them all metal masks to conceal the human faces underneath.

Do you know what else The Girl in the Café, Love Actually, and Vincent and the Doctor have in common? Bill Nighy! I have high expectations now. :-) I have to say that I liked this story despite its many flaws. The way that Amy so quickly changed from somebody who was willing to kill both herself and her unborn child out of grief for Rory, to somebody with at best a subconscious, vague recollection of him really drove home for me that the crack is no mere trifling problem. I'm now convinced that the ending of Amy's Choice was specifically written to provide contrast for when she (almost) completely forgets him at the end of the very next story. The story probably needed more than two episodes to iron out most of its problems. But then Chibnall would have found a way to introduce new ones. :-) @mattbrtley "The scene where Mo and Elliot (who was criminally underused) reject Ambrose for killing Alaya was just rubbish. They'd both been kidnapped and experimented on - why on earth would they adopt the moral high ground with Ambrose?" Given the kind of behavior that people with Stockholm Syndrome exhibit, I found their reactions to be quite plausible--not just in Whoniverse, but in the real world as well.

And here I thought that the Boy Scouts only became an immoral organization after they banned gays and atheists. It seems the seeds for their eventual corruption were planted early (or maybe it's just a coincidence, but for the time being I'm going with Evil Seed).

LOL! It's not enough to simply say lies, they have to have through and through dishonest coverage.

I've played around with the Leggo Turing machine. It's lots of fun. Your story reminds me of when I was in college and one of my friends was talking about a graduate school he really wanted to attend. When somebody asked him "You applied?" He responded "No, theoretical."