Doctor Who: The Seeds of Doom: Part Two (1976)
Season 13, Episode 22
9/10
Ratcheting the Thrills to An Explosive Cliffhanger
1 January 2024
At the Antarctic base camp, the Time Lord the Doctor, his Earthling companion Sarah Jane Smith, and the sole remaining scientist, botanist John Stevenson (Hubert Rees), face lethality from both animal and vegetable in Part Two of "The Seeds of Doom" as they discover that not only has geologist Charles Winlett (John Gleeson), infected by the shoot that sprang from the pod from outer space that had been dug out of the permafrost, changed from a human whose blood has turned to "vegetable soup" into what the Doctor terms a Krynoid, an ambulant, flesh-eating plant, but that the Krynoid has killed zoologist Derek Moberley (Michael McStay) and is roaming within and without the base camp.

Compounding this growing problem is the presence of a pair of strangers who arrived in their private plane claiming to have got lost during a snowstorm. Antarctica is hardly a typical tourist destination, so it is no surprise that the pair, botanist Arnold Keeler (Mark Jones) and thug Scorby (John Challis), has been dispatched by millionaire plant fanatic Harrison Chase (Tony Beckley), having been tipped to the pod by World Ecology Bureau (WEB) functionary Richard Dunbar (Kenneth Gilbert), whom Chase pays handsomely for the tip, to retrieve the pod by any means necessary---and you can bet Scorby for one believes that gives him a license to kill.

That's the juicy setup Robert Banks Stewart scripts for the second installment of this terrific six-part serial that exemplifies the excellence driven by de facto "Doctor Who" showrunners producer Philip Hinchcliffe and script editor Robert Holmes and executed with military precision by director Douglas Camfield, who blends quality model work, production designer Jeremy Bear's interior sets (modeled after the 1951 sci-fi classic "The Thing from Another World"), and the inevitable BBC rock quarry, this one in Surrey, standing in for the icy continent at the bottom of the world into a spine-tingler that ratchets the thrills right up until the explosive cliffhanger.

After attempting to masquerade as one of the scientists during a radio call by another base, Scorby quickly takes charge of the scene, capturing the Doctor and Sarah Jane first before snagging Stevenson and making him divulge the location of the second pod the Doctor discovered since Krynoid pods, like Catholic nuns and Mormon missionaries, apparently always travel in pairs. Then Scorby and Keeler depart, no longer empty-handed, effecting the transition of the narrative back to England while leaving a nasty goodbye present for the survivors.

Challis and Jones establish their characters, Challis as the cool, lethal one and Jones as the timid expert thrust into criminal circumstance against his will; note how he says "excuse me" quietly and apologetically to Rees as Keeler, acting on Scorby's order, begins to tie up Stevenson. Meanwhile, Beckley, whose Chase in Part One harangued Dunbar for not protecting plants as endangered species like WEB is doing for animals---even describing the Japanese practice of bonsai like a form of mutilation and torture---continues to establish Chase as a cold, manipulating creep, always wearing leather gloves, and, this time, referring to Dunbar, a government civil servant, as one of his "employees."

Tom Baker gets to display his puckishness---check the scene in which Scorby first captures the Doctor and Sarah Jane---as well as his resourcefulness although Elisabeth Sladen functions mostly as the damsel in distress, albeit a convincing one who displays a range of emotions. How will the Doctor and Sarah Jane get out of this one?

REVIEWER'S NOTE: What makes a review "helpful"? Every reader of course decides that for themselves. For me, a review is helpful if it explains why the reviewer liked or disliked the work or why they thought it was good or not good. Whether I agree with the reviewer's conclusion is irrelevant. "Helpful" reviews tell me how and why the reviewer came to their conclusion, not what that conclusion may be. Differences of opinion are inevitable. I don't need "confirmation bias" for my own conclusions. Do you?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed