It is hard to believe that in twenty-eight years of time-travelling television the Doctor and the Bard have never once crossed paths. Okay, so we saw a brief clip of Hugh Walters' Shakespeare way back in the 1965 six-parter "The Chase", but even then he didn't actually meet the Doctor. Other than that one fleeting glimpse, Shakespeare's appearances in Doctor Who have been strictly limited to the non-televised adventures.

Until now.

"Shut yer big fat mouths!"

Gareth Roberts' script has revitalised Shakespeare for the twenty-first century. Whilst little is known about the man himself, most people have a pretty definite picture in their heads of a bald and austere Elizabethan playwright. Gareth Roberts' script and Dean Lennox Kelly's performance combine to create Shakespeare the celebrity. Shakespeare the rock star. Cool Shakespeare.

His attitude towards the Doctor and Martha is fascinating. I love the mutual respect that the Doctor and Bard seem to share, and I love the idea that the Doctor supplied him with half of his best quotes! What I found the most impressive though, was how Shakespeare almost instantly gets the measure of the Doctor and Martha. He can see that he is an alien and that she is from the future. He can see through the psychic paper. He is, as they say, a genius.

"57 academics just punched the air!"

It's also nice that Shakespeare doesn't automatically gravitate towards Martha. Obviously he's attracted to this "Queen of Afric", but he's equally enchanted with the Doctor. Lovely little lines like the one above demonstrate that, like with all good historical episodes, the writer has really done his homework and squeezed in a little bit of historical truth / scandal / rumour which, along with the pungent smell described by Martha, only adds to the sense of historical realism. Similarly, the loss of Shakespeare's son has the same effect, as well as offering an explanation for the playwright's past (and possible future?) madness.

And of course, it's always brilliant to see the Doctor messing about with our own history. Feeding Shakespeare lines. Giving him his trademark neck brace. Even giving him the idea for the name of a character in The Tempest. The Doctor even wipes a tear from his eye as Shakespeare recites his "Sonnet 18" for Martha.

"Upon this night the work is done, a muse to pen Love's Labour's Won."

The legend of "Love's Labour's Won" was definitely the perfect place to start for a Shakespeare episode. At first, I thought the episode's title "The Shakespeare Code" was purely homage to Dan Brown's blockbuster novel, but it turns out that it does actually fit the story like a glove. This episode is about a "different sort of science" ? a science founded on wordplay, names and codes.

But every Doctor Who story needs a villain and ? again quite incredibly ? in twenty-eight years of television the Doctor has never met a good ol' fashioned Witch. And here we are treated to just that ? broomstick; warts; and magic spells. Doomfinger. Bloodtide. Lilith. The fa?ade of beauty. It's all textbook stuff, executed magnificently by Gareth Roberts with his customary wit and poise.

"Ooh? I hate starting from scratch."

Above all else though, "The Shakespeare Code" is about Martha's first voyage in the TARDIS. The questions that she asks; the way that she reacts; it's all very different to how Rose reacted to being transported back in time in "The Unquiet Dead". Martha's first thoughts aren't about how beautiful the past is ? they're about the Grandfather Paradox. About slavery.

I'm also glad that Roberts didn't go overboard on the exposition. Whilst a certain amount of explaining had to be done for the sake of realism, as an audience now even the newest fans are au fait with all the ins and outs of everything from the psychic paper to the sonic screwdriver. However, each and every explanation that is given is handled masterfully by Roberts ? I have never heard the whole 'time is in flux' lecture explained as succinctly as it is here. Back To The Future indeed?

"Now that's one form of magic that is definitely not going to work on me."

And as for the 'soapy stuff' as my Dad calls it ? once again, full marks have to be given to all involved. Writer. Actors. Directors. The lot.

The bedroom scene is a thing of beauty. It sums up the Doctor so very well; it even sums up Martha's unrequited feelings and growing sense of rejection. "We'll manage, c'mon. You gonna stand there all night?" says the Doctor, lying in bed. When she joins eventually him, he then rolls onto his side to look her straight in the eye. He says out loud that he can't see what's staring him straight in the face. But he doesn't mean the obvious. He isn't even in the room with her. He's off on a beach in a parallel universe.

"Rose'd know."

He calls her a 'novice' and tells her that she's going home. And I'm glad. As much as I like Martha, for the Doctor to suddenly turn up in Series Three and fall head over heels for 'the new girl' would have not only been insulting to Rose, but it would have negated the entire new series to date. The Doctor loved Rose, blatantly. But he doesn't feel so strongly about all his companions, and that is part of the reason why the whole Rose saga was so moving. She was the exception, not the rule. And that's what Martha is beginning to learn in this series.

The finale is absolute spectacular. The C.G.I. of not only the Carrionites but of the Globe and of the city is absolutely outstanding. I'm sure that nearly every kid watching loved the whole "Expelliamus!" bit too; the culmination of an episode's worth of (quite appropriate) Harry Potter references. I also enjoyed the tongue-in-cheek ending featuring Elizabeth I ? it's wonderful when the show incorporates the odd time paradox like that. It's not done enough in my opinion.

In all, "The Shakespeare Code" is another triumph. I'm getting sick of praising the new series so much, but it is becoming increasingly hard to pick fault with. David Tennant in the role he was born to play. Freema Agyeman with another flawless performance. Dean Lennox Kelly as the definitive Shakespeare.

This time last year, I was thinking "the second series won't be as good as the first". And, although I probably won't be able to say so objectively for another ten years or so, I reckon that it was just as good, if not better. And a couple of weeks ago I was thinking "the third series won't be as good as the second," but here I am, two weeks in, lauding it as the greatest series yet. On balance, it's certainly had the strongest start of the three seasons.

Even in 1599, Londoners enjoyed nothing more than running and screaming; and back then it wasn't an unusual sight to see a major landmark light up like a Christmas tree and start spurting pyrotechnics either.? Nice to know nothing ever really changes.

It's almost a clich? now that the BBC do historical better than futuristic, and The Shakespeare Code was living proof of that.? Perhaps the most visually impressive (and flawless) Who to date, this low budget TV drama easily out-gunned major Hollywood blockbusters of the 80s and early 90s in the spectacle stakes.? Compare this with the equally spectacular ? but markedly less convincing ? New New York of the 'next time' trailer.

Despite my reservations about the pattern of the series following an almost identical path to last year, this still must rank as one of the best ever Doctor Who stories ? certainly one of the best two or three of the new series.

All right, let's start with the bad things.? I didn't like the Harry Potter references, they felt like a bit of a sop.? Shakespeare seemed to have a Liverpool accent for some odd reason; it would have felt more authentic if the character had spoken with his actual West Midlands accent.? And the witches were a bit silly, though this was forgivable as the episode was showing us the original of the archetype ? the witch blueprint that we know and love turns out to be based on an alien race.

The writer was clearly having a ball with the Shakespeare timeline, and especially giving us glimpses of the legendary lost play, 'Love's Labours Found'.? I don't know much about Shakey, but I think it must have been a similar feeling for Gareth Roberts as it would be for me to be given the chance to write an episode in which we see The Beatles recording their great lost album (now there's an idea for next year's inevitable Story 2 historical!).? Mr Roberts clearly relished putting words into the great man's mouth and staging the fictitious play.

As with Smith And Jones, the writers have laid off the heart-strings tugging of last year, so while it perhaps didn't have the emotional climax of some recent episodes, it did generally seem more fun and light-hearted ? instead we see that Elizabeth I is the Doctor's deadly enemy from a future adventure (he obviously makes a habit of annoying queens - he's not going to be getting any Christmas cards from Victoria any time soon either), a gag which I don't believe has ever cropped up in Doctor Who before, and Tennant's delighted reaction was a treat.

Rose was a nice enough lass, but I fail to see quite why her memory has such a hold over the Doctor ? I'm undecided as yet how interesting or enjoyable that particular thread is, but we shall see.

All in all, this is much better than I had expected it to be, and combined with Smith And Jones means that Season 3 is shaping up to be the strongest of the new series yet.

And no sonic screwdriver!!!!

It says something for a series when the not best of episodes are still bloody good telly. The kids will have loved the Witches, but old fans will hate it.

As the Doctor takes Martha Jones on a trip in the TARDIS to say thank you for helping him expose the Plasmavore in last week's opening episode of Series Three, they land in London 1599, where the eponymous Shakespeare is revered for his plays - and portrayed here as something approaching a rock star. This is a man who would have never have had to resort to appearing on Celebrity Big Brother had he been around nowadays.

Of course, not alot is known of the Bard as a person, so far as his personality goes, artistic license is given free reign. Here, the production team have opted to relieve a generation of school kids from English GCSE boredom and given him a new twist - he's a flirt, a genius, sexy, a celebrity and bloody likeable too. Dean Lennox Kelly plays him so convincingly that I don't think I could think of Shakespeare in any other way again. I loved the hints to his supposed bisexuality too.

In New Who, there's something for everyone - for the kids, the monsters and the scary bits, for the adults, the allusions to sex that will pass over their offsprings heads. The Shakespeare Code has plenty of both, from the surprisingly frank pre-credit opener to the Master of the Revels drowning on dry land. And - for adults at least - ?therein lies the problem with this weeks episode. It's New Series by numbers with none of the flair of the best of the bunch over the past two and a little bit years. The writing for the Doctor - apart from the scene in the bed - seemed almost flat, which is a cardinal sin, and despite Martha's wonderful glee at being in the past, and despite the brilliant set pieces of the streets and the Globe, it all seemed rather... ho-hum.

The Carrionites - witches by any other name - are a sure fire way of scaring kids. They're a staple of modern fiction and it's about time they were used. To me, though, their prosthetics looked a little too latex and their conviction a little too cardboard. I found I didn't really care about their evil plan and that the use of marrionettes could have been played upon a hell of a lot more effectively than it was.

What the Shakespeare Code lacks is spookiness to draw in the adults and keep them entertained as well as the younger generation. It's pure comic book Doctor Who, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it irritated me with all the missed opportunities and the too often repeated joke of giving Shakey good lines for his plays. Maybe I'd built myself up for Gareth Roberts' debut a little too much.

So, not the best of episodes then. The old fans will hate it, but the kids will love it. And that's ultimately what counts. Bloody good telly, but must try harder.

Mmmm. Not totally sure what to say about this episode. I'll tackle the good points first: a fairly convincing recreation of Elizabethan London, quite reminiscent of the slightly later setting?of The Visitation, though by no means any more impressive (in fact, I'd say, the latter story's depiction of Restoration London still has the edge in atmosphere); the concept of an alien race who use words like a science (ie, 'magic') is quite unusual, albeit rather absurd; the scene with the deranged architect in Bedlam was nicely disturbing; the necessarily un-pc but authentic references to Martha's incongruous skin colour (forgot to say last review that I am very pleased that we finally have a black companion) was well done;?the leader of the?Carrionites (I thought it was Carrier Knights)?played it well; the period-spiced incidental music; the Doctor was refreshingly alien and detached in the bed scene.

The bad/less good points: the bed scene being there in the first place - utterly inappropriate and irrelevant; the frankly rather silly, hackneyed interpretations of cackling, hook-nosed witches and?their rather jarring and badly composed rhyming speech; the hit-and-miss, rather prattish?depiction of Shakespeare, not as bad as I anticipated, but very much from the post-modern 'laddish' school of historical?interpretation currently in vogue in modern drama (cue Ray Winston's ludicrous cockney portrayal of Henry VIII a few years back); the vapid flirtations between Shakespeare and Martha; the constant and rather clumsy allusions to various famous Shakespearian lines put oh-so-unsubtly into his mouth by the Doctor; the absolutely fatuous allusions to Harry Potter throughout ('Good old JK'), and as always, uttered even more painfully from the Timelord's own mouth rather than from that of his companion (this is simply sloppy and ill-thought-out scripting); token but growingly typical sexual innuendos; the 2,000 mph cosmic explanations hurtled out by the Doctor in one of his typical fits of sudden illumination; the continual references to Shakespeare's 'genius'; and, well, the entire plot... which was frankly utter bunkum from start to finish.

Apart from the odd interesting idea here and there, The Shakespeare Code is still a disappointing mish-mash of 'almost good'?and 'Doctor Who for idiots'. Sadly, chiefly the latter in my view. To have to keep throwing in continual contemporary mainstream cultural allusions - particularly to the tiresome banality of Harry Potter - in order to 'draw in the audience' is a) patronising to most of us watching and b) a sign of scriptural insecurity, in that obviously the writer doesn't have enough confidence in the strength of his own piece of work to let it just stand alone and tell its own story. Stylistically this episode is so blatantly similar to the staid triteness of the Potter films that there is no need at all to bring this similarity into the script itself. That's almost like saying 'Look we know we're just shamelessly ripping your stuff off Miss Rowling, but at least we're flagging it up!'

Then of course there is the title and its obvious pun on the equally tiresome legacy of the Da Vinci Code. Who bets RTD said to Gareth Roberts: write whatever you want as long as it includes Shakespeare, Harry Potter references, Cackling Witches, a zeitgeist-oriented title and a pointless appearance from Elizabeth I at the end!? Not much left for Roberts to do then. Except just shove a shock-haired Doctor and thoroughly bland companion in.

Martha then? Haven't much to say on her at all really. I find her completely bland and uninteresting, and frankly almost exactly the same as Rose, except with a stethescope to her name. What's new? Hardly Liz Shaw is she?

As for the complete arrogance of attempting to invent a lost Shakespeare play, Love's Labour's Won, well... I suppose it's better than Hamlet II or?Macbeth - The Return (and?this time?he means business).

One more thing: I think we've all forgotten that this isn't even the first appearance of Shakespeare in the series. Remember The Chase? Mmmm. Dean Lennox-Kelly hardly resembles that previous depiction of the Bard does he? Bit of a cock up there then.

This episode is certainly a big leap forward from the quite appallingly banal season opener, but is still far far away from not only the majority of the classic series, but also from many previous peak episodes of the last two years (such as Unquiet Dead, Dalek and Impossible Planet).

Next week looks like an equal waste of video tape but I remain stubbornly optimistic as some later episodes, particularly the tantalising Human Nature and its scarecrows running amok, look and sound much more like the kind of thing we should expect from paying such an exorbitant licence fee.

Here's hoping. 4/10

Poor Gareth Roberts. He had a lot to live up to for his first full 'proper telly' Doctor Who. But then again it's entirely his fault for writing such wonderful novels in the first place. The silly man.

Roberts' enthusiasm for his material shines through. The dialogue in this story is a healthy mix of Douglas Adams and the Bard himself. Literary references abound, and such is the verve with which they're employed you find yourself wanting to fire up Google (or a reference book if you're old fashioned) for the ones you didn't get, before firing it up again to look for pictures of Christina Cole in Hex.



However it just didn't...flow as well as you'd have hoped. The dialogue flowed freely, the actual plot did not. Your enjoyment was either spoiled or enhanced by this. In my case I felt the plot was a bit too lightweight to sustain all the action that was taking place. There is also the argument that it is scientific gibberish. Here however I will defend Roberts to the hilt (wherever that may be, I hope it's a pub in Cardiff) here, as his idea is a wonderful one. The story is about wordplay, the power they can have, all tied in with the fact that it's bloody Shakespeare prancing about over there, and the man's a genius (Romeo and Juliet notwithstanding), so the idea of a system of words being used in the same way as numbers in the field of science ? it's up there with the Bistromathic Drive as a bonkers yet brilliant idea. It just seems right, and anyone who is in love with ideas will find much to enjoy in this episode. Similarly, a knowledge of Shakespeare is helpful, but the script sticks to his most famous quotations in a running gag that unfortunately runs out of steam halfway through the story (even with variations on the theme it feels tired around about the half hour mark). The contemporary (well, in Back to the Future's case contemporary-ish) references seemed to grate for some people, but the 'Expelliarmus!' moment was, besides being very funny, a nice way to give Martha some involvement towards the end.

Fortunately Roberts has more than enough one liners to spread around the cast, but donates most of them to David Tennant, as if he needed them. Craziness reigned in there is almost nothing to dislike about his Doctor, give or take a few lines about Rose which will make you sigh ? whether this is a good thing or nor depends on your opinion of Rose. Personally I found the scene where the Doctor and Martha were in bed together to be the kind of Rose reference which grates, as it seems at the expense of Martha, whereas the idea that the thought of Rose gives the Doctor a reason to do what he does is not at the expense of anyone and seems more in character. But then again maybe fandom would like to see Martha's Mum slap the Doctor as well? Let up a magenta flare at midnight on Wednesday if you agree. If anyone asks, just scream 'Gay agenda' at them til they go away.

Meanwhile, Martha does not get too much too do in this episode. She seems sidelined to an almost Jo Grant-esque role of saying the right thing at the right time and prodding the Doctor in the right direction. Freema does well with what she's given and reinforces the convictions most fans found in Smith and Jones but the episode really belongs to Tennant, who just barnstorms through everything with a mix of all the qualities people have enjoyed in the most recent Doctors.

Dean Lennox Kelly did alright. Just sort of...alright. He didn't really do anything for me as he seemed slightly too laid back for most of the episode. To be honest any hint at Shakespeare's genius was given through the script rather than his performance. He didn't do badly, he just didn't seem to raise his game as we'd like him to until the finale, which again only sort of worked. The idea may be good, but good ideas are notoriously hard to realise. Anyone who accuses the show of dumbing down and hiding behind flashy visuals (oh by the way, someone give Charles Palmer something nice out of the Argos catalogue. Anything he wants really, I'll chip in a fiver) should stop and consider the fact that the resolution, instead of simply being a fancy CG explosion, consisted of the man regarded as the greatest playwright that Britain has ever produced ?using his skills in that field to ward off an alien invasion. It's the most complex bit of an otherwise utterly simple plot.

Once you've got your head round the ideas you then might think that Roberts has either been extremely clever or extremely lucky in coming up with such a concept (who's betting on the former?). It's a resolution that's been used in Doctor Who before, notably in The Daemons when the Doctor wards off Bok. Speaking of weird looking superstitious creatures, weren't the witches a bit scary for the kids? Christina Cole, mad cackling aside, was a damn fine villain. In a longer story or a novel her character could've been fleshed out further, but she did well with a role that could've fallen into clich?, although that almost seemed the intention. The other two witches, while played well enough for the mad ol' crone role, did have slightly static faces that looked like half finished Muppet masks from The Muppet Christmas Carol. And the cackling got on people's tits, quite frankly.

This could have been one of the all-time great Doctor Who stories, but two specific elements were allowed to ruin the illusion, making it merely "very entertaining" (and yes, I know most TV barely even aspires to THAT level!).

Let us start with the praise: the cinematography and stuntwork in particular is spectacular. I mean even given how good the last two seasons have been, this story just looks GORGEOUS. Sure, it helps when you get to use the actual Globe Theatre, but I'm referring to everything seen on-screen. Even the matte shots are just stunningly good. If the rest of the season can keep up this visual level, my eyes my explode from sheer delight.

I thought David Tennant really nailed the part right on the head in this one. He was by turns funny and dramatic, serious and whimsical, callous and empathetic, fanboy and hitman, human and alien. Whereas he got a little silly in bits of Smith and Jones, he was just spot-on here.

Freema was a nice change and handled many of her scenes very well, and I look forward to more from her -- but it's still too soon to judge exactly how she's going to work out. Very promising, and RTD wasn't lying when he said she wouldn't be "Rose Lite," but you know I'm almost ready for another male companion on board ... how about someone significantly older?

I should mention that I met Gareth Roberts through the Manopticon crew many years ago and we hit it off very well back then, though we haven't kept in touch -- so feel free to take my review of his script with a grain of salt if you like, but I mostly loved it, particularly the dialogue. There was perhaps a bit more expository dialogue than most of these stories get, but there was more back-continuity to refer to. This could be worrisome -- the new series of Doctor Who has spent more of its time looking forward than back, and I want that to continue because it seems to help the mass appeal -- but if they're only going to be so referential only once in a while I certainly won't mind.

The two things I do take exception with were the stylised performances of the Witches/Carrionites, and the Master of the Revels. Having been unimpressed with director Charles Palmer's direction of Smith & Jones, I'm inclined to blame him more than anyone else for the simply dreadful campiness of the witches. I'll come back to the Master (no not THAT Master) later.

I understand what they were trying to do -- make the witches very much like the stereotypes we all know from childhood of what witches were like -- but it was laid on as thick as Tammy Faye Bakker's makeup, allowing no room for further exaggeration in history. Even small children would find their cackling, rhyming, Monty-Python- Pepperpots voices grating and unbelievable and completely over the top. Was the second unit directory Mary Whitehouse herself? I ask because nobody else could take the menace out of those creatures and render them comically ineffective quite like that harpy do-gooder. The scene in which Doomfinger hysterically confronts the Doctor and company when they visit Peter Street is one of the biggest mismatches of acting since Ralph Richardson had to act alongside Andie MacDowell. "Fan quality" doesn't even begin to describe how bad the Carrionites were on screen. "Porn acting" might just cover it.

The other problem with this story has to do with the dramatically shorter 45-minute format. Important characters, such as The Master of the Revels, are reduced to "pop on and die." This is not the first time this has happened, but it's the most obvious -- I was left scratching my head as to how Martha knew the Master's name was Mr Lynley (answer, after reviewing the episode again -- oops! continuity error ahoy!). Furthermore, what purpose does Mr Lynley serve (other than "expendable extra")? Why is he so set against Shakespeare? What's up with the permits -- and script approval?? These are just some of the things neither Roberts nor Davies bother to answer because there's simply NO TIME to delve into the character, but what they forget is that this also means there's no time for us to CARE about him or his death. He's a prop used almost solely to show off the "death by drowning on dry land" trick. It's unfair to the performer and in service to the story that he gets such short shrift.

I can live with the Doctor's rather feeble explanation of "magic." I can stand discovering that Jor-El's "Phantom Zone" is full of big- nosed old biddies who use words for physics (hey, I bought into "bloc transfer computation," didn't I?). I can even deal with a bisexual Shakespeare and gratuitous -- and I do mean GRATUITOUS -- Harry Potter references. It's just a shame that I have to.

When you've got such a marvelous story, such wonderful actors, such beautiful dialogue, such gorgeous location and model work and so rich a backdrop, you should linger just a bit more over it. Think of how much better The Shakespeare Code would have been as a two-parter: we could have fleshed out Lillith, her suitor, Lynley, the King's Men actors, even Queen Elisabeth! And before you complain that I must be one of those old-school fuddy-duddies who thinks everything should be a six-parter at least, I should point out that this is only the second time in this new series that I've wished for a one-part story to be a two-parter (the other was "Rose," which desperately needed more "there" there).

Overall, The Shakespeare Code is solid entertainment with only minor annoyances to those of us who take it seriously, and I'm sure it will do well in the season poll for its looks, cast and style. To me, sadly, it's tantilizingly close to perfect, but just ruined by ham and cheese -- oddly enough, not on the stage!