My rather particular way of marathoning has often thrown up interesting sequences of stories. The Angels Take Manhattan completes a trilogy of stories, all featuring River Song, in this marathon: Let’s Kill Hitler, The Angel’s Kiss and The Angels Take Manhattan. Let’s Kill Hitler was the ‘introduction’ of River Song; The Angel’s Kiss continued River’s story and brought us to New York in 1938 and saw the return of the Weeping Angels; and The Angels Take Manhattan wraps up the Angels story whilst also finishing the story of River’s parents, Amy and Rory.

There is a consistent through line in these stories (although The Angel’s Kiss, being a short story, doesn’t quite keep the same tone) and it makes for an interesting watch. Unfortunately, it isn’t quite as satisfying as it could be.

Let’s Kill Hitler was a bit of a surprise as I found lots to enjoy even if, ultimately, I remained unconvinced by Alex Kingston’s characterisation of the newly-regenerated River Song. The strength of The Angel’s Kiss, ironically, was River’s portrayal which compensated for a lacklustre story which added unsuccessfully to the modus operandi of the Angels and unnecessarily included characters from The Angels Take Manhattan. This third story, unfortunately doesn’t improve on the plot weakness of The Angel’s Kiss. The Angels Take Manhattan is a 45 minute leaving scene with an iconic monster, desperately in search of a plot and characters who aren’t the four regulars.

The Weeping Angels are a superb creation and easily the modern series most recognisable ‘new’ monster. Some argue that after Blink – the story where they crashed to the top levels of Doctor Who’s pantheon of monsters – their subsequent appearances resulted in diminishing returns (although the most recent, at the time of writing, outing in Village of the Angels has bucked this trend and gave us 50 minutes of solidly scary Weeping Angel action).

With a story such as The Angels Take Manhattan, though, it isn’t hard to see why the criticism has been levelled at the Angels. The problem with returning monsters – especially ones that have a very particular ‘gimmick’ – is that in subsequent appearances you need to find new things to do with them or risk retreading the same plot of the previous story. Time of the Angels added in a couple (such as us being able to see the Angels move (something which has never been repeated) and the ‘image of an Angel becomes an Angel aspect). The Angels Take Manhattan attempts to introduce another couple of new ones – one of which may possibly be the silliest idea Steven Moffat tried to include in the Weeping Angel lore.

Firstly, the idea of a Weeping Angel battery farm isn’t too bad (although the idea of being touched more than once has been contradicted by the recent Village of the Angels, but that’s Doctor Who for you). Sam Garner, the private eye, and later, Rory, finding their future selves on the verge of death having been trapped in the hotel for years is an arresting image (although the fact that Rory’s appearance is almost identical to the scene with Garner in the pre-titles sequence causes it to lose some of its impact).

The ‘baby’ Angels are a suitable chilling idea aided by the added giggling and the one which blows out Rory’s match. This is the story which properly steps into the ‘all statues could be Angels’ concept with not only the traditional Angels and the cherubs, but also the mother and son statue outside of Grayle’s house and, of course, this story’s most ridiculous aspect – the Statue of Liberty.

These different types of Angel, though, muddy the water of the Weeping Angel mythology. The iconic wings and face-hiding are not part of these Angels and, consequently, they lose their impact. The mother and son statue is troubling enough in itself, but the Statue of Liberty just takes everything one giant step too far.

How, in a city which never sleeps (a fact the script actually makes a point of) does the Statue of Liberty move. When is there an occasion where there is not a single pair of eyes looking at it for long enough to get from the plinth in stands on, on Liberty Island to Winter Quay. Okay, so we’re not told how far from the plinth the battery farm is (and the name would suggest a waterside location) but still – unless it teleports all that way and then teleports back pretty sharpish after, surely someone is going to notice the fact that the Statue of Liberty has moved and is standing next to a hotel building. Bearing in mind, in the pre-titles, we are shown three people looking at Garner entering Winter Quay all of whom clearly know what’s going on (the little girl actually mimics an Angel), how do any of them miss the Statue of Liberty appearing directly opposite where they live. It’s not exactly small!

It smacks of Moffatt saying ‘wouldn’t it be cool if…’ and damning the logic. The problem with an idea like this is that if the audience even thinks about it for a moment, it all starts to fall apart and lessens the initial shock. It’s not as if it is even integral to the story. Amy and Rory just look at it in turn until they paradox it away.

That aside, the Angels really are just a means to an end in a story which, as I say, is purely an extended leaving scene for Amy and Rory. They, the Doctor and River spend the story bouncing from one scene to another on an inexorable journey to their fate in the graveyard. The atmospheric opening scenes of Sam Garner being employed by Sebastian Grayle (Mike McShane who, for me, will forever be tied to Whose Line is it Anyway?) is left hanging and never really followed up on, tone-wise, for the rest of the episode. Garner’s pre-titles fate, as I say, is repeated by Rory and Grayle disappears from the narrative once his function is spent (to have a captive Angel which captures River). Once the story shifts to modern day New York, it loses some of its atmosphere which, even when everyone ends up back in 1938, it doesn’t really regain. I think this is partly because, aside from a couple of brief scenes with Grayle, the regulars don’t interact with anyone else making it a very insular episode. Therefore, the story relies on the chemistry between them – but that can only take things so far. I love Matt Smith and he is as great as always; Karen Gillan is actually on good form as Amy; Alex Kingston does what she does as River – its a performance and a character I’ve never been 100% on board with although I can never quite put my finger on why; and Arthur Darvill..well, I love Rory but this is a terrible story for him. He does so little in his final story that its quite sad. His sudden transportation to 1938 happens off screen and his original fate at Winter Quay lacks any drama because we’ve already seen the exact same thing. He does have a wonderful scene when choosing to jump off the building in the belief that the paradox will, at least, save Amy but his final scene proper in the graveyard is so frustrating. After everything that has happened up to that point, his reaction to a gravestone with his name on is so underwhelming and unconvincing that his sudden zapping by the surviving Angel just seems to lack much impact.

Watching this story more or less back to back with Let’s Kill Hitler has surprised me in so far as I think Let’s Kill Hitler is the better ‘story’. It’s still very insular, revolving as it does around the four regulars, but the Teselecta strand helps hold the interest and keep things interesting. The Angels Take Manhattan struggles to know how to keep the Angels interesting and, aside from a couple of scary scenes, they don’t really contribute anything to the story except being why Amy and Rory leave. Therefore, there isn’t much to distract from the lengthy leaving scene that this story really is. Even the added conceit of River’s novel is centred on the four of them so, whilst entertaining, doesn’t help distract from them.

Critics of the modern series say it has become too much ‘about’ the Doctor rather than the Doctor having adventures. I don’t usually see what they’re seeing but, this story I feel is what they may be getting at. It’s a shame because, ultimately, I think it is a fun and different setting, has a brilliant (if weirdly developed) monster and features two of my favourite modern series characters but, overall, just doesn’t come together into a satisfying story.

There’s some great ideas in this one. But it’s a classic Moffat soup of too many jumbled up ideas with a lack of singular focus. The key concept of a hotel where Weeping Angels are generating time energy by sending people back in time within their rooms, making them live out their lives in this liminal space is spine tingling. You could make a whole story out of this.

You’ve then got New York. The production team are clearly uncomfortable filming somewhere where there is a bit of time pressure. They are then adding into the mix 1920s American pastiche, and trying to wring as much visual value out of the “New York!” visit as possible. The Statue of Liberty is in there for some reason. They are then trying to fold River Song in, but clearly Alex Kingston is not actually present in New York, just Cardiff so she’s not there in a scene and then suddenly she is. The story is a bit of a mess, and it looks a bit messy.

One final critique - Murray Gold’s music, especially the “oohing” while Amy and Rory are jumping off the ledge is too much. The execs needed to reign him in on this one.

But it’s not “quality free”; it wraps up Amy and The Doctor’s story nicely. Rory gets a big starring role. The cherubs are an incredible premise. If only Moffat could have taken the best of his ideas and fleshed them out there would be so much more to this. Maybe they felt that because of The God Complex that the whole “hotel thing” had already been done and that they couldn’t lean on it too hard.

This was the best episode of the first half for me. I definitely think that it could've been a two parter because it zapped along but I loved the noir feel and thought it was a great farewell for the Ponds.