Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Eric Stevenson I don't think I had ever even heard of "Doctor Who" before going on the Internet and now it's everywhere. Last time I checked, it was even the most trope overdosed franchise ever made on TVTropes. It's a shame that unlike other immensely popular franchises like "Star Wars" and "Star Trek", it has yet to come up with a great movie. It was still nice to watch a movie based on one of the most popular things ever made, like ever. I think overall, it's even bigger than "Star Wars"! I have seen at least two episodes of the show, so I recall the tone. This was just an okay movie with nothing really good or bad about it.It annoys me how people do nothing but complain about "The Phantom Menace" when you have one of the biggest things ever made that has never had a single movie with a higher score on this website than that movie! I know "Doctor Who" didn't start off as a movie series, but there should be more people constantly complaining about never having a genuinely good movie made of it. I remember how these are the same effects from the TV show. I wonder if J. J. Abrams could make a great version of this beloved franchise? Hey, you got Alex Hirsch working on a Pokémon movie. Yeah, look that up seriously.This movie's plot is pretty basic with the Doctor time traveling to December 31st, 1999 to stop an evil plan that the Master will carry out on the turn of the Millennium. Forgive me if I get some facts wrong as I am not a fan of the show, but given the sheer number of times I've heard this show being referenced, I should at least get some stuff right. It mostly plays like a long episode of the TV show and a mediocre one at that. It just didn't have the feel of a feature length movie. That's not what a movie is supposed to feel like. In a weird way, I would recommend this movie even though it's just okay. People should be introduced to be one of the biggest things of all time in a format as easy as watching a movie.It was interesting to hear the stuff I've read about on the Internet actually come to life! Yeah, I'd seen a bit of the show, but I liked seeing the stuff I heard so many people talk about actually on screen. I remember how the Doctor had two hearts and regenerated every time he died. The Master did the same thing. I guess a downside is that it didn't teach me too many new things about the series. I wished there would be more characters from the show, but then again, I'm not familiar with them. So for me, it was just an okay movie but I'm glad to learn more about something so popular. **1/2

WakenPayne I have just started watching Doctor Who over the past few months and to give you an idea of what I think, the 2 best Doctors are Tom Baker and David Tenant. I have no bias to any of the Doctors (except Pertwee probably because he's stuck on Earth for most of his run and to me that's not Doctor Who) But this movie was probably as hit and miss as you can get.Okay so after Sylvester McCoy's Doctor gets The Master's Ashes after being trialled on Skaro! (If you're not a Doctor Who fan it's the home-world of the Daleks, the most recognizable villains on the show most known for their use of the word "EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!") and after he is found guilty The Doctor finds his ashes... Somehow! and takes them to Gaiifrey. But The Master turns into a Water Snake and steers the TARDIS off course down to Earth where upon re-entry The Doctor is killed, only to be revived. The Master possesses Eric Roberts who somehow is an even MORE obvious bad guy then the black caped, goatee wearing twirling mustache guy(s) from the original show. So it's up to The new Doctor and a surgeon who failed to revive him when he was Sylvester McCoy and rushed to Hospital trying to stop The Master from opening the Eye Of Harmony (did they make that up just for this? No that is a serious question) to basically undo the molecular structure of the entire planet and wipe out all life.Probably the only thing about this movie that is legitimately and succeeded in legitimately entertaining me is Paul McGann as The Doctor, I mean if this was done in such a way that didn't make me question it at almost every turn I would have full faith the show would actually be revived successfully as opposed to waiting for 9 more years. The other thing I enjoyed was Eric Roberts' as The Master but I don't think it was in the way anyone in the process of making this movie thought it would. The way he does it SCREAMS "Villain!" and... Snake eyes with the black clothing and having his hair slicked back looks ridiculous when he's trying to blend in.Okay this movie makes very little sense if at all, How was The Doctor able to break out of a steel door with nothing but his bare hands? Why does that Chang Lee kid trust The Master? Why does The Hospital destroy all records of The Doctor being there saying "Nobody will come looking for him, we've only had him for one night"? Why is The Eye Of Harmony rail roaded into the plot of this movie and why is it never mentioned before or since in ANY other Doctor Who Lore? Why does The Eye Of Harmony resurrect people when it wants to? How did The Master get into The TARDIS? This and many more basically hurt the movie and made it very clear why the whole revival idea didn't work. Oh and what makes it worse is The Doctor and the surgeon do this pesky love relationship, it doesn't fit in because I don't think we are given a single reason why.All I do have to say is that Doctor Who is a British show and the British know how to handle him for the most part. This movie, made with the help of the Americans, it's made clear why it didn't take off because it stuck to conventions of American TV at the time... Which for the most part when dealing with shows like this sucked, I'm sure that people might point out a couple of exceptions to that but it is made clear that the people who made this didn't have a good idea for where to take the character, or at least if they did it wasn't executed well.

Ryan Turbine With the franchise as big as Doctor Who there was no doubt that there should be a Doctor Who movie to try and repopularise the franchise and bring it back from it's time off TV. Unfortunately with a small budget and a lacking cast this film is not the easiest Doctor Who to watch. Eric Roberts performance in this film was terrible to say the least with nothing but over acting every time he was on screen it felt hard to watch. One of the only saving graces that came from this film was Paul McGann's portrayal of the Doctor. Although not a brilliant story line or even special effects this is still a must see for all Doctor Who fans who like to see all regenerations.

sunshinebeachcinema Amidst the various specials surrounding the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who was a short mini-episode called The Night of the Doctor. It served as a prequel to the main event, whetting the appetite of fans by showing the regeneration of the Eighth Doctor into John Hurt's "War Doctor". Previously, this incarnation appeared only in an American produced TV movie broadcast in 1996, bridging the gap between the original series and the 2005 revival.In this film, the Eighth Doctor is played by Paul McGann, best known for starring as the eponymous "I" (or Marwood) in Withnail & I (1987) alongside Richard E. Grant. Grant himself would later go on to play a version of the Tenth Doctor in Comic Relief's Doctor Who and the Curse of Fatal Death (1999) and the villainous Dr. Simeon (a facet of the Great Intelligence) opposite Matt Smith's Doctor in 2012.McGann makes a very good Doctor, combining the typical eccentricity of the role with budding elements of the childlike joie de vivre that would come to typify later incarnations. The Fourth Doctor's jelly babies even make an appearance. He saves this picture from being an otherwise failed attempt to reinvent Doctor Who for an American audience. Entertainingly, this Doctor enjoys dropping hints about the futures of people he meets, although whether this knowledge comes from his travels or merely his abilities as a Time Lord is unclear.The USA has a long history of remaking and adapting British films and TV shows, whilst tragically underestimating their own audiences. Although a direct continuation of the original series, this film was such an attempt to give The Doctor his big American outing.This is not to say that Doctor Who has no appeal for America. Stateside support has thrived since the 2005 revival, and now makes up an integral part of the series' fan base. Moreover, this highlights how unwise and unnecessary such transatlantic pandering is when it merely diminishes the quintessentially British characteristics that make Doctor Who unique.Though the film was American produced, director Geoffrey Sax is British. With a background in BBC drama, he appears an appropriate choice to helm the picture. However, the direction is largely pedestrian, with an over reliance on Dutch angles, and action sequences which could be part of any other low key '90s movie.Perhaps this film is a product of the decade more than it is a product of Americanisation. To his credit Sax utilises the opulent TARDIS set to its full advantage during sequences of dialogue. Sax would go on to direct the mainstream, though tepidly received White Noise (2005) and Stormbreaker (2006).On the other side of the fence, it is refreshing to see a man with access to the whole of time and space make a stop in somewhere that isn't contemporary London. Here, the Seventh Doctor (Sylvester McCoy) lands in San Francisco on 31st December 1999, prophetically amid the dying embers of an old millennium. A failure to successfully navigate the gangs and guns of Chinatown swiftly lands The Doctor in hospital, and sparks his next regeneration.The film rejects Daleks or rubber aliens in favour of a more human faced story, pitting The Doctor against long term foe and rival The Master (Eric Roberts, who would later appear as the mysterious Thompson in Heroes). The two spend much of the film stalking the city in search of each other, and predictably, the New Year provides an ultimatum: The Master opens the TARDIS' energy source, which will destroy the Earth by midnight unless the Doctor can reset it with an atomic clock.The saga of a time travelling Englishman on the trail of his slippery nemesis recalls the plot of Time After Time (1979) in which H. G. Wells (Malcolm McDowell) arrives in modern day San Francisco in pursuit of Jack the Ripper. Indeed, the Doctor is shown reading Wells' The Time Machine at the start of the film and the aesthetic of the TARDIS design and Eighth Doctor's wardrobe is reminiscent of similar late 19th Century science fiction. The Master meanwhile goes Terminator, issuing stoic demands whilst clad in leather jacket and shades,The Doctor finds a companion in fellow physician Grace Holloway (Daphne Ashbrook), whose childhood dreams of keeping death at bay inspired her to become a doctor. When she learns about regeneration, her world view is challenged, as she was the surgeon whose failure caused the Seventh Doctor's demise.Symbolically, the film dwells on the obvious themes of time and rebirth and the ability of time travel to hold back death. This is something which the Doctor is more reluctant to do in other media, and the film takes the opportunity to stray away from established mythology in other ways, including the revelation that the alien Doctor is half-human. The plot is driven by the temporary amnesia The Doctor suffers after regenerating, and he swiftly develops a romantic relationship with Grace.While it is far from the greatest Doctor Who story in existence, it's a shame that Doctor Who: The Movie did not spark a new series starring Paul McGann. Watching thirty odd years of any TV series is a mammoth task so for those who have seen but a handful of 'classic' episodes, the movie provides nothing if not a way to complete an entire Doctor's tenure in one fell swoop.