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

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Prismark10 It is now twenty years since the US/UK co-production of Doctor Who: The Movie was broadcast. Shown seven years after the cancellation of the television series and nine years before the relaunched series with Christopher Eccleston, it was the only new Who in the 1990s.It also brings a lot of ingredients that was used in the relaunched series as Russell T Davies studied what it did right and what it did wrong.Sylvester McCoy returns as the seventh Doctor who having been shot and receiving botched hospital treatment regenerates into Paul McGann's eighth doctor.The Tardis lands in San Francisco in 1999, the Master escapes in a snakelike form from the Tardis and plans to take control of the Eye of Harmony once he has occupied the body of a paramedic (Eric Roberts). The Doctor must find a beryllium atomic clock and stop the Master with the help of Dr Grace Holloway.British director Geoffrey Sax made use of the higher budget with good use of special effects even though he was hampered with a reduced number of shooting days. The Tardis is much bigger but I guess the HG Wells like interior setting does not make it look like a Gallifreyan time machine. The visuals were grand and obviously some of the morphing techniques were inspired by films such as Terminator 2.The casting of Paul McGann was the master stroke, with the 60 minutes screen time he had, you really felt that he was the Doctor, a Byronesque romantic (he even got to have a kiss) and man of action, it was a shame we have seen so little of McGann's time lord apart from the mini adventure, The Night of the Doctor; although there is plenty of Eighth Doctor audio adventures.I also liked the malevolent interpretation of the Master by Eric Roberts who really pushes up the dial of campiness when he puts on the time lord regalia. He shifted the emphasis of the Master from the moustache twirling villain of Anthony Ainley and it has been carried on by the subsequent Master's since then, male or female.The story was not that great, you felt it needed a bit more reworking and it had rather a lot of continuity which was fine for fans of the shows but what about new viewers? A point not lost in the 2005 re-continuation which started afresh and only added continuity in small measures over subsequent seasons.Some of the elements of the television film might had introduced a few groans. The cloaking device to describe the Tardis chameleon circuit and the Doctor being half human. However it was a lot less Americanised than people feared and had lots of links to the preceding series.There were a segment of fans who were disappointed after this was shown in 1996, yet the movie received very good viewing figures in the UK and two decades on it was worth revisiting McGann's outing.

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.

Matthew Kresal The TV Movie: the one attempt to relaunch the series between the original series ending in 1989 and the new series beginning in 2005. So long remembered as Paul McGann's one TV appearance as the Doctor or as that time the Americans ruined Doctor Who, the TV Movie was written off for a long time. It also faded into obscurity for many US fans due to the rights issues between the BBC and Universal kept it from receiving first a VHS and then later a DVD release. With the DVD finally out and with the TV Movie's profile rising again, perhaps we can finally see it for being more then the single televised adventure of the eighth Doctor but also the comeback that should have been.Perhaps the biggest highlight of the movie is that contains Paul McGann's debut as the eighth Doctor. Some of the actors who've played the Doctor have found their feet after some time, others almost immediately and it would seem that McGann is one of the latter. From the moment he appears walking out of a morgue in a shroud to the last scene in the TARDIS, McGann embodies everything the Doctor should be: eccentric, intelligent, melancholic at times yet be an all around watchable and likable character. The American setting in fact highlights the eccentric qualities of McGann's performance even more. Perhaps the greatest shame of the TV movie is that this would be McGann's sole Doctor Who TV appearance.There's also a good supporting cast backing him up. Playing the companion is Daphne Ashbrook as Dr. Grace Holloway who goes from a simple operation into an adventure with the fate of the world at stake. It helps that McGann shares some fine chemistry with her and the movie shines whenever they're together. Ashbrook also makes Grace's back and forth swapping about whether or not to believe the Doctor work despite the fact that it makes very little sense. There's also Yee Jee Tso as Chang Lee who does a adequate job due in what seems due in large part to the script rather than his skills as an actor. Not forgetting of course Sylvester McCoy's all too short appearance as the seventh Doctor in the opening minutes either though his appearance seems rather unnecessary and potentially over complicates the film for anyone seeing Doctor Who for the first time (something that this TV Movie was supposed to be for).Which rather brings us to Eric Roberts as the Master. I mus confess that I am in two minds about Roberts' performance. There are times when he is actually quite sinister such as the scene when he initially meets Chang Lee in the TARDIS. Yet for the most part, Roberts is over the top at every possible occasion such as the "I always dress for the occasion!" line for example. The Roberts Master then is sinister yet over the top but whether that helps or hurts the film is left up to the individual viewer to decide.The production values could easily rival anything that the new series has yet produced. Of particular mention is the music of composer John Debney's score, the first time that Doctor Who had gotten the feel of having a full orchestral score including the excellent version of the Doctor Who Theme used in the opening and closing credits. The design of the TARDIS interior with its Gothic/Jules Verne, almost steam punk, feel is also of note. There is also the superb direction of Geoffrey Sax throughout the entire movie which does its best to ride the fine line between the Britishness of the series and the American setting, something in which it sometimes succeeds and sometimes doesn't.Which leads to the script. For something that was meant to be the launch of an American co-produced Doctor Who TV series yet is is seemingly continuity heavy. Within the first few minutes for example the viewer has the Master, the Daleks, regeneration, the TARDIS and two different Doctors being thrown at them. The movie itself works well with its mix of humor and a good vs evil storyline as the plot heads towards the Millennium (remember this was shown in 1996) until the ending. While there's plenty of plot holes along the way (such as the aforementioned business with Grace shifting back and forth about believing the Doctor), for the most part though the story holds up despite those faults.Where does all of that leave the TV Movie then? It features a fine debut for the eighth Doctor, good performances and has some fine production values. While it has its faults, the fact that this was more or less a pilot does excuse some of the faults present. Looking back on the TV Movie nearly twenty years after it was made one thing is clear: it was the comeback that should have been.