PodBill Just what I expected

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

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.

Dr Moo To my fellow Brits: Let's never sell this to the States again, okay?Dr Who ran from 1963-89 and has been going again since 2005. The closest we ever got in the middle were "Dimensions In Time" (don't go there) and "The Curse Of Fatal Death" (which is incredible). Between the two we got the only canon entry from the so-called Wilderness Years in the form of this American 'effort' at a series with this film acting as a pilot-of-sorts.Fox should never have got their grubby hands on it. Dr Who is strictly British and to let the USA touch British property is wrong (even the Master is American). The only British show to have success as a US version is The Office which, in true American style, lasted too long. I'm not knocking US TV, merely stating that some things are better left to its original owners.The reason the pilot failed is essentially the bizarre choice to start by making the title character regenerate at the start. Yes, seeing McCoy become McGann has a fanboy thrill to it but this was made for a new audience and this throws them right in off the deep end. The Eighth Doctor's casting is the best thing about this as Paul McGann is terrific in the lead role. It's a shame he only did it again on screen once for a minisode 17 years later, but still he's really good at it. Just don't mention Daphne Ashbrook or Eric Roberts.It's weird that the most controversial part of this at the time was having the Doctor kiss Grace and ride a motorbike when we regularly see him kiss anything that moves if David Tenant is playing him and that time when Matt Smith motorcycled up The Shard in 2013.History will remember this oddity for one thing only and it's one that fans, cast and crew nowadays have an unspoken agreement to never mention, the elephant in the room if you will. The Doctor is half-human (on his mother's side). He could be joking, but then we see The Master confirm it.Watch this as a lesson in how not to do a pilot. Also watch it to learn about the strangest period of Dr Who history. If you want a good Eighth Doctor adventure try "The Night Of The Doctor" instead. McGann in this film is the ultimate example in wasted talent. What a mess this was. Let's just pretend this didn't happen.

thecodydawson First of all: I am a mega Who fan, and would never want to diminish the awesomeness that is Doctor Who, but; these are still my opinions: While I have watched the movie twice purely out of loving Doctor Who (and trying to grasp the personality of the eighth incarnation), I do not LOVE this movie. First of all, America should have never tried to revive a purely British Sci-Fi show in the first place. (I'm American myself, and even I think this was a bad idea!) They literally urinated all over the character of both The Doctor, and the Master. Okay, to make this review simpler, I will do pros/cons.Pros (or "good things" about the movie):Paul McGann. Paul McGann wonderfully portrayed a sexy, suave Doctor. He was gorgeous, and brilliant. The Master. Once he stole a human body (*eye rolling*), he was pretty Master-y. Even stopping to dress up when so he could look the part to steal the Doctor's body or lives or whatever.The companions. Grace Holloway and Chang Lee were fun characters. A surgeon and a street thug were pretty good ideas to pair up with our favorite Time Lord.Cons (or "bad things" about the movie):Half-Human: The eighth incarnation is apparently half human? First of all, they never fully explain that crap. (It might not have been a terrible idea if they would have.) It was unnecessary, and not well done.Snot-Snake ghost crap: So the Master has all his lives taken away (haha cool punishment!), but yet is magically able to become a snot looking snaking ghost and break out of his little grave and possess someone, LITERALLY. This was never explained, since he wasn't shown to be able to that before! (Also, he has quite a bit stronger psychic abilities than I have ever seen a Time Lord have.The Eye of Harmony: New TARDIS part, I think. But nevertheless, I wished they would have just used the heart of the TARDIS as the plot device that The Master opened instead of adding that. It didn't make a ton of sense in the story and fell pretty flat with me. (Even Steven Moffat had negative comments about this and The Master snake of snot ability thing!)Seven-to-Eight: Seven's regeneration was kind of cool, but, shooting the Doctor to kill him off? Well shooting which caused a surgery and what not, but still.. That kind of craps on one of the most entertaining staples of the show! (The Doctor's ability to make whimsical speeches to get out of trouble.) Overall, not the best way to regenerate The Doctor:/Anyhow, those are my opinions. Sorry if I offended any Whovians! I still like the movie, but I just don't quite LOVE it. Also, I post Doctor Who on Instagram! Follow me if you would like: my user is: November23rd1963.

ddcharbon I'm watching this movie now and I'm so bored I'm writing the review before it's over.Dr. Who doesn't work when it takes itself seriously, when it limits itself to the realistic expectations of mainstream cinematic storytelling (whatever the genre). This is why the first season of the BBC reboot with Christopher Eccleston didn't work in my opinion. The actor always look annoyed that he wasn't in a Guy Ritchie shoot 'em up flick and the show's producers took their storytelling way too seriously. Eccleston may have been praised for his lock, stock, and two smoking barrels as the Doctor, but clearly the re-creators of the show realized that the Doctor's longevity was due to his and the show's free-ranging eccentricity, which is why subsequent seasons featured doctors with odd, but charming personalities in the tradition of Baker, Noughton, and that Sylvester guy, and plots like the one with David Tennant where he's stranded aboard an orbiting spaceship with the shape and name of the Titanic on Christmas eve--right before it runs into...what? why, the earth, of course! So this movie tries to take its plot seriously even though it doesn't really have a plot and leaves me so bored it was much more fun to write about the show than this movie, which has pretty much been well dissected by all the previous reviews. But, hey, lighten up about the kiss, folks.