Doctor Who (1996 TV Movie) User Reviews

Something Of An Anti-Climax

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 25 February 2003]

It was in January 1996 that I first heard that my all time favourite TV hero was returning to our screens as a joint BBC / American network TVM . Whoever you are reading this review never EVER give up on your hopes and dreams because for DOCTOR WHO fans in the early 1990s not one of us ever believed we`d be seeing our favourite show return , never mind seeing a big budget American production or that this version was gong to have BAFTA award winning actor Paul McGann in the title role . Words fail to describe the anticipation me and every single other Who fan in the cosmos had in waiting till the TVM was broadcast in May . The only comparison I can think of is LOTR diehards waiting to see FELLOWSHIP , THE TWO TOWERS and RETURN OF THE KING . When the day of the broadcast came one Bank holiday Monday I`d almost bitten my fingers off in unbearable anticipation . I`d read every article I could find about the production in telefantasy magaziness , Paul McGann`s Doctor had appeared on the front cover of every British TV guide and the trailers led me to believe the Daleks were going to be heavily featured alongside the Master . So in mid evening the TVM began and for 90 minutes all the world`s problems disappeared . When the end titles rolled I was torn between being totally amazed by the good and bitterly disappointed by the bad .

The good bits were Geoffry Sax`s direction . Every single cent was up there on screen for the audience to gasp at . This is one Who story that can`t be accused of having crap FX . Sax also does an excellent editing job with intercutting between scenes , and it really was fascinating watching a Who story take place in an American setting . But the best aspect to the production is Eric Roberts camp scene stealing performance as the Master . My own memories of Roger Delgado`s original Master soon faded as Roberts bad-ass TERMINATOR inspired American arch enemy of the Doctor stole the entire show .

But unfortunately much of the bad outweighed the good and most of this was entirely down to Matthew Jacobs script which involved far too much continuity and extremely bad continiuty at that which not only displeases diehard fans but will alienate casual viewers at the same time . Regeneration ? temporal orbit ? the eye of harmony ? I know of these concepts because I`m a fan but here they`re presented entirely different from what I know them as . Likewise when did the Doctor become half human ? But the most disappointing thing were the Daleks who seem to be intergalatic hangmen and not the Nazis of the universe as shown on TV for three decades . Also bitterly disappointing to see them relegated to an off screen cameo when according to the trailers they might have been making a physical presence . Oh BTW can anyone really understand the plot ? At times it felt more like a Bond movie as the Doctor races around on a motor bike trying to save the world from a super villain . With the exception of Roberts no one really turns in a good performance least of all McGann who is surely one of Britain`s most underrated actors . I really expected more from him , though to be fair he didn`t have a lot to go on due to the script.

Oh well I suppose it was good while it lasted and I suppose my life has been slightly enriched after seeing an American version of DOCTOR WHO , and let me just repeat if someone had told me in 1992 I`d one day be watching an American version of the show I would have laughed in their face . It`s not the worst DOCTOR WHO story I`ve seen but it`s not a story I`ll watch over and over again unlike The Silurians , Inferno , Genesis Of The Daleks , Seeds Of Doom or Kinda . These really were classic pieces of not only Who but of British television

A noble failure

[MaxBorg89 · 7/10 · 9 September 2008]

In 1996, seven years after the original Doctor Who series was canceled, the American network Fox thought a USA reboot of the show might be a good way to bring everybody's favorite Time Lord back to the small screen. The resulting TV movie was notoriously lambasted by critics and fans alike, who responded with more warmth to the BBC's revival of the character in 2005. Perhaps the biggest problem lies in the very fact that the Yanks tried to do their own version of a quintessential British creation: you don't see the Brits try and remake Star Trek, do you? Nevertheless, as messy as it is, this 1996 version of Doctor Who (which is part of the official mythology) has a few valid selling points that make it worth tracking down on a boring Saturday afternoon.

The original show ended with the Doctor being played by Sylvester McCoy, the seventh incarnation of the character, and it is still McCoy, albeit credited as a guest star, who controls the TARDIS at the beginning of the story. The year is 1999 (as a matter of fact, the specific date is December 31st), and the renegade Time Lord is transporting the ashes of his archenemy, the Master, back to their home planet Gallifrey. However, due to a series of mishaps, the machine crash-lands in America, with the Doctor presumably dead and the Master's spirit free to take over the body of a paramedic (Eric Roberts). His plan is to use some temporal anomaly to steal the Doctor's remaining lives (each Time Lord has thirteen of them; the Master's used them up). As for the Doctor, once he's regenerated into a half-human eighth embodiment (Paul McGann), he has to stop his nemesis once and for all.

The plot is a classic good vs. evil confrontation, and that's one of the TV movie's main flaws: instead of reintroducing the Doctor, like Russell T. Davies did in the new series, the narrative proceeds as if no time had passed between the original show's finale and this Americanized version. This can prove particularly alienating to US audiences, for whom Doctor Who isn't an essential part of popular culture, and McGann's clumsy voice-over doesn't do much to sort things out in that department. And that's without mentioning the holes in logic: why introduce two new (American) sidekicks, one of whom a potential love interest for the protagonist, and then suggest they would have no major role in other episodes, had the US show been picked up by Fox? And since when do Daleks and Time Lords cooperate, as shown prior to the opening credits?

That said, McGann and Roberts are good enough to compensate most of the other rubbish, one giving that undeniably English quality to the quirky time traveler, the other adding a bit of OTT menace to one of the show's seminal villains. In addition, the special effects are state-of-the-art, as is the new rendition of Ron Grainer's immortal theme music.

Overall, a one-off experiment that is best remembered as a guilty pleasure for die-hard fans. Fortunately, the Yanks were wise enough to let the BBC handle everything Who-related from this point on.

6,5/10

never plays the same way twice!

[dr_foreman · 7/10 · 23 January 2004]

This is one of the most over-analyzed pieces of television ever produced. "Doctor Who" fans are such a dedicated bunch that they'll buy camcorders and film their own episodes when the show is not in production; it stands to reason that they'd pick apart the only "official" new episode produced for TV in the 1990s, but the chorus of their dissenting voices sometimes really grates on me. Thanks to all the controversy, I still can't honestly say what I think of this movie, even all these years later; every time I see it, I have a different opinion.

I'm not on board with some of the usual criticisms. I don't care about the romance (it barely features), and I don't really mind that the Doctor is half-human (it's a side issue that doesn't alter the plot, hardly worth complaining about). What I do dislike is the fast-paced, action-oriented nature of the story, which prevents character development (Chang Lee is the chief offender here) and doesn't allow any room for the Doctor to act like a detective (which is his usual schtick).

Still, good effects, a rockin' music score and some nice arty camera work elevate this far above the average TV production. Perhaps the only thing that really matters is that it's entertaining; why analyze it beyond that? The only real problem here is that the original series is, generally speaking, even more entertaining, but that's one tough act to follow!

An ex-roommate and good buddy of mine perhaps summed it up best: "That was fun, but could you put on a cheesy one now? They're more interesting." I bet her opinion of it wouldn't change on a second viewing; I, alas, am afflicted with the curse of fandom!

hit and miss

[ovationbass · 13 August 2003]

I was originally captivated by the Dr. Who series while PBS was airing the Tom Baker (my favorite) and Peter Davisson episodes during the 80's. Later I caught bits and pieces of some of the earlier and later incarnations of the Doctor during PBS pledge drives. (Yes, it worked! I have a bunch of Dr. who t-shirts and coffee cups now. And of course, i supported "television worth watching".) So when i heard about the fox production i was waiting with bated breath. Silly me. I should have known that the clowns in hollywood would urinate all over a wonderful story.

Hits:

Paul McGann was a great doctor. Good looking in the hollywood way but not a hollywood plasticface. He actually projects some character. He gives the role a sense of childlike wonder and earnestness, very much in keeping with the interpretation of T. Baker, Davisson and Troughton. His costume works for me.(but not how he got it. see my misses)

The regeneration scene. Awesome! The whole idea of a cocky surgeon suddenly unable to perform a routine procedure and because of her frustration and conviction of the way things are she kills him is wonderful. The fact she has to deal with the reality that if she had just stepped back, questioned her assumptions, given the x-ray techs and radiologist credit for knowing what they were doing, etc, she would not have "killed" him, works for me. My only gripe is that she doesn't really agonize over it enough. She doesn't even apologize for killing him!

Sylvester McCoy making his appearance. I think this regeneration was approached as well or better than any of the others. It's too bad Fox assumed that americans couldn't deal with the quirky McCoy as the Doctor. I guess he was just not "beautiful" enough. (last time i checked i was an american and i liked his doctor a bunch. I'd put him in a close tie with peter Davisson as second best)

Some very typical doctor behavior. I particularly like where he holds the gun to HIS OWN head in order to steal the motorcycle. I could easily have pictured Tom Baker's or Patrick Troughton's Doctor doing that.

The kiss - I don't mind the kiss at all. Actually it was kind of cool. I was always disappointed he never kissed Romana. There seemed good chemistry there. (since Tom Baker and the actress did end up marrying i guess that makes sense.) And come on people! it's just a kiss. It's not like they went totally hollywood and had them strip down, jump in bed and have her teach him the "human way" to ecstasy. And it's not like she shacks up with him in the Tardis. They each go their own way, friends. As it should be.

Special effects, nothing outstanding for an american show but not bad. Wouldn't it be cool to have seen some of the classic who stories shot with effects this good?

The new tardis. Not bad. A little hollywood i guess but no worse than the claustrophobic, antiseptic control room in the series. Wasn't there a point where one of the doctors (i think it was t. baker) used a nice mahogany and brass "old control room" for awhile? As for the spaciousness, not too hard to deal with. I remember an episode of the tv series where the doctor seems to be running endlessly down corridors in the tardis that look strangely like they might be corridors in a studio basement.

Misses:

Doctor is Half human and renaming the chameleon to the cloaking device... These are the result of the brainless hollywood assumption that americans will better consume a product only if it is made according to formula. In this world all sci-fi fans are by definition star trek fans, therefore these two "tips of the hat" to Star Trek are necessary. To me they are just way too jarring - they don't belong in the story at all. Tell me, what does it add to the story for him to be half human? What? Why does hollywood always assume that americans are all brainless boobs.... Still, (am i speaking heresy here?) if they are going to mix worldlines why pussyfoot around? Why not have the tardis appear on the bridge of the enterprise? I think the tension and interaction between Tom Baker's irreverent Doctor and Spock would be priceless. Still, it wouldn't be a Dr. Who story.

Reinventing the master as a cheap terminator/krychek knock-off. Yuch. I accept the the incarnation of the master portrayed by anthony ainly was already a stolen body for the master trying to live beyond his final incarnation but still... this just doesn't work for me. I think i saw a villain like this on Power Rangers.

Chang Lee does not leave with the doctor to become his first companion in the new Fox series. Why not? It's not like he's got much of a life to look forward to as a gang member. It would have been great.

Procuring his costume -- I pondered that a long time after i saw the movie. How does a guy who's just left the morgue and is wandering around in a hospital basement find a room with all the windows smashed out and filled with lockers containing stage costumes? huh? I worked maintenance in a hospital when i was a teenager and EVERYTHING in the building was kept clean, painted and in perfect working order, even in the sub-basement. A derelict room like that? Not in any hospital i've ever seen!

All the senseless incorrect references to the Dr. Who pantheon. Ok, him having jelly babies is marginally acceptable, i guess, but the Eye of Harmony? Just let the story develop naturally for pete's sake....

the chase scene and other hollywood pap. I admit that Pertwee and the U.N.I.T. people end up doing that a lot but ya know, I always thought of pertwee's doctor as pretty lame compared to most of the others. The whole thing about the doctor being sentenced to remain on earth seemed a cheap budgeting ploy by bbc to cut down the cost of sets and special effects. Why put any of this in except to make a nod to the pertwee incarnation. Again, why does hollywood always assume we're morons? And the countdown scene for the bomb or whatever (it's been awhile since i've seen it). What's up with that? They only thing they didn't have was the scene where he has to cut the red wire or the blue wire. Or the scene where he walks into the darkened room where the monster is and inexplicably doesn't turn on the light. Or the scene where his boss takes away his badge and tells him he's on his own... I mean if we're going to tell a story by formula what's up? You missed a few, hollywood guys!!

Why wasn't K-9 in the movie? It's amazing the hollywood guys missed the potential r2-d2 tie-ins.

I guess to sum up, i'd say that this Doctor is better than no doctor at all. I just wish they'd have given us a script that was even a little better than an episode of (70's) battlestar galactica or the six million dollar man. Maybe if they would have made the series it would have. Maybe. I'd like to see the people that made the new Dune movies for the Sci Fi channel take a crack at the doctor. Now that would be cool!

A wonderful (if brief) return!

[JeffG. · 7/10 · 20 April 1999]

The only bad thing I can think about the Doctor Who TV movie is that it didn't become a new series. Paul McGann did an excellent job as the Doctor. Hopefully, he'll get another chance to play the role again someday. Loved the new TARDIS console room as well. The movie did a fine job in appealing to both long-time Doctor Who fans and people unfamiliar with the show.

When's he coming back? It's overtime

[Piledriver · 6/10 · 5 December 2001]

Not that bad really. Or at least the plus points outnumber the bad points. The major factor in favour of the movie was the inspired casting of Paul McGann as the Doctor. Paul McGann is probably the best actor to play Doctor Who (apologies to fans of William Hartnell and Peter Cushing), and his Doctor has more depth of character than the others. If only he would agree to do reprise the role (or the BBC if it comes to that). The dialogue was not to great, but better than the series frequently had. The same could be said of the plot, however the series also turned out some of the best stories and ideas to grace science fiction in any form, so the film loses out on that point. A popular criticism is the Americanisation and emphasis on high-speed action. Such thins are out of place in Doctor Who, but I believe they are misplaced in this case. The best two examples are the kiss and the car chases. I thought the kiss really added to this Doctor's character, but only because he then left her behind on Earth. Anyone who thought there was too much action obviously cannot remember the Jon Pertwee era when Doctor Who could hardly go an episode without high speed antics of some sort. Who thinks Jon Pertwee was a bad Doctor? No one, and quite rightly too.

The only real disappointment was the way Sylvester McCoy was killed. Doctor Who has got out of more unwinable situations than expendable extras on Star Trek, and needs a special end to each of his lives. This one just didn't pass mustard, although I wish whoever wrote it in does.

All in all the film is not bad, but hardly classic Doctor Who.

6/10

P.S. The new Tardis interior design is stunning.

I thought it had potential!

[Milo-13 · 7/10 · 3 March 2002]

Some people hold on to the past too hard. They forget that Dr. Who, being a TV series, had some excellent episodes and some really, really awful ones. I think the FOX revamp of our favorite time-lord was interesting! It had the class of starting off with the last Doctor of the British show and then led us into a movie that combined the story line of the British show with an American spin.

I think it worked very well... and while die-hard Who fans may not have approved, I think this show needed to be given a chance... the pilot certainly had a good start... and the Master was never cooler than he was in this pilot.

The movie had flaws... but it was still better than a lot of other shows on US television... and let's not forget Dr. Who no longer is being made in England... and I think this would have been a perfectly acceptable continuation of the series.

I wish Fox would reconsider bringing it back!

The show was never designed for glitz and glam

[Sleepin_Dragon · 5/10 · 11 September 2015]

I really struggle with this movie. Being traumatised as a 9 year old when the show was cancelled I can remember the sheer excitement at there being a movie. It starts off well enough, I really enjoyed Sylvester McCoy's appearance, at least he got a send off.

Paul McGann made a really good Doctor, I feel sad for him that he wasn't given a true crack of the whip, he showed us in The Night of the Doctor what we'd missed all those years. He performs as well as can be expected. I even quite liked Grace (not the kissing bit!!)

But, oh my days it's so tacky, Eric Roberts as the Master?? Seriously!! I don't know why they didn't hire Dom DeLuise and have him in drag, well they weren't that far off were they.

The story itself isn't uninteresting, but gang crimes, guns etc it's not what this show was about, were they aiming this movie at the American market? The Doctor being half human? I should coco!!

Overall it's watchable enough, at least they tried to get it to work, it's just a bit too cheesy and glitzy. 5/10

The Enemy Within

[Prismark10 · 8/10 · 1 April 2016]

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 got wrong.

Sylvester McCoy returns as the seventh Doctor, he gets shot and after 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 are plenty of Eighth Doctor audio adventures.

I also liked the malevolent interpretation of the Master by Eric Roberts who really pushes up the dial with his 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 original show, 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 have 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 it contained lots of links to the television 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.

A good doctor in a slightly too fast rendition

[thniels · 7/10 · 2 May 1999]

Ah, I just reexperienced this gorgeous movie on BBC. As comments before this one express, let Paul McGann be the next doctor. Please. When regenerating from McCoys body, he clearly shows his kin to this good doctor. As for the movie, suffice to say that it was entertaining and had some neat effects and some nice old clocks in it. I must concur that it is frightfully distressing to see him actually kiss a woman. The fact that woman in the series often wore much less clothes than Amazing Grace only shows how strong a character he is. Not someone to kiss the first and best woman in sight. On the other hand, he was regenerated into a slightly younger man, so...

Oh, and by the way. The music was awful in the original series, but somehow arranging it for orchestra doesn't help. The original electro-gizmoid sound was somehow more true to this strange TV phenomenon.

"These shoes! They fit perfectly!"

[owen-watts · 5/10 · 7 January 2023]

The very strange and failed attempt to revive Doctor Who in the 1990s for an American audience now sits in time as a strange curio in the franchise. McGann's byronesque Doctor is the best thing about it really but the whole plot is so perfunctory, dated and clunky, that it's a real struggle to watch it. Poor Yee Jee Tso's Chang Lee is barely a character at all and there are huge narrative holes in here. Still, it rattles along at a fairly brisk pace, and me being nine when it was released gives it a curious nostalgic edge. I tried to make a comic of McGann's doctor, eating jelly babies and fighting giant be-legged Daleks, for example.

I liked it!

[BSchin2188 · 10/10 · 15 June 2003]

A fun, action filled return for Doctor Who. I think this should have made the big screen. Paul McGann gives a teriffic performance as Doctor Who, one that seems to draw energy from the Tom Baker regeneration, and emotion from Peter Davison's Doctor. A lot of people think that the motorcycle chase was cheesy, and the kiss un-like the Doctor, but I think that it fit well. Hopefully Doctor Who will return again!

Doctor WHollywood

[A_Kind_Of_CineMagic · 7/10 · 17 April 2020]

7 years after the classic Doctor Who series was discontinued this TV Movie was produced. It was devised with the possibility of it being a pilot for a new series but failed to get enough positive reaction to encourage any follow up. This was a collaboration between BBC who had produced the original series and American producers and was made to appeal to American audiences. Sadly this is probably where the production went wrong. Many existing Doctor Who fans were put off by the movie's Hollywood style and the way they messed about with existing lore in order to make what they thought would be more exciting and appealing. Hollywood often abandons existing story/lore when adapting pre-existing material in order to create what they think will attract new audiences and this does the same. On the plus side though this is far more glossy, action packed and fast paced than many classic Who stories with higher budget and more impressive visuals. It is nice to see our beloved show given some budget at last and it makes for an entertaining adventure which is great fun to watch.

The story begins with the character of the Doctor still in the form of the 7th Doctor played beautifully by Sylvester McCoy. We are told he was summoned to transport the remains of his fellow Timelord and arch enemy the Master home to Gallifrey. This in itself is odd but we are told the Master was executed by the Daleks which is even stranger as the idea of the Doctor's main foes the Daleks collaborating with the Timelords and asking their greatest enemy the Doctor to transport his nemesis the Master's remains just sounds against all we know from the classic series. Also the Master inexplicably is shown to be able to become a slimy creature that escapes his supposed deceased form and crawls out to seek a new host body. This is certainly not in keeping with what the show has established in terms of Timelord powers. The Master had been previously shown to escape death and take over another being's body so it is not totally unacceptable but the way it is done seems very much a Hollywood addition which is enjoyable but rather jarring.

We then get a gangland scene in San Francisco set in 1999, approaching the millennium celebrations. A young Chinese American is chased by a gang with machine guns and the Doctor materialises the TARDIS in the middle of the confrontation. He steps out of the TARDIS and is dramatically shot with a machine gun. This is very different to classic Who style as is his subsequent regeneration. Following medical team botching his surgery due to confusion from his alien anatomy he regenerates in the morgue with rather ugly effects showing his form change in a way very unlike earlier regenerations. This is made fun by a nice link in to the mortuary attendant watching the scene in Frankenstein where the monster is reanimated at the same time intercut with the Doctor regenerating. I liked that aspect of it. The Doctor then becomes the 8th Doctor, played by Paul McGann.

Meanwhile the alien substance form of the Master enters a paramedic's body and we get martial arts movie actor Eric Roberts as the new Master. Roberts is a rather cheesy and over the top but menacing and entertaining Master. There is darkness, especially as he murders the paramedics partner and a real sense of evil from this Master as well as amusing one liners and camp showmanship. I actually quite like the characterisation although it is not quite a match for other incarnations of the Master in my opinion.

McGann makes a thoroughly convincing and engaging Doctor. His characterisation is in keeping with the established behaviour we would expect and is very enjoyable. I really like McGann as the Doctor and his costume is perfect for the role. His delivery of dialogue and manner is lovely. The problem comes in the writing because for some reason they decide to make him say a number of things which sound contradictory to the lore we know. Most problematic is the announcement that the Doctor is supposedly 'half human on his mother's side'. If this was just a throw away line it could be dismissed as a joke (as subsequently attempts are made to smooth over this discrepancy) but it is made part of the plot with the Doctor's half human DNA being made important in the storyline involving the Eye of Harmony. This knocks my enjoyment because it really is introduced without good reason seemingly to make the Doctor more relatable and I find it a cheap addition which causes unnecessary problems in continuity. I actually have no problem with adding to the lore and changing what we know as long as it does not clash and introduce ideas that do not fit. The half human idea just does not fit for me. Neither does the superpowered TARDIS/Eye of harmony that is used in the end to reverse time and return the dead to life.

This aside, the story is very pleasant mix of action, humour, dark threats of the world's destruction, human drama and scifi/fantasy. If they had kept true to the lore of the show or developed it in a way that worked better it could have been really good but several ideas and several other bits of dialogue just feel wrong and it detracts from my appreciation. To be fair it is not out and out illogical, it only is problematic in terms of the existing history of the show. Therefore I do not judge it too harshly and overall still find this a positive viewing experience. I am not a fan of the romantic aspect introduced here as the Doctor we know would not suddenly become romantically interested in someone he just met and am not a fan of some of the storyline and dialogue but other aspects are really good.

This was a very worthwhile practice run for returning the show I think and 9 years later Russell T. Davies brought the show back on the BBC with a few aspects of this movie being built upon. Davies got it just right and made the show a success. In that 9 year gap McGann was accepted as the 8th Doctor for other media and he went on to appear in Big Finish audio adventures as the Doctor which continue to this day with excellent 8th Doctor audios starring McGann still being released. He also appeared in a one off mini TV episode for the show's 50th anniversary where we got to see him regenerate into the War Doctor. McGann was a great addition to the world of Doctor Who. It is also nice to see the show get some higher budget glitzy production values.

My rating: 6.5/10.

It's not all bad, really....

[mentalmummy · 5/10 · 28 December 2007]

Okay first off I'm British and a big fan of Doctor Who, especially Tom Baker and David Tennants doctors. And yes Hollywood have ruined it with this movie but there are some good bits in there.

McGann is excellent as the new doctor, with a touch of his predecessors about him he is believable as the awkward yet clever doctor, sometimes a bit nonsensical but always behind it all a genius.

Eric Roberts (another actor I like) is miscast as the master, he is way to "Ming the merciless" which to be fair is the scripts fault but he just doesn't come across as the doctors evil counterpart. The master is supposed to be the evil version of the doctor, essentially, a part captured perfectly by people like John Sims and Anthony Ainley in the TV series.

The storyline starts off well, the idea that the master (Doctor Who's arch enemy, a guy who never ever stays dead) has found a way to come back from the dead to wreak revenge but then it just stops working.

The master is scary in the TV series because you know full well that as soon as you see him the doctors very life is in danger, their encounters are always battles of the mind and the doctor always has to make tough decisions to beat him.

Here however the master dresses camp and hams it up as if he were the human equivalent of miss piggy with glib one liners and more interest in speeches than destroying the doctor.

If you want to see the master at work try the episodes of the TV series "Utopia" "The sound of drums" or "Last of the timelords". Even the weaker master episodes like "The five doctors" work well.

The fx are great, the doctor is good and the plot will hold your attention if you're bored but this is nothing like the TV series.

If you want to see a more modern yet faithful doctor who try watching episodes like "Blink" "The Satan pit" "Rise of the Cybermen" even "Doomsday".

Would you like a jelly baby!?

Not as big a disaster as some of the reviews say it is.

[Daggernow · 30 July 2004]

This attempted pilot for a new Doctor Who series may have faults but I think some of the criticism is off-base. The original Doctor Who series was never a slave to realism or it's own continuity the way shows like Star Trek or The X-Files were. It was more like a long-running comic strip with it's light "who cares about obsessive fan-boys and fan-girls" approach. This show always played fast and loose with it's own continuity and often contradicted what had gone before for the sake of the present story being aired. So many fans went bananas over things like the Doctor being half-human and the Eye of Harmony being on board the Tardis and the Master being able to slither around in that black snake form to find a new host body or why he was put on trial by the Daleks. For a show that always pretty much made it up as it went along that's a waste of time. I've got some random thoughts to throw out about this attempt to revive the series.

As for the Doctor being half-human I'll repeat my remark about this show making it up as it went along. From what I recall the show was on the air for years before it even established that he was a Time Lord so a sudden revelation about a half-human heritage isn't as way out as it first seems.

My view on the Master being able to slither around in snake form is also to repeat that this show was never a slave to it's own continuity. I'd like every Dr Who fan who can't sleep at night fretting over this bit to explain to me what the White Form in the story where Tom Baker regenerated into Peter Davison was and why the other regeneration scenes took place without such a White Form "merging" with the Doctor.

As for why the Eye of Harmony was on board the Tardis I'll say that if a new Doctor Who series had resulted from this pilot movie they could have done a flashback story at some point featuring Sylvester McCoy's Doctor and explained all that.

I thought the Master being put on trial by the Daleks was kind of cool - sort of like they were saying "This guy is so evil even the Daleks are outraged!" If a new series had resulted they could have done another Sylvester McCoy flashback story at some point to explain what led up to the Master being put on trial by the Daleks. Maybe he tried to take over Skaro and turn all the Daleks into his own personal hit-squad or some other nonsense.

Sylvester McCoy was pretty cool for agreeing to appear in this movie to give the potential new Doctor Who series a legitimate link to the original British show. The poor guy had to come in with a lame regeneration scene and went out the same way and the effort was for nothing since the show's own fans turned up their noses at this film and the new series was never given a chance. A new Doctor Who series that didn't live up to the continuity geeks' vision of the show would have been better than no Doctor Who series at all. Just another example of the down-side to cult shows.

The guiltless pleasure that is the Doctor Who movie.

[JaAmPoWeR · 7/10 · 11 December 2021]

Many viewers of Doctor Who know that this TV movie was an attempt to revive Doctor Who in the 1990s. This film was a 3-way production between the BBC, Fox, and Universal and was filmed in Vancover. Despite strong views in the UK, the film failed to gain an audience in the US and a new Doctor Who series didn't premiere until 2005. Most Doctor Who fans are glad that this film failed to bring about a new series and this film is often considered to be one of the worst stories in Doctor Who's history with this film still inducing a somewhat vitriolic response from same fans even more than 25 years after the film premiered. Even the nicest comments I've heard about this movie boil down to "it was a good try" and many have described this film as a "so bad its good" film. However, it's not a stretch to say that many Doctor Who fans hate the TV Movie.

As someone who used to be a Doctor Who fan, and is now a casual enjoyer of the show, I can honestly say that this film is pretty much on par with most Doctor Who stories. Many viewers complain about the films lackluster plot with its many convinces and the half-human controversy. However, why does this film get so much flack, while the BBC run Doctor Who mostly gets away with poor writing? Most Doctor Who stories rely on convince and a quickly thrown together ending. Yes, the TARDIS bringing Grace and Lee back to life is silly, but how is it any less sill than examples in the revived series such the Doctor being restored back to his youthful appearance due to prayer, or Donna having the Doctor's intelligence because she touched the hand with the regeneration energy which created another Doctor. I'm not saying that this is a well written plot. The Master getting into the TARDIS before Lee is a major issue. However, I didn't have an issue with the Master's snake form stealing bodies. Again, how is that any sillier than him stealing Tremas' body in Keeper of Traken or the Master looking like Skeletor and having Sith lighting in The End of Time. As for the half-human controversy, Doctor Who has always been changing the Doctor's history to suit the plot. The Doctor was treated as a human until the Timelords were introduced, and suddenly Pertwee had two hearts. I would argue the revived series is even more guilty with unnecessary changes to the Doctor's backstory with Clara's character and the Hybrid plotline with Moffat, as well as the Timeless Child plot with Chibnall. Not to mention when Moffat changed aspects of Doctor Who lore such as Clara showing the Doctor which TARDIS he should use, the Dalek armor being what channels raw emotion into hatred.

Going back to the Master, his depiction by Eric Roberts seems to draw a lot of ire from most fans. That said, while he is certainly no Roger Delgado, I've never minded Robert's performance in this film. I know that many people think of the scenes towards the end of the film where he really hams up his performance, this is where we get the "I always dress for the occasion" and the scene in which he kisses Lee on the forehead. Regarding these scenes, the Master has basically won at this point, and he chooses to celebrate by dressing up in his Gallifreyan robes, he's essentially so vain that he's celebrating the fact that he's stealing the Doctor's lives. As for kissing Lee, the Master is again happy that he managed to pull the whole thing off and maybe he actually wanted Lee to travel with him until Lee decided to side with the Doctor. So, the Eric Robert's camp performance at the end is really down to the fact that, for a time, it seemed like the Master won. Again, is this really so much worse than Antony Ainley's Master manically laughing while pushing controlling the observatory dish in Logopolis before the 4th Doctor fell to his death, or John Simm's Master dancing to music while ruling over the Earth while beating up an elderly 10th Doctor. Not to mention that Robert's performance, while not great, is a bit better than often given credit for. He comes off as stiff and robotic at the start since he is still getting used to controlling this new body, then his performance becomes more natural as the film progresses. It's still not what I would call a great performance, some of his line delivery comes off as forced at times, but it's far from the terrible performance most make it out to be.

While the script has issues which I've mentioned before, there is still a lot to like about the film's writing. For a start, writer Matthew Jacobs really nailed the Eighth Doctor with this iteration blending Pertwee's charm, Tom Baker's alien quirkiness, and Davision's nobility, as well as being more romantic than his predecessors. Coupled with Paul McGann's performance, its easy to see why the Eighth Doctor has had such longevity even to this day despite his limited screentime. I even like the side characters of Grace and Chang Lee and their character arcs. Because of the Doctor, Grace decides to continue her job as a cardiologist and Lee decides to turn over a new leaf. I though the themes of renewal and regeneration was actually really well woven into the story with not only the Doctor and Master literally coming back to life, but also with the changes to Grace and Lee's characters by the stories end. I also liked the symmetry between the Doctor and the Master with both characters coming back to life, but the Doctor regenerates while the Master steals an innocent man's body. Both the Doctor and the Master have sidekicks, but the Doctor manages to convince Grace with the truth while the Master lies to Lee about getting gold dust. There are even other interesting aspects such as the Doctor looking a lot like Christ by only wearing a shroud after regenerating and wearing a metal crown of thorns at the film's end. The Master was not only duplicitous but, is depicted as a snake early in the film. The Doctor is shown to be Christ-like, and the Master is even referred to as the Devil. While I don't really care for this religious symbolism in this film, it's another aspect of this film to think about.

Other aspects I enjoyed were the production design, music, and direction. Richard Hudolin's TARDIS interior is a favorite of many including myself with its appearance feeling very Victorian and channels a lot of design cues from the 1960s The Time Machine. The film itself, in terms of production design, has aged very well. This is due to Hudolin talents since he has also worked in other notable Science-Fiction works such as Timecop, Stargate SG1, and the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. John Debney's music, while not my favorite music in all of Doctor Who, is a welcome departure from the classic series with an orchestral score. Again, I think the film's score is somewhat underappreciated due to its similarities to Murry Gold's score to the modern Doctor Who show. The highlights of the score for me would be the main theme, the music when the Doctor finds his costume in the locker, and the climax of the film. Also, Geoffrey Sax's direction was, at this point, the most cinematic Doctor Who had ever looked and if it weren't for some tv quality effects (stock footage and other TV quality SFX), this film could have passed for a theatrical release if it was in widescreen.

There also seems to be this idea that the TV Movie was just made by FOX and a bunch of clueless Americans who knew nothing about Doctor Who. This notion is far from the truth with Philip Segal, the film's producer, being a Doctor Who fan since childhood. The film's writer, Matthew Jacobs, was also a fan of Doctor Who from an early age with his father even appearing in the First Doctor episode The Gunslingers as Doc Holliday. Not to mention that the film's director, Geoffrey Sax, has directed many films and tv shows as recent as ITV's Victoria TV show. Not to mention that this film was co-produced by the BBC so clearly people knowledgeable on Doctor Who were involved in the making of this film.

In recent years I've really noticed a large level of distain towards this film. Now don't get me wrong, this film was never that well liked but considering how similar this film is to the revived series, I expected that this film would find a new appreciation aside from just McGann's performance and the TARDIS interior. However, this film's reputation apparently has only gotten worse considering this film's score has gone down from a 6.4 to a 6.3. While I wouldn't call this film a classic by any means, it pretty much encapsulates everything good and bad about Doctor Who. The story is overly convoluted with too much exposition and relies too much on the show's lore, the antagonist hams it up, and the story is wrapped-up too quickly and easily. However, the film also has good performances bolstered by a likable lead. Despite the story itself being mediocre, it has some good aspects that make it entertaining. Chang Lee and Grace Holloway make for decent side characters, and I wouldn't mind if they showed up again in the modern series, the quick pace of the film makes it enjoyable as well, and the themes of the film are well presented. In all I enjoy the Doctor Who movie and I don't think it deserves the reputation of being a blight or stain on the series record. While I agree that the films could have been better, I don't think it's that much worse than most of the series finales of the modern Doctor Who show. While I'm not saying you have to like it, but if you are someone who thinks that the TV Movie is one of the worst stories in Doctor Who, I urge you to give it a rewatch. I's flawed, but it was made by people who genuinely cared about Doctor Who and I think it shows while watching the film. Not a great film, but worth watching once for any self-confessed Doctor Who fan. If nothing else, it showed that there was still a little life left in the old Doctor.

A look back at the relatively forgotten Doctor Who movie from 1996.

[sunshinebeachcinema · 6/10 · 10 December 2013]

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.

8th Doctor, we hardly knew thee.

[SnakesOnAnAfricanPlain · 7/10 · 12 December 2011]

I'm absolutely bonkers about Dr. Who. When it's at its best there is no finer Sci-Fi. It manages to mix the supernatural, science fiction, horror, comedy, and history seamlessly at times. This was the failed attempt at reviving Dr Who, with a stronger focus on getting him to break America. This was probably the biggest mistake of all. It reminds me of when pop stars/comedians try and crack the ever important (in terms of money and fame) market. It seems like a lot of the Dr's identity is lost along the way.However, being able to view this after 6 seasons of the most recent incarnations, this isn't so bad. In fact, it is a damn sight better than some of the nonsense Russell T. Davies subjected the audience to (I love a lot of his stuff, but he was hit and miss). Paul McGann is fantastic. Maybe I have a soft spot for The Doctors that didn't last long, but I can't wait to read the novels based on his character. McCoy gets a decent send off and unlike the more recent Doctors it's also fairly subtle and underplayed. Eric Roberts is menacing, but also confusing at times. He starts almost off robotic, and is later camp. A mix between the terminator, a lizard alien thing, and a gay pop star. There are some awful performances, mostly because the American cast members don't seem to understand the tone they should be going for. This is most likely down to bad direction. Overall most of the plot holes that boil fans' blood can be ignored. The half human thing kind of makes sense in a way, as a planet hopping time traveller should really spend some more time away from Earth otherwise. Daleks holding a trial is confusing though. Certainly one to check out, and actually a pleasant surprise after all the negativity.

Americans....

[gvozdeni_leptir · 3/10 · 14 June 2015]

The only thing good about this movie was Paul McGann... I can almost see him as the doctor. He has the charm to be the doctor, but other than that, bad.

I mean, the Doctor was shot, then he was romantically involved with his companion who for a real doctor wasn't that good, he as a doctor was complete fool almost whole movie... Disaster! The doctor, the "real" doctor has that charisma around him that made you believe in him, he is brilliant, always 10 steps ahead over everybody else even when he's regenerating. Doctor is not just good looking, the way he does things is what makes him so great. He doesn't like guns.

And most of all he is not half-human.

Very bad try.

It's a great movie!!!

[JenGrimes90 · 10/10 · 16 September 2003]

I really enjoyed this movie although it scared my 7-year old... she didn't like the part about the evil looking snake. lol... I really want to buy this movie on dvd in the correct format but can't find it anywhere. Is it even available yet?? You would think that it would be since it was made in the usa. Jen

Homage and Revival

[TheHande · 7/10 · 23 November 2008]

Doctor Who the Movie is a great treat for fans and also a nice continuation of the Doctor Who plot line. It combines a competent production with good character portrayals to create a quaint, compact motion picture which is exactly what a good episode of Doctor Who should be: funny, captivating and intense.

Paul McGann gives a memorably youthful depiction of the Doctor, in my view paving the way for Christopher Eccleston and David Tennant. His energy and presence makes the new Doctor as intriguing as his predecessors while offering a new fresh take on the character. Eric Roberts' portrayal of the Master is good and strong, as can be expected of him, though perhaps not as memorable as his predecessors.

The movie also has enough exposition so one doesn't have to know all the ins and outs of Doctor Who in order to enjoy it, but the fact it's a TV production perhaps prevents it from blowing the viewer's mind. However, considering this the production values are excellent, the set designs look good and even the CGI still looks credible by modern standards (in comparison to this film's theatrical contemporary "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation").

Doctor Who is a competent TV production and an entertaining experience for fans and non-fans alike.

I don't know what it is, but Doctor Who it's not.

[Stevolteon · 1/10 · 29 August 2002]

First of all, I'm heartened to see the previous comment, it's good to see the Americans know it was terrible too.

Now, imagine my surprise and delight at the news that Doctor Who was making a long awaited come-back, I even loved the tagline, "He's back, and it's about time." Quite clever and catchy if I do say so myself. Unfortunately, that's about the only good thing about it. Well, that said I liked the choice of Paul McGann as the Doctor, he had the right... alien feel about him, and his costume was good too, and I liked the scene in the operating theatre when they got lost in his cardio-vascular system, but that is literally all the good I have to say.

It started appallingly, with the Master being tried on Skaro by the Daleks! Ah yes, those well known keepers of the peace and... no, wait, weren't they a scurge to the universe slaughtering anything that wasn't a Dalek, and even some things which were? And the TARDIS interior... hideous, inexcusable. The whole Master turning into evil goo? Offensive in it's stupidity. As if it weren't bad enough the arbitrary placing of the eye of harmony in the TARDIS, making it accessable only in the presence of a human? Oh, very useful on a TIME LORD CRAFT, I don't think. The Doctor being half human? Once more, just plain stupid. The whole kissing thing... well, I'm not all that angry about that really, I actually think it perhaps had potential as a character development, the emergent of a romantic side, although I'd have preferred to see it happen with, say, a character he'd had around for long enough to grow attached to, rather than someone he met the day before. I could go on with the criticism for hours, but these things are limited to 1000 words. Even if, as a friend suggested, you consider it apart from Doctor Who, it's a poor film in its own right, and it's absolutely nonsensical without the background provided by Doctor Who.

I class it with the other Doctor Who films, in that they are terrible and should not be considered even vaguely relevant to the continuity of the series. What's more they relied on the Doctor Who name for success, and if you consider them apart from it as films in their own right they're not much cop either, I'm just glad there's no sign of a series being spawned from it.

Basically, it's all very well trying to find new things for the Doctor to do, but you can't just rewrite the entire universe like that, I really do wonder how they managed to make it without someone saying "You're actually going to do this?? The fans will hate it, this is going to suck."

The Time Americans Made "Who"

[hmens1 · 10/10 · 29 April 2013]

"It was a request they should never have granted" The time the American's made Doctor Who. But was it worth it? Yes. Although it took SEVEN YEARS to make, it turned out to be one of the most pivotal stories in the history of the series: Time Lords, action chases, love scenes and death, destruction and disaster facing the universe on New Year's Eve 1999. With two Doctors, an old enemy and another now-alone Doctor (this one's from San Fransisco), this 90-minute TV Movie is possibly, to fans or casual viewers, either excellent or rubbish. However, with the graphic CGI and first-time orchestration of the historical theme tune, and stunning performances by Sylvester McCoy, Paul McGann (the Doctors), Daphne Ashbrook (Dr. Grace Holloway), and particularly Eric Roberts's portrayal as the Master, this TV Movie, although seen by only 9 Million people in the UK (despite there being no new WHO for seven years!)on original broadcast on Monday 23 May, 1996. With this year commemorating 50 Years of the series, and the 16th Annversary of the TV Movie, this 90 minute special surely is a testament to the greatest show in the galaxy: DOCTOR WHO!

Mehh

[callumrae-01824 · 6/10 · 15 November 2017]

Well I have to say, I was overall disappointed, because there was a thicker plot and more tension and emotion in Night of the Doctor than this movie. The regeneration scene was unnecessarily long, it took even longer than that for the main plot to begin advancing, and there was little to develop characters other than the 8th Doctor himself. That said, I did find Grace Holloway compelling, I just think that more could've been done to establish who she was. Too much of the plot did seem to simple, we never got to see the Doctor play the detective or outsmart his enemies, what he had to do was obvious.

I guess I'm being a bit harsh, there wasn't anything particularly bad about this movie, it just seemed empty. Part of the problem was that I'd actually seen Night of the Doctor (a 7min episode featuring Paul McGann made in 2013) which is among Steven Moffat's best work, if not one of the best Dr. Who stories. Because of that I was expecting more from McGann.

That said I don't blame him, he was easily the best think about this movie, it just seemed the empty plot didn't really provide him with much of a chance to be Doctory. He still conveyed what you'd expect of any Doctor in his situation, just that he didn't get to show of his intellect because there was no cause to out-think his opponent.

I found some of the concepts irritating, like the Doctor being half human (I know it's a cliché to say that) which didn't really add things to the plot. I didn't really like the concept behind the eye of harmony either. I didn't mind too many of the other Americanisms and if the plot was less bloated I think it would've been interesting to see a different style of Doctor Who, as the show does need to change to remain interesting. That said the chase scenes were boring and there wasn't much tension until the last 10 minuets of the show.

Interestingly, it was actually shorter than the standard cumulative runtime of a classic who story (4 25min episodes = 1:40 while the movie was 1:24)

Better production values but abysmal writing sank this effort to revive the series

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 15 December 2006]

This movie was an attempt at a Dr. Who movie that would rekindle excitement for the old series and spawn a new Dr. Who series. Considering that the series was only just brought back to TV last year and this movie was made in 1996, you can see that this try was a total failure. Considering that the original show was on TV for 26 years and the fans are insanely devoted to it, it's a testament to just how bad this movie was that the show failed at a revival!! Unlike the old show, this one had better production values and was set in America (REALLY America, not some English actors pretending to speak like an average Americans). While I am an American and proud of it, Dr. Who does NOT belong in the good old USA! As a nation, we've plastered our culture worldwide--I say let the Brits KEEP Dr. Who! It was theirs to begin with anyways and it was far better than this bilge!! The Doctor in San Francisco?! What's up with that?! As for the story itself, it was incredibly dull and looked as if it was written by some who who either never saw the original show or didn't like it very much! And Eric Roberts played "The Master"?! Gimme a break! Where is the goatee and the evil Bela Lugosi-type hair?!