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

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Tobias Burrows It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

callumrae-01824 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)

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.

scriibe This movie is not as awful as some negative reviews state. Paul McGann does a good job as the Doctor, some glimpses in his performance from the Baker/Davison era, with hints of the darker Doctors of late. Daphne
Ashbrook is a decent companion and there is a good amount of chemistry between the two.Eric Roberts' Master is a bit problematic, a slimy '90s film noir character lacking either Roger Delgado's savage charm or

Anthony Ainley's smug self-assurance. And the whole worm- thing does NOT work.But the big problem is with the writing, it's as if they were trying to fit as many Hollywood cliché's into the movie as possible. From a corrupt, evidence-destroying hospital administrator, to a confused plot-line about New Years Day 2000 (maybe the writer really thought the world was going to end and nobody would be around to see the stupidity in his script.) It is these standard clichés that give Hollywood such a bad name, and wreck this effort.I've never completely bought into the whole "Curse of the Time Lords", business, (it always seemed something could be going on between the Jon Pertwee Doctor and Jo Grant) so found the kisses between the Doctor and companion trite, but not devastatingly so. Ah, but I remember Jon Pertwee and Katy Manning, as well as Hartnell, Troughton, T Baker, Davison, C Baker, and McCoy. I have to wonder if any of the writers or producers here gave past episodes any more than a cursory glance.Fox seems to have been very cynical about this whole project. The acting is good, and the special effects good. but it lacks the heart and soul of the original (or the current) series, leaving an altogether mediocre movie.

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.