VividSimon Simply Perfect

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

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

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

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.

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.