Doctor Who
Doctor Who
PG-13 | 12 May 1996 (USA)
Doctor Who Trailers

The Seventh Doctor becomes the Eighth. And on the streets of San Francisco – alongside new ally Grace Holloway - he battles the Master.

Reviews
Paul Evans

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

... View More
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.

... View More
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.

... View More
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.

... View More