Thomas Lindmer (John Mills), a world-weary sorcerer, foresees the return to Earth of his ancient adversary Morgan LeFey (Jessica Walter), who has been granted dominance over men's souls by The Nameless One (David Hooks). In order to combat her evil magic, Lindmer must pass the Guardianship of the Light onto a young psychiatry-resident, Dr. Stephen Strange (Peter Hooten),who has no inkling of his destiny. Before the 2016 there was a 1978 Dr. Strange film and god is it laughably bad? First of all storywise and acting wise? freaking awful, the special effects look like saturday morning cartoon effects and their just bad and last but not least: this has little to do with the source material and even tries to take itself quite seriously. (0/10)

The character of Dr. Strange is one of the most popular characters in "Marvel Comics." His superpowers consist of white magic and Sorcerery. There have been some terrific stories from his own comic book and the characters legacy is assured. "Universal" studios had a golden opportunity in 1978 to bring Dr. Strange to the small screen. During the late 1970s, Hollywood was attempting to adapt various "Marvel Comic" superheroes for television. Sadly, no regular series resulted from this feature length pilot episode. I can't imagine why John Mills of all people would even consider appearing in this! However, he certainly gives a very good performance and is the only reason to watch this television film. Peter Hooten - totally obscure - is OK. He passes a slight resemblance to Dr. Strange but is rather bland as a performer. The rest of the cast are not very good, except for the one who plays the evil female Sorcerer. The main problems with "Dr. Strange," is that the plot is too boring, there is a severe lack of incident, the low budget is all too obvious and the writers didn't bother to research their own character. In the origin story in the comics, Dr. Strange was a brilliant but arrogant and ego-driven man whose career as a New York surgeon is cut short after a car accident paralyses his hands. He is then taught a harsh lesson in humility following his training in Sorcerery in Asia. None of this is covered in this 1978 television film and I was rather disappointed. I call it lazy writing myself. When one is adapting a superhero character, whether it's for cinema or television, words like ordinary, mundane, predictable or monotonous simply can not apply. Knowing the public, they either like what they see or they don't. If it is down to the latter, then there is no way that a film with a particular superhero will lead to a sequel and no way that a regular series will follow on from a pilot episode. The pace of "Dr. Strange" is so damn slow, it felt as though I was watching something that lasted for 2 hours! It took a long time for the main character to meet his mentor in Sorcerery (John Mills). When it eventually happened, those scenes were tolerable. Finally at about 10 minutes before the end, the proceedings warmed up a bit as there was some action involving Sorcerery. Peter Hooten at long last had donned the trademark costume for which the character is most famous. The attempts at the special effects for the climax weren't good at all, not even in those days. A thoroughly wasted opportunity.

This review is penned in Anno Domini 2013 when, for the first time in decades, competent writers and producers are finally turning the Marvel vault into a steady stream of serious entertainment, albeit of uneven quality. Among fanboys, it is known that one of the greatest disappointments in the Marvel library is Dr. Strange, which has never been turned into a decent film, not even once. Part of the fault is the quality (or lack of same) in the production teams who, in the past, have taken on the project - AND THIS FILM, DONE TO A BELOW AVERAGE TV MOVIE STANDARD, IS A CASE IN POINT. It is AWFUL. And part of the problem -- the part no one wants to discuss -- is that the Dr. Strange character is not the brightest bulb in the Marvel catalogue. The original character was created to be deliberately dull and morose, and it did not help that the working mechanics of the mystical world in the series are, for example, several notches below Harry Potter. That's not promising. I mean, you really should know a little about what you writing about, and this is not evident in the Dr. Strange series. The promise is there, but no more than that. (Literary history buffs will note that, in the 1970s a fictional series came out to compete in this niche, entitled Dr. Orient, and it was much more creative, and showed the promise of the core idea.)

So, it's not "Gone With The Wind" or even "The Omen". However, I like it and it is well worth watching.The basic idea here, that a small number of empowered men(certainly women, too) act to preserve the world that we know from falling into demonic chaos, is an old one. It makes a stylish premise for this movie, which was based on the best-selling "Dr. Strange" comics.The "astral" sequences are handled with style and grace. The actors play their respective parts very well.I'd recommend this neat little movie both as entertainment and as a springboard for discussions. Do people like "Lindmer", "Wong", "Morgan LeFay" and "Dr. Steven Strange" actually exist?I find a disconcerting similarity between Morgan LeFay's self-help cult(mentioned at the very end) and the all-too-real "Jonestown" in Guiana. (The mass suicide there, with all its disturbing implications, came a few weeks after this flick was released.)Maybe there is "war in heaven", with some spiritual powers trying to bring humanity into enlightenment, while others try to "bust" us back into the Dark Ages. Then again, maybe I was just stoned when I saw this movie for the first time.But I really did have a good time watching it either way!