Review of Doctor Who

Doctor Who (1996 TV Movie)
7/10
When it's good, it's great, but when it's not...
27 July 2004
First of all, I have only been watching Doctor Who for 8 or 9 months, since the ABC started showing a marathon. We're presently up to the Jon Pertwee era, so I have had the pleasure of watching the Master in action, which added to one reason why I was disappointed with the film.

I love the camera work and editing, especially the cutting between the regeneration and the Frankenstein movie, what I call the 'Rebirth' of the Doctor and the Master, and finally the costume change and Lee going through the Doctor's things.

Paul McGann was a terrific choice for the Doctor and I wish he could have stayed on longer- he has a sense of humour, a slightly angsty side, a playful side, a sneaky side (putting a gun to his own chest to threaten the policeman comes to mind)... and very good looking in that wig.

In my opinion, most of the problems with the movie come from the script. The half-human idea is interesting but doesn't work, and having the Eye of Harmony on the TARDIS instead of on Gallifrey, and the Eye only being opened by a human, the 'cloaking device' (though it could have been a slip of the tongue or post-regenerative trauma), the list goes on and on...

Where it succeeded it REALLY succeeded, but when it failed, it sunk.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed