Many times the Doctor Who TV movie from 1996 has been criticized for its cheesiness and bad plot. Some have even said it was horrible, and I very nearly didn't watch it because I expected it to be a terrible parody of Doctor Who instead of the real thing. But I watched it anyway, and you know what? It wasn't horrible. Yes, it had its bad moments, but if people just gave it a chance, they might find they enjoy it after all. Despite its flaws, it's just as important a part of Whovian lore as anything else that has come before or since. Because of my forgiving nature, I try to overlook the TV movie's flaws, but I must admit that it does contain certain cringe-inducing moments, such as a brief visit to Skaro at the beginning of the film when it was already destroyed in Remembrance Of The Daleks (although, to be fair, this visit may very well be set before Skaro's destruction) or - and this is the truly unforgivable part of the movie - the discovery that the Doctor is half-human. Have you recovered from your faint yet? Brace yourselves, then. The part about the Doctor's half-human heritage was not some throwaway line, unfortunately - not like his line from The Sarah Jane Adventures about being able to regenerate 507 times - since the Master confirmed this by examining the Doctor's retinal structure. However, this was never referred to again in the 2005 reboot, so most people simply ignore it. Other complaints have included a cheesy plot line and an over-the-top Master, but I find it difficult to justify those complaints. Whether we like it or not, Doctor Who has had its fair share of cheesy episodes over the last fifty years, and the Master has always been an over-the-top sort of character. Sometimes I wonder if the complaints are due more to the fact that they cast an American actor as the Master. Why watch the movie, then? Why watch an installment that messes with continuity in the wibbly-wobbliest of timey-wimeyest ways? Read on and find out!