Fans of the later DR. WHO series (such as those with Tom Baker or Peter Davison) will probably see a lot of inconsistencies with this film (such as the Doctor actually being called "Dr. Who" for the only time on film and his being human and not from the planet Gallifrey). This is because the movie is based on the early Dr. Who character created for William Hartnell. Hartnell's Dr. Who was an older man with a granddaughter who accompanied him on his missions. The whole idea of Gallifrey and Time Lords was later added to the Who lexicon. So, don't freak out at this type of Dr. Who--it isn't WRONG, just different. As for the rest of those viewers, if you aren't a fan of the series, I STRONGLY doubt that this film will do anything but bore you and underwhelm you with the rather poor special effects and sets. Fans of the series, though, know that sets costing $2.76 are the norm for the series and the film actually looks a lot better than the series back in the 1960s (where it was in black and white and its main props were aluminum foil and popsicle sticks). As for me, I am reasonably well-versed in everything WHO, but I tired of the series decades ago. So, I know a lot of the lingo, but just don't wax philosophical about it and haven't named my children after characters from the show! This is important to know because some who totally adore the series still probably think that this is the greatest movie ever made and any criticism is heresy. But, I am not a WHO-Hater either--it was cheesy fun and that's all it was really meant to be. It is inexplicable that Peter Cushing was chosen to be the Doctor, as he never played him on the show. Perhaps Hartnell was too old and tired for the rigors of the film, but he had a long movie career so it wasn't like he was an "untried commodity". If the whole notion of the Doctor having multiple lives had already been introduced to the series (it was how they explained Hartnell's eventual replacement), then having Cushing in the role might have made more sense. Now for the movie itself. The sets sucked compared to most other movies and the matte paintings looked amateurish. The plot, at times, was shallow and silly. and the acting, apart from Cushing, was pretty shabby as well. But the absolute worst aspect of this film was the use of DELEKS. Throughout the series, this was probably the most popular villain (other than The Master) and I have no idea why. They talk in the most amazingly annoying manner in the universe and they seem incredibly easy to defeat and seem incredibly stupid. And, if they had to have the insipid Daleks, there's no sign of their insane creator, the green and goofy Davros. Even the Cybermen (who looked like silver Pillsbury Doughboys) looked scarier! Their cries of "Ex-Ter-Min-Ate" were just silly and I really think a reasonably bright otter could have taken them on and won! This movie is just for Who fans and people with extremely low expectations.

DR WHO AND THE DALEKS is based on the second televised BBC adventure THE DEAD PLANET which introduced the Daleks to popular culture. It was cheaply made with a jungle set the size of a garden shed making up the planet Skaro. However it had an intelligent script by Terry Nation which has been simplified beyond recognition in this film version. DR WHO AND THE DALEKS features far too much humour , most of which centers around Roy Castle`s Ian character. In the TV version Ian was a school teacher who was the hero of the early episodes as opposed to the title character who was very much an anti hero and catalyst . William Russell played Ian in the series and always acted with total and absolute conviction suspending any disbelief the viewer might have. Castle interpretation is very much different and vastly inferior , though perhaps Castle shouldn`t be solely blamed since the part is obviously written as comic relief , but this comic character becomes very tiresome within 10 minutes. Not only that,the script doesn`t allow any conflict between the Tardis crew , one of the best things about the early shows was watching the character interaction between Ian and Barbera and the Doctor and Susan . Also missing from the script is a high body count, off the top of my head I can only recall two Thals being killed on screen , despite its flaws DALEKS INVASION EARTH 2150 had lots of humans being exterminated which makes it the better film . Any good points ? Well it`s in colour so it must have been a pleasant surprise for children in 1965 to have watched Daleks on a black and white telly one week then gone to the cinema to see them in colour. And the Daleks do look good in their different colour livery , and they do look metalic and unstoppable . Just a pity every time in a fight sequence they exterminate one another ! Stick to the original teleplay. It might not have a massive budget but it does have a very good script and some great acting

source: Dr. Who and the Daleks

Trailer—Dr. Who and the Daleks

Dr. Who and the Daleks

A fun adventure film that, while it may be too dated for today's youngsters, still has a certain sparkle that is perfect fare for a rainy Saturday. While fans of the BBC series "Doctor Who" (1963), upon which the film is based, may be distracted by the film's use of creative licence (the characterizations are very different from those of their television counterparts,) if not taken too seriously, this is a quite enjoyable trek across an alien landscape and a classic battle of good vs. evil. The character of Ian is played comically by Roy Castle though he is heroic where the situation demands. Jennie Linden's Barbara is a bit different from other females of the genre as she holds her own when things get tough, rarely dissolving into screams. Roberta Tovey is delightful as Susan, and kids will love her. Peter Cushing really shines, wisely not trying too hard to emulate his television counterpart William Hartnell, and makes the character his own. All-in-all, an exciting romp.