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.

The current wave of live-action cinematic superheroes is nothing new to our screens. Since 'Superman' first revolutionised the comic book industry in 1939, there have been film adaptations. In the 1940's there were many serials (Batman, Superman, and Captain Marvel for example). Then in the 1950's and 1960's The Adventures of Superman (1952 - 1958) and the campy Batman (1966 - 1968) the superheroes became household names on television. Then, in the 1970's, DC comics, through the ABC television network, produced the highly successful Wonder Woman (1975 - 1979) series, with the Amazonian beauty of Linda Carter. With the prospects of DC's most famous character's big screen incarnation, in Richard Donner's Superman: The Movie (1978), Marvel, with their groundbreaking silver-age characters, needed a platform for their characters. Whilst they had success with their animated Saturday morning shows, live-action and the TV series was the place to promote them.From 1977 to 1982, Universal television broadcast The Amazing Spider-man (1977 - 1979), The Incredible Hulk (1978 - 1982), and two TV movies, Captain America (1979) and Captain America II: Death Too Soon (also 1979). The quality was of course varied, and the Hulk was its most credible triumph. Then in 1978, writer/producer, Philip DeGuere, produced a feature length television movie of one of Marvels most "psychedelic", cerebral characters, Doctor Strange. Created by comic legend Steve Ditko, it seems like quite a huge leap of faith to create a plausible adaptation within the restrictions of television production. This leads to some of the more fantastical elements of the comic books to be altered, or left out entirely - but this is of course an understandable exclusion.Doctor Stephen Strange (Peter Hooten), a Psychiatrist working in a New York hospital who has been chosen by Thomas Lindmer (John Mills) to take his place as the new Sorcerer Supreme of Earth. However, an evil Sorceress, Morgan LeFay (Jessica Walter), has plans to kill the Earth- bound magicians. After throwing Thomas off a bridge, Clea Lake (Eddie Benton), has been telepathically controlled by the evil witch, Morgan, and it is down to Dr. Strange to save her from the astral plain, then conquer the cosmic universe to become the sorcerer. It does have the limitations of 1970's television production, and falls flat very often with the dialogue - including excruciatingly annoying laughter from Strange and Clea, as they laugh at their unfunny exchanges. However, it is an admirable effort to bring a more obscure Marvel character to a live-action context. With Stan Lee as a consultant (as with all the other aforementioned shows), Lee states that this was his most enjoyable experience out of all of them. It was intended as a pilot for a series, but this was never produced - a television interview with Morgan LeFay towards the end, actually gives clues as to the way the show could have gone, and to be honest, it seems like an incredibly good concept. Morgan LeFay would have indoctrinated into her realm of magic the youth of America, through the zeitgeist idea of the self-help programme, something that was big business in the '70's. Alas, the idea was never seen through.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

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!