sliat_1981

I saw this movie when I was about ten. It was rated 'G' which is very surprising. It could almost pass for an 'M' (15+) rating. It starts with sensitive kid, Jun, who is teased and bullied for his 'un-macho' behaviour. One night he hears a calling that takes him out to see. He is soon joined by a young girl, Rumi, who seems very much a kindred spirit. She was unknowingly followed by her bratty younger brother, Chobi (who for some strange reason I always though was what Judy Blume's 'Fudge' would look like.) He wasn't really summoned like the others, but it's too late to send him back. They are transported back to the time of the dinosaurs. Once there, they meet several plant eating dinosaurs (who are all referenced by their name on screen). Chobi sees baby triceratops hatching and adopts one he calls "Babypuss." As far this is a pretty standard family movie... Then enters a horrible Tyranosaurus Rex. They run from him, with Chobi carrying Babypuss. The kids get away, but the other baby triceratops aren't so lucky. The T-Rex picks them up and eats them. Yep, that's right, baby Triceratops are killed on screen. The kids make it to a cave, where the Rex waits. Chobi throws a stick at in in a gory scene it takes out the monsters eye. The mother comes, but she doesn't do much better. She's not only killed, but we even get to see the beast rip out and eat her flesh. Lovely. Babypuss is soon an adult, Jun explains that they are being taken through time as things are aging while they stay the same. The T-Rex come again. To save Chobi, Babypuss engages him. He's about to shove him off the cliff, when the T-Rex claws him in the face and they both end up going off together, to Chobi's horror. They finally arrive in the time of humans time, where he makes friends with a cavegirl, who invites them to her village. To her horror, they find her sister is to be sacrificed to the T-Rex (yes, these sick elders kept him alive.) Jun and Rumi bet down and use their prayers to stop him. It works. Unfortunately the witch doctor is insistent on the sacrifice going through and awakens him again. Now, Chobi goes nuts, even fire appearing in his eyes, he psychotically insights the cavemen to stop running and fight the beast. They fight back with spears and rocks. One of the spears graphically puts out the other eye. Finally, the wounds are too severe and the T-Rex drops to his knees. For some reason, Jun and Rumi cry at this monsters defeat. I'm not sure about Chobi. The possession either killed him or rendered him unconscious as Rumi carries him for the rest of the movie. The T-Rex slowly walks to the beach where it finally dies. The elders appear and return our heroes home. The last scene shows Jun walking alone, thinking of the rage of the cavemen and how it resembles war in our own time.

I liked the movie. Elder kids should like it, but before showing it to younger kids, please understand, it is not a Disney movie. There are a lot of violent, graphic scenes and deaths. I would have liked to see more development of the friendship between Jun and Rumi. Being that they were both outsiders, it would be nice to see they continued their friendship after the events, but Jun is just seen walking alone (after Rumi is returned, it's never shown what she did afterwards, although, I can only assume she took the traumatised Chobi home.) A bit preachy, educational and condescending, but overall a good action anime that should be a treat for dinosaur nuts.

After 'The Seekers at home'(1966) and before 'The world The Seekers'(1968) this little documentary was filmed.

Taking advantage of the introduction of colour television to Australia. Although introduced in 1967 (the year the special was filmed) it was not implemented until 1975. Most programs were still filmed in black and white as it would not be worth the extra cost when most Australians would only see it in black and white. However, The Seekers, being an internationally recognised music group, this special would definitely be sold overseas to countries who already have full colour transmissions, so it was filmed in colour.

It's more than a look of what colour television would have looked like in Australia in the 60s. It's a great advertisement for Australia. The Seekers travel through Australia's largest capital cities, starting with the nation's capital, Canberra. The next are Sydney, Adelaide and lastly, The Seekers home town of Melbourne.

Not only do The Seekers visit some of Australia's most famous landmarks, it's an opportunity to see Australia in the 1960s. In Canberra, they visit the former parliament house, before going on a tour of foreign embassies. In Sydney, they cruise through the Harbour, before visiting the still uncompleted (at the time) Sydney Opera House. In Barossa Valley, they pick grapes at the grape vines. In Melbourne you see the brown (now yellow) Flinders Street Station. However, the best part is when they perform at the Sidney Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne. The year this was filmed, they performed to an audience of 200,000, which still stands as the highest audience for a concert in the Southern Hemisphere.

The only disadvantages is where The Seekers are required to "act" out scenes. They're fine when they're talking about themselves, but when they have to do a scene, it's very obvious they're delivering pre-written lines and it come out quite stale. Fortunately these scenes are far and between.

'The Seekers at home' was good, but had the huge disadvantage of being in black and white. It also had the same problem that The Seekers had in the 60s (which was fixed when the group reformed in the 90s). They use Athol Guy as the spokesperson for the group. Face facts, Judith is by far the most prominent member and not only is Athol boring, his jokes are quite unfunny.

'The World of The Seekers' had great music, but I was never sure if it was meant to be a documentary or a movie. And the poor acting already mentioned earlier in this review reeks right through it. It's partially set in Britain, but fully filmed in Australia. The guy playing their manager has an Australian accent, despite the fact that he's English.

I definitely recommend this one first. Not only a unique look at Australia in the 1960s, but a rare chance to see what was Australia's first band to make in internationally.

Col'n Carpenter was a spin off from the popular character created by Kym Gyngell from Comedy Company. It was actually quite good an moderately successful. The main plot was Col'n moved out of his mother's house to live with two house mates, Michael (Stig Wemyss) and Julia (Vikki Blanche). Michael was the more kindhearted, while Julia was easily annoyed by Col'n's antics (although you could hardly blame her). Basically Julia was a teacher, can't remember what Michael was and Col'n was unemployed. Col'n was basically the lovable idiot. Some of the episodes were classic. Some examples where when Col'n discovers Julia writing a diary and decides to write his own: "Dear diary, today I bought you. Now I'M WRITING ON YOU".

And:

Col'n:(Referring to Anne Frank) Maybe they'll make a movie about my diary!

Michael: You haven't had a very interesting life Col'n.

Col'n: I dunno, Michael. When I bought this diary, I stepped on an orange!

Michael: Col'n she was hiding from the Nazis.

Col'n: I was in bare feet.

Michael: Col'n!

Col'n: It could have been Poo...

And:

Michael: She's writing a diary, you're writing a diary, everyone's writing a diary. It's like a disease.

Col'n: Yeah, diarrhea!

Another was when they had to paint the kitchen, but when they discovered they had nudist neighbors, they spent the whole day coating the bottom part so they would not get into trouble. The acting was hardly brilliant or anything but was very funny. Unlike American sitcoms, there was NEVER any sexual tension between Julia and the boys. Nobody EVER slept together, they were just friends. Julia dated her own men, unlike in the typical American sitcom where it would be obligatory for the main characters to sleep together at some stage. Sometime in season 2 (or three) Julia moved out (I can't remember why) and was replaced by New Zealander, Linda Williams (Kaarin Fairfax). It was still good as Linda's personality was virtually the same as Julia's, so it wasn't a major loss. Unfortuantly at the end of season 3, they decided to get rid of Michael and Linda (Michael joined the police force and Linda went to New Zealand to have her baby). It was a two parter which first saw Col'n in the hospital, then accused for a crime he didn't do. I hoped it was one of those dramatic episodes where everything is OK in the end, but it was not to be. Col'n was alone and they had an old woman come in a lot instead. That pretty much killed the show. Next season it was canceled.

This would have been better if it was an Australian company. Unfortantly being a British company, they force their own pro-British propaganda in it. I am forced to make the following corrections to their statements. 1. Australia is NOT and was not in the time of Skippy being made a "colonial" country (sad that some British still feel like they 'own' this country). Australian gained independence in 1901. Like Canada, they are not yet a republic (one proposal was narrowly defeated, largely because the system would not allow the people to vote for a president directly) but is completely free from British control or rule and has no loyalty to the British Empire. 2. Liza Goddard's statement. Even in the 1960's Australians did not sound even remotely like the British. And unlike her statement, we did not WANT to. We are proud of our unique accents and would not want them to sounds like the British. 3. Barry Humphrey claims about Australians pretending to hate the British, but not really. Actually there is a large anti-British feeling in Australia, and although certainly not true for all, many Australians do genuinely hate the British. Australians were messed over by the British in World War 1 (in Gallipoli) and World War 2 (Winston Churchill trying to stop Australians bringing their troops home to defend their own country) and the bitterness still lingers for some.

Apart from these complaints, I kinda enjoyed it. Probably would have appreciated more Australians interviewed than some British. More complaints would be that when they get to the parodies of Skippy, the Australian "Fast Forward" one is shown for about 6 seconds, but the British re dub goes for about 5 minutes.

This is a poor adaption of Robin Klein's bestselling book. Delta Goodrem is fatally cast as Alison Ashley. The producers were told they could not make the movie unless Delta was cast. Her being cast, they had to sacrifice the basic style of the book. The kids were were Primary school age are all now seniors in high school and it ruins the movie. Its almost a different movie. I'm sorry, Delta may be a pretty face, but she CAN'T ACT (she hardly says or does anything in the movie, despite her name in the title). Nor could she act when she was on neighbors (not that it takes a lot of acting to get a part on that). She really ruins the movie (and did her wig have to be so fake-looking?) I mean if she was 8 years younger she would have looked the part, but still her lack of acting ability here and her age and the fact that everyone else in the book had to be made older to accommodate Delta's age really stuffed up what could have been a great adaption. A whole movie should not be re-written to suit one actress' age (all the girl's have large breasts and you even see them in their bras and naked with towels on in two scenes). She's given first billing, but the main character is clearly Saskia. Delta is much clearly a supporting role. She doesn't say much and Saskia is on camera for almost every frame of the movie. Having said, Saskia Burmeister (one of the few Jewish Australian actors) does a brilliant job as Erica. Her plain-looking (but not ugly) looks and stroopy sulky face make her a wonderful fit for Erica (the only character that stays true to the book description). If not for her age, she would have been almost exactly as I envisioned Erica in the book. She has the right frowns and sooky expression that makes her perfect. If she was cast when she was 10, she would have been the ultimate Erica Yurken. I hope this movie is remade again, without the need for a "name" star (Delta) and done with kids who are the right ages (pre-high school). In said it was not a success, despite being based on a best-selling book. The hopes to attract more people with a "star" (Delta) backfired and actually destroyed the film's appeal. In the novel Lennie was blissfully aware of Erica's rudeness to him, here's he gets hurt and it looses the comedic effect and makes Erica unlikeable. Barry Hollis is not funny and is actually a romantic interest for Erica?! Also she dips the salad bowl on his head rather than Alison's. Is Delta Goodrem to petite that we can't even show that happening to her? In the novel they reference "Prisoner", here it's "Buffy" (does everything in this country have to be completely Americanised?) Margeart Collins (who was so hilarious to the book and gave it good comedy relief) is hardly seen at all, while Mr Kennard's role is ridiculously expanded. Mrs Belmont and Mr Kennard are having a sexual relationship. In fact sex is implied a lot in what is supposed to be a children's film. The library teacher is male and American. I mean honestly, how many Americans do you see in Australia? 1 out of 10,000. There are several fantasy scene which seem to serve little purpose than to show off the actress' breasts in sleeveless, tight, revealing clothing. But praise must be given for Saskia's wonderful performance (she was nominated for an AFI award and deserved it). I'm sure she will recover from this flop and go on to bigger and better things. As for Delta (who went on to other things such as breaking up marriages and selling out to America), STAY AWAY FROM ACTING. You tried but it didn't work. Give up.

Fans of Kickboxer 2, don't seem to mind that a character so important to the original (and played by such a presence as Van Damme) was killed off so easily and cheaply. But I see a lot of them raising a stink over David Sloane getting killed off. Basically they told us to "get over" it and "accept" this little wimp as the new kickboxer. David Sloane was a little weakling with no muscle that had no place in these movies. In all the sequels he would becoming back as the lead and people would think him as the "kickboxer". I loathed him and couldn't stand that his character was now the star while Van Damme's character was dead. Now, finally he's killed off and good riddance.They put in Mark Dacascos who really should have been in the sequel. He's a real martial artist with a strong build, unlike Satcha Mitchell who's a skinny B-grade actor, with no physique. I was actually glad to see David Sloane die as I never felt he deserved to live off Kurt's success. Now the David Sloane fans feel like all the other movies were pointless as he was going to die anyway. Well that's how us Van Damme fans felt in the sequel. They felt it was still a good movie despite being without Van Damme, well we fell this is a good one despite no Satcha Mitchell. I hope you feel as angry and annoyed as we were now that David was killed off so easily and cheaply as Van Damme was in the sequel. So enjoy this movie, cause David Sloane is never coming back! Accept it and get used to it!

This was just a dream. What REALLY happened after Kickboxer, was that Kurt and Eric decided to live in Thailand where they opened there own Muay Thai school. Kurt eventually married Mylee and they are still there partying today.

As the first movie pointed out, there was only two brothers. There was never a secret brother. The "brother" subplot was used in the first one, even if they did have yet another brother (man what a cheesy, excuse to do a sequel!), they obviously don't care too much about him as they said in the first one "there's only you and me". I can't imagine Eric saying. "Dad was always on my case. But he made me harder. Oh wait on me AND David! I somehow forget that I grew up with a brother here!" Satcha Mitchell is really weak and wimpy looking. He could never be the brother of Kurt and Eric (as Tong Po correctly states in this movie, "You're the weakest of all the Sloanes". That's no bulls**t. It's true). He's really boring and can't act. I would stick to 'Step by Step', Satcha, because as an action star, you're pathetically weak. Kickboxer was a success mainly for the presence of Van Damme. When you put in an unknown actor who's as dull as ditchwater, you know you're in trouble. It basically confirms that this is not a sequel as the actor you see in the flashback is obviously not Van Damme. Maybe this is another person Tong Po fought that was also named Kurt Sloan (cause the Kurt Sloan we know only had one brother, Eric). When you put in a villain that was already defeated (Tong Po), it's kinda mindless. But somehow, despite being soundly defeated, the movie attempts to show him as "stonger than before (how?)" And if Tong Po REALLY killed Kurt (which he didn't, as I said, this film didn't happen), just bashing him up in the end is not getting revenge. Knowing he is a killer, you can only be satisfied if he is killed at the end and gets what he deserves (which he doesn't), so there's no stopping him from doing the same to David Sloan. I could relate to Kurt, I certainly couldn't relate to this "David Sloan". I didn't know who he was and I couldn't care less. I hope the fans of him were just and p**sed off as I was about Van Damme, when he was dumped from the series. The unexciting presence of Satcha Mitchell led to this being a series of direct to video sequels, which he was happy to star in (being a no-name actor). To most of us he's simply making money by being in Van Damme's movies. He wouldn't even have got to be in those without Vann Damme, so don't you dare think of him as the Kickboxer actor. I suppose if David was killed off and it was revealed there was yet ANOTHER brother you'd call it cheesy. Well I found this too cheesy to contemplate. Like I said, this was a Kickboxer imitator, not a sequel. There is no such thing as a "David Sloane". Just Kurt and Eric who are still living it up in Thailand.

The numerous flaws with this movie are plenty. For starters, all the Jews have American accents ("Yeah man, so awesome dude") and the Romans have British accent ("ooh rather chaps, I say tallyho, what?"). These seems to be the only two accents Hollywood will allow characters to have (unless you're senator Arnie). Also unlike Passion, they speak English. So what we have is basically a very American Jesus (and you though Costner was bad in Robin Hood). Willem Dafoe is probably the worst choice in history to play Jesus. He doesn't seem particularly serious about his role here (you are VERY aware he's an American in this movie). He seems to be playing his usual sort of role rather than a messiah. He's a pretty sex-obsessed Jesus. Whenever he sees Mary Magdalene, sex is not far from his mind. Mary is a prostitute in this movie, despite it is never once stated that she was in the bible. He sits there watching her do a client and he's obviously getting off on it (despite him teaching that it was a sin, so obviously this person can not have died for us as he is not without sin). And at the wedding he gets drunk! Now there is no religion that does not consider drunkeness a sin, so again Jesus sins. Jesus is making crucifixes. So this person who is supposed to be without sin is helping make devices for a public killing? Where does it say he did this in the bible? Also it says that his first miracle was making the blind person see, despite the bible saying that the water to wine was the first miracle. Harvey Keitel is the most unrealistic portrayal of Judas I have ever seen and deservedly was nominated for a razzie award. Judas is much braver and wiser than Jesus and much more devout and loyal than St Peter. Even though the bible states that he betrayed Jesus for money, the film decides to make up its own story about Judas and say Jesus told him to. If Judas was the most devoted why would Jesus ask HIM to do it?! Obviously the director decided to give Judas, Peter's role cause Judas is far more obedient, loyal and a closer friend to the one who was given the keys to heaven. Scorsese direction is lousy. He basically makes the characters act like all his other movies. New York mobsters. The characters seem like New York Jews, not ancient Jews. Even if they had changed the accents, you would be very aware that they are American. I think maybe if this had been more like an American-retelling of the Jesus story, set in modern times and dress, it wouldn't have been as bad because apart from the clothes and sets, that's what it seems to be. The whole principal cast is pale faced Americans and British (despite living in the desert), but everyone in the background is dark. Uh, hello, this doesn't make sense. Of course the famous scene where they show Jesus having a vision where he marries Mary Magdalene(now EVERYONE is assuming Jesus was doing her and that is the only reason a female would be allowed. Quite a sexist view really). And Scorsese got really horny directing and couldn't help putting a sex scene in (he must have had his hand down his pants when he directed that scene). I don't see how this is a temptation. Jesus basically gets to live a normal life (he gets to have his cake and eat it to), then he realises this is a temptation. So he asks to die on the cross. Not a hard decision, to go on the cross and live for 4 more seconds of pain, not the hardest thing to do. It seems that he got to live the life he wanted, then at the last moment, got to die for us as well. You can't have both, but Horny Martin Scorsese gave him both. This doesn't seem fair. To have a live of sex and freedom, but also get to die for our sins as well. There is a lot of nudity (you see everything for the females here) in this film and the sex scenes are almost pornographical. I can't believe Australia gave this an M rating. He doesn't wear a crown of thorns, he wear a skullcap of thorns. The thorns are large and long, so if they had really been pushed into Jesus' brain, they would have caused brain damage and he wouldn't have been able to move, let alone carry his cross. Also Jesus is crucified naked, with his legs lifted up, so he can tuck his penis between his legs. This kinda defeats the purpose as the condemned men, lifted up there legs to avoid suffocation. Also the Romans would not let Jesus to be crucified nude(he's so horny throughout this movie, it's a miracle he didn't have an erection). They respected the Jewish laws (Jesus' crucifixion was a Jewish-made request) and would not have allowed a naked body to be shown, knowing there was to be women there who by law were not allowed to view any naked body other than their husbands. If you want to see a close deception of Jesus watch the Passion. If you want to watch Jesus acting and talking like a New Yorker, being a sex-maniac and acting like a confused loser, watch this. The bible teaches us that Jesus was both God and man. This one tries to claim he was simply man cause there's no way God could be represented as such a bi-ploar person on the edge of a nervous breakdown. This movie is so silly, it's impossible not to laugh, let alone take it seriously. Watch Passion, not this.

I actually quite liked this movie. It wasn't perfect, but neither was the first one. It was similar and I liked them both in the same way. They had the same charm to them. Its good to see this is how Wes Craven does sequels. Nightmare On Elm Street 2 and 3 were lousy sequels. It shows that, Wes is capable of doing sequels to his movie, it's only when other people take over, they stuff it up. I have read every bad review of this and not one will say WHY they don't like it. Unlike what most reviewers say, it doesn't have THAT much flashback to the original. OK the dog has a flashback: BIG DEAL. Animals have memories, don't they? I found it had all the excitement, violence, thrills and horror that made the original so enjoyable. I say you forget what others say and sit back and judge for yourself. If you liked the original, I can not understand why you wouldn't like this one. It's a worthy sequel.

This movie is ridiculous. Bruce is given the staring role, yet for most of the movie, it's a guy with dark glasses on. Occasionally they throw in a stock footage of Lee and show close ups of his eyes, but most of the time it's another actor. It's hard not to compare this with Plan Nine From Outer Space, which has a Bela Lugosi double with a cloak over his face most the movie. Robert Clouse is credited as the director and Bruce is credited as the star. Bruce only appeared in the footage that he directed so both of these credits are misleading. The original plot was going to be about Bruce saving a national treasure that was stolen and hidden in a temple and there were foes he had to beat. He even had two other people to help him, but their footage was deleted (aside from a brief glance of Kareem strangling one of them). The writers probably decided to go with the new storyline because they thought it was more like a false story about Bruce. It had a sort of fantasy about it (maybe Bruce didn't die and faked his death). Unfortuantly even when he does appear, he doesn't last long. He fights a fighter in the first floor (with or without nun-chucks, depending of which version you have). Then comes his famous fight with Kareem Abdul Jarber (who was a close friend of Bruce. This is a fantastic fight scene. Even so, it is edited from the original footage, lasting much shorter. Then Hugh Laurie's character comes down the stairs and the fake footage starts again. You even see they throw in a previous shot of Bruce in the last fight scene. Then the fake Bruce goes after the Dean Jagger character, etc.

This is complete garbage. I've given it 4 stars for 3 reasons: 1: It's (slightly) better then Game Of Death 2. 2: Bruce's memorable fight with Kareem Abdul Jarber. 3: The fantastic theme music.

Please don't bother seeing this. It's not a Bruce Lee film. It's a Bruce Lee lookalike film in which Bruce makes a small appearance.

In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.

I thought this was fantastic Australian drama. All of the actors were really good in there roles. Especially Sacha Horler as 'Abby" who was lovely. It's sad this didn't do well. People seemed to dump it for American garbage. Thankfully it has been released on DVD, so we can enjoy it all over again. This was the first TV show in a long time that I simply HAD to watch. There were no slackers in this cast everyone did their best. Catherine McClements was brilliant. Still her character was a bit unsympathetic. After her and her husband seemed to be doing better, she went and had an affair with her married ex. He got revenge by sleeping with Abby (her best friend). Sadly, I never saw the last episode, so I don't know if it was resolved. I'm hoping to get it on DVD soon.

Didn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, "You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you". Ug replied, "Charlie, Bounty Hunter", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, "Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.

The plot starts out showing the Goodies singing Beatles songs (with a dummy to stand in for George). The Beatles are there watching. Later after they leave, the Beatles steal their songs and become famous. This happens again with various different singers e.g. Diana Ross, Elton John, etc. Finally they decide that the public only want cheap imitations, not the real thing. They decide to copy almost every singer. They become an immediant success. The Queen of England gives them MBE's (in flooding rain). She also asks them to make up a new dance. They make up one call the bop. The bop becomes really popular. It becomes so popular that they run for parliament, but are defeated by the standing alone party (a dummy). Under the starting alone party, no one is allowed to move or have fun. At first the Goodies are like Robin hood, spreading laughter around the land. Later they are like gangsters, hiding cream pies in violin cases. Finally, sick of the the standing alone party, they decide to elect a new party... On the TV, the new party is revealed as Sooty. Sooty viciously attacks an interviewer on TV. The Goodies go to see what is happening. At the house, they are attacked from puppets of all kinds, (the wombles, etc). The puppets prove too strong, so they leave to contemplate a new idea... Returning dressed as puppets, the Goodies fight the puppets again. After a long struggle, they finally overcome the puppets. Rejoicing, they start to celebrate, suddenly, the audience is aware that they have strings on their arms. As the camera tilts up, we see the Goodies above them, revealing that they are puppets. They work the puppets string as the show ends.

The main problem is that this show keeps changing it's mind in what it wants to be about. First it has fun with the song imitations. After the bob during the rain, it turns into a robin hood-like story. Then it goes to a 1930's gangster storyline. Then the puppets saga takes over. It's always funny, but a little hard to follow if you're not paying attention. This may have worked better if it was shown in different parts i.e: the robin hood story one night, the gangster story the other night. All together, it's pretty hard to keep shifting gears as the show seems to keep forgetting about the plot. But for the Goodies generally funny sense of humor, I give it a 6 out of ten.