Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Great Film overall

Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

"Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)" (2000) is grossly under rated. Its extremely good TV you can't expect more. It is obvious that any comparisons to the original should not even occur. It is an original use of an old formula and the plot is completely new. I love Vic and Bob in this, it is interesting to see them play parts that do not require frying pans and doves from above. Is there anyone else who could have played Randall and Hopkirk, whilst keeping the same resonances that it does having Vic and Bob playing them? Their chemistry and close relationship is what makes this so good, with the introduction of Emilia Fox to add some extra spark. The special effects are very well done, and where it is lame I cannot help but think that they did it on purpose. They pay homage to so many things it is hard to tell. One thing that I find particularly fun is the fact that Charlie Higson plays someone different in nearly every episode. Its brilliant, you can sit down with a cup of tea and escape. If you are looking for something with good acting, blood and gritty story lines watch something else, there are plenty of things out there like that. "Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased)" (2000) is unique, which is unusual for a remake.

I loved the old Randall and Hopkirk, and while Vic does a pretty good job as cheeky dead Marty, Bob Mortimer simply cannot act, and this gets in the way of the story. The special effects tend to take over a bit, and Charlie Higson's cameo in every episode of the second series is superciliously annoying. In short, it's pretty and unchallenging eye-candy. It'll go down a storm in America, once they dub the voices, of course

I would just like to say that the remake of R&H is just as good as the original, and despite what other people say, Vic and Bob are really good in it, especially as they aren't actually actors. Charlie Higson has done an excellent job, and everyone deserves praise. (Except Emilia Fox, who is too pretty for her own good! - Joke!) Well done to all, and good luck for the next series!I love you all!

Don't watch this if you're expecting to see the 60's version of Randall and Hopkirk, with prettier effects. Randall and Hopkirk 2000 (as I shall call it), is nothing of the kind. It is the same TV series in name alone and that's the way it should be.Gone are the seedy back-street meetings of a TV series that seemed to be almost embarrassed to feature this fantasy element - which only arose because creator Dennis Spooner wanted to write a series about a ghost. The original Randall and Hopkirk was almost apologetic about the fact that one if its main characters was dead.Thankfully Randall and Hopkirk 2000 revels in it. The plots are a little predictable, but if you want heavy detective drama go watch Cracker. Writer Charlie Higson did what they daren't in the 60's. He had fun.The only real flaws are Reeves and Mortimer. Whoever told Vic and Bob that they can act should be shot through the lungs. That said, there has been a very clear improvement in the quality of their acting as the series has progressed.And don't even get me started on Tom Baker. The man is a genius!Roll on series two!