One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing (1975) User Reviews

Dinosaur skeleton meets panda nose!

[hitchcockthelegend · 6/10 · 4 March 2008]

Lord Southmere has a ring of Chinese spies chasing him because he has in his possession a secret microfilm, the contents of this microfilm reveals the formula for mysterious Lotus X. After being chased into the Natural History Museum, Southmere hides the film in the bones of a Brontosaurus skeleton. After Southmere's capture, it's up to his old nanny and her hardy band of friends to find the film and keep it from the clutches of the evil Hnup Wan.....

.....and so is the plot for Disney's charmingly silly live action venture. It's not masquerading as anything other than a fun family film, it's got bags of energy, and it boasts a quite delightful premise. Obviously taking its lead from Ealing's brilliant The Ladykillers, One Of Our Dinosaur's Is Missing's strength is that a couple of English old dears are taking on {and defying} a gang of Chinese nasties. Some mirthful gags {both visual and oral} light up the film, including a great sequence as the ladies steal the skeleton and whisk thru London with it on the back of a coal fuelled truck!

It's good old harmless fun that doesn't deserve the charge of stereotyping the Chinese, it's 1975 and the cast are having fun, and honestly, so should the family. 7/10

Silly and a tad dated but a fun romp

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 3 March 2010]

Not a perfect film by all means, but it is enjoyable even with its discrepancies. Some of it is very silly, but is still fun. The film is a tad dated and suffers from uneven pacing, but the performances and the sense of fun it has makes up for it. To liven things up, there are a couple of kung fu fights, a silly car chase and a skeleton of a dinosaur that serves the basis of the main. The performances are fun but very over the top, Peter Ustinov's character is so off-the-wall but Ustinov seems to be enjoying himself. Joan Hickson and Helen Hayes are great as two members of a group of nannies that even Mary Poppins fans would love to join perhaps. Derek Nimmo is decent too as the aristocrat who hides a top secret formula in the dinosaur skeleton. A nice soundtrack and good direction help also. Overall, I enjoyed it, I wasn't expecting perfection, I didn't get it, but I liked it. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Lively, good fun, and delightfully old-fashioned

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 29 December 2014]

A good-natured Disney adventure which borrows its title from the WW2 flick ONE OF OUR AIRCRAFT IS MISSING. This is a distinctly '70s production, packed with action and humour and an ensemble cast of stalwarts who appear in regular cameos. The plot is preposterous nonsense of course, and the film as a whole is laced with lurid racism and general silliness, but it's all handled in such a lively spirit that it becomes impossible not to like.

Peter Ustinov headlines the cast as a Chinese agent searching for a secret formula hidden within a dinosaur skeleton by a British spy. Such plotting is merely a loose excuse for the film's pivotal and extended set-piece, which sees a huge Brontosaurus skeleton transported on the back of a wagon through the streets of London, with various villains in pursuit.

The cast give engaging, witty performances, with Joan Sims and Helen Hayes particularly shining as the committed nannies and Ustinov holding it all together with his perfectly-mannered turn (which reminded me of Peter Sellers in MURDER BY DEATH). Watch out for the likes of Jon Pertwee, John Laurie, Joss Ackland, Bernard Bresslaw, John Bardon, Joan Hickson, and Amanda Barrie in minor parts.

Yee Haw!

[SanDiego · 18 January 2003]

English slapstick comedy spy caper definitely a must for fans of that genre. Director Robert Stevenson (Mary Poppins, The Love Bug) dresses up the scenery with nice old British cars, trucks and storefronts (watch for one called THE RELUCTANT DRAGON a tip of the hat to an old Disney animated classic) and his usual trademark special effects which includes a neat little stunt where a group of men stand on each other's shoulders to see above a fog filled street. Fans of Agatha Christie movies will note Peter Ustinov (who played Hercule Poirot) and Helen Hayes and Joan Hickson (who both played Miss Marple). A final note regarding some ill-placed, ill-thought out comments about Peter Ustinov's performance that was meant to be broad comedy. Ustinov (an Englishman) also portrayed a Belgium (Hercule Poirot), a Russian, and a Frenchman in other films without any comments about their appropriateness. From Peter Sellers who played a wickedly unflattering portrayal of a Frenchman in the Pink Panther series to Ben Kingsley's stately performance as Ghandai to Jews playing Christians (sometimes unflattering) what the heck...it's called acting. If you don't like the performance that's one thing, but to call it racist then all these performances should be called racist and ALL performances that require an actor to play someone not himself would be on some level bigoted. Don't you think? To those who would call Ustinov's performance racist you are wrong and you should sue your parents and teachers for raising an idiot. By the way. I am Chinese. If I do a good Texan accent no one would think me a racist. If I do a bad Texan accent all it means is that I do a bad Texan accent. Yee Haw!

Fun for all the family Disney film

[gorytus-20672 · 7/10 · 31 August 2021]

Aug 21

Surprised at the lack of reviews for this one, considering the age and the amount of ratings it has.

Very entertaining Disney family film from the 70s, with plenty of familiar faces, most putting on accents.

This film really holds up well and i still watch it, very easy viewing and some really fun touches.

7.5 out of 10.

Ustinov is completely wasted

[r96sk · 4/10 · 24 August 2020]

Lacklustre.

'One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing' has a couple of mildly positive things about it, but it is largely a disappointment. I personally failed to get into the premise, I don't mind silly plots but I just don't feel like it connects at all.

Alongside that, you have some very lazy casting which certainly hasn't aged well whatsoever. You have a number of major characters who are Chinese, yet not a single Chinese actor can be seen - yellowface aplenty. Even taking away the obvious negatives, it's not like it even works in the film's favour either.

Peter Ustinov is completely wasted as Hnup Wan, by making him appear Chinese you lose all of Ustinov's expressions and body language. The guys who play his sidekicks add nothing, so why not just add suitable actors to the roles - Disney had done it before, in fact in the same year with characters in 'The Apple Dumpling Gang'. It's lazy, at best.

As mentioned at the top, there are some pleasant things in there. The score is very good, while the chase scene looks nice - as does the Natural History Museum. Even then, the cat and mouse stuff drags out.

Many issues, even away from the cast. Not one I'd recommend.

Made entirely of the new wonder element.....Dulltedium!

[Rob_Taylor · 2/10 · 26 December 2009]

A recent discussion led me to recall this movie from my childhood. As a kid into dinosaurs (is there any other sort?) at the time I remember being taken to watch this as a "treat".

Let's just say I remember being totally bored, feeling totally like I had been lied to. Had I known what the movie was about beforehand, I would have politely told my mum "no thanks" to the treat and stayed at home.

The whole thing is a dull mess that just drags on and on. The dinosaur of the title is a skeleton that, from my recollection, spends most of the film being driven around the countryside in an "amusing" manner. Add in Bernard Bresslaw playing a Chinese henchman (no I'm not making it up) and the whole thing sinks into peurile nonsense.

It's all very well to remember crap old films fondly. But some crap old films deserve to be expunged from one's memory entirely. This is one such film. Absolutely avoid it at all costs!

A Carry On for kids!

[chuffnobbler · 8/10 · 20 April 2007]

What enormous fun! Nannies, toffs with monocles, drunken Scots, loud Yanks, inscrutable Chinese ... every cliché under the sun chases around London in pursuit of a dinosaur skeleton on the back of a lorry.

Such energy, fun, and real "oomph" make this film utterly lovable. it's not subtle, but it's not meant to be. It's a kids' film. I love it as I love the Carry Ons: rip-roaring laughter, unsubtlety, old gags, and corking performances from a range of brilliant character actors.

Look at the cast list! How can anyone not love this film, just from the cast list alone?! Peter Ustinov and Helen Hayes lead the proceedings. Derek Nimmo has a key role. Carry On-ers Joan Sims, Bernard Bresslaw, Amanda Barrie and the supreme Joan Hickson give 100% to their roles.

People seem to be a bit sniffy about this film, but it's so good-natured, warm and funny that it's really rather rude to pick it to pieces for its stereotyping or its clichés. This film is glorious as it is.

The *WORST* movie I have ever seen

[rjwilli · 1/10 · 9 September 2005]

I can remember going to see this stinker in the Disney Summer Film Festival back in the 70's with my father and sister and coming out of the theater, each looking at each other saying "What the he11 was that?!?". I mentioned that I remembered this being the worst movie I had ever seen to my girlfriend and she bought the video for me for my upcoming 40th birthday as a gag gift. I hadn't seen it in almost 30 years and I just watched it tonight. Boy, I've got a good memory! It stinks just as bad as I remembered! Not even Helen Hayes and Peter Ustinov could dig this one out of the cellar. Do yourself a favor and watch Mary Poppins!

Remember what it was like just to laugh?

[Goatbeyondhope · 8/10 · 29 December 2005]

This was one of the most memorable films of my childhood, and I hadn't seen it since it came out in the cinema in England when I was seven years old, until I was given a DVD of it again today, thirty-one years later. Although today it didn't have me rolling in the aisles or have me doing Peter Ustinov impressions for hours afterward like it did back then, it still was a charmer, and it was simply just fun to watch. It deliberately encapsulates a bit of the paradoxically innocent yet bigoted flavor of England back in those times, and there are many little delicate touches for those with an appreciation for the idiosyncrasies of the English. Peter Ustinov is perfectly cast to be given license to run amok with his non-politically-correct character, considering he was one of the most well-read, culturally-sensitive intellectuals of his generation. (Check out HIS Bio!) It's certainly all about him. Overacting? I'd say "playing it broad" instead, and yet with real skill. Ustinov was a master raconteur on many subjects: political, cultural, and musical, and his comedic timing was also very acute. I think it shows. Is this film racist? Well, it certainly couldn't have been produced by Walt Disney in today's social climate, but I'd say rather that it is really a grand romp in satire, made at a time when we could more easily laugh at ourselves and each other, and forgive a little easier too. Sure it's completely "wrong" that the Chinese guys are actually played by Europeans in make-up. But the very joke lies in just how much a parody this "Chinese" make-up actually is, and how no-one is remotely intended to be fooled. Paraphrasing lines of Ustinov's (Chinese) character explains this perfectly: "How can you tell Europeans apart? They all look the same...those eyes." The film left me with the wistful feeling and hope that here was the England and these were the kinds of adventures that we had when we were children. (How dearly I would still love to run around with a squad of Great British Nannies or Chinese Agents looking for a microfilm on the Diplodocus in the Natural History Museum.) It's a wonderful time to look back to, even if it probably only ever existed in imagination. Sadly, the once-free-to-wander-in- during-our-summer-holidays Natural History Museum now charges a hefty admission fee. And that's a fact.

Unfunny, unexciting Disney film

[gridoon2024 · 4/10 · 28 April 2019]

A strange project from the Disney studios: too silly to hold the attention of an adult audience, but the main characters are way too old for young viewers to identify with. Which makes you wonder who exactly it is aimed at. I suppose there is the trivia value of seeing a future Poirot (Peter Ustinov) and a future Miss Marrple (Helen Hayes) together - but this must surely be one of Ustinov's worst performances ever. Apparently the filmmakers consider the sight of a dinosaur's skeleton in "modern" London the height of hilarity, because that's the main joke of the film (along with nannies using their purses as weapons, and Ustinov pretending to be Chinese). Quite a slog to get through. *1/2 out of 4.

An absolute Classic!

[to_kill_better · 20 August 2003]

This is possibly the best film ever. The story of a group of British nannies and a captured spy and their conflicts with the Chinese secret service over the recipe for the mysterious "lotus x" produces a miraculously silly slapstick festival of idiocy that is probably the most watchable film ever to come from Britain. Forget the grossly overrrated "The Full Monty" - One Of Our Dinosaurs is Missing is the funniest film ever to escape our sceptered isle. Of course the British actors playing Chinese characters are unconvincing, but this isn't about realism or diplomacy; it's about non-stop tomfoolery, which it supplies in bucketloads.

This is what British films should be about! Not dark, brooding council estates; tower-blocks filled with the destitute; or the collapse of industry; instead, the power of self-belief and good honest values overcoming adversity.

An absolute film classic, sadly overlooked at the Oscars, this deserves a cinema re-release at some point. Failing that, buy the video - you won't regret it!

Audience for the original screening speaks volumes

[malenoid · 1/10 · 22 January 2007]

It is not necessary to give a synopsis of one of the worst movies ever made. There are good reviews of this movie available online. I just want to add that as a young teen of about 13 years I went to see this movie with a friend and his father. The movie was double-billed with a Disney classic, Cinderella, which ran first in order to draw an audience. One Of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing began and the audience just kind of slowly filtered out of the theater. Our group was one of the last to leave, and the theater was probably empty before half-an-hour of the movie was through. Don't buy the DVD unless you are a collector. So the next time Disney announced the opening of its "Golden Vault" the video of this stinker better stay right where it is: collecting dust on a shelf.

Hail to the Nannies

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 27 March 2019]

This Disney film was shot across the pond and has an all British cast with the exception of Helen Hayes. But Hayes is playing that most formidable of British institutions,the British nannie.

Derek Nimmo a British spy has a valuable piece of microfilm he has smuggled out of China at great risk to life and limb. But the Chinese are on to him. Their spy network operates out of a Chinese restaurant in London and is headed by Peter Ustinov.

Knowing he's being pursued, Nimmo spots his old Nanny Helen Hayes and asks her to hide the microfilm. She does in the Natural History Museum in the bones of a brontosaurus. Talk about hiding in plain site.

It's an amusing G rated comedy from the Magic Kingdom, but I doubt Ustinov could ever get away with his oriental spoof today.

A Welcome Escape back to Childhood

[LauraAS · 10/10 · 21 March 2005]

Clearly any film nearly 30 years old is going to have flaws by today's standards and I know many people knock this film because of the now very politically incorrect portrayals of the Chinese.

However (and I am part Chinese myself) I regard the performances as pure pantomime or affectionate parody and not offensive. Besides - the bumbling British upper classes hardly fare any better.

I watched this on DVD last night and I still find it funny. Nostalgia of course plays a big part - I was 8 when it came out, still into palaeontology and visiting the Natural History Museum regularly.

But it still has some cracking dialogue, great slapstick and visual humour and of course the incomparable Helen Hayes and Peter Ustinov.

So if you want a chuckle and to escape back to a gentler (albeit fictitious) time - you could do a lot worse than spend 90 minutes watching this.

An incoherent mess.

[gridoon · 4/10 · 1 January 2000]

Silly, disappointing Disney outing, hampered mostly by Ustinov's terrible performance. As Hercule Poirot, Ustinov has always been superb, but here he overacts embarrassingly; the same year (1976), Peter Sellers also played an inept Oriental guy for laughs, in "Murder By Death", and he was much more efficient. Besides, the film has no coherency, and the story is hopelessly uninteresting. Frankly, I can't think of one person (of any age) that will find himself caring about what will happen here.

A brilliant comedy with great performances all round.

[Palicot · 10/10 · 4 January 2001]

Helen Hayes and Joan Sims are British Nannies that get involved in espionage trying to find Lotus X. A brilliant comedy, with great performances all round. There are also a lot of familiar faces in small roles. A memorable plot line and a great fight near the end of the film between the Chinese and the Nannies.

Not funny at all

[coex23 · 2/10 · 5 August 2021]

Exactly what kind of person remembers yellowface fondly and considers it "not so bad"? Plus, what kind of person actually thought this was funny AS a kid? As a ten year old when this came out, I thought it'd be a fun dinosaur film. Dinosaur? Yes. Fun? No.

Upon rewatching recently, I probably "got" more of the slight adult gags here and there, but it didn't improve the overall effect. And then, again, the yellowface was just too much. Jeez, it's 1975 and Bruce Lee was well known; Chinese people can act as real people!! But, then, it's taken Disney up to a few years ago to slowly shift their weird representation of other cultures in their animated films.

Still, a minor film to be sure and not one to whine about changes (for the better) in our culture. Avoid unless doing serious research into cultural history.

One of the funniest movies ever

[lucy-66 · 13 June 2002]

And it's in my top ten best films. Hilarious from the very start, with Lord Southmere hitching a lift from the yeti ("Thanks for the lift old boy - I don't think you're abominable at all!") and then escaping from the villains in the Natural History Museum disguised as a baby. It may be racist in the same way as Carry on Up the Khyber (most of the Chinese are occidentals in terrible eye makeup) but it's certainly feminist, celebrating the power of women in grey stockings fuelled only by nice cups of tea. (What if this great beast should fall on us, Hetty? Then we would be the first people in two million years to be killed by a dinosaur!) xxxxxx

Robert Stevenson and Bill Walsh of Disney's greatest live-action hits reteam a final time for a lesser outing.

[IonicBreezeMachine · 5/10 · 18 June 2022]

Sometime after World War I, Lord Southmere (Derek Nimmo) escapes from China back to England with a microfilm containing the formula for something known as "Lotus X". As Southmere is pursued by Chinese agents lead by Hnup Wan (Peter Ustinov) and his conniving assistant Quon (Clive Revill), Southmere stashes the film inside a dinosaur skeleton at the British Museum of Natural History where he has a chance encounter with his old nanny, Hettie (Helen Hayes) who raised him 25 years ago as a boy, and reveals the location of the film to her. When Southmere is captured, Hettie and a group of other nannies set out to find the missing microfilm and rescue Southmere to unravel the plot.

While Robert Stevenson and Bill Walsh aren't the most widely known names in film, it's because their work as director and writer/producer respectively that we've gotten such live-action Disney classics as Blackbeard's Ghost, The Love Bug, the original That Darn Cat, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and the enduring and Academy Award winning Mary Poppins. Bedknobs and Broomsticks was Stevenson and Walsh's final bona fide critical success going into the 70s slump that defined Disney of the time, and while the two would produced some financially successful films, it was clear their best days were behind them. Such is the case unfortunately with One of our Dinosaurs is Missing, a would be comic farce featuring Academy Award winners Peter Ustinov and Helen Hayes in material that doesn't match their talent.

The movie is actually a very loose adaptation of the 1970 novel The Great Dinosaur Robbery by David Forrest (pseudonym of David Eliades and Robert Forrest Webb). While the book was targeted towards an adult audience and set in 1970s in New York against the backdrop of the Cold War, Disney bought the rights to the film keeping only the bare basics of the dinosaur skeleton and the microfilm and setting the film post World War I to erase any political subtext from the material much to the ire and annoyance of Eliades and Webb. The movie also featured major controversy of the time as advocacy groups Asians for a Fair Media and Chinese for Affirmative Action picketed screenings of the film for the yellowface caricatures of Chinese portrayed by Peter Ustinov, Clive Revill, and various other British actors in a manner that was unfavorably compared to Charlie Chan and Fu Manchu.

There's really not much to say about One of Our Dinosaurs is missing as it more or less falls into the framework of other 70s produced Disney comic capers saved for Dick Tracy-esque gangster archetypes that are replaced with bumbling Chinese agents that more or less serve the same purpose. Unlike similar films of the time like those made by Vincent McEverty or Robert Butler, at least Robert Stevenson at his weakest still makes his movies feel like they have scope and scale and belong in a movie theater. The centerpiece for the movie is undeniably the car chase involving an elaborately produced dinosaur skeleton on the back of a coal powered truck and it is a well-produced sequence even if it's very much recycling familiar gimmicks. When you have a cast that includes the likes of Helen Hayes, Joss Ackland, Roy Kinnear, and yes even Peter Ustinov (unfortunate make-up aside) you know you're going to get effort so even if the material is weak there is at least some energy behind it. And then we have the elephant in the room, the yellowface. Maybe if this were still targeted at an adult audience and made with a self-aware satiric bite it MIGHT have been acceptable, I have seen this type of thing done before successfully such Peter Sellers' Sidney Wang character from Murder by Death that was a direct and deliberate send-up of Charlie Chan and the white actors such as Peter Lorre who'd played him. Unfortunately this is a Disney film made in mind for a broad family audience meaning there is no satiric bite, it's just using the stereotypes as the start/stop of the joke on its own.

One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing is an unfortunate close on the career of writer/producer Bill Walsh as this would be his final film before a heart attack took his life the same year. On its own it's a silly if overly familiar formula caper comedy, but it's not benefitted with the passage of time as the yellowface doesn't have any satirical merit or excuse like "it was a different time" that you can really give to it. You'll most likely never see this one on Disney+ but it is available for the morbidly curious if you're so inclined. If you're a Disney completionist wondering how Bill Walsh's career caps off maybe I can recommend it, but for everyone else: if you haven't seen it you really don't have a reason to seek it out.

Disney's Best Live-Action Film Comedy

[johnstonjames · 10/10 · 18 April 2010]

In my opinion this is Disney's best live-action comedy. It's also one of Disney's best live-action special effect fantasies produced during the classic age of the Burbank studio. Sure it was filmed a EMI London, but it was conceived by Disney veterans Bill Walsh and Robert Stevenson and was distributed and produced by the studio in Burbank. It really is an American product that was filmed in England.

I've always loved Helen Hayes involvement with Disney and felt the collaboration led to some of Disney's best live action products, 'Candleshoe' and 'Dinosaurs' are two of the studios finest live-action films, and 'Herbie Rides Again' is a very funny follow-up to the 1967 hit 'Lovebug'. Helen Hayes is a real asset to the Disney legacy and was a real 'Disney' star along with the likes of Fred MacMurray, Dean Jones, Don Knotts, Haley Mills and Jodie Foster, and of course the incredibly accomplished Peter Ustinov. All three of Hayes's film were big money makers for Disney and it's surprising they are not better remembered by Disney buffs. I had to go to England to purchase a foreign region copy of this film.

The studio seems afraid to give this a serious DVD release in the States probably because they fear the broad comedy in this will be perceived as racist. I am not Chinese, but I am of mixed ethnicity and have suffered from racial discrimination myself,and I wouldn't worry about it. Ustinov is simply parodying the Asian stereotypes that were typical in spy thrillers and films from the 1930's. It's basically a send-up of the Charlie Chan stereotypes from that period(although this film is obviously set in the 1920's).I mean how racist can a movie actually be when the Chinese make comments about how "all English look alike" or "we Chinese were making tea when you English were swinging from the trees by your dirty tails." Hilarious.

The special effects and 1920's production design are first rate and hold up remarkably well with CGI effects of today. The effects are very colorful and cartoonish looking, and the opening scenes in China have a real fantasy, fairy tale quality to them.

Anyone saying this film is worthless or dull has something personal against it. This is an easy film to like and laugh at. And it's definitely worth a look simply for it's lavish production design alone, which, knowing Disney studios films of the past, was probably filmed on a modest budget with lots of cost cutting. A definite must see for anyone interested in the old classic Disney films.

One of the best films of all time

[lucyrf · 10/10 · 13 September 2012]

This movie is still brilliant. It has a cracking start. Lord Southmere, desperate to preserve a secret formula, flees from the Chinese gang - in the Natural History Museum - among dinosaur skeletons. He takes refuge in a pram (donning a baby's bonnet), but this is not enough to fool the dastardly villains. But before they drag him away he has time to tell his old nanny (Helen Hayes) where the formula is hidden - somewhere on the diplodocus. She, Joan Sims and a gang of other nannies pursue the Chinese and eventually kidnap the dinosaur (now on the back of a steam powered truck). There is a great comedy chase through London and the English countryside. Great British character actors pop up to perform cameos (Joan Hickson, Derek Guyler, Geoffrey Pearson, Jane Lapotaire, Hugh Laurie). I agree with other commenters that the portrayal of the Chinese is just pantomimic (and a parody of Charlie Chan movies et al). Peter Ustinov was British, but not English: he was Russian, French and Ethiopian. (Peter Lorre, who played a Japanese detective, was Hungarian-Jewish. Other orientals have been played by Nils Asther (Swedish) and Warner Oland (Swedish).) Peter Ustinov is brilliant in this movie.

Dated, but not *that* bad

[Ross-c · 26 January 2000]

I'm not sure why this movie receives as bad reviews as it does. Admittedly, Ustinov's performance is the worst I've seen from him, and nowdays the portrayal of Orientals comes across as out and out racist. But, if you forgive the movie these problems (this was 1976 when sensibilities were different) it's not that bad. Not wonderful, but with a few laughs. And I had little trouble following the plot.

Too silly to really serve adults (although Ustinov's daft performance helps) but most children will be distracted by it

[bob the moo · 19 April 2005]

Pursued by a group of fiendish Orientals, secret agent Lord Edward Southmere conceals the secret formula for Lotus X on a dinosaur skeleton. By coincidence he meets his old nanny in the museum and is able to blurt out a plea for help before he is taken away by the fiendish Orientals. The nannies sneak into the museum to search the dinosaur for the formula that is hidden there but are interrupted and abandon their search. With the fiendish Orientals holding Southmere, Hettie knows she is running out of time and has only one option – to steal the dinosaur before the fiendish Orientals can get it.

With the unusual title and the memorable scenes featuring a dinosaur skeleton chasing around London I can recall elements of this from childhood but decided to watch it again before I tried to write down my thoughts on it. So it was that I sat down to a fairly amusing but inconsequential mess of a comedy. The plot is messy of course but at least it has the good taste never to take itself seriously and instead just keeps the silly slapstick action moving along. Sadly it is not witty enough to play that well to an adult audience but rather relies on slightly older children getting into the silly jokes, pratfalls and stereotypes. This is not to say that I didn't enjoy some parts of it but it never did it consistently or even half the time.

The cast help a little bit but they have little to work with other than stereotypes. Following Mary Poppins, the English Nanny is put up centre stage and played reasonably well by Hayes and Sims but they seem dull compared to a performance from Peter Ustinov that is so off the wall and weird that it is worth seeing. Of course it would be impossible for someone to give the same performance today because, rightly, it is a piece of absurd stereotype to the point where I felt I should apologise to every Orential person I knew just for the sin of enjoying it. It is very close to being offensive but it is so silly that I couldn't help but enjoy it – far from his finest hour of course but fun at least. The support cast are all average, matching the tone of the film but I was entertained by the presence of several recognisable faces, including Ackland, Guyler and a few others. Nimmo is very British and good value but, as in many of the Carry On films, Bresslaw is just a big brute with little to do.

Overall, an enjoyably silly film for older children but with little in it for adults. The narrative is no more than silly action and Ustinov's performance will (like Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean) either offend you or make you enjoy the film a lot more than you would without it. For me he was the main event and without him this would have just been too silly to enjoy.

Another movie which I only loved as a child because I was ignorant

[pigletbunny · 3 August 2017]

Today's young people may be surprised to learn that, in the 1970s, it was still considered fine to cast pale people of European descent or origin as Asians! Then again, they may not be surprised, given the whitewashing that is still occurring on TV shows and in movies in 2017! (Whitewashing is the current term for the changing of people-of-colour characters into pale-skinned characters of European origin or descent.)

I loved this movie as a young child back in the 70's, when I was ignorant as to what Chinese people looked and sounded like. (Where I lived as a young child, there were people of Eastern European descent, Indian descent, Japanese descent, Thai descent, and Western European descent; I didn't encounter anyone of Chinese descent or origin, until later in my childhood.)

I saw this movie with my mother. She's quite racist, and so did not explain to me that those were not actual Chinese /of Chinese descent people in the main "Chinese" roles.

A number of the user reviews for this movie, here on IMDb, do a great job of demonstrating inherent bigotry. Their ingrained prejudice causes them to deny the reality of this movie, which is that OF COURSE the casting of Peter Ustinov and Bernard Bresslaw as Chinese characters is racist! (Contrary to what one particular reviewer wrote, it is NOT the same as a Chinese actor putting on a Texan accent! There ARE Texans of Chinese origin or descent, in real life.)

This movie is arguably even more racist than the patently racist Charlie Chan movies, as One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing's "Chinese" characters are caricatures written and portrayed for "comedic" effect.

(BTW, in the summary of this review, I said "another movie", because, sadly, there's a lot of them :-( For example, I saw Disney's Song of the South, when it was given a theatrical re- release, when I was a young child. When I watched the movie, I had no idea that many of the characters were slaves! I thought that they were paid workers. No-one, especially not my racist mother, had ever told me about the despicable history of U.S. slavery, and early- to- mid 1970's dramatic TV shows, which I watched at FAR too young of an age, tended to have "white slavery" plots, featuring, of course, evil "foreigners", if they ever mentioned slavery at all. It wasn't until the 1977 original broadcast of the amazing miniseries Roots, again watched by me at far too young of an age, that I knew anything about slavery having existed in the United States.)