Thunderbirds (2004) User Reviews

Makes you want to take up Bird shooting

[cosmic_quest · 3/10 · 2 April 2006]

'Thunderbirds' was an immensely popular Sixties show that has transcended the years and generations to the point it is still as popular now, with both adults and children alike, as it was in its heyday. So, one would deduce the chance to produce a live-action feature film with a million pound Hollywood budget was an excellent opportunity to revive the series as has been done with 'Spider-Man' and 'The X-Men'. But a terrible storyline and bland acting obliterated this opportunity and it was soon apparent all that was destined for this film was a trip to the bargain bin of the kiddies' section.

Instead of a film focusing on the five Tracey sons, their father and trusty geek Brain striving to rescue people and protect the world from villains, our hero in this drudge is a malcontent and bratty thirteen-year-old Alan Tracey, fourteen-year-old Tin-tin and ten-year-old brain-box Fermat, son of Brains (yes, Brains' son despite this being a man who could surely never score a woman if he tried; maybe he grew the kid in a petri dish). As one can tell from a run-through of our three lead characters, this 2004 remake 'Thunderbirds' was clearly aimed at entertaining only children under twelve instead of trying to appeal to a broad age-range as those involved in the much superior revival of 'Spider-Man' did. The plot itself was so bland with clunky, awkward dialogue and weak jokes that probably wouldn't amuse brighter pre-teens. The scriptwriter seemed more interested in ripping off 'Spy Kids' (which was at least quirky and original) instead of remaking the show people know and love.

Although Sophia Myles and Ron Cook were excellent as Miss Penelope and Parker, they only had about three lines between them so their presence was barely felt. Bill Paxton's Jeff Tracey was just boring and there was only the slightest of mention of the other four Tracey boys while Anthony Edwards and Ben Kingsley, as Brains and the Hood respectively, were just embarrassing. The Hood, in particular, is not at all threatening or sinister and instead comes across as a campy, two-bit stereotypical villain as limp as a piece of rotting lettuce.

Brady Corbet, who plays Alan Tracey, may well be a good young actor but it was hard to see that in a film where he plays a whinging brat who just grates and the same goes for Vanessa Anne Hutchinson as Tin-tin since the most she gets to do is look pretty and be all for 'Girl Power'. Ironically, it is young Soren Fulton's Fermat who is the only interesting character of the film as Fulton delivers a natural and relaxed performance.

'Thunderbirds' the series will be forever remembered as an excellent show that proves puppets can give solid performances! 'Thunderbirds' the film will be forgotten by most and remembered by a few as one big flop.

Horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE!!!!

[sonydude32 · 1/10 · 12 February 2005]

Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews.

This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about!

The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford.

The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.

The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13."

And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.

There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.

The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells

Unfulfilled potential

[nigelchatfield · 30 July 2004]

As an admirer of the original television series and despite the 'mixed' reviews, I decided that I would go and see "Thunderbirds" (I did debate whether to go for some time but knew that I eventually would).

I have to say that the film was not as bad as I had feared - unfortunately it wasn't all that good either. I did feel that the film stayed with the "Thunderbirds" concept as originally conceived but went off at a bit of a tangent.

The main problem with this film is that it is a terrible story. The usual rescue activities of the Tracy brothers are confined to the beginning and end of the picture while the middle is devoted to teenage son Alan Tracy trying to outwit The Hood and his cohorts who have seized control of Tracy Island and orbiting communications station Thunderbird Five. The plot is remarkably shallow and a number of opportunities to develop interesting themes (Why The Hood hates Jeff Tracy, the death of Mrs. Tracy, Jeff and Alan, Tintin and Alan) are missed. Deleted scenes on the DVD perhaps?

The original series of "Thunderbirds" never talked down to its audience. It was not afraid of occasionally making social comment or introducing scientific concepts. "Thunderbirds" in its 2004 incarnation is incredibly bland and appears to have been made for those with a tiny attention span (key facts about the characters were repeated several times during the course of the movie).

No-one comes out of this movie particularly well - Ben Kingsley probably gives the best performance as The Hood. I felt terribly sorry for Anthony Edwards (Brains) who struggled to bring anything to his part - the stammer gags were simply embarrassing and pointless. Director Jonathan Frakes (Star Trek: First Contact, Insurrection) does a competent job with the material - it's just a shame about the material.

I did enjoy most of the CGI, although viewers can see most of this in the trailer. A shot of Thunderbirds 1 and 2 looming over a hospital were particularly impressive and I would have liked to have seen more of the aircraft in action.

I do hope they have another go at "Thunderbirds". If they do, perhaps they could have a decent rescue featured and more made of the Tracy's ingenious machines (perhaps Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John might even get a few lines?). Lady Penelope needs to be a little more resourceful and come out on top occasionally, like her marionette predecessor.

My advice is that if you have to see this movie, wait to rent the DVD.

Gerry Anderson dislikes Thunderbird film (archive)

[Luxor-imdb · 6 February 2014]

Extract from Gerry Anderson's interview at BBC in 2008 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7655589.stm

• Reporter : You were reportedly unhappy with the Thunderbirds film that was released in 2004. How do you feel about it now?

• Gerry Anderson : I was bitterly upset about that because I had been invited by the producer to discuss the possibility of acting as a consultant. But a few days later I had a letter saying: "I'm terribly sorry but we've got enough creative people on the payroll so we can't offer you anything." Four weeks before the premiere I got a call from Universal Pictures saying they would pay me $750,000 (£432,000) for me to attend and I turned it down. I could've done with that, but I couldn't bring myself to accept it and make false reports about it. I didn't go to see it, but about three months after somebody gave me a DVD and I watched it on my own. I thought it was disgraceful that such a huge amount of money was spent with people who had no idea what Thunderbirds was about and what made it tick.

If you don't know it, don't make it!

[jmax-graham · 22 December 2004]

Once upon a time young children sat down with their Fathers or maybe their bigger siblings and they watched a show. It was a television program that held them transfixed with tales of bravura and technological wonders. Lots of young children dreamed beautiful creative dreams because of this show.

Fast forward to Christmas 2004. Lots of kids are gonna get a DVD called "Thunderbirds". The producers of this movie should get used to the singular "clang" sound because I can imagine lots of kids are going to toss this into wastebaskets the day after (or maybe the same day). They are throwing away the most thickheaded attempt at re-creating television greatness that this reviewer has ever seen.

I am not saying that the original "The Thunderbirds" was the best of shows. It was a puppet show for chrissake! It had huge limitations based on what we know today.

But then? If you were a seven to fourteen year old kid? The Thunderbirds was it! Jeff Tracey led and his sons followed, spirited and eager. Scott was the eldest and Jeff's "rock". He had Thunderbird 1….reconnaissance and remote command and control platform . Virgil had the looks but was so committed to Dad and the project. He had Thunderbird 2……the perennial heavy duty workhorse. Gordon, John and Alan had the tough job of being expert in all the rest of the equipment….all heroes. And then there was Brains. An unparalleled engineering genius and our little secret. As much a part of the team as any other single member. As much flawed and quirky as he was amazing and lovable. Brains was not perfect, but he was the best Mother Earth had to offer.

But the true beauty of this old show, the reason all of us got up at 6.00am to watch, was those wonderful beasts, the Thunderbirds themselves. Gerry Anderson knew that his creations were the star of the show and he made sure they were kept front and center.

So, with this movie, what the hell where the producers thinking?

Whoever was in charge, and I am not saying it was the Jonathan Frakes, had simply no idea. Obviously they had no idea that they were playing with an institution as opposed to a "cool plot idea".

The whole movie was two things…….a Spy Kids clone and a running advertisement for Ford……..and that's it!

OK, the technical stuff was there. I thought the updating of our beloved Thunderbirds was quite good to a point.

And Tracey Island seemed up to it. Had all the right stuff, except we never saw it work right.

After that? It was all downhill into the pits. And it went pretty low.

The script wasn't written, it was excreted. The casting was abysmal. The costuming was third rate.

As a Father, I would be embarrassed if my son said this was a cool film. It would mean I would have to explain to him why it isn't. He is gonna see the original series one day so I have to.

Whoever the mastermind is that concocted this mess should go away. To the producers that still own the rights? Give it another shot. People want to see the Tracey's solving problems as they do. Make my kids proud. Make me proud.

Mediocre film but with excellent special effects which remember to the magnificent original series

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 21 July 2005]

The picture deals with a family whose purpose is save the world of dangers and risks generated by naturals forces or the cruel villains who want to rule over and dominate it . It's an all time work for the astronaut Jeff Tracey (Bill Paxton) and his sons as well as the incredible machines utilized ¨the Thunderbirds¨ which the world depends . But now they are menaced by an evil foe called ¨The Hood¨ (Sir Ben Kingsley) who has trapped them in the space and has taken control the aircrafts and utilizes for his horrible intentions . Then Alan , the youngest son , remains in the secret island . He's only helped by other adolescents and Lady Penelope (Sophia Myles) and , of course , the chauffeur of her spectacular car . Did have they sufficient courage to save the family and world?

The Thunderbirds emerge with impressive and exciting action and with extraordinary rockets and crafts controlled by the family members and intervening anywhere being necessary . The cast is constituted by Bill Paxton (Apolo13 , Twister) as a courageous dad who rules correctly his boys , Anthony Edwards (ER) as a nutty wise man , Ben Kingsley as a nefarious nasty , Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope who appears attractive and gorgeous and the rest cast are brave teens and young heroes . Hans Zimmer score is an adaptation from serial television music . The film is regularly directed by Jonathan Frakes (Star Trek : Insurrection , The first contact) . The movie will appeal to children and nostalgics.

Hang Your Head In Shame Jonathan Frakes & Universal Execs.

[BurkeSkullsplitter · 1/10 · 19 September 2006]

This is a truly awful film. What they have done is taken a TV show, which was never aimed at young children & given it the George Lucas treatment (i.e. ruined it by kiddifying it to appeal to the younger audience).

OK so the Thunderbirds TV show wasn't exactly the most cerebral of shows, in fact it was pretty formulaic, but it was always enjoyable to watch (especially when the models got blown up) and the voice cast wasn't too bad.

This suffers from bad casting & bad acting (with the notable exceptions of Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope & Ron Cook as Parker, who seem to be the only cast members to have a clue about how their characters should be played) & after this travesty I wouldn't let Frakes direct traffic.

The whole point of Thunderbirds was that it was about the whole Tracy family & how they worked as a team, preventing disasters or coming to the rescue of those involved in disasters.

Avoid this rubbish like the plague.

I only give it 1 out of 10 because a zero rating is not supported.

A very poor reworking of a classic, aimed at the pre-teens

[cmtaylor · 1/10 · 8 August 2004]

The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68.

Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...

…To rob a bank!

Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!

The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score…? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles

To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.

The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass

Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.

My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.

I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.

I'm sorry - this movie is NOT GOOD

[bdl7431 · 3/10 · 4 May 2006]

The original Thunderbirds earned a place in TV history. It was, and still is, much beloved - indeed, the entire first 10 minutes of the Wallace and Gromit movie (the Wererabbit) is a direct lift of Thunderbirds, down to a direct replay of the original Thunderbird 2 launching sequence (if you don't believe me, get the movie, and then get a copy of the original episode where Thunderbird 2 is launched).

This movie was a crass attempt at making a kids' movie - when the original was loved and enjoyed by kids and adults alike! In the original, the Thunderbirds spent all of their time rescuing people who were often trapped when Mother Nature or Technology went horrible wrong (yes, there was also the occasional criminal act). The Thunderbirds put their own lives and resources at risk for no reward - the very essence of heroism and selflessness. There was little physical violence. The Thunderbirds challenged the imagination to a degree - how many of us would dream of someday building a Thunderbird 2? And don't underestimate the power of entertainment to do this - many Japanese attribute their fascination with humanoid robots to the old Astroboy cartoon.

But this movie was a poor re-image of the original. This movie came across as a meld between Thunderbirds and Loony Tunes - I mean, we have Anthony Edwards as Brain imitating Porky Pig's stuttering????? Much of the action consists of Kung Fu/Power Rangers type fighting. Indeed, there were funny sound effects when someone got nailed on the head with a frying pan. The tech that fired our imagination was absent - instead we have these kids running around, using a plot device that was NEVER in the original series (having the entire team take off at once, leaving the base occupied by the kids and Brain). Then there was a dose of "Use the Force Luke" mysticism thrown in when TinTin would levitate something or another, coupled with the The Hood using aerodynamics that looked like they were lifted from "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". About the only thing missing was for The Hood to go "TinTin, I am your Uncle" with a breath mask voice. The heart that made Thunderbirds unique was GONE.

The only bright point was Ron Cook's portrayal of Parker - he caught it perfectly. But the actress playing Lady Penelope came across as a child - HUH????

And this is why we hate this movie. When someone puts out something that was popular to a fan base, and expects the fans to shell out money to watch, and then delivers something than wasn't even close to what the fans expect - well, I am sorry, that is just plain WRONG! OK, so if they were making a kids' movie - fine - next time distribute it straight to video, where many of these belong. But don't package something up in a familiar wrapper and change the innards.

Felt like I'd been slapped in the face

[marcus40mast · 3/10 · 25 September 2004]

OK..this movie could have been soooo good! All generations have been exposed to Thunderbirds and have come to love it and this film had some of the features one would look for in a good thunderbirds movie. The craft themselves and Tracey Island were realistically transferred to the big screen, whilst still keeping to the designs we fell in love with. Sophia Miles was, simply, fantastic, as Lady P and Bill Paxton, whilst not exactly who I envisaged Jeff Tracey being, was solid enough...but then the adults were taken out of the equation and we were asked to believe 8 year olds could fly 200 tonne machines.

It's not so much the fact that the movie was centred around the children that made me feel like Jonathon Frakes was slapping me with a wet fish and laughing at my hard earned money spent on the film, it was the fact that Alan Tracey was so obnoxious in the film and that he seemed to be as able to fly the machines as well as his brothers...who were at least 19/20. Seriously, these are some pretty damn simple machines to use if this is the case.

The film didn't seem to know whether it wanted to be serious or farcical. It tried to pay homage whilst satirising and it just generally fell flat on its face. 3/10 (2 for the machines, 1 for Lady P)

Grave disappointment, insults a fondly-remembered source

[emailtome321 · 25 July 2004]

I had high hopes for this movie, but it seems the makers did not. They could have had faith in the source material. They could have hoped that preserving the wonderful legacy of the original TV show (albeit with modest adjustments for a contemporary audience) would have been worthwhile, and delivered a hugely enjoyable action adventure movie. Instead, they either did not understand the value of the source material they were handling, or did not appreciate it. Whichever was the case, they jettisoned it, threw away most of anything that would have made this a creditable movie, and re-made 'Spy Kids'.

If trying to be fair (and perhaps fairer than the makers deserve), there are two potential audiences for this movie - those who have fond memories of the original TV show, and those who don't. The latter group may find it passably enjoyable. They may wonder why anyone wanted to make a 'Spy Kids' clone. They may wonder why the producers think an action adventure movie for kids has to be ABOUT kids having adventures, when the rest of Hollywood has moved on and realized this need not be the case. They may wonder why they are sitting through a strictly formulaic movie-by-numbers flick with dial-it-in performances, promoted as if it's meant to be a big summer hit. But they might find it averagely OK.

But the first group - those who not only remember the Gerry Anderson TV show but remember it fondly - will feel sick that such wonderful potential has been wasted. Gerry and Sylvia Anderson created a marvelous action adventure fantasy world, with a great premise and endless potential. The show had warmth, humour, fun, thrills and spills and a unique tone which endeared it to millions and made it Anderson's biggest ever hit show. The producers of this lame movie have not only paid no heed to the spirit of the original (even telling Anderson that his services were not required), but actively trampled all over it. A modest tinkering with the material to bring it up to date would have been fine, welcome and appropriate. Instead they have comprehensively missed the point of the original TV show, messed around with the characters, invented characters that never existed and put them centre stage (Brains has a son?) and otherwise treated their source material with utter contempt.

It is a great movie? No. It's isn't even a good one. The first duty of any film-maker is to find a good story worth telling, and to tell it well. They haven't. The story is dull, flat, predictable and lamely paraded before us. At the same time, they have treated the Thunderbirds concept with disdain and contempt, and soured what could have been a great new franchise.

Total waste of time.

[Comberman · 4/10 · 28 January 2006]

I just wonder what prompted Gerry Anderson to allow his name to be associated with this travesty; though I guess it must have been an awful lot of money. Everything about this film was so – so wrong and a total corruption of what Thunderbirds, the team and their FABulous rescue vehicles was about. This was not about International Rescue. This was more about the Tracey Family and with the exception of the first few minutes the only rescuing seen in the movie was the rescue of themselves from a situation preposterous in the extreme. This was "The Brady Bunch" with special effects. Being an ardent fan of the original Thunderbirds series, which was imaginative and entertaining (despite the strings!), I bought the DVD of the film for my grandchildren on the premise that they might enjoy it. All I can say is that I'm glad it was an "on offer cheap". If you are a Gerry Anderson fan don't watch this movie; you'll be frozen in your seat in total disbelief and dismay. My copy is destined for the next 'car-boot' sale – if I can shrug off the guilt for passing it on.

A crime against humanity, it's like a form of torture.

[stephen182-1 · 1/10 · 29 August 2005]

This film is so bad that it would be preferable to be eviscerated by a Large mammal; a lion or elephant perhaps. If a sequel were to be made it would most likely signal the end of the world. The movie is riddled with ridiculous sound effects and it doesn't even try to stay faithful to the original TV series. There are so many irritating contradictions, unexplained psychic abilities, and an oxygen supply which replenished itself as if by magic, and these are just a few factors which contributed to the torment and misery experienced while watching this "film".

During the film I could actually feel myself slowly dying inside.

Thunderbirds are...crappy?

[i_killed_that_guy · 1/10 · 31 July 2004]

Jonathon Frakes should have learned that when making a movie about the Thunderbirds...actually including the Thunderbirds heavily into the storyline is a first step. The second would be to name all of the tracy brothers and set them up on an adventure. ]

Frakes ignores both of these pointers and instead moves towards Die Hard - kids style. Complete with comedy sound effects and terrible dialogue.

A muddled love story makes the nerdy boy seem more infatuated with Alan Tracy than a girl, and the Tracy brothers are reduced to background characters with silly hair.

A disaster.

An absolute mess - weak plot, horrible child acting, forced deeper meaning and numerous infuriating conventions. It doesn't get much worse.

[johnnyboyz · 2/10 · 12 August 2007]

To say that Thunderbirds is a horrid, forced, in-your-face, ugly looking, nasty to listen to and painful to watch film wouldn't be saying enough. There are only two reasons I can think of why you'd watch this film: 1; you've seen Thunderbirds when you were young (like I did) and are curious as to what it is like but you will really only be watching to find out how badly they screwed things up. Or, 2; you're seeing it with someone under ten years old.

Thunderbirds manages to cock up everything it attempts. The list goes on and on but there are other more subtle, humiliating things that are painfully obvious when you think about it. From the off, Thunderbirds is wrong, wrong, wrong. The whole moral message and 'goal' is set up in an excruciating way: Jeff Tracy (A new low for Bill Paxton) tells his youngest son Alan he's not yet proved himself to be a Thunderbird after Alan randomly and stupidly decided to go down into Tracy Island's bowels to fire up Thunderbird One. The whole film is then a series of events and miss-fires consisting of Alan trying to prove himself whilst his father and other brothers are trapped in space aboard Thunderbird five.

The film relies on kid actors to carry the film: A 16 year old Alan Tracy (Corbet), a 16 year old Tin Tin (Hudgens) and a 14 year old Fermat (Fulton) who is Brains' son. To say that watching the 'adventures' they get up to is painful is an understatement. Frequently trying to act and utilise the script whilst combating the evil 'Hood' (Kingsley) in ridiculously unfunny and hammy ways acts as the entertainment for the duration of the film; it only differs when everyone's in a different location. Also, the whole 'mind control' thing was very tiresome and basically dragged the film down as it was overused and offered a way for our heroes to see a weakness in The Hood – forced and incidental.

I know that most 'film's for kids' these days try to integrate some sort of material for adults but in Thunderbirds it's done in a way that fetishises Lady Penelope. Sophia Myles plays Penelope and I think it's no coincidence she's a little older than the rest of the kids – at 24 years old, it's almost too good to be true. Her scenes are often highly charged and carry an erotic push. We see her in the bath, bubbles up to her neck watching TV; in comes her butler and sneaks a peek as she seductively changes channels with her wet, bare and bubble covered foot. Frequent shots of her massive, bright pink high heeled shoes filling the screen during various scenes: This first happens when she is actually tied up with the second happening during a fist fight with another woman! Twinned with this, her bright pink costumes that reveal just enough yet cover just enough are particularly outstanding as is the way she moves and talks with that posh, dominant, English accent; sounding like a commanding mistress (Well, she is LADY Penelope after all – and you'd better make sure call her that) The whole thing is laughable but the editing is so quick that the kids won't notice but it sure as hell is there.

The actual plot of The Hood doing all that he does just to rob a few banks is very bizarre, the characters that are his bodyguards: a geeky looking woman and hard bodied black man who gets agitated a lot. Are we supposed to be laughing at this? What about the fight scenes? Poorly choreographed stunts and what the hell was with the silly noises? It's utterly, utterly laughable.

The list goes on. The way Bill Paxton plays it all so seriously, like he was told they were doing it one way but it was made another, the way Ford motor company have their logo slapped all over the place. News bulletin: sponsored by Ford, the camera even moves to endorse Ford several times when cars are in shot, the way the CGI looks like something out of a computer game video clip – it's infuriating. The fact we are told to believe that a 16 year old girl can swim in the freezing Thames, against the current, rescue a downed monorail (monorail over the Thames!?), get back to the hatch and thus; save the day all the time holding her breath. It is absolute bull and the makers know it – I don't even know if a 10 year old would swallow it.

In short: avoid, avoid, avoid. Thunderbirds is infuriating, unfunny, poorly scripted and even the Rolls Royce was taken out and replaced by a flying car – everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.

No where near as good as the Marionet version from Gerry Anderson

[zw1965 · 2/10 · 14 October 2006]

I grew up (b. 1965) watching and loving the Thunderbirds. All my mates at school watched. We played "Thunderbirds" before school, during lunch and after school. We all wanted to be Virgil or Scott. No one wanted to be Alan. Counting down from 5 became an art form. I took my children to see the movie hoping they would get a glimpse of what I loved as a child. How bitterly disappointing. The only high point was the snappy theme tune. Not that it could compare with the original score of the Thunderbirds. Thankfully early Saturday mornings one television channel still plays reruns of the series Gerry Anderson and his wife created. Jonatha Frakes should hand in his directors chair, his version was completely hopeless. A waste of film. Utter rubbish. A CGI remake may be acceptable but replacing marionettes with Homo sapiens subsp. sapiens was a huge error of judgment.

"Spy Kids" movie made by mistake!

[robert_bance · 1/10 · 7 January 2005]

A truly shocking movie! This was an excellent opportunity to take a much loved franchise and update it for the 21st Century. Being of a certain age I grew up watching the Gerry Anderson series "Thunderbirds" on TV. I was prepared for a little bit of artistic licence, but the film is so far removed from the original plot lines that I wonder why the production team even bothered to obtain the rights to the "Thumderbirds" brand for the movie? The original TV series was all about these five brothers who went around rescuing people, just in the nick of time. The five brothers are certainly in the movie, but three of the characters were so under-developed that straight after the movie I couldn't even remember what they looked like. Fair enough, but two of these characters were the characters that did all the action in the TV series!

One brother does all the rescuing, but rather than being old enough to be a renown racing driver in his spare time (TV version), in the film he hasn't even left school. Yet he manages to drive the complicated vehicles just by being able to sit in them!

The other thing that the TV series enthralled a generation of children with were the machines themselves, "The Thunderbirds". On TV, the camera lingered on the beasts, the camera provided the big picture. In the film, blink and you missed them, or the camera was so tight you couldn't actually work out what you are supposed to be looking at.

So, having dispensed with the main characters and the main technological hook of the original franchise, the production team then dispensed with anything resembling a "Thunderbirds" plot. Did they fish around in all the waste bins in Hollywood until they found a rejected plot from "Spy Kids"? For those who are aware of their work from the 1970s, the Children's Film Foundation in the UK did this kind of thing better on a fraction of the budget.

It's not all bad though: Sophia Miles' performance was enough to keep me watching until the end. A pity such a talent was wasted in such a hotch-potch movie.

Avoid at all costs!

Pitiful.

[phiggins · 5 August 2004]

SPOILER WARNING. The original Thunderbirds was an eccentric, low-budget, weird piece of TV science fiction with the emphasis on alluring gadgetry and brilliant machines. The fact that all roles were played by puppets certainly helped it attain a certain cult status. Fans and even casual viewers have fond memories of puppets bobbing around miniature sets and palm trees folding back to allow Thunderbird 2 to get down the runway. Approaching a cinematic updating of the concept, director Jonathan Frakes had two choices: Go for a faithful, no-holds-barred action-packed romp full of alluring gadgetry and brilliant machines with a 21st century gloss, or ruin the whole thing and make the worst film of the year. Unfortunately, Mr. Frakes chose the latter option. That his film is bad does not seem to be the result of people trying to make a good film and failing; rather it appears that from the outset they hampered themselves with a lousy script, unappealing performers and a total misjudgement of their intended audience. Things start out well enough, with a lavish and entertaining credit sequence. Pretty soon, though, as we are swiftly introduced to the doltish Alan Tracey in his low-budget sub-Hogwarts school, packed with drama-school extras who are all ten years younger than him, things take a turn for the worse. Alan is the youngest son of the head Thunderbird, played here by a depressingly lacklustre Bill Paxton. Alan's older brothers, a gang of adolescent interchangeable hunks with up-to-the-minute haircuts that will ensure the film dates a lot quicker than the TV show ever did, are allowed to fly powerful space rockets all day, and Alan wants to join them. But guess what? He has some growing-up to do first. Cue a villain who comes up with a brilliant plan to get all the Thunderbirds off the island, thus allowing him to infiltrate their high-security lair and... steal lots of money from the Bank of London. Yawn. This hilariously unexciting plot reaches hitherto unimagined levels of tedium and patronising guff when the baddies are thwarted in their fiendishly complex plan by three children (Alan and his no-less-irritating chums), Lady Penelope, and Parker. These last two steal the film (for what it's worth) but even they cannot transcend its overwhelming stupidity. Starting out as a kick-ass vision in pink, Lady P ends as an embarrassing pantomime victim, locked into a cage with no difficulty whatsoever. No doubt the presence of three children in starring roles is an attempt to make the film appealing to the youngsters. The result, however, is to make the film unappealing to everyone. Sticking kids in a film like this is a sure sign of creative bankruptcy. Likewise, whose bright idea was it to sideline the machines and instead concentrate on a bland and unconvincing coming-of-age story? No, really, whose? The actors playing characters more convincingly realised thirty years ago by puppets are a disgrace. Ben Kingsley's finest moment comes when he utters the chillingly terrifying line, "See you soon... Jeff!" That he has to spit this out while being CARRIED by his henchman only makes his humiliation more complete. The henchman himself has to pretend to be incapacitated when children spray him with green goo. No child alive dreams of incapacitating henchmen by spraying them with green goo. They may dream of bisecting them with a lightsaber or karate-chopping them into the middle of next week, but they do not dream of spraying them with green goo. Only patronising film-makers think that they do, and that watching a scene in which this happens might in some way be entertaining. The script is a tired amalgamation of cliches, heart-warming homilies, bad jokes and laughable threats. It may sound like a complaint but actually it is meant as a compliment when I say that much of the dialogue is inaudible. When you can make out what the poor saps are saying, you just want to die. The good guys rarely get to shout anything more profound than "F.A.B" or "Look out!" while the bad guys are limited to "Mwah ha ha ha!" Huge amounts of money were no doubt spent on this disaster, but the film-makers ensure that the vast sets look as cheap and badly-lit as possible. Quite an achievement. The Thunderbirds themselves are impressive enough in all their computer-generated glory, but they lack the nutty charm of the originals, and they're not on screen for nearly long enough. In spite of all the technical expertise involved there is little imagination or originality on display. Even the theme tune has been watered down and made instantly forgettable rather than irresistibly catchy.

Thunderbirds contains nothing, not a single moment or image worth remembering, and yet, paradoxically, you might have a hard time forgetting its sheer awfulness. Don't say I didn't warn you.

One for the juniors without brains

[yorkshire_keith · 23 July 2004]

OK I admit it I'm a lifelong TBirds fan. The first episode screened when I was three and a half and I've been hooked ever since. I don't think the producers and director of this film were, the spirit isn't there. Thunderbirds is a fantastic franchise potential, in that there is very little evil in the show.I know there's the hood but he doesn't always appear, the only constant is peoples lives being saved in tense and action packed ways that require kid friendly super- machines. How can you lose. Hardly any killing or swearing and gritty action.

The original was made for kids in as much as it was puppets but all The Century 21 series would have used live action if Gerry Anderson and ITC could have afforded it and the stories did not talk down to or patronise their audience with the result I can still happily watch them today with my little girl. This is the kind of kids film that used to go down well at the ABC minors when mum went shopping. It doesn't have as much of the dual adult and kids appeal of the original and will probably appeal mostly to the younger children who (if they can get you to take 'em, it's a PG) aren't really going to mind the poor humour, and won't remember what Thunderbird 2 should look like or that Lady P wouldn't be seen dead in a Ford. Or that the original Tracy family were too smart to ever all go on the same rescue at once and therefore fall into traps.

The casting is mixed really. Jeff looks far too young to be a father of five and the hood is good old English Ben Kingsley! when he obviously should have been Burt Kwok with his head shaved. TinTin is just too "american teen" with non of the asian dignity and reserve needed for her future life of looking after the ailing Kirano and the Tracy boys blend a little but then I used to get Alan and Gordon confused originally and there will never be an actor with Shane Rimmers voice and Scott Tracy's looks outside of Kirk Douglas and sadly he's had his day for action parts. The Action is however pretty good. Except for the monorail, which for some reason looks more like a model than anything Derek Meddings ever did on the telly, the thunderbirds do pay reasonable lipservice to the original designs and there is still enough here to cling to the hope that it could be rescued by a sequel with a better plot, brains Jr and TinTin sent off to University and Allan doing a decent days work for a decent days pay.

Stop ruining my childhood!

[joeker-betts · 1/10 · 17 November 2007]

When I first saw the trailer to this I thought to myself, "Wow, this looks epic". Thunderbird 2 landing with "Thin Lizzy" playing in the background was awesome. But then, like so many other awful films, the trailer was very misleading. My friend forced me to watch it saying that it was one of those films that was so bad it was funny. When it had finished I literally shaking with anger. There were just so many things wrong with this film, one of the most annoying ones was the new character of Brains' son. Why oh why? This seriously couldn't have been less like the show even if they tried. And since when was Parker a hard arse fighter. But one of the most upsetting thing was Sir Ben Kingsley as "The Hood". There's nothing I hate more than to watch a great actor star in a film that should never have been made. And his performance is so bad you can almost hear him thinking, "Hurry up and give me my money". Oh, then there's Bill Paxton, but he's so terrible anyway that there's no point in talking about him anymore. The one shot that really irritated me was the extreme close up of a hand pulling a lever, accept it's a puppet hand with strings. Terrible. 1, it just looks awful and 2 everyone knows that when there was an extreme close up of a hand in the show that it was a real person's hand, not a puppet's I know it's bit of a stupid reason to get frustrated, but I loved the show and this terribly acted, directed, poor excuse for a film just about ruins all your found memories of that classic show. I can honestly say that this was the worst film that I have ever seen. If you loved the show and don't won't your memories ruined, do not watch.

When people are out acted by puppets

[MartianOctocretr5 · 3/10 · 8 September 2007]

Remember the classic children's puppet adventure series? Rent copies of that, and avoid this mess.

The film tries to give us an amiable tribute to the original show, which goes awry, and it all falls flat. First, it tries too hard to be funny, even inserting cartoon sound effects in several scenes. The actors mug like idiots, and the script stoops even lower than they do in intelligence level. This movie ends up mocking the series with not enough adventure or story and way too much satirical content. Nothing is cohesive; the audience neither cares what's happening, nor laughs at anything they see. It tries to rip off Jackie Chan and similar satires, but none of the actors have the required comedic talent to accomplish this.

The actors in this are at the level of Date Movie; I almost felt sorry for Ben Kingsley. Why did he sign on to this? He joins in all the low-brow one liners and camera mugging. Just embarrassing. The puppets in the original show were far more emotive and interesting than anybody here.

A failure.

It really could have been better

[mpvorkosigan · 2/10 · 18 August 2006]

I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.

The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.

BUT...

This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.

ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.

And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.

Another footnote...

I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island.

I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad.

If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined.

Terrible

[ricardoar · 1/10 · 8 January 2006]

How could they do this? How? For heavens sake, who in hell thought that doing this to a classic was a good idea? Do these people have any sense of the definition of respect? This was such a bad movie, my disappoint cannot be described in words, my childhood memories will forever be dented. Yes, 1 for awful, awful, rubbish, sad, terrifying. I just can't comprehend why they did this, it just won't/can't get through that someone, maybe even a group of people thought that making this movie was a good idea. Have they ever even seen the original series, did they or their children ever make the Blue Peter model? Nostalgia, lost forever. Utterly insane. I hope this helps people, its just a personal rant, but I'm sure a lot of people feel exactly the same way as me.

Isn't life fun sometimes.

[lamps · 7/10 · 9 August 2004]

From the moment I heard Thunderbirds was being made, there was no way I would not go to see it. I made my mind up to enjoy it and, in the event, had little difficulty doing so.

There was always going to be the risk that the film might be just yet another awesome special effects extravaganza. The delightfully imaginative title sequence reassured me it wasn't going to be yet another kids film made for grown ups. Effects there were, but not so overwhelming as to detract from the cranky charm of the original puppet show. A tastefully balanced production leaving plenty of scope for youthful imagination. Not too heavy for the little kids to follow yet impressive enough for the bigger ones to appreciate.

For the even bigger kids, Lady Penelope is the star of the show by a long way. Sophie Myles delightfully over the top delivery of a stream of plummy one liners is well worth the cost of a seat.

Right, that's quite enough losing for one day :-)

I love the Thunderbirds, but hate this movie

[doctardis · 1/10 · 26 February 2012]

I grew up watching the Thunderbirds. Watching the DVD versions show that they are more slowly paced than shows today. But, the Thunderbirds are cool. Even though they are just puppets. Miss Penelope was the coolest of them all. I think she was based on Sylvia Anderson. I am writing so much about the original, because there is so little to say about the movie. How they could talk something so cool and make it so bad is hard to imagine. There are wonderful actors in this. The story is worse then any of the original shows. It lacks humor, romance, action, adventure and coolness. How could this happen. All they had to do is take the best of the original stories. And why make Tin Tin a major character and do so little with Lady Penelope? I saw this movie twice with the hope that they would make another that would live up to the original.