Thunderbirds (2004) User Reviews (232)

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.

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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 :-)

For the kids... maybe.

[rainking_es · 4/10 · 9 August 2006]

I can vaguely remember that I watched some chapters of Thunderbirds when I was a child, but I haven't got a clear memory of them to judge the series. I mean, I haven't got many references to judge this adaptation so I'm gonna talk about what I've seen in the cinema.

In this adaptation the heroes are the children, what it means that it's a movie addressed to the youngest people, with characters that are stereotypes and a plot that's rather clumsy. It's supposed to have some comedy touches, although I didn't found'em.

What's more attractive about this version of "Thunderbirds" are the special effects and the digitally-made sequences. In short: the kids will probably enjoy watching' it...

*My rate: 4/10

Great for kids

[aidanrjones · 10/10 · 29 August 2018]

Despite the negativity that adults have said about this film, the movie is for kids, and they should be the ones rating it, I grew up watching this awesome film and it does not disappoint if you go into the movie expecting it to be a kids movie, the graphics and special effects are sick and although the acting is sub par, it wasn't meant to be brilliant, just a feel good movie based for kids, highly recommend

A great kids movie with a few titbits thrown in for us old 'uns ...

[quatermax-1 · 6/10 · 8 February 2008]

I deliberately waited until this came onto DVD before I wrote a review as I wanted to be able to study it in detail and give it a thorough examination. I had long imaged a live action version of the series and knew that the time, and the technology, was now right to achieve it. I deliberately avoided any pre-publicity as I wanted to review it on an 'as seen' basis.

So, with an open mind, I settled down to watch.

The opening PINK PANTHER/WHAT'S NEW PUSSYCAT style graphics are pretty good and give you a sense of the way the movie is going to be handled. Also a nice touch is the inclusion of the traditional countdown and a nifty arrangement of Barry Gray's famous theme. One thing I didn't like was that now the characters and not just the machines are called the Thunderbirds, but maybe this is a PC thing as there really is now an organisation called International Rescue (inspired by the original series of course) which helps out at various disaster areas around the globe. This brings me to another point – these disasters throughout the film are referred to as 'the accident area' or 'disaster site' or similar. What happened to the series catchphrase of 'Danger Zone'? Not once is it used. Also didn't like the way they kept pronouncing Jeff Tracy's manservant's name as K'eye'rano as opposed to K'ee'rano in the original. Even Parker says it. Of course the major changes in format are that Alan Tracy and K'eye'rano's daughter Tintin are now young teenagers and are joined by Brains' son (?) Fermat. Alan (Brady Corbet), who longs to 'be a Thunderbird' i.e., part of the team and not a hulking great lump of flying metal, is not yet taken seriously by either his father Jeff or his brothers and is going through the sulky teen stage we all know so well.

Basically the plot is that an evil (yet not very imaginative) villain (Ben Kingsley), who has monikered himself as 'The Hood' (see what I mean?), plans to steal the International Rescue machines and rob the world's major banks (I rest my case). To do this he lures Jeff and the older Tracy boys away from their secret island base by launching a missile attack on their orbiting space station Thunderbird 5. He has not counted however on the kids who remain on the island. SPY KIDS type slapstick ensues for a while but then the Thunderbird craft, which is after all what we really want to see, come back to the fore, but all too briefly. Finally the good guys win and Alan gets the recognition he craves.

It was OK. I did go through all the purist nitpicking (as you've probably gathered from my comments so far) like old farts like me are supposed to do when someone has the audacity to interfere with something held so dear, and ultimately I felt disappointed, as if I'd seen a missed opportunity to bring the old series literally to life.

And this is how my opinion would have remained if I'd seen it at the cinema. But this was a DVD. So - I watched it again.

This time I had now purged myself of the old Thunderbirds universe and embraced the new and it was actually a fun movie. I was no longer looking for errors or nitpicks and could concentrate on and enjoy the new format. Lady Penelope and Parker are great to watch in roles with wisecrack dialogue that hark back to another 60s series THE AVENGERS. The Tracy Island base, the Thunderbird craft and their launch sequences are lovingly visualised with suitable homage to the original designs and in fact reminded me greatly of Frank Bellamy's stylised renditions of the craft in the 60s comic book versions of their adventures and which were my first glimpse of the Thunderbirds in colour (and incidentally the only other place the Hood's name is mentioned – it never was in the series). There's also a lot of humour in there, particularly a 'blink and you'll miss it' close up shot of a hand at the controls of one of the Thunderbird craft – it has strings attached – exactly the opposite of what you'd see in the series. There the close up would be of a real hand.

My only remaining gripes are that for an International Rescue organisation, they do very little in the way of rescuing anyone. There's an initial oilrig fire where the rescue is shown on a TV monitor and then the rescue mission to Thunderbird 5, and these have both been staged by The Hood. Also the older Tracy brothers are given very little to do except have there names barked at them by father Jeff (Bill Paxton). Finally the Thunderbird craft, though they look terrific, convey very little power or weight and are a little too swift and feather light - more or less the same problem I found with THE HULK. Maybe these will all be addressed in future.

However, it's a great kids movie with a few titbits thrown in for us old 'uns – which is exactly how it should be, and if I, as a die-hard fan of the original, can accept it I see no reason why no one else should.

One more thing - Regarding the suspension of disbelief – I could accept the Thunderbirds flying up the Thames and under Tower Bridge, but all that clear blue sky and sunshine? In London? Come on….

F.A.B.

who is more wooden the actors of the original puppets

[chris402 · 1/10 · 15 May 2006]

wow i payed £3.50 to go see this movie at the cinema. Cant believe i wasted my time. The acting is cringe worthy at best and the special effects are crude. Probarly the worst script in history some extremely embarrassing quotes i have ever heard in my life. I swear to god 'swept away' is better than this. Madonna should of won and Oscar compared to these guys. An hour and a half of my life i want back. Honestly people don't see this, even toddler would find this movie an insult to their intelligence. i found this movie very strange in the fact that it was hard to tell who is more wooden, theses guys here of the actual puppets. pleas guys don't waste your time on this movie you will live to regret it.

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.

A balance between annoying and entertaining

[Alan-40 · 5/10 · 19 November 2005]

"The boys love their toys" remarks Lady Penelope, herself the possessor of a rather odd assortment of fetishes including the mechanical. (One could easily develop the urge to rummage through her closets and drawers if given the chance.) The movie gets the styling right, creating a super slick world in a universe that not only never existed, but couldn't possibly exist. The bizarrely well-written puppet show off of which this production is based survives quite well, even if the individual characters don't fare quite so well. It is a fantasy of generations of schoolboys prone to sketching spacecraft and warplanes in class rather than paying attention.

In order to buy into fantasy you have to overlook some of the personality quirks of the Tracy family (the heroes) who are narcissistic even by super-hero standards. What can you say about a father and five males who isolate themselves on an island with no outsiders except for servants and Lady Penelope, and whose idea for decor are twice life-sized back-illuminated pictures of themselves? The story of the youngest of this brood, Alan, is predictable and uninteresting because the kid has no concept of helping people. Instead he wants the glory and the hardware his older brothers have and that's it.

Keep an eye out for Vanessa Anne Hudgens, who plays the just-pubescent love interest/sidekick. She is nowhere with this movie but she has potential to break out as a big star.

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.

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.

"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!

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.

(SPOILER - refers to plot events) Not COMPLETELY awful...

[imdb-4336 · 6/10 · 23 August 2004]

Yeah, yeah, it's true what all the other reviews say, and you can see why Gerry Anderson publicly disassociated himself from the movie, but it's a bit of harmless entertainment. The problem is the expectations of an audience who grew up watching Thunderbirds on TV (and let's face it, with the frequent and popular re-runs that's every generation of kids from 1967 onwards, at least in the UK and US).

But if you can detach yourself from the emotional baggage the film is moderately entertaining. Let's look at the pluses for a moment. (It shouldn't take much longer than that.) It's fast moving, the special effects are competent, there are some good performances - Ron Cook as Parker in particular manages to capture the role's dead-pan humour without slavishly imitating the original - and some of the in-jokes for Thunderbird fans are okay. If you've got nothing else to do for an hour or two it's undemanding entertainment.

My 9-year-old daughter is a fan of the original TV series and she enjoyed the movie, though she felt let down by the tiny part played by the older Tracy brothers, who were the stars of the TV series. And that points to one of the two basic problems with this film.

With Thunderbirds, Stingray and Captain Scarlet, Anderson proved that kids' shows don't have to be ABOUT kids. They will happily identify with a group of adults so long as there's excitement and adventure to be had. There was no need for the whole Harry-Potter-esque bit (yes, we did notice that the characters of Alan, Tin Tin and Fermat correlated far too neatly to Harry, Hermione and Ron). It simply undermined the basic premise of the story and left fans feeling cheated.

Anderson's second great achievement was his no-compromise approach to production – he didn't want to be producing puppet shows, and he pushed his team to new limits in making the series as realistic as they could, on relatively tiny budgets. The movie turns this on its head, and tries to make the human actors look puppet-like; where Anderson's designers paid meticulous attention to detail, the movie just doesn't bother. They even rub the message in with an excruciating scene where the Hood makes Brains walk like a puppet (accompanied by the classic line "I can control you like a puppet on a string," just in case anyone was still too stupid to get the joke). Anthony Edwards as Brains spends most of the movie looking like he wishes he was somewhere else, but in this scene in particular the actor's embarrassment is tangible. Let's not even go into the stutter.

Look at the London scenes: here we are, half a century into the future, yet the crowds round Jubilee Gardens are dressed in 2003 styles (retro-chic, maybe?) and the Police are driving 50-year-old Ford Focuses (must have been some serious cutbacks in the Met's budget!). The only change to London in 50 years is a new monorail which looks much like the 1970s model still to be seen trundling round Britain's National Motor Museum at Beaulieu (another in-joke – Thunderbirds sometimes seemed to be monorail-obsessed, but perhaps we all were in 1967). It's sloppy and points to a production crew who just weren't taking the whole thing seriously.

And that, I think, why this movie has been panned so badly. It was made by people with no affection for their subject matter, and no respect for Anderson's achievement - and it shows. Perhaps they didn't realize just how much of their potential audience that attitude would upset. If you can overlook that, or if you have no strong feelings either way about Thunderbirds, you'll get a few laughs out of it.

True fans, meanwhile, should avoid this film if easily upset - they'll just have to wait patiently for the new Anderson-backed TV series of Captain Scarlet to emerge...

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.

A "Thunderbirds" for the 21st Century (minor spoilers)

[Huffy1968 · 8/10 · 8 December 2004]

First things first: I am a lifelong fan of the original TV series and the two movies it spawned. I watched it religiously while I was growing up, and still enjoy it today, despite now being almost as old as the series itself. The fact that a live-action motion picture has been made, almost 40 years after the series premiered, is a testament to just how beloved the Thunderbirds series still is after all this time - or of course, that Hollywood is still very much in the habit of plundering old TV series for inspiration...

Expecting a faithful carbon copy of the TV series? Forget it. Times have changed. Different decade - different century. This is Thunderbirds for now - younger heroes, sleeker ships. Who said this is a kid's film? This is for anyone with a sense of wonder and fun. After some hugely negative reviews, I was nervous. The lack of involvement by series co-creator Gerry Anderson - through no fault of his own - is lamentable, which left me wondering how the format would stand up after four decades. I ended up very pleasantly surprised. Jonathan Frakes' movie is colourful, humorous, fun and exciting; all the best qualities of the series. The animated opening sequence captures the tone perfectly, while setting the scene for those unfamiliar with the characters and format. And, thankfully, playing over it is the late Barry Gray's totally unforgettable Thunderbirds theme, reworked by score composer Hans Zimmer. By the end of the opening credits, I had relaxed. And what followed I thoroughly enjoyed.

Visually, the film is a treat. The CGI effects are seamless - there is colour everywhere. The production design is superb, the retro-futuristic look of Tracy Island is perfect. And this being Thunderbirds, the most important question is how those fantastic vehicles have been adapted for today. The updated designs are all great, even if Thunderbird 2 appears a little too wide. It's just a pity they're not on screen a bit more often, but the balance has changed for today's audiences. Then, the vehicles were the stars, to hide the limitations of the puppet medium; now, they serve the characters. FAB 1, Lady Penelope's gadget-packed car, is now a Ford. It's a pity BMW had to be such spoilsports in denying the use of the Rolls Royce brand, but their loss is Ford's gain, and they certainly make use of it - too much, in fact. This for me is the biggest criticism of the film, as times Ford's product placement is so blatant it borders on the absurd.

The casting is fine. Bill Paxton is a strong, earnest Jeff; seeing him declare "Thunderbirds Are Go!" during the film without a hint of irony was welcome. Sir Ben Kingsley was clearly having fun as the Hood, and Anthony Edwards, despite some initial misgivings at his casting, came across well as a quieter, more studious Brains. Brady Corbet convinces as the adolescent Alan Tracy, deftly handling the frustrated wish-fulfillment of his youth, to the sense of responsibility of his impending adulthood and membership of International Rescue. The other four Tracy brothers do not fare as well - not as victims of poor acting, but by the limitations of screen time. Messrs Shrapnel, Winchester, Torgersen and Colenso do fine with the few lines each they are given, but the characters come across as too similar, and are not referred to often enough by name on screen. But the jewels in the casting crown are, of course, Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope and Ron Cook as Parker. They are both absolutely wonderful, Myles bringing a sexy, knowing edge to Penelope's very British pink elegance, Cook the perfect Cockney foil. Their scenes are simply faultless. Special mention should go to Fermat, a character created specifically for the film. The idea of Brains having a son is quite amusing, and Soren Fulton and Edwards interact very well.

Which brings us to the script, and the biggest fault with it. The almost incessant gags at the expense of their stuttering, sadly mar the scenes featuring Brains and Fermat, whether together or separately. In the TV series, it was merely a mannerism for International Rescue's inventor, and was never made fun of - here, it is lampooned horribly, which soon became tiresome and is totally unnecessary. The one exception is a scene where the Hood makes demands, and the expression that crosses Sir Ben Kingsley's face as Brains tries to refuse - struggling with what we think might be a certain word (beginning with "F") - is a joy to behold. Despite some trite dialogue and a few cheesy lines, the script serves the basic plot of the film perfectly adequately. Spy Kids? I wouldn't know. The purists might scoff, but have they forgotten that Alan plays a much larger part than his brothers in both the 1960s movies, "Thunderbirds Are Go!" and "Thunderbird 6"? And they might say there are not enough rescues in the 2004 version - actually more civilians are saved here than in both those films combined. This is Alan's journey, as he gets his wish to become a fully-fledged member of the family business. He is younger than in the series, as are many of the other characters - but if we are talking about a possible Thunderbirds movie franchise, we don't want the actors to get too old too quickly.

So, will there be a sequel? I hope so. Some more peril, certainly more destruction, and a bit more screen time for certain characters and vehicles would be very welcome. But as it stands – how else can I put it? - Thunderbirds are GO! 8/10.

A rough gem that never got a fair chance.

[flurried · 7/10 · 3 January 2005]

'Thunderbirds' was, unfortunately, destined to do lousy with most viewers. Not because of acting, writing, or style, but simply because it is a remake of a UK show from the 1960s of the same name, a sci-fi series featuring marionettes as the actors. And what Hollywood remake really does well with audiences? The movie 'Thunderbirds', from Star Trek alumni Jonathan Frakes, takes the characters from the original show and breathes life into them. But that is where the similarities end as far as I can see.

Unlike the original series, the film is really made for kids and families. It is more or less a teen flick, featuring a good looking boy and girl as the leads to get adolescent viewers excited. But for grown-up audiences, we get to enjoy the talents of Bill Paxton, Anthony Edwards, and Ben Kingsly. The story itself, about the youngest Tracy and his goal to join his father and brothers as Thunderbirds, is goofy and silly in an incredibly fun way. If I had kids, I'd gladly take them to see it. There isn't a serious overuse of CG in this film and the viewers are taken to some pretty exotic places as the story unfolds.

The only flaw to the film is that the plot is horribly clichéd. But if you can sit back, relax, let go of your bias, you are sure to enjoy 'Thunderbirds'. The lack of graphic violence, the goofy nature of the story, the fun atmosphere, and the talents of many wonderful actors really make this little gem a fun romp- If you can allow yourself to enjoy it.

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.