Thunderpants (2002)

Thanks for the memories!

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Spoiler as some prefer stories to just be stories and Thunderpants can be very nice just as that. I purchased the DVD as it is early Anna Popplewell, I was impressed by her in The Little Vampire. I tend to cringe at features that have lots of bad language, so the reviews here gave me qualms, but I found the language to be * mostly * no problem at all. It is mostly very 'elementary school' level language and humour. Rupert's acting style underlining that. Some cringe at such, I cringe at other. This will not be for everyone, but I find it to be very appropriate humour in this particular story. The bad language exception is one I solve by trying to look the other way. Holy mackerel, mullet and cod. One of the main characters of the final scenes is a religious fundamentalist of the praise the lord type, just his praises are a real pain. My guess is that the storyteller got carried away by personal politics and worked to stop this from being a comedy that can transcend borders. Uncle Buck was slightly worse. These two do not attempt to transcend borders or build bridges, that is left to the viewer. Thunderpants could easily have had some fundamentalists really loving potty humour. Some, but maybe not so many. Could be that Thunderpants and Uncle Buck both try to tell their individual story well, then look to Heathers in a wrong sort of way and misuse Heathers by allowing it to be inspiration to give their own work disease. With both I need to 'look the other way' in a very specific and careful way. In this case I then try to say clearly what I feel the problem to be. I experience Thunderpants as more of a parable than most fiction. I now doubt that some of the bad reviews stem from objections to the symbolic language, such as the abundance of Morris Minors in racing green, a complex English symbolism. I interpret that symbol as not so much including a reference to a mini skirt, which it can, but more to a traditional dance form that includes a stick and a bladder. The dance is also referred to in the fairground scene of Ian Fleming's Chitty Chitty Bang Bang of 1968, the old bamboo. I read the dance as including allusions to an English form of ? Penada, penar, penado? I interpret the execution, my DVD commentary mentions more than one, as referring to a very real English reality. I say that as an underclass. Even more, I was drawn to Apollo 13 of 1995 as it is an Emily Ann Lloyd, but was disenchanted by how the director turned much of the reality upside down. That messes up my appreciation of Grinch of 2000, which in itself is quality. This 2002 feature feels like a parable about that sort of turning upside down, as if Thunderpants Are Go to coming to the defence of the realities of the Apollo 13 flight and to a lot more too. This story gets big things wrong and big things right. There is not much Anna in this feature. I still rate it a lot. Even more than Narnia. When I manage to look the other way, cheek turned. Predictably, there is a region 2 version of this UK feature, just I could not find it when I purchased.

My kids, husband and I were not happy about the many times God's name was used in vain. This movie was obviously geared toward children, what adult would rent a movie like that? Why does anyone feel the need to say G.D. so many times in a movie, ESPECIALLY in a children's movie!!!! I am convinced there is a conspiracy to indoctrinate children to think that calling God's name in vain is completely okay. It's not! I would like to hear the comments of the writers or the director about this. Why did they think it was okay to do this. The fact that I have to write 10 lines of context in order to get my point across is stupid too. I could have done it in two lines.

I enjoyed it and would recommend to to anybody looking for a bit of escapism. Thunderpants, at it's core, is just a story of hope, wrapped up in a ridiculous storyline. For me, it's simplicity, was the best bit.Even better, along the way, it finds time to mock José Carreras & Plácido Domingo and poke fun at everything from the British legal system to NASA to duplicitous individuals. And finally, one the movie's best touches is, it creates a world were kids are more than equal of their adult counterparts.I can't help but feel that a lot of people who saw this film took it alittle too seriously :), it is after all supposed to be, well.... fun.

'Tis a shame how this film got such a pathetic rating on IMDb and ended up on the bottom 100. This film proves that fart humour is still as strong as it ever was, with its rich characters, hilarious situations and original script. Of course, it isn't going to win any Oscars, but it makes for a hell of a laugh, and you really get to know and care about Patrick in a really short space of time - it took 10 minutes for me to get interested in the film. None of the special effects are bad either - not even the outer space scenes are badly done. I don't really care what anybody else thinks - I think Thunderpants is a great British kid's film, that will entertain anyone. Of course, it is as predictable as hell, but which film isn't these days? At least it is understandable and not insulting, and actually carries a very important message that you should ruminate on after the film finishes.This is fart humour at its very best, and should really be a high 6 or a low 7. So I say this to every IMDb voter - get Thunderpants off the bottom 100! 9/10 P.S. To everybody who gave this a 1 - I'd like to see you make your own films and see how bad they truly are before you mouth off about other people's work.