‘THUNDERBIRDS’

Please feel free to comment on my review.

The Mostly Despised ‘Thunderbirds’ Movie

‘Thunderbirds’ should be an easy TV show to turn into a live-action film, shouldn’t it?

I love ‘Thunderbirds’! That is, I love the original 1960s ‘Thunderbirds’ TV show! I loved watching it when I was a kid back in the 1990s and I continue to enjoy it to this day! I love the two 1960s films based on the TV show and I used to enjoy playing with the ‘Thunderbirds’ toys I had when I was as a kid.

Lately, I’ve checked out the three ‘Thunderbirds’ anniversary episodes on Britbox and I greatly enjoyed them. I’ve also enjoyed the ‘Terror From The Stars’ novel/audiobook from Anderson Entertainment/Big Finish. I’ve not seen the ‘Thunderbird Are Go’ 2015 series yet, but I hear it’s good.

There haven’t been that many live-action versions of ‘Thunderbirds’ though. There might be parodies of ‘Thunderbirds’ with live actors acting like puppets for spoofs or something, but there haven’t been many versions of ‘Thunderbirds’ where live-action is used instead of using puppetry. 😐

I’d like to think ‘Thunderbirds’ is an easy TV show to make into a live-action film, especially with the real-life perilous rescue missions that make for compelling action-packed drama. Sadly that didn’t seem to be the case when it came to the 2004 film “ARGH!!!!!!!” or simply known as ‘Thunderbirds’. 😀

How can a live-action film version of ‘Thunderbirds’ end up being a mostly despised product by ‘Thunderbirds’ fans? That was probably the challenge given to director Jonathan Frakes, who is well-known to ‘Star Trek’ fans for playing William T. Riker in the show ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’. 😦

Now, I want to make it clear that I don’t think Jonathan Frakes is a bad director. He’s proven to be a good director on many ‘Star Trek’ episodes I’ve seen, including in shows like ‘The Next Generation’, ‘Deep Space Nine’, ‘Voyager’ and ‘Picard’. ‘Star Trek: First Contact’ is still my very favourite ‘Star Trek’ film!

Whilst people are divided over ‘Star Trek: Insurrection’ as a film, I still have a soft spot for it and can find merit in it. And at least it was decently put-together by Jonathan Frakes himself. However, when it comes to some of his non-‘Star Trek’ stuff, they’re not as successful as you and I would like to think. 😦

Another film he directed called ‘Clockstoppers’ (I’ve not seen it yet), which was made in 2002, wasn’t well-received by critics. Now, you could argue Jonathan Frakes was given plenty of edicts by three studio companies once they interfered with the making of ‘Thunderbirds’ as a live action film. 😦

But it doesn’t seem to be the case when Jonathan Frakes seems to be given full credit for making this film. Yeah! This happens to be ‘A Jonathan Frakes Film’ according to the opening credits. I don’t know how ‘Thunderbirds’ fans rate Jonathan Frakes, but I can imagine it can’t be a very good rating.

Another issue regarding this film’s production is that it has no Gerry Anderson involvement! He who co-created ‘Thunderbirds’ with his then wife Sylvia Anderson had no input in the making of the 2004 film! As I understand it, Gerry was invited to be a creative consultant, but his services weren’t used.

And would you know it, Gerry Anderson hated the film when he eventually saw it on DVD. From the man who hated John Tracy and had him stuck up on Thunderbird 5 for most of the original TV show, that’s saying a lot. I don’t blame him for hating the film, as it’s disrespectful to not have him involved.

Mind you, on the other end of the spectrum, Sylvia Anderson claimed to have a different opinion to her former husband. She gave the film high praise and said the production team paid a great compliment in bringing her and Gerry’s original concept of ‘Thunderbirds’ to life on the big screen. 😐

Um, that’s unusual to know Sylvia said that as opposed to what Gerry said. Back in 2004, I was hyped about seeing the new ‘Thunderbirds’ film. From seeing the trailers and seeing ‘Shrek 2’ and ‘Spider-Man 2’ at the cinema, I hoped the 2004 ‘Thunderbirds’ film would be a brilliant cinema experience. 🙂

Sadly, when I came away from watching the film at the cinema, I couldn’t help feel…well, rather unsatisfied. The 2004 film doesn’t match to what I know about ‘Thunderbirds’ in the original 1960s TV show. The film is played more as a comedy film for kids as opposed to an action-packed thriller. 😐

This is baffling when you consider the many opportunities the filmmakers could have taken with adapting a 1960s TV show into an action-packed live-action film. When I watched ‘Thunderbirds’ as a kid, I remember it being fully compelling drama. It was arguably more grown-up than other shows. 😦

But it doesn’t come across in the film’s output and as Gerry Anderson rightly pointed out, the filmmakers didn’t seem to get what made ‘Thunderbirds’ tick and what the original TV show was all about. I’ll try my best to explain what I mean by that as I delve more into the problems the film has. 🙂

I also hope to raise some good points about the film (and yes, there is some good to say about this film upon revisiting it) and I hope to establish what I think could have made the film better had it gone in a different direction. A direction that would have been respectful to the original TV show’s premise!

The film focuses on a young Alan Tracy who wants to be a member of the International Rescue team. In the film, the Hood attempts to trap Jeff Tracy and his four sons Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John aboard Thunderbird 5, which he damages in the process. He also attempts to commit bank heists. 😐

Alan and his friends Tin-Tin and Fermat (more on him later) do their best to stop the Hood and his minions in their evil plans. With the help of Lady Penelope and Parker, our International Rescue heroes soon find a way to stop the Hood, thwart his diabolical plans and restore the Thunderbirds’ name.

First off, the film opens on an immediately positive thing – the ‘Thunderbirds’ theme music originally composed by Barry Gray and rearranged by the film’s music composer Hans Zimmer! I honestly feel the ‘Thunderbirds’ theme music featured in the 2004 film is a very decent rendition by Hans Zimmer.

It got me buzzed for the ‘Thunderbirds’ movie I was hoping to see and it was made even more exciting in the film’s opening credits sequence, featuring various Thunderbirds rescues throughout. For a short while, I hoped the film would be very good and Hans Zimmer’s music is very good indeed.

Sadly, you would have to tone down your expectations once the opening credits and the theme music has finished, as the ‘Thunderbirds’ movie you’re hoping to see isn’t what you’re going to get. So, let’s talk about the first problem concerning this film and it’s right at the very beginning – Alan Tracy at school.

Yeah, I had issues with Alan being a teenager and going to school in the film. In the original TV show, Alan was an already established team member of the International Rescue team – or as they simply call themselves in the film: the Thunderbirds (more later). Why have Alan be a kid and not an adult?

Now to be fair, I can see what the film is trying to do. The story it’s trying to go for is to have Alan grow up and become a member of International Rescue. That would have been great if the film took on an approach of us seeing Alan going through stages in his life where the Thunderbirds get built. 🙂

That would have been a much more interesting story. Giving us the origins of Alan being an IR member as well as seeing Jeff Tracy getting the Thunderbirds built on Tracy Island with Brains’ help. If the film was 2 hours instead of 1½ hours, it probably would have accommodated both origin stories.

That’s not the case with this film. Alan’s brothers Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John are already IR members and his father Jeff is mostly involved with the rescue missions they go on. A bit strange considering Jeff usually stayed on Tracy Island to monitor rescues missions, but more on that later. 🙂

I don’t blame the actor Brady Corbet who plays Alan doing his best with the material he’s been given. He’s clearly trying to play Alan as someone who aspires to be like his father Jeff and be an IR member. I could get behind that character journey if the writing was better and if Alan was likeable.

But as it turns out, Alan is…um…Tin-Tin, how did you describe Alan?

Tin-Tin: (to Alan) You can be a real jerk sometimes.

Yeah, that’s it. Most of the time, Alan comes across as whiny, immature and sometimes quite mean-spirited. This is something I don’t remember Alan being when I saw him in the original TV show. He was young, yes, and he could be a little immature, but he was charming and likeable at the same time. 🙂

In this movie, Alan is meant to be the main hero we’re supposed to root for. The kid you could relate to in wanting to be an IR member and pilot the Thunderbirds. But a lot of Alan’s actions are debatable and he’s not exactly a good role model for young kids growing up whilst watching the film.

Now going back to the point I was making about the IR team not being called IR. Yeah! A lot of the time, our Tracy Island characters refer to themselves as the Thunderbirds, not IR. There’s like only one mention of them being called International Rescue in the opening credits and…that’s about it. 😐

It can get confusing when the IR team call themselves Thunderbirds when the actual machines they use are called Thunderbirds. Hearing Alan say he wants to be a Thunderbird sounds silly. It’d be better to shorten International Rescue to IR for our characters to say they want to be an IR member.

Anyway, time to talk about another positive thing about this film. Early on, we have a rescue mission take place at an oil rig, involving Thunderbirds 1 and 2. Watching the film again, I found this a pretty impressive sequence. It was great to see the Thunderbirds vehicles doing an actual rescue mission. 🙂

In fact, I’d go far to say the Thunderbird vehicles are very impressive in terms of their design. I wish the launch sequences were better to match the style of the launch sequences featured in the original TV show with the ‘Thunderbirds’ theme music, but overall, the vehicles themselves are brilliant.

However, in watching the film again, I realise there’s not much rescuing that happens in the film. You’d think that would be the case when watching a ‘Thunderbirds’ film in that there’d be plenty of rescues. But most of them are in the opening credits and in the film’s beginning and the film’s end. 😦

This is very disappointing and I can imagine a lot of ‘Thunderbirds’ fans’ high expectations were sadly squandered whilst watching this film when they realised that not much rescuing was happening. At least the two ‘Thunderbirds’ films from the 1960s were decent enough to include proper rescues. 😐

Let’s talk more about the cast in the film. The late Bill Paxton plays Jeff Tracy in the film. Honestly, I think Bill Paxton is great to play Jeff in the film. He does seem younger compared to his original TV show counterpart, but I could get behind the commanding presence he had once he was playing Jeff.

I’ve seen Bill Paxton before in two ‘Spy Kids’ films – ‘Spy Kids 2: The Island of Lost Dreams’ and ‘Spy Kids 3D: Game Over’ (Remember the ‘Spy Kids’ thing. I’ll mention this again later on). It’s odd to see Jeff involved in the rescue missions as opposed to sitting behind his desk like his TV counterpart did. 😐

Maybe if this film was a prequel to the events of the original TV show where Jeff was actively involved in the rescue missions before he decided to take a backseat and allowed Alan to have more active involvement in them, this could have made sense. Sadly, this film isn’t a prequel to the original.

There is a nice scene between Jeff and Alan where they talk about how important it is to save lives even when you can’t save the ones you love and they talk about Alan’s mother, which I do appreciate. I also found the scene where Alan saves the Hood’s life on its own very good to watch. 🙂

Sir Ben Kingsley stars as the Hood, the Thunderbirds’ arch-nemesis in the film. Now I’m sure Ben Kingsley is a great actor. I’ve seen him as Fagin in the 2005 ‘Oliver Twist’ film to know he can be very good. But when it comes to films like this one and ‘Iron Man 3’, Ben Kingsley’s acting can be…dodgy.

Simply put, I didn’t take to his portrayal of the Hood in the film. I know others might praise him highly, but I didn’t think he was a convincing enough Hood for me. For one thing, he was softly spoken whereas in the original TV show, Ray Barrett provided a rich deeper voice that was terrifying.

Also, he doesn’t hypnotise people with his eye powers to knock them out. Instead he has mind-control powers which make him weak whenever he uses them on people. Also, the Hood in this film isn’t a master of disguise as he was in the TV show. That’s the reason why he was called the Hood! 😐

The Hood could wear a variety of disguises and he could easily get away without being caught by the police or by IR itself. What happens in this film? Yeah! The Hood gets caught by the police and IR at the end! How am I supposed to feel intimidated by the Hood when he isn’t intimidating throughout?

It’s also odd that Jonathan Frakes cast Ben Kingsley to be the Hood whereas he could have cast his long-term ‘Star Trek’ colleague Patrick Stewart. I think Patrick Stewart would have been great to play the Hood in a ‘Thunderbirds’ film. Perhaps his commitments in the ‘X-Men’ films prevented him from doing that.

It’s a shame the Hood’s origins and motivations aren’t explored enough and how he knows about IR. I mean, yeah, he says IR failed to save his family once and that he’s getting revenge because he suffered, but it doesn’t match to his motivations on why he would want to rob banks in the world.

It’s also interesting that IR get to meet the Hood in the flesh in this film. The original TV series didn’t do that very much. Yeah, there are occasional encounters as in ‘Martian Invasion’, ‘The Abominable Snowman’ and ‘Terror From The Stars’, but IR didn’t know much on who the Hood was as an enemy.

The film also features Lady Penelope, I mean Lady Penelope, I mean Lady Penelope, I mean Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope, I mean…Lady Penelope! Yeah! Despite this film being very bad, Lady Penelope is someone I can give high praise for. It’s amazing Sophia Myles is spot-on casting as her. 🙂

From most of her fashion sense and style to getting the voice right for Lady P to even seeing her in a bubble bath and being given a cup of tea by Parker. If this film wasn’t so bad, Sophia Myles could have easily saved the film with her amazing performance as Lady Penelope, as it’s just so instantly likeable here.

The same thing can be said for Ron Cook as Parker. He’s amazingly brilliant in playing the character and being a good second to the double act formed by him and Sophia Myles as Lady Penelope. It can be argued Lady Penelope and Parker are the best thing in the film as they are in the original TV show. 🙂

Their fight scene with the Hood’s henchmen on Tracy Island can be a bit dodgy, especially with the cartoon sound effects added for a comedic effect (Why add cartoon sound effects? It makes no sense). But on the whole, Lady Penelope and Parker are two characters I can easily enjoy in the film.

The same can’t be said though for FAB1. Yeah, let’s get this over. Apparently, FAB1 in the 2004 film isn’t a Rolls-Royce as in the original TV show. In the film, it’s a Ford. Yeah! Unusual car make to go with, but what the heck? As I gather, the production team couldn’t get a Rolls-Royce car for FAB1. 😐

Now the issue with FAB1 being a Ford instead of a Rolls-Royce doesn’t bother me. If the film didn’t mention FAB1 was a Ford and if there weren’t so many product placements by Ford throughout the film, I would be willing to let it slide and accept the fact this happened to be Lady Penelope’s car.

My problem with FAB1 in the film is that it’s so ugly-looking. It doesn’t look like a proper car at all! At least in the TV series, FAB1 looked decent enough as a car. The filmmakers could have gone for a standard Ford car, painted it pink and that would have been fine. Instead, it looks so overdesigned!

Another issue I need to raise about the film is the forced jokes put in to establish the fact that this is based on a 1960s puppet TV show. That wouldn’t be a big issue if the film took itself seriously and didn’t play out as a comedy for families to enjoy. Instead, the Hood says when controlling Brains’ mind:

The Hood: Like a puppet on a string. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Because this is based on a puppet show! IT’S BASED ON A PUPPET SHOW!!!!! (laughs hysterically) HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!

Other jokes featured in the film include Alan being bullied by a ‘Know It All Kid’ at school who calls him a ‘Thunder-turd’ and Alan calls him ‘diaper boy’ back. I look forward to where that goes nowhere. There’s also a ‘Panhead’ kid at a hospital in the film. I also look forward to where that goes nowhere.

Okay, let’s talk about another character and an actor’s performance I have problems with – Anthony Edwards as Brains. Now, I’m sure Anthony Edwards is a good actor and likewise with Brady Corbet and Sir Ben Kingsley, he’s doing the best with the material he’s given. But I didn’t warm to his Brains.

I know that sounds strange the way I wrote that ( 😀 ), but I’m not a fan of his portrayal of Brains as a character. For one thing, in this film, Brains stutters a lot. That’s not how David Graham voiced Brains in the TV show. When Brains talked, he would speak fast and stumble on words as he spoke. 🙂

You get that Brains is a genius when he has to think fast. When he talks, he’s working things out per second and it can be a challenge to get all the words out in one go. But at least you get what he’s trying to say to other characters and it doesn’t feel awkward that he’s saying things to make a point.

Here, when Brains talks, it just feels so uncomfortable that he can’t get the words out he wants to say and often changes them into something else. Anthony Edwards seems to be uncomfortable with playing the character of Brains. There’s even a point where he almost uttered the F-bomb in the film.

Brains: Fu-Fu… no way.

(startled) Err…Jonathan Frakes, THIS IS A KIDS’ FILM!!! Also, Brains happens to have a real name in the film – which is Hackenbacker. Um, that’s an alias used by Brains in the episode ‘Alias Mr. Hackenbacker’. It wasn’t his real name! Interesting that the film decided to make that his real name. 😐

Another cringing moment with Brains is when he read a magazine upside-down whilst the Hood and his minions are trying to get into IR HQ. Um, why would he read a magazine upside-down? You’re being invaded by enemies, Brains! Surely you should be defending the base up to the very last man!

Another issue I need to raise about this film is that the automatic camera detector aboard Thunderbird 1 isn’t featured in the film. This is especially annoying when a tracking beacon in the form of goo hits Thunderbird 1 and nobody noticed. HOW COULD NOBODY HAVE NOTICED THAT?!!!

If Thunderbird 1 had tracking equipment and it could have detected the goo, maybe Tracy Island would have avoided being invaded by the Hood and his minions. Maybe this was a special type of goo that the Hood created which IR couldn’t detect, but it’s never established in the film’s storytelling. 😡

Right, let’s talk about two more problems in the film which involve two characters that are meant to be Alan’s best friends. First there’s Soren Fulton as Fermat, Brain’s son… Wait! Brains has a son in this?! Um, that’s odd. In the original TV show, Brains never had a son. Where did Fermat come from?

Who’s his mother? Who was Brains’ wife? Did he even have a wife? These are questions I shouldn’t be asking and this ends up being like Sulu having a daughter which we didn’t know about in ‘Star Trek: Generations’. It’s clear Fermat is meant to be a mini carbon copy of Brains that Alan befriends.

Now I can get why the filmmakers created Fermat as a character. Obviously, they wanted Alan to have a best friend to interact with since there aren’t that many children to play with on Tracy Island. If Alan and Fermat as best friends were to work, it should have been done with really clever writing.

Sadly, that’s not the case here as Fermat comes across as more annoying than Alan. In fact, Fermat is more Brains-like than the actual Brains character is in the story. Fermat doesn’t stutter much as his father. In fact, wouldn’t it have been better to switch the two characters’ personalities around here?

Fermat could have been the stuttering character trying to speak properly whereas Brians was already speaking properly despite having to talk so fast and thinking fast per second. In fact, the film could have gone in a direction where Alan met Brains at school while growing up to be an IR member.

The friendship between Alan and Fermat is rather flat for me. Alan is meant to be the reckless one and Fermat is meant to the one telling Alan to think first before he acts, but it doesn’t come across well. That moment where Alan apologises to Fermat is not strongly compelling as it should have been.

Also, Fermat’s left hand seems to have the ability to turn into a Supermarionation puppet hand when he and Alan are piloting Thunderbird 1. Um, can humans change into puppets in this universe? I know I joked that as a kid, I thought the puppets were real people, but I wasn’t serious about it! 😡

And then there’s Vanessa Anne Hudgens as Tin-Tin Kyrano…or Tin-Tin Belagant, as she’s credited in the film (Why did they change her name…? (gives up) You know what? I don’t care). Now Tin-Tin has a similar problem in terms of character development when she’s interacting with Alan and Fermat whilst rescuing Tracy Island.

In the film, it’s indicated that Alan and Tin-Tin have romantic interests in each other. This…doesn’t come across very well in both the actors’ performances and how their characters are depicted. Look, I’m not saying that Alan and Tin-Tin’s relationship in the original TV show was all very lovey-dovey. 😐

I like Alan and Tin-Tin fine enough in the original show, but they weren’t a proper romantic couple. There were hints of them liking each other and Tin-Tin even wanted to be with Alan in ‘Thunderbird 6’. You get the relationship between them, since it’s nice and sweet to appreciate they like each other. 🙂

Yet in this film, I don’t think Alan and Tin-Tin like each other very much. It’s said by Lady Penelope that Tin-Tin is interested in Alan, and Fermat says he’s noticed Alan has a crush on Tin-Tin, but it’s never expressed in the two characters that are meant to be having romantic interests in each other.

Alan seems more interested in being an IR member (Oh I’m sorry, ‘a Thunderbird’ – Gosh, that sounds stupid!!!) than in Tin-Tin. Tin-Tin also gives an impression of not wanting to be around Alan, even when he tells her she’s blossoming and she goes “Ew!” Wouldn’t it be better to say she looks pretty, Alan? 😐

If the relationship between Alan and Tin-Tin was more on the lines of (and I can’t believe I’m saying this) Peter Parker and Michelle Jones (Yes, I know she’s called ‘MJ’, but I’m not calling that) in the ‘MCU Spider-Man’ films, maybe I would appreciate them more as two teens crushing on each other.

As is, and if I may use Tin-Tin’s line a bit, Alan and Tin-Tin’s relationship is so ‘ewwy’. By the way, Vanessa Hudgens would go on to be in the ‘High School Musical’ films. Nice for her. 🙂 And she would later make some insensitive remarks in a video about people dying from Covid-19 (Pause) Whoops!!!

Incidentally, Tin-Tin has mind-control powers the same as the Hood does in this film. I don’t mind this, as it’s actually a good idea and something that was never explored in the original TV show, considering the Hood is Tin-Tin’s uncle. I wish that had been explored more when watching the film.

Also, I think it would have been better if the Hood had eye powers that hypnotised people to knock them out whilst Tin-Tin had the mind-control powers, which is a variant of the same powers in the Hood’s family bloodline. It would make the film more intriguing in exploring different characters. 🙂

And now we come to something that I think is a big issue with this film. You see, as already established, when watching the ‘Thunderbirds’ film, I expected this to be a full-on ‘Thunderbirds’ film experience, featuring lots of rescue missions and our characters, including the Tracy brothers, willing to save lives.

But weirdly, this film is done like…well, I’ve mentioned Bill Paxton being in the ‘Spy Kids’ films, so it’s time to mention them again. The film is done like a ‘Spy Kids’ movie. Now if you’ve not seen ‘Spy Kids’, it’s essentially a film series where two kids want to become secret agents like their parents. 😀

I’ve seen the ‘Spy Kids’ films and I love the original three (not so much fussed on the fourth film). But ‘Thunderbirds’ (2004) isn’t meant to be a ‘Spy Kids’ film with Thunderbirds in them. It’s meant to be an actual full-on ‘Thunderbirds’ film. The impression I’m getting with the 2004 film is that it’s like ‘Spy Kids’.

It’s clearly shown with Alan, Fermat and Tin-Tin rescuing their families from the Hood; wanting to be IR members; and getting to pilot the Thunderbirds. That feels wrong somehow, since kids shouldn’t pilot Thunderbird crafts. Piloting Thunderbirds is a responsible thing and only the adults should do it.

If more thought and time was devoted in how Alan went from a young teenager to a responsible adult along with Fermat and Tin-Tin joining him, maybe this film would have worked well with the emotional impact it needed. Sadly, it comes across as giving the kids the rewards they don’t deserve.

The film also features Philip Winchester as Scott Tracy, Dominic Colenso as Virgil Tracy, Ben Torgersen as Gordon Tracy and Lex Shrapnel as John Tracy. Now if you think I’m skipping these characters, I need to tell you that I’m not. I really want to talk a lot about the other Tracy brothers. 🙂

Yet, it’s so difficult to do that when they barely feature in this film. Yeah! This ‘Thunderbirds’ film is meant to be about the Tracy brothers and their bravery on rescue missions in their Thunderbird crafts! In the end, apart from Alan, the four remaining Tracy brothers get relegated to the sidelines!

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?!!! Look, the reason for wanting to watch the ‘Thunderbirds’ movie as well as seeing the Thunderbirds vehicles is to see your favourite characters from the  original TV show. I feel I know more about the characters’ counterparts in the original TV show as opposed to the 2004 film!

In the original TV show, you got who the Tracy brothers were. Scott is the level-headed one and is always the first there in the danger zone aboard Thunderbird 1. Virgil is the fearless one and willing to try anything out aboard Thunderbird 2. Gordon isn’t that great a character in the original show.

Yet I recall him wanting to be a part of the rescue missions and being willing to help others, especially in piloting Thunderbird 4. John isn’t well-developed as a character in the TV show, but like Gordon, I at least remember him wanting to be in a rescue mission like in ‘Danger at Ocean Deep’.

What do we know about Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John in the 2004 film? Well, they’re there. And Scott, Virgil and Gordon like to talk about previous missions whilst having dinner. John also wants pizza delivery whilst aboard Thunderbird 5. And they love to throw Alan about in the swimming pool.

Um, is there anything else?

Cuddles checks his clipboard and ticks something off.

Cuddles: No, I think you’ve covered everything there is to say about them, Master.

Huh, I suppose I have.

How is it this ‘Thunderbirds’ film can’t get it right with making the Tracy brothers as important characters like they were in the original TV show? It felt so disappointing when I watched the film back in 2004 and I can’t believe the filmmakers made a huge misstep in not understanding the show.

The film also features Bhasker Patel as Kyrano Belagant (not simply Kyrano as in the original show) and there’s Harvey Virdi as Onaha, Tin-Tin’s mom. Um, shouldn’t that be Grandma Tracy as in the original show? Why did they think having Tin-Tin’s mom instead of Grandma Tracy was a good idea?

There are also the Hood’s henchmen: Deobia Oparei as Mullion and Rose Keegan as Transom. Honestly, Mullion and Transom got more screen-time compared to Scott, Virgil, Gordon and John. And annoying so! Transom also tries to make it out with Brains, which is very uncomfortable to watch.

The film also features Genie Francis as Lisa Lowe, a news reporter who often appears during the Thunderbirds’ rescue missions and there are often Ford product placements in the news headlines. Incidentally, Genie Francis happens to be the wife of director Jonathan Frakes. Nice bit of casting! 🙂

As well as the Thunderbirds vehicles, there are also the pod vehicles used in Thunderbird 2, including the Mole, the Firefly and…the Thunderizer? Um, I don’t recall the Thunderizer making an appearance in the TV series. In fact, the only time it appeared was on a Somportex gum card. Interesting that. 😀

The film’s DVD/Blu-ray special features are as follows. There’s a ‘Creating the Action’ featurette, the ‘Tracy Island Revealed’ featurette, the ‘Lady P and Parker: Fun and Stunts’ featurette, the ‘FAB1: More Than Just a Car’ featurette, the ‘Lady Penelope’s Pink World’ featurette and the Busted ‘Thunderbirds Are Go’ music video. I will admit, I like Busted’s ‘Thunderbirds Are Go’ song, as I still keep playing it whenever I’m on the computer. 😀 There’s an audio commentary with director Jonathan Frakes, a game called ‘Hood vs. Thunderbirds’ and trailers. There are also good DVD menus featuring launches and facts about the five Thunderbirds vehicles. To be honest, the DVD menus for the ‘Thunderbirds’ 2004 film are more impressive than the actual film.

It’s such a shame to regard 2004’s ‘Thunderbirds’ film this way. On the one hand, I appreciate the film doing its own thing and to give credit to Jonathan Frakes, he does provide an intriguing version of ‘Thunderbirds’ in live-action form. But this isn’t what I expected ‘Thunderbirds’ to be in live-action.

I expected the 2004 ‘Thunderbirds’ film to be an epic and amazing live-action film adaptation of the original 1960s TV show. It should have been easy to do, especially with the wide range of stories you could tell with there being plenty of perilous rescue missions for our heroes to achieve and succeed.

Sadly, we get a kiddies’ version of what ‘Thunderbirds’ is like and quite often featuring unlikeable versions of the characters. I’m sure the actors did their best with the material they were given, but when the characters aren’t interesting enough, the film isn’t interesting enough. Plain and simple. 😦

Does that mean I hate this movie? No! Despite my disappointment, I found I had an enjoyable and intriguing time watching the film on the big screen. I hoped there would be a follow-up. Sadly that didn’t happen and it’s easy to see why, since the film itself cannot live to other people’s expectations.

Wow! I’ve said a lot about this film. 😀 Shouldn’t the film say more than what I’ve said? 😐

‘Thunderbirds’ rating – 3/10

---

Return to Thunderbirds

Return to Sci-Fi