aertimyz-moon This film is not only a black comedy but also offensive with it's bullying of the children. The hitting of a child is abuse whether it is actual or representational. Also, the whole death row idea is so wrong. There is no glorification of the abominable and barbaric reaction of putting a person to death for any crime. When you do, you are no better than the murderer to begin with. It also has zero place in a supposed comedy. Typical British though and basically typically European and other non American countries to have a "comedy" which has more sadness and brutality in it than anything funny. I do not recommend this film at all.

annevejb 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.

ccthemovieman-1 I'm sorry not to read one other person - particularly a parent - complain about the last 20-30 minutes of this film. It went from a fairly inane-but-likable kids movie to a unbelievably stupid and profane film that I wouldn't show to any little kid. As soon as the "action" switched to the space command headquarters the language went with a number of Lord's name in vain instances include a loudly pronounced "GD" by the nerdy kid played by Rupert Gint. What kind of sleazy writers would put this stuff in? I thought Hollywood had no sense of decency but apparently Great Britain is just as bad, if not worse. American actor Ned Beatty led this verbal assault, which is no surprise, but all the religious cheap shots with his character was another typical thing we've seen in films for almost a half-century. When they start cropping up in "kids films," however, that's pretty low. The hero of this film - the kid with huge farting problem - says "ass" about a dozen times, too. I say all the above because I had watched a half of an hour of this when a friend called. I told him about the film and he asked if it was safe for his grandchildren to see and hear. At that point, I hadn't heard anything offensive. Well, I'll call him back and inform him.It's too bad it was a funny film, a takeoff on a couple of past films like "The Right Stuff," and was so corny, so stupid that it was funny. And, what true male doesn't laugh at the sound of a good fart? So, males and kids would laugh at this movie just for the audio highlights! But to see this film disintegrate the last half hour with all the PG material - none of which were necessary - was sad.

stephen-macbeth A fantastic film that uses toilet humour to spread the message that it is OK to be different.Pebbledashed with fart references and farting, this film is a breath of cabbage filled air wafting through the rose fragranced industry.The main film may be toilet based humour however the underlying message that being different to the crowd is OK is worth spreading in many ways.Whilst not everyone will be amused by the fart jokes, many many people can identify with Patrick's struggle about being different.I laughed out loud through the whole film, and liked it so much I bought the DVD.