Many people appear to be assuming that this movie is trying to take its premise seriously, when in fact it's mostly making fun of itself. It's stupid for the sake of being stupid. Pie in the face sort of humor. If you don't like laughing at very obvious jokes then this is definitely NOT a movie you are likely to enjoy. There are a number of well placed hidden gems though, like the "fart containment unit" that is absolutely a ghostbusters reference.At it's core, it's a movie that most people love. An outcast child who meets a truly accepting friend who is also an outcast, and then the two work together to turn their differences into a gift rather than a weakness. A fairly standard underdog type movie.

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.

I really cannot understand the slating this film has had from some of the other commentators. This film is somehow in the bottom 100 IMDb films when it's a lot funnier and more enjoyable than most of the top 250, and for my money, that equates to "better". It has few special effects, CGI or otherwise, but refreshingly has invention, wit and warmth instead, and some super acting at least from the younger cast members. I found Patrick Smash convincing enough to engender a great deal of sympathy, and he becomes a very British sort of a hero. Young genius Alan A Allan is a cross between Patrick Moore and Alan Turing, and would have won WWII single handedly.Patrick's sister is very, very funny, and the episodes with the school bully and his entourage are well done, and bring back some scary memories.The whole film is "tongue-in-cheek", the car included: think of MIB, compare with the idea and budget of Thunderpants and you'll maybe see why the car looked the way it did. What do you want, another "Gone with the Wind"?

I find it very hard to understand why this film is #89 on th IMDb bottom 100 movies. Although the initial premise of a boy with huge gas problems may not sound appealing, it's actually a good film. Quality acting from all involved (including Rupert Grint, and a tiny teensy role for Keira Knightley), and a sweet central storyline of the two boys friendship. It's obviously not taking itself too seriously, and the only reason I can think that people wouldn't like it is because they expect too much of it. Kids will love it. Adults will find it amusing. And I adored the colour scheme! The continued green theme gave the film an original edge that sets it apart from typical 'kid' films. A good one to watch on a rainy afternoon.