Problem: This review is like what?

Review: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.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).

Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).

To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.

+++++++++
A:
negative