User reviews

I just saw this movie this evening as part of a promotional screening. This movie wants to be a strong moral tale about how humans should not mess with time travel for fear of disturbing our natural evolution. However good Ed Burns is as the lead, you are never convinced by the story as it is full of clichés and seemingly tacked-on action sequences. They get chased by monsters for so much of the movie you start to ask yourself it they got confused between the sci-fi and horror genres. The special effects are plentiful, however they are atrocious, fake and gratuitous in the sense that the camera lingers on CG monsters and landscapes for so long that it seems perhaps they wanted to show off how much money they spent. But it adds nothing to the otherwise weak plot, which - now that I think of it - has a simplistic comic-book quality to it. But if the latter were completely true it should be more surreal and not have so much awful superfluous dialogue that actually just sounds like it is set on repeat ('you don't know what you are messing with in time travel..' and the like). If you happen to have nothing else to see, rent Timecop. Yes, this movie is that bad. P.S. Ben Kingsley, why did you do this movie? After seeing you in so many wonderful movies, even as a great villain in Sexy Beast, this performance just looked like you were making a bad used-car salesman impression.

A time machine, that has the ability to take you back to prehistoric times and hunt a dinosaur. Will you take the chance? With this risk comes others... changing something so small can turn into something much bigger. The operation is carefully planned out, but there is always room for error.... The film A Sound of Thunder is based off of the well known short-story written by Ray Bradbury. Directed by Peter Hyams, the film stars Edward Burns, Catherine McCormack, Ben Kingsley, and Jemima Rooper. A Sound of Thunder was released in the year 2005, after some financial difficulties that delayed the film's release. The film is of the science fiction genre- a company called Time Safari Inc. uses a time machine to bring its wealthy clients back in time to hunt a tyrannosaurus rex. A Sound of Thunder is about a series of trials faced by Dr. Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) and the rest of the staff at Time Safari Inc. Dr. Ryer is in charge of running the "time safaris", and he works closely with the rest of the time travel team to ensure that not even the most minute change is made to the past. Despite their efforts, one of the clients accidentally changes one tiny thing- and this leads to many other changes in evolution that are much larger. It is up to Dr. Ryer and his team to determine what is causing all of the changes in the modern world- and how to reverse the damage that has been done. It will be difficult though, and there are no guarantees that the change is reversible. The concept of A Sound of Thunder is one that is actually quite intriguing. You wouldn't think that manipulating the small, insignificant life of a creature from tens of thousands of years ago could change the entire course of evolution. In general, the idea of time-travelling back to prehistoric times is mind-boggling, as it makes one wonder if that concept will someday be a reality in our world, which becomes more technologically advanced every day. What if someday, this movie doesn't seem so crazy and unrealistic? Anything can happen, and if you choose to look at the movie in a more serious light, it may lead you to ask the bigger question... is time travel really possible? Overall, I did enjoy the film when I didn't think about the cheesy special effects and mediocre script. I would recommend the movie to anyone who just wants a casual way to pass the time and doesn't have very high standards. For the most part, A Sound of Thunder is family friendly, but younger viewers may not fully understand the concept. There is also some foul language in certain scenes, as well as a couple of suggestive ones. This movie also has a roller coaster of a plot that can be slightly hard to follow, but anyone can get a kick out of it. This film will keep your attention, and it is one of those films that you "love to hate".

I have lived in the Los Angeles area for about a year now. When I can, I enjoy seeing free screenings of movies. As I understand it, these test screenings are done by marketing-research companies at the behest of the movie studios. You watch a movie for free and then you fill out a form explaining what you liked and didn't like about the movie. The company then selects a smaller group of viewers for a Q & A focus group.

So I saw a free screening of A SOUND OF THUNDER about six months ago. We were told that the special effects were just "mock-ups" and therefore to not judge those effects too harshly. And we were promised that for the actual release the special effects would look spectacular.

I just watched A SOUND OF THUNDER on its opening Friday and the special effects were EXACTLY the same. They used the mock-ups, the "pretend special effects," for the release.

Which leaves me to believe that the test screenings got such bad feedback that the studio decided to cut its losses. They didn't advertise this film very much and they didn't spend any REAL money on the special effects.

One thing they may have changed was some of the editing. The pace felt a little better than the original free screening. I mean the movie has a lot of problems but it seemed like some small things were cut or at least cut differently.

I'm hoping that the DVD will have a commentary track so we can hear the behind-the-scenes story of what really happened. But I doubt the studio will put any bells and whistles on the DVD release.

I agree with everyone else. This is a bad movie (with the exception of Ben Kingsley's interesting character work). But it was made worse by the studio's lack of commitment and backing.

The possibilities of time travel make for complex science fiction. As one of Sci-Fi's great writers, Ray Bradbury saw the potential for making a point and used it to a frightening end. As a lame-duck director, Peter Hyams saw the opportunity to make one more project and maybe give his career some much-needed resuscitation. The misaligned dichotomy simply results in a mess.

In the mid-21st Century, Travis Ryer (Ed Burns) leads prehistoric hunting safaris, from which the Time Safari (groan) company earns its bread and butter. Having seized the time machine built by Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack), Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) built up his company to overcharge the indulgent rich who seek to have a new experience. On a trek with a pair of thrill seeking buddies, a couple of things go wrong, and although everyone survives, the mistake causes changes in time and evolution. It is at this point where the noticeable deviation from Bradbury's story occurs. In the original tale, there was no going back to fix the problem, and the time travelers were left to face the horror of a world which had been subtly altered to permit ignorance, bigotry and fascism to be the dominant qualities of mankind. In the hands of these screenwriters, the mistake simply becomes a vehicle to generate a variety of creepy-crawly monsters that stalk the people of the story as they try to literally race against time and fix the mistake.

The script drags all the clichés out and leaves the actors to cover them. There is the greedy CEO, the disillusioned scientist, the noble hero, loyal sidekick and even a corrupt official. The scientist expresses her outrage at the corporate abuse of her invention to the hero who is a better man than she expected. All the actors do everything they can to rail against the pitfalls they are presented with. Ed Burns conveys an easy hero's swagger and knows that he'll get more mileage out of underplaying than by shouting. Catherine McCormack does a highly competent job of spouting endless reams of technobabble while managing to sound like she actually knows what she is talking about, but she and Burns simply have no romantic chemistry. How Academy Award Winner Ben Kingsley ended up as part of the production is anyone's guess, but the quirks that he piles into the carnival-mouthed "Charles Hatton" are the single best bit of entertainment.

Hyams fumbles the details to the point of insulting the audience. People make all sorts of irrational decisions just to forward the plot or introduce a set piece. When someone makes a mistake, they usually recheck their work. Here the tech drops a piece of equipment and visibly damages it. He re-stacks it and ignores it. Even the hero, at one point, declares that the party must go down into the dark, abandoned, unstable and partly flooded subway tunnels because "it's the only way". Presumably, it's better to have the odds stacked against you where you might run into bloodthirsty creatures instead of staying on stable ground where you might run into bloodthirsty creatures. Although there isn't any sort of racial subtext, the movie goes so far as to sacrifice the only major African-American character as a distraction to hungry monsters so the white people can run for their lives. It doesn't seem to be making any sort of real-world point, and the editor does struggle against this obviously outdated plot moment. However, it ultimately plays out badly and without dignity.

There is also no reason (other than it looks cool) to believe that changes in time would occur in visible waves of force that knock people and cars around, but not buildings or animals. One can imagine that this might have been at least fun in the hands of a militantly perfectionist filmmaker like Jim Cameron who beats even clichéd celluloid moments until they resound with the exact shape and feel he demands. In spite of making several films throughout the 90's and recent years, Hyams peaked with "2010: The Year We Make Contact" in 1984 - while standing on Stanley Kubrick's cinematic shoulders. Even taking the troubled production history of "A Sound of Thunder" into account, Hyams butchers the possibilities here.

The audience is denied the simple delight of watching special effects during a sci-fi adventure because of the shoddy craftsmanship and a lack of money. Several virtual sets were created to make a more complete city of the future, but they often look unrendered and more like a very good artist's drawing. However this is not a substitute for a good set, and it is painfully clear when actors are standing in front of a green screen. This was originally slated for a 2003 release, which would have put it ahead of the virtual productions of "Sky Captain" and "Sin City". Had things not been derailed by the original production company's bankruptcy (see the "Thunder" trivia section on IMDb.com), then maybe this would have been noteworthy in its attempt to push special effects boundaries. Unfortunately for the filmmakers, there were many times when the audience at this screening burst into laughter at some of the sights. The one thing that Hyams' FX team does get right is the gang of computer-generated creatures that should have been the design for the villain in his 1997 movie, "The Relic". As cool as the things look, it is 8 years and 3 movies past due.

Failures in effects and leaps of logic can be forgiven, but only up to a point. This is not a misfire form an otherwise successful director. This is a poor turn by a weak hand who refuses to respect his characters or the audience who has come to be entertained. Only the actors make the weak production bearable. "A Sound of Thunder" got a second chance to pull things together, but look into your own future and avoid watching this mistake.

2 out of 10

USAToday.com called it: "A story that is a pale imitation of a Michael Crichton novel." The Los Angeles Times said: "The picture looks as murky as its story line… and most everything on the screen looks patently fake." CNN.com remarked: "'Sound of Thunder,' smell of garbage." But Variety.com summed it up nicely: "Every bit as bad as advance buzz has indicated..." And then some.

I first heard about this movie prior to its release on TVGuide.com's "Coming Soon" section. The single-sentence description suggesting a plot around time traveling safaris for the sole purpose of killing a Tyrannosaurus Rex that was going to die anyhow just seemed, well… a bit loopy, at least for a major motion picture. So I read the short story by Ray Bradbury, upon which the movie was supposedly based and, even though I had a hard time visualizing such a story expanded to 2 hours of running and screaming on the big screen, hoped for the best. After hearing and reading all of the dramatically poor reviews by movie critics and fans alike, curiosity got the best of me. I wanted to know if it was really that bad.

It is. It is every bit as bad. In fact, a half-hour into the film, I was completely alone, free to yawn, stretch, scream at the top of my lungs and move about the theater.

The basic premise is relatively simple, as it was a short story to begin with. In the year 2055, time travel has been patented by a greedy businessman played by none other than Sir Ben Kingsley (as he's credited), sporting a white wig that one movie critic likened to a lump of cotton candy, and yet another likened to a massive White Persian cat perched atop his head. I prefer the latter analogy. Time Safari, Inc. offers rich people a chance to travel 65 million years into the past to kill – not hunt – dinosaurs already predestined to die at the same place and time. As long as the merry band of time travelers remains on a path resembling transparent liquid metal that hovers above the terrain and do not interfere with the environment in any way, history and evolution as we know it are still preserved. Of course, the rigid controls supposed to be in effect are futile against a cowardly inept rich snob who carelessly stomps on a butterfly.

The Butterfly Effect is, of course, the theory that maintains that a butterfly's wings flapping on one side of the earth could eventually cause a hurricane thousands of miles away. In the movie, the effect causes ripples in time, i.e. a tidal wave in the form of a series of 'Time Waves' that exactly resemble and mimic the aquatic version, visibly sweeping over the Windy City at distant intervals and knocking the main characters around in Matrix-like slow motion shots. Immediately following each successive time wave, hideous distortions abound in the form of primordial and deadly vegetation, half-primate, half-reptilian creatures with the need to feed (on humans), giant reptilian bats, and not to be outdone, a brief cameo by the man-eating scarab beetles of 'The Mummy' fame. Seriously.

But enough about the pathetically stupid script. I wanted to know if the special effects were really as bad as people claimed. At one point, the camera tracks the two main stars, Edward Burns and Catherine McCormack, as they cross a busy futuristic street in one of the worst on-screen examples of green-screen effects I have ever witnessed in a big budget movie. I can't readily explain it with words – when you see it, you're simply distracted by how fake it is… the rendering, even the lighting contrast. In another reckless green-screen scene, Burns and co-star Jemima Rooper, whose native British accent keeps resurfacing throughout the movie, are supposed to be walking along a sidewalk and immersed in conversation, but are instead spitting out stupid dialogue while obviously stationary on a moving walkway. It's as if someone pulled the plug on the computers before CGI rendering was completed.

In Sum, 'A Sound of Thunder' is every bit as bad as the bad reviews have claimed. The script is stupid. The effects are deplorable. The acting? Who cares. It may not be nearly as bad as ''Manos' The Hands of Fate,' but I would definitely consider it to be the worst movie of 2005 (thus far), and the worst movie I ever paid to see in a theater.

I saw the movie poster for this and read a blurb, and though cool, my wife and I love action adventure sci-fi flicks. I ended up getting 2 free movie tickets from work and thought I'd take my wife to see this... What can i say? this movie is bad. Many times my wife and I snickered as the FX were not much better than what most any college kid with can do with their computer, a green blanket and a MiniDV cam. It was like watching something on Sci-Fi Channel at 1am on a slow holiday at home. the people in front of us got up and left, and never came back. there were only 8 or 9 of us in the theatre to begin with and there were only 2 times for this Film, which should of warned me especially since I had never seen any commercials or trailers for this ever before.

Sure there are some parts that were cool, and some interesting tidbits, but they were hard to follow. I am saddened that this guy Peter Hyams took a good story by Ray Bradbury and turned it into this crud.

Yep, this was at least a D movie... D for Dumb, Dismal, Disappointing, and D for Don't Go see this. If you like low end Movies go rent one at your video store or turn on your Cable TV.

Imagine a film student who's learning to use CGI technology for the first time. His final project in class is to create a full-length feature film using everything he's learned in class the entire semester. His film would be better than A Sound of Thunder.

It's Jurassic Park meets The Butterfly Effect, but it's total crap. The production of this futuristic, sci-fi tale (based on the classic Ray Bradbury short story) is pathetically cheap and completely distracts from an otherwise interesting story. It's 2055, and time travel is now possible. When a group of safari hunters travel back to prehistoric time to kill a tyrannosaurus Rex, an equipment failure causes one time traveler to panic and step on a butterfly, thus disrupting the entire evolution of life on earth.

Cool story, right? Poorly, poorly, poorly executed. The CGI dinosaur is a joke, as are all the other "creatures," and the futuristic outside shots are so lame you can practically see the green screen outline on the actors. Shot during the 2002 flooding of Prague, A Sound of Thunder was delayed for so long because the production company went bankrupt. And it shows.

Another awful adaptation of a great short story, this movies had some great potential thanks to the story its based on but it took a very very wrong turn somewhere along the way. The actors don't live up to my expectations there performance is unbelievable they could have just phoned it in an saved all of us a loss of time and money..i really didn't like this movie, after the acting started to bore me to death of i thought the special effects would pay the ticket but forget it they suck most of all, a wast of a very good piece of literature..Bradbury would also say this movie really really doesn't live up to expectations for his fans

If there is any other option at the multiplex take it!!!!

I live for movies like this.

Saw it in a theater with about 12 other people. 3 people left about 20 minutes in. I'm not sure if they left because the movie was so bad or because they couldn't hear the dialogue over the laughter of the rest of us.

Mediocre special effects don't excite me. Abysmally bad special effects are wonderful. I disagree with the previous commenter -- I don't think the actors were walking on a treadmill in front of the green screen, I think they were just standing in place and shifting their weight from one foot to the other.

Sir Ben Kingsley is clearly aware of the "quality" of this film and embraces the ridiculousness, having a great time reading his absurd lines.

The plot, the dialogue, the special effects, the creatures, the actor's accents -- each piece of this movie is worse than the last. There were at least three scenes that made me laugh so hard I cried.

I love dumpster-diving through bad movies in search of treasure. The recent crop of bad movies have been just plain boring. This one is the diamond that makes it all worthwhile.

2055 , Chicago , Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) an avaricious tycoon is an owner of a valuable enterprise about time machines called Tammy that is converted in a time traveler towards the Jurasik and carrying rich tourists to kill dinosaurs . Hatton receives his clients after their time safari and he likes to compare them with great explorers : Marco Polo , Christopher Columbus , Armstrong and others . Travis (Edward Burns) is a resourceful scientist at charge of the risked hunting . Scientist Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack) as invention creator warns the dangerous experiments . Thus , the machine cannot ultimately control itself and it is created a time wave similar to Tsunami which changes the earth . Then , it appears various predator animals and colossal carnivores , humans try desperately escape of weird animals and they are chased by fanged giant creatures through a leafy vegetable city .

This thrilling sci-fi picture blends suspense , tension , bone-chilling scenes , genuine scares and amount of images have you on the edge of your seat . Abundant special effects are generally made by computer generator , as it is well reflected on an amazing array of technical bizarre creatures , such as : prehistoric Allosaurius , giant eel, mutants animals , ferocious and carnivorous plants and insects developing a bloodthirsty hunger . The film is based on a Ray Bradbury novel , a short story titled ¨A Sound of Thunder¨ but are modified some deeds , in the book the fatal accident is produced during the presidential election and the winner results to be a fascist candidate , while the movie is narrated in actioner as well as spectacular style . The picture was averagely directed by Peter Hyams (replacing Renny Harlin who was fired from the producers for disagreements with Ray Bradbury) , though production was slowed when severe floods in the summer of 2002 in the Czech Republic caused considerable damage to the set . One major reason for the film's long delay is that the original production company went bankrupt during post-production , and there simply wasn't money to finish the film . Director Peter Hyams is a nice filmmaker and usual cameraman of his films , realizing good Sci-fi titles (¨Capricorn one¨ , ¨Outland¨) and even a similar movie about time travels , but better directed , such as ¨Timecop¨(1994) with Jean Claude Van Damme . Atmospheric musical score fitting to action by Nick G. Smith . The movie failed in the box office and was exhibited in 2005 , two years later its shooting . The movie was filmed in Republic Czechoslovakia with difficulties but had a lot of floods in Praga . Rating : Average but entertaining .

I loved the original story by Ray Bradbury. Read it as a kid and envisioned the whole story. Although the movie is very different from the book, it's still great entertainment. The only reason I'm not giving 10 stars is the poor special effects.

I don't understand the vitriolic and negative reviews. Were those people expecting an informative documentary like on Discovery channel? And I don't think Ray Bradbury would be upset at the treatment his short story received. His story was fantasy, well-written and clever, and putting that on the screen would be a challenge. I think the writers, producers, director and actors have done a pretty-good job of it.

From memory, Bradbury's story ends when it is discovered that evolution has changed because of a tiny alteration in a time-travel incident. But that would make the movie 37 minutes long, so the modern writers have to find a remedy, and stretch it out to a reasonable length.

Ryer (Burns) knows what has to be done and he has to get the inventor of the TAMI machine, Sonia Rand, (Catherine McCormack) to help, but New York is now a jungle and there are hordes of ape-lizards, and ape-bats and nasty eagles too. They have to get to a university with a working particle accelerator. What a challenge, through the flooded subway and always pursued by monsters.

Suspend ones reasoning, just take it for a way-out fantasy. And it looks better when watched for a second or third time.

The story is good, the characters are well-defined, the acting is good, (especially that of a support character Eccles (William Armstrong) who is absolutely terrified), and there is some memorable dialogue, so I've given it a 7.

For once, Catherine McCormack doesn't even get kissed!

Yeah sure, the movie its visuals already did looked horrible and not very promising but the premise and the cast looked good, so I still sort of expected to be entertained by this movie. This however unfortunately wasn't the case. The premise is good but the story is filled with improbabilities and is logically flawed.

This movie is potential flushed down the toilet. The main plot is interesting and somewhat original. It's good enough to make a good adventurous movie out of would you think. This movie however fails to entertain and I think that that is this movie biggest flaw. Perhaps it takes itself too serious and a little bit more humor certainly wouldn't had done the movie any harm. Instead it now is nothing more than a lame and cheap looking movie, filled with the one unlikely event after the other, that also steals a bit too much from other, more successful movies. Mainely "Jurassic Park" obviously.

The characters also don't help to make the movie any more compelling or at least interesting to watch. I still think that Edward Burns did a fairly decent job as the 'heroic' main lead. The rest of the characters however really get muddled in into the movie and they get very little interesting to do. The movie rather relies on its visual, which are extremely poor. Catherine McCormack also plays a very irritating character. Basically all her character does is complain and talk about how right she was and the rest oh so wrong. Her character just isn't a likable one. And the rest of the characters...well I already have forgotten their names, I think that that is saying enough about them. It certainly is true though that Ben Kingsley's performance alone makes this movie worth watching. He is really excellent in his sort of villainous businessman role but from the moment when he disappears out of the movie the movie really goes downhill rapidly.

Visually the movie is extremely poor. It has some dreadful looking CGI effects and they couldn't even get the more simple 'blue-screen' effects look convincing in the movie. The sets are also awful and cheap looking, like they can fall over and break down every moment.

The movie never gets tense, exciting or adventurous since the story is brought in the least interesting and engaging way possible. It's a very distant movie with distant characters that fails to impress. There are plenty of action sequences but all of them are so ridicules looking and far from believable that they never get tense or good enough.

So basically this movie is lacking in everything that is needed to make a genre movie like this one a good and successful one. It's sad to see how low director Peter Hyams has sunk to the last couple of years, after making some good movies in the '70's and '80's.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

This movie was in every way horribly terrible. It's supposed to have a strong theme about the ethics and risks of time travel with lots of special effects to make it "look cool". The one problem, though, is that the movie blatantly disregards the laws of time and space continuum at parts, but then revolves around it in other parts. The use of the green screen was TERRIBLE!!! In one scene, they couldn't sync up the speed of two characters walking with the speed of the sidewalk going by. There were scenes in which you could clearly see where the set ended and the green screen picked up. If this was a big budget film, then I pity the fool that funded it. The directing was also awful. The feeble attempts to jolt the audience with pathetic scare tactics left me rolling in my seat with laughter. I would give this movie one star. The only reason that it even gets the one star is that this could be a good movie to rent with your friends if you're looking for a good laugh.

Until I read about the catastrophes associated with "A Sound of Thunder," I was going to call it the cheesiest movie in recent memory. The adapted Ray Bradbury science fiction story about time travel suffered the great floods of 2002 in Prague and lack of money that delayed its release for 2 years. That Renny Harlin (Cutthroat Island) was originally scheduled to direct should have tipped me off to a lowbrow enterprise.

The rear projection is blatantly so; the futuristic city is often modeled; the autos are real toys in chase sequences. The characters who hire Ed Burns to take them back in time to hunt dinosaurs are frequently overacting; the set pieces distinctly function as scene breakers or time wasters, ending up giving nothing to dramatic flow and sequential logic.

I can't find anything good to say other than the butterfly effect is a sound premise that won't be heard in this vehicle. The idea that changing even a minute part of history would affect all subsequent history is worth exploring.

A Sound of Thunder is a whimper and should be sent back in time to the '50's, where poor production values were valued in B movies. In this film there is no satire of the genre, not anything to indicate the filmmakers were even making fun of themselves

I heard the special effects in this movie was nothing to crow about. What I heard was right. While the dinosaur(s) - I'm not sure if plurality is warranted here - looked rather poorly modeled, the other creatures in the movie were passable. The story had so much potential but a rather poor script and lack of funding (I guess) ruined it. Despite all that, whatever remained was enough to carry me through the 95 minutes this movie ran. Ben Kingsley's talents were rather wasted, in my opinion. Overall, it starts off slow but picks up somewhere in the middle and keeps you interested if you are not the nitpicking type. Perhaps a better version or a similar story to it (with a bigger budget) will be released in the future.

I'm in seriously disbelief that this was a major study movie. This is by far one of the worst movies i've ever seen in my life. My friends and I actually rented it thinking it was a B-Movie. After watching it we were positive it was a B-Movie. However, after researching the movie on IMDb, I've come to find out that it was actually released to the general public in theaters and the budget was 80,000,000. 80,000,000 DOLLARS!? The computer graphics were so terrible, we started laughing. 80 million dollars that could have been given to poor children, but they invested it into Xena the warrior princess CGI. The only reason anyone should ever watch this movie is to marvel at how somebody can waste 80,000,000 dollars. They also ruined one of Ray Bradbury's best short stories ... and the acting was terrible? I don't understand, these are pretty well established actors, there should be no excuse for such terrible acting. I personally would commit suicide if I had any part in the making of this movie.