A Sound of Thunder

A Sound of Thunder is not the worst movie I have ever seen...I dont think at least. This movie had many bad effects and a lot of bad dialogue but maybe that's what's so great about it. If you go into watching this movie being too serious about it I guarantee that you won't enjoy it. But if you watch this movie without being too concerned about good special effects and amazing acting or even maybe watching it with the intent of laughing at it, there's a big chance you will enjoy watching A Sound of Thunder. A Sound of Thunder is a sci-fi thriller about the dangers of going back in time and accidentally changing the future based on the short story by Ray bradburry Directed by Peter hyams made in 2005 starring Edward Burns, Catherine mcCormack, Ben Kingsley, Heike makatsch, and David oyelowo. The ratings on this movie are very much all over the place. some people absolutely hate this movie, some agree it's bad but still enjoyed it and some people absolutely love it even with its cheesy dialogue and bad effects. In A Sound of Thunder one of the main characters, Travis (edward burns) works at a time travel safari company for Charles Hatton (Ben kingsley) where they take people back in time to hunt a dinosaur for 10,000 dollars. but one day something goes wrong and changes the future.Then throughout a few days multiple "time waves" come and change the earth more and more every time. with the last "time wave" resulting in humans never existing. so the main characters are on a mission to stop it and save the human race. I am really interested in the whole idea behind the movie which is "the butterfly effect". "the butterfly effect" is the idea that if time travel was possible someone could go back in time and anything they do could change a lot about the present and future. There have been many movies using this theory but i dont think a lot of them make complete sense. There are a lot of loopholes with time travel and it's hard to make sense of a lot of them but I guess this is just an idea created by the human mind so who's to say what's "right" and "wrong" about time travel movies. Therefore, A sound of thunder is an interesting movie that can be enjoyed by anyone with the right mindset while watching it. I recommend reading the short story first, the short story by ray bradbury will give you some more understanding before watching the movie. and many people may argue the short story is better than the movie.i think the biggest difference between the short story and the movie is the ending. i think the ending in the short story is way more interesting. Yes, this movie doesn't have the best acting or dialogue or effects but it still can be a very enjoyable movie and I do recommend watching it.

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!

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.

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.

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.