A Sound of Thunder

This is a feature length adaptation of a Ray Bradbury short story. (It's amazing what Hollywood can do with short stories - remember AI? it was based on a short story which was almost nothing like the movie.) This one is a decent re-creation of the Bradbury story. There are tense moments which I think are due to Bradbury's plot. Some of the effects are excellent and some are weak. Overall the effects rate a B+. The creatures, although obviously SGI, are very well imagined - thus giving away the genius of Bradbury. I watched it all the way through without once having my imagination wander off. What I also like about this movie is that it is classic scifi - no agenda, just scifi story - just like the remake of "Lost in Space" - a rare treat these days. 8/10 -Zafoid

This is the worst movie I have seen in a very long time and I have seen some pretty awful movies. This movie wouldn't have been entertaining if I had been as drunk as a sailor! It is very rare that I will come across a movie that literally, makes my head hurt. As a result of watching this movie, I suffered a massive headache for the next two days that the heaviest painkillers couldn't touch. It was bad. Time waves? Come on! Plus, if they had altered something in the past, by the time they got back to the present, the entire world would have already adapted to the change and no one would know the difference except the travelers. Logic. Please use it. Also, I feel horrible for the author of the short story. It's always tragic when a great piece a literature gets desecrated like this.

I personally enjoyed the movie when it was on premium cable over a decade ago. It has a great cast and the effects aren't as bad as some described, in my opinion. I liked it enough to buy the dvd after I saw it and watch it now and then. It wasn't superb. But it isn't as bad as some of these reviews. I am a fan of most genres and if I'm entertained for an hour or two, then it's not a waste of my time. Just an fyi, I also enjoyed Battlefield Earth and own it as well. Lol I am a MovieFreak! rUaMovieFreak2

Oh, come on! 3.9?! This was a better movie than this. It had good ideas, great effects and a decent cast. Maybe I have been under the influence of extremely bad movies these days and that's why I am able to appreciate this film more, but I actually thought it was decent. You could compare it with Jurassic Park. Maybe not as good as part one, but certainly at the same level as part two. Anyway, I never knew this was done after a Bradbury short story by the same name, so , before I wrote this comment, I read the said story. It was very simple, very bland, no action, no special effects: a single butterfly made the English language change a little and the guy that won the elections. It was way more improbable that what we see in this movie. Therefore my conclusion is that it is a decent movie. It deserves a lot more than many movies that I've seen rated 5 or 6. And for the specific genre of the film, I rate it average, almost above average.

But I seriously liked this film. I think this is cheesy science fiction done right. But after a while, you kind of forget that it's not an extremely high-quality movie and just enjoy watching it (if you like science fiction). I didn't like it because it was so cheesy though. I liked it as a serious film. Call me crazy, but I just didn't think it was that bad. Believe me, I've seen far worse (check out my reviews of Dragon Fighter and 10.5: Apocalypse). This movie is based on a short story by Ray Bradbury about a company that sends wealthy tourists to the past to hunt dinosaurs. But there are three rules everyone must obey: don't leave anything behind; don't bring anything back; and no matter what, don't change anything. But then somebody breaks a rule. I'm gonna let you watch the movie and see what happens next.

In A Sound of Thunder Edward Burns plays Dr. Travis Ryer, a scientist who works for Time Safari (owed by Charles Hatton, Ben Kingsley). Time Safari takes clients back to prehistoric times to hunt dinosaurs. It is an expensive and dangerous thrill ride, but it gets more interesting in the present. This is loosely based upon a short story by Ray Bradbury; however, I hope the short story was better. Apart from the fact that this movie is riddled with scientific flaws, it really does not make a lot of sense. In this story, changes in the past do not take place immediately. Instead, they are caused by ripples in the present day. This has the effect of changing this gradually. I hope Bradbury explained it better, because this movie certainly didn't. Plus I found the Blue-nosed Baboonosaurus hard to swallow. Not only did the story stink, the special effects in this movie seemed really rushed and looked very fake at times. In it's defense, there was some good action, but that is about it.

Hyams' best remain his early efforts: " Capricorn one" an unfairly overlooked sci fi flick "the star chamber " and at a pinch his futuristic remake of "high noon" "outland" .Since almost all that he made (2O1O ,"presidio" "Timecop " with JCVD !)was downright disappointing.To think that he is to redo Lang's " masterful "beyond a reasonable doubt" (1956) The simple name of Ray Bradbury is cause for celebration;but do not delude yourself:special effects and a catalog of monsters which are not even scary,and wasted actors (Kingsley),that's all you get on the menu. Bearing more than a distant resemblance with "mondwest" (1973) where the tourists were not to blame ,the dinosaurs replacing the robots.

That's all I can say. It's an abysmal film. Special effects are laughable. Story is terrible. Why these actors are in it is beyond me. The one thing is has going for it is the idea of a "time wave". That's what gets it the 2 points. The inconsistencies in plot are amazing. A child could have written a better script, I'm sure. Who on Earth put the money up for this piece of garbage I really don't know, considering films are turned down by the thousand in LA all the time. This is one heck of a dud. Save your money, and watch something on the SCi Fi Channel. Anything has to be better than this. I'd recommend The Butterfly effect - a far superior film.

I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.