I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

The acting in this movie is really good.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

I know that "A Sound Of Thunder" is based on a short story and might not technically qualify for Book Month, but I did watched it anyway. It's mostly because I have in fact read the short story, for school nonetheless. You'd think they wouldn't be able to make a good movie based on a short story. And...they didn't! This movie suffers from terrible special effects. These are some of the most fake looking animals I've ever seen.There are these weird reptilian baboons that just look stupid. This film is also so amazingly boring. It is just what you'd think, a basic story stretched out to feature length with no interesting characters or good action scenes. Do yourself a favor and read the classic short story. It won't take as long as this movie. For 2005, you'd think it would look better. *1/2

This is the type of film which gives the Science fiction genre/time travel sub-genre a bad name. Rich thrill-seekers pay a small fortune for a trip back in time to take part in a kind of Jurassic safari and in the killing of a dinosaur.Dressed like they are going paintballing they pass through a series of what looks like carbon dioxide fire extinguishers through a mysterious portal from the near future to millions of years into the primordial past to take down a very unconvincing plastic-looking dinosaur. What the excellent Ben Kingsley was doing in this movie I have no idea, must have paid well.The rest of the cast were for the most part clichéd, the spurned scientist cheated out of her fame and fortune as co-inventor of the time travel apparatus (clipped English, of course,this is Hollywood after all), the wooden hero safari leader and of course Ben Kingsley's sinister European accented right-hand man.Awful script, complete pseudo-science mixed with "waves of time" nonsense, and the effects were laughable, particularly the seal/human hybrid creature which appeared towards the end of the film and the poorly-animated futuristic vehicles and obvious model overhead monorail.Would not recommend.

This movie is what Olympus was to the ancient Greeks as it is to us. The actors deliver stunning performances, the cinematography is revolutionary, the CGI is completely bonkers m8. The story follows a brave man, who sets out into the past to discover greatness. Out of the blue, he strays off the path and causes a chain of events that will alter the face of humanity in disastrous ways. Probably the best part of this movie is the stellar performance delivered by Ben Kingsley. Good ol' Ben hasn't been this good since his amazing acting work done in Schindler's List (also one of the most thought provoking films of our time), but in A Sound of Thunder he completely destroys the scene. Another thing of the movie, the CGI done in this masterpiece is exactly that, a masterpiece. What man has longed for since the invention of fire, the longing of greatness, for man to be as a God. That has been done with this film's CGI work. The backgrounds are intense, you get sucked into it as if you're there, inside the vast world of this film. Computers are brought to life through detailed computer animation, which rivals even the practical effects of Stanley Kubrick.I have seen films with good plot, but this one takes the case. Oh boy! Oh golly! This film kept me at the edge of my seat the whole time. The plot is intense and realistic. The characters are tested and true intentions are brought out into the light. Relationships are tested and broken, strained and refined. Who is a true friend and who is a distasteful enemy? You decide."That'll do, Donkey. That'll do." - Shrek, 2001.

I read before, that the CGI was bad. But I did not bother that much, since a good SciFi story can also be interesting to watch, when the CGI is cheap or not so prominent (also I can enjoy rather old SciFi films, when it is interesting -- like "Millennium" with laughable special effects for todays standard, but rather viewable and not so predictable story).BUT this film tries to hard to be a blockbuster with "big action" that it absolutely must disappoint. I hoped to get at least an interesting story. But as much as it fails to deliver "big action" it also fails to deliver a really interesting story. And further more, it does to much stealing of story elements from other films. I even was remembered of the "Triffids" ... and that is a bad signal. From that point on, the film got worse and worse.The film starts rather good (aside from the bad CGI, that really can put you of). Ben Kingsley was really good as the clever and reckless business man. The story unfolds rather interesting and the writing is not that bad (in the beginning). It contained some rather good humor, writing and acting. But after a while it gets lost in all that monster fights, that seam to say: Hey, we can't have a solution now -- the film must be at least 90 minutes ... and we have fired off all our good ideas in the first 25 minutes -- we now don't have an other idea than throwing yet another bunch of CGI on the actors.So, we come to the situation, that the SciFi film converts to a slasher video. We start out with seven or so actors ... and after 80 or so minutes one or two of them are left. This is so predictable.You see nothing, that was not done before (SciFi-wise, CGI-wise and Action-Wise) in better quality. Many ideas are plain copied. Also the base story was filmed at least once before.Also there are some really bad logical errors contained. The biggest one: The change in the past is coming in waves, but in the moment, the change is changed back, this change is coming immediately -- why?? But there are also worse logical errors and gaps contained which are not explained at all. I would also rather have a more elaborate ending and cut off one or two of those CGI fights which did not add to the story at all. So, the ending was the biggest disappointment ... also because of the big list of gaps and "illogicalities" it contains alone.To round it up: I had hoped to find a little more substance -- and even with rather good performances from some actors (Kingsley, Makatsch) all in all, the film can not satisfy, since so many older films provided more substance with similar stories (e.g. Millennium, Jurrasic Park, .....) The start of the film could have been an 6/10 -- but with the middle part and the weak ending, it is 4/10. The really interesting part are the first 25 minutes or so, after that it gets more and more predictable and the finish is to much clustered with story-gaps. Instead of an interesting twist (which I hoped for) they just "gap" the resolution out. The extremely weak ending alone costs the film at least one point in my voting.