A Sound of Thunder
A Sound of Thunder
PG-13 | 02 September 2005 (USA)
A Sound of Thunder Trailers

When a hunter sent back to the prehistoric era runs off the path he must not leave, he causes a chain reaction that alters history in disastrous ways.

Reviews
Wordiezett

So much average

... View More
Tedfoldol

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

... View More
Onlinewsma

Absolutely Brilliant!

... View More
Phillipa

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

... View More
capricornius

This is definitely not an A-list movie. The story is bad, the special effects are horrible and the dinosaur looks like something from an animated movie. But if you can look past that and have about 100 minutes, it's an okay movie to watch. But just DON'T expect a great movie. But it could serve as an inspiration if Hollywood one day decides to remake this as an all-star A-list Hollywood version. It's not that bad, but not that good either. I'd give it 60%, or a 6/10.

... View More
solvielisabetarson

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.

... View More
Reinier De Vlaam

Now I do not mind low budget movies with bad scripts and bad special effects. They can be pretty funny. But this one is not a low budget. I really can not understand why they didn't pull the plug halfway the making of the movie seeing it was becoming...what was it becoming? A joke, a disaster? This movie is a bigger disaster than what is happening in the movie. You start hoping that it does come true and mankind is whipped out before it can make something like this. I truly admire Ray Bradbury, I read much of his work. He did the right thing, when the hunting party returned they found out something had changed, of course the people who stayed in the present didn't notice, only the time travelers). Then Ryan shoots Eckels for leaving the path (that is the sound of thunder). Now in Hollywood this story is too short so they had to make it a bit longer. They invented the time waves that gradually change everything and of course it does result in evil monsters.Now I can also start about the special effects, which are in most cases a joke but never mind. If you want to show how a good story can be turned into utter movie garbage, this will be a classic example

... View More
imdb-neweyes

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.

... View More