Home > Adventure >

A Sound of Thunder

A Sound of Thunder (2005)

September. 02,2005
|
4.2
|
PG-13
| Adventure Action Thriller Science Fiction

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.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Sexyloutak
2005/09/02

Absolutely the worst movie.

More
Odelecol
2005/09/03

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

More
Tymon Sutton
2005/09/04

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

More
Rosie Searle
2005/09/05

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

More
capricornius
2005/09/06

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.

More
TheMarwood
2005/09/07

A Sound of Thunder was collateral damage from the legendary bankruptcy of the scum production company Franchise Pictures, best known for inflating their film's budgets on paper, so partial investors end up paying for most of the budget. This was their final film with Warner Bros who obviously couldn't wait to terminate their contract, as this film is in unreleasable condition. It's a generic dumb as nails big budget film with no money shots because the visual effects are all pre- viz, which makes this look like Z grade Mystery Science Theater quality. Even if the effects were polished, it would still be weak with a boring lead performance from the always boring Edward Burns. But as it stands the effects are so hilariously awful they never let this movie rise above the bottom of the trash bin. Despite Franchise's money woes, neither them or Warner's felt this was a film worth finishing and you can't blame them.

More
Reinier De Vlaam
2005/09/08

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

More
DuDrop
2005/09/09

I first read "A Sound of Thunder" during the early 50's when comic books were being banned for contributing to juvenile delinquency. I was an avid EC fan and came across this short story by Ray Bradbury with artwork by either Frank Frazetta or Al Williamson or both, (They sometimes worked together.) It was the fantastic art that drew me to the story. I had never heard of Bradbury, though the people at EC claimed that he was their favorite SciFi contributer. I wasn't impressed with the story but was crazy about the artwork. Anyway, "A Sound of Thunder" comes to TV (HBO) and,of course,I tuned in. I figured with Edward Burns and Ben Kingsley it was worth a look-see. Gee, it was a disappointment to say the least and an insult to Ray Bradbury. Stephen King was next, with his novel "The Butterfly Effect" that I have yet to read (It's my understanding that it's an extended version of Bradbury's short story.) However, don't spoil yourself by seeing this horrendous movie.

More