Il risveglio del tuono

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 am going to talk about the elephant in the room first. The CGI in this movie is terrible. There is one scene where two people are walking down the street, and it is in the future, so instead of making futuristic cars, they just computerized the entire scene, beside the actors. If is glaringly obvious that they are walking on a treadmill and everything else is filled in around them. There now that that is out of the way, if you can ignore this flaw, as I have, then watch this, it is a great story. This is based off a short story of the same name by Ray Bradbury, written in the fifties. A company has developed time travel and sends groups of people back to kill an Allosaurus as the ultimate trophy hunt. There are a lot of safeguards in place, because if you inadvertently kill something that was not meant to die in the past, it could have massive ramifications on the future or our character's present. In fact I do believe that it is from the written story that we got the phrase "butterfly effect". Well something goes terribly wrong on one of the safaris and this sends shock waves of change to the future and it is up to a small group of people to go back in time and try to prevent the event that lead to the drastic changes happening in their present. This is a great story, as I said previously and it is told quite well. It does do some justice to the story, though there are differences.

Yeah sure, the movie its visuals already did looked horrible and not very promising but the premise and the cast looked good, so I still sort of expected to be entertained by this movie. This however unfortunately wasn't the case. The premise is good but the story is filled with improbabilities and is logically flawed.

This movie is potential flushed down the toilet. The main plot is interesting and somewhat original. It's good enough to make a good adventurous movie out of would you think. This movie however fails to entertain and I think that that is this movie biggest flaw. Perhaps it takes itself too serious and a little bit more humor certainly wouldn't had done the movie any harm. Instead it now is nothing more than a lame and cheap looking movie, filled with the one unlikely event after the other, that also steals a bit too much from other, more successful movies. Mainely "Jurassic Park" obviously.

The characters also don't help to make the movie any more compelling or at least interesting to watch. I still think that Edward Burns did a fairly decent job as the 'heroic' main lead. The rest of the characters however really get muddled in into the movie and they get very little interesting to do. The movie rather relies on its visual, which are extremely poor. Catherine McCormack also plays a very irritating character. Basically all her character does is complain and talk about how right she was and the rest oh so wrong. Her character just isn't a likable one. And the rest of the characters...well I already have forgotten their names, I think that that is saying enough about them. It certainly is true though that Ben Kingsley's performance alone makes this movie worth watching. He is really excellent in his sort of villainous businessman role but from the moment when he disappears out of the movie the movie really goes downhill rapidly.

Visually the movie is extremely poor. It has some dreadful looking CGI effects and they couldn't even get the more simple 'blue-screen' effects look convincing in the movie. The sets are also awful and cheap looking, like they can fall over and break down every moment.

The movie never gets tense, exciting or adventurous since the story is brought in the least interesting and engaging way possible. It's a very distant movie with distant characters that fails to impress. There are plenty of action sequences but all of them are so ridicules looking and far from believable that they never get tense or good enough.

So basically this movie is lacking in everything that is needed to make a genre movie like this one a good and successful one. It's sad to see how low director Peter Hyams has sunk to the last couple of years, after making some good movies in the '70's and '80's.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

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 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.