Recensioni degli utenti

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/

A Sound of Thunder (2005), directed by Peter Hyams, is a movie based on Ray Bradbury's short story "A sound of Thunder" where going back in Time and making changes in the past affects the future. Ray Bradbury's writings have depth and are meaningful with impactful themes. You could very easily tell that this movie was not done by Ray Bradbury. This movie was put together with cheezy effects and some poor dialogue choices. The movie was based more on the adventure than the themes of the short story. But I would be lying if I didn't say that there was a part of me that enjoyed this film. This film found ways to entertain the audience and keep you captivated enough to enjoy but was so obviously poorly put together you could enjoy the laughs brought from the scenes and script. This would very well be a movie I would watch at home for fun or even with friends but most likely not have paid to go see in theaters. Apart from my own opinion and enjoyment of the cheezy features of this film, It was not well done. The film itself struggled with being complete whether it was recasting, rescripting, or taking years longer than expected to be produced. It felt as though this movie was finished just to have checked it off the list and get it complete. The special effects were overall bad whether it was a tacky green screen backdrop or the unrealisticness of both the design and animation of the creature. The writing in the movie was also strange and felt some lines were included specifically for the laughs or in an attempt to give some characters more depth without actually showing their backstories or development. The movie also took a risk being based on a short story that dealt with time. There were many loopholes throughout the movie and things that overall just didn't make sense. But some of these items were chosen so that the characters had time to fix the external conflicts in the first place to allow the movie to even have a storyline which can be understandable in a film such as this. The plot of the story is much different from Ray Bradbury's short story for it focuses more on the main catastrophes of going back in time rather than the importance and significance of all the little things in the past. The story revolves around Travis Ryer, an intelligent scientist and Time safari hunt leader played by Edward Burns. Travis has to work for a company that allows the wealthy to go back in time and hunt Dinosaurs. The company is run by a rich businessman, played by Ben Kingsley, who cares more about money than the safety of his employers. On a Time jump, something is changed in the past and negatively affects the future. Travis with the help of Dr. Sonia Rand, played by Catherine McCormack, and other scientists of the Time Safari attempt to resolve the issue and save the future. A key theme of the movie was showing how money and power can corrupt people and lead them to be selfish and do irresponsible things. I found this interesting cause I had felt from Ray Bradbury's story that it was more about the significance of everything in time and how equal people and other creatures are in the timeline. I thought that the short story showed the value of everything but also the demise the humans can cause. It had a very solemn theme. But with A Sound of Thunder(2005), I felt the movie was more positive in its attempt to resolve the issue and was more about how even if humans make mistakes they still do what they can to set them right. I enjoyed seeing how even after problems were caused and made by humans they still managed to work hard for the good of everyone and humanity to set the timeline right. Overall the movie was poorly made and had many plot and writing issues along with bad effects. But even so, there was a part of me that enjoyed this movie and almost the effort put in to make it good and interesting. It is an acquired taste that you would have to see to believe. If you walk in with lower expectations for the film you may find it enjoyable, but if you watch the movie with regular expectations of the quality of movies it may not be your type. Even so, I wouldn't pay to see this in theaters but yet I didn't regret watching it.

(Synopsis) In the year 2055, the rich are able to travel back in time and hunt a live dinosaur for a huge price. Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack) has developed a machine that can take people back in time. Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) has taken this technology and opened a business know as Time Safari. Anyone with the money can travel back millions of years and shoot a dinosaur. Dr. Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) leads his team together with the big game hunter on a floating walkway to a spot where they can kill the dinosaur. The trip protocol is that they must stay on the walkway and not disturb the land or anything creature around them. Unfortunately for the human race, one hunter steps on and kills a butterfly. This insignificant act causes major impacts to the earth's climate and creates new species of animal life. The course of evolution as we know it is now being changed by time waves. Travis and Sonia try to stop the changing process before it becomes permanent, and man becomes extinct.

(Comment) The movie was a little slow and the concept of going back in time and changing things was a little overdone. The death of a single butterfly causing the tremendous changes in the world's atmosphere and evolution is simply ridiculous. They changed the skyline of Chicago to look modern, but the new cars of the future were silly looking. You can wait to see this fantasy on DVD. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 1:43, Rated PG-13)(4/10)

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.

We got ya some flying monkey things, some dinosaur things, some catfish face monkey people things. Didn't see me no giant frogs from hell. For your plant lovers, some nice greenery. Oh and some big ass snake things in the subway.

We got a weak plot: don't change the pass. Not one little thing can be transferred from one time to another. Everyone knows that. Geezus.

Ed Burns makes a good enough hero altho his character is not well developed nor are any others in the film. But we got no time for character development..we got a world to save from itself. Ben Kingsley picked up a nice check without working up a sweat. Cute chin whiskers tho and his hair is adorable. Jemina Rooper plays a tag along puppy role and man those lips! I couldn't keep my eyes off Catherine McCormack chest. Her breasts sort of vibrate when she walks. I am ashamed of myself for seeing her a sex object but proud of myself for my honesty. Highlight of the film.

A Sound of Thunder must have cost a lot to make with it's experienced cast and endless special effects. Was it worth it? I watched it for free so I have no compl aints.

Director Peter Hyams is an interesting man, busy in the arts, music and painting and probably writes poetry. (One of those kind of guys). I will give some of his other projects a try.

If you can watch it for free. Give it a try.

I would like to apologize to Ms. McCormack for my adolescent fascination with her boobage. I will be looking at her in other projects.

A friend told me about this movie, knowing I love nerdy time travel movies. I asked other people about it and they told me the effects were mind-numbingly unrealistic and cheap. I went anyways, expecting a schlock-fest or any kind of redeeming factor. You know, in the same vein of a cult hit like Evil Dead or something perhaps? Thankfully, this film was free and I didn't lose any money for what was definitely a bad call! This movie would have been tolerable as some made for TV special. However, this is a major motion picture, and the standards are set much higher. This is the kind of thing I always see on Sci-Fi channel, watch for about 20 minutes, then realize there are better things I could be doing with my life.

Yeah, there is a skeleton of a decent movie here. It feels as if all the dialog and scene-work were finished, but then, realizing the budget had been depleted, the production team had some close friends throw together the special effects on next to nothing. The backdrops and creatures are clearly fake, and they simply aren't digestible. This would be alright if it was a schlocky picture, but this is the kind of movie that floats by on special effects that are too ridiculous to be taken seriously. It's really kind of depressing, I feel bad for all the people involved, this is a case study in something that just went horribly wrong somewhere, and got thrown to market anyways because of the money involved. It's a shame what's become the movie market.

I'd like to save everybody's money who is thinking about seeing this movie on a whim, please listen to the critics. Turn on Sci-Fi channel or something and you'll be at par for course with this movie, without leaving home.

A SOUND OF THUNDER is an adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic short story, about a group of time travelers who set off a terrible shift of events because of one tiny error they made on a safari to the distant past. We all know what that is, so I shan't bring it up here. Because Bradbury's masterpiece is only a few pages, it was up to a handful of scripters to come up with enough plot for a 90-minute movie. Their solution: To have the time travel "mistake" set off a series of destructive time waves that keep altering the planet for the worse. It is up to the time travelers to go back in time and fix the mistake. Sounds good. Right? You would be wrong if you think so. The script is preposterous, the special effects and visuals are incredibly poor and the acting and dialog is for the birds. Why, what a surprise: hack director Peter Hyams was in charge! You will see scenes that are right out of his so-so adaptation of THE RELIC and you will hear dialog and witness situations that may remind you of Frank Marshall's incredibly bad adaptation of Michael Crichton's CONGO. For the best laugh, watch the two principals "walking" down a city sidewalk. They are green-screened against a miniature set and pretend to walk forward toward the camera. All they are actually doing is shuffling their weight from side to side. I hate to think what this movie may have cost, miniature sets notwithstanding. Ed Burns as the lead time traveler plays a role almost identical to that of Vince Vaughn in JURASSIC PARK 3. Ben Kingsley is a howl as his rug-wearing, line-chewing boss, obviously intended to evoke memories of the bombastic boss in JURASSIC PARK. Most everyone else is wasted. It becomes painfully apparent early on this was shot overseas with a largely foreign crew and foreign financing. It is not an American movie as such and suffers greatly for it.

Life is a delicate balance between order and disorder. Once a small disturbance... One minor infraction of nature's law is all it takes.

This movie is based on a short story by Ray Bradbury.

Chicago 2054. We have discovered a way to do time travel. Even though we use it for recreational purposes there may be a deeper impact.

The application of the story may be misleading as we see from trailers somebody steps on a butterfly however this was not the problem but the effect. You should be aware of the saying "keep your powder dry." In this case, a beautiful woman caused negligence which caused a short which caused the butterfly effect. The moral of the story is "don't let a beautiful woman distract you or it may be the end of the world."

Just a side note, it looks like they tried to include every disaster movie you've ever seen and big bug movie (okay little bug), volcanoes, monkeys taking over the world, flora gigantic, and many more unspeakable disasters. Oh and don't forget the evil, uncaring, unthinking, unscrupulous, and many more un's of the government. And don't forget Ben Kingsley as the corporate head who has more un's than the government.

Coming back to the actual movie presentation, the graphics are appallingly hokey. They spend a lot of time on a treadmill in front of a blue screen and don't have any qualms about letting you know that they are more interested in the story than the visuals. Maybe we should be too, yet it is very distracting to see how disjointed the people scenes are from the graphic scenes. This has all the feel of a Hallmark movie without romance.

I'm sure that they're just trying to deliver one simple message. "Don't mess with mother nature"

A Sound of Thunder is a movie that just seems to scream "I am a bad movie, I know I am a bad movie, but I am a great tax write-off, so enjoy my mandatory 2 week stay at your local screen and lampoon me all you want. I don't care. In fact I revel in it."

If Mystery Science Theatre 3000 was still around then "A Sound of Thunder" would be an instant classic. There is just so much in the movie that can be lambasted and it hearkens back to the day when you really shouldn't think about how stupid the movie really is because if you don't think about it you'll enjoy the show.

That is where A Sound of Thunder lies. Its got everything MST3K fans could want 1-It is a movie filmed 3 years ago by the defunct Franchise Pictures which came to stand for "Crappy Films Inc." 1b-(Crappy Films Inc. only had 1 possibly profitable film, so A Sound of Thunder was pretty much going to suck from the beginning and that is a great starting point)

2-The actors have no star power what-so-ever, so cool, the robots could be like ("yeah thats Edward Burns known for his side burns" and There is Ben Kingsley, star of Thunderbirds. To bad he couldn't bring his friend Oscar").

3-The set up of the film-->Time jumping has been loaded with bombs, like Timeline.

Really Warner Brothers should have used the time machine to go make and not make the movie, but being contractually obligated to release it, the movie finally took the place of the 5 year delayed Ritual for a Sept 2 release.

The story is fun in a run and gun sense, the set up is cool, but the movie is full of blatantly obvious "green screen" moments and the most important aspect of the film, the point of the film, is rendered silly if you put any thought into it.

So, don't think. the movie is a fun stupid ride in a movie that tries so hard to be smart.

The smartest thing about the film though is that it is good for a Warner Brothers tax write-off on all the money March of the Penguins is raking in. For that A Sound of Thunder is a smashing SuckFestSuckCess.

When I was in 7th grade I read "A Sound of Thunder" by Ray Bradbury. I liked it very much. This film I did not like. One night I was sitting at home debating about what to rent on demand, and I previewed this movie. In the preview the only CGI effect shown was the dinosaur, that was a pretty sucky image, but I figured that was just one flaw and the rest of the movie would be great especially with Ed Burns and Ben Kingsley on the screen--I was wrong. Not only did this movie not in anyway follow the story, but the effects were quite possibly the worse ones I had ever seen (no exaggeration). I don't even think I saw one scene that wasn't computerized in some place. Just about the only effect I did like was when each "wave" hit and everything went in slow-motion and the audio got choppy.

The adventure would have been great if it didn't look so damn fake. It got boring because of the lack of quality. A lot of pointless parts were included as well, when the first scientist died he was getting delirious and telling some story about how is family members got him a telescope or something, that made me feel embarrassed to be watching this film. Several parts were stupid and very (for lack of a better word) corny.

The idea of the movie was actually entertaining and could have been excellent, but the graphics and acting killed it for me. Ed Burns also happens to be an excellent actor. Even though his acting wasn't as up-to-snuff as usual in this picture, his role plus a storyline with potential just locked in a 4 out of 10 star vote from me.

This one really is a hoot. All the bad things said about it are true: The plot holes, the illogical events, the laughable cgi at times, the painfully obvious green-screen effects, the wooden acting, the predictability.... Ben Kingsley seems to have developed a bad wig-fetish over the last few years. Normally, you can't rate this higher than 3/10, it's just that I had so much fun with it. I saw this one with a friend and we both were laughing with it on several occasions. Good thing was the fact that the "changes" came in waves (you'll understand it when you should ever watch this film), and we were both anticipating on what would be different each time. Plus, the movie moves at a fast pace so it never becomes boring. And the fun I had watching all those mostly crappy (and on one or two occasions decent) CGI effects. I had a good time with it simply because this is one of the most ridiculous decent budget movies I have ever seen. This could be fun watching with your kids. Picture a 7-year-old (7) watching this with his/her mother (M):

7: "All those color-things... Is that 'seewhy', mommy?"

M: "Yes, sweety, that's CGI."

7: "Why is that big monkey so mean, mommy?"

M: "Well, because the bad man with the white wig caused it to exist. And the monkey-saurus doesn't like that."

7: "Why did that man step on the butterfly, mommy?"

M: "Because otherwise the producers wouldn't have a movie to blow all their money on."

7: "Who is that funny fishy-man, mommy?"

M: "That's you, sweety, when you go back in time and step on a butterfly."

...

Ya'll got it? This is a movie for a 7-year-old. And when you watch it together with the kid, you'll be left with even more questions than the kid itself. It simply is that implausible in every way. I easily could have spared me of writing all this nonsense by saying: "I place this movie on the same pedestal as Uwe Boll's ALONE IN THE DARK". That would say enough, I think.

..that dd not carry through into the presentation.

I did not read anything about the movie before I started watching it....no preconceptions to deal with good or bad.

The theory was good...the premise of the movie was good but the presentation needed a bigger budget. I would have wished the special effects were better as well as improvements to the script.

Overall I liked the movie, but I found myself disappointed in Hyams this time around.

Watch it only if you don't mind a lower class of effects, and are willing to enjoy it as it is.

i saw this tonight-I've been looking forward to seeing it since it was announced 2 yr back but then i think it was going to star Liam neeson or someone-any way the movie-well its got a good enough story some good actors -even if ben kingsley looked like he was trying to win pantomime villain of the year.but i like him so i put this down to the studio-or director.also if it was a starring role for someone like will smith-tom cruise etc it would have been given a lot more money etc-its just a same no one bothered to put more money into it,the special affects -ie dinosaurs+wave were OK-but the city's etc were completely over the top-there's a part where the hero is "walking down the st with the inventor"and you can tell there not walking-+they must be just walking on a conyeror belt-but if you can put aside this and enjoy the film its not bad -with more decent effects it could have been a big movie-i remember when total film advertised it as a big blockbuster coming soon-but then it did have a lot more money-actors in the pipeline-one more think this is your standard movie in the same way has category 6+7 and supernova-when it comes to effects-but with a bit of a better story.by the way this is my opinion and no-one has to agree-but i still say watch the film.

This was a movie about a team of scientists who go back in time. They go back in time and bring rich folks with them. So, the rich jerks mess up and leave something behind and alter the path of time etc. You know the drill. So, the evolution thing gets all jacked to hell and when the scientists come back to the present, there are monsters. Well, not really monsters but...Baboons that are dinosaurs! Yes, you read that right, they are forced to deal with these dinosaurs that have baboon faces and butts. If that was not bad enough, they hang like BATS when they sleep. How do they sleep when they weigh 2000 pounds? Well, I sure don't know. But all I can say is SHAME ON YOU ED BURNS!

Supposedly based on a classic Ray Bradbury short story, "A Sound of Thunder" does a great disservice to the science fiction master. A potentially great plot becomes a two-dimensional rip-off of such superior films as "Jurassic Park" and "Time After Time." First of all, I know that you generally have to suspend belief for science fiction. At the same time, however, you do have to have your basic facts straight. The plot involves Time Safari, a company run by Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley in a wasted role as the stereotypical greedy businessman), that takes rich clients 65 million years into the past to hunt the dreaded Allosaurus. During one such hunt, a glitch with the weaponry causes someone to leave the guide path and interact with the environment. This causes time ripples that change the present. The company's main guide, Travis Ryer (Edward Burns of "Saving Private Ryan" & "American History X") must team up with renegade scientist Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack of "Braveheart" & "Spy Game" in the stereotypical role of the beautiful lady scientist) to correct the mistake.

As each time ripple washes over the world, things get worse. Plant life runs amok. Carnivorous insects appear. The descendants of dinosaurs make fast food of the human race.

From the get-go, the film gets the facts wrong. The Allosaurus hunt is set for 65 million years in the past, yet this particular dinosaur had already been extinct for 80 million years at that point.

A company doctor warns two clients not to interact with the ancient environment, explaining that they might kill a butterfly that would then not pollinate a flower that might not germinate to bear seeds to feed an animal and so on and so on until someone is not born who should be or someone stays alive who should die. Yet, when the time ripples emanating from 65 million years ago wash over the city, nothing really changes. All the buildings stay around. All the people stay around. All the fake-looking CGI cars stay around. Nobody suddenly ceases to exist. None of the technology that makes the time jumps possible is affected. It's as if the city were suddenly picked up and tossed into another dimension.

Burns is the only watchable thing in the film. Ben Kingsley appears to be embarrassed to be in the movie. McCormack is rather blasé. Jemima Rooper (TV's "Sinchonicity" & "Hex") is annoying as the snot-nosed rookie Jenny and David Oyelowo ("Last King of Scotland") does his bit as the required token black guy.

The worst thing is the special effects. The CGI looks bad. The allosaurus seems to be made out of gelatin. The futuristic cars are CGI and appear rough and distorted around the edges. The actors obviously look to be walking next to screens and, in one scene with Rooper and Burns, appear to be walking in place. CGI animals in the future (or present) don't interact well with the scenery (for instance, an eel glides through water without making a ripple).

Apparently, this movie was in and out of theaters over the 2005 Labor Day weekend. I'd originally contemplated taking it in, but wisely decided not to when I saw that it didn't even crack the Top 20 in sales in its debut weekend. I got it at one of Blockbuster's 4-for-$20 events. Even $5 seems like a waste, though.

Do yourself a favor. Pass this up. If you bought it like I did, go back in time and put it back.

Story about how a normal time travel expedition can completely ruin the future of the earth. Now the scientists/heroes have to figure a way to set things back to normal. Not a bad idea. Not at all.

Unfortunately the movie suffers from bad writing, acting, and pretty damn bad special effects. There are some scenes that are 100% laughable. You really just sit there and ponder if this movie was a big joke. The movie is pretty much a modern B-movie. Snakes on a Plane is supposed to be the same....but they were trying to be one. If you like movies that fail a lot more than they succeed, especially when they are trying to succeed...you'll enjoy this movie.

I'll never see this movie again, but I probably won't forget it for a long time either. There are some memorable parts (pretty cool primate/reptile creatures), but the bad outweighs the good by a pretty large margin. The idea was pretty good, it's a shame the movie turned out to be a dud.

I saw this film after seeing the trailer on the internet and thought it looked fairly interesting. I knew that it would be a no-brainer, dumb sci-fi flick, but to be honest...i didn't care, i was looking for fun.

The story is that a "time safari" is opened up, where rich people can travel back in time, kill a dinosaur and come back (all for a heft price of course). Then, something goes wrong, and the entire course of history and time is changed, which throws the future into a unbalanced mix of mutant dinosaurs, forests and urban buildings in which our heroes must solve the mess they created.

I thought this sounded like a perfect popcorn film, and has endless possibilities to be a great film. This is not a great film though.

So I sat down, and watched. The first 10 or so minutes pretty much sum up what the rest of the film is going to be like. When the T-Rex came staggering onto screen, I was amazed, I was in awe, I was shocked at how bad the special effects were! It truly did look like a big gelatin blob, or a rubber toy. It wouldn't have been too bad if you were without the knowledge that Jurassic Park is about 12 years old and has far superior graphics to this film. I'm afraid it doesn't get better, all the creatures in this film looks unbelievably fake that its hard to enjoy the film. There's a sequence in which two characters are walking down a street, behind them are futuristic cars and buildings. It's so obvious that it was done on a blue screen and overall it just makes you want to cry.

The story itself is full of huge plot holes that in effect ruin the film and its progressive story. However, it is not the worst film I have ever seen, and even though I was disappointed, I still think the premise was a good one. Next time though, the filmmakers should know they have enough money before setting out to do a film like this, as audiences demand decent SFX. Especially after the likes of LOTR, King Kong and Harry Potter.

Inspired by a very imaginative and insightful Ray Bradbury work, there was vast potential for this adaptation. But, like the butterfly that got inadvertently squished and changed history, this story loses its way, perhaps in some alternate reality dimension somewhere.

Thrill seekers are introduced to a brand new high-end-priced technology, a "sportsman's" fantasy, to travel back in time, and actually croak a dinosaur. Strict rules apply to the practice, since the faintest trace of altered events could have devastating consequences. Why it would be allowed to risk obliterating the present just for this is anybody's guess, but it provides for an intriguing time-travel premise. No surprise: some dimwitted merrymakers do something wrong in their Jurassic hunt, and after they return to the present, weird stuff starts happening.

With the completion of this set up sequence, the film disintegrates, as it has already revealed all of its secrets, thus having nowhere interesting left to go. The creativity and imagination are pretty much extinguished, and the film is regulated to a stock battle for survival plot. There's a few moments of exotic creatures that exist in a "revised" universe, but nothing brilliant. Also, the "waves" leaving the "old" and "new" universes overlapping is just silly and cheap looking. Tropical palm trees growing (out of nowhere) in a still functioning time machine laboratory? No amount of artistic license can excuse such a shoddy set.

The film wastes the rich material it was adapted from, and is aimless, ugly, and sloppy. Good for a couple of laughs only.

While yes the special effects are pretty bad and this seemed more like a made for TV sci-fi movie, it is not the worse film of 2005. Not even close. Any time you have a movie centering around time travel, there will be plot holes galore. Just don't think about it to much. Overall, I thought the story made sense enough you could follow it and it was entertaining. It's not looking to win some awards, just to have some fun. I mean, some of the creatures were down right funny. I laughed quite a lot once the sea monster showed up.

One thing I always hate about these futuristic films is when they show the outside world. All buildings look the same, but they always have some tricked out cars. The cars on the streets in this looked so silly. I don't think futuristic cars are going to digress, which is what these cars looked like. They didn't look as neat as current cars. Although this movie did leave out all the computer hologram stuff you usually see in these futuristic films.

FINAL VERDICT: Not the worst film ever. It was OK. If you like dinosaurs, you'll probably like this.