seriouscritic-42569 I love time travel movies - although it's probably fairer to say I love the idea of time travel movies because I am usually frustrated at how they are so frequently poorly done. I don't expect the filmmakers to posit ground-breaking theorems that would realistically explain HOW time travel works, I just expect them to be logical and careful as they play in the arena. I was shocked I had missed this film - based as it is on the seminal Bradbury short story that explored (and coined) the butterfly effect of alterations in the past having repercussions in the future. But this film is a blandly soggy mess; seemingly the product of some serious over-development as a clever short story was forced into all the "hit film" boxes the producers could check off. Part Sci Fi, part Indiana Jones, part Jurassic Park; but what they left out of the equation were logic and intelligence. A little research turned up the production problems that resulted in the horrible digital effects (basically just pre-viz or old video game quality) so I won't trash them further (although in ANY world the actors painfully "fake-walking" in place while the green screen image scrolls behind them would be laughable) but the blatantly stupid way the whole butterfly effect is dealt with ("Time Waves will look cool!" someone must have said) and having first rate actors spew third rate dialogue does nothing but condemn the film to the heap of Time-Travel failures. I bet the director and actors wish they had a time machine so they could go back and reconsider their involvement with this.

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.

sukhan-22-768673 My goodness what a disappointment! Even with a low budget one can make a good scifi or time travel movie if the plot is intelligent and the actors are convincing. None of this is the case with this sad piece of wasted time. The actors apparently are only in it for the money; particularly Ben Kingsley acts so mechanical, bored and not connected to his role that one can feel how much he hated his job(and himself, probably, for having to make a buck by playing in this movie). The CGI is so poor that one wonders if it is due to the lack of money for special fx or because of the incapability of the CGI designers. The plot.... what could be a good idea is completely wasted in the ever growing paltriness of the effects and the ridiculous CGI-generated characters (a dim rip-off of Jurassic parc characters). The time travel issue is merely a pretense for silly chases and bad acting. Apart from few minutes in the beginning, the entire movie displays the lack of money and the un-inspiredness of playwrights and director. I didn't even watch the movie to the end. Summary: Waste of time.

DuDrop 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.