Watch A Sound of Thunder For Free

Please don't spend money on this.

Lack of good storyline.

For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Absolutely the worst movie.

This was a decent sci-fi movie, and I've seen quite a few time travel shows. (Small spoiler here) You have time tourists who are warned that the slightest interruption in the past can cause a cascade of disastrous repercussions in the future. Here, the changes in the evolution of nature don't come immediately but instead through a series of time waves. The acting and special effects were good too.This is certainly better than the effect in Ray Bradbury's original story "A Sound of Thunder", where stepping on a butterfly 65 million years ago only caused a change in the outcome of a Presidential election. Now that's too much of a stretch.My main problem with the movie, as a scientist, is that the movie completely overlooks the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. Any interference with the evolutionary time line the travelers made during the age of the dinosaurs would have been greatly impacted by their mass extinction around 65 million years ago. However, no mention is made in the movie of the effect the mass extinction could have had on ripple effect caused by the killing of the butterfly.

Charles Hatton has made a fortune by founding Time safari, which offers rich 'big game hunters' short time travels to kill dinosaurs just before their natural death. When Travis, a scientist come adventurer, notices the weather and wildlife are not behaving as usual, he consults Dr. Rand, the contractually invisible inventor of the supercomputer which controls the time travel. They soon face 'time waves', each worsening the effects in 2055 of evolutionary distortions, lower lifeforms first. They attempt to identify and rectify the past alteration, but each attempt gets harder in their distorted present.....One that this film has going for it, is the sheer badness of it all, and its obvious that the studio more or less disowned this from the get go, because not many people have heard of it, and you'd be amazed the acting calibre that features in this.The first thing you notice, is just how really awful the special effects are. I know the film is nearly ten years old, but there is absolutely no excuse for a film, pretty major at the time of being green lit, to have such poor special effects.They are so bad, they detract you away from what is going on in the actual narrative. It's as if the studio have released the test screening, because response was so bad, they decided to cut their losses.The script is terrible, McCormack and Burns have a hard time with the script, and Ben Kingsley is credited as Sir in this, so that tells you a lot.It's a shame though, because this film should be more notorious. Here in the UK, it had a really quiet, no advertising DVD release, and has never been screened on TV.A must for all bad movie enthusiasts.

I've seen much, much worse lines and logic in bigger budget sci-fis that hit the screens. I've seen equal quality acting in blockbusters like Transformers, Battleship, etc. I mean - come on - it's Jurassic Park with a twist of smart. It's a film for kids that can be enjoyed by adults. What it lacks are ripe special effects, because I hear they went bankrupt during the final production stages. So really - this movie should have the same rating as John Carter or Jurassic Park. Since I have been thrown so many stupid special effects and 3D gimmicks lately, I learned to disregard them, and weigh in a film more by it's story than by the bling. If You read light sci-fi, you don't get 3D bling there either. So I say, if the acting was OK, and the story was OK, then the movie was OK. Decent sci-fi with decent entertainment value.

No man is a prophet in his own time or as Jesus himself said "no man is a prophet in his country"...both are parallels of the same thought.How many things do we hear about which when they first came out in the world were first derided, insulted, rejected, vilified or caused ostracism, disgrace or even death, if not of the body but of the soul of a man? I read through many of the reviews of this movie. I have found that a host of individuals have chosen to put the effort of this movie down so that there is not an ounce of redemption for this movie.This is a testament to the intrinsic truth of the first words in this review. I was one of those among the first who rejected this story upon the premise that it was not as beautiful as Bradbury had conceived it. So I did not even bother to give it a chance.Today, after 8 years, I decided to watch it against my own best judgment.What I discovered was a compelling expansion of the original premise of that grand old story which stands as a jewel in Bradbury's crown.Friends, it was not as bad as they say. It was not even a disingenuous copy...it was fine, very fine. Nothing seemed to scream out that the story was not worthy of my time like so many other movies which make me squirm or groan.I enjoyed it, it was well done and might I say, that it turned out rather well considering that the makers of this film were shortchanged along the way, by the powers that grant funding for films to be made.Congratulations to all who worked on this effort. One viewer was enthralled. It was I.Thank you.