A Sound Of Thunder
 

based off of Ray Bradburys short storie, ascept it looks like the movie gets a littel deeper showin gthe aftermath of changing evolution

trailer can be found:
http://asoundofthunder.warnerbros.com/here

Jst read the book in Language class, it ain't bad.

Reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer accidentally walked on the fish with legs thereby creating some of the most dramatic events in human history. The ending of that show was hilarious. :p

This movie from the trailer, seems to have a lower budget with the cgi's that gives the dinasours a bit of a cheesy look. It was supposed to have been out last year but kept getting pushed back. I hope that is a good sign and not a bad one.

I thought it had that dated, 50s style, Starship Troopers look to it. The production designer, art director and set decorator all have an impressive resume, so I'm hoping for the best.

I recomend learning how to spell and proper literature.

Proper literature what?

Yah, that didn't make any sense to me either...

As for the movie, it'll be interesting in concept, just because the short story was interesting, but after that I'm not very hopefull.

A Sound of Thunder
 

Aside from being one of the most prolific writers (over 500 published works), Ray Bradbury is one of my favorite authors of all time. His descriptive style is classy and damn near poetic at times. Of course, for a writer with so many works about, not all of them are gems, but Mr. Bradbury has many, many great stories out there. One of the is "A Sound of Thunder", wehich this film is based upon.

Meet Mr. Eckles, big game hunter. He has hunted it all folks, lion, bear, crocodile....So what is a big game hunter to do when he has run out of challenges? Why, head back to pre-historic times to hunt some REALLY big game. Not just any game, but T-rex himself. Like 'ol Homer in the simpsons parody of the same story, Mr. Eckles accidentily steps of the protected path onto the prehistoric ground, crushing a rare insect. When the hunting party returns, not all is as they had left it.....

Actually, in the story, the ironic twist ending is finding out Eckles had stepped on the butterfly, end of story. At six pages, the film makers needed a bit more material to run with so they have "expanded" the concepts a bit here. Apparently we get to go in depth into exactly what has happened to the world after the time accident. I am interested in seeing what they come up with, but like OG, don't hold out much hope for this being a great film. Bradbury is just so much fun to read, and his screen adaptations have been lackluster at best so far (to be fair, the made-for-tv version of The Martian Chronicles had some brilliant moments, capturing the Bradbury feel wonderfully, but overall was a poor adaptation; I would love to see it remade today with the right crew and budget).

Time will tell.

For those interested, peep the trailer here.

in my honest opinion, i think the film looks terrible. i cant tell whether they are trying to hard, or actually taking the piss out of themselves. sure, bad cgi cant be that bad; thats if its done right, but thsi just looks stupid.

sorry.

No, it is I who am sorry. I must ask, what did you say in that post. It is incomprehensible. Who are they? The people in the film, or the people making the film? The dinosaurs? How does one take a piss out of themselves, other than stop by the nearest bathroom? Also, to and too are two very different words, and substituting one for another turns normal sentences into confusing word jumbles. So, the film looks terrible, I got that much, but why is it bad? Bad CGI can't be all that bad, unless it's done good? Wouldn't that just make it....good CGI? People took the piss out of it? I think Bradbury might not be for you....

R.I.P Education

what? just because i made a typing error you criticse me on my comment? basically what i said in that was that the film looks ****! it seems that Ray Winestone chooses every film that goes past him, without reading the script, and joining in on a terrible film. and the statment as in they is everyone involved in such a crap film. bad films, can be good: for example: if a film is really really ****, but makes you laugh becuase of it, then it is good. some cgi can be bad but good because it makes the film funny. now theSound of Thunder cgi is awful, and doesnt look likea case of 'so bad its good'.

Ok, touche on the typing thing, but really, special effects don't make or break a film. The source material is solid, so there is a chance it could come out decent. Unfortunately, you could be on the right track with this one, as the director (Peter Hyams) has had a few bummers lately, such as the terrible End of Days. But, this is a Ray Bradbury story, and many consider him one of the best classic fantasy fiction writers of the 20th century. Some of his other works include The Martian Chronicles, Something Wicked This Way Comes, and Farenheit 451. You may have heard of some of these, no?

im not denying that he is an impressive writer its just i cant see how this one will be good. sure, the story is good, and its not just to cgi that i think is bad. judging from teh trailer ray winstone looks as wooden as keanu reeves and i dont think that he can pull it off.

i may be wrong . . .

Well, as far as Winstone in concerned, you are probably right, as he DOES look a bit wooden. I could deal with Keanu in The Matrix though, so hopefully I can deal with Winstone here.... Time will tell.

lets setlle our differnces and wait until the film is released beofer passing more judgements.

Sure, no prob. Just one more question. It seems Ray Winstone has nothing to do with this film, at all. He isn't in it. he is doing a voice over for the new Chronicles of Narnia movie that is coming out soon, but not Ray Bradbury's A Sound of Thunder. So....we have nothing to worry about.

Isn't it Edward Burns and Ben Kingsley that are in this movie?

Ya, I just went and checked IMDB a bit ago, tis Kingsley and Burns. So....I'm lost on this thread now. ;)

:confused:
What the hell are you even talking about? Ray Bradbury is a writer, not a director.

And where the hell did you get the idea that Ray Winstone was in this?

im pretty sure i saw his mug in the trailer - but i think im getting confused with someone else.

thats who i meant - ben kingsley - thats the guy who imeant instead of ray winstone. i always get teh two mixed up. but my point still stands - ben kingsley is terrible.

"If ever a movie was cursed from inception, this adaptation of the Ray Bradbury short story is it. Begun three years ago in Prague, the production was forced to shut down as a result of massive flooding within the Czech capital; after the cameras finally began rolling months later, the investors went bankrupt. Eventually completed on a tighter budget,"

Oh, I see what you meant, and you are bat**** insane. ;)

Did you see Sexy Beast? Kingsley is NOT terrible. What was he bad in?

Bummer about the problems on the budget....

Exactly Kingsley never sucks, he was f*cking awesome in Sexy Beast.

The story and its premises in A Sound of Thunder are nice enough, but the special effects are not so nice. Based on a short story by Ray Bradbury, that it was based on a short story is evident, given the amount of filler scenes. The fillers scenes are largely the run through wild hostile jungle gauntlet. I suspect the story’s premise will be seen in a few years time to be prophetically ominous. Together with the financially pinched special effects used, this will become something of a cult DVD title.

My theory about cult movies is that the stories in them have strong premises but the execution is poor, be it in ability or finance. The poor execution turns off a lot of people but for the few who get it, they in turn via word of mouth, push the movie along through the years after its release.

The overarching premise is about capitalism, the corporations’s power to retard government agencies’ oversight on their activities and the impact that this will have on all layers of society. Yes, whether your room is at top deck or bottom deck, it is still the same hull.

... the script introduces a twist in the time travel genre but somehow this twist falls flat. That which causes the change is an allusion to a famous example in Chaos Theory. Given recent events in the US, there is some kind of synchronicity going on here. The movie was chosen to be release in September, right after Katrina.

The real tension in the movie is not found in the race to set things right. So far, the changes have impacted the earliest forms of life first, starting with plants, insects, … . What will be the impact for humans? Big statement made here. What Edward saw when Catherine wiped the glass plane at her apartment becomes a rather witty device to make a commentary on man’s stewardship of the Earth.

rest at
http://themoviesihavewatched.blogspo...eview-and.html

I just this last night and I didn't like it one bit. If Spielberg or maybe Lucas took the idea, it could have been a fairly good flick. But that's a different story. I agree wholeheartedly about the effects. They were absolutely horrible.

I was pretty siked when I heard that Ray Bradbury's short story "A Sound of Thunder" was being made into a movie. It was also three years ago when I heard that, when Pierce Brosnan was to lead the film under the direction of Renny Harlin ("Die Hard 2", "Cliffhanger"). The film went through some severe changes during production when Brosnan left to do "Die Another Day" and Renny Harlin went to pursue another project. Peter Hyams, who is no stranger to sci-fi with "2010", "Outland" and "Timecop" on his resume, was hired in place of Harlin with Edward Burns now in the lead role. Filming commenced during the big 2002 floods in Prague...but nothing was ever said about it again.

Well, with no publicity and hardly any advertising and an extremely low distribution run, "A Sound of Thunder" made its way to U.S. theaters on September 2 of this year. I had forgotten all about it, until I saw the lineup for September's releases in August. Luckily, a theater very close to my house was playing it and I got a chance to see it...even though the odds were already against it being a much delayed production, whose production company went bankrupt during filming and to put icing on the cake, many critics were already panning the living f*ck out of it (but this is what I think of critics http://69.93.183.37/848/22/emo/upyours.gif, not one critic ever changed my mind on whether I wanted to see a flick or not).

The year is 2055, time travel has been perfected and Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) is using it to make millions. Hatton has created a labatory in which he sells hunting safaris in the jurassic period. The client would be sent back in time millions of years to hunt a dinosaur with the aid of Hatton's scientist team led by Travis Ryer (Edward Burns). This is also a tricky process, where as nothing modern can go back in time, not even bullets. To kill the dinosaurs, they use nitro-glycerin guns that shoot ice bullets at full speed. Also, the team cannot step off the portal path; no signs that anyone was ever there are to be left.

During a "session", something goes wrong where the nitro guns don't work and chaos erupts. As the team finds a way to kill the dino, a dirt footprint is seen on the portal path as they go back...someone stepped off.

Back in present time, Ryer realizes that something is wrong, plants are 100 times there normal size and animals are morphed into other forms of different species; ex: giant apelizards. With help of scientist Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack), who helped Hatton and Ryer perfect time travel (but disapproves with everything Hatton has done with it), Ryer realizes the Earth is going though transitions every 12 hours. Plants and animals have evolved into something else, it's only a matter of time until mankind evolves. So Ryer and Rand & company must find out what exactly happened during that session and try to go back and stop it from happening...which is easier said than done.

I liked "A Sound of Thunder," only one big problem...the effects are sh*tty. Actually it's more like, a few effects are good and some are just thrown together and extremely rough (the dinosaur and the futuristic exteriors are horrendous). Plain and simple, they ran out of money! What a shame, because even though "Thunder" rips off many better films and can get cheesy in places, I was entertained...it's the work of Bradbury and his theory on how one small thing can change the face of evolution is wild. And the flick does hold your interest, it's far from awful.

Another small problem I had was Edward Burns. He's a decent actor and was good in "Saving Private Ryan," and "Confidence"...but here is acting is too wooden and unbeliveable, it felt like he didn't belong. This role was written for Brosnan! It's a shame this movie got caught up with problems...it's a b-flick by standard...but an enjoyable one.

Plus, I'm a sci-fan and have a high tolerance for b-flick schlock.

UJ