One of the best films i have seen

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Why do I like cheesy sci-fi movies like this? OK, why did I like this one? Yes, of course, it didn't make sense -- but to be honest, I didn't care. It started off sensibly enough, but then as it progressed they just added more craziness. First the time waves. Then the killer jungle. Then the lizard-apes. Then the other flying and swimming dinosaurs. Wow. It didn't matter to me that the FX were not that great. They were good enough.It was so...over the top. I mean the fabric of time has been ripped, and yet we're still following eye-candy Travis bravely and stalwartly lead his group through it all. How on earth are they going to get the machine working again? They created the disaster of all disasters, but how on earth were they going to get out of it? For some reason, I wanted to know. And what was with the hysterical characters? "Don't blame me for this!" What on earth was Ben Kingsley doing in this movie. So many unanswered questions.

I don't understand the vitriolic and negative reviews. Were those people expecting an informative documentary like on Discovery channel? And I don't think Ray Bradbury would be upset at the treatment his short story received. His story was fantasy, well-written and clever, and putting that on the screen would be a challenge. I think the writers, producers, director and actors have done a pretty-good job of it.From memory, Bradbury's story ends when it is discovered that evolution has changed because of a tiny alteration in a time-travel incident. But that would make the movie 37 minutes long, so the modern writers have to find a remedy, and stretch it out to a reasonable length.Ryer (Burns) knows what has to be done and he has to get the inventor of the TAMI machine, Sonia Rand, (Catherine McCormack) to help, but New York is now a jungle and there are hordes of ape-lizards, and ape-bats and nasty eagles too. They have to get to a university with a working particle accelerator. What a challenge, through the flooded subway and always pursued by monsters.Suspend ones reasoning, just take it for a way-out fantasy. And it looks better when watched for a second or third time.The story is good, the characters are well-defined, the acting is good, (especially that of a support character Eccles (William Armstrong) who is absolutely terrified), and there is some memorable dialogue, so I've given it a 7.For once, Catherine McCormack doesn't even get kissed!

This is based on one of Ray Bradbury's wonderful short stories and doesn't measure up to the source material. But neither does the classic giant monster movie, "The Beast From Twenty Thousand Fathoms", compare to "The Fog Horn". The Harryhausen-driven SFX movie didn't have any of the melancholy poetry of the original short story.And this movie doesn't either. Not when you compare it to the master's original. But the story, with some corny, stereotypical moments, is a decent SF thriller. The effects are awesome and the overall pacing of the story is good.If you're looking for a good way to waste a couple of hours, and not expecting something like Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" or Scott's "Blade Runner", this might be worth a look.And do yourself a favor afterwords, read the original story (and "The Fog Horn"). Beautifully crafted short stories.As to Ben Kingsley? Maybe, like Max Von Sydow in "Flash Gordon" or "Strange Brew" or Maximilian Schell in "The Black Hole", he just wanted to have some fun making a movie.

It is a real shame as A Sound of Thunder did have good potential with an interesting concept. The problem was that it executed it badly. I will say that Edward Burns is good in the lead role, but that is all there is that is good, the rest of the film is a mess. The rest of the acting is poor with a mix of overacting and underacting, on the most part the latter. The worst case was Ben Kingsley, which was all the more disappointing as he is a very talented actor(outstanding in Gandhi), but it is really embarrassing to see him overdo it so badly and struggling to give any credibility to his lines. I can kind of understand the last point though as the dialogue is absurd, it was difficult to not laugh out loud at how toe-curlingly cheesy a lot of the lines were, so it was no wonder that the actors couldn't do anything with it. As said also the story and concept could have been really interesting in the right hands, sadly however nothing excites and the concept is introduced and told in such an outlandish manner it doesn't even make sense. There is nothing whatsoever engaging about the characters, they only annoy or bore you here, and A Sound of Thunder is choppily edited and has some of the worst green screen and special effects I have ever seen. All in all, a film with potential that went completely pear-shaped. 2/10 Bethany Cox