B+ Hugely enjoyable, I really was surprised by just how much much I liked the movie. It had some bits that didn't make much sense, but it a genuine desire for the audience to have a grea time that made it too endearing to be distracted by some questionable effects.

Is it really that good, or only "that bad that it's actually good"?

Without a doubt one of the worst movies to come out of Hollywood this year. Unbelievable on nearly every level. The entire cast sinks to a new level of bad acting, with most of the performances being simply terrible. The dialogue in many places is laughable and the effects are no better.

The entire production of the film is simply laughable. The effects are nothing special and the overall quality is completely devoid of any semblance of quality. For an $80 million film, one must wonder where exactly the producers spent the budget.

The science aspect is completely off and improbably as well, but ignorable considering the rest of the film. The explaination as to why the effects of changing the past don't occur all at once is simply absurd, though it was the only way to draw the movie out to feature length. An interesting concept that was so poorly made into film it is more of a comedy then a science-fiction drama.

However, the absurdity and poor quality of the film aside, it commands a viewing simply to see how bad a movie can be. Not quite to the level of this years earlier film, Alone in the Dark, which to call a disaster would be a compliment, A Sound of Thunder is still a terrible movie.

D

A few enjoyable moments here and there cannot save this film that is chock-full of unconvincing special effects (really, where is the $80 million in this poor excuse of a film that would be too cheap even for a made-for-TV movie) and poor acting. Ben Kingsley continues to prove that good actors can choose bad role-after-bad role and never think twice about it.

Grade: D+

As far as the budget goes, the company went bankrupt during production, so although it may have had a pricetag of 80 million, who knows how much of that money didn't get to go into the effects and post-production. Yeah the film was wildly improbable, but like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow or Sahara I think that was somewhat intentional. Blame it on my love of B-movies and serials, but I actually thought that the film's outlandish science and ideas were refreshing when many fun movies take themselves far too seriously.

It was alright.

A somewhat entertaining film, but for me, the visuals were too awful to ignore.

C.

Here's what's good.

The idea: I have no idea about the science, but the idea itself for the story is good. We've seen the idea (You interrupt one small thing and it ends up throwing everything off) used better in other films such as Back to the Future, but even though it's an old idea, it can be used some.

The set design/cinematography: The film maybe awful in the two key departments that it needed to accel in, but the film is sure nice to look at (With the exception of the CGI). The scene in the laboratory after the third wave when the monkeys are hanging on the roof with all of the vines, was really well done.


Here's what's bad with the film.

The special effects: I actually didn't mind them at first. They had a campy feel to them and were poorly done, yet they were somewhat imaginative. It actually somewhat reminded me of Sin City (If it were in color), especially when Edward Burns is walking outside amongst the cars. Towards the middle of the film though, they just stopped trying to make them look good. The monkey/dinosaur and the underwater snake thing were just laughable.

The acting: Now I know for a film like this, you can usually just shrug aside the acting, but my god it seems like they all went to the William Shatner school for acting before they started shooting.

Ben Kingsley: Why did they even bother with the wig? We know he's bald. So why did they go give him a wig that makes him look like a troll doll?

D+

Somewhere Ed Wood is looking at this film with pure enjoyment, yet I bet with a sense of envy. This seems to be a film that he would've enjoyed making.

The build-up play is decent but at some point this film just decided to rape me in the ass with extreme boredom and Monkey Bat thingie's

The SFX is truly as bad as I had read, its on the level of an episode of Sliders and goes beyond parody into depressing. I know the producion company went bankrupt but that still doesn't mean I can't call the effects awful.

What a waste of a premise

D

Watching this again yeah this isn't a good film, but I don't think its was awful either. Really enjoyed Edward Burns in it and the other characters weren't too bad either even Ben Kingsley who at least looked like he was having fun. The special effects are awful though and don't hold up well at all, but I actually did like a lot of the practical set designs. I also think its pretty competently directed by Peter Hyams, but this should not have costed $80M to make and outside of some of the practical sets I still don't see where that money went. It honestly looks like a movie that costed $40-$50M MAX.

C