A SOUND OF THUNDER (2005) (film review by Evelyn C. Leeper)
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Philip De Parto
Jan 2, 2026, 10:21:49 AM (13 days ago) Jan 2
to SFABC (nj) Movie Group
The following review is reprinted with permission from:
THE MT VOID
01/02/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 27, Whole Number 2413
01/02/26 -- Vol. 44, No. 27, Whole Number 2413
= = = = =
A SOUND OF THUNDER (2005) (film review by Evelyn C. Leeper)
A SOUND OF THUNDER is a feature-length
film based on Ray Bradbury's story of the same name, which is
fourteen pages long. And therein is the problem: the story was a
nice compact tale, and did not have enough to sustain a
feature-length film, quite the reverse of the usual problem of
condensing a novel into a film.
Yes, they added a lot of special effects to show you a future
Chicago, and a prehistoric one. But the rear-projection of the
future Chicago is not convincing, and the prehistoric past has
been overshadowed by modern CGI.
The "time waves" are an invention for the movie, as a way to pad
out the story; Bradbury has the change take effect immediately.
And it's not clear why there are changes from the past that
impinge upon the then-present, but there are no other changes to
the then-present, such as different buildings. I'm also not sure
that a change in evolution is going to have sauropods evolving
into something with a primate-like face, convergent evolution
notwithstanding.
And why do they think if they fix the problem, they won't know any
of it has happened? People--time travelers or not--certainly
noticed the first changes.
(I won't even ask why a particle accelerator and a time machine
are interchangeable.)
It also has one (or perhaps two) of the common, but offensive
tropes (rot13'd): gur oynpx thl qvrf svefg, naq gur oynpx thl
fnpevsvprf uvzfrys sbe gur juvgr punenpgref.
The moral: When people ask which of your favorite stories or
novels you'd like to see made into a movie, the correct answer is
"Please, God, none of them!"
Released theatrically 02 September 2005; currently streaming on
Hoopla.
Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318081/reference>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sound_of_thunder>
film based on Ray Bradbury's story of the same name, which is
fourteen pages long. And therein is the problem: the story was a
nice compact tale, and did not have enough to sustain a
feature-length film, quite the reverse of the usual problem of
condensing a novel into a film.
Yes, they added a lot of special effects to show you a future
Chicago, and a prehistoric one. But the rear-projection of the
future Chicago is not convincing, and the prehistoric past has
been overshadowed by modern CGI.
The "time waves" are an invention for the movie, as a way to pad
out the story; Bradbury has the change take effect immediately.
And it's not clear why there are changes from the past that
impinge upon the then-present, but there are no other changes to
the then-present, such as different buildings. I'm also not sure
that a change in evolution is going to have sauropods evolving
into something with a primate-like face, convergent evolution
notwithstanding.
And why do they think if they fix the problem, they won't know any
of it has happened? People--time travelers or not--certainly
noticed the first changes.
(I won't even ask why a particle accelerator and a time machine
are interchangeable.)
It also has one (or perhaps two) of the common, but offensive
tropes (rot13'd): gur oynpx thl qvrf svefg, naq gur oynpx thl
fnpevsvprf uvzfrys sbe gur juvgr punenpgref.
The moral: When people ask which of your favorite stories or
novels you'd like to see made into a movie, the correct answer is
"Please, God, none of them!"
Released theatrically 02 September 2005; currently streaming on
Hoopla.
Film Credits:
<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318081/reference>
What others are saying:
<https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sound_of_thunder>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages