Skip to main content

On behalf of the Temporal Regulation Commission, I declare this facility closed.

A Sound of Thunder
(2005)

(SPOILERS) Does A Sound of Thunder deserve its relegation to the movie dungeon? It’s been languishing there for a decade and a half, egged along by a six-percent Rotten Tomatoes score, and I think it deserves a break. Sure, it has its work cut out for it there, as any non-judgemental viewer will have to get past some truly appalling special effects (but, to be fair, some that aren’t nearly so bad), a time travel plot that doesn’t make a lick of sense (but, to be fair, name one that does) and… Edward Burns. And yet, you can see director Peter Hyams is really trying to make this work. If it doesn’t, his attempts are nevertheless honourable ones.

Ray Bradbury’s 1952 short story experienced a number of production hiccups on the way to the big screen, such that a movie snuck in in the meantime with its central concept in the title. And it was a hit. You know, the one in which Ashton Kutcher’s penchant for threesomes with his much older spouse resulted in devastating consequences for the space-time continuum. Renny Harlin and Pierce Brosnan were attached to A Sound of Thunder back in 2001. Harlin was fired, it has been suggested, while Brosnan wanted a rewrite (not unreasonable, given the plot holes). This led to the situation of Hyams’ hiring (positive) and Burns as the lead (not so much). The backers (Franchise and Apollo Media) had a dreadful track record, and one of them (Franchise) then went bust during production, meaning the $80m budget – most of which was going on effects – was slashed. How much the production actually worked with in the end varies from about $30m to $52m, depending on whom you read.

Hyams’ son John, now a director himself (including a string of Van Damme pictures, just like dad), commiserated over his father’s experience, reflecting that having to rely on all that green screen, and the adverse results when it didn’t come through, convinced him to rely as much as possible on practical effects in his own movies. There’s some truly rotten pre-vis-at-best style work here, most notably on the future streets as Travis Ryer (Burns) “walks” and talks with Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack). And also when the Allosaurus “attacks” during the time safari. On the other hand, the apeosaurus/baboonlizard hybrids that arrive later in the picture are really quite reasonable. As ever, Hyams serves as his own cinematographer, which means he tends to under light (Arnie hates that, and hates Hyams criticising his friend Jim Cameron. Arnie is a chump). Which is at least conducive to attempts at atmosphere and disguising the holes in the budget.

The movie and the short story share the year (2055), company (Time Safari Inc) and its mission (offering the wealthy a chance to travel back in to hunt and kill extinct species). In both versions, the travellers are required to stick to a levitating path and neither leave anything behind nor bring anything back with them, in order to cause minimum disruption. Their targets are also those that would have died with minutes anyway. In the movie, however, various additional hit-and-miss rules are bashed out for how these laws of time work. Let’s face it, Bradbury’s situation is pretty damn tenuous to begin with, since even these safeguards can’t skirt the potential for altering the future just by being there (sound, vision, microbes dropped, microbes removed, physical space occupied – even given, in the movie, an all-encompassing volcano about to blow).

The movie has it that the facility is overseen by the Temporal Regulation Commission, but how likely is it that the government would (a) permit any private individuals to dabble in such a potentially hazardous business as time travel and (b) refrain from dabbling in such a potentially hazardous business as time travel for their own profit? Somehow Sonia, who developed the tech, is not detained in a top-secret facility and milked of expertise for all she’s worth.

The movie also utilises a head-scratching premise whereby safari travellers return to exactly the same Allosaurus encounter each time. Somehow, they do not encounter themselves on each occasion (but when Travis takes a roundabout route to warn the group who inadvertently brought back the butterfly, he does). The only theory that might account for this is one of multiple timelines, but that is usually based on going forward, rather than backwards, and Travis’ attempt – and success – in changing the mission clearly does not factor in such an effect.

Then there’s Sonia’s assertion that “When you change something in the past, the future isn’t affected all at once” It isn’t? I mean, by the rules of the movie she is proved correct, but she knows this how? From watching Back to the Future Part II? The time ripple effect is actually one of the more effective concepts here, though, as waves of changes gradually overtake 2055, from invasions of CGI bugs, to plant overgrowth of the city, to variously evolved predators. It also means Hyams can gradually dim the lights as the dwindling numbers of humans are required to journey across the increasingly dangerous urban landscapes in order to determine the cause of the disruption and from thence a means to travel back to correct it.

Adding to hassles of 2055, we’re informed a “virus” (you know, one of those pesky Pasteurian creations) has wiped out the animal population, such that Travis relishes “actually seeing real animals in the wild” on his trips (it’s unclear if there are domestic animals, as there is also a reference to a pet dog). Cloning doesn’t work because the virus screwed up DNA… Okay. Travis has the idea of taking remote DNA readings – whatever they are – on his trips as physical samples are not allowed, with a view to one day reconstructing species (what, of dinosaur?)

So yeah, nothing much makes sense in A Sound of Thunder. But nothing much made sense in critically-acclaimed Looper, and I tend to be much less forgiving when a filmmaker – cough, Rian Johnson – boasts of having rigorously worked through the temporal ramifications only for you to realise he’s done nothing of the sort (God knows how he’d fare with a whodunit…) On top of all that, there’s that the effects stink so badly, many won’t even give A Sound of Thunder the time of day. And that Edward Burns is in it.

I assumed Burns had entirely dropped off the radar after it was realised absolutely no one wanted to see his lack of personality headlining movies, particularly ones he wrote, directed and produced himself. All this time, I’ve been blissfully unaware he’s still at it, still writing and directing and producing and starring in movies (and TV!) no one wants to see. He must have some serious dirt on someone, such that his auteurish abandon continues to get a boost. His presence is expectedly devoid of charm or impact here, but a few of the faces are more memorable. Early on, McCormack just about survives the most unflattering exposition dump ever, against a (barely) greenscreen street. David Oyelowo crops up in a very early movie role and goes down in a blaze of apes. Corey Johnson (nu-Who’s Dalek) and Heike Makatsch (Love Actually) also show up. Most notable is Ben Kingsley in a Claude Rains wig doing a Henry Gibson impression. He’s good fun, and I wish there’d been more of him.

I didn’t catch the reference to “Brubaker on Mars” (Capricorn One’s fake Mars mission). Of which, one take might have been time travel turning out to be a big money-making scam on Kingsley’s part. It might be nice one day if someone got the funds together to give A Sound of Thunder the effects it deserves. True, the illogical plot would still be there, and you’d also have to CGI Brosnan over the top of Burns, but it would definitely cast Hyams’ film in a better light. As it is, I’d still argue this one may have been maligned for reasonable reasons, but that drubbing isn’t altogether earned.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.