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

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un