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

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.