empathielabs/imbd_dataset_v0 huggingface dataset:
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.
I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this.
The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.
I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I can only assume the previous posts came from execs at the production company...
Attended the UK premiere last night. Zane and Brook attended (they probably knew I was gonna be there) and are undoubtedly stars, but what a turkey of a film. I felt sorry for them at times, when the audience erupted in laughter at what were serious 'thriller' scenes.
But perhaps I was missing the point. Perhaps an element of tongue-in-cheek was intended. If so, pure genius. If not, career genocide.
On the plus side, Zane always shines, and Brook can actually act a little. As the other half said (as we ran out the cinema, avec broken ribs), they can be forgiven for this film as they both seem like nice people! The scriptwriter, however, should be marooned.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.
Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.
First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...
They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...
Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.
Terrible, skip this one please.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
did anyone notice?when miss brook went skinny dipping,she left the water wearing white bikini bottoms and yet had previously taken it all off to join cabin boy.this could have been a good film without miss brooks phony accent and a year on the island please.how come that Kelly looked always clean and ready for a FM photo shoot.what started out with premise turned in to soft porn.and billy Zane come on,you cant be that hard up for film offers.check out dead calm.also when the people took her away ,how come she scoffed her face and after all that time didn't feel like throwing up.i suggest billy find decent scripts,Kelly stick to photo shoots and cabin boy play the son of Zorro in a future sequel.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
It is playing on SHOWTIME right now but is going to be released as a movie called THREE or has been released for 2006. Mess ups include a supposed nude body comes out of the waves with her bottoms on. You can have fun finding the others. It was a decent stranded, hungry, cold, crazy person video but that is about it. And of course what would a movie be without sex. The lady has a nice body and the men are pretty, but the story is the same as Swept Away or A Savage is Loose type with some blood. Wonder if the movie studios know they made a big booboo and already released this show and now gonna release it as THREE. Billy Zane should have worn a top hair piece or shaved his head completely. Juan Di Pace is awesome and there is a couple good sex scenes. There is a voodoo woman that loves the character Di Pace plays and in real life her name is Di Pace too. Not aware of any connection but probably kin or married.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Thankfully I watched this film alone, enabling me to fast-forward through the worst scenes (aka most of the film, actually). OK, some of it is not all bad, with partially good photography (even some of the under water scenes) and at times not too bad directing. But it still doesn't save the incredibly poor script and way worse acting. Additionally, when I don't find the movies "hottie" to be all that, even the wannabe-sexy love making scenes get dull. Really dull! And for the drama: You know it's always a bad sign when you get to dislike all of the characters so much you really don't care who lives and who dies.
If you still haven't gotten tired of the reality series Survivor, you may find something to your liking in this movie. If not, stay well clear!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
"Three" is a seriously dumb shipwreck movie. Masquerading as a psychological thriller, it's closest relative is the monumentally superior "Dead Calm" (also featuring Billy Zane). "Dead Calm" provided well drawn characters to root for in the form of Sam Neil and Nicole Kidman's grieving parents attempting to re-define their relationship on an ocean cruise. They end up being terrorised by Zane's adrift psycho-killer. It provided sharp, increasingly ratcheted suspense, a scary feeling of claustrophobia in open seas as the cat and mouse game of life and death unfolded.
"Three" suffers from poorly drawn characterisation (the audience doesn't care what happens to any of them), a stupid and unnecessary voodoo plot device, a total lack of suspense or excitement and some thudding, hammy performances from the principal players. Zane in particular goes way over the top in an irritatingly mannered fashion. In "Dead Calm" he was menacing, wired and seething with barely controlled sexual violence. Here he is bombastic, petulant slimy, and unravelled. And where does he get his seemingly inexhaustible supply of dry cigarettes and cigars? And how come his lighter stays full of juice for over a year? Ms Brook is very picturesque, stunningly pretty, but both her chest and rear appear to have been wildly over-inflated by some sort of life-raft pump. They do, however, succeed in acting with more skill and conviction than the rest of her. Dramatic actress, in the purest sense of the term, she is not. The guy playing the voodoo-hexed Manuel, the third component of this sorry triangle, could have been replaced by a lump of driftwood - no one would notice. In fact, judging by his complete lack of ability to deliver dialogue in any meaningful or dynamic way, driftwood represents a potential improvement in the casting stakes (excuse pun).
Plus sides: the scenery is nice and the cinematography (above and below the water) is credible.
I'm guessing this had a very limited (if any) theatrical release or went straight to rental and retail DVD. The reason for this is it's not very good. If you want something decent along these lines, get "Dead Calm." It was made by people who knew a bit about cinema.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
First off, I just watched a movie on SHOWTIME called Survival Island. It says it was a 2006 movie with Billy Zane and since I like him and couldn't sleep I thought I would check it out. Looked interesting. Watched it, and decided to look up on the IMDb who was this new face Juan Pablo Di Pace and OMG I could not believe it, this movie has been renamed THREE and will be a new movie?? It is playing again in 1 hr and 30 mins on Showtime Channel again and this date is May 28 and EDT or Florida time. You can check your showtime listings by title and see it. I wont get into details so you can see the movie but at one point there is a lady in a white bikini that goes into the water taking it all off, you see her naked body.... when she runs back out of the water you see her bottoms on. Funny, there are a lot of other mess ups too. I can't believe by coincidence I decided to look up this movie... Go figure! Wonder if the people renaming it sold it to some movie studio to put out but it is already playing on Showtime, ha ha. Good laugh. I give it 1-1/2 stars. C-, D+ movie.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
How much do I love this film?! Now I'm not a fan of bad films, but I do love a film that is so bad it's good. This is one of those. Juan Pablo Di Pace has a great butt, looks fab on screen, and definitely doesn't make a bad turn at his acting debut (I believe). Billy Zane is suitably mean and moody, though I still constantly feel that there is something more in him. I felt it in Titanic, the look on his face when La Winslet spat on him for example, totally broken, shocked, and put-down ... fierce! Kelly Brook is a pretty face ... no seriously, I think that's it! It's worth catching this to see one really hot guy, some big bra fillers from Brook, nasty growling from Billy, laugh at the dialogue, revel in the scenery and madness of the whole affair ... I'm gona go watch it again now - yes, I bought it!!!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
By far this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. I watch practically every movie that is on at night (either showtime, hbo, cinemax, etc). "Three" AKA "Survivor Island" keeps you in as much suspense as watching paint dry only to let you down even more miserably. If you want to feel like you just wasted what seems like an eternity on the worst film ever created then by all means watch this movie. I must have screamed at a minimum 900 times from the idiotic twists. If I had 4 hands I'd give this movie 4 thumbs DOWN.
In my personal opinion, I believe the only people who would like this movie are those with terrible morals.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
this is the worst film I've seen in a long long time, never mind the fact that so many useful things keep appearing on this island "how convenient!!!!", the acting is beyond poor from the outset, its like one of those really badly scripted soft porn films on channel 5, a complete waste of time, and i cant remember the lead actors name but i cant believe he still gets work!!! I've never seen him act "I've seen him in lots of films... But I've never seen him act. here are a few of the blaringly obvious errors, apparently petrol lighters still work even when they've been soaked in sea water!!! also according to this film you can walk into the sea naked but come out wearing bikini bottoms (I'm guessing the camera man and editor were students)there are plenty more errors but I'm ranting now, besides its no so much the errors as the cast the script and the whole film avoid at all costs


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
i just got done watching this movie and i have to say, it was a good film, i loved some of the good guy's and i loved the killer robot but the movie had some hole's in it.
the name's of the people in it was kind of..stupid..i think people should of sued the maker's of this movie for how lame it was at the end..the first half hour was good but then it just dragged on and on then i was happy..it was over...but still loved the the killer robot and some of the movie's good guy's in it.
i think it was the best two buck's i have ever spent because i do like stupid b-movie's like this one and come on..it is a b-movie everyone.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Maybe the subject was good, but put down to a script it fails in pace. Maybe the author was trying to obtain something slow-paced like Alien, but instead of being haunting, this movie turned out just boring. Technically good, anyway, a pity for the lack of tension.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This film promised a lot, so many beautiful and well playing actors but with a plot that had virtually NOTHING to say. So many potentially promising conflicts between the family members that could have been developed and elaborated but it was all dropped and not taken care of. There was no story to be told, just a show off of acting, technique, beautiful scenes - that were all EMPTY. But again, the acting was excellent so many of the individual scenes were entertaining, but as you became increasingly aware of the lack of underpinning ideas, even the acting lost its sense. So from the promising start you became increasingly disappointed as the non-story went along.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Tedium as only the French can do it. I checked my watch for the first time 7 minutes in, and with 143 minutes left, I also considered walking out. I won't even try to discuss the incoherence of the "plot" or the inability of the characters to be personable because at about 1 hour in, I realized none of this mattered. It was not merely self-indulgent or pretentious, it was a vacuum. A soul-sucking vacuum. This film has no saving grace, no enjoyable character, nothing funny, and nothing sad. It isn't smart enough to be drama and there's no moment that's in the slightest bit farcical. The most intriguing thing about this movie is how it has managed to get mostly glowing and positive reviews. I was tricked by those reviews, but you don't have to be, gentle reader. All I want for Christmas is my three hours back.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I can't remember the last time a movie was so boring that I walked out. The Weatherman and The Island were both so bad that I thought about it but I even stayed to the end in those. This movie was incomprehensible, not funny and just went on and on and on. Like some other commentators, I wondered if parts were just French humor that I didn't get or if the characters were serious. I finally just gave up and tried napping because I didn't want to disturb my husband if he was enjoying it but he noticed and let me know that it was OKAY if I wanted to leave and out the door we went. He would like to know how it ended...if Denevue lived or died etc...(I don't even care).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
What a waste of great acting talent. This is a shame because with Catherine Deneuve, Mathieu Amalric, Emmanuelle Devos, Chiara Mastroianni, and Melvil Poupaud (not to mention others less well known in America) that's a lot of acting talent to waste. This film by Arnaud Desplech was a terrible disappointment. After having enjoyed his "Kings and Queens" and this film left me completely bored and frustrated to the point where I actually left before the movie ended. The movie wandered around its central storyline (involving Catherine Deneuve's illness) getting sidetracked by every peripheral storyline and supporting character that appeared on screen. The movie also gave us too little character development to understand why the different characters disliked each other so much (this was a story of family dysfunction) so that the dearth of coherent narrative became even more critical. Finally, the soundtrack (which ranged from hip hop to Bach to Mendelhson's Midsummer Night's Dream) was at odds with the emotional temperature of the movie and further obscured any emotion the viewer should have been feeling at the time. The photography (the director often began scenes with a mainly dark screen, where our only sight is through a small opening, making feel as if we are watching through a peephole, that then expands) was also pretentious and inscrutable.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Time travel is theoretical, so I can give the script some leeway.
I also understand the concept that by changing just one variable, you can potentially change the way history unfolded.
What I cannot understand, however, is the way the change in time unfolded. We are subjected to a series of "timewaves" which progressively retrograde planetary evolution. While this is a convenient plot device, as it allows our heroes enough time to resolve the problem, it makes no sense whatsoever. Surely, if you change a variable, and that variable has significantly, or even completely, altered planetary evolution, then by the time you come "back to the future", the evolutionary process has already been established and there would be no need for waves? After all, why would a change that happened 65 million years ago need to wait until now to be effective? The fact that the moth was projected forward in time may give it some credibility, but the life of that moth 65 million years ago was significantly altered, ergo, any change to evolutionary history would have begun then, and not be dependent upon a return to our current time.
To solve the problem, the team goes back in time to prevent the change in variable from ever happening. By doing this successfully, we see that the changes to evolution never happened, and that no-one even remembers the events! Surely, what works for the solution should work for the original change? I like a good rollicking sci fi adventure, but unless it is set "in a galaxy far far away" it needs to have at least some grounding in theoretical possibility to make it truly entertaining.
Good premise, bad plot, reasonable acting and, in all fairness, just a twist on Jurassic Park.
Not on my "watch again" list.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Yeah sure, the movie its visuals already did looked horrible and not very promising but the premise and the cast looked good, so I still sort of expected to be entertained by this movie. This however unfortunately wasn't the case. The premise is good but the story is filled with improbabilities and is logically flawed.
This movie is potential flushed down the toilet. The main plot is interesting and somewhat original. It's good enough to make a good adventurous movie out of would you think. This movie however fails to entertain and I think that that is this movie biggest flaw. Perhaps it takes itself too serious and a little bit more humor certainly wouldn't had done the movie any harm. Instead it now is nothing more than a lame and cheap looking movie, filled with the one unlikely event after the other, that also steals a bit too much from other, more successful movies. Mainely "Jurassic Park" obviously.
The characters also don't help to make the movie any more compelling or at least interesting to watch. I still think that Edward Burns did a fairly decent job as the 'heroic' main lead. The rest of the characters however really get muddled in into the movie and they get very little interesting to do. The movie rather relies on its visual, which are extremely poor. Catherine McCormack also plays a very irritating character. Basically all her character does is complain and talk about how right she was and the rest oh so wrong. Her character just isn't a likable one. And the rest of the characters...well I already have forgotten their names, I think that that is saying enough about them. It certainly is true though that Ben Kingsley's performance alone makes this movie worth watching. He is really excellent in his sort of villainous businessman role but from the moment when he disappears out of the movie the movie really goes downhill rapidly.
Visually the movie is extremely poor. It has some dreadful looking CGI effects and they couldn't even get the more simple 'blue-screen' effects look convincing in the movie. The sets are also awful and cheap looking, like they can fall over and break down every moment.
The movie never gets tense, exciting or adventurous since the story is brought in the least interesting and engaging way possible. It's a very distant movie with distant characters that fails to impress. There are plenty of action sequences but all of them are so ridicules looking and far from believable that they never get tense or good enough.
So basically this movie is lacking in everything that is needed to make a genre movie like this one a good and successful one. It's sad to see how low director Peter Hyams has sunk to the last couple of years, after making some good movies in the '70's and '80's.
4/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
In a future where an industrious travel agency uses time travel technology to send wealthy clients back in time for explorations to the age of dinosaurs, the future is inexplicably changed when one of their clients breaks the cardinal rule not to stray off the path. In an attempt to fix the damage done, a seasoned time scout (Edward Burns) teams with the inventor of the technology (Catherine McCormack).
The premise is pretty good and engaging. It may have a few flaws in it but it could still make for an interesting movie. Unfortunately, A Sound of Thunder fails to really hook the audience in. It suffers from a number of problems and it takes itself way too seriously so it's hard to actually have any fun while watching the movie. Personally, I thought the script was the film's biggest problem. The were more plot holes than expected and the movie was kind of lazy in explaining things. I was hoping for a more in depth look into "the butterfly effect" but the film was more escapist fun than anything else. That's okay with me since 90 minutes of mindless fun is still a nice way to spend an evening. However, all the fun this film offered was unintentional and lame. There were a few scenes that kept me entertained but I was pretty bored.
The acting isn't much better since most of them seem more interested in a paycheck than anything else. The only person that gave a good performance was Ben Kingsley. He kept the first half of the film enjoyable and he seemed to be having the most fun as well. Edwards Burns was pretty pale and bland. I don't think he has what it takes to be a leading man. However, he could make for a decent supporting actor. Catherine McCormack was just really annoying and not very believable. I haven't really seen her in anything else but she could have potential. The rest of the actors also give bad performances though most of them are relatively unknown so it shouldn't effect their careers too much.
Looking at the message boards, most people are complaining about the special effects. There's no way to sugarcoat them and they are terrible. All the dinosaurs look really bad. The Gibbon-lizards (part monkey, part dino), while a creative idea, become stale after awhile and they are most likely to encourage laughter rather than fear. The green screen work just looks awful and unprofessional. I was really wondering what director Peter Hyams was trying to accomplish here. He fails to deliver the suspense, action and thrills and makes this movie a long sit. For the most part though, the film is pretty harmless and it's far from the worst movie of 2005. Hopefully they will remake this film in the future. There is potential in this project but for now this is the best we got. In the end, unless curiosity gets the better of you, there is no reason to see A Sound of Thunder. Rating 4/10


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Ray Bradbury, run and hide! This tacky film version of his short story from the 1950s about time travel and the effect it might have on de-evolution is not well known from the theatrical run (did it have one?) and exists now as a DVD on the shelves released during a slow week.
What looks to be a fancy sci-fi thriller form the opening scenes quickly fools us as the computer generated graphics are re-run unaltered throughout a film that is supposed to be about different 'trips' back in time where a major company sells macho guys in 2055 the chance to hunt dinosaurs by paying exorbitant fees to travel back in time to prehistoric jungles. One slip of the foot/butterfly while on one of these ventures and the course of evolution is altered with resultant time waves rolling over the planet changing everything to man-eating plants and beasties. Of course there is a pretty damsel who knows how to reverse the process and a hunky man to risk his life to act on her orders and everything is eventually OK.
Yes, that is the story...and the most surprising fact about this poorly scripted, abysmally acted mess of a film is that it attracted some fine talent to portray the comic book flat characters. Edward Burns (all buff and hunky) is our hero du jour, Ben Kingsley is the requisite bad corporate guy sporting a ridiculous white wig, Catherine McCormack is the know-it-all woman creator, and Wilfried Hochholdinger as an evil one - all are superb actors and should have known better than to align with this flop. And the saddest thing is that for those who like this genre of sci-fi monster thrillers the creative department sold out with some of the corniest animation to hit the screen in a long time. A must miss. Grady Harp


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Man, I went to this movie because of the great preview. It looked like it had a great story and nice special effects.
Boy was I wrong. I wanted to walk out of the theater because of those horrible special effects. A cartoon dino, of cart board would do even a better job then this. The story was fine, if it would have been taken on by a big movie producer. Who would trow in some more money to make the effect more life like. The only thing I liked about this movie where the plants that pop up everywhere.
Even worse where the cars, in one scene 2 characters walk along the street. If you watch those cars you'll see the following: Taxi, car, motorcycle, tri-pod, big bus. And about 4x in a row!
And then there is the "butterfly death" that would set the whole "evolution changes" in to progress. If that guy didn't step on the butterfly, the next dino would have eaten it anyway! So that's absolute bull. Then, if you change something in the past, the future will be different in the same instant. Not in those "time waves" they made. But hey, if the future changed in a split second, the movie would be even worse, but more realistic though. This is just one of those movies you should see when you want to have a great laugh. I spend way to much money on this movie in the theater. And then they tell me this movie had $80 million dollar budget. WHERE DID ALL THAT MONEY GO????


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I'll start by admitting that I enjoy many movies that have low ratings on this site. I find that if I can see what the creators were trying to do I can find appreciation for their work. Sound of Thunder was a story that interested me. I wanted to see what angles the filmmakers would attack in telling the story. By and large they attempted to create an entertaining movie. The plot was contrived, but most action movie's plots are. Ed Burns doesn't know how to carry a rifle, but still holds his own well as an action lead considering he isn't asked for much. The main problem, !destroys the whole movie!, is the horrible CGI. It is totally unacceptable for the animals and backgrounds to look soooooo very fake. Aside from that the animal conceptions could have been really good, as could the action scenes but failed because the production failed. This could have been a really memorable film if they had only finished it. It really looks like they meant to go back and fix all the horrible CGI but ran out of money and still released it. Save your money because someone failed this movie. I give it three stars because it really could have been good but was totally failed somewhere I can't say it enough.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie reminds me old B movies, but not in a good way.
When I saw the first scene I thought it was going to be a spoof of one of those early SF films. The terrible acting, the plastic props and the noticeable visual effects gave me that impression.
But no, the movie is really that bad. The story is a complete nonsense, the effects are below the level of a TV production; even the editing is a mess.
The only thing that kept me in the theater was that I wanted to know the end of the story, although I was pretty sure it was going to be silly (and it was).
There are better ways to spend your time and money.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
(Synopsis) In the year 2055, the rich are able to travel back in time and hunt a live dinosaur for a huge price. Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack) has developed a machine that can take people back in time. Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) has taken this technology and opened a business know as Time Safari. Anyone with the money can travel back millions of years and shoot a dinosaur. Dr. Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) leads his team together with the big game hunter on a floating walkway to a spot where they can kill the dinosaur. The trip protocol is that they must stay on the walkway and not disturb the land or anything creature around them. Unfortunately for the human race, one hunter steps on and kills a butterfly. This insignificant act causes major impacts to the earth's climate and creates new species of animal life. The course of evolution as we know it is now being changed by time waves. Travis and Sonia try to stop the changing process before it becomes permanent, and man becomes extinct.
(Comment) The movie was a little slow and the concept of going back in time and changing things was a little overdone. The death of a single butterfly causing the tremendous changes in the world's atmosphere and evolution is simply ridiculous. They changed the skyline of Chicago to look modern, but the new cars of the future were silly looking. You can wait to see this fantasy on DVD. (Warner Brothers Pictures, Run time 1:43, Rated PG-13)(4/10)


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
The acting was terrible, the cheesy, fake, CHEAP green screen effects were ridiculous, and the creatures were absolutely retarded. The only good thing about this movie was the concept, and the laughs I got from watching such a bad movie- then I became pretty angry because I realized I wasted 4 bucks on renting it. Why would a movie like this ever be in theaters? I know this movie came out almost 5 years ago, but does anyone put any effort into making movies anymore? I am just writing random things to fill up space- because I need ten lines of text in order to publish this review. This next line should just about do it. Annnndddddd there!


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
A SOUND OF THUNDER. One of the greatest short stories ever written. By one of the grandest Grand Masters of Fantasy, Ray Bradbury. What a great story.
But what a vomitous movie!
In Bradbury's science fiction short story, a company called Time Safari offers big game hunters the opportunity to go back in time and kill dinosaurs. Rule Number One is: Stay On The Path, a floating metallic walkway that ensures no interaction with the prehistoric environment. During a hunt, a man steps off the path and inadvertently crushes a butterfly. When the hunting party returns to the present - the world as they know it has drastically changed. Though there are paradoxes in any time travel story, Bradbury's tale was a quick jugular stroke, a parable of the ripple effect.
A Sound of Thunder was published in 1952 (according to Wikipedia, the most republished science fiction story of all time), and illustrated Chaos Theory, Darwinism, and The Butterfly Effect (which would only be coined in the 1960s by Edward Lorenz). In Bradbury's story, the wonder of time travel was overshadowed by corporate greed, in turn overshadowed by the mortal danger to humanity's existence itself.
While in the movie, A SOUND OF THUNDER (directed by the uneven Peter Hyams, CAPRICORN ONE, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO), a clutch of bad actors goes through the time portal again and again to try to rectify their mistakes, like an excrement version of BACK TO THE FUTURE. The movie has nothing to do with Bradbury's powerful tale, except the initial jolt of the time traveling prehistoric hunting party. Egregious liberties are taken with Bradbury's story - baboon-faced reptiles, plants overrunning Chicago's concrete, time waves rippling through the city, CGI insectoids - for which Bradbury should sue the pants and underpants and ass-hairs off the filmmakers.
Novice writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Gregory Poirier should start a Big Balls Agency, for thinking they could actually add elements to a Ray Bradbury story that would improve it. How do these guys walk in a straight line with balls this big? Ben Kingsley is the corporate owner of Time Safari, with a hairpiece so bad it looks like a hairpiece, Edward Burns is his lead hunter, Travis, and Catherine McCormack (who was Murron MacClannough, in BRAVEHEART) is the scientist with the best breasts.
I can't possibly relate the hundreds upon thousands of egregious stupidities and asinine pieces of dialog, but here is just one, spoken by David Oyelowo as some kind of "scientist": he refers to the Pleiades star cluster, "The Seven Sisters, they look like stars, don't they? But each of them is a whole galaxy." Uh, no, idiot scientist, they're actually, uh, stars.
Those three morons who rewrote Bradbury's story forgot they didn't know anything about physics or astronomy. Or writing.
Best part of the movie is Catherine McCormick's chest straining against her disheveled one-size-too-small blouses.
--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania).


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
Bloody awful! There's just no other way to put it. In fact, it's **SO** bad that the only reason I'm wasting words on this is to warn off other reasonable viewers who want to be intelligently entertained. You'll lose I.Q. points watching this. Come to think of it, it's not even suitable for mindless viewing because of the irritation factor. There's no guilty pleasure in watching something this incompetent.
Reasons to avoid it:
1) Horribly scientifically inaccurate, to the point where this isn't sci-fi anymore, it's just mindnumbingly sloppy, lazy fantasy.
2) It sports FX that are cheesy beyond belief. Not even cheesy-kitsch that's a wink and a nod, like vintage Doctor Who, but just cheap and shoddy to the point of being insulting. The FX are so bad they're not even laughable. They spent about a dollar-fifty on this, not more.
3) The direction is so weak and mindless that the only way the actors could make it through to the end of shooting without becoming terminally depressed was to sleepwalk through their roles, although Catherine McCormack made some effort anyway, probably on principle and despite the director. Moreover, this isn't Peter Hyams's only bad film: his flubs vastly outnumber any barely salvageable ones, of which Timecop was the last such, and that was 15 years before this writing. he's had nothing halfway decent since (End Of Days was just as slapdash, Arnold was the only draw, and he needed much firmer direction than Hyams provided). Hyams just keeps making it more and more pointless for anyone to consider giving him more work.
And finally,
4) Ray Bradbury's stories deserve far better treatment than this. Refusing to watch this film sends that message, not that Hollywood is particularly listening.
Watch at your own risk. If you do and it turns you off movies altogether, you've only yourself (and Hyams) to blame because you've been more than adequately warned.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This movie was really bad, plain and simple. How a movie like this gets wide release is a wonder to me.
It's a decent idea, but it just didn't flesh out. Edward Burns is a decent actor though. I liked his small role in Saving Private Ryan.
Let's get down to the big issue here.
The visuals were so incredibly bad, I thought I was watching an old "Dinosaurs In 3D" CDROM point-and-click adventure demo on Windows 3.1 I mean, I've seen cut-scenes in console games from pre-2000 that have better looking dinosaurs than this. I mean, heck... the original Tomb Raider T-Rex looked better than this one.
The lizard-monkeys were laughable. I thought they were some sort of ripoff creation from "Killer Instinct" I've seen better sock-puppet monsters now that I think about it.
You know, there's a ton of made-for-TV movies that are better than this. How does a gem like Scifi Channels "The Shining" get such a small audience, but this load of "CGI, easy to make 4 Kidz" gets put out in the open? I don't care if it's a Ray Bradbury story. Lameeeee


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I don't want to seem too much of a nitpicky spoilsport, but if the accidental death of a butterfly by a time traveler caused such an enormous change in the timeline, how could that be since the butterfly would have been incinerated by the pyroclastic blast of the erupting volcano anyway? And, how could time travelers keep going back to the same moments and not keep meeting up with their prior and later selves who were also at those same few minutes in the timeline? It seems there would have been quite a large crowd standing in front of that dinosaur charging.
While i can accept the idea of a time wave, i seriously doubt the wave would have caused only a few changes. As the wave passed, all changes that would have happened, would have happened at once during the passage of that wave. So, scratch the idea of the city starting to become overgrown with jungle. And why jungle at all? The location of the city would have still been at the latitude and longitude it was before and would have had vegetation appropriate to its geographic place on Earth.
And an endless list of other illogical inanities.
Bwahahaha! This flick is a weird combination of some fairly decent production values and totally ridiculous plot holes and factual errors.
Too bad. A terrific story idea that was botched up with silly science.
Sigh... why, why, why, why? Why spend all that money on production and not even bother to proofread the screenplay to see if it made some sort of actual sense?


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
My friend recommended this movie to me.Is should have known not to watch it because my friend is kind of a video game nerd. But the name and the cover made it look good for some reason. I was so wrong. I mean first of all, what is up with their suits? And the acting! It seems like they got the people off Barney. Except for Ben Kingsley. And why was he even in this movie? Did he think it was a comedy! But I have to say the special effects were pretty good. But that was like the only good thing in it. I mean seriously, the movie is worse than Pearl Harbor. And thats actually an understatement. Everyone must have thought "oh I am getting paid so it doesn't matter if its the worst movie in the world." I would understand why someone would make this kind of movie if they were directing, acting, producing, writing, and getting their hopeless life best friend to do filming and editing. Probably one of the worst sci-fi movies ever. One truly jacked up film


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
I generally won't review movies I haven't seen in awhile, so I'll pop them in or rent them to give a full and fresh take on the film. In the case of 'A Sound of Thunder,' I remembered my vow of never seeing this movie ever again, so I'll just go on memory. In fact, I haven't thought of how badly made this movie was until I read someone else's review and remembered the experience I had back in 2005, when I actually saw this in the theater. My movie buddy forced me to see it, though I wasn't interested, and wow. (Later on, I forced him to see 'Basic Instinct 2' in the theater, reminding him he made me see this crap. So, I guess that made us even.) I certainly had my share of deep laughs (at the movie's expense, of course,) which didn't make him happy as he really wanted to see it. The time-travel/butterfly effect film had so many bad graphics, the loudest chuckles from me was whenever they showed the dinosaur (God, I loved seeing that dino and them actually being scared of it  it was hilarious!) or just simply, Ben Kingsley. It's great, Kingsley can remind us on how human actors can be: going from 'Gandhi' and 'Schindler's List' to, uh, this. (Even a Meryl Streep can do a 'She-Devil' from time to time, so they're forgiven.) For months, I pulled an MST3k with my buddy, consistently referencing this movie to any low-rent sci-fi film or Kingsley flick. Yes, the movie would be a great movie to see drunk (or otherwise inebriated): horrible over-the-top acting, "special" FX that even the Nintendo64 would turn away and ridiculous plot twists. The biggest disappointment was that the Razzies didn't even nominate this film for any award.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
What could have been a good story was destroyed by the ludicrous time travel scenario. If something was altered in the past that changed evolution and humans never developed, the time machine would never have been built. If something from the past was brought into the present, it would have no effect on the past.
I really wish film producers would run their ideas past an actual scientist before finishing the script. Even if you suspend reality and assume time travel is possible, you have to stick to logic.
OTOH, Ben Kingsley seemed to be having a great time with his over the top performance. All of the other actors seemed to be doing the best they could as well. It was the writing that left them twisting in the wind.
"Back to the Future" handled it better.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This is a pitiful movie. What makes it even more pitiful is the time, effort and money put into a super predictable script and action.
It's about some kind of monsters, by the way, and some kind of insects. Don't expect an explanation of the plot. There is none. That might work, if there was something of interest, or characters we could care about. There isn't. Everything that happens to any person is as predictable as the other movies Sci Fi channel does.
Don't try to understand what some of the characters are saying. They speak gibberish, especially the annoying lead woman, whose accent is a sort of thick British that is harder to understand than any old British movie you may have seen. She's unintelligible.
A lot of money is spent on some great sets and scenery, and that is the major crime of this movie, because it just isn't worth it.


assistant
0
system
classify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative


user
This picture is a bad and blown up rip off of the Michael Pohl short film EXTINCT from 1995. While Michael Pohl's idea was original and perfect for a short film setting, A SOUND OF THUNDER's plot was poorly adapted from Pohl's story and not fit for a full length feature film one would expect from a major Hollywod studio. The tragic flooding situation that ruined the sets in Prague was just one bad link in a long rusty film production chain in this case. For a studio to release such a product... it is a shame. Especially for Warner Brothers, a studio which broke new effects grounds with shows like BABYLON 5 in 1993. On TELEVISION. Visual effects for television shows pioneering CGI in episodic television in the mid nineties were way more sophisticated than what is brought to the screen in this picture. In cases like this, sad as it may be: Can the film.


assistant
0