A Sound of Thunder.

Review #2477: A Sound of Thunder.

Cast: 

Edward Burns (Travis Ryer), Catherine McCormack (Sonia Rand), David Oyelowo (Marcus Payne), Ben Kingsley (Charles Hatton), Jemima Rooper (Jenny Krase), Wilfried Hochholdinger (Dr. Lucas), August Zirner (Clay Derris), Corey Johnson (Christian Middleton), Heike Makatsch (Alicia Wallenbeck), Armin Rohde (John Wallenbeck), and William Armstrong (Ted Eckels) Directed by Peter Hyams (#233 - 2010: The Year We Make Contact, #326 - Timecop)

Review: 

Hey, ever read A Sound of Thunder? Well, there were rumblings of making a film adaptation of Ray Bradbury's short story of the same name (as originally published in 1952) since at least 2000, when Renny Harlin and Pierce Brosnan were tapped to work on it for Franchise Pictures, with Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer tapped to write the script (Gregory Poirier later worked on the screenplay to get credit with the duo, known for co-adapting Sahara). They wanted to fast-track production before a possible actor strike, but the following year saw Harlin taken out for Peter Hyams and eventually Edward Burns was cast over Brosnan, who wanted re-writes. Franchise Pictures went down under during post-production, which got in the way of a movie that was meant to be $55 million. In 2004, Franchise filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The movie was being filmed in Prague when an actual flood hit the area that saw re-scheduling and a post-production that went on for nearly two years. Previsualized software (and sub-contracted work) was used to basically save time what became a nightmare. This was the 18th feature film for Peter Hyams, who had previously started the 2000s off with The Musketeer (2001), which didn't exactly rock the world. After this, he made two more movies: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009), a movie that may actually have even less of a reputation than this movie, and Enemies Closer (2013), a film that had a limited US release; the then-66 year old also shot for Universal Soldier: Regeneration (2009), as directed by his son.

In the future of 2055...people spend money to go back in time to wait for a guy to tell them when they can shoot a dinosaur dead. Sure. It almost seems too easy to say this movie is really, really bad. There's something to be said about a movie that talks about "time waves" and "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" with the confidence that audiences would just accept the malarkey that comes across for a mess in both visuals and as a time travel movie. What you get here is a bland movie, one that has a handful of bad green screen effects and dopey-looking creature effects that would've seemed ripe for an Irwin Allen movie. But even if the effects were magical or invoked some sort of interest, it was not going to override the lack of an interesting story that can't really evoke the Bradbury story. The original story wasn't really much besides saying "careful about stepping on something, otherwise everything goes to hell because, that insect was important millions of years ago" (the name of the story came from the firing of a rifle), but here you get a movie where for whatever reason the changes to the timeline happen from wave to wave that makes plants and stuff grow weirdly. All from a mess-up where trying to shoot up a dinosaur that was planned to die (notice how shooting the gun doesn't have an effect on the stuff around the dinosaur). With how the characters have to go on a trip to see who messed up with the stepped-on thing, I wonder if someone watched The Warriors a bit too much. It also lacks an interesting hero or villain to really latch on to, and that's even with the presence of a white-haired Kingsley. Burns might as well be transparent with how he brings nothing to the table as the lead focus: there isn't a sense of guilt or adventure to anything he goes through, and McCormack can't actually make the consequences of time travel seem compelling either. You would think Kingsley would know better than to do stuff like this, but between him trying to be "funny" here and a "villain" in BloodRayne (2005), I suppose money does win out. The others don't end up any better, mostly being used to basically serve as fodder (given that the ending never seems in doubt, obviously the dead-count is back to zero). There just isn't anything to laugh with in terms of humor or anything to really gawk at for interest, and the climax is all about...using a few seconds to say the right thing and save the insect. As a whole, even when knowing that the film took years and years to actually realize its vision, there is no slice of hope to be found here with how bland and uninvolving it all is.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Twisted Pair.

The Mummy (1999)

Review #1748: The Mummy.

Cast:

Brendan Fraser (Rick O'Connell), Rachel Weisz (Evelyn Carnahan), John Hannah (Jonathan Carnahan), Arnold Vosloo (Imhotep), Kevin J. O'Connor (Beni Gabor), Jonathan Hyde (Dr. Allen Chamberlain), Oded Fehr (Ardeth Bay), Erick Avari (Dr. Terence Bey), Stephen Dunham (Isaac Henderson), Corey Johnson (David Daniels), Tuc Watkins (Bernard Burns), and Omid Djalili (Warden Gad Hassan) Directed by Stephen Sommers (#201 - G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra)

Review: 

Yes, I know, technically this isn't an "all the way horror movie". But it is a remake of the classic 1932 film of the same name as some sort of epic romantic adventure with help by Industrial Light and Magic. If you remember, the original movie involved Boris Karloff playing the title character, one that involved a mummy (Imhotep) raised from the dead that proceeded to live among folks for a decade before wanting to bring back his long-dead princess with a person that happens to be half-Egyptian and looks like said princess. Well, aside from the Book of the Dead helping in a resurrection, the movie isn't quite a straight-laced remake. Of course, this wasn't the first time this had happened, since Hammer Film Productions had done their own version that began in 1959 (although it was based on the sequels more so than the original, and this was followed by a number of sequels). It should be noted that the film that came from Universal Studios in 1999 was a culmination of a decade of attempts from producers James Jacks and Sean Daniel to make a modern Mummy movie that went through several directors and writers in consideration that revolved from George A. Romero to Clive Barker to Joe Dante; it should be noted that until 1996, Universal was aiming for a cheaply budgeted movie, and they were really aiming for an unstoppable villain at the level of The Terminator (incidentally, the movie was made for $62 million. So yes, one is probably wondering a bit about Sommers. Born in Indiana but raised in Minnesota, he was a graduate of the USC School of Cinematic Arts before he went to direct his first film in Catch Me If You Can (1989), which attracted a little notice despite minimal release; he directed two features for Walt Disney Pictures involving literary figures (Huckleberry Finn, Jungle Book), and it was during the end of shooting Deep Rising (1998) that he found interest in the ongoing attempts to bring The Mummy onto the screen. So, yes, I suppose one can be glad that Sommers (a fan of the original film that had aimed to do a remake for years) wanted to make a fair adventure with tinges of horror, at least for a title character that goes around wanting flesh to regenerate before creating sand storms. Sommers would be credited for the screenplay while also doing work on the story with Lloyd Fonvielle and Kevin Jarre. 

So, now we have a mummy that was buried alive due to attempts with the Book of the Dead to bring back a lost love that has been watched over from the bodyguards of the pharaoh and its descendants for 3,000 years while a lost city holding wealth and the tomb is waiting to be found. Look, it all depends on how much one buys into its attempts at sweeping adventure that doesn't take itself too seriously while having a few CGI effects here and there. Honestly, I'm fine with it, albeit in the mindset that it is basically comfort food; it may be fluff, but it is decent fluff, one that has interest in making charm count more so than sitting back and looking at effects sequences for two hours. It may not be great scary fun, but being alright fun that is aware of its surroundings is decent enough for most folks, a blockbuster in the era that fits it, and at least one can recognize some fair effects and some ideas of spooky scenery; the scarabs are pretty chilling, and the title creature in its growing form is pretty creepy. Technically speaking, it compares favorably to the original 1932 film, and it likely stands up fair for the era it was made for; while I undoubtedly have more curiosity over the film that could have been with a different director, being a loose effective remake of the original 1932 film is still an effective film in the long run (two sequels would follow in 2001 and 2008 before Universal did a "reboot" in 2017). Of course, the highlight among the cast is Fraser. He manages to roll along with the quick pace and wavering attempts at humor with just enough timing and stature to make things count, playing with the material with a casual appreciative nature. Weisz fares fine, straddling the line in curiosity that at least has more to do than her counterpart in the original feature (which, incidentally, means Weisz and Fraser have a bit of chemistry together). Hannah (first known for his work in Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) among television work) fits exactly to what is needed in mild comic relief without dragging the film down (or being easy bait in line for being taken down), while O'Connor does okay in sniveling middleman material. Vosloo is curious as the adversary, one that has to try and seem interesting in creeping terror despite being surrounded by a bunch of makeup that doesn't give him that much to really do. Part of me wishes this would have done more when it comes to actual horror, because the potential is there is you think about it. As a whole, it manages to push most of the right buttons in doing stirring entertainment in the guise of Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), but then again most blockbusters probably honed a trick or two from that film, so being a step or two below something like that isn't a bad thing. It is a romp, and a romp is fine if one is in the mood for it. I wavered between just how "good" it was, but I guess calling it a good kind of average film (in either genre) is appropriate. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Final Destination (2000).