- Critic Score
- Most active
- Publication
- Most clicked
-
75An old formula made fresh.
-
67Though he tries hard for bravado, hero Edward Burns is terminally wooden.
-
63Retro in a refreshing sort of way, a return to those sci-fi films of the 1950s, filled with cheesy special effects and over-the-top acting, but with a gem of an idea at its core, and all done with just enough wit and inventiveness to keep audiences in the cheap seats happy.
-
60A guilty pleasure diversion. Yeah, it is dumber than a bag of hair. But it is also fast, occasionally funny and genuinely entertaining in an old-fashion no-brainer manner.
-
50A Sound of Thunder may not be a success, but it loves its audience and wants us to have a great time.
-
50The ending seems predestined, and the overlong, tepid journey getting to that point isn't worth the price of admission.
-
50Summing up, yes, the effects are shockingly bad here, but the real tragedy is that this is a good story that was made into a movie by the wrong people.
-
50The movie recovers from a sluggish opening act to pack some real suspense in its second half.
-
40The barometer of the film's undoing is Burns' super-low-key performance, which starts out as a pokerfaced spoof on heroic cool, but takes a misstep more fatal than mere time travel can undo.
-
38Burns doesn't even bother to disguise his New York accent, any more than he does his boredom.
-
38The cliché-laden dialogue, schlocky special effects and predictable plot are derivative; the movie is overwrought and lacks suspense.
-
One redeeming feature of this picture is that it will make great fodder for those make-fun-of-the-movie TV shows.
-
The tedious, tortuous storyline and lifeless cast are two larger problems.
-
25Even if we leave aside the obvious time travel paradoxes, we can have a good horse laugh at the rest of the plot's inanities.
-
20A gloriously lead-footed excursion into time travel with all the accoutrements of 1950s science fiction: an absurd plot, cliched characters, corny effects and a race against time to save mankind.
-
20The profoundly unconvincing CGI work only makes the sorry screenplay and lackluster performances look worse.
-
20A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel.
-
20The picture looks as murky as its story line, the sound is tinny, much of the dialogue is flat or confoundingly technical or merely risible, and most everything on the screen looks patently fake.
-
20This picture achieves a level of badness that is its own form of sublimity. You almost - please note that I said almost - have to see it to believe it.
-
20A clunky and cheesy disaster.
-
This is supposedly a big-budget production, though on several occasions the scientist hero (Edward Burns) seems to be walking in place before a rear-projection screen.
-
12The movie fails to conjure the wonder of the Ray Bradbury short story that inspired it.
-
10Shoddy and ridiculous.
-
If 65 million years of evolution have been building up to this movie, then Darwin was wrong. But there's no intelligent design here either.
-
0A Sound of Thunder is positively awash in bad hairpieces, leading one to believe that global warming is going to be the least of our problems.
-
0So perfect in its awfulness, it makes one seriously consider a theory of unintelligent design.