A Sound of Thunder
Metascore
24 out of 100

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 26
  2. Mixed: 6 out of 26
  3. Negative: 17 out of 26
view
per page
  1. New York Daily News
    Reviewed by: Elizabeth Weitzman
    38
    Burns doesn't even bother to disguise his New York accent, any more than he does his boredom.
  2. USA Today
    Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    38
    The cliché-laden dialogue, schlocky special effects and predictable plot are derivative; the movie is overwrought and lacks suspense.
  3. Chicago Tribune
    Reviewed by: Michael Esposito
    25
    One redeeming feature of this picture is that it will make great fodder for those make-fun-of-the-movie TV shows.
  4. The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
    Reviewed by: Jason Anderson
    25
    The tedious, tortuous storyline and lifeless cast are two larger problems.
  5. Charlotte Observer
    Reviewed by: Lawrence Toppman
    25
    Even if we leave aside the obvious time travel paradoxes, we can have a good horse laugh at the rest of the plot's inanities.
  6. The Hollywood Reporter
    Reviewed by: Kirk Honeycutt
    20
    A 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.
  7. TV Guide
    Reviewed by: Maitland McDonagh
    20
    The profoundly unconvincing CGI work only makes the sorry screenplay and lackluster performances look worse.
  8. The A.V. Club
    Reviewed by: Tasha Robinson
    20
    A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel.
  9. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Kevin Thomas
    20
    The 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.
  10. The New York Times
    Reviewed by: Dana Stevens
    20
    This 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.
  11. Variety
    Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    20
    A clunky and cheesy disaster.
  12. Chicago Reader
    Reviewed by: Joshua Katzman
    20
    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.
  13. Boston Globe
    Reviewed by: Wesley Morris
    12
    The movie fails to conjure the wonder of the Ray Bradbury short story that inspired it.
  14. Dallas Observer
    Reviewed by: Luke Y. Thompson
    10
    Shoddy and ridiculous.
  15. New York Post
    Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    0
    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.
  16. Austin Chronicle
    Reviewed by: Marc Savlov
    0
    A 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.
  17. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Scott Brown
    0
    So perfect in its awfulness, it makes one seriously consider a theory of unintelligent design.

User Reviews

All reviews »
User Score
3.0 out of 10

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 32 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 21
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 21
  3. Negative: 13 out of 21
  1. moviegrabbag
    1
    This movie is just bad. The acting is a joke, there are no likable characters and the special effects would make the sci-fi channel look good. This movie took a sorta neat idea smeared a whole bunch of stupid ides and bad dialogue onto it and called it a movie. Te title doesn't even make sense. A better title would have been Stupid bad butterfly effect knock off. Don't waste your time!… Full Review »
  2. meh
    1
    Not worth the DVD it came in on. You would think the future would have invented some kind of body shielding by the time they invented time travel. Totally unrealistic made apparent by the ability of the animals to outsmart the humans.… Full Review »
  3. JoeE
    1
    Right off the bat I can name 4 inaccurate things with this movie. 1) Killing a butterfly before a volcano kills it should never have an effect on the future, as it would be dead soon anyway. 2)An allosaurus lived 145 million years ago, not 65 million 3)The changing of the future takes place in waves when the butterfly is killed, but returns instantly when it is saved 4)If humanity had evolved differently, they would have had different buildings and tech, but they remain the same in the final wave.… Full Review »
See all user reviews »