Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 26
  2. Negative: 17 out of 26
  1. Burns doesn't even bother to disguise his New York accent, any more than he does his boredom.
  2. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    The cliché-laden dialogue, schlocky special effects and predictable plot are derivative; the movie is overwrought and lacks suspense.
  3. Reviewed by: Michael Esposito
    One redeeming feature of this picture is that it will make great fodder for those make-fun-of-the-movie TV shows.
  4. Reviewed by: Jason Anderson
    The tedious, tortuous storyline and lifeless cast are two larger problems.
  5. 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. 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. 20
    The profoundly unconvincing CGI work only makes the sorry screenplay and lackluster performances look worse.
  8. 20
    A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel.
  9. 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. 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. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    A clunky and cheesy disaster.
  12. Reviewed by: Joshua Katzman
    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. 12
    The movie fails to conjure the wonder of the Ray Bradbury short story that inspired it.
  14. Reviewed by: Kyle Smith
    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.
  15. 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.
  16. So perfect in its awfulness, it makes one seriously consider a theory of unintelligent design.
User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 33 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 21
  2. Negative: 13 out of 21
  1. Jun 13, 2011
    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
    Oct 4, 2010
    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 »