Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 26
  2. Negative: 17 out of 26
  1. Though he tries hard for bravado, hero Edward Burns is terminally wooden.
  2. Retro 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.
  3. Reviewed by: Phil Hall
    A 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.
  4. 50
    A Sound of Thunder may not be a success, but it loves its audience and wants us to have a great time.
  5. 50
    The ending seems predestined, and the overlong, tepid journey getting to that point isn't worth the price of admission.
  6. Reviewed by: Ryan Devlin
    Summing 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.
  7. 50
    The movie recovers from a sluggish opening act to pack some real suspense in its second half.
  8. 40
    The 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.
  9. Burns doesn't even bother to disguise his New York accent, any more than he does his boredom.
  10. Reviewed by: Claudia Puig
    The cliché-laden dialogue, schlocky special effects and predictable plot are derivative; the movie is overwrought and lacks suspense.
  11. 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.
  12. Reviewed by: Jason Anderson
    The tedious, tortuous storyline and lifeless cast are two larger problems.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 20
    The profoundly unconvincing CGI work only makes the sorry screenplay and lackluster performances look worse.
  16. 20
    A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    A clunky and cheesy disaster.
  20. 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.
  21. 12
    The movie fails to conjure the wonder of the Ray Bradbury short story that inspired it.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. So perfect in its awfulness, it makes one seriously consider a theory of unintelligent design.
User Score

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 34 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 22
  2. Negative: 13 out of 22
  1. Sep 12, 2014
    The idea is great. I waited a lot from this movie - but as one might guess, I ended up a bit disappointed. At places, the surroundings in the movie weren't too believable. Most of the time, I just couldn't stop thinking why they did some things as they did. The possibilities were numerous when you look at the plot, and it kind of felt like they chose the easiest way to deal with it. Or perhaps I just expected too much, who knows.

    (Jurassic Park fans: no, there aren't that many dinosaurs in this one.)
    Full Review »
  2. 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 »
  3. 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 »