Advanced Search Beta »
Basic Search Fields
A Sound of Thunder
User Score
2.6 out of 10

Generally unfavorable- based on 30 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 30
  2. Mixed: 2 out of 30
  3. Negative: 20 out of 30

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

view
per page
  1. JackM.
    Apr 1, 2006
    1
    Painfully bad. One of the worst movies I've seen. The directing and production values were like bad 1980s TV. How this ever was made is beyond comprehension. No wonder box office attendance is dropping like a stone in a pond if movie studios think people want this kind of trash.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  2. JoeE
    Jul 5, 2009
    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.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. HinckleyA.
    Sep 11, 2005
    0
    Chad go back to your Day Job. The more I see of your reviews the less respect I have for you. Aren't you the one who gave The Honeymooner's a semi positve review when the other 30 posters all gave scores of zero? Now you take a universally panned poor excuse for a sci fi movie by both professionals and the paying public and give it a 6? What did you give GIGLI a 10? Ed Burns is a terrible actor without anything on his resume other than if you want someone real awful without any acting ability he is your man. How in God's name can you recommend this movie to anyone? As for the movie it is so laughable that you need to place a bag over your head leaving the theater and get a lobotomy before watching it. Great job Chad!… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. MarkB.
    Sep 10, 2005
    7
    Somebody's got to defend this movie, by gum, and I guess I'm the man for the job! Yes, it does have some obvious green-screen and rear-projection work, and yes, the Tyrannosaurus Rex that figures in the opening action sorta looks like he needs to be returned to Macy's in time for the Thanksgiving Day parade, but who says every movie involving dinosaurs has to be visually on a par with or beyond Jurassic Park? One person's "shoddy and unconvincing" can be another person's "charmingly old-fashioned", and A Sound of Thunder is still eons closer to vintage Ray Harryhausen than to Bert I. Gordon. And some of the visuals really DO work: the various creatures that attack our heroes, heroines and bystanders in the altered future are far more imaginative and variegated than the CGI-wallpaper that enveloped Stephen Sommers' godawful Mummy movies; the filmmakers' version of downtown Chicago (which I recently visited) 50 years hence is surprisingly witty and well-observed; and I loved the solid/transparent/flowing "pathway to the past" that visitors took in order to hunt and kill a prehistoric beast. Director Peter Hyams has been doing mostly sci-fi and action flicks for over 30 years now; like fellow warhorses Richard Fleischer and the late J. Lee Thompson, his stuff can be remarkably pretentious, badly conceived and dull (remember 2010, possibly a leading contender for the most uncalled-for movie sequel ever made?)...but like those other two craftsmen, he's also perfectly capable at turning out a nifty, enjoyably fast-paced entertainment. Nobody's going to rank this with Gandhi or House of Sand and Fog as containing one of the all-time great Ben Kingsley performances, but he's very amusingly hammy as the greedy, duplicitous proprietor of the potentially dangerous time-travel device--his amusement park capitalist is actually much closer to the conception of same in Michael Crichton's original novel Jurassic Park than Richard Attenborough's teddy-bear interpretation in that film; Ed Burns isn't exactly in my Top 100 as viable action movie heroes go, but since every moment he spent filming this was one he WASN'T spending writing or directing one of his allegedly true-to-life, annoyingly twee romances like The Brothers McMullen or She's The One, who's to complain? Again, I don't see much point in griping about ANY of A Sound of Thunder if you view it in the right perspective: a 12-year-old watching it in 1957 would think it was the coolest movie in the world. And even though part of this has to do with Warner Bros. treating the film like something it found on its shoe and waiting THREE YEARS to release it, the fact that it's a movie version/expansion of a piece of literature (a beloved Ray Bradbury short story) in a summer even more filled than usual with sequels, remakes and equally unnecessary TV show adaptations, in itself makes A Sound of Thunder kinda cool, too.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. MyPuddle
    Sep 2, 2005
    2
    Ray Bradbury's stories may be some of the hardest to adapt into movies, but that is no excuse for the horrible CGI effects, and the extremely unimaginative adaptation of this story into a movie. This is barely better than the other, older movie adaptations of Ray Bradbury's works. The problem is not the original story, no, it was a great story, but unfortunately it was adapted into a movie by an unimaginative or uninterested cast. Fans of Ray Bradbury and Ray Bradbury himself would probably be dissapointed to see such a simple, cliched version of such a wonderful story.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. Sam
    Dec 10, 2006
    5
    Perhaps if the special effects weren't so subliminaly awful and actually attempted to look like something other than atrocioius claymation, we could have had a decent movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. Frank
    Apr 22, 2007
    0
    This is the worst film I've ever seen. Really. Special effects are awful, but not as awful as totally illogical plot plus it was very boring. If there were -1 rating, I would give it to this film. I felt sick after watching.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  8. EddieL.
    Sep 1, 2005
    1
    My gosh!! What a sorry movie! Take my word for it..this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.The worst CGI effects in along time.You can totally tell its fake in the background.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  9. RonH.
    Sep 15, 2005
    7
    People really don't appreciate bad movies anymore, and it's sad. They expect every single movie to have perfect visual effects, while forgetting all the great and great-in-a-bad-way movies that have been made that have horrbile effects. I'd recommend this to anyone who isn't stupid enough to not see this movie for what it is.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. [Anonymous]
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    Just bad. Bad script Bad FX Bad acting.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. ChadS.
    Sep 4, 2005
    6
    Lovers of bad movies rejoice, "Battlefield Earth" finally has somebody to play with. There are times Ed Burns looks so pained to be in this film, you half-expect him to look into the camera and say, "Remember when I directed and starred in The Brothers McMullen?" "A Sound of Thunder" has the look and feel of a pilot for the Sci-Fi Channel (no offense). The CGI that's deployed here looks spectacularly fake, as if the actors stepped into a virtual reality room. But what puts "A Sound of Thunder" over the edge in unintentional hillarity are the genetically altered baboons that...I won't spoil it for you. If this film had a larger budget, the sight of biology trying to usurp technology might've been an impressive sight, instead of a cheesy one.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. BrandonD
    Oct 16, 2006
    7
    Yes, the special effects were bad but otherwise it was pretty good. It was interesting in the fact that they expanded on the original story.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. JadeS
    Dec 11, 2006
    7
    Yes, the CGI wasn't exactly 'up to date' or that good, However a lot of people seem to be forgetting that this movie is based on a well written short story. One that I personally love. I wanted to see the story in front of me, not just imagine what it may or may not have looked like. This movie did that for me, and overall I'm pretty happy about that.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  14. RayB.
    Apr 20, 2006
    0
    This is the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm only glad that I didn't have to pay any money to see it. I'm not sure which is my favorite horrible aspect of this movie: the obvious walking in place in front of a greenscreen or Ben Kingsley's hairpiece. I think I'll call it a two-way tie for last. In a slight defense of the universal horribleness of this movie, it was never finished, and the head of the film studio more than likely embezzled most of the claimed budget ($52 million!!). **moderate spoilers herafter** I did kind of like the monkey-lizards, though, in the same way I would like the pretty colors as I slowly went insane if I were pricked by the go-crazy-thorns from the prehensile brambles. I have to question why stepping on a butterfly would create a world where absolutely everything evolved into a killer species of whatever. If everything is a predator, how did anything ever get so highly evolved.… Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. DaveR.
    Jul 21, 2006
    5
    This movie is fun because it is so badly done. The special effects are really bad, sometimes. At other times they are better. It is, utterly, imaginative in its' production. The dialogue is cliched and flat, but it adds to the fun, because you really can't believe anybody made the movie, that way. My advice, sit back and have a good time. You'll laugh through half of it.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. LomaxH.
    Jul 27, 2006
    0
    One of the best movie going experiences of my life only because everyone in the theatre knew that they were watching crap. Occasionaly, fate brings together an enlightened audience. Oh yeah, the movie stunk. Ape-asaurs, fish people, and time travel. 'Nuff said.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. HughS.
    Mar 5, 2009
    1
    Bears almost no relation beyond the initial premise to Ray Bradbury's classic short story. The catch is Bradbury's story might have lent itself to a great Twilight episode, but not to a feature length film. The pathetic effort to spin out the story results in a complete dead loss -- terrible effects, terrible performances, terrible writing . . . just terrrible.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. JohanL.
    Nov 12, 2006
    0
    I don't ever post comments, but this movie deserves a post. It is the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. The only reason to watch it would be, to see how absolutely horrible it is.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  19. A.J.S.
    Jan 25, 2006
    7
    This movie is hilarious. Anyone who actually saw this movie wanting to watch anything other than garbage is ridiculous. If one read even a single critical review of A Sound of Thunder, it would be obvious that this movie had no value other than the fact that it is hilariously bad. It was etertaining because it was terrible.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. meh
    Oct 4, 2010
    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.
  21. moviegrabbag
    Jun 13, 2011
    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!
prev next
Page:
  • 1

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
24 out of 100

Generally unfavorable - 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
  1. 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.
    Read full review
  2. 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.
    Read full review
  3. Variety
    Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    20
    A clunky and cheesy disaster.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »