User Score
3.3

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 36 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 12 out of 36
  2. Negative: 21 out of 36
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  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.
  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 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
  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 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
  4. 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 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. [Anonymous]
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    Just bad. Bad script Bad FX Bad acting.
  8. 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, 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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!
Metascore
24

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 26
  2. Negative: 17 out of 26
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    20
    A clunky and cheesy disaster.