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. 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 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Sep 12, 2014
    7
    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. OrThe 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.)
    Expand
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.