Metascore
24

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 26 Critics What's this?

User Score
3.1

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 34 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Based on a short story by award-winning author Ray Bradbury, A Sound of Thunder opens on the year 2055 in downtown Chicago where a very elite travel agency, Time Safari Inc., has cornered the lucrative time-traveling market with an exclusive prehistoric hunting package. Time Safari Inc. isBased on a short story by award-winning author Ray Bradbury, A Sound of Thunder opens on the year 2055 in downtown Chicago where a very elite travel agency, Time Safari Inc., has cornered the lucrative time-traveling market with an exclusive prehistoric hunting package. Time Safari Inc. is the hottest ticket in town -- until the unthinkable happens. Someone breaks the rules. And evolution runs off its tracks. (Warner Bros.) Expand
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 3 out of 26
  2. Negative: 17 out of 26
  1. Reviewed by: Phil Hall
    60
    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.
  2. Reviewed by: Ryan Devlin
    50
    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.
  3. 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.
  4. 20
    A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel.
  5. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    20
    A clunky and cheesy disaster.
  6. So perfect in its awfulness, it makes one seriously consider a theory of unintelligent design.

See all 26 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 7 out of 22
  2. Negative: 13 out of 22
  1. 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 theThe 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
  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, 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. Expand
  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. [Anonymous]
    Sep 2, 2005
    1
    Just bad. Bad script Bad FX Bad acting.
  5. 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 timeNot 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. Expand
  6. 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 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. Expand
  7. 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 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

See all 22 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. The Best and Worst Time Travel Movies

    The Best and Worst Time Travel Movies Image
    Published: March 23, 2010
    We've traveled through the history of cinema to uncover the best and worst time travel movies -- as well as everything in between. Where do your favorites stand?