Metascore
24

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

User Score
3.0

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 33 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. 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: 6 out of 21
  2. Negative: 13 out of 21
  1. 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. Collapse
  2. 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
  3. 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. Expand
  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 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 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 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 21 User Reviews

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?