User Score
5.5

Mixed or average reviews- based on 80 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 36 out of 80
  2. Negative: 26 out of 80
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. MichaelC.
    Mar 20, 2007
    3
    Is he alive? Is he dead? Who cares? By the time the movie was over, all I wanted was an end to my own suffering.
  2. IrishD.
    Apr 4, 2007
    1
    Imagine the final destination trilogy without blood or excitement and you get premonition, a movie what makes you want to rub sand paper in your eyes, the film is not sandra bullocks best, and is as boring as watching 20 hours worth of chess...without any participents!
  3. A
    May 13, 2007
    1
    Boring, badly acted, weak plot that reaches out to the bible as an all saving solution.
  4. PeterK.
    Aug 30, 2007
    2
    I saw this on a plane... and was glad when we landed that I had not wasted money on a theater ticket. The film falls completely flat at its ending. Think of baking a cake that never rises.
  5. DennisG.
    Mar 13, 2007
    2
    Silly muddled story. Poor acting. Zero credibility.
  6. AL.
    Mar 18, 2007
    1
    Absymal. Bullock has had all expression botoxed out of her face. The painful religious solution to her troubles is embarrassing by its false motives. Its just a misguided advertisment for going to church. The low PG13 rating should shame the big movie theatre employees and the priest who sit on the MPAA's advisory board. Do you really want a 13 year old seeing a story about a father Absymal. Bullock has had all expression botoxed out of her face. The painful religious solution to her troubles is embarrassing by its false motives. Its just a misguided advertisment for going to church. The low PG13 rating should shame the big movie theatre employees and the priest who sit on the MPAA's advisory board. Do you really want a 13 year old seeing a story about a father dying, a mother being committed and a small girl getting disfigured? Expand
  7. JakeA.
    Mar 18, 2007
    0
    Boring and pointless on top of morally ambigous. What was the point. Faith, Hope? It took a lot of faith and hope to not walk out of that film.
  8. ChadS.
    Mar 19, 2007
    2
    Every wretched film is destined to meet their Nadir. "Premonition" reaches its own when a preist tells Linda(Sandra Bullock) about historical forewarnings which had led to tragic consequences. This solemn, supposedly weighty scene is a fallacy because what Linda experiences are not premonitions; she's too self-aware, too cognizant of the end result, Jim dies(which is foolishly Every wretched film is destined to meet their Nadir. "Premonition" reaches its own when a preist tells Linda(Sandra Bullock) about historical forewarnings which had led to tragic consequences. This solemn, supposedly weighty scene is a fallacy because what Linda experiences are not premonitions; she's too self-aware, too cognizant of the end result, Jim dies(which is foolishly revealed in the trailer). It's as if Alanis Morissette wrote another song without consulting a dictionary. The shifting time in "Premonition" never intrigues us, the jumps are seemingly arbitrary; and the enigmas(her daughter's cut face, bloodied hands from a dead bird) tries to manufacture suspense but to no avail. At one point, the film stupidly tries to mislead us into thinking that Linda is crazy, which would be fine if the film used the right evidence(the cuts on her daughter's face is clearly shown to stem from an accident). This whole section involving Linda's purported craziness and Dr. Norman Roth(Peter Stormare) is simply awful. Linda is conscious of her time-travel, but the film makes her do things that suggests otherwise. "Premonition" is desperate, because it's boring; and worst of all, stupid. Linda doesn't have premonitions, she has amnesia. The film should be called "Amnesiac"(Morrisette's smash hit "Irony" were actually a string of "Coincidences"). Expand
  9. ThomasS.
    Apr 16, 2007
    1
    I'm giving this film a 1 because I was able to follow it even though my wife struggled a little more than I to keep the plot straight. The only other reason for the 1 is because I did think it was well shot. Other than that this film deserves a big zero. It lost all credibility when it told me that because I lack faith I am an empty vessel just waiting to be filled with evil, bad I'm giving this film a 1 because I was able to follow it even though my wife struggled a little more than I to keep the plot straight. The only other reason for the 1 is because I did think it was well shot. Other than that this film deserves a big zero. It lost all credibility when it told me that because I lack faith I am an empty vessel just waiting to be filled with evil, bad things, etc. I have to stop writing this review now because I can feel the dark side tugging at me. Expand
  10. KevinC
    Jul 21, 2007
    1
    The plot wasn't that hard to follow, the movie would actually be better if it wasn't easy to follow since the obvious huge plot holes are really what makes the movie stink. Whoever directed/wrote this trash should give everyone who watched it a full refund. I don't want to post spoilers, but put it this way. If the writer wanted to be so lazy, they shouldn't have The plot wasn't that hard to follow, the movie would actually be better if it wasn't easy to follow since the obvious huge plot holes are really what makes the movie stink. Whoever directed/wrote this trash should give everyone who watched it a full refund. I don't want to post spoilers, but put it this way. If the writer wanted to be so lazy, they shouldn't have opened up a can of worms involving time travel. Expand
  11. billc
    Jul 22, 2007
    0
    The only thing good about this movie is Sandra Bullock. She is gorgeous.
  12. Jack
    Jul 24, 2007
    0
    I'll pay the rental fee again to get my 2 hours back. If you're the type who gets annoyed by really bad plot holes, this movie will have you screaming when the credits start rolling. Yeah it's THAT bad. You've been warned. I've never submitted a vote here before, but this I had to get my pain heard.
  13. thecritics.
    Aug 5, 2007
    0
    This movie was a giant waste of my time, it ended excactly the way it started. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE (Unless of course you want to waste two hours of your life).
  14. SamF.
    Mar 19, 2007
    1
    This film is a real waste of money and time. Its a shame because Sandra Bullock is one of my favorites actresses in movies like Speed, The Net and Miss Congeniality. But this film has so many holes, does not go anywhere and ends up not explaining anything but to be a religious moral story.
  15. Jul 25, 2015
    3
    Sincere am but the movies that starred Sandra Bullock this was the worst , but always give support to the most beloved actress in the world and already showed his excellent talent in Gravity. Go Sandra !
Metascore
29

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 30
  2. Negative: 13 out of 30
  1. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    60
    This slick exercise about a housewife whose spouse might or might not be dead is effective until a downright maudlin close.
  2. Reviewed by: Nathan Lee
    40
    Had the film maintained a tone of kooky, Kafkaesque tragicomedy, narrowing in on Linda's wacko wrestling match with the laws of physics, we might really have had something here.
  3. 63
    The star and the more overwrought aspects of the plot are mainstream but the philosophical implications will not appeal to those who prefer easily digestible cinematic portions. It's also true that the more deeply one considers the movie's themes and structure, the less sense it makes.