A Sound of Thunder

Name: A Sound of Thunder
Genre: Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Released: September 2, 2005
Duration: 110 min
Rating: 24
Cast: Ben Kingsley, Catherine McCormack, Edward Burns

2005

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 26 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 44 Ratings

See All

3.7

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.7	Your Score
3.7	User Score Generally unfavorable reviews based on 44 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

A Sound Of Thunder

Now Playing: A Sound Of Thunder

Movie Details & Credits

Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: September 2, 2005 | PG-13

Starring: Ben Kingsley, Catherine McCormack, Edward Burns

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 unthinkableBased 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

Director: Peter Hyams

Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, Thriller

Rating: PG-13

Runtime: 110 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Mick LaSalle

An old formula made fresh. Read full review

Phil Hall

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. Read full review

Premiere Ryan Devlin

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. Read full review

Jason Anderson

The tedious, tortuous storyline and lifeless cast are two larger problems. Read full review

Dana Stevens

This picture achieves a level of badness that is its own form of sublimity. You almost - please note that I said almost - have to see it to believe it. Read full review

Tasha Robinson

A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel. Read full review

Marc Savlov

A Sound of Thunder is positively awash in bad hairpieces, leading one to believe that global warming is going to be the least of our problems. Read full review

SEE ALL 26 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

JadeS

Dec 11, 2006

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 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.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

MarkB.

Sep 10, 2005

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

A.J.S.

Jan 25, 2006

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JackM.

Apr 1, 2006

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.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

moviegrabbag

Jun 13, 2011

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 makeThis 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!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

JoeE

Jul 5, 2009

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

HinckleyA.

Sep 11, 2005

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 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful

SEE ALL 23 REVIEWS