A Sound of Thunder
Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: September 2, 2005
3.7
USER SCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 44 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
11
Mixed:
10
Negative:
23
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
1
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 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.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JoeEJul 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 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
0
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 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
7
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 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
2
MyPuddleSep 2, 2005
Ray Bradbury's stories may be some of the hardest to adapt into movies, but that is no excuse for the horrible CGI effects, and the extremely unimaginative adaptation of this story into a movie. This is barely better than the other, Ray Bradbury's stories may be some of the hardest to adapt into movies, but that is no excuse for the horrible CGI effects, and the extremely unimaginative adaptation of this story into a movie. This is barely better than the other, older movie adaptations of Ray Bradbury's works. The problem is not the original story, no, it was a great story, but unfortunately it was adapted into a movie by an unimaginative or uninterested cast. Fans of Ray Bradbury and Ray Bradbury himself would probably be dissapointed to see such a simple, cliched version of such a wonderful story.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
SamDec 10, 2006
Perhaps if the special effects weren't so subliminaly awful and actually attempted to look like something other than atrocioius claymation, we could have had a decent movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
FrankApr 22, 2007
This is the worst film I've ever seen. Really. Special effects are awful, but not as awful as totally illogical plot plus it was very boring. If there were -1 rating, I would give it to this film. I felt sick after watching.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
EddieL.Sep 1, 2005
My gosh!! What a sorry movie! Take my word for it..this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.The worst CGI effects in along time.You can totally tell its fake in the background.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
RonH.Sep 15, 2005
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
[Anonymous]Sep 2, 2005
Just bad. Bad script Bad FX Bad acting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
ChadS.Sep 4, 2005
Lovers of bad movies rejoice, "Battlefield Earth" finally has somebody to play with. There are times Ed Burns looks so pained to be in this film, you half-expect him to look into the camera and say, "Remember when I directed and starred in Lovers of bad movies rejoice, "Battlefield Earth" finally has somebody to play with. There are times Ed Burns looks so pained to be in this film, you half-expect him to look into the camera and say, "Remember when I directed and starred in The Brothers McMullen?" "A Sound of Thunder" has the look and feel of a pilot for the Sci-Fi Channel (no offense). The CGI that's deployed here looks spectacularly fake, as if the actors stepped into a virtual reality room. But what puts "A Sound of Thunder" over the edge in unintentional hillarity are the genetically altered baboons that...I won't spoil it for you. If this film had a larger budget, the sight of biology trying to usurp technology might've been an impressive sight, instead of a cheesy one.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
BrandonDOct 16, 2006
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JadeSDec 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, 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
0
RayB.Apr 20, 2006
This is the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm only glad that I didn't have to pay any money to see it. I'm not sure which is my favorite horrible aspect of this movie: the obvious walking in place in front of a greenscreen This is the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm only glad that I didn't have to pay any money to see it. I'm not sure which is my favorite horrible aspect of this movie: the obvious walking in place in front of a greenscreen or Ben Kingsley's hairpiece. I think I'll call it a two-way tie for last. In a slight defense of the universal horribleness of this movie, it was never finished, and the head of the film studio more than likely embezzled most of the claimed budget ($52 million!!). **moderate spoilers herafter** I did kind of like the monkey-lizards, though, in the same way I would like the pretty colors as I slowly went insane if I were pricked by the go-crazy-thorns from the prehensile brambles. I have to question why stepping on a butterfly would create a world where absolutely everything evolved into a killer species of whatever. If everything is a predator, how did anything ever get so highly evolved.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DaveR.Jul 21, 2006
This movie is fun because it is so badly done. The special effects are really bad, sometimes. At other times they are better. It is, utterly, imaginative in its' production. The dialogue is cliched and flat, but it adds to the fun, This movie is fun because it is so badly done. The special effects are really bad, sometimes. At other times they are better. It is, utterly, imaginative in its' production. The dialogue is cliched and flat, but it adds to the fun, because you really can't believe anybody made the movie, that way. My advice, sit back and have a good time. You'll laugh through half of it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LomaxH.Jul 27, 2006
One of the best movie going experiences of my life only because everyone in the theatre knew that they were watching crap. Occasionaly, fate brings together an enlightened audience. Oh yeah, the movie stunk. Ape-asaurs, fish people, and time One of the best movie going experiences of my life only because everyone in the theatre knew that they were watching crap. Occasionaly, fate brings together an enlightened audience. Oh yeah, the movie stunk. Ape-asaurs, fish people, and time travel. 'Nuff said.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
HughS.Mar 5, 2009
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 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohanL.Nov 12, 2006
I don't ever post comments, but this movie deserves a post. It is the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. The only reason to watch it would be, to see how absolutely horrible it is.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
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 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
1
mehOct 4, 2010
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
moviegrabbagJun 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 andThis 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
All this user's reviews
4
Muskrat147May 26, 2016
Ray Bradbury's story was brilliant, and is the very reason as to why he is so well known. However, the film adaptation had good intentions-and efforts from both director Peter Hyams and Ed Burns. But, with a poorly written script and not soRay Bradbury's story was brilliant, and is the very reason as to why he is so well known. However, the film adaptation had good intentions-and efforts from both director Peter Hyams and Ed Burns. But, with a poorly written script and not so special effects, the film is nothing more than a flop.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
eva3si0nApr 2, 2023
A Sound of Thunder is a classic science fiction film about the butterfly effect on the scale of the evolution of nature. And the first 20 minutes of A Sound of Thunder seems like a great movie, but as delusional as possible, but also notA Sound of Thunder is a classic science fiction film about the butterfly effect on the scale of the evolution of nature. And the first 20 minutes of A Sound of Thunder seems like a great movie, but as delusional as possible, but also not claiming anything more than watching for one evening. But then, the very changes begin - it all looks like a mockery of the very concept of evolution. And all along with terrible CGI graphics, boring action scenes and a slice of plot to correct the consequences. And the ending of the film corresponds to the main film as much as possible. A Sound of Thunder has a good literary source, but the implementation is terrible. You shouldn't waste time on this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

24 Critic Reviews

3.7 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL