Critics Scoreboard
All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review. Learn more...
Average Critic Score:
24
(26 sources)
24
(26 sources)
-
75
-
67
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Though he tries hard for bravado, hero Edward Burns is terminally wooden. Read Full Review » -
63
Baltimore Sun
Retro in a refreshing sort of way, a return to those sci-fi films of the 1950s, filled with cheesy special effects and over-the-top acting, but with a gem of an idea at its core, and all done with just enough wit and inventiveness to keep audiences in the cheap seats happy. Read Full Review » -
60
Film Threat
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 » -
50
Village Voice
The movie recovers from a sluggish opening act to pack some real suspense in its second half. Read Full Review » -
50
Chicago Sun-Times
A Sound of Thunder may not be a success, but it loves its audience and wants us to have a great time. Read Full Review » -
50
Premiere
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 » -
50
ReelViews
The ending seems predestined, and the overlong, tepid journey getting to that point isn't worth the price of admission. Read Full Review » -
40
LA Weekly
The barometer of the film's undoing is Burns' super-low-key performance, which starts out as a pokerfaced spoof on heroic cool, but takes a misstep more fatal than mere time travel can undo. Read Full Review » -
38
New York Daily News
Burns doesn't even bother to disguise his New York accent, any more than he does his boredom. Read Full Review » -
38
USA Today
The cliché-laden dialogue, schlocky special effects and predictable plot are derivative; the movie is overwrought and lacks suspense. Read Full Review » -
25
Charlotte Observer
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. Read Full Review » -
25
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
The tedious, tortuous storyline and lifeless cast are two larger problems. Read Full Review » -
25
Chicago Tribune
One redeeming feature of this picture is that it will make great fodder for those make-fun-of-the-movie TV shows. Read Full Review » -
20
The Hollywood Reporter
A gloriously lead-footed excursion into time travel with all the accoutrements of 1950s science fiction: an absurd plot, cliched characters, corny effects and a race against time to save mankind. Read Full Review » -
20
-
20
The New York Times
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 » -
20
Los Angeles Times
The picture looks as murky as its story line, the sound is tinny, much of the dialogue is flat or confoundingly technical or merely risible, and most everything on the screen looks patently fake. Read Full Review » -
20
TV Guide
The profoundly unconvincing CGI work only makes the sorry screenplay and lackluster performances look worse. Read Full Review » -
20
Chicago Reader
This is supposedly a big-budget production, though on several occasions the scientist hero (Edward Burns) seems to be walking in place before a rear-projection screen. Read Full Review » -
20
The Onion (A.V. Club)
A plodding, bloated, long-shelved adaptation/expansion of Ray Bradbury's classic short story about the dangers of time travel. Read Full Review » -
12
Boston Globe
The movie fails to conjure the wonder of the Ray Bradbury short story that inspired it. Read Full Review » -
10
-
0
Austin Chronicle
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 » -
0
Entertainment Weekly
So perfect in its awfulness, it makes one seriously consider a theory of unintelligent design. Read Full Review » -
0
New York Post
If 65 million years of evolution have been building up to this movie, then Darwin was wrong. But there's no intelligent design here either. Read Full Review »
You Say
click on a star to rate
