A Sound of Thunder

  • Review Date: November 28, 2006
  • Rated: PG-13
  • Genre: Science Fiction
  • Release Year: 2005
  • Running Time: 101 minutes

Common Sense Media says

Ridiculous at every level. Save your money.
  • Review Date: November 28, 2006
  • Rated: PG-13
  • Genre: Science Fiction
  • Release Year: 2005
  • Running Time: 101 minutes

Age(i)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Quality(i)

 

What parents need to know

Positive messages

Sheer stupidity, corporate greed, what amounts to unnamed male prostitution.

Violence

Wholly ridiculous, including battling with badly digitized creatures (dinosaurs, monkey creatures, bat creatures), shooting at prey, a suicide shoots himself in the head (not explicit, but obvious).

Sex

Before and after Edward Burns "services" a woman client offscreen, he appears in boxers.

Language

Multiple uses of "ass."

Consumerism

Starbucks-looking coffee shop.

Drinking, drugs, & smoking

Drinking, smoking.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that this movie is dismally inept: the special effects are laughably bad and the plot is incoherent. What's more, it features violence in various forms: Time travelers shoot and kill dinosaurs, and they're menaced by variously mutated creatures (half primate/half reptile, flying batlike monsters, large roach-like insects). These scenes -- in the dark among trees, in a dark and flooded subway tunnel -- might be frightening for younger viewers. A couple's one-night stand is indicated by his emergence from the bedroom in his boxers, while she appears only partly covered. One character shoots himself in the head (not graphically, but obviously), and another sacrifices himself to a herd of creatures in order to save his friends.

Parents say

Kids say

What's the story?

In A SOUND OF THUNDER, ultimate corporate villain Charles Hatton (Ben Kingsley) owns Time Safari Inc., an agency that sends rich folks back 63 million years so that they can shoot allosauruses. Based very loosely on a short story by Ray Bradbury, the movie's premise is that killing these mighty reptiles does not affect the future, but that the smooshing of a single butterfly causes havoc in 2055, the movie's present. Go-back team leader and scientist Travis Ryer (Edward Burns) shows his distaste for the scheme, but goes along for the ride anyway. When a time travel "jump" goes wrong, Chicago's winter days are suddenly balmy, trees grow through walls, pavement cracks, power goes out, and the city is devoid of people. Travis meets with Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack), the angry scientist who invented the technology, who explains that more changes will come via "time waves," wavy-shadowy effects that wash over the city. Sonia jerry-rigs a power supply to send Travis back. Travis, Sonia, and tech officer Payne (David Oyelowo) must make their way through flooded subway tunnels and battle a gigantic, anaconda-like mutated eel. Will Travis will be able to get back in time and erase all of the devastation?

Is it any good?

QUALITY
 

Ridiculous at every level, A Sound of Thunder has a weak premise, an absurd plot, and is riddled with clichés. Characters are standard one-dimensional -- Travis is the reluctantly macho hero, Sonia is the brains, and the black guy -- tech officer Payne (David Oyelowo) -- sacrifices himself so the rest of the team can reach their destination (this with the promise that Travis will be able to get back in time and "fix it," meaning that all this devastation will be erased. If only the same might be done for A Sound of Thunder.

Families can talk about...

  • Families can talk about the poor planning by the time-traveling, so-called scientists: how can they imagine their hunting of prehistoric creatures won't affect the future (their present) in some way? How does Travis recover his sense of self-confidence and -respect by saving the world?

Movie details

Theatrical release date:September 2, 2005
DVD release date:March 28, 2006
Cast:Ben Kingsley, Catherine McCormack, Edward Burns
Director:Peter Hyams
Studio:Warner Bros.
Genre:Science Fiction
Run time:101 minutes
MPAA rating:PG-13
MPAA explanation:sci-fi violence, partial nudity and language

This review of A Sound of Thunder was written by

About our rating system

  • ON: Content is age-appropriate for kids this age.
  • PAUSE: Know your child; some content may not be right for some kids.
  • OFF: Not age-appropriate for kids this age.
  • NOT FOR KIDS: Not appropriate for kids of any age.

Find out more

Quality

Our star rating assesses the media's overall quality.

Find out more

Learning ratings

  • Best: Really engaging; great learning approach.
  • Very Good: Engaging; good learning approach.
  • Good: Pretty engaging; good learning approach.
  • Fair: Somewhat engaging; OK learning approach.
  • Not for Learning: Not recommended for learning.
  • Not for Kids: Not age-appropriate for kids; not recommended for learning.

Find out more

About our buy links

When you use our links to make a purchase, Common Sense Media earns a small affiliate fee from Amazon or iTunes. As a nonprofit organization, these funds help us continue providing independent, ad-free services for educators, families, and kids while the price you pay remains the same. Thank you for your support.
Read more

See more about how we rate and review.

What parents and kids say

See all user reviews

Share your thoughts with other parents and kids Write a user review

A safe community is important to us. Please observe our guidelines

Adult Written byturtle April 9, 2008
AGENot rated for age
QUALITY
 

Pure fantasy

This was a great action film...based on fantasy. We totally loved the ending. Our 13yr old daughter thought it was fun.
Kid, 11 years old April 9, 2008
AGENot rated for age
QUALITY
 

Pretty good

pretty good not the worst movie in the world but not the best, for sure
Teen, 15 years old Written byVivian_L December 5, 2009
AGE
10
QUALITY
 

It's been awhile, but...

I saw this movie about three or four years ago, and can now remember only small portions of it and a few details. I only remember watching it at all because we just read the short story of the same name by Ray Bradbury. (which was pretty good) I remember it as pretty cheesy, but it apparently had enough action to keep an eleven-year-old entertained during the entire movie. I'd definitely recommend the short story over the movie, but the movie wasn't bad, and I'll probably watch it again someday soon.

Poll

Did our review help you make an informed decision about this product?

Essential School Tools