Gary Arnold of "The Washington Post" wrote in his review, "Flynn's crisp, laconic direction and evocative use of Southern Texas locations transform Rolling Thunder, now at area theaters, into a more distinctive exploitation movie than it deserves to be." Vincent Canby of "The New York Times" noted that "the movie has some good things, but in the way it has been directed by John Flynn it moves so easily and sort of foolishly toward its violent climax, that all the tension within the main character Charlie has long since escaped the film." A review in "Variety" noted, "Its excellent cast performs well, but not well enough; Paul Schrader's story is strong, but not strong enough; and the violence will be too much for some and not enough for others. In sum it neither rolls nor thunders, but with luck, it might just stumble on to a portion of the audience that hailed Schrader's 'Taxi Driver.'" Gene Siskel of the "Chicago Tribune" gave the film three stars out of four and wrote that "what I like about 'Rolling Thunder' is not the predictable orgy of violence that concludes the picture, but what goes on before—the return of the veteran to his hometown and disjointed family. ... I liked its portrayal of Devane's state of mind. The emotional violence he suffers is more stunning than any physical torture." He ranked it #10 on his year-end list of the best films of 1977. Kevin Thomas of the "Los Angeles Times" slammed the film as "one of the most revolting exploitation pictures to come along in some time" and called it "some kind of ultimate in cynical calculation. The whole numbing predicament of the POW is perceptively, credibly depicted—but only to set up the carnage that follows. Surely, the POWs don't deserve this kind of exploitation on the screen."