IMDb user comments for
Twister (1996) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 33:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

325 comments in total

---

47 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
I like Twister, 12 November 2001
Author: motor89 from Lancashire, England

I get a lot of stick from friends for saying this, but: I really like Twister. I enjoy a good thoughtful film as much as the next stuck-up film snob, but I also love damned good action flicks.

Twister is a big dumb summer blockbuster with no pretensions whatsoever. I *like* the fact that the money is all up there on the screen - lots of tornadoes ripping apart farmhouses and throwing trucks around. I *like* that it's one long chase movie. I *like* looking at Helen Hunt's beautiful face. I saw Twister twice at the cinema, and at least three times since - and I've enjoyed it every single time. Can you get a better recommendation than that?

Twister will never satisfy some people... in particular, those who watch it, for some strange reason, expecting a cerebral masterpiece. Enjoy it for what it is: One of the best summer blockbusters ever.

---

37 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
I Have No Idea Why People Are Bashing This Movie, 7 April 2006

Author: Workin_Man from Nova Scotia

Twister, in my opinion, is a really good action thriller. Personally, I don't know how people can bash this movie. I thought it was an amazing film!! The acting is great, the special effects are excellent, the action is intense, and this film actually has a great storyline to it. To me, a 5.9/10 rating for this film is atrocious. I think this film deserves so much better!! I was thinking of somewhere in between a 7 and an 8/10. But I have my opinion and other people have their own right?? I just find it hard to believe that people don't like this movie.

Twister has everything I like in an action movie. It has amazing special effects, heart-stopping action, and a reasonably well written storyline. It even has some heartbreaking parts which almost brought tears to my eyes and I don't usually cry during movies. However I almost cried during Twister. Jan De Bont has created a very enjoyable that maybe doesn't come up to masterpiece material, but still is a memorable action movie that won't be forgotten for a long long time.

---

28 out of 44 people found the following comment useful :-
"It was windy.", 15 May 2003
Author: DigitalHuman from United States

Solid follow up film for former cinematographer (it shows) Jan DeBont who's previous film 'Speed' redefined the action genre and added, well, speed, to the mix. He has a talent for making films that are extremely kinetic and seem to actually MOVE and Twister is no different.

The story is simple, we follow a group of storm chasers around tornado alley for 48hrs during the most active otbreak of tornao activity on record (not unlike what actually occured this past month in Oklahoma) all the while watching an estranged couple played by Hunt and Paxton fall in love again amongst the windswept action.

The tornados are awe inspiring works of digital wonder created by ILM and really come across as powerful. They're not so much portrayed as ordinary storms, but rather angry demons from above who wreak havoc on the landscape, they even roar like lions at times! Great film. And to those that think this film doesn't translate well to the home, you obviously don't have a Home Theater set up with Dolby Digital and DTS 5.1! The film RIVALS what I got at the theater in my home!

---

26 out of 42 people found the following comment useful :-
Great Action/Adventure Film!!!, 6 August 2002

Author: LebowskiT1000 from Escondido, California, USA

I'm really shocked at how low the rating for this movie is on this site. What is wrong with you people? The movie is awesome! It's a fun movie with excellent special effects.

Some people have complained about the story...I don't get it, the story seemed fine to me, given the nature of the film. The movie is about tornados!!! It's not supposed to be a deep and thought-provoking film, it's just meant to be entertaining, and it most certainly does that!!! I thought the story was excellent and really kept you interested in what was going to happen next, the movie flows very nicely from scene to scene, from start to finish. Also, I have to mention (before I forget) that I loved Jo Harding's (Helen Hunt's) group of storm chasers, they were a great bunch of interesting characters! I loved them all!!!

The actors all did a fantastic job and there were a lot of them that are worth mentioning. Bill Paxton does an awesome job as always. Helen Hunt if fabulous, and looks just as beautiful as ever. Jami Gertz also did a fine job and looked fantastic. Philip Seymour Hoffman did a really good job, this seems like such a different role for him and he nailed it! Cary Elwes is one of those few actors that can convincingly play a bad guy and a good guy and is also just as good in comedy films. He's a very talented actor and did a great job in this film. I won't mention all names, but all of the storm chasers did a great job with their roles. As for director, Jan de Bont: Another great film to add to his resume! I can't wait to see his next film! And, I have to mention writers Michael Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin as well, they both did a great job with the story!

If you're looking for a fast-paced, energetic, interesting, fun movie with some killer special effects, then this is the movie for you! I would definitely recommend this film to just about anyone. There is rarely anything objectional in the film and I would imagine that this would appeal to a great deal of people. I definitely think you should see this film. I really hope you enjoy the film. Thanks for reading.

-Chris

---

28 out of 46 people found the following comment useful :-
Technical Inconsistencies, 11 December 2004
Author: crazymanmichael from Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

POSSIBLE SPOILERS WITHIN!

Prolog:

· It is implied, later in the film (during the dinner scene at auntie's) that this night-time tornado is F5 intensity. This is extremely unlikely. There's just not enough heat/lapse-rate (and consequent thermal instability) without sunshine. · The fluid dynamics of a guy getting sucked out of a storm cellar just don't work. It would require too much pressure differential in an enclosed space. Stick a small piece of paper in a pop bottle, then try to get the paper out of the pop bottle by blowing. Blow across the opening, into the opening, try anything. Trust me, it just won't work.

First tornado encountered

· Mammatus clouds, which they admire outside the gas station, generally indicate that a storm is waning, not at peak intensity as suggested here. · The tornado shown does not emerge from a wall cloud, and thus is probably a land-spout. Therefore it's unlikely to be F2 intensity as implied. · Storm chasers do not drive like idiots. They're very responsible and safety conscious. Even when deploying damage-path instruments like TOTO they do not deliberately get closer than ½ mile or so. · An F2 tornado cannot pick up a truck, just push it around some. · If it ropes out as shown, it's very unlikely (but not impossible, admittedly) that it could reconstitute, as it apparently did. · The tornado debris cloud varied way too much in size. In the final seconds it looked to be only a few meters in diameter. Not realistic. · Hiding under a bridge is a really stupid idea. Storm chasers would only do something like that if no other option was available.

Second tornado

· The second tornado appears to be coming out of a wall cloud (good for them!), but there's no such storm-chaser terminology as 'sidewinder'. · There's no way they could assess the Fujita ('F') number just by looking at the tornado. Dumb! No storm chaser would ever say something like that. · The tornado does not move realistically. Spawning of the second funnel is unrealistic. There's no way a second tornado could 'split' from the first as shown. The fluid dynamics of rotation would prevent it.

· Hunt says they're 'in the flanking line.' They could not be anywhere near the flanking line if they're 'under the core' (mesocyclone, I suppose that means). · The whole 'cow' scene, while amusing, is completely unrealistic. · They survive a direct hit from an 'F3' tornado and nothing happens? Don't make me laugh.

Dinner at Auntie's

· I don't even know where to start with the absurd banter in this scene. The whole 'Jack Daniels' anecdote is absolutely impossible. Not even close to possible.

Third tornado

· You can't guarantee touchdown just from Doppler radar. You can determine the existence of a vortex, but there's no way to say whether it's on the ground or in the air. · There's a good picture of wall cloud here! One good moment. · Where the hell is the debris in this scene coming from? They're too far from the tornado and not anywhere near the RFD. · The tornado moves too fast. Not realistic. · When it hits the power lines, what the hell explodes in a ball of fire??? · Cloud motion is not particularly realistic when the tornado lifts.

Fourth tornado

· Once again we have an unlikely level of intensity after dark. · What are these people, living mobile home parks? Every damn tornado in the state heads straight for them! · There is a bad misconception that the visible part of the tornado, i.e. the condensation funnel, is where the wind is. The actual area of strong rotation may be many times larger and strong inflow can extend even farther than that. The visible funnel is only where the air pressure is low enough that the air is at or below dew point. In dry air, tornadoes may not necessarily have a visible funnel at all, at least until it is filled with debris and dust. · 'Downdrafts and microbursts'??? What the hell is he talking about? They took a f***ing direct hit from a funnel. There were no 'downdrafts and microbursts'…

The propeller idea

· I'm not sure about this. It might actually be a good one. Mind you, I can't picture a scientist designing objects intended to be carried aloft by the wind that are spherical, which is the most aerodynamically efficient symmetrical shape. The logical design would be something with a high drag coefficient, not a low one (which a sphere would be), so that they would be carried more easily by the updraft. It wouldn't be necessary to make little propellers, though. Just anything that would increase drag.

Fifth tornado

· Sure is good of that tornado to hang around for hours until the storm chasers are ready! The longest-lived tornado on record lasted less than 75 minutes. Oh, and they casually drive by the thing on the way to their deployment point. They go from bright sunlight to within a mile of a huge wedge tornado, then back into sunlight, apparently far enough away from the tornado to prepare their instruments, then easily drive to within a few hundred feet of the thing. Yeah right.

· By the way, just because the sensors spill out onto the road, how come they're no good any more? Why do they have to be inside that barrel thing? They'd still get sucked up into the funnel even if they're scattered on the road… · How can they drive through the flaming wreckage of a tanker truck and not hit anything? · Quibble: Explosion of Jonas's truck looked really fake. · Continuity error: Part of combine harvester hits their truck on the passenger-side windshield. In the very next shot the windshield is intact. · There is no way the truck could drive through even a flimsy frame house and come out the other side undamaged. · Too many problems here to list. In almost all scenes, they're way too close to the tornado. They would be right in the inflow, and getting their asses kicked by it. · Getting caught in an F5 tornado unprotected: Probability of survival: very low. Probability of surviving uninjured: just about zero. Wind speeds inside an F5 tornado are between 250 and 317 m.p.h. Getting hit by even a small piece of debris would be like getting shot with a gun. Even in the core of the tornado they look like they're getting buffeted by winds perhaps 40-50 m.p.h. Yeah, right. If either of them got hit by even a small rock traveling at 250+ miles per hour, they'd be dead as fried chicken. · Following the encounter, the tornado doesn't rope out, but dissipates in a matter of seconds. Pretty, unlikely. · In the final scene, it is apparent that the tornado passed within a few meters of the farmhouse, yet the house is undamaged. Possible, but very pretty unlikely.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
don't try this at home!, 23 February 2008

Author: angre1-1 from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Did everyone feel the way I felt? I was rooting for the twister. I live in Madisonville, Ky, where in 2005 we had the strongest tornado (F4 but some say F5) in the country that year. Amazingly enough, we did not lose a single life in that hellstorm. But...we did not have the bland characters living in our town that live in this movie. And the final scene? Where Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt strap themselves to the pipes? Well...just so you know...a tornado of that intensity is going to rip concrete from the ground, making you forget it was even there. It is going to pick up combines and toss them like children's blocks. It is going to suck their eyes out of their heads. It is going to strip the skin from their bones. And that isn't even taking into account the damage from the blowing debris! A piece of straw is going to be slung at them at 150 mph. Sand is going to strip their clothes and flesh from them. Sounds kind of biblical...but basically, remember, you are not going to survive. For them to survive, and then just sit there and *smooch*, well, it was sickening. If that had actually happened, kissing is farthest thing from your mind--you want to know where your change of pants is at...

---

6 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Feeble story and acting, but great FX, 4 January 2003

Author: odd_yager from USA

Twister is your typical mindless summer film; an entire fireworks display of special FX with flimsy acting, B-grade dialogue, and crayon-written storylines. If you can avoid paying attention to the characters (all of them have to be zany cartoons), and cover your ears whenever they decide to open up their mouths and utter things to obscene to be heard, this can actually eb a subpar movie.

4/10

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Twister, how I hate thee, let me count the ways!, 15 March 2005

Author: Dignan_ from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I'm usually pretty generous when dealing with big, summer blockbuster type movies. Going into these movies, you learn to lower your expectations and try to have fun. Well, I just couldn't do that with this movie. This movie is just plain bad. Before I get too negative, let me get the lone positive out of the way. The special effects are decent. Not great, but not bad also.

Now, to our excellent story. The story involves a group of storm chasers. Our storm chasers are good hearted people with only scientific advancement in mind. Led by Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton, our heroes set out to find when and why tornadoes happen. But wait, there is a rival group of storm chasers on the horizon. These guys, however, are BAD with a capital B. How do we know they're bad? Well, they drive black SUV's and use more advanced technology. Also, these bad storm chasers are only in the business for the money. Therefore, they must be evil people. By the way, how much money is there in storm chasing? I honestly don't know and by the end of the movie, I honestly don't care.

The acting is almost laughable at points. Phil Seymour Hoffman, an actor I love, is terrible in this film. I can only imagine he took the role for the paycheck. I'll let him slide on this because the man does need to make a living. I'm sure he didn't get rich doing good films like "Boogie Nights", "Magnolia", and "25th Hour". Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton are equally bad. Oh, and there is obviously a trite love story involved. What would a summer movie be without a terribly written love story? A film about storm chasers could be interesting, but this movie misses the mark completely. Maybe I'm taking it too seriously, but I usually don't with such a movie. In my opinion it is just a terrible, terrible creation. 1/10

---

13 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Fun, 4 May 2003
Author: staisil2 from Wisconsin

This is a really fun movie with a great cast headed by Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. It may not be a frightning, or even suspensful, but it does the trick. Along with great acting and decent writing, the special effects were awesome and it made you feel like you were really there. 8 out of 10.

---

29 out of 54 people found the following comment useful :-
Sucks and blows - "Twister", 6 November 2005

Author: dee.reid from United States

You don't play with Mother Nature. That's common sense; anyone who does, well, I feel sorry for them. In "Twister," Nature is given a frightening new dimension courtesy of breathtaking Hollywood CGI effects but it's dumbed down by a questionable script and dialogue (thanks to none other than novelist Michael Crichton himself as a co-author, along with wife Anne-Marie Martin) and sub-par acting. Sure, a number of liberties are also taken with tornadoes ("fingers of God" - one character calls them), but what do you expect from a film directed by "Speed" Jan de Bont?

And lastly, who goes to see movies like this for scientific accuracy? I remember watching it with a friend and giving him a nasty tongue-lashing afterwards for his redundant pointing out of the various scientific and factual inaccuracies that abound in it (which he told me had each been identified by his science teacher - go figure). I snapped back, "Dude, chill out. It's just a movie. Who cares if this does or doesn't happen, or tornadoes don't suck like that." I basically told him to get a grip.

Nature is unrepentant in its desire to test human will to withstand her destructive forces. I showered praise on "Twister" for capturing that and making sure its human characters realize it. I make these statements because "Twister" is quite terrifying in its scenes of tornadoes blazing paths of destruction, and this is what people tend to miss when watching it. I know I'm sure to run into flak because of it but, what am I going to do {*shrugs shoulders*}?

As the film opens on the plains of Oklahoma's Tornado Alley, the National Weather Service is tracking several storm systems that if they were to merge any time soon, they could see a record outbreak of violent, tornado-producing severe weather. Next, we're introduced to meteorologist and recent divorcée Bill (Bill Paxton) and fiancée Melissa (Jami Gertz) - "She's a reproductive therapist," he reassures us, after Bill is asked if she is HIS therapist. Melissa isn't too keen on the idea of storm chasing, which poses a problem for them both, but for Bill it was always the thrill of the hunt, and we know he's not going to pass the opportunity to get back in the mode of things.

We then arrive at a field where we meet the storm chasers, led by Bill's tough ex and fellow meteorologist Jo (Helen Hunt), who has somehow mysteriously forgotten to sign her name to the last page of the divorce papers (she still loves him). When asked if he's back by the various supporting players, he emphatically denies he has returned to his field of expertise. But it turns out, however, that before their marriage went to hell, they had been busy developing a revolutionary storm system-tracking device that could give them the inside knowledge of how tornadoes work.

"DOROTHY" (real original), the miracle device, a package that contains hundreds of little sensors, could be placed in the damage path and each sensor could provide a detailed map of a tornado's inner-workings and with such knowledge now available, they could design an advanced warning system. The trick is, however, they have to wait until a twister spawns, place Dorothy in its damage path (or "Suck Zone"), and then run like hell. The action begins when they're forced to take off to chase after the storm, and it's about here the film abandons logic and plot for nonstop special effects, peril, and destruction.

Saying the acting here sucks and is uninspired is like saying we went to see "Jurassic Park" (1993) for the performances - understatement - get real. It's easy for any casual movie-goer to pick apart bad acting and lousy story, but come on, it's a roller coaster film. I'm not sure I could put it in clearer writing for you about how we don't go to see movies like this for Oscar-winning actors or plot. I've always liked Bill Paxton (who I personally see as probably being the next Clint Eastwood), and I find it difficult about how he has somehow managed to avoid stardom. Here, his character seems to know how the storm functions and what it "thinks," and in essence he's a human barometer (even his wild days as a radical storm chaser do deserve some laughs).

The writing is substandard, including Jo's barely-hinted upon obsession with chasing the storm (as a child, she saw her dad killed by a monster F5), Lois Smith as Jo's Aunt Meg (who supplies our famished heroes with platters of beef and eggs between effects scenes), the underdeveloped storm chasing team (some of whom are more colorful than others, including Philip Seymour Hoffman as Dusty), and the unnecessary subplot involving stiff competition from Cary Elwes as a corporate-sponsored rival who stole Bill's invention. But this isn't too glaring a problem, if you're a hard-a** for art in cinema and came to "Twister" expecting it. You'll see plenty scenes of destruction (just wait for the drive-in showing "The Shining"), and the music that swells up when tornadoes appear.

Lastly, I can see how anyone who has experienced a twister in their lives could probably want to possibly stay from "Twister." I've never seen one and I don't want to. I do know people who have experienced tornadoes; in northern Virginia, where I live, we rarely see the kind of severe weather that produces twisters, but my grandparents, who live close to me, were once in an F1 and thankfully it caused minimal damage to their property and neighbors.

"Twister" isn't a failure; it's a simple realization of the popcorn blockbuster. Put aside the hard-pressing of art, turn off your brain, and enjoy (but you should still watch out for those flying cows, tanker trucks, and other debris that can become a hostile projectile if picked up by a tornado's winds); it's that simple.

7/10

---

---

Page 1 of 33:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history