jaredpahl
On the surface, Twister looks like any other 90s summer blockbuster. It comes from a time when the big summer tentpoles could draw millions with nothing but state-of-the-art special effects, likeable movie stars, and great marketing. Unlike most 90s box-office smashes however, Twister took this formula literally. Twister is nothing but actors and effects. And yet somehow, despite not having any story to speak of, despite not having a single coherent character arc, and despite not having an actual beginning, middle, or end, Twister is, against all odds, pretty enjoyable.Twister is about a team of storm chasers, including ones played by Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt. There is your plot summary. Yes there are evil storm chasers and ex-wives and stuff, but I must reiterate; Nothing actually happens in Twister. Well, nothing beyond storms and people chasing them. It is almost shocking how simplistic a film Twister is. It begins with a tornado, and keeps throwing tornadoes at the screen until the audience has got their fill. The script was written in part by Michael Crichton, my favorite author, and I prefer to imagine the final result is not his fault. Maybe I'm right, seeing as the elements associated with Crichton: the science of storm chasing and the professional love triangle, are simply along for the ride in a script that goes as follows: Storm happens, characters chase storm, characters rest, storm happens again, and repeat.But remember, Twister is enjoyable. Attribute that to those ever-present storms. Tornadoes have never looked cooler. The special effects from ILM were top of the line in 1996, and they still look remarkable. Tornadoes on land, tornadoes on water, tornadoes in the town, tornadoes in the fields, they all look like the real deal. They're massive, frightening, and spectacular in the truest sense of the word; they are a spectacle to see. It's all fun, of course, and director Jan de Bont doesn't hold back. You get your money's worth out of the action in Twister. Things may get repetitive after the fifth tornado pops up, but hey, nobody can claim that there aren't enough set-pieces. And de Bont stages the scenes well. We've seen plenty of CGI disaster flicks, but few of them have captured the thrill of being inside a powerful force of nature the way Twister does.There throughout all the mayhem are Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt, two strong movie personalities, whose enthusiasm for the storm chasing material carries the picture. Let's face it, they don't do much acting here, but they are easy to get along with on screen. For two people asked to hold our hands through a parade of extreme weather, you'd be hard pressed to find better. Phillip Seymour Hoffman also has a small but colorful role as another storm lover, and he provides some needed humor. The cast sells their characters' passion for science, and it almost becomes infectious.Twister is little more than a special effects demo reel. I'm serious. It allots virtually no time to story or characters, relying instead on a series of regularly scheduled tornadoes to stand in for a plot. The effects are great, and the characters around them are livelier than most, but I won't pretend like the movie doesn't flat out ignore some key elements. Twister is not very good, but by disaster movie standards, it is more effective than most. Its twisters are impeccably realized through some impressive CGI, and they are thrilling to behold. In some ways, I admire the decision to focus solely on the tornadoes. Sure, it runs the risk of getting stale, but at least nobody leaves Twister asking "Where were the storms?!"67/100
Suzie
The problem with this film is that it was not written as a tornado film, it was probably written with a generic plot generator where you have to fill in the name of the sport, um, event and it would generate a plot.In this case, we have a team of good meteorologists and a team of evil meteorologists who accepted corporate financing and "do it just for the money." What? They do their job for money? As opposed to what? They accepted corporate money, so what? Is it a bad thing that corporations are funding research that helps save lives? This evil team is doing the exact same research as the good guys, so what's the harm in it? And who funds the team of good guys? Not explained. The bad guys are bad guys because the film says they are. At the end of the day they do the same work, using the same techniques. It would be like saying "he's an evil doctor. He only work for money." I would have serious doubts about gynecologists that do it for the love of the job and have no interest in a salary.The generic plot doesn't stop there. There is some ridiculous love triangle that makes no sense. Bill is engaged and is about to get married, he just needs a signature from his ex-wife. She refuses to sign over and over, "forgetting" a page, etc. but we are never told why. She doesn't really show much of an interest towards him. She just doesn't to sign the papers for some reason. Then he leaves his fiancée for his (ex-? current) wife. His fiancée is there just so that he doesn't appear too desperate running back to his wife. Supposedly he loves her, yeah, right. And supposedly she loves him, uh-uh. But then she just says "I'm leaving." She says she can't compete with his current wife. She's not really in love with him and it doesn't make her sad. He doesn't get sad either. I don't know what kind of relationship this is or why this is in this film. Two people that are getting married for...? What exactly? Great films are based on hard choices. Stay or leave. This person or that person. This movie runs away from the difficult choices - everything resolves itself by itself without anyone needing to take a decision. The evil guys go on a suicide mission and get killed by a tornado. His fiancée leaves by her own volition. His wife just falls in love with him by default, as does he. The machine they built just works. They got the data they need. Everything just works out.There are never any difficult choices anyone has to make. This man is not torn between two women. He has no interest in his fiancée. He even lets her drive alone while he drives with his wife. The evil team is there just in the background. They do not offer him a position, try to lure some of his teammates or present any kind of competition whatsoever. They're there, they're evil, then they die. It's all like that. The backstories are just as ridiculous. Jo's dad died in a tornado and that's what made her want revenge, I mean to research tornadoes? So predictable.There's a scene where the whole team is eating and they explain to his noob fiancée about the tornado scale. They talk about F3 and F4. She says "Did anyone see an F5?" and the whole table goes quiet, everyone stops eating. It's so cheesy.The music was good, but that's about it.
Cornelius Pettway (neilcpettway)
On May 10, 1996, "Twister" stormed the theaters and gained with nearly $500 million in box office totals, making it the second highest grossing film of '96. Now as were approaching its 20-year mark, I thought that I should post my review of it since this film played a major part of my childhood, if not my life. I myself was obsessed with tornadoes throughout my childhood days; I drew of them, watched whatever documentary on them, and read on them (well, sort of, if I wasn't paying attention to the dialogue instead of the pictures). Then my mother brought this film home (it was rented from a former video store) and when I first laid eyes upon it, I was hooked! I made it as my number one favorite movie of all time, and it has been throughout my entire life... until 2014. But even before that in the later years, I've started to notice something wrong when I grew older: I sometimes grew tired and even sleep through the movie whenever I watch it. So, I dove to analyze it on a more critical level, and the results were less pleasing which I reluctantly admit it myself. Overall, "Twister" only delivers by its effects and sound, nothing else (except for the score, Mark Mancina really does well), the emotional impact falls short as well as the characters. Also you have to look at it scientifically; it seems ridiculous that they would manage to get close to a tornado bearing winds over 200 mph and still remain planted on their own two feet and escape from it unscathed. But even if it has it faults, I still consider it as one of my favorite movies of all time (In 3rd place). To this day, the special effects still look amazing and realistic. And if you try to compare this film to its spiritual successor "Into the Storm," it'd make you appreciate "Twister" a bit more; in other words it is the best tornado film ever and I don't think it'll be ever replaced in the no-so-distant future. I still love tornadoes though, but I don't think I need that reason alone to hold this film close to my heart.
