Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

MaximumMadness Having grown up a 90's kid, I often find myself nostalgically looking back on the films and television of my youth with a bit of a sad yearning. The world of entertainment was quite a different beast back in those days, and sometimes it can be easy to lose historical perspective and dismiss the media of the era when comparing it to more modern releases. Back then, a simple high-concept premise, a few likable actors and some (at the time) cutting edge effects were all we needed to have a good time at the cinema. But as filmmaking continues to evolve, and audiences are no longer wowed by the things we once were, it's becoming easier and easier to look back on films of that era as quaint and inherently more flawed than we might remember. Thankfully, there are many releases that still hold up to this day to one extent or another.A prime example of this would be the 1996 disaster/action film "Twister", from producer/co-writer Michael Crichton and director Jan de Bont. It's one of those 90's flicks that actually is still quite good fun thanks to solid and visually exciting action, effects that hold up for the most part and excellent performances from the entire cast. While it might not be quite as great as we remember, it's still solid-enough popcorn entertainment, even over twenty years later.We follow a group of storm-chasers who are on a mission- they are tracking a system that will be capable of spawning several tornadoes, in hopes of studying the cyclones with an advanced piece of technology they have developed. If they can achieve their goal, it might help in the development of a more advanced storm warning system. However, there are some obstacles in their way... including an evil corporate- funded rival (Cary Elwes) and personal squabbles between the team leader Jo and former member Bill (Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt), a couple in the midst of a divorce. And as the storm becomes increasingly dangerous and more volatile, it will eventually lead to a harrowing and thrilling series of life-and-death decisions for our heroes.The main strengths of the film come down to the extreme likability of the cast and the thrilling beats of action and adventure that de Bont excels at crafting. Each and every member of the cast is pretty much perfect in their roles, archetypal and clichéd though the roles may be. In particular, our leads Paxton (rest in peace, good sir) and Hunt are both exceedingly fun to watch and have a great chemistry that makes you want to see them reconcile their differences. Elwes is also wonderfully slimy as an opportunistic villain that you'll just adore hating. And there's even a really fun early role from Philip Seymour Hoffman. If you have a good cast, you can forgive a lot, and the charm on display from just about every performer is part of what makes the film such an easy and breezy watch.Director Jan de Bont, perhaps best known as a cinematographer who transitioned to the role of director with the excellent "Speed" before slipping up with later duds like the sloppy "Speed 2" and the over-produced and under-scary remake of "The Haunting" does what he does best here, which is make thrilling action that will keep the audiences glued to their seats. Say what you want about the mixed quality of his overall work- the guy knows how to make some kick- butt scenes. His camera-work is smooth and slick, his sense of pacing is strong and he ratchets up the stakes with each passing moment during the films many tornado sequences. (Expertly realized with CGI that still holds up pretty well to this day thanks to Industrial Light & Magic.) He injects such a kinetic sense of fun into the proceedings that you can kinda forgive some of the flimsy characterization and old tropes on display. You'll certainly never be bored.Unfortunately, the script by Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin is where most of the problems with the film lay. Despite the duo crafting some fun characters and interesting set-pieces, there's just a bit too much reliance on the same-old, same-old. You've seen these characters before. You've seen these motivations before. And you've seen these types of situations before. It's a palette-swap of numerous other adventure films that have come before. Not bad by any means... but typical enough that most audiences familiar with basic story structure will be able to guess the twists and turns the story takes ahead of time, which can somewhat rob from the intended suspense of certain scenes. Thankfully, the inventive action and great performances are able to overcome the so-so screenplay and elevate it.In the end, looking back... "Twister" might not be quite the classic we initially thought it would be when it first came out. But it's certainly good fun and is near-ideal popcorn entertainment. And that's perfectly fine. Sometimes we need a good bit of the old "dumb fun", and this movie is sure to please anyone who wants a fast, enjoyable experience.I give it a pretty-good 7 out of 10.

adonis98-743-186503 Bill and Jo Harding, advanced storm chasers on the brink of divorce, must join together to create an advanced weather alert system by putting themselves in the cross-hairs of extremely violent tornadoes. It's funny how back in the 1990's there were so many great Natural Disaster Films and now there's only like 1 or 2 of course i'm talking about the movie "Twister" starring Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt and Philip Seymour Hoffman and it does have a very simple premise and story that fans won't be disappointed plus the special effects for a 1996 movie were actually pretty enjoyable and the performances by the 2 leading actors were very good it's for sure not the movie that you would expect to be nominated for 2 Oscars but it's still an enjoyable action flick that will definitely keep you relaxed.

Leofwine_draca This special effects bonanza is merely an excusing for showcasing some jaw-dropping, state of the art special effects in a series of ever increasing set pieces. Forget any semblance of a real film, or plot, but just sit back and watch hundreds of buildings get destroyed on screen. There are many things to criticise in this film, the lack of plot being one of them. In between the storm sequences, the story is non existent, with the viewer just waiting till the next destructive moment. What we do get is some awful comedy filler which is so nauseating and abysmal that it's difficult not to press the fast-forward button.The acting is all sub-standard, with Helen Hunt being the biggest offender; I haven't seen this level of awfulness for a long, long time, and I do watch some bad films. The only actor of note is Bill Paxton, someone who I've watched just go from strength to strength as his career progresses, and all the best to him. Although he is adequate as the square-jawed hero, the rest of the cast are just playing plain bad, stereotypical characters, and the women seem to think they're in a melodrama or something. Television level, it really is. And silly, and childish.Steven Spielberg is probably to blame, acting as executive producer. Although this guy is talented, he's also painful sometimes too. Jan De Bont shows us that he's incapable of directing a film apart from the special effects sequences, will somebody give this guy a clue? The storm sequences are the best things in this film, and basically they just keep getting bigger and better. This film should have been in 3D, with the things that keep flying at the camera. Item after item is hurled into the sky and then comes crashing down, be it cars, cows (yes, the cow scene is hilarious), tyres, planks of wood, trucks, petrol tankers. The most jaw-dropping moment is when a house rolls across the road in front of our heroes. These moments are totally implausible of course, with Paxton and Hunt miraculously surviving the devastation every time, but I loved them anyway. Watch TWISTER for the effects, but don't expect anything else to go with them.

Paul Magne Haakonsen "Twister" is an entertaining movie, despite it being from 1996, and it still does hold up its own even today. The movie is predictable, yes, but still offers good entertainment. I actually do believe that "Twister" is the first disaster movie that I watched that actually left a lasting impression.The story is straight forward; a group of hurricane researchers and scientists are crossing USA, tracking twisters in the name of science, coming in with very different backstories. But they are in a very turbulent field of science and right in the eye of the storm, so to speak.There is a great, continuous flow to the movie and there isn't really a dull or boring moment throughout the entire movie.For a movie from 1996, then the effects were quite good. Of course they falter by today's standard, but they serve their purpose quite well and do pass as believable, which is what matters the most.What is most impressive, however, is the impressive array of actors and actresses that they had on the cast list. A list which includes Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, Cary Elwes, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Alan Ruck and of course the fabulous Jeremy Davies."Twister" is the type of movie that everyone has seen at one point or another, and it does have enough contents to actually sustain multiple viewings. For some reason, it just doesn't get old.