My kids and I have almost memorized the lines to "Night of the Twisters", we've seen it so many times! We have so many favorite scenes and lines that it's difficult to compile them all here! One thing for sure: You can watch this with your mother and not be embarrassed. It's about a family facing a natural disaster and its aftermath with courage and compassion. The filmmakers didn't succumb to any sexual innuendoes or "bad attitude" dialogue either. Some parts are kinda corny, but all in all, it's a refreshing change from the usual TV movie fare. I really enjoy watching Dan and Arthur "jamming" up in Dan's room before the storm hits; plus, how Dan so nonchalantly checks on his baby brother in the storm's beginning stages. Watch it when you can.
47 Reviews
A good family friendly tornado disaster film
marshalphipps8 May 2017
This film (which is based off the book of the same name) is a great film for the family when it comes to the subject matter of tornadoes. Some people may think this film is a ripoff of Twister due to the timing of the release, but I can assure you it's not, that honor goes to Tornado! starring Bruce Campbell.
Overall, Night of the Twisters keeps you entertained since the characters and disaster aspect has a happy balance and that the film can be enjoyed by both young and old audiences.
Overall, Night of the Twisters keeps you entertained since the characters and disaster aspect has a happy balance and that the film can be enjoyed by both young and old audiences.
TV Goes TWISTER...
supercell4 September 2001
... And in my humble opinion does a better job of it! Okay, so NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a family movie, and it does gloss over the realities a bit. Also, because it's set at night, you don't get to see that much of the tornadoes.
But, for all this, I still like it better than TWISTER. At least the tornadoes in this film are comprised of real footage!
But, for all this, I still like it better than TWISTER. At least the tornadoes in this film are comprised of real footage!
A nice movie.
super marauder8 November 2002
A lot of people feel this movie is just a knock off of 'Twister', I would beg to differ. The real plot deals with the relationship between the teenage step son, and his step father. The storm is more the random element that brings them closer together.
I won't outline the plot, because it's already been done. However,I like this movie because it's more about the people, than the storm. So, it's not just another disaster flick. It has more heart then 'Twister'.
I like 'Twister' too, but in a different way. I try not to criticize something for being what it's not. So, I don't compare the two to each other. If you like movies that have heart, I think you'll like this one.
I won't outline the plot, because it's already been done. However,I like this movie because it's more about the people, than the storm. So, it's not just another disaster flick. It has more heart then 'Twister'.
I like 'Twister' too, but in a different way. I try not to criticize something for being what it's not. So, I don't compare the two to each other. If you like movies that have heart, I think you'll like this one.
Fine Family Scenes, Bad Tornado Safety
rslitman2 August 2007
I've had a morbid fascination with tornadoes for more than 40 years, since my 5th grade teacher, a native Texan, told stories of ones he saw in his youth. Fortunately, I've lived my whole life in the middle Atlantic states, where tornadoes are rare and usually not as violent as the ones in the Midwest, but I have had two close encounters, one in PA and the other in NJ, in the past decade.
I enjoyed the family scenes, particularly the conflicts between Jack and Dan Hatch. When the tornado was close, Dan knew most of what he had to do, and he probably learned this in school, since I know that tornado safety is an important subject in parts of the U.S. where these storms are more frequent. However, characters in the movie did two things that some people think are supposed to be done or are safe to do in tornadoes but are actually not supposed to be done or are unsafe.
When the siren first sounded, Dan and Arthur went through the house and opened the windows. For years, this is what people were told to do, but tornado safety web sites now advise against doing this. Also, people were shown hiding in a highway underpass. This method was made popular by an early 1990s video made by a T.V. crew during a relatively weak twister in Kansas. However, in the most serious tornadoes, people can be sucked out from these underpasses. This happened during a May 1999 outbreak in Oklahoma.
The tornadoes in this movie hit in the fall, which is not a common time for them to happen. (Then again, one of my close encounters took place in late September.) Also, they traveled from northwest to southeast, while most such storms in the northern hemisphere go from southwest to northeast. However, this is not all that unusual. A famous tornado that struck Joliet, IL, in the early 1990s traveled in that direction (as did the one involved in my other close encounter).
I think that the movie should have been set in the spring. This movie was based on a book that in turn was based on an actual event that happened on June 3, 1980. But it was still a compelling story.
I enjoyed the family scenes, particularly the conflicts between Jack and Dan Hatch. When the tornado was close, Dan knew most of what he had to do, and he probably learned this in school, since I know that tornado safety is an important subject in parts of the U.S. where these storms are more frequent. However, characters in the movie did two things that some people think are supposed to be done or are safe to do in tornadoes but are actually not supposed to be done or are unsafe.
When the siren first sounded, Dan and Arthur went through the house and opened the windows. For years, this is what people were told to do, but tornado safety web sites now advise against doing this. Also, people were shown hiding in a highway underpass. This method was made popular by an early 1990s video made by a T.V. crew during a relatively weak twister in Kansas. However, in the most serious tornadoes, people can be sucked out from these underpasses. This happened during a May 1999 outbreak in Oklahoma.
The tornadoes in this movie hit in the fall, which is not a common time for them to happen. (Then again, one of my close encounters took place in late September.) Also, they traveled from northwest to southeast, while most such storms in the northern hemisphere go from southwest to northeast. However, this is not all that unusual. A famous tornado that struck Joliet, IL, in the early 1990s traveled in that direction (as did the one involved in my other close encounter).
I think that the movie should have been set in the spring. This movie was based on a book that in turn was based on an actual event that happened on June 3, 1980. But it was still a compelling story.
Night of the Twisters: Why do I keep watching these things?
Platypuschow10 August 2018
This straight to television prime material for the Scyfy channel garbage somehow manages to be even worse than the average movie of it's ilk and that's really saying something.
Starring John "Dukes of Hazard" Schneider and a young Devon "Idle Hands/Final Destination" Sawa this is the most boring and generic movie of it's type I think I've ever seen.
A town is hit with a series of twisters and yadayadayada. No originality, all the usual scenes you'd expect to see and even everyones performances seem phoned in.
It's like nobody even tried, not the actors, not the director and sure as hell not the writers.
Even hardcore bad movie buffs might struggle with this one.
The Good:
John Schneider
The Bad:
Cliched to hell
Looks ugly
Loses steam real fast
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
This movie blows
^ Twister joke, highbrow humour at its best
Starring John "Dukes of Hazard" Schneider and a young Devon "Idle Hands/Final Destination" Sawa this is the most boring and generic movie of it's type I think I've ever seen.
A town is hit with a series of twisters and yadayadayada. No originality, all the usual scenes you'd expect to see and even everyones performances seem phoned in.
It's like nobody even tried, not the actors, not the director and sure as hell not the writers.
Even hardcore bad movie buffs might struggle with this one.
The Good:
John Schneider
The Bad:
Cliched to hell
Looks ugly
Loses steam real fast
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
This movie blows
^ Twister joke, highbrow humour at its best
True Story not a knock off!!!
pck6924 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
OK, so the FX are not high budget. But this story is based on actual events. Not something thrown together to make a couple of rich actors, even richer!! As most movies that are based on books, there are somethings that just don't fit. Only a couple of people have stated that this movie was based on real events, not a knock-off as most people believe it is!! This movie is in no way related too TWISTER! Other than both movies are about tornadoes.
For those of you who have problems with the science of the tornadoes and storms in the movie, there are a couple of things you need to remember... The actual "night of the twisters" was June 3, 1980. So this movie was released 16 years after the actual events. Try think how far storm research has advanced in that time. It happened in a larger town; Grand Island, Nebraska is the third largest city in the state. Even though the movie calls the town something else, and says it's a small town. For the real story check out: http://www.gitwisters.com/
For those of you who have problems with the science of the tornadoes and storms in the movie, there are a couple of things you need to remember... The actual "night of the twisters" was June 3, 1980. So this movie was released 16 years after the actual events. Try think how far storm research has advanced in that time. It happened in a larger town; Grand Island, Nebraska is the third largest city in the state. Even though the movie calls the town something else, and says it's a small town. For the real story check out: http://www.gitwisters.com/
We were supposed to rent Twister, but then...
Finfrosk8616 June 2015
Twister came out when I was a kid. I remember it clearly, I was fascinated with CGI in movies, and Twister was known for using a good deal of it. Cgi, that is.
And I liked Twister. I really did. I thought the effects were good, action was intense, it really entertained me.
Then a while after it had made it to VHS, me and a friend was going to rent it. We did, and whaddayaknow! We had rented "Night of the Twisters", not "Twister". Haha. While we were watching I remember thinking it was somewhat different than I remembered, but it took some time before I got that it was the wrong movie. A ripoff-movie. (Just like those Asylum-guys) I'm sure it differs from "Twister", but that cover there, and the title..? Ain't no doubt what they were going for.
Yeah, I don't remember much from it, except it was definitely no Twister. This is a rather low budget, kind of boring TV-movie, with a lot of drama, and little CGI. In other words not much like Twister - a very entertaining movie.
So yeah, read the movie title well before you take it home!
And I liked Twister. I really did. I thought the effects were good, action was intense, it really entertained me.
Then a while after it had made it to VHS, me and a friend was going to rent it. We did, and whaddayaknow! We had rented "Night of the Twisters", not "Twister". Haha. While we were watching I remember thinking it was somewhat different than I remembered, but it took some time before I got that it was the wrong movie. A ripoff-movie. (Just like those Asylum-guys) I'm sure it differs from "Twister", but that cover there, and the title..? Ain't no doubt what they were going for.
Yeah, I don't remember much from it, except it was definitely no Twister. This is a rather low budget, kind of boring TV-movie, with a lot of drama, and little CGI. In other words not much like Twister - a very entertaining movie.
So yeah, read the movie title well before you take it home!
Maybe I'm and idiot but I loved this movie...
smithduke19 April 2011
When I first watched Night of the Twisters I was a much a younger person and it made an impact on me. Now that I'm older, I find myself still enjoying this movie.
Yes, it can be silly and predictable but I truly enjoyed it. It does help to know that the "theme" was true and the tornado outbreak was real.
The account of the family was a bit hokey but I like the characters.
I guess I'm not as jaded as some and just enjoy a good family movie once in awhile. If you simply accept the movie for what it is and aren't expecting an Oscar winner, I think you'll enjoy it.
Yes, it can be silly and predictable but I truly enjoyed it. It does help to know that the "theme" was true and the tornado outbreak was real.
The account of the family was a bit hokey but I like the characters.
I guess I'm not as jaded as some and just enjoy a good family movie once in awhile. If you simply accept the movie for what it is and aren't expecting an Oscar winner, I think you'll enjoy it.
i've seen worse
disdressed1228 January 2007
as TV movies go,this one is pretty good.the special effects are,for the most part,well done.however,the film dwells not so much on the Twisters which descend on as small town,but more on the dramatic area,such as how the relationship between father(John Schneider)and son(Dewon Sawa)changes throughout the course of events.it also deals with the aftermath of the destruction.We do see some twisters,but not as many as you might hope.a lot of the movie shows destruction taking place without actually showing the tornadoes.the acting is a bit suspect,not so much with main characters,but with minor characters such as the newsman reporting on the weather.not very believable,at all.there are also some dialogue issues,such as being corny,and clichéd,or downright ridiculous.the way some of the characters(again,thankfully minor characters)behave during the crisis and what they say is not realistic for the situation.However,the film is still quite watchable and not at all boring,so i give "Night of the Twisters" a strong 6/10
Night of the TV Movie Twister!
philipadams_30 April 2005
I remember watching this movie as a kid and loving it. I was obsessed with it at the times and me and my friend even got a thermos and put coffee in it and acted to make sure there were no cyclones on the way (I live in Australia).
With that being said though, it's not the greatest movie. A typical TV Movie attempting to do something that usually on a big budget can do well (disaster movies)- it has been done much better in Twister and even that crappy movie with Eric Roberts.
If you are bored and need something to waste your time and this is on, then by all means check it out. But don't go out of your way to.
With that being said though, it's not the greatest movie. A typical TV Movie attempting to do something that usually on a big budget can do well (disaster movies)- it has been done much better in Twister and even that crappy movie with Eric Roberts.
If you are bored and need something to waste your time and this is on, then by all means check it out. But don't go out of your way to.
Worth a look!
jpersone12 December 2002
This movie has some things that are pretty amazing. First, it is supposed to be based on a true story. That, in itself, is amazing that multiple tornadoes would hit the same town at night in the fall-in Nebraska. I wonder if the real town's name was close to "Blainsworth" (which is the town's name in the movie). There is an Ainsworth, Nebraska, but there is also a town that starts with Blains-something.
It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it.
Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house.
It does show the slowest moving tornadoes on record in the the seen where the boys are in the house. On the other hand, the scene where the TV goes fuzzy is based in fact. Before Doppler radar and weather radio, we were taught that if you turned your TV to a particular channel (not on cable) and tuned the brightness just right, you could tell if there was a tornado coming. The problem was that by then you would be able to hear it.
Since I know something about midwest tornadoes, it made this movie fun for me. I enjoy it more than Twister. I mean, give me a break-there is no way you could make it through and F5 by chaining yourself to a pipe in a well house.
Entertaining film, but watch with caution and stay educated
roxannedomizi10 December 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Although this movie was very obviously made on a low budget, it does a decent job at depicting the weather events that are the main subject. Weather disaster films have a responsibility to make it clear to the audience which behaviors are safe and which are unsafe, and this movie sets a good example in many ways. However, in the same way movies that depict people running into burning buildings as heroes encourage extremely dangerous behavior in viewers, the way that the main character is shown as a selfless hero for putting himself in dangerous situations to help his family members may encourage viewers not to prioritize their own safety in similar situations.
The addition of a meteorologist as one of the main characters is a great help to the movie, because it means that the movie includes the perspective of someone who knows what they are talking about. At the beginning, that character makes observations about the sky and uses weather-related language to point out indicators of a potential tornado, like characteristics of a supercell storm, the anvil on the cumulonimbus cloud, etc. He is also there to be a voice of reason not only to the characters but to the audience, and educates throughout the film in response to people making bad decisions. He corrects someone who boasts of his intelligence in driving home to escape the tornado while the others were staying, saying that most people killed during tornadoes are in vehicles when it hits. He gives the correct advice to find a place underground such as a basement or storm cellar.
That said, there are several inaccuracies and dangerous behaviors that are not corrected. For one, the movie shows the characters taking time to open the windows when the wind gets really strong, which is a waste of time and won't make a difference if a tornado hits your home. They talk on corded telephones during the lightning storm, which is dangerous to promote as lightning can travel through telephone cords. Mainly, though, the characters also take way too long to enter the storm cellar, a reckless decision that is never explained and was presumably just there to add suspense. The main character only considers going downstairs when the siren is on, and then decides to stay in the main part of the house when it is switched off. It is much smarter to make decisions based off your surroundings than the on-and-off sound of the siren, since not going down earlier put them in a lot of unnecessary danger.
There are things that the movie did well in depicting tornadoes, and things that promote dangerous and unsafe behavior for the sake of making a more dramatic story. Overall, the movie is entertaining, but viewers should be careful and make sure to educate themselves on what to do if they find themselves in the scenario that the characters did, because many examples in this movie should never be followed.
The addition of a meteorologist as one of the main characters is a great help to the movie, because it means that the movie includes the perspective of someone who knows what they are talking about. At the beginning, that character makes observations about the sky and uses weather-related language to point out indicators of a potential tornado, like characteristics of a supercell storm, the anvil on the cumulonimbus cloud, etc. He is also there to be a voice of reason not only to the characters but to the audience, and educates throughout the film in response to people making bad decisions. He corrects someone who boasts of his intelligence in driving home to escape the tornado while the others were staying, saying that most people killed during tornadoes are in vehicles when it hits. He gives the correct advice to find a place underground such as a basement or storm cellar.
That said, there are several inaccuracies and dangerous behaviors that are not corrected. For one, the movie shows the characters taking time to open the windows when the wind gets really strong, which is a waste of time and won't make a difference if a tornado hits your home. They talk on corded telephones during the lightning storm, which is dangerous to promote as lightning can travel through telephone cords. Mainly, though, the characters also take way too long to enter the storm cellar, a reckless decision that is never explained and was presumably just there to add suspense. The main character only considers going downstairs when the siren is on, and then decides to stay in the main part of the house when it is switched off. It is much smarter to make decisions based off your surroundings than the on-and-off sound of the siren, since not going down earlier put them in a lot of unnecessary danger.
There are things that the movie did well in depicting tornadoes, and things that promote dangerous and unsafe behavior for the sake of making a more dramatic story. Overall, the movie is entertaining, but viewers should be careful and make sure to educate themselves on what to do if they find themselves in the scenario that the characters did, because many examples in this movie should never be followed.
Good TV Movie based on one of my favourite books
robertandrews-445564 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I first saw Night of the Twisters on TV in early 1996. I was only 8 years old at the time and remember loving it the first time I saw it. I taped the movie on VHS and remember watching it over and over again during the lead-up to Jan de Bont's "Twister" which came out a few months later. It was this movie that got me interested in tornadoes. I had read the book by Ivy Ruckman when I was in school, and it has always been one of my favourite books. And despite the movie not being as good as the book, it is still a nice little film.
The story revolves around teenager Dan (Devon Sawa) who has trouble getting along with his stepfather Jack (John Schneider). He is also getting used to having a new baby brother. During the night, Dan's best friend Arthur (Amos Crawley) helps Dan stay home and babysit while Jack goes to check on Dan's grandmother. While the two teenagers and the baby are home alone, the twister hits the house. Afterwards, Dan sets out on a journey to find his family.
The only thing I have against the movie are some of the differences from the novel. It is a shame what they did to Arthur in the movie, turning him into a complete moronic goof. In the book, Arthur was still goofy, but during the disaster, he was just as brave and smart as Dan. I also didn't like it in the movie when the characters of Arthur and Stacy were side-lined for Jack. Arthur and Stacy accompany Dan in his search for his family all through the book, but in the movie they are hardly seen after the first tornado. Jack was not an important character in the book, and it saddened me to see other characters so important in the book be pushed to the side. I am still hoping that someone in the near future will read the novel and decide to make a more faithful theatrically released Night of the Twisters movie.
Despite that though, I still love this movie and continue to watch it at least once a year.
The story revolves around teenager Dan (Devon Sawa) who has trouble getting along with his stepfather Jack (John Schneider). He is also getting used to having a new baby brother. During the night, Dan's best friend Arthur (Amos Crawley) helps Dan stay home and babysit while Jack goes to check on Dan's grandmother. While the two teenagers and the baby are home alone, the twister hits the house. Afterwards, Dan sets out on a journey to find his family.
The only thing I have against the movie are some of the differences from the novel. It is a shame what they did to Arthur in the movie, turning him into a complete moronic goof. In the book, Arthur was still goofy, but during the disaster, he was just as brave and smart as Dan. I also didn't like it in the movie when the characters of Arthur and Stacy were side-lined for Jack. Arthur and Stacy accompany Dan in his search for his family all through the book, but in the movie they are hardly seen after the first tornado. Jack was not an important character in the book, and it saddened me to see other characters so important in the book be pushed to the side. I am still hoping that someone in the near future will read the novel and decide to make a more faithful theatrically released Night of the Twisters movie.
Despite that though, I still love this movie and continue to watch it at least once a year.
Never judge a book by its movie
reward-126 June 2003
Well, there was nothing else on TV and having read and enjoyed the book of the same title, and having a fascination with tornadoes, we figured, what the heck. The names of the characters were the same and tornadoes happened, but that was about it. The book by Ivy Ruckman (based on a real tornado event in Grand Island, Nebraska) featured true suspense, with some of the lesser known effects of tornadoes such as sucking drains and popping ears adding an eeriness to the story, without resorting to a lot of special effects and overdone drama. I guess every such movie needs a family conflict of sorts, thus the completely fabricated tension between Dan and his father. The dialog featured many comedic moments from "Where are the chickens?" (as a family stands, completely oblivious to the howling winds (until someone warns them -- almost unheard over the tempest) -- they live here, right and have seen such weather before?) to "Is he hurt?" about a man trapped under a truck. We howled right along with the storm.
Generic but decent
DogePelis20151 May 2021
It's a very generic movie, but it's decent for a television product; the plot is predictable and the special effects are not very good; however, it serves its purpose of entertaining in a boring time with nothing else important to do.
The baby and the road conditions
paulkat4 July 2005
About the baby: Why wasn't big brother assuming he'd be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change? He should have been screaming non-stop after that many hours without care. Definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he didn't need to.
And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?
I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.
That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change.
And why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere? Didn't any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them?
I can't imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it, especially when they said it was dangerous to go there.
That being said, it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch, for a change.
Better than twister
itsabacus200911 March 2020
Night Of The Tedious
Theo Robertson19 August 2002
For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like " Oh my gawd it`s heading this way " and " Run for your lives " then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?
And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER
And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER
My movie Review
Bigrigcole18 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is good for TV. I like it because I'm a HUGE fan of disaster films even though this is a family film. Accuracy on the film from the book is half-and-half They got the characters names right but in the book there was no storm chaser, the the car scene involving the Hatch family running away from the tornado wasn't in the book instead it involved Dan hatch and his friend riding with a police officer on their way to the police station for safety. and in the book Dan and his friend are both 12-years old. Thats all i can think of. Overall this was a good movie even though it could of have been a little more accurate to the book. Did you know the book was based on a true story of a series of tornadoes devastating a small Nebraska town in 1980?
Okay little tornado flick, but really annoying cast.
anders-olsen8022 May 2017
An okay movie for a day where there's nothing better to do, if you're into twisters.
It's not a very realistic movie, but a least it does not go as much overboard as Twister or Atomic Twister, which are ridiculously unrealistic. The plot is enjoyable and in many aspects not that far fetched - as in how could things look if there was a multiple twister outbreak in a small town. The twisters themselves are of course a bit Hollywood'ish. They can do things a twister normally can't do, and they look somewhat artificial. That being said, they're still pretty neat and fun.
Now the worst part, and this almost ruins the movie. The main character "Dan" is the most obnoxious jerk on two legs. Always snide, rude, arrogant, constantly condescending towards his friend Arthur and whiny if things don't go his way. If it's a case of over-acting, the squeaky annoying voice or just a trait of the character, I don't really know. But he bugs the crap out of me, and everyone I know who saw the movie. The father Jack is portrayed as a Pacer-Dad, who would like to see his son become a great athlete. That's all fine, but was it necessary to make him a confusing combination of a jock, high school football coach, bench athlete and macho hardware store owner? It's all just too much. Other than that, the characters are pretty likable, but very two-dimensional.
Don't expect anything great, but it's worth a bag of crisps on a rainy day.
It's not a very realistic movie, but a least it does not go as much overboard as Twister or Atomic Twister, which are ridiculously unrealistic. The plot is enjoyable and in many aspects not that far fetched - as in how could things look if there was a multiple twister outbreak in a small town. The twisters themselves are of course a bit Hollywood'ish. They can do things a twister normally can't do, and they look somewhat artificial. That being said, they're still pretty neat and fun.
Now the worst part, and this almost ruins the movie. The main character "Dan" is the most obnoxious jerk on two legs. Always snide, rude, arrogant, constantly condescending towards his friend Arthur and whiny if things don't go his way. If it's a case of over-acting, the squeaky annoying voice or just a trait of the character, I don't really know. But he bugs the crap out of me, and everyone I know who saw the movie. The father Jack is portrayed as a Pacer-Dad, who would like to see his son become a great athlete. That's all fine, but was it necessary to make him a confusing combination of a jock, high school football coach, bench athlete and macho hardware store owner? It's all just too much. Other than that, the characters are pretty likable, but very two-dimensional.
Don't expect anything great, but it's worth a bag of crisps on a rainy day.
Where's Helen Hunt?
MovieAddict201623 July 2003
TV version of "Twister" springs a few leaks but manages to remain watchable. My sister bought this at a Wal-Mart a few years back when it was released, I saw it back then and thought it was okay. Later "Twister" with Bill Pullman and Helen Hunt comes out (or was it before? I think it was '97) and did a better job overall. But "Twister" was more silly fun; this is realistic with a message. It all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study?
John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to "Wild America," "Final Destination" and "Slackers" got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films.
"Night of the Twisters" all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. "Night of the Twister" has the latter. So you decide.
I give it a 2.5/5...
John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to "Wild America," "Final Destination" and "Slackers" got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films.
"Night of the Twisters" all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. "Night of the Twister" has the latter. So you decide.
I give it a 2.5/5...
- John Ulmer
Mixed bag in acting and FX yet very good movie nonetheless
ultimauw5 November 2006
I just got this video used and I was watching it last night. The acting started out extremely bad (hey------hey------twister) but got very good soon after wards. The tornadoes looked extremely fake, and many of the CGI effects were very dodgy, but the scene with the house cracking apart and the contents inside being blown around and sucked out were extremely well done, and just about on par with movies like Twister. The scenes of devastation were also extremely well done too. The story was very well written, and it's refreshing to see a movie like this stray away from the same old "disaster formulas" movies of this genre seems to have been stuck in for 30 years.
While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book.
While this movie had a very weird mix of FX and acting quality, this merits an A in my book.
Definitely NOT a Twister rip-off
sharc-151-54835012 March 2015
This picture surprised me. I've always loved Twister and when I saw that this came out around the same time, i got worried. But it's all different. The story is different, the acting is certainly different (for better or for worse), but otherwise, its a pretty decent picture.
This film focuses on a small down as a storm that gives them huge twisters sits right over their town. There is a scene in which the teens in the film are walking back to town. They see the rescue station , and there, a light shining up into the sky. The one girl comments how it looked creepy. I agree! This film is great with suspense and amazing special effects. It's a good film to watch late Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn. It is a film-snob favorite!
This film focuses on a small down as a storm that gives them huge twisters sits right over their town. There is a scene in which the teens in the film are walking back to town. They see the rescue station , and there, a light shining up into the sky. The one girl comments how it looked creepy. I agree! This film is great with suspense and amazing special effects. It's a good film to watch late Saturday night with a big bowl of popcorn. It is a film-snob favorite!
Movie should have been filmed in Grand Island, Nebraska!
mrjoecampbell14 May 2000
This film, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
