NavyOrion
Se unió el dic 2006
Te damos la bienvenida a el nuevo perfil
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos6
Para obtener información sobre cómo conseguir distintivos, visita página de ayuda sobre distintivos.
Comentarios88
Calificación de NavyOrion
What happens when you recycle a 28 year old movie, adding effects that are no better, a lackluster score, a weaker script, and "stars" with no discernible screen presence? Not much, that's what.
1996's "Twister" was one of the biggest blockbusters of its time, and a comparison to its sequel shows it must have been ahead of its time. "Twisters" shamelessly piggybacks on the fame of its predecessor, but has no link whatsoever to the events or characters of that film except for the use of the "Dorothy" sensors that the Helen Hunt's character developed. While that film attracted some established starpower in the form of Hunt and her costars Bill Paxton and Cary Elwes (and even a couple of up-and-comers like Phillip Seymor Hoffman) this newer film, "starring" no one you've ever heard of, packs all the punch of a Lifetime channel original.
Daisy Edgar-Jones is attractive, but has all the charisma of cold french fries. While the male lead Glen Powell tries to grin his way into making the audience care, the effort comes up short. Anthony Ramos is the other major lead, but the less said about his "acting ability" the better; he should seriously look into getting his real estate license or something, because Hollywood isn't going to work out. No one else of note, except that it turns out that Maura Tierney of "News Radio" is still around, but has such a small role that she might as well have sayed retired.
The pacing is slow and uneven, broken sporadically by scenes of destruction. That might have worked (it did in 1996) but it's hard to feel any sense of threat when none of the characters seem to be concerned about driving right into a tornado. Followup scenes in which the characters are shown "caring" about the victims are perfunctory and unconvincing.
If the producers of this film had really cared about it, they would have hired people who could act, writers who could write, effects artists who could break some new ground, and a composer who could come up with an reasonably exciting score. They did none of those. If they don't care, why should you?
Skip this one. Pop some popcorn, dust off that old DVD of the 1996 movie, and enjoy your evening, but give this one a pass. There: I just saved you $20.
1996's "Twister" was one of the biggest blockbusters of its time, and a comparison to its sequel shows it must have been ahead of its time. "Twisters" shamelessly piggybacks on the fame of its predecessor, but has no link whatsoever to the events or characters of that film except for the use of the "Dorothy" sensors that the Helen Hunt's character developed. While that film attracted some established starpower in the form of Hunt and her costars Bill Paxton and Cary Elwes (and even a couple of up-and-comers like Phillip Seymor Hoffman) this newer film, "starring" no one you've ever heard of, packs all the punch of a Lifetime channel original.
Daisy Edgar-Jones is attractive, but has all the charisma of cold french fries. While the male lead Glen Powell tries to grin his way into making the audience care, the effort comes up short. Anthony Ramos is the other major lead, but the less said about his "acting ability" the better; he should seriously look into getting his real estate license or something, because Hollywood isn't going to work out. No one else of note, except that it turns out that Maura Tierney of "News Radio" is still around, but has such a small role that she might as well have sayed retired.
The pacing is slow and uneven, broken sporadically by scenes of destruction. That might have worked (it did in 1996) but it's hard to feel any sense of threat when none of the characters seem to be concerned about driving right into a tornado. Followup scenes in which the characters are shown "caring" about the victims are perfunctory and unconvincing.
If the producers of this film had really cared about it, they would have hired people who could act, writers who could write, effects artists who could break some new ground, and a composer who could come up with an reasonably exciting score. They did none of those. If they don't care, why should you?
Skip this one. Pop some popcorn, dust off that old DVD of the 1996 movie, and enjoy your evening, but give this one a pass. There: I just saved you $20.
Encuestas realizadas recientemente
1 encuesta realizada en total
