Metal Tornado

I'm rolling on the floor still laughing my guts out. Thanks for the HUGE laugh. Bad acting, bad computer generated graphics, bad story plot. I bet any money that director is out of work. LMAO.

Update: I tried to save the above to the point review, but this site said my review wasn't long enough, which only added to my wet spot in my pants from laughing so much from the movie. Just what more can I say about the worst movie I ever saw. Poor Richie must be hard up for cash these days. Anyhow, I'm going to try and save this review again with this new paragraph in hopes it will make it to the review section.

Another Update: Oh My Freekin God. I have to have 10 lines in order for this review to be valid? I'm on muscle relaxants now to calm my pulled gut muscles from laughing so much.

with you people? You decide to watch a movie called Metal Tornado and expect a great masterpiece? On the SyFy Channel? This move delivers exactly what it is supposed to deliver. Entertainment. Granted, there are better movies of this same type out there, with a little more excitement, but this one isn't all that bad. That would be the only fault I could find is that it drags in some spots. I did not expect to watch a movie that had a great grasp of physics when I saw the title.

I got just what I expected from a SyFy channel movie. I recommend it if you are having a 'bad movie night' and keep in mind where the film comes from.

Well, just given the title of this movie you already know what you are in for. And true enough, this movie delivered exactly what was expected.

The storyline alone was so implausible, and it was really hard to buy into what was happening. Throughout the movie I was curling my toes every time I saw that electromagnetic tornado. It was just such a bad concept.

As for the cast in "Metal Tornado", well the only face I recognized was Lou Diamond Phillips. Now I am not one to judge his selection in roles in movies, but "Metal Tornado", for real? The people in the movie were doing good jobs with their roles, it was just the story that was halting and dragging everything down.

There are lots of disaster movies out there, and there seem to be no real middle ground. The disaster movies are either super awesome with amazing effects, or they are quite the opposite; disasters in themselves. "Metal Tornado" must be said to be in the latter of the two categories. There are far better disaster movies available out there, and "Metal Tornado" is good for only less than mediocre entertainment if you are really, really into disaster movies and have nothing better to do.

Honestly, then I have seen worse disaster movies than "Metal Tornado", but still, it was hardly worth sitting through from start till end.

Trying to find a new, much more powerful way of using solar energy, scientists are setting free a magnetic field which roams across the country, whirling around every kind of metal thing, until the effect is a metal tornado which destroys towns almost like a very big lawnmower. Every time the hero is asked just how scientific the whole thing is, he says something like "No time to explain now", and starts to run. So much for that. Following the clichés of the genre, there is a rebellious genius, warning that a catastrophe is near, and an evil business man who wants to hush the whole thing up even at the cost of some lives. With increasing power of the storm, they have to work together and find a possible solution, though.

Yes, it's a typical genre movie going by the checklist what's got to be in there, but still it was better than I expected. It was wise just to put a town in Pennsylvania in danger, not having to save the whole world this time. A parallel event in Paris is also described, the Eiffel tower being a perfect choice for any catastrophe related to magnetism, but since all the main characters are in the US, this string of the story remains pale.

Even if the special effects are very, very cheap - such as rattling a shelf with tin cans to show the tornado is approaching - it looks okay for a TV production. Always keep in mind we are talking about small budget TV here, comparisons to Hollywood blockbusters with their enormous technical capabilities are therefore neither reasonable nor fair. Taking that into consideration, I vote 6 of 10.

So many bad reviews from so many Canadians and Canadian (?) pseudo-scientists. Boo to the bunch. This modest movie followed the formula flicks of the 50s without missing a beat. It didn't have a gigantic budget. Agreed. And the plot didn't ask for gross over-acting (or any kind of profound acting). Agreed. The science is shaky. Agreed. So what are we doing with things like "The Exorcist" when a little girl can turn her head completely around or "Jaws" when sharks become as intelligent as human beings? So much for the verisimilitudes. I suppose it was a bad idea to base the film in Canada. Perhaps it should have been shot in the U.S. Perhaps "King Kong" should have been shot in the tropics or the remake of "The Thing" in Antarctica. So much for the carping about location. The film entertains quite well, the acting is quite satisfactory and the cutting and music quite fine. No, the film doesn't boast Clark Gable or Elizabeth Taylor. Neither does "Psycho" or the original "Dracula". Nor does it have a colossal budget. I enjoyed this film and thought it was well prepared and interesting.

Curtis Stotlar