Tornado apocalypse

It's movies like Jet Stream that make you wonder how Syfy manages to spend hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars on each of their movies, and still get phenomenally bad results.

Jet Stream suffers from very bad writing, leading to cringe-worthy dialog in a lot of the film. For some reason there's quite a lot of painfully bad jokes too, and it seems they couldn't have been times worse. Add on to that the wooden acting by an extensive part of the cast.

The CGI is just not convincing at all, everything looks very poorly and amateurishly done. The sequences that are meant to thrill the audience just look ridiculous, laughably bad at times. I also counted a couple of completely unnecessary close-ups.

This is one of the many movies in which Syfy tried to disguise Eastern Europe like the USA, and here they did pretty much the worst job of all their movies I've seen so far. Not to mention that there are countless shots in this, which Syfy has recycled and used for multiple movies. Really, the only positive thing there is to say is that this movie may make you laugh at how bad it is.

Even by the extremely low standards of SyFy Channel disaster movies, JET STREAM is a particularly poor movie, excruciating in fact. It's the usual CGI-fuelled disaster nonsense, yes, but the problem here is that the lead is this ultra-annoying TV weatherman who ends up advising scientists and military personnel who can't work stuff out for themselves.

The weatherman is introduced in the most excruciating 'comedy' scene ever via a series of bloopers at his workplace. I'm not sure what's worse, the cringe-worthy acting or the scriptwriter's ill-advised attempts at 'humour'. Needless to say that none of this is funny, even remotely funny, while the disaster shenanigans are low rent and annoying. The SyFy Channel will have to do very badly indeed to make a worse film than this one.

There are obviously terrible movies than this, but this is a complete loss of the precious and valuable time, It's not about big cast or anything, but rather more critically about how you make a decent film, it doesn't make any difference if it's a B Movie, You can watch it only when you're drunk that might give you a jet lag with a jet stream.

I've not seen this film and I might not. Yet, this is no less a review.

I'm responding to a patient falsehood, or urban myth, concerning Hollywood's some time lack of actual presentation of the military in film. Not too surprisingly there isn't any U.S. law preventing a movie production involved in the portrayal of armed forces personnel to use correct military uniforms, along with proper grooming. In fact, presenting any military force in its proper array, in film, is advisable. It was plainly determined by the US Supreme Court in the case SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970).

So if the production company and director fail to present proper military uniforms, with correct placement of unit patches, rank tabs, and ribbons and other such accessories, and grooming is deplorable, then, in my opinion, the script/acting isn't much better anyway. Yes, this is a blind and very arbitrary judgment of a film I've not seen. But, I'm also operating from experience, as both a military veteran and a avid movie goer.

Where to start ?

Let's just say that the actors in this movie are well aware that their performance here is not going to land them even a janitor position in the same frame as an A-list actor. The actors are either bland, or prone to confuse hysteria with passion. Then again, the script gives nothing to be passionate about, so maybe hysteria was the best bet.

Memorable quote : "She's going to call the telephone company and put a trace on this call. You don't want that to happen !" says the hero to his jailer. What ? His girlfriend can call the telephone company and have the call traced ? Sorry, I must have missed the part where it was mentioned that she was FBI, Secret Service or had even the most tenuous connection to some person of authority who could actually have that put in place for her. Whatever the love interest's job is, it has nothing near the clout needed to pull that off.

Then we have the entire premise of the film : that a weatherman has modeled climate on his laptop to be able to predict extreme weather conditions. No offense to weathermen, I happen to know that their job actually requires level of mathematics way beyond my own, but this guy is no weatherman, he's just the TV announcer. The day we have a genius TV announcer who happens to hold a PhD in thermodynamics and is content with smiling on camera while pointing to fluffy white clouds on a blue screen, call me and I will revise my opinion of this film.

If you're stone drunk or high as a kite, this might be viewed as passable entertainment. Otherwise, stay clear.