Conference bookie::movies

    
    Haven't seen the previews, what's it about?
    
    Kev --
    

    Re-1
    
    Hi Kev,
    
    1. a Jan de Bont(Speed) film.
    2. an Amblin prod. (Steven Spielberg directed)
    3. it is about natures fenomina being tornado's
    
    The trailer is awsome, this will be a big one this year.
    
    Jan. ;)

    Awwww!!!  And I thought it was going to be another Hollywood adaptation
    of a popular game to the big screen, ala "Clue" or "Super Mario
    Brothers".
    
    - Dave

    I've been reading about this movie in Premiere magazine for quite
    a while.....When did you see the Trailer??!!  and When is it being
    released.....!!

    
    	Weird Al Yankovic did a song about the game "Twister" ... but
    	anyways:
    
    	Helen Hunt appears to co-star, which is reason enough for me to
    	want to see it.
    
    	Still not sure when it starts, though.
    

    
                               Twister (1996)

                                   1996

Produced by: constant c / Amblin Entertainment / Universal Pictures [aka
MCA/Universal Pictures] / Warner Brothers
Sound Mix: DTS / Dolby Stereo Digital / SDDS
Genre(s)/keyword(s): disaster

Directed by
     Jan De Bont

Cast (in alphabetical order)
     Abraham Benrubi
     Cary Elwes
     Jami Gertz
     Helen Hunt
     Bill Paxton
     Nicholas Sadler .... Kubrick

Written by
     Michael Crichton

Cinematography by
     Don Burgess
     Jack N. Green

Music by
     Mark Mancina

Costume Design by
     Ellen Mirojnick

Produced by
     Michael Crichton
     Jerry Molen (executive)

Other crew
     Stephen Campanelli (camera operator)

    
    re: .6
    Release date is, May 1996
    web site: http://www.indirect.com/www/storm5/twisterdata.html
    
    

    Twister:  saw it yesterday.  Special effects where great.  Plot was
    awful, dialogue was even worse.  The actors did their best with the lines
    they had, but even their best efforts did not pull this movie out
    of the mediocre.  I am also tired of the "scruffy good guys with the
    small budget who overcoming all odds and win through, against the neat 
    and tidy bad guys with the corporate sponsor and good equipment"
    
    If it weren't for the sound system, and it's loud enough to make the
    floor shake, and the FXs then this movie wouldn't even measure up
    against a made for TV movie.  
    
    Shame, it could have been so good.

> Special effects where great.  Plot was
> awful, dialogue was even worse.

	This seems to be the general concensus of S&E and L&M.  Ie.
	great special effects, but no time spent on the script itself.

	In any case, it was the top weekend grosser in it's opening weekend
	(this past weekend) setting a new record gross for a non-holiday
	weekend in the month of May, with something like $37 Million.

    
    
    Didn't care much what happened in between the appearance of the 
    twisters. 
    
    Incredible FX. Read that up to one year ago, they couldn't really
    pull off the realism that was depicted. 
    
    So I figure, I got what I paid for in this film. 
    
    
    Who cares about a plot, just bring on the twisters.
    
    
    Spoiler:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Ok, at the end, the f5 twister. I was surprised that either of
    them had any clothes left on their bodies. One my expect it all
    to be ripped off, considering how exposed they were, belted to
    the pipes. 
    
    
    
    
     
    

    re .10 (spoiler)
    
    
    Yabbut, then it'd be rated R or something and all those kids in the
    audience wouldn't be contributing to the coffer. :)
    
    The main thing I came away from this movie thinking, besides being
    happy I live in the relatively tornado-safe Northeast, is that
    apparantly, computer-generated wood never hits anybody, no matter how
    much of it is flying around.
    
    But anyway, comparing this to Jurassic Park (see it for the effects,
    leave plot and characterization at home), I thought it did a better
    job.  At least script-wise.  Nothing groundbreaking, full of cliches,
    but it worked better than JP did.  I certainly found the twisters more
    believable than the dinosaurs (which were pretty believable), if only
    because I *know* there's such things at tornados, while I'm pretty sure
    that dinosaurs aren't stomping around on some Carribean island.  
    
    Helen Hunt was cute in her Helen Hunt way, Bill Paxton was amiable as
    almost always (gee, now she's worked with two of the "Aliens" actors),
    Cary Elwes was a knockout even though we saw far too little of him (not
    much to do, script wise, but nice haircut!), the various goofball
    scientists were adequate.   But definitely, see this movie for the
    effects. 
    
    Pretty intense storm sequences, but no sex, no nekkid people, one
    tornado-foisted cow (still alive at the time we saw it, movie didn't
    address the probable aftermath), a little bit of blood, mud, a
    couple deaths (nothing graphic, left more to one's imagination), and a
    bunch of things falling out of the sky.  The movie definitely played
    "nice" with casualties.  
    
    On the other hand, the opening sequence was kinda scary and I could see
    where it could be possible nightmare fodder for the young.  
    
    Anyway, I had a good time, front row seat and all.  I'd pay to see it 
    again.  
    
    
    *** out of ****
    
    
    kim
    

    re:.11

>>    re .10 (spoiler)
    
    
>>    Yabbut, then it'd be rated R or something and all those kids in the
>>    audience wouldn't be contributing to the coffer. :)
    
    
  
    On the other hand, if they DID have Helen Hunt nekkid, there are quite
    a few more people who would go back to see it again.
    
    

    
    re:.12
    
     I suggest those people rent 'The Waterdance' then.
    

    
    	Really?
    
    	I might just do that.  8^)
    

    
    I really liked those stealth black Chryco minivans.
    And how about that house busting Dodge Ram?
    
    

    
    I too saw this this weekend.  Liked it a lot.  As previous noters
    mentioned...don't expect an incredible script and plot or even
    terrifically delivered dialog.  But it was exciting to watch and my
    first reaction was......I am NEVER EVER moving to that part of the
    country!
    
    I think the opening scene might be a little scary for some younger
    kids.
    
    The FX definately make this movie.  I have to admit too, it was nice to
    see Paxton is something other than a supporting role.  
    
    

I saw this movie last night at the Framingham
cinemas. The sounds and specials effects were
terrific. Especially the whirling surround sound
of the wind.

But the script and plot as others have mentioned
was weak. I wanted to know more about the tornadoes
and the technical data that Helen Hunt's crew was trying
to record. I noticed Silicon Graphics got a nice plug for their
laptops.
The love triangle and good vs. evil stormchasers plotting
was derivative and silly. I expected better from Michael
Crichton, the man who brought us "The Andromeda Strain."


Does anyone think Irwin Allen (master of disaster) did it better?
Where were Charlton Heston, Ernest Borgnine, and George Kennedy?
It would have been funny to have had them in cameo appearances.


Slight spoiler:









I thought the exploding drive-in screen with Nicholson's mug on
was a funny touch. They should have had some more humor like
that.

Saw this in today's newspaper and got a chuckle ....

	`Twister' special effects had harsh effects on stars
	NEW YORK (AP) - The special effects are a knockout in the new movie
	"Twister," but Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton say real life during
	filming left them pretty dazed and battered, too.
	  "Fortunately, I'm oven-tempered for flexible strenth," Paxton
	joked to Entertainment Weekly.
	  The frenetic shooting schedule, noisy wind machines, and multiple
	cameras filming at once made the set chaotic and accident-prone, the
	magazine said.
	  Hunt and Paxton found themselves blinded after a day of shooting in
	intensely bright close-up lights that were used to make the background
	look dark and stormy.  They were OK after a few days' rest in
	sunglasses.
	  During once scene, Hunt repeatedly knocked her head on a low wooden
	bridge because she kept standing up too soon.  In anohter scene, she
	was slammed in the head by a car door.
	  "I love Helen to death, but you know she can also be a little bit
	clumsy sometimes," director Jan De Bont said.
	  "Clumsy?" Hunt retorted.  "The guy burnt my retinas, but I'm clumsy."

    
    So much for the special-effects to make the background look dark...
    
    "oven-tempered"?

    re -1
    
    A quote from an old commercial.....

            _____________________________________  
  _________|                                     |________  
  \        |           The Top 5 List            |       /
   \       |                                     |      / 
    \      |     Sponsored by Windows Sources    |     /
     \     |    http://www.zdnet.com/wsources/   |    /      
     /     |                                     |    \
    /      |            May 15, 1996             |     \  
   /       |_____________________________________|      \ 
  /___________)                               (__________\ 



Sorry for the delay, kids...


     The Top 17 Rejected Titles for the Movie "Twister"


 17> "Totally Gone With The Wind"

 16> "Lift and Separate"

 15> "Boys on the Side -- Of My Barn"

 14> "Summer Film So Full of Special Effects We Couldn't 
      Fit in the Plot"

 13> "The Weather Channel: The Movie"

 12> "Schindler's Twist"

 11> "Field of Debris"

 10> "Dead Man Flying"

  9> "I, Cumulus"

  8> "One House Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

  7> "The Splintered Bridges of Madison County"

  6> "Wizard of Oz II: The Search For Toto"

  5> "Killer Genuine Draft"

  4> "Four Weddings & A Funnel"

  3> "Indiana Jones and the Trailer Park of Doom"

  2> "A Funnel Thing Happened On The Way To The Farm"


and the Number 1 Rejected Title for the Movie "Twister..."


  1> "Roofless in Seattle"



Today's Top 5 List contributors are: 
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Yoram Puius, Bronx, NY           --  1 
Perry Friedman, Menlo Park, CA   --  2 
Mitch Patterson, Melbourne, FL   --  3 
Caroline Gennity, Queens, NY     --  4, 9 
Bruce Ansley, Baltimore, MD      --  4, 11, 17   (Hall of Famer) 
Doug Johnson, Santa Cruz, CA     --  5, 17 
Marshal Perlman, Minneapolis, MN --  6 
John Hering, Alexandria, VA      --  7, 10, 15, 17 (Hall of Famer) 
Jeff Johnson, Daly City, CA      --  8             (Hall of Famer) 
Lee Oeth, San Diego, CA          -- 12
Lemon/Rinaldi, San Francisco, CA -- 12 
Sean Erwin, San Diego, CA        -- 13, 17 
Ed Brooksbank, Sacramento, CA    -- 14 
Jim Louderback, New York, NY     -- 16 
Paul Schindler, Orinda, CA       -- 17 
Bill Burnett, Lexington, MA      -- 17
------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Selected from 84 submissions from 26 contributors.

    Batteries not included -- Void where prohibited

          _____________________________________
_________|                                     |_________  
\        |           The Top 5 List            |        /
 \       |                                     |       /  
  \      |    Sponsored by Windows Sources     |      / 
   \     |   http://www.zdnet.com/wsources/    |     /
    \    |                                     |    / 
     \   |        Edited by Chris White        |   /  
      >  |          New York, NY, USA          |  < 
     /   |                                     |   \  
    /    |   Opinions expressed are strictly   |    \ 
   /     |   those of the moderator and his    |     \ 
  /      |        fellow contributors!         |      \ 
 /       |_____________________________________|       \ 
/___________)                               (___________\ 

    
    Twister took in another 38 million this weekend.
    Total is around 99 million so far.
    
    
    
    

I don't know if it is just me, most of the Tornado scenes looked so unnatural 
and sounded clearly computer generated to me - unlike the dinasours which is 
hard to believe they aren't real.

Some of the debri flying around them didn't look much better than my fancy PC 
screen savers. May be because I read so much about how they made these shots
with a 747 engine, and how they merged some real life footage with the actors 
and how they exploded the toy truck and all other tidbits. I would have been 
more engrossed with the Weather Channel video about tornadoes. 

For the same reason the PBS Apollo 13 documentry which had interviews with 
astronauts was more gripping than the Hollywood version.

I guess its the mindset.. Ya.. I know this guy is just faking the danger 
infront of a blue screen mindset.

.. again maybe its just me..!

-Jk

    
    
    seems like its really sucking up the cash!
    
    Chris
    :)

    
    	Jay, NEVER watch a "how they did it" special before you watch
    	the actual movie.  Ruins most of the impact of the FX when you
    	know how they did them.
    

    
    ya know. I took a look at my Wizard of Oz tape just to check out
    the twister.
    
    for a nylon sock being twirled around, it looks good.
    
    and it even has a good story to it.
    
    

    Nylon sock?  I was wondering how they did that!
    -ss

    
    
    Nylon sock???? 
    
    NOoooooooooo! it's a true story!!!
    
    Toto is real and the good witch and the tin man and the scarecrow!!!
    
    
    Chris
    :)

    PMS has been running a "making of" special on the Wizard of Oz.  As I
    recall, the actual material was denim.  The tornado model ran along a
    track.  Very effective.  I think one reason it works so well is because
    of motion blur that happens naturally as the thing spins.  This is more
    difficult to do with computers (requires special algorithms and lots of
    computes).  Also, for WoO they kicked up dirt at the base to make it
    more realistic.  
    
    With what I've heard and seen of Twister, I think they were more inspired 
    by the WoO than by actual tornadoes.  I grew up in the Midwest and went
    through a lot of storms with tornadoes around.  What I saw in the clips
    from the movie is stuff I've never seen growing up.  Seldom did a
    tornado pick up whole pieces of machinery and throw them around.   
    
    Though we had lots of tornados, mostly it was damage to trees, someone's 
    roof got lifted or the top of a silo got tossed a mile or so.  You don't 
    usually get to see tornadoes.  You usually feel and hear them.  It's 
    usually too dark or too rainy to actually see the things, at least where 
    I came from (Missouri).
    
    Steve  

    Near Toronto this weekend at a Drive-in, people were watching "Twister"
    when all of a sudden a storm kicked in and a small tornado touched
    down.  It ended up ripping right through the screen making the flick
    3Dish. 

	CNN HN just reported that NBC has already purchased the rights to
	broadcast this film sometime during the 1997-98 TV Season.  Price,
	somewhere between $10-12 Million.

    Thank goodness!
    -ss

    I saw the movie and I thaught it was great.
    As for people saying the plot and dialogue was'nt so good, to tell you
    the truth I don't really think the dialogue was that bad that it would
    make me remember it as "Bad" 
    Then again I was so into the special effects that the only line I can
    remeber is "Losers move out!!!" Which my wife did'nt think was so funny
    as it was heard, when her and her sister were leaving the apartment the
    other day!!
    I'd pay 8 bucks to see it once more.
    

    This is *definitely* a big screen movie ( although only a definite at
    matinee prices ) - It's going to lose quite a bit of impact on t.v.
    
    For the record, I agree with 95% of the previous replies : Awesome
    effects, typical plot, mediocre acting ( Helen Hunt is still cute,
    though :-) )
    
    And :-) to the person who mentioned the computer-generated wood never
    hitting anyone - I thought the same thing in the theatre...
    
    Jimbo

    
    Capsule Review:	I wish I'd caught a matinee.
    
    You gotta feel for Bill Paxton.  They probably told him he'd be a real
    heroic leading man, and instead he wound up in this dog, superfluous
    and annoying.
    
    Understand, I went into this prepared to for two hours of fluff with
    occasional bursts of visually dazzling special effects.  I expected the
    plot to be thin.  Had they stuck to the basic man vs. nature conflict,
    I'd've enjoyed it more.  Helen Hunt's character was drawn brilliantly.
    Intelligent and otherwise normal woman engages in suicidally brave
    behavior trying to fathom hideously powerful force of nature at the
    center of childhood trauma.  Has gang of nerdy but engaging sidekicks
    who pal around her for reasons that probably range from post-adolescent
    crushes to adrenaline addiction to a fondness for her aunt's cooking. 
    That's enough of a frame for something like this.  Probably how the
    story was originally pitched.  Right out of texts on screen writing.
    
    Then they had to burden it with all these completely extraneous
    subplots.  Paxton's character wasn't necessary.  Jami Gurtz's character
    wasn't necessary.  Elwes and Company would have been more interesting
    if they were given a motivation other than petty exploitation.  I mean,
    all of these people are competent actors, but I don't think they were
    handed much to work with.  The sidekicks at least had a sense of humor
    and the occasional flash of understandable emotion.  Alan Ruck was more
    memorable than any of the tornadoes, and his longest speech was about
    folding maps.
    
    But I'd've been willing to concede all that if the ending wasn't so
    completely stupid, and it was *completely* stupid.  Probably one of the
    five worst movie endings ever, and I include in that everything that's
    ever been on Mystery Science Theater 3000.  Of course, this thing is
    going to make a Buick ton of money, so what do I know? :-)
    
    spoliers post FF:
    
    My first warning that this was going to be a major sacrifice of style
    over substance came in the opening flashback.  Who would be dumb enough
    to believe that holding on to a storm cellar door would help against a
    force sufficent to tear it free in the first place?  I mean, could he
    have torn the locked door open with his bare hands?  Probably not.  So
    holding on to it is going to help?  They could have achieved the
    purpose (the motivation for Helen Hunt's character) without having
    something stupid happen.
    
    And it just went downhill from there.  When the big one finally came it
    was about as exciting as watching grass grow.  First they stood there
    patting themselves on the back instead of running.  By the time they
    were lashing themselves to those pipes, it was laughable.  (People were
    actually hooting with laughter in the showing I attended)  They should
    have been *shredded*  A tornado that powerful, picking up all sorts of
    sharp and abrasive debris, and all they have to do is hang on?  This
    thing juggled a forty-ton semi, and it couldn't tear them free of
    some leather straps?  My disbelief just wouldn't suspend that far.
    The writers should have watched a few more documentaries and visited a
    building being sandblasted before they came up with this nonsense. 
    Steven Spielberg should have told Jan what's-his-name to sit through a
    couple of screenings of Jaws.

    I saw it this weekend.  I found myself going to the concession in
    between tornadoes. Being from Oklahoma, I enjoyed seeing pictures of
    home.
    -ss

    
    Seen this one on the weekend. Great effects, but the plot and acting
    were really bad. It's amazing that they actually had 90 minutes of
    boring storyline.
    I'm glad it was the second feature and the drive-in.
    
    Dave
    

Half disappointed and half enjoyed.  What on earth were the equipments to 
observe Tornados.. Just toys.  

Having never been anywhere near a real-life tornado (I'm in the UK), I loved
this movie. The effects were quite obviously (most of the time) CG, but it gave
me a real good feel for what it must be like to experience one.

I *loved* the flying cow -

"Cow..."
"Another cow..."
"No. I think its the same one"

When I saw the Silicon Graphics logo prominently at the bottom of the screen, I
thought "product placement". Then, when I saw the grubby sticker on the battered
laptop with Silicon Graphics scrawled on it in biro I had to chuckle.

I, too, thought the leather straps would break at the end. But never mind.

Anyone else notice that "Aunt Meg" was a play on "Auntie Emm" ?

Simes%^)

    My 3- and 5-year-old nephews report that they did not find the
    tornadoes in this film scary or awesome; they thought they were funny.
    The stuff flying around in the air, especially the cow, seem to have
    defused any tendancy toward scariness. (I did find the tornadoes pretty
    cool, because I saw it on the big screen).
    				Jim