SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Taha Avalos The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

moeloe1126 While the premise of the movie - that a tornado can cause a nuclear reactor to go into a near meltdown - is a bit far fetched, I find it funny that so many of the reviewers (including some who confidently claimed they worked in the industry) thought the possibility of a reactor going unstable due to a natural disaster was "impossible".I wonder what they would say today, with FOUR of Japan's nuclear reactors going hot. Obviously, cascading failures ARE not only possible, but under the right circumstances (or the most horrific collection of bad luck), probable.Granted, it wasn't a tornado. Heck, it wasn't even the earthquake itself that caused Japan's nukes to go hot. It was the tsunami that followed the quake that led to the disastrous failure of not one, not two, but FOUR reactors. So far the Japanese are barely keeping the rods covered with water - sea water, because they have no pumps to pump in the fresh water that should be used (JUST like in the movie). Even so, 3 of the 4 plants have now suffered major explosions that blew the roof off - literally - and all are emitting unacceptable radiation levels just from the steam releases alone.Turns out the writer of this script was a lot more prescient than anyone gave them credit for when the movie came out! Let's just hope that the ending of Japan's very real nuclear crisis is as good as the ending of the movie - or else it is not just Japan that will pay the price for our foolish arrogance.

Scriptorius Yep: total trash. Every time the script brought in another detail my response was either disbelief or pain. The whole movie is a study in the "how not to" of film making. A nuclear plant in the US was actually hit by a tornado well before this movie was made. It shut down safely and its back up systems functioned as required. Does this movie highlight any serious technical, social, or other reasons why nuclear plants are endangered by tornadoes? NOT! I always wondered why a "plot device" is a bad thing -- don't all plots rely on them? This movie is an example of why plot devices that are noticed, noticed to the point of being shoved at the viewer, really are annoying and disrupt continuity. Speaking of which: a lot of continuity problems. The whole movie is one giant plot device: atomic plot twister indeed. The characters and their relationships seem very contrived. Some key dialog between Jack and his (?) girl are totally unbelievable considering their circumstances. The movie is supposedly set in West Tennessee: sure didn't look that way to me, either demographically or geographically. I could understand a naive person thinking that a fire hose and a fuel transfer hose could be or would be used interchangeably -- but not the on-scene fire department officer. There are a lot of technical problems: nuclear plant design, nuclear plant operations, sheriff department procedures, etc. None of the professionals looked professional -- they looked like actors without even a superficial background on what the character's job required. The movie consistently dissed about every type of worker in it. Some reviewers have described this movie as a comedy because it is so bad. For me, it even fails to be funny: mostly painful to watch. Was this the director's fault? Very noticeable when some characters tell themselves why they're acting the way they are ... as if memorizing what the director just told them. I just wanted to scream, DON'T DO THAT! Oh well.

dtm-6 I loved it! A must see for for movie critics. This movie has the worst script I have ever seen combined with terrible direction.Everyone's comments about the fallacies are so true. The poor dialog in the middle of crisis situations made me laugh so hard.Many postings don't reflect that this is not a nuclear disaster movie. It is both a story of young love and the dedication of a single mother to her son (who is in the local town) that making sure he is safe is worth postponing the prevention of a nuclear meltdown.I could write 50 paragraphs of what, just I, noticed wrong in this masterpiece. But that would be a spoiler.Any viewer that is stupid should not watch this movie as it is so scary. People with half a brain will think it is dumb. The discrening movie watcher will learn quickly that the absurdities of a movie that was meant to be....gee did the producer really think this was an exciting disaster movie with twists and turns...that the absurdities are hilarious.I loved it!

Theo Robertson I will give this TVM some credit for getting off to a good start even though it`s basically a remake of the opening of TWISTER . Such a pity it`s revealed as " A boy reading a story to his friends " sequence . I will also give the producers some credit for casting a fairly fit actress as the heroine and praise too for the director for concentrating on Stacey the babysitter`s cleavage as she play`s twister with the heroine`s kidWell that`s all the good bits mentioned , what about the bad ? You do get the feeling that no one on this TVM has any knowledge what so ever as to how nuclear reactors or tornados work . If this teleplay is set at a nuclear power plant then why`s it called ATOMIC TWISTER ? Surely atomic power plants and nuclear power plants are different things ? They`re operated by diesel pumps ? They have no back up power source ? Tornados can creep up on you without you noticing them ? And if you think that`s unbelievable wait till you see the pretty boy cop trying to save the day . Most cops would put on their lights and sirens , put their foot on the gas and drive all the way to the south pole . Mind you don`t run down any penguins officer