User reviews

I knew when I saw the description in the TV guide that this was a winner, then I forgot it was on. Luckily my friend sent me a text to say "This is SO 'so bad its good', I may pee"

What higher praise can there be!

This movie was nearly as funny as Speed 2 (we were nearly thrown out of the cinema for that one - did no-one else know it was a comedy?)

All that was missing here was George Kennedy. Although it did have Carl Lewis!!

and did anyone else pick up on the irony/symbolism of the kids playing 'Twister'? Fantastic.

Get in some pizza and plenty of alcohol, you won't have a better evening's entertainment!!

It would take a committee of romance writers to pack as many cliches into this small community beset upon by two disaster movies concurrently.

The story is set mostly outside police cars being battered by loose pages of scripts from stories that had one. The beautiful people in perfect makeup must have been airbrushed by the first tornado, because the busting bosoms are pointless. The absence of nipples in all that augmented cleavage, and the anti-technology political stance, add good family values that will be a boon to tv historians of generations to come.

Not bad enough to watch, but you can always hunt for continuity errors.

A TBS Production for TV that kind of falls short. A series of powerful tornadoes threaten to destroy a nuclear power plant in Tennessee. Some of the F/X are interesting, more interesting than the story itself. Sharon Lawrence is the unrealistic hero; but she looks oh so good running around in a white tank top trying to save the plant. Also impressive is the eager Mark-Paul Gosselaar as the whipping boy of the police unit. Also in the cast are Corbin Bernsen and Fraser McGregor. My favorite scene is where McGregor, who plays Lawrence's son, tricks his buxom baby sitter into playing a game of Twister so he can look down her blouse. Scenes at the power plant are made to look so technical they lose realism. Hardly enough to get your blood to pumping.

This movie is a real stinker. I studied nuclear engineering in college and if they would have had me on the set I would have slapped the writer of this screenplay. Some of the major problems as I remember them:

The plant seems to have been built in the last few years, with a new computerized control room and satellite phones and all this silliness - no new nuclear plant has been built in the U.S. in 25 years (sadly).

A tornado would do absolutely no damage to a nuclear power plant, or at least no damage to any of the critical components. The critical components of a nuclear power plant (the core itself, coolant pumps, the primary coolant loop (in a PWR), backup generators) are located inside a containment dome that is METERS thick - even an F5 wouldn't touch them - in fact, the people inside would have no idea they had been hit.

The control room and the important components of the plant are run on the power the plant produces and in the event of a shutdown by backup diesel generators. The backups have backups which have backups. The possibility of a strong enough tornado hitting the backup gens and knocking them out is nil.

The plant did not shut down as it would have done automatically. Whenever a nuclear power plant is damaged in any way the computer shuts it down with absolutely no operator input required in a matter of seconds. In the movie the lines that took power from the plant to homes were knocked down - this would have resulted in a load rejection to the generators which would have "tripped" (automatically shutdown) the turbines and the reactor. There is never any need to communicate with the NRC while running a reactor and the NRC has no remote control room. They don't control reactors at all - the companies that own them control them. The NRC licenses and inspects for safety.

At the end of the movie the spent fuel pool is being uncovered and the firefighters have to pump water into it to save the town. Bull. Spent fuel just isn't hot enough to continually boil away water. And the pumps that cool the reactor also cool the pool (in most cases). In any case, the spent fuel pool and it's entire cooling apparatus are INSIDE the enormous containment dome and could never have been damaged by a twister - much less have had a gaggle of firefighters standing over it with a door to the outside just a few yards away.

IF the pool would have gotten as close as it did to being uncovered (I believe a few inches) the firefighters would have received a lethal dose of radiation from the spent fuel because there would not be enough of a water barrier to stop the gamma rays produced by decaying Uranium and other "nuclear ash".

Running a nuclear reactor with four people is impossible. Period. Reactors don't run on "skeleton crews".

Things like electric cooling pumps just can't be turned off willy-nilly. No reactors use diesel cooling pumps as their primary system.

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!

I can't imagine how this film got the green light under any circumstances. One the plot is so bad I could not make it worse if I tried. Its about a nuclear power plant in a southern locale that gets close to a meltdown because of or in tandem with Tornados.

The thing that makes this movie so bad is it looks as if the nuclear power plant shots were filmed in someones basement. The pipes supposedly carrying radioactive water are way too small. The control room for the power plant look like the family room with a few more computers than normal. The pipes carrying water steam eto this reactor are way to small to fill be part of any reactor system. The door leading to the containment building is laughably small and thin.

If you know anything at all about atomic power this film is hilarious for all the just couldn't happen stuff you see going on in this movie. The movie is stupid. I can not imagine why anyone would want to buy it which is why I suspect AMAZON>COM don't even carry it and you can buy almost any DVD or VHS from them..

Where to start with this movie! Are we to believe that a Nuclear power plant operates with just 4 people? Are we to believe the sheriff (Corbin Bernson) is psychic? This movie was so predictable as to be laughable! It's amazing how a diesel generator that no one knew about and hadn't been used in 15 plus years could magically be hooked back up with the push of a button and of course it wouldn't start until the heroine yelled at it! Not to mention that tornado's magically appear and chase the main characters all the time! To compare this movie in anyway to Twister is totally ridiculous!! This is not even a bad imitation of a bad imitation!

I have often heard the theory that a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters might, in a thousand years, end up creating the Complete Works of Shakespeare. If true, then 'Atomic Twister' must surely be the end-product of twenty monkeys given a bad screenplay, a small budget and a film set for twenty hours. The only saving grace of viewing this film was the relief offered by the commercial breaks.

Since this film was a product made for the Science Fiction channel you would expect to have all kinds of unearthly creatures from space or newly rediscovered earth monsters in it. For Atomic Twister you would be wrong.

The title is terribly misleading. No monsters arise from a tornado. A tornado is the cause of things, in fact a couple of them hit a nuclear power plant creating all kinds of problems for acting director of the facility Sharon Lawrence.

The plot is completely ripped off from both The China Syndrome and the real life Three Mile Island near disaster from 1979. In many ways Atomic Twister is a throwback to the disaster films of the Seventies.

Stars Sharon Lawrence, Mark-Paul Gosselaar, and Corbin Bernson give decent performances in a disaster film that has all the standard clichés of same. Still it's an unusual product from the Science Fiction network and easy to take.

If you are looking for an interesting and believable movie, keep looking and give "Atomic Twister" a pass. If you are a typical guy and/or a fan of Sharon Lawrence, then rent/watch this low-budget perplexing movie. Honestly, whatever acting talents that these performers may possibly have are totally overshadowed by the outrageous plot. This cinematic underwhelming devolves eventually into a showcase for the beautiful Ms. Lawrence's physical attributes, which are noteworthy. The cleavage shots of the babysitter are gratuitous, reflecting the tawdry side of Hollywood's enduring legacy. The attempt at any anticipation- building or credible character development by the plot is almost comical. The actors and actresses clearly needed the money. Sadly, Ms. Lawrence may have felt like she had to over-act all the way through this lame effort. Bottom line: a disaster movie that wasn't for devotees of the Lifetime Channel and bored men who are tired of clicking past too many shopping channels and we've seen all the shows on The History Channel, Discovery Channel, American Choppers, etc.

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.

A reactor hit by a Tornado? Plausible. Damage, Inplausable. This movie is filled with technical inaccuracies, Phony physics, and a poor understanding of how a reactor is run. Waste pools water will not boil, and has no links to reactor coolant. Movies like this have killed the nuclear power industry unjustifiably. The only reason my family and I continued watching was to make fun of it, like Mystery Science Theater 3000. In fact, I think any physicist watching this would vomit. A Chernobyl like event is impossible in the United States, since we use an ingenious device known as a Containment Building. Chernobyl did not have a containment building covering it's reactors.

OK, I think that "Twister" was a decent movie. Most movies with tornado's can work. But "Atomic Twister" doesn't do to much for the viewers. The effects don't even help the movie. Mark-Paul seriously needs help when it comes to TV movies. The movie does have potential. I think there is a good movie lost in here somewhere. It just can't come out. It could've been more, but it couldn't do it. I was not impressed. I fell asleep the last 5 minutes of the movie. And it was on again this weekend, I tried to give it another shot. No luck again. It was just too boring.

2/10

I think it's safe to use the tag line: It sucks.

So they could only afford one wind machine, what's not to like?

Pretty much everything.

A nuclear reactor in western Tennessee is threatened by a number of uncannily accurate tornados (which we see maybe 5 seconds of). Ridiculous plot and unbelievable lines with more than a few groaners add the only spice to the limp Gosselaar and the over-wrought, barely seen Berensen. Not nearly the disaster flick you expect it to be (Twister) and not nearly the human drama you might expect it to be either (China Syndrome). Cliche after cliche follows characters we don't care much about to begin with. Mildly amusing if only for the groan-factor.

What is there left to say? Atomic Twister is nothing more than an atomic mess. I suppose there is some novelty value on viewing, but again that is if you are watching the film in the right mood. For me I actually was finding myself laughing at all the logical fallacies that have been outlined very well in previous reviews, at the scenes that were meant to have been set in a nuclear power plant but actually looked like they had been shot in a room under someone's house and at the truly unbelievable, stilted dialogue. Atomic Twister also has the increasingly contrived relationships that formed the very predictable and already far-fetched in concept story, the unlikeable and stereotypical characters and the terrible acting from all involved with Sharon Lawrence overacting and Corbin Bernson has been much better especially in Psych, where he's used much better. All in all, some may revel in its awfulness, if not it will physically hurt to watch it. 1/10 Bethany Cox

I just watched this movie for the first and last time. It happened to run at the same time as China Syndrome, I made a bad choice.

I will admit that the movie had one or two interesting plot moments, unfortunately that was all. The dialogue was silly and the actions taken the characters were at times comical. The movie may be adequate for someone with no technical background, but it is laughable to anyone with any technical background. If you want to see a disaster film that includes a nuclear plant, watch the China Syndrome. As far as I could tell, this film did not contain a single correct technical detail.

The other reviewers have said it all. Ridiculous plot, but so fun to watch.

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.

I loved this movie but then again I am a natural disaster freak. Movies like these are my favorite type. I think that it could have been better but when a movie is made for TV people tend overlook the fact that there could have been more done to increase the worth of the movie. I think that Mark-Paul did a good job as a cop and Sharon Lawerence was believable as the shift manager. They could have added a bit more to the movie and made the movie a lot more powerful and gripping. One minute the plant is in complete danger and the next they have the answer and things going to be OK. They should have played up the disaster a bit more. It may not be the most popular movie for adults but for young adults and teens this is a great movie for them to watch and my daughter loves it. Over all the movie was very good and for people 13to 30 it is a great movie and I would give it a B. I would be tempted to give it a higher grade if they would just release it on DVD. Shows worse than this manage to make DVD why can't this one.

This film starts off strong and manages to keep its strength to the end. For a TV movie it does impress, the tornadoes looks surprisingly realistic and the characters are developed enough to where you can easily sympathize with them during their conflict.

On a technical standpoint the film stumbles due to the inaccurate depiction of a nuclear power plant. If tornadoes were to hit a nuclear power plant in real life a meltdown would be extremely unlikely due to the multiple fail-safes, a good example of this is when the Davis- Besse Nuclear Power Station was struck by an F2 tornado in 1998, the reactor core automatically shutting down after external power was disabled when the switchyard was damaged, power was restored without incident. Interestingly enough, this incident inspired the movie, though very loosely.

Atomic Twister is an enjoyable film with suspense and humor here and there, I recommend you check it out.

After quickly skimming through what everyone else had to say about 'Atomic Twister' (a slightly laughable name if you ask me)... I thought I would be the one who defends it, basically... because I thought it was funny and laughed the whole way through.

Don't get me wrong, it is a pile of tosh... but it's good humor, sweet romantic scenes and beefcake make up for the fact that it IS unbelievable and immeasurably out of its depths in the 'made for TV' listings (if you'll pardon the pun).

It's a cute movie, something to watch if you are really bored. I wouldn't rush out and buy the DVD, but I would consider taping it off Premier next time it was on... if I could generate the energy (*evilgiggle*) to get off the couch and turn the VCR on!

Movie people around the world, don't NOT watch this... it is a fluffy film... and best to be watched with popcorn and possibly alcohol as well. Oh... and Mark-Paul Gosselaar (Jake)... in a firemans uniform... I rest my case!

4.5 flaps out of 10