I still recall a time in which the general consensus on the 1996 Jan de Bont blockbuster Twister was that it’s a largely mediocre movie, and considered by a not insignificant amount of people to be a straight up bad movie. But time plays interesting games. The film has grew in status over the years, likely from people who grew up watching it as children, now looking back fondly on the goofy charms of it. Meanwhile, the critical consensus sees the film more favorable, standing out at the very least as an example of when Hollywood made star-driven spectacles that didn’t revolve around superheroes and extensive green screen use.
So, as weird and random as it might sound, it does make sense for the film to see a return in some way shape or form. However, it’s interesting in that it’s not a direct sequel, and it’s not really a remake – though there are definitely some parallels at play, and none of the characters appear to be related to anyone from the original film, which is unique among the landscape of legacy sequels these days. It’s also notable for being directed by acclaimed indie darling Lee Isaac Chung, working off a script by Mark L. Smith, with a story credit given to Top Gun: Maverick helmer Joseph Kosinski.
The film follows Kate Cooper (Daisy Edgar-Jones), a meteorologist haunted by the loss of her loved ones during a storm chasing session years prior. She is lured back into the game by her old friend Javi (Anthony Ramos), who wants her help testing out a new tornado tracking system for his company. Back in Oklahoma, they encounter Tyler Owens (Glen Powell), a sort of storm chasing influencer who has a crew with him that helps run a popular YouTube channel and selling his merch. While they butt heads regarding their different approaches, they ultimately work together as the storms begin to intensify.
So, if you’re at all familiar with the original Twister, then some of the story and character dynamics are pretty familiar. A lead haunted by a tornado in the past, the push-and-pull between storm chasers who are doing it because they have the passion for it versus those who are serving corporate interests, even some of the sequences feel like the film doing its version of any given sequence from the original. But it’s honestly not that big of a deal because it doesn’t call too much attention to itself, and if you have little familiarity to the original, it won’t feel like you’re missing out on something, and if you are, it doesn’t totally feel like a being served lukewarm leftovers.
If anything, I think this film is about as good as the original film, which I never really put in much high regard to begin with. I always thought of the first film as a modestly enjoyable spectacle that is elevated by strong craftsmanship and charming performances, and a lot of the same positive qualities that I attribute to that film can basically be said of this new film as well.
While the intimacy and richness of Lee Isaac Chung’s previous films like the multi-Oscar nominated Minari aren’t really that present here, he does show a strong capability of handling a big production. There are massive sets, tons of extras, various locations, extensive set-pieces, some of which incorporate impressive long takes, and it all coheres in a way that makes it seem like he’s done this plenty of times before, despite this being his first foray into big studio filmmaking. And working with collaborators like cinematographer Dan Mindel and editor Terilyn A. Shropshire, among many other experienced department heads in production design, visual effects, and so on.
The cast delivers strong work here. Daisy Edgar-Jones is a decent enough lead, portraying the joy that the work brings her while also carrying the guilt she feels for the loss she experienced. Glen Powell continues to be a charisma machine. Anthony Ramos brings an interesting dynamic to the proceedings that we didn’t quite have in the first film. And having the supporting players consist of folks like Brandon Perea, Maura Tierney, Sasha Lane, Katy O’Brian, David Corenswet, and Harry Hadden-Paton, among others, add enough personality that grounds the film, even if they don’t often get enough moments to shine for themselves like some characters did in the original.
There’s not really a whole lot to say about Twisters. It pretty much delivers exactly what’s on the poster. You like Twister? Then, you’ll probably like Twisters. It’s about as silly, about as charming, about as engaging, and about as impressive in its filmmaking. It is not the most substantive piece of pop filmmaking, and I do think it does miss an opportunity to be a bit more tied into our current era by diving into something like the effect that climate change has on these kinds of weather phenomena, which is only given the mildest of references here. But alas, it doesn’t seem all that interested in pushing beyond what is expected for a belated sequel to a dopey tornado movie from the 90s, which is fine because it knows how to keep things entertaining without relying on its spectacle as a crutch, which is rare enough these day.
Twisters is now out in theaters.
I am now on Patreon! If you enjoy my work, please consider joining!