I remember the first time I saw the original Twister (1996) at the AMC Lincoln Square cinema, hating every minute of it. The dialogue was cheesy, the performances stiff, and the plot was plain ridiculous. But despite my initial disdain, something about the movie stuck with me.
New York residents were among the first to receive this story in our newsletter, “The Critics.” Join us now to have it delivered directly to your email.
In 1996, I watched the premiere of “Twister” at the newly established AMC Lincoln Square, formerly known as Sony Lincoln Square. My reaction? Dislike. The dialogue was unnatural, acting forced, villain weak, and storyline nonsensical. Despite decent special effects, we no longer appreciated films based on effects alone. The CGI era, initiated by “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and the first “Jurassic Park,” had arrived, making good special effects a given in big-budget Hollywood productions. For years, “Twister” served as my reminder of how some ’80s and ’90s action hits weren’t as brilliant as we thought they were (including “Independence Day”). When creating my initial list of the Top Disaster Films Ever, I omitted “Twister” – to the disappointment of many readers.
An unexpected event occurred: I found myself developing a warmer sentiment towards it. Considering that it featured the late Bill Paxton, who was exceptional in all his roles including those in “As Good As It Gets” where Helen Hunt earned an Oscar (1997), and boasted an impressive supporting cast with actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman and Todd Field, it seemed reasonable to assume that the movie was superior to my previous recollections. My young son’s prolonged fascination with tornados during the early 2010s also contributed to my frequent rewatching of “Twister.”
In 2020, Vulture organized a livetweet event for Friday Night Movie Club featuring the film, and I had the opportunity to interview director Jan de Bont for the piece. Our conversation was engaging and comprehensive, but what stood out to me was de Bont’s apparent dissatisfaction with the final product. He shared his regrets about not standing firm against the studio when they demanded additional exposition in the script. “The movie contains a lot of establishing and exposition scenes,” he mentioned to me. “In my opinion, such elements make a film less appealing right from the start.” I couldn’t agree more silently. The movie’s exposition added to its awkwardness. “I believed that the dialogue needed to match the pace of the action and keep up with it,” de Bont explained. “If you don’t do that, the film becomes stilted very quickly.”
Twister is … let’s say … a flawed film. The script, by Michael Crichton (who was a terrific novelist but a mostly lousy screenwriter) and Anne-Marie Martin, is shallow and awkward. But now I feel the movie basically works, mainly thanks to the immediacy de Bont brought to it. On both his directorial debut, Speed (which does rule), and the Hollywood films on which he served as cinematographer (including Die Hard, The Hunt for Red October, and Basic Instinct), de Bont liked to push his camera up close to his actors to capture very real emotions in sometimes extreme physical circumstances. That was one of the reasons why he tended to put actors in situations where they might fear for their lives, at least a little bit. He told me that on Speed he had Sandra Bullock actually drive the bus — it wasn’t being towed by a camera rig or anything like that. (Relax, there was a safety driver perched atop the bus to make sure nothing untoward happened. But at any given moment, the actors didn’t know which of the two was actually controlling the vehicle.) “What you achieve is that the people on the bus, all the extras, too, they feel like, ‘Man, we all are on our own here,’” de Bont said. “The reactions are so real, and that energizes almost everything immediately.”
As a movie buff, I’d put it this way: In “Twister,” there’s a good amount of computer-generated imagery (CGI), but a lot of the effects were achieved through practical methods. That’s part of why the film still feels fresh – perhaps even more so now than back then. Now don’t get me wrong, CGI isn’t all bad. It shines when it’s skillfully integrated into the production process, not just an afterthought to be fixed in post-production. What we connect with in those ’80s and ’90s action movies is the sense of urgency and tangible texture brought by practical effects and genuine actors. Real people reacting authentically to their surroundings. Modern blockbuster directors get this, striving to recreate that same sense of authenticity.
Lee Isaac Chung, an Oscar nominee and the director of the new “Twisters,” might be counted among those filmmakers. However, I’m still undecided. The movie shares some elements with older action films and was filmed on celluloid, which gives it a tangible quality even in its most ordinary scenes. Moreover, Glen Powell delivers an enjoyable performance, seemingly the only major actor who understood that this is intended to be a charmingly ridiculous follow-up to a charmingly ridiculous predecessor. (For my take on Powell’s acting, see here.) While I generally concur with my colleague Alison Willmore in her assessment, expressed in her review: “It’s not a nostalgic reboot, but it doesn’t feel like an inventive reinvention of the original, either. If ‘Twister’ is a secondhand find from the mall, ‘Twisters’ is a sweatshirt marketed by a DTC brand that boasts about its antiquated manufacturing techniques on social media, yet fails to flatter any body shape universally.”
Initially, when I watched “Twisters” for my Glen Powell piece, the special effects were far from complete. I’m talking about really unfinished – some scenes were just animated. The lackluster storyline and Daisy Edgar-Jones’ subpar acting became glaringly obvious in those moments. However, upon seeing it again with completed effects, I was fully immersed. In fact, I’m eager to see it once more, this time in IMAX. After much reflection, “Twister” has not yet made my list of the Best Disaster Movies Ever Made. But give me 20 years and we’ll revisit that decision.
Read More
- CKB PREDICTION. CKB cryptocurrency
- EUR INR PREDICTION
- PBX PREDICTION. PBX cryptocurrency
- IMX PREDICTION. IMX cryptocurrency
- ICP PREDICTION. ICP cryptocurrency
- BSW PREDICTION. BSW cryptocurrency
- TANK PREDICTION. TANK cryptocurrency
- GEAR PREDICTION. GEAR cryptocurrency
- USD DKK PREDICTION
- Exploring the Hilarious World of Helldivers’ Ricochet Gameplay
2024-07-22 18:45