Twisters Needs to Be Either Smarter or Dumber

As a film critic with a background in meteorology and a deep appreciation for disaster movies, I found “Twisters” to be a disappointing follow-up to the original 1996 classic. Having grown up watching my father chase storms across the Midwest, I was excited to see how this sequel would build upon the original’s premise and explore the human connection to these natural wonders. However, I left the theater feeling let down by both Daisy Edgar-Jones’ and Lee Isaac Chung’s inability to capture the grandeur and intensity of tornadoes on the big screen.

As a movie reviewer reflecting on the original “Twister” from 1996, I must admit that it may not have been a cinematic masterpiece when it first came out. However, the passage of time has given this film a certain charm and appeal that is harder to find in today’s mass-produced entertainment.

It’s the more granular details that stand out, like the now-unfashionable clarity of the lighting, all the better to appreciate the faces of the glorious array of character actors — among them Alan Ruck, Jeremy Davies, Tár director Todd Field, and a 28-year-old Philip Seymour Hoffman — who play storm-chasing grad students. Hell, all the better to appreciate the faces of the leads, Bill Paxton with his huge honking forehead and Helen Hunt with her girl-next-door earthiness, two actors whose sexiness was only enhanced by having real-world texture. Twister was a divorce comedy tucked inside a disaster flick, an idiot His Girl Friday about two workaholics bickering their way back together over the course of a day spent trying to get a bucket of tennis-ball-size sensors sucked up into a tornado. It was incredibly silly down to Hunt delivering a line implying a twister had hunted down her family, but it was also grown-up in an easy way that feels like a novelty now, with characters who’d racked up some living.

As someone who grew up in the 90s and fondly remembers the excitement of watching “Twister” for the first time, I can’t help but feel a pang of disappointment with its recent sequel, “Twisters.” I’m not saying it’s some sacred flying cow or that it defiles a classic, but it just doesn’t live up to the original in my eyes.

In simpler terms, among the cast of “Twisters,” Glen Powell stands out with his charming performance as Tyler Owens. Tyler, an Arkansas native with a meteorology degree and a team that funds their adventures through T-shirt sales and YouTube, is portrayed by Powell as a self-aware and cheesy character who winks at the audience, acknowledging the absurdity of his actions. Despite having a sculpted appearance and a million-dollar smile, Powell’s performance in this film suits him well, even if he plays a supporting role rather than the lead. Unfortunately, the film’s star, Daisy Edgar-Jones, and director Lee Isaac Chung struggle to match the grandeur and tone required for a movie about a tornado igniting, making it challenging for them to fully deliver their best work.

As a cinema enthusiast, I’ve noticed that both Edgar-Jones and Chung face a common challenge: they excel in portraying deep, intimate emotions but struggle to balance that with more action-packed elements. Chung’s past work includes introspective indies like his 2020 semi-autobiographical family-farm drama, “Minari.” The opening scene of his latest film, “Twisters,” which features Edgar-Jones snapping a picture of the sky from a grassy field, echoes this contemplative style.

Edgar-Jones, who embodies the quintessential British charm of a Liberty London party dress, continues to be cast in distinctively American roles with a questionable Oklahoma accent. However, the authenticity of her accent, which may or may not be intentional, is less problematic than the film’s reliance on her character’s restored ability to read the weather.

The urge to add significant themes to a lighthearted film like “Twisters” is both its most modern aspect and its most annoying trait. While the movie’s visuals of tornadoes, some of which include footage of real-life tornadoes, are impressive, it shies away from acknowledging the potential connection to climate change in the plot. Instead, it focuses on the destruction left behind as a form of tragic Americana, without explicitly stating anything. The original film featured academics versus corporate entities, but in the sequel, everyone is motivated by profit. Predatory investors appear to purchase storm-damaged properties, and the only glimmer of altruism comes from Tyler’s team using their merchandise sales for food donations.

Twisters persistently argues that it is ethical for its characters to head towards communities threatened by tornados, yet it struggles to depict how they can effectively assist upon arrival. It’s disheartening that a movie’s pinnacle achievement lies in an individual learning to dissipate a solitary storm – a supposed stride towards global salvation – but it overlooks the larger concerns relentlessly assaulting its characters, like powerful winds.

2024-07-22 18:58

Twisters Needs to Be Either Smarter or Dumber

Read More

Minority Mindset