Twisters (Universal, PG-13)

Ironically, there’s a twist in Twisters that has almost nothing to do with tornadoes, and this twist diminishes the headwinds the movie could have generated. On the surface, Twisters is just as fun as Twister, its 1996 predecessor to which it’s tangentially connected. On a fundamental level, however, the film has obvious cracks in its foundation which certainly will not help it weather the storms of further scrutiny.

Like Jan de Bont’s 90s smash hit, Lee Isaac Chung’s update follows dueling crews of storm chasers as they travel through Oklahoma for tornado research and/or pure spectacle. Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) and Javi (Anthony Ramos) are five years out from a tragedy involving their former tornado crew, with Kate having lost her then-boyfriend Jeb (Daryl McCormack) in the process. Javi convinces Kate — who now works as a meteorologist in New York City — to return to the southern part of Tornado Alley to test a new tracking system with his new crew. They soon meet rowdy YouTube star Tyler Owens (Glen Powell), who refers to himself and his team as “Tornado Wranglers.” The first act is immensely enjoyable, especially because Mark L. Smith’s screenplay builds on what the original did best: cornball dialogue that’s actually memorably funny.

The main things which don’t stand the test of time in the first film are the computer-generated effects, and here, they’ve obviously been improved on and then some. So many brilliant effects in today’s big-budget pictures go unnoticed, especially when they’re blended this well with real environments and practical effects. No matter what I thought of the rest of the movie, these seamlessly-blended simulated tornadoes shouldn’t go unnoticed. From a practical effects standpoint, there’s nothing quite as thrilling here as the sequence in the original where Bill (Bill Paxton) drives his truck through a house torn from its foundation as it tumbles in the wind to meet him, but there are enough car stunts to scratch that specific itch.

Additionally, Dan Mindel’s cinematography contributes to the weight and muscle of the spectacle here. It’s shaky at times, but always for a purpose, and never distractingly so. Mindel and editor Terilyn A. Shropshire also have a keen sense of shot selection and how to sequentially order varying levels of camera stability to give each action scene its utmost impact.

We hit our first snag when we reach the second act. As a piece of writing, Twisters is never sophomoric, lazy, or too clichéd, but it’s just trying to do too much. For the love triangle that starts to unfold to work, the story has to balance out at least five different major thematic threads almost simultaneously. Jan de Bont’s film was never concerned with the well-being of civilians affected by tornadoes, and perhaps it should have been, but in Twisters, what starts as a noble statement ends up wrapping unnecessary tendrils around every aspect of the human story, making a few main characters unlikeable at times. It’s not that blockbusters can’t or shouldn’t have complex characters, it’s that these characters’ motivations are not well-conceived enough to warrant hanging so much on their thin shoulders. Twister succeeded in part because of the simplicity of its thin characters. Twisters has thin characters with so much to carry that their effort becomes distracting.

That story issue doesn’t significantly diminish the fun to be had here, but it does make this film a less polished experience than the original, despite the vastly improved post-production effects. If you’re excited for Twisters, by all means, see it in a theater. It’s thrilling and vibrant enough to warrant that experience. Just don’t expect it to totally sweep you off your feet. | George Napper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *