“Did anybody ask for a sequel to ‘Twister?’”
I’m pretty sure I said some variation of this upon first seeing the Super Bowl commercial for “Twisters,” the successor to Jan de Bont’s 1996 disaster flick starring Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. It’s been 28 years since that movie took the box office by storm (sorry, I had to) – and really, how many different ways can you film someone almost getting blown away?
But, we live in the age of the “legacy sequel,” in which any successful film or franchise, no matter how old, is fair game for resuscitation, in hopes that nostalgia will put butts back in cineplex seats. This year alone, we’re getting new installments of well-worn, decades-old franchises including “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire,” “Furiosa: a Mad Max Saga,” “Bad Boys: Ride or Die,” “Beverly Hills Cop: Axel F,” “Alien: Romulus,” and, yes, somehow, “Gladiator II.”
So, among all these, why not “Twisters?” (At least they didn’t feel compelled to throw in a colon-separated subtitle.) My expectations were not at all high, but I happen to have an almost-ten-year-old daughter who’s fascinated by storms of all kinds and insisted that we see this, so here I am reviewing it.
Imagine my surprise, then, that “Twisters” turns out to be a really well-built, seriously entertaining movie that actually improves on the original. Writer Joseph Kosinski - no stranger to the “legacy sequel,” having directed both “TRON: Legacy” and “Top Gun: Maverick” - and director Lee Isaac Chung avoid the pitfalls inherent in many of these franchise revivals, and deliver a fresh and satisfying throwback to the summer blockbusters of the ‘90s.
It helps that almost none of the original contributors to “Twister” is involved. Jan deBont says he wasn’t even contacted about the project, which may seem a bit rude, but then again, he hasn’t directed a feature film in over 20 years. Bill Paxton and Philip Seymour Hoffman from the original cast are sadly no longer with us, and whether Helen Hunt or any others were even considered, I don’t know. Without being laden with such franchise baggage, these filmmakers get to approach the sequel like ambitious home renovators, stripping the original down to its frame and rebuilding something contemporary on top of it.
In some ways, “Twisters” even feels like a soft remake of the original film, rather than a sequel. It uses many of the same basic story beats, but points them in different directions, adding layers and a little more complexity along the way. There are many clever allusions to the original, but they aren’t heavy-handed, and if you’ve never seen “Twister,” you’ll still be able to enjoy “Twisters” all by itself.
The original “Twister” gave the audience mostly stock characters, serving more or less as expository vehicles to string audiences along a series of ever-bigger action set pieces to show off the most realistic natural disasters yet seen, thanks to the relatively novel technology of CGI. The human element of “Twister” was delivered mostly by the chemistry of Paxton and Hunt, and the charm of its oddball supporting cast.
These days, audiences have seen it all as CGI has grown ever more powerful and sophisticated, so spectacle alone isn’t quite enough. This is where Chung and his cast succeed with “Twisters.” They give us more to care about with each main character and more story to chew on than the relatively straightforward tale of plucky independent scientists vs. corporate hotshots from “Twister.”
Daisy Edgar-Jones ably steps into the leading role of Kate Carter, a meteorologist who once dreamed of saving lives with new technology to fight storms, but was scared away from field work after chasing storms with her college classmates turned deadly. She is pulled back into action after a stint at the National Weather Service by one of those classmates, Javi (Anthony Ramos), who’s turned tech bro and has his own startup to collect unprecedented mapping data of tornadoes. With this technology, and the support of his investors, he hopes can save lives.
Once she returns to her home of Oklahoma to resume the chase with Javi, a horde of amateur social media storm chasers invades as well, dominated by Tyler Owens (Glen Powell) – a winsome good ol’ boy with a tricked-out pickup truck and a flair for flamboyant tricks streamed live on YouTube. From there, the chase is on, and Kate soon discovers that it’s harder than she thinks to tell the good guys from the bad guys, as they reveal their character in how they react to the movie’s many deadly storms. She also begins to uncover who she really is under all the many post-traumatic layers she’s created to protect herself from the horror of her past.
If it seems like I’m skimping on plot detail here, it’s because I am. “Twisters” is the kind of movie that is better when you know as little as possible going in – it’s not exactly Christopher Nolan, but there are enough narrative twists (so to speak) to leave an audience genuinely guessing in many places how events are going to play out. There aren’t any massive surprises in the end, but it’s fun to find out how they get there.
The cast also turns out to be a match for the charm of the original motley crew of storm chasers. Glen Powell proves why he is one of the hottest stars in Hollywood at the moment, imbuing Tyler with a smirk and a swagger that you first love to hate, then just love. Daisy Edgar-Jones and Anthony Ramos provide variations on the theme of compromising youthful ideals to survive, as they play out their conflict with each other and with themselves. Powell and Edgar-Jones have a fun, playful chemistry that evolves and sparks as Kate and Tyler learn more about each other.
But what about the tornadoes, for crying out loud? They’re definitely that much more realistic after three more decades of visual effects evolution – but more importantly, because Chung displays a deft command of pacing, tension, and explosive action that really sells the danger and lethality of the monstrous storms. For my money, he does this better than de Bont did in 1996, as “Twister” rushed from twister to twister with nary a moment’s rest. By patiently building up the threat of each storm, Chung gives the audience more to worry about, and more reason to care about who is in harm’s way and how desperately they need to get out. As in the original, clever sound design also gives the tornadoes a sinister personality - a deadly EF5 twister is signaled by a low womp-womp-womp that sounds almost like evil laughter as it approaches.
It’s not all triumph, of course – as topical and specific as “Twisters” often is in re-rooting the story in the 2020s, it is also weirdly vague about some aspects of its world. Javi tells us that his direction in life was influenced by experiences in “the military,” which he always refers to in exactly those words, “the military.” No mention of which branch he may have served in or where his missions may have taken him. Also, though it’s mentioned once or twice that storm chasers have more to do these days thanks to more erratic, more frequent, and more devastating storms, the filmmakers seem quite keen to avoid any mention of the underlying cause of climate change. Such carefully excised context often gives “Twisters” a curiously anodyne and detached atmosphere. Is this a major concern in a summer blockbuster? Not necessarily, but it does make the whole effort a little more disposable in the end.
Still, “Twisters” easily exceeds expectations and rises above a lot of the tired and embarrassing tropes of other “legacy sequels.” Grab yourself some popcorn and go chase a storm.
(Oh, and by the way, my daughter loved it. I know some of you were wondering.)