Twisters

Have you noticed an epidemic of movies that don't take themselves seriously? They often involve knowing looks/winks at the camera and meta-jokes that break the fourth wall. (And maybe a Ryan Reynolds appearance.) Twisters is not that. In fact, it is the opposite of that. Twisters is a throwback to when summer blockbusters just went for it, and it is ridiculous in all the best ways. This movie builds on what made the original Twister fun, dials all of it up to 11, and makes absolutely zero apologies for it. Not coincidentally, I had an absolute blast. Everybody who walked into that theater knew what they were signing up for, and we all got it. Not only that, but these characters were way more well rounded than the original, so I understood their choices and cared more when the winds started swirling. It isn't perfect, and it certainly strains credulity throughout, but it was a thrill ride that treated its setting, characters, and audience like they deserved some respect. What's not to like about that?

PS - Powell and Edgar-Jones were absolutely tailor-made for this one.

I love disaster movies and Twister (1996) is one of my all-time favourites. It embodies the 90s, and although cheesy, it's a total comfort movie.

I was really excited for Twisters and the trailers looked like it would live up to the hype. Seeing this tonight I couldn't help but compare the two movies and feel disappointed. Twisters isn't bad, it's just bland.

Jan De Bont had a captivating style of directing with big aerial shots and practical action scenes that worked with the relatively new CGI back in '96. The cast was also stellar (especially Philip Seymour Hoffman, Cary Elwes etc). Twisters at times feels like a caricature of the previous film's characters but uninteresting and not particularly likeable. Daisy Edgar-Jones does a great job and there's decent chemistry between her and Glen Powell (albeit not to the same extent of Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt).

Mark Mancina's score was one of the best action scores of the 90s and I was really looking forward to at least a reference, but unfortunately we only get a generic score from Benjamin Wallfisch. I do rate the solid country soundtrack though.

What are the good things about Twisters? The set pieces are on point - especially the rodeo and finale in the town. The effects are amazing and there's a couple moments of spectacle. I think if you haven't seen (or aren't a huge fan) of the original, you'll probably appreciate this one a lot more.

Twister is an almost three decades older movie yet it has unquestionably superior cinematography, editing, sound editing, surround sound mixing, score and soundtrack. It also has much more creative and visually memorable tornado sequences.

Does Twisters have higher resolution CGI? Yes, the CGI is higher resolution but it's not used right and the quality has barely improved since the one decade older tornado movie "Into The Storm".

There is zero mention of climate change and the human causes of more extreme weather.

There's a rodeo sequence (really?) that could have easily been replaced with some other activity like monster truck show or whatever.

They could have made the tornadoes more dark, ominous and violent like in Twister. It also lacks thrilling shots of crazy debris almost hitting the characters.

The could have made it suspenseful and less predictable by adding and killing off some well developed and likable characters.

High frame rate 3D would have been the appropriate choice for an action movie like this, but they cheaped out..

The budget of Twisters is double the budget of Twister. Unbelievable.

You can clearly tell that it was directed by someone who has no talent or experience with directing action.

Twisters is not a sequel to Twister. It's a pointless re-imagining of Twister.

There would have been a chance for some cinematic magic again if they hired the right people to make a sequel to Twister: Director: James Cameron or Jan De Bont Writers: David Koepp and Anne-Marie Martin.

Nowhere near as good as the original. Why did they feel the need to remake this? Why can't studios come up with their own new ideas instead of remaking past great movies? What has happened to Hollywood? Where has creativity gone to? It's like they fired or all the best creators quit in Hollywood. I just don't get it. Why are so many movies so horrible today? It's so sad what's been going on lately.

I would highly recommend just watching the original again instead of this mess. The visuals are OK (sometimes), but the original's effects were really good as well, and that was decades ago. The acting and story was subpar at best.

2 out of 10 - save yourself some money and watch the original instead.

Twisters is odd because it's not really a sequel to the original Twister (1996), nor is it a remake. It's its own thing. And that's kind of a good thing. This film is highly predictable, which takes away a lot of the suspense, but it still manages to present a few exciting moments. Also, I expected the visual effects to far surpass the ones from the 90s, but they honestly seem about the same. And there are far too many characters for me to care about any of them individually, except for Glen Powell, who is a whirlwind of charisma. Even with all its eye-rolling moments, I enjoyed watching Twisters.