Twisters

Twisters is certainly well made with a talented core cast. It is far from a bad film, but I found the story to be familiar and predictable as far as disaster films go.

I was happy to settle into something fun and entertaining; I don't think my expectations were too high, but I think Twisters was missing tension, which is a vital part of a film like this. At no point did I feel any of the central cast of characters were under real threat as they bounced between set piece stunts.

Glen Powell and Daisy Edgar-Jones are very watchable in the leads and Anthony Ramos does well to give dimensions to a difficult role. There are however, simply too many peripheral characters.

A large portion of the film's runtime focusses on the relationship between the two leads and, aside from Anthony Ramos, there is no time left to flesh out the rest of the supporting cast, who operate largely as comic relief.

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.

So the graphics and visuals are outstanding! It looks like devastation is actually happening. Some of the scenes looking down on the towns were cool but the scenes in the air were incredibly detailed and beautiful. Beyond that I didn't care for it. I wanted to love it but just couldn't . I didn't care or root for any character. I wanted them to all be sucked up into the tornado! There was on scene, early in the movie , that disposed of a character that was awesome. All the performances were hackneyed and just trying to hard. Save your money and wait for it to come on TV or your favorite streaming service.

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.