Jonah Naplan   July 20, 2024

The title of “Twisters,” the standalone legacyquel to the 1996 cult classic “Twister,” which starred Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt as well as an insane lineup of supporting cast members and was directed by Jan de Bont, promises to capitalize on all the tornado carnage by being bigger and, in many ways, better, because this time, it’s plural. On the one hand, “Twisters” is a dramatic improvement over its predecessor in the ways that it clarifies its interest in the devastating human impacts of tornadoes and how greedy businessmen attempt to reap the financial benefits of other peoples’ tragedy and suffering. But on the other, none of the characters, all of which are played by a similarly impressive who’s-who of beautiful faces, are as interesting or developed as those in the original, which is particularly disappointing given director Lee Isaac Chung’s previous film, the poignant and character-driven “Minari.” Luckily, “Twisters” retains some of the self-deprecating brashness shared by fellow offerings of this cinematic season such as “Hit Man,” “Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,” and “Bad Boys: Ride or Die” by just being purely entertaining and fun, not because it has franchise expectations to satisfy but because that’s what moviegoers want and need. I’d bet it goes even harder with a huge bucket of popcorn.

The movie stars Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell as tornado chasers in rural Oklahoma who are each aspiring for greatness in different ways. She is still reeling from the loss of three of her friends to a ferocious tornado five years earlier and wants out of that dangerous business until she gets coerced back in, while he cares less about the potential risks and danger of tornado chasing or “wrangling,” as he calls it, and more about the bankable content for his YouTube channel. Their characters, named Kate Carter and Tyler Owens, respectively, have very differing views on the business and initially resent each other until that banter turns into romance, and so on and so forth in typical mismatched lovers fashion.

Essentially, Kate is a “weather whisperer” of a sort who can instinctively sense when a storm is lurking on the horizon. The inherent idea of tornadoes is exciting to her, but she’s also very much concerned about their destructive, often life-threatening impact on the human population, particularly on small towns who may not have the technological insight or resources to respond quickly enough. She knows full well of their ability to strip innocent people of their lives or that of their loved ones, and that they’re not traditional “monsters,” in the name of Godzilla or King Kong, who could be reasoned with or talked to because they’re not alive nor do they have thoughts or feelings or emotions. Tyler clearly knows some of these things too, but doesn’t seem to enjoy admitting them to himself because, you know, money is cool enough that it doesn’t matter. Kate’s former partner Javi (Anthony Ramos) is similar in that he’s had first hand experience with the emotional devastation of tornadoes but is also now working for a corporation that benefits from the toll they take on less fortunate civilians.

One of the most fascinating ideas of “Twisters” is what tornadoes are as meteorological as well as commercial events. If Alex Garland’s “Civil War” depicted the fierce competition between journalists as they race to the scene in order to capture the story first, then “Twisters,” in a much lighter package, is about which team of fanatics can chase the tornado down ahead of the game and develop the technology to “disrupt” it, ultimately saving vast populations from further damage. Chung, working from a screenplay by Mark L. Smith and story by “Top Gun: Maverick” director Joseph Kosinski, illustrates this idea by having rallies of tornado enthusiasts set up shop on the outskirts of a town before the storm rears its ugly head and then the tide turns to every man for himself as they all scatter about to get the best angle.

Throughout “Twisters,” various groups propose various methods of scanning the tornado from the outside or physically trekking inside—which indeed tends to be a greater impossibility—and analyzing what these tornadoes are made of and how exactly they’re created up in the clouds. Characters speak frequently about how the mystery of tornadoes is a clumsy fusion of what they do know scientifically—the film also firmly posits that because of modern-day gadgets and gizmos, we now know far more about these beasts than ever before—and the gray areas that haven’t been explored yet but that might become conclusive when the right person with the right mindset and the right skills steps into the field.

If this makes it seem like “Twisters” is based around science, it’s not. And that’s a good thing because science is not what the audience came to see. All of the big, popcorn-munching tornado stuff is excellent in a classic “old blockbuster-y” way, channeling the happy-go-lucky mannerisms of summer flicks from the 90s and early aughts. The seamless mixture of practical effects with real stunt work is refreshing, and the dedication to making sure the audience is entertained without needlessly overstimulating their attention span is admirable. Visual effects supervisor Ben Snow reportedly based the six tornadoes in “Twisters” on real ones, including one that struck the American Legion theater in Mayfield, Kentucky in December 2021, reportedly providing Chung with the inspiration for this film; the ending, which features panicked and distressed citizens hiding out in a movie theater only for the tornado outside to rip the screen from the wall and expose them to the havoc it has wreaked, acts as a heartfelt callback.

It’s true that “Twisters” could be viewed through a lens of interiority that proves these ferocious tornadoes are a metaphor for climate change—we know it exists, we know it’s powerful, now what can we do to stop it?—but it’s also equally as important for filmgoers to not think too terribly hard about what they’re watching and instead recognize the underappreciated artistry that comes with entertainment at no charge.

Glen Powell is all in on the energy of this movie, dealing in the same daring charisma that he brought to roles in “Hit Man” and “Anyone But You.” Like Bill Paxton in the original “Twister,” there’s something about his character that isn’t completely wackadoo while also not being entirely straight-arrow, either. He’s absolutely perfect for this type of movie, one that allows him the privations of being the charming movie star guy, while simultaneously performing an emotional dexterity in slower scenes that proves his role isn’t entirely disreputable. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for Edgar-Jones, who spends most of the movie acting as though she’s in a different one. Having been so excellent in “Where the Crawdads Sing,” it’s disappointing to see that she can’t quite ever mesh with this material, turning in an inconsistent, nearly bland performance that appears lowly when put opposite Powell and even lowlier when placed beside Helen Hunt’s turn as the headstrong female protagonist in the first “Twister.”

Other supporting players, like Ramos and Maura Tierney as Kate’s mother, do a commendable job of leveling their talents to match the movie, even if their characters weren’t written to do very much in pushing the plot forward, while both the cinematography by Dan Mindel and the score by Benjamin Wallfisch are constantly working in favor of turning the movie into a spectacle event meant to be seen on a large screen with a booming sound system. Ultimately, “Twisters” is successful because its heart is in the right place and it isn’t trying to be anything more than it must. That seems to be an increasing rarity these days, which is not to say that this movie is the newest or most original thing in the world, but its values and lack of cynicism make it almost feel that way.

Now playing in theaters.