By Lindsey Bahr | Associated Press
We have a complicated relationship with disaster movies. Just look at the discussion around a “Twisters” poster, which has become a perfect encapsulation of our love-hate tendencies.
In the promo for the film, which hits theaters Thursday, actors Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell and Anthony Ramos stand in front of a massive, menacing cyclone. Not only does it have various objects swirling through the air, from houses to trucks, but it also appears to be on fire. Some have wondered why the stars aren’t looking at said tornado. Others have said that if you’re wondering why the tornado is on fire, this movie isn’t for you.
Both arguments may be true. Perhaps their coexistence is essential. It makes no sense! And then, sign me up immediately! Disaster movies are almost necessarily classified according to a curve. And the entry of filmmaker Lee Isaac Chung into the canon is perfectly paradoxical.
It may not be fair, or rational, but there is something about this genre that makes otherwise reasonable viewers indulge in a crazy premise, the more ridiculous and illogical the better. There is something to be said for the joy of collective laughter where there was no intended joke, or for a lively debate after the movie about the faulty logistics of a shot and exactly how many people died after being sucked into a tornado. These are movies that are hard to see clearly the first time, but tend to become sneaky favorites over the years.
Such is the case with Twister, Jan de Bont’s film about storm chasing and remarriage. The collective enthusiasm it has now probably surprises even the critics who gave it a favorable review in 1996. Part of that is that in the 28 years since its release, we’ve lost both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Bill Paxton. But it’s also fun to watch it with fresh eyes, to see the internet remember (or realize for the first time) that one of the storm chasers was played by Todd Field, the man who would later write and direct Tár. I saw it again recently on a plane and had a blast. I’d forgotten the wild opening but I remembered Dusty’s impassioned singing.
There’s been a lot of cautious optimism around “Twisters,” which has felt different from a lot of the reboots and “new chapters” (anything to avoid calling it a sequel) that have come and gone in recent years. Audiences want something big and fun, but are worried that it won’t live up to their idea of what it should be. That’s inherently wrong, because “Twister” has earned its reputation, its citation, over many viewings and many years. “Twisters” is about just meeting each other. It’s hard to get excited about a first date.
But Chung, a director best known for the relatively small “Minari,” has made a solid film with escalating action sequences that look great on the big screen. There’s again a wild opening that gives Edgar-Jones’ tornado-obsessed Kate a traumatic origin story. Her arrogance in thinking she could “tame” a tornado through science backfired and people died; but five years later, her old friend Javi (Ramos) convinces her to return to Oklahoma’s Tornado Alley to try a different kind of study.
The story is credited to Joseph Kosinski (who was supposed to direct the film) and the screenplay to Mark L. Smith (“The Revenant”), and neither of them can get the original out of their heads. Yes, these are all new characters (including Tyler, Powell’s storm-managing YouTube star), and the only real connection to the first film is the existence of Dorothy technology. But it’s so referential as to be annoying: literal lines of dialogue (“I’m not back”); an attempt to make Tyler’s crew a bunch of Dustys (which doesn’t do justice to actors like Sasha Lane and Katy O’Brian); having David Corenswet wear what is essentially a recreation of Carey Elwes’ baseball cap and earpiece. Don’t they want us to think of “Twisters” on its own terms?
But Chung also clearly had a vision, attempting to ground the madness in a real place with regionally appropriate styles and music, and deeper characterization. The supporting cast has been carefully chosen. His leads, Powell and Edgar-Jones, are endlessly watchable with a palpable chemistry, even when they’re monologuing about sodium polyacrylate.
I wish I could know how “Twisters” will play 28 years from now, in 2052. Will the 12-year-olds who see it this weekend go back to it for comfort? Will they feel like they’re part of the good old days of big-studio movies? Right now, it doesn’t seem destined for that longevity. And I’d like nothing more than to be wrong about that.
“Tornadoes”
2 1/2 stars out of 4
Rating: PG-13 (for intense action and peril, images of injury, strong language)
Duration : 122 minutes
