We have a complex relationship with disaster movies. Just look at the discussion about a 鈥� 鈥� poster, which became a perfect encapsulation of our love-hate tendencies.
In the promo for the film, in theaters Thursday, actors Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell and Anthony Ramos are standing in front a massive, menacing cyclone. It not only contains various objects swirling in mid-air, from houses to trucks, but also appears to be on fire. Some people wondered why the stars weren鈥檛 looking at said tornado. Others said if you鈥檙e asking questions like why the tornado is on fire, this movie isn鈥檛 for you.
Both lines of thought can be true though. Maybe their coexistence is essential. This makes no sense! Also, sign me up immediately! Disaster movies are almost required to be graded on a curve. And filmmaker Lee Isaac Chung鈥檚 entry into the canon is perfectly paradoxical.
It might not be fair, or rational, but there is something about the genre that inspires otherwise reasonable moviegoers to giddily give themselves over to a wild premise 鈥� the more ridiculous and illogical the better. There is something to be said about the joy of collective laughter where there wasn鈥檛 an intentional joke, or a spirited post-movie debate about the flawed logistics of a plan and exactly how many people have died from being sucked into a tornado. These are the movies that are hard to see clearly the first time but tend to become sneaky favorites over the years.
Such is the case with 鈥淭wister,鈥� Jan de Bont鈥檚 film about storm chasing and remarriage. The modern collective love for it would probably surprise even the critics who reviewed it favorably in 1996. Part of that is certainly the fact that in the 28 years since it was released we lost both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Bill Paxton. But it鈥檚 also just fun to watch 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 go on to write and direct 鈥淭谩r.鈥� I re-watched it recently on plane and had a blast. I鈥檇 forgotten the insane opening but remembered .
There鈥檚 been a lot of cautious optimism surrounding 鈥淭wisters鈥� that鈥檚 felt different from a lot of the reboots and 鈥渘ew chapters鈥� (anything to avoid calling it a sequel) that have come and gone in recent years. Audiences are craving something big and fun, but worried that it won鈥檛 live up to their idea of what it should be. This is inherently flawed because 鈥淭wister鈥� has earned its reputation, its quotability, across many viewings and many years. 鈥淭wisters鈥� we鈥檙e just meeting. It鈥檚 hard to get too excited about a first date.
But Chung, a filmmaker best known for the comparatively small has made a solid film with escalating action sequences that look great on the big screen. There is once again a crazy opening that gives Edgar-Jones鈥� tornado-obsessed Kate a trauma origin story. Her hubris in thinking she could 鈥渢ame鈥� a tornado with science backfired and people died; But five years later her old friend Javi (Ramos) convinces her to come back to Oklahoma鈥檚 Tornado Alley to attempt a different kind of study.
The story is credited to Joseph Kosinski (who was once going to direct) and the screenplay to Mark L. Smith (鈥淭he Revenant鈥�) and none of them can get the original out of their heads. Yes, these are all new characters (including Powell鈥檚 YouTube star storm wrangler Tyler) and the only real connection to the first movie is that the Dorothy technology exists. But it is so referential as to be distracting: Literal lines of dialogue (鈥淚鈥檓 not back鈥�); An attempt to make Tyler鈥檚 crew a gang of Dustys (which underserves actors like Sasha Lane and Katy O鈥橞rian); Making David Corenswet wear what鈥檚 essentially a recreation of Carey Elwes鈥� baseball cap and earpiece. Don鈥檛 they want us to think of 鈥淭wisters鈥� on its own terms?
But Chung clearly also had a vision, attempting to ground the insanity in a real place with regionally appropriate styles and music, and deeper characterization. The supporting players were thoughtfully cast. Its leads, Powell and Edgar-Jones, are endlessly watchable with palpable chemistry, even as they鈥檙e monologuing about sodium polyacrylate.
I wish I had the ability to know how 鈥淭wisters鈥� will play 28 years from now, in 2052. Will the 12-year-olds seeing it this weekend go back to it as a comfort watch? Will it feel like it was part of the good old days of big studio movie making? Right now, it doesn鈥檛 necessarily feel like it鈥檚 destined for that kind of longevity. And I鈥檇 love nothing more than to be wrong about that.
鈥淭wisters,鈥� a Universal Pictures release, is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association for 鈥渋ntense action and peril, injury images, some language.鈥� Running time: 122 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.
Lindsey Bahr, The Associated Press
