Twisters: at long last, a disaster movie that packs a punch

Let me start off by saying that this review contains no spoilers. I won’t be mentioning anything that hasn’t already been revealed in trailers.

When Twister was released in May 1996, the action hit directed by Jan de Bont was much more than just a film about bad weather. It was a technical revolution. A milestone in computer and sound effects that, despite its level of spectacle, never lost sight of its characters. To recap, Bill (Bill Paxton), a former storm chaser, returns to Oklahoma to go on one last epic storm chase with his ex-wife Jo (Helen Hunt).

Today, almost 30 years later, it’d be easy to chalk Twister’s success up to its special effects alone. After all, there was no YouTube in 1996. No social media. The news was the only place you’d get to see the destructive nature of a tornado. Twister satisfied that voyeuristic craving we have for terrible but fascinating destruction. At its core, it was about people. It was about overcoming trauma. About friendship.

And flying cows.

Twisters, the sequel, has two problems. Firstly, disturbing images of nature’s power are just a click away. We no longer need films to make us feel like real storm chasers risking our lives in return for scientific discoveries and an adrenaline rush. Secondly, Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton gave Twister’s harebrained story the credibility it needed in order to grip audiences; Twisters doesn’t have those big names behind it.

Even so, when the credits roll after 122 minutes, I’m relieved to realise that Twisters offers more than just solid entertainment and a satisfying touch of 90s nostalgia. Would I watch it again? Yes, mostly because of the spectacular cinematography.

What is Twisters about?

When a research project she was leading ended dramatically five years ago, Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) swore off storm chasing for good. Three of her best friends were swept up in a tornado and killed. Her supposedly unerring intuition for tornadoes? Gone with the wind. Ever since, she’s been studying storms in New York City from a safe distance – from the comfort of her computer screen.

But then she persuades Javi (Anthony Ramos) of all people, her only surviving friend from that fateful tragedy, to return to Oklahoma – her home state, also known as Tornado Alley. Thanks to an anonymous donor, Javi has access to a new type of tracking system said to be able to scan tornadoes more comprehensively and forecast them better. In order to position the systems correctly, however, Javi needs Kate’s sixth sense as a full-blooded storm chaser.

As Kate gradually discovers the true intentions of Javi’s backer, she crosses paths with the unbearably arrogant go-getter and social media star Tyler Owens (Glen Powell). He doesn’t just want to chase storms, he wants to «tame» them. But there’s more to his façade than Kate initially realises.

A welcome nostalgia trip

I didn’t really know what to expect from Twisters at first. To put it a better way, I had a fear I didn’t really want to express because of my huge appreciation for the original. A fear that it’d be junk, highly polished with OTT computer effects to conceal a thinly stretched story and superficial characters.

Or worse still, a remake that’d take the successful name of a franchise from the 90s, move it into the 2020s and throw in a few cameos by ageing characters – a screw-up colossal enough to make my heart ache.

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time. Right, Independence Day 2?

I can say with a clear conscience that Twisters is none of these things. This new disaster film isn’t a straight-up sequel to the 90s original. Besides the tornadoes, there’s barely a connection between the movies. It’s also steered clear of tacky cameos, which could easily have been used in the trailer to artificially drum up hype for the new film.

What I’m really captivated by is how Twisters looks. Contrary to my fears, nothing’s been heavy-handedly polished, denoised or overly edited, unlike many of today’s digital productions. You might have noticed the incredibly bland and boring look such techniques create.

Instead, director Lee Isaac Chung, who was nominated for the Best Director Oscar for «Minari» in 2020, has taken the meaning of «film» very literally. He chose to shoot the movie on Kodak cameras, as was done in the 70s and 80s for films such as Star Wars or Indiana Jones.

Twisters also looks comfortingly warm and nostalgic, especially in its landscape shots. Picture lush, green fields with kilometres of terracotta-coloured gravel tracks. In the background, a terrifyingly beautiful storm, whose circling, dark-grey cloud formations herald the impending disaster. Yep, that’s the stuff of goosebumps. Especially if you get the chance to enjoy the spectacle on an IMAX screen.

The 90s kid in me is buzzing. I feel like I’ve gone back to somewhere between 1993 und 1996, when I saw Jurassic Park and Twister for the very first time.

The raw power of nature

The tornadoes are the clear stars of the film. They’re brutal, cruel and kill unscrupulously. And yet, Twisters also manages to capture their awe-inspiring beauty.

Take, for example, the scene where Kate and Tyler explain to their companions in the car how a tornado is born. First, they recite a lot of clichéd scientific gibberish. But then Tyler gets to the point: «A tornado is a mix of what we know and everything we can’t understand. It’s part science. part religion.» Fittingly, his explanation’s set to angels singing in the background.

And there you have it: pure poetry.

It’s this combination of advanced computer effects and a rancour-filled soundscape that really gets under your skin. Especially the tornado that attacks a rodeo show at night, only visible in the fractions of a second as lightning flashes are illuminating the raging night sky. Its frighteningly photorealistic whirlwinds are put together using practical effects and lots and lots of dirt and water, which splashes right into the actors’ faces almost non-stop.

The raw power of nature is palpable in every frame.

Shallow story? Check. Two-dimensional characters? Check

As I said earlier, the first Twister film could well have been accused of having a ludicrous plot, the point of which was simply to stage one storm after another. However, Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton, who were already respectable Hollywood greats at the time, had the acting calibre to easily carry the story – and actually make it seem more profound than it was.

Twisters is lacking those big players, and this makes the story seem remarkably flat. The same goes for the characters. For instance, there’s Kate, played by Daisy Edgar-Jones. Like Helen Hunt did back in the day, she embodies a passionate storm chaser, able to predict tornadoes and their paths better than any computer model. She prefers to use more traditional means, such watching which way the wind blows dandelion fluff. I can accept that from the likes of Helen Hunt. Daisy Edgar-Jones, on the other hand, lacks the gravitas to make me look beyond the typical clichés.

Of course, we couldn’t possibly do without the stereotypical storm chaser squad. On the one hand, there are the arrogant geniuses with their academic titles, smart uniforms and who knows what else. On the other hand, there are the rough-and-ready veterans who, despite their sharp tongues, have their hearts in the right place – as well as unmatched experience in the field. As a viewer, it’s clear to me from the start which side I’m supposed to take. It almost couldn’t get any more clichéd.

But the 1996 film was no different.

Only Glen Powell’s character Tyler, arrogant and yet incredibly stylish, stands out from the crowd. This is less to do with the screenplay and more to do with Glen Powell himself. With that kind of charisma, he really could catch and tame a tornado. That said, maybe I’m biased. It’s possible that Hidden Figures and Top Gun: Maverick have made me like him too much to evaluate his performance objectively.