'Twisters' Review

Powell power.

Why do we care so much about summer blockbusters? We know why Hollywood cares, obviously – they are the moneymakers keeping the whole filmmaking industry afloat. But why do we, the moviegoing public, care?  

We have proven, time and again, how much we care over the past fifty years. What began in 1975 with Jaws and was perfected in 1977 with Star Wars has only increased more and more in the decades since. Just look at the window alone for what is considered the “summer movie” season. What once was reserved for June and July now stretches from the end of April to Labor Day weekend, with movie after movie (in many cases, sequel after sequel) bursting onto the big screens every weekend. And we, the moviegoing public, are the reason why – because we show up. We show there is demand for these kinds of movies – for “dazzling pictures on a huge silver screen.” 

And yet, over the past five years, people have been showing up less and less. Blame streaming. Blame COVID. Blame the state of modern blockbusters. But people are showing up for two hours of escapism less than they were before 2020 – except when they feel something is worth their time and hard-earned money. 

We’ve shown in the past how much we care about these movies. But again, I ask: why do we, the moviegoing public, care about them? 

Because, when they’re executed well, they offer the best of the moviegoing experience. Spectacle. Charisma. Laughs. Cheers. Movie stars being movie stars. And, if we’re lucky, something we’ve never seen before.  

People have been going to see these movies less and less, yes. But when they do go? It's for Top Gun: Maverick. It's for Barbie. It's for Oppenheimer. (I would argue it was for Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning too, but Barbenheimer kind of buried that movie at the box office. Sorry, Tom.) 

These are the outliers in the past few years during the summer months. Why? I would argue it's because each one actually has a clear filmmaking vision behind it. That shouldn’t be so rare in modern blockbusters, but it is and reaches back to a different time not so long ago when filmmakers mattered on film sets, rather than serving as corporate proxies. 

All of this is a very long prelude to say: director Lee Isaac Chung’s Twisters rocks. It's one more example since 2020 of a talented filmmaker being allowed to actually make a summer blockbuster his way, and the results speak for themselves. 

(A quick aside: this is the second time this has happened this summer alone! Director Michael Sarnoski got to put his own stamp on summer horror with his A Quiet Place: Day One, even if it was to diminishing returns when it came to anything in the thrills department.) 

A little about the movie: Twisters is, of course, the long-awaited sequel to the 1996 smash Twister. There’s barely any connective tissue between the two films, besides, well, the twisters, but the movie is all the better for it. Twister was known for its flying cows and special effects, but its plot was basically just a thin string connecting set piece to set piece. Twisters has a bit more on its mind. It’s not revolutionary by any means, nor is it innovative in its storytelling. It’s predictable too, sure. But Twisters, which credits its story to The Revenant screenwriter Mark L. Smith and Top Gun: Maverick’s Joseph Kosinski, has something to say about the effects of these terrible storms on communities, about the corporate interests that swoop in to “help,” and the trauma these storms can wreck on those who experience them. 

It is also has Glen Powell. 

Twister had the late, great Bill Paxton, yes. It had the delightful Helen Hunt, yes. But Powell – the movie star of the moment – has a charisma neither star had in 1996. Twisters can take a bit to really get going, but when Powell explodes onto the screen about 15 minutes in as the “tornado wrangler” Tyler Owens, the movie clicks into a higher, more satisfying, and way more fun gear. 

Twisters centers on him and Daisy Edgar-Jones’ Kate, who compete, fight, but then, of course, ultimately begin to fall for each other as they chase tornados around rural Oklahoma (shot on a glorious 35 mm film that makes it look breathtaking). Twisters isn’t reinventing the wheel, but it is remembering what makes the wheel so satisfying. Chung, very smartly, structures the movie as a modern romcom with Powell and Jones as the aforementioned leads, giving the movie a warmth and a charm that we frankly don’t get too often in these kinds of movies anymore. It's an old story, sure. But when movie stars are allowed to bring the stuff? That’s the magic of movies, baby.  

You’re probably noticing at this point that, while I’m being effusive about Powell, I’m being less so about Jones. She is fine, but the movie sags a bit whenever the focus is only on her. She’s just simply not as dynamic, whether because of her character’s trauma or because of the way Jones chooses to portray her. When Powell is selling the scientific mumjo jumjo as charismatically and convincingly as he is, it just throws Jones into an unfortunate contrast. It ultimately doesn’t hurt Twisters, but it does bring it down a notch. 

What doesn’t bring it down is Chung’s other smart choice: structuring the movie not only as a romcom, but as a monster movie as well. Like the Amblin movies of the 80s and 90s that he so clearly has a fondness for, the heroes of Twisters are constantly dealing with the horrifying storms they are chasing, seeing the ramifications of their pursuit again and again. People are picked off one by one during a harrowing pool sequence, almost as if they are being hunted by the tornado. And, in perhaps the film’s most effective sequence, a film screen showing the classic monster movie Frankenstein is ripped away to show the literal tornado where Frankenstein’s monster once was. An on-the-nose metaphor for how we are the ones creating these tornados? Maybe, but Chung, again, wisely makes the decision to not let Twisters become a message movie, and lets it instead be exactly what it promises to be: a summer blockbuster, featuring charismatic stars, offering 2 hours of escapism and entertainment for the masses. 

Its predecessor was a box office smash in 1996, but not a particularly well-regarded one critically. Its sequel should not work. And yet, thanks to the creative team behind it, Twisters conjures up the kind of sturdily made magic we used to get more of. Chung infuses his film with a throwback mentality, not only through the choice to shoot on film but also by embracing sincerity in a way that flies in the face of modern, snarky blockbusters.  The end result of all this? Far stronger reviews than its predecessor and a record-breaking opening weekend. 

Is it a classic? No. Is it even a great movie? Your mileage will vary on that. But, it is a very entertaining one. And, at the end of the day, why do we care so much about summer blockbusters? Because, when they are executed well, they can do just that: entertain us. 

Sometimes, all it takes is Glen Powell yelling, “IF YA FEEL IT, CHASE IT.”