Twisters (2024) Review: A Sequel That Fails to Capture the Stormy Magic of the Original
Twisters (2024) Review: A Sequel That Fails to Capture the Stormy Magic of the Original
The 1996 classic Twister remains a beloved film for many, thanks to its perfect blend of groundbreaking special effects, a gripping storyline, and just the right amount of campiness. It was a thrilling ride that didn't take itself too seriously, yet managed to keep audiences on the edge of their seats. So, when Twisters (2024) was announced as a sequel, fans of the original were eager to see if it could recapture the magic.
Unfortunately, Twisters falls short in almost every way that matters. Where the original Twister thrived by not dwelling too much on the science and instead focusing on the intense, thrilling chase scenes and dynamic character interactions, Twisters makes the mistake of trying to inject too much pseudo-science into the mix. The result is a film that bogs itself down with convoluted explanations that don't make much sense, ultimately detracting from the excitement and suspense that should have been the movie's primary focus.
One of the most glaring issues with Twisters is its handling of the tornadoes themselves. In the original film, the tornadoes were terrifying forces of nature, unpredictable and deadly. They were treated with the kind of respect and awe that made them feel like genuine threats. However, in Twisters, the tornadoes are strangely downplayed. There are several scenes where characters casually drive into the heart of a tornado or stand eerily close without any real sense of danger. It's almost as if the tornadoes have lost their bite, making them feel more like an afterthought than the central antagonist they should be.
Another disappointing aspect of Twisters is the subplot involving a love triangle that isn't really a love triangle at all. This side story feels forced and unnecessary, adding nothing of value to the film. Daisy Edgar-Jones is already playing a character that’s both Hellen Hunt and Bill Paxton’s character from the original. She doesn’t need this dumb, tired, boring trope. Especially if you’re not going to write or cast it properly. How about a real bad guy instead? The result of this nonsense is a story that feels disjointed and lacks the emotional depth that could have made the characters more relatable and the stakes higher.
Perhaps the most frustrating part of Twisters is its inconsistency in how it treats the tornadoes. At times, characters can seemingly survive close encounters with these deadly storms without a scratch, but when the plot demands it, a tornado will suddenly become an unstoppable force, conveniently whisking away characters with no explanation. This lack of consistency makes it difficult to invest in the story, as the rules governing the tornadoes seem to change on a whim.
I’m usually not a fan of sequels that spend more time reminiscing about the original than actually continuing the story. But with Twisters, I didn’t feel any connection to the original. It’s like they forgot the secret sauce—no shared vibe, tone, or charm. The few nods to the original are barely there. They tried to make Daisy Edgar-Jones look like Helen Hunt, but somehow she ended up as Laura Dern. And honestly, I’d forgive all of this if they’d just given us ONE flying cow. That’s all I need in a Twisters sequel. Heck, I’d even be down for a prequel about the original cow's backstory!
In conclusion, Twisters is a sequel that had the potential to be a fun, nostalgic trip back into the eye of the storm but instead gets lost in a whirlwind of misguided scientific explanations, poorly executed subplots, and inconsistent storytelling. While it manages to capture some of the campy spirit of the original, it ultimately fails to deliver the same level of excitement and terror that made Twister such a memorable film. Fans of the original may find some enjoyment in the nostalgia, but overall, Twisters is a storm better left unchased.