A Reflection on ‘Twister’ and Its Impact on Disaster Films

When it first premiered in 1996, the film ‘Twister‘ opened in theaters with much anticipation, including a showing at the AMC Lincoln Square, formerly known as the Sony Lincoln Square. However, it received a lukewarm reception from audiences, including me. I found the dialogue to be awkward, the cast’s performances lacking depth, the antagonist unthreatening, and the storyline rather nonsensical. Despite the impressive visual effects for its time, viewers did not often praise movies solely based on their special effects. The CGI advancements from films like ‘Terminator 2: Judgment Day’ and ‘Jurassic Park’ had already set our expectations high for blockbuster hits, making effects seem like a baseline requirement. For years, I deemed ‘Twister’ a prime example of how many of the action films from the 1980s and ’90s, though celebrated, were not really all that remarkable. ‘Independence Day’ also found its way on my list of underwhelming classics.

Fast forward to recent years, my perspective on ‘Twister’ began to shift. The movie features the tremendous talents of the late Bill Paxton, who consistently delivered outstanding performances, alongside Helen Hunt, who would soon clinch an Academy Award for her role in ‘As Good As It Gets‘ shortly thereafter. Furthermore, the film boasts a strong supporting cast, including notable actors like Philip Seymour Hoffman and Todd Field. With this newfound appreciation, I wondered if perhaps the film was better than my initial assessment indicated. My young son’s fascination with tornadoes during the early 2010s certainly helped as I found myself revisiting ‘Twister’ more often than I ever anticipated.

In 2020, I had the opportunity to participate in a lively discussion initiated by Vulture’s live-tweet of the movie, which further piqued my interest. The film’s director, Jan de Bont, confessed his dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the final product, particularly regarding the script. He lamented that he capitulated to the studio demands for more exposition, which he felt diluted the story’s momentum, leading to a clunky experience. He noted, “The film has a lot of establishing scenes, a lot of exposition scenes,” and voiced his concern that extensive explanations made the film lose its intrigue. I resonated with his sentiments as I realized that the narrative’s heavy reliance on exposition contributed to the film feeling stilted.

Indeed, while ‘Twister’ has its shortcomings, particularly in the screenplay penned by Michael Crichton and Anne-Marie Martin—where the dialogue often comes across as shallow—the movie possesses a certain charm, partly derived from de Bont’s energetic direction. His ability to integrate real emotions from his actors in high-stakes situations is one of the reasons many of his films, like ‘Speed,’ have resonated with audiences. He often placed actors in authentic environments to foster genuine reactions, an approach that adds a layer of realism to the overall experience.

‘Twister’ relies on a blend of practical effects alongside CGI, which helps it stand the test of time better than many films of its era. It’s not that CGI is inherently flawed; however, its true effectiveness shines when filmmakers treat it as a carefully crafted component rather than a mere tool to gloss over shortcomings in other aspects of production. Many contemporary directors have embraced this philosophy, striving to capture a similar sense of authenticity in their blockbuster endeavors.

The question arises whether Lee Isaac Chung, the acclaimed Oscar nominee set to helm the anticipated sequel ‘Twisters,’ is among those filmmakers who appreciate the balance between practical effects and CGI. While it’s still too early for definitive judgment, the teaser for ‘Twisters’ suggests a nostalgic vibe, crafted with the aesthetics of classic action films. The fact that it was shot on film also lends a texture and depth that resonates throughout the film, even outside of the action-packed sequences. Glen Powell‘s performance is another highlight, injecting a sense of fun that seems to understand the film’s playful essence.

Comparisons have been made regarding ‘Twisters,’ with some critics suggesting it doesn’t innovate upon its predecessor but rather echoes its legacy. As one colleague aptly stated, “It’s not a throwback, but it doesn’t feel like an imaginative update on the original.” Such sentiments imply that ‘Twisters’ might be viewed merely as a contemporary version of the cherished classic, inviting nostalgic reflections but lacking true originality.

During my recent viewing of ‘Twisters,’ I encountered some scenes that were still in the early stages of visual effects delivery, which occasionally detracted from the characters’ performances, particularly with the lead, Daisy Edgar-Jones. However, a later screening featuring finalized effects allowed the movie’s immersive adventures to shine brightly, reaffirming my anticipation to experience the film on the grand IMAX screen again. This evolving appreciation for ‘Twister’ led me, through much reflection, to include it on my revised list of the Greatest Disaster Movies of All Time. The question remains: Will ‘Twisters’ eventually earn such a title? For the moment, it won’t make the cut, but ask me again in two decades.