I haven’t been this excited about a movie star in a long time. Partly because we haven’t had anyone new in ages who exudes that delicious ineffable movie-star It. It’s not just about looks, though of course a pretty face doesn’t hurt. No, it’s about the effortless charisma. The paradoxical insouciance, like they’ve just accidentally stumbled into being the sexiest damn thing you’ve ever seen onscreen, and aren’t even aware of the effect they’re having.

I’m talking about Glen Powell, of course. (Even his name is right outta the Golden Age of Hollywood.“Glen Powell and Rita Hayworth star in the most thrilling movie of 1942: City of Secrets!”) He first made me sit up and take notice as astronaut John Glenn in 2016’s Hidden Figures. He’s not in that film much, and I didn’t even mention him in my review (though I did sneak him into the image illustrating my writeup; I just had to), because that movie ain’t about his character. But when I say he made me sit up and take notice, I literally mean I went bolt upright in my seat the moment he appeared onscreen and gasped (quietly, in my head), “Who is THAT?”

Maybe that’s the definition of a movie star: When they’re onscreen, you can’t take your eyes off them.

Anyway, Powell is rightfully finally breaking through this year with well-deserved leading roles, in the rom-com Anyone But You (which I have not seen yet but hope to soon), in crime comedy Hit Man (which is brilliant; review asap), and now the disaster drama Twisters. I’m happy for him! I’m happy for us all — we deserve a new movie star to remind us why we fell in love with movies. But it’s a real mixed bag for me when I say that he’s the best thing about Twisters. Because at this point, I will take whatever Glen Powell is on offer, and he does not disappoint here: he’s charming, funny, and has an improbably delightful shit-eating grin to rival Harrison Ford’s (my previous movie-star high-water mark for improbably delightful shit-eating grins).

I just wish Twisters were worthy of what Glen Powell is bringing.

I get why They — the big Hollywood They — saw easy cash in revisiting 1996’s Twister. It was a huge hit that has since become iconic for many good (and some not-so-good) reasons. It shaped the industry’s previous generational paradigm shift: its spring release date followed by instant box-office success helped move the supposed “summer” movie season for blockbusters back to early May. (Difficult as it may be for today’s youngsters to imagine now that big loud brash movies come year-round, there really did used to be a discrete season for big FX-laden crowd-pleasing genre flicks, and that season was [Northern Hemisphere] summer.) Twister represented a visual-effects breakthrough, with its heavy usage of nascent CGI: all those stormy goin’-green skies and all those tornadoes had to be created digitally, and those FX mostly still hold up almost 30 years later. The movie even inspired a boost in people studying meteorology at the university level! It was later the first feature film to be released on DVD, which surely helped cement the popularity of the format and ensured that the movie would become, in more recent years, something of a (misnamed) cult classic, not least because of its early appearances by actors who went on to become cinephile favorites, including Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeremy Davies, as well as enduring beloveds Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, and Cary Elwes.

Twister was, dare I say it, a perfect storm of a blockbuster. But it could have simply been rereleased in summer 2024. Sure, revamp it for IMAX or whatever, if an excuse is required for a rerelease. People would have paid for that. I would have paid for that, even though I’ve seen Twister easily a dozen times, mostly on a small screen at home. (Though I did see it that summer of 1996, and loved it instantly. I have no specific memories along these lines, but I’m pretty sure it was one of the movies that I was having Big Thoughts about at that time, to the point where I was, like, Yeah, I should probably do some film criticism. Which I started doing a year later, and I reviewed the film in 2000.)

Instead we got Twisters, and look: no one was asking for a sequel, but a sequel would have been very much welcome if Twisters was able to make a case for itself. Like, why have you gathered us here for another go at this story at this particular point in time? The one reason — the best one, the big one — might be because, a quarter of a century later, we could now admit to the cyclonic elephant in the room in Twister: it was an early climate-change movie, with its “record outbreak of tornadoes” and insanely dangerous, even grading on the tornado curve, weather-that-is-trying-to-kill-you. (For another undeclared early human-impact-on-the-planetary-environment drama, see also 2000’s The Perfect Storm, about unprecedented extreme weather and fished-out oceans.) Maybe nobody realized it at the time — though I would be astonished if the first screenwriter on the project, Michael “Fuck with Nature at Your Own Peril” Crichton, did not — but looking back now, the 1996 film is quite obviously an attempt to 1) reckon with increasingly dangerous and unpredictable weather, and 2) try to learn how to live with it.

So it’s genuinely astonishing, deeply baffling, and almost embarrassing to sit through Twisters and not see a single solitary acknowledgment of global warming onscreen. Director Lee Isaac Chung (Minari) has stated that this is deliberate: “I just don’t feel like films are meant to be message-oriented,” he told CNN. I’m not sure he appreciates that releasing a movie like Twisters in 2024 and not mentioning climate change is absolutely sending a message: of denial of reality, of an ostrich-like desire to bury one’s head in the sand rather than face literal existential danger.

Goddammit.

Anyway, that means that Twisters is a hugely cowardly missed opportunity for us, as a culture, to finally grow the hell up about the damage we have done and continue to do to our pleasant Earth.

This is not the only way in which Twisters is absurdly coy. The movie cannot even decide if it’s a genuine followup or merely a furtive remake. Screenwriters Mark L. Smith (Overlord, The Revenant) and Joseph Kosinski drop in numerous sly callbacks to Twister but not a single overt one.

When meteorologist Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) flies out from New York City to Oklahoma at the behest of her former storm-chaser colleague Javi (Anthony Ramos: The Bad Guys, In the Heights), to help him deploy a (genuinely cool-seeming) 3D-radar technology that will hopefully get much-needed detailed scans of active tornadoes, she has to keep telling his team, some of whom are also her former colleagues, that she’s “not back!”… just as Bill Paxton’s storm-chaser–turned–meteorologist Bill does multiple times in Twister. Oh, Smith and Kosinski shuffle the rebranding around a bit: Kate isn’t just Bill but also Helen Hunt’s Jo, in that she lost someone important to a twister; Javi is also Cary Elwes’s Twister “corporate suckup” Jonas. But Twisters frequently indulges in for shot-for-shot and beat-for-beat xeroxing of the 1996 flick. It also sneaks in Dorothy, the tech for lobbing little sensors into a tornado for recording just what the heck is going on inside the funnel, with no mention of where it came from. The technology seems to be settled and considered reliable here, while it was solidly experimental in the ’96 film; proving it could work was the geeky backbone of the previous movie.

And that’s where there was a tiny opportunity to insert just a hint of awareness of the fact that, ahem, the 1996 movie, like, exists. I’m not asking for a lot here! Maybe a single line of dialogue that mentions, say, that Kate and Javi are former students of Jo’s, and that’s how they have access to Dorothy. And re global warming? When Javi is trying to convince Kate to come back and help with his 3D-imaging project, he mentions that these massive tornadoes are “getting worse every year.” Okay, yes, but WHY? We don’t need a thesis on climate change, but maybe just drop in something about how atmospheric CO2 is up dramatically since 1996, why not? (C’mon, this shit was easy.) The unwillingness of this movie to confront the real world, when it also desperately wants to be set in the real world, is frankly bizarre, and indicative of nothing so much as pandering to anti-science bullshit.

Oh, and speaking of anti-science… there is a real and not-very-subtle anti-academic vibe going on here. Powell’s Tyler and his wacky team — who are, let’s be honest, much more of a feather with the university goofballs who were unquestionably the heroes 30 years ago — are most definitely not people with degrees or credentials. Instead, they are “hillbillies with a YouTube channel,” self-styled “tornado wranglers” who sell T-shirts and mugs with slapped-on logos at their storm-chaser stops. Yes, they are redeemed, somewhat, eventually, but so is corporate-suckup Javi… and yes, it’s good that the characters are less black-and-white than in the 1996 movie. But it’s impossible to imagine that Tyler’s gang — which includes the awesome Sasha Lane’s (How to Blow Up a Pipeline, Hellboy) Lily and the also awesome Katy O’Brian’s (Love Lies Bleeding) Dani — will have anywhere near the staying power in the pop-cultural mindset as Jo’s band of misfits. That’s not on the cast — they’re splendid and it’s clear that they are doing their best to bring the same gung-ho cheese and the cheerful eccentricity (which isn’t even all that eccentric!) — but the movie muffles them. They are a sideshow, not the heroes. They are also emblematic of an attempt to capture lightning in a bottle twice, which happened organically the first time and isn’t something that can be done deliberately on repeat.

That said, Kate’s work-in-progress science project to tame a tornado by throwing a bunch of superabsorbent baby-diaper chemicals up into the funnel is at least a fresh idea here, and as clever and inventive as Dorothy was in 1996. (Tyler has his own intriguing notion about how to tame a twister.) The tornado action is intense, in a theme-park sort of way. But it’s almost irresponsible for a movie about extreme weather to be nothing more than a bit of fun fluff anymore. With only the smallest of tweaks, perhaps Twisters wouldn’t feel reckless in all the wrong ways.

more films like this:
• Twister [Prime US | Prime UK | Apple TV | Max US]
• The Perfect Storm [Prime US | Prime UK | Apple TV | Paramount+ US]

For Prophet Film Review

Recapping the Film

I spent this past Saturday evening watching the film For Prophet. Under the direction of  Mark Steward Iverson, For Prophet sheds light on a Christian’s struggle to surrender to God’s purpose for their life.

Ben Marten plays the main character Damon Fisher. He wrestles with his faith due to significant loss and recurrent adversity which weighs him down. 

The weight of his problems is not unbearable for his readers thanks to Valentina Garcia and Enrico Natale. These two do a phenomenal job of providing comedic relief through their contrasting roles.

The Presence of Comic Relief and The Angel Raphel

I like the comedic relief the film offers because it brings humor to serious subjects that can trigger viewers.

That said, the comedic relief became annoying and unnecessary in certain scenes. The reason is that it made certain characters appear incompetent and clueless.

One being I was clueless about before watching For Prophet, was the angel St.Raphel. The Archangel St. Raphael appears in Tobit 5:1-22 as the angel responsible for guiding Tobias safely on his journey. 

Writers do an excellent job of recognizing viewers who are not Catholic may be unaware of who this being is. They do this by explaining who St. Raphael is during a pivotal point in the movie. 

Perhaps creators were using this Judeo-canonical reference to offer “biblical” support for viewers questioning the authenticity of the angel.

I also learned the name Raphael means healing of the Lord. Creators use the name to incorporate irony into the movie as several characters are broken by life’s trials. 

Significant Themes in For Prophet

The theme of brokenness acts as a mirror reflecting the negative attitude one can have toward God after enduring devastation. This reminds me of Naomi as she wants to stop living up to her name and embrace bitterness because of grief (Ruth 1:15-16).

The theme of grief is connected to spiritual warfare.  Ben Marten and Enrico Natale do a great job of depicting the stronghold Satan can have on a person’s life. Specifically, when unfortunate circumstances cause someone to lose faith in God. 

The writers also do a great job highlighting how the decision to obey God’s call can make you seem crazy.

Alas, it is through the craziness of obedience that God’s purpose manifests. The main character receives a breakthrough as he embraces his calling as a prophet by fulfilling his divine assignment.

Irony resurfaces as the prophet exposes the impure motives of an unsuspected villain. This theme aligns with scripture as Jesus also exposes religious leaders who appear holy but have vile hearts (Matthew 23:1-36).

Cultural Adaptation 

The Use of Modern Communication

Good and vile hearts are a part of human nature in every society. Themes such as grief, loss, doubt, justice, joy, and faith are also a natural part of humanity. 

The producers of For Prophet do an excellent job of presenting a somewhat biblically-based film in a modern context. I would have loved to see St.Raphel communicate with Damon through more than regular conversation.

Doing so would have been consistent with the way everyone else communicates in the movie. Allowing St.Raphael to communicate through social media or a cell phone would have also added to the humor of an angelic being adjusting to life on earth.

While happy about the film’s ability to include themes and modern forms of communication, they miss the mark ethnically.

The Absence of Ethnic Diversity

Creators could have done a better job of hiring an ethnically diverse cast resembling the melting pot America has become. A more diverse cast would send the message that people of all ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds need God.

While not the producer’s intent, the lack of apparent ethnic diversity makes Damon Fisher seem like the great white hope. Damon is the hero in a town where only two affluent African Americans reside and no other culture is represented.

This suggests that only Caucasians and a few “lucky” African Americans need to trust in God. This is not the portal of racial reconciliation and unity that the Bible presents about the Kingdom of God (Acts 17:24-26).

Theological Inaccuracies?

Poor Portrayal of St. Raphael

In addition to providing an inaccurate picture of the Kingdom of God, For Prophet also misrepresents angelic beings. 

While humorous, the creators should not have made St. Raphael incompetent and less important than other angels. Dumbing down St.Raphael seems disrespectful to Catholic viewers who honor the angelic being for its role in the Lord’s work.

Along with dumbing down  St.Raphael, writers also misrepresent the angel by suggesting it was sent to earth because of sin.

This is theologically inaccurate since the only angels cast out of heaven rebelled against God (Revelation 12:7-9). This is also theologically inaccurate because Tobit 5:1-22 shows St. Raphael was sent to assist Tobias not learn a lesson.

For Prophet’s Misunderstanding About Death

Another theological inaccuracy revolves around death. Though a comforting thought, when one dies they will not be participating in everyday activities in heaven.

Instead, those who receive eternal life will be before the Lord’s throne worshiping him forever (Revelation 5:13). The beauty within this is the reality that we will be free of the cares, sorrows, and sicknesses of human life (Revelation 21:4).

While I do have some issues with For Prophet, overall it is an encouraging film that can strengthen one’s faith.

Do you intend to watch For Prophet? I would love to read your thoughts about the film. Your comments and feedback are greatly appreciated! 

Maybe one of the most important things that we should hold onto from when we’re kids is our dreams. Sometimes as we get older, we loose sight of the things that we once held onto and guided us. As we get older, sometimes we let go, and we get lost.

Maybe it’s a lack of self confidence or maybe it’s just growing up – but we let go. We forget the things that made us who we are. Maybe the beauty of life is that we have people to remind us and we don’t become skeptics. We need someone to remind us what the beauty of dreams is.

Junebug is that movie for me.

For Juniper the road to remembering what she once wanted starts with her parents delivering her “wish box” that she’s forgotten about. Work is chaos, life is chaos, and she doesn’t think that she has time for anything in life that could bring her pure joy.

She’s lost the color in her world and is surviving in a world of neutral colors and routines.

Junebug has settled for the place that she is in her life. Ethan, her boyfriend, wants to give her a pen for her birthday. Her 40th milestone birthday. Luckily she was a best friend that reminds her that she deserves better. And then luckily she remembers that and eventually lets him see the door.

Reading her wishes that she’s left behind, she awakes to her younger self and thinks she’s lost her mind. But maybe the connection to her younger self is what she’s been missing. She doesn’t want to believe that she’s seeing herself and her younger self just wants to help.

I think that the beauty from the beginning of Junebug is the instant reminder that connecting with who we once were. Connecting with our inner child is a beautiful things if we just allow ourself to accept that just because you grow up, doesn’t mean that you have to let go.

When you are an adult, yes, you have to make compromises, but I don’t believe that you have to compromise ones soul.

Alex Ripley is also running from life. After a savage review of his art work, he’s not really been seen from since. He doesn’t want to illustrate. And he doesn’t want to say why. But Junipers younger self doesn’t want her to give up.

TBH only 28 minutes into Junebug, I was a mess. I was filled with tears. The moment that Autumn Reeser brings Junipers acceptance of seeing her younger self to life was something that broke me. It was such a simple moment, a simple facial expression, and yet it was everything. It was a moment that I had to press pause and wonder – what had I forgotten about being young? What had I forgotten about my dreams?

The way that Autumn Reeser brings the characters that she plays to life is something that you don’t see in a lot of actresses. She’s got this moment in all of her movies where you forget that it’s Autumn and you believe that she’s speaking to you and for you. You believe that this character somehow is everything that you want to be, that it understands all of the pain, anguish, joy, and laughter that you experience. And the way that Reeser brings her characters to life reminds you of just that.

Aaron O’Connell isn’t someone that I have watched in a lot of things, but quite frankly I enjoyed him and I believed in the chemistry that him and Reeser share on the screen. Their characters challenge each other and that is beautiful. The way that they make each other stop and take a second look at the hopes and dreams that each one has – one can only hope that you can find that kind of chemistry in real life.

I know that with all movies, there is going to be some part that is going to break you – that you’re going to have to make a choice. You’re going to have to decide who you are rooting for and what it means. You’re going to have to take a second to think about if your “ship” is worth fighting for. For me, it normally takes a second to get there, but instantly I was there. Together or apart I was fighting for Juniper and Alex. I wanted them to succeed in everything that they needed and wanted.

The subtle nuances in this movie – the way that there are a lot of little changes that you see when you are paying attention – you see that this movie is a break from the norm. But what I loved the most about this movie was that it wasn’t about just the romance or the dreams that one has or even the embracing ones inner child – it was about the beautiful moments where you realize are a cumulation of things.

Advertisement

Life is a cumulation of things. You just have to take a second to believe in those things and yourself.

It’s if we take the time to see that all the moments can connect us to who we are, well, that’s the beauty in life. Life isn’t about settling, it’s about connecting and believing.

And may we all have the ability to reconnect with our inner child to guide the way.

Advertisement

Side Note: Mila Jones, you are a light and a star. You really made this movie too.

August 4, 2024This Sounds Like Dorinda Medley Is Trying To Be Lisa Vanderpump

This sounds too much like someones trying to be Lisa Vanderpump & …

August 4, 2024‘Trap’ Review: Josh Hartnett is Killer

Actor Josh Hartnett burst onto the big screen with large roles in …