Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Drop-Dead Glamour-Puss Glen Powell Is a Reason to See ‘Twisters’

Published

on

Drop-Dead Glamour-Puss Glen Powell Is a Reason to See ‘Twisters’
Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell star in ‘Twisters’, but the love affair part of the film is so wholesomely family-oriented that they never share even one single kiss. Courtesy of Universal Pictures

Before tornado movies threaten to become a cottage industry, just remember that in spite of both the bad ones and the forthcoming plans for more that are being assembled on the drawing boards as we speak, the only one that ever reached blockbuster status was the 1996 action epic Twister. In the realm of tornado movies, we now have Twisters. Erroneous publicity misleads us to consider it a sequel, which it isn’t. In fact, Twisters has nothing whatsoever to do with Twister, aside from the fact that it consists primarily of the same computer-generated special effects and it also takes place in Oklahoma, where the Richard Rodgers-Oscar Hammerstein corn is no longer high as an elephant’s eye, but on its way to almost total crop destruction thanks to not one but an army of lethal, never-ending new twisters that seem to arrive every ten minutes, and the wind comes sweeping down the plain with pulse-pounding noise and life-altering force.  


TWISTERS ★★(2/4 stars)
Directed by: Lee Isaac Chung
Written by: Mark L. Smith
Starring: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Daryl McCormack, Glen Powell
Running time: 122 mins.


There is also something of an obstacle-riddled romance, but nothing as interesting as the one in Twister. (You can’t improve on Helen Hunt and the late Bill Paxton, and only a fool would try.) The new female centerpiece is Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones), a lovely would-be scientist who grew up obsessed with weather, first shown in a prologue as a college student, placing some kind of gizmo inside the heart of a ferocious tornado in a dangerous project designed to record enough scientific data to give folks in the paths of devastating storms a better chance to prepare and run for their lives in advance of weather patterns. The research fails, killing three of her best friends who are blown away to Tornado Heaven, leaving Kate so depressed and disillusioned that she retires from studying the weather forever.

Five years later, she’s a meteorologist in a Manhattan research lab, safe and far away from the dangers of Oklahoma twisters. An old boyfriend named Jeb (Daryl McCarmack), one of the few survivors of the college tragedy five years earlier, appears suddenly and, for reasons known only by the screenwriter, talks Kate into returning to Oklahoma to track another deadly storm. Subplots about Jeb’s secret job working for a crook and a brief, aborted attempt to revive their stale romance are deleted fast between lightning flashes, ear-splitting wind tunnels and hail the size of billiard balls while Kate falls in with a new heartthrob named Tyler, played by drop dead Glen Powell, the fastest rising glamour-puss movie star since the young Robert Redford first appeared on the scene. The hot sparks between these two are leavened by their constant hostility. Kate and her crew aim to make a difference; Tyler is a storm tracker in it for excitement and adventure.  

References to the twister in The Wizard of Oz are annoying gimmicks inserted to inject some humor into the proceedings, including Tyler’s crew of storm chasers, with names like Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion. But clearly, the only true wizards in Twisters are not in Kansas anymore—or Oz. They’re the fearless computer geniuses who have conjured up the fantastic special effects in this movie and made them work—the tractors flying through deafening decibel levels of howling wind and rain, the towns razed and obliterated by airborne trucks, barns, farmhouses, trees, chickens and even a rodeo. The thunderous effects they create would keep the Weather Channel in business for years.

Advertisement

The sets, lighting design, and computer-generated special effects are superb, enhancing the viewer’s fascination with the subject matter. By comparison, the humans in Twisters are so unimportant and so undeveloped they seem like interlopers. The one-dimensional plot is tedious and the charm, good looks and style of the two leads are the only elements of the film that try but fail to invigorate. There don’t seem to be any limits to Glen Powell’s charisma. Even his smile is in Cinemascope and Technicolor, and he can act, too—although the benign script by Mark L. Smith is so mired in technology about pollen counts, anchor funnels, velocity measurements and silver oxide, and Lee Isaac Chung’s mediocre direction is so camouflaged in technical obscurity that they don’t give Mr. Powell much of an opportunity to show what he can do. The love affair part of the film is so wholesomely family-oriented that it’s about as sexy as an algebra book. There isn’t even one single kiss. 

Fortunately, the action sequences are nothing bland or dull, adding up to a whale of entertainment. I guess my scoreboard reads: Twisters, 10. People: 0. In the end, Kate prepares to return to New York, Tyler wants to know when she’ll come back, and there’s evidence that a lot of unfinished business is waiting to be solved. Twisters 2, anyone?

Drop-Dead Glamour-Puss Glen Powell Is a Reason to See ‘Twisters’

Movie Reviews

1986 Movie Reviews – Dangerously Close, Fire with Fire, Last Resort, and Short Circuit | The Nerdy

Published

on

1986 Movie Reviews – Dangerously Close, Fire with Fire, Last Resort, and Short Circuit | The Nerdy
by Sean P. Aune | May 9, 2026May 9, 2026 10:30 am EDT

Welcome to an exciting year-long project here at The Nerdy. 1986 was an exciting year for films giving us a lot of films that would go on to be beloved favorites and cult classics. It was also the start to a major shift in cultural and societal norms, and some of those still reverberate to this day.

We’re going to pick and choose which movies we hit, but right now the list stands at nearly four dozen.

Yes, we’re insane, but 1986 was that great of a year for film.

The articles will come out – in most cases – on the same day the films hit theaters in 1986 so that it is their true 40th anniversary. All films are also watched again for the purposes of these reviews and are not being done from memory. In some cases, it truly will be the first time we’ve seen them.

Advertisement

This time around, it’s May 9, 1986, and we’re off to see Dangerously Close, Fire with Fire, Last Resort, and Short Circuit.

 

Dangerously Close

I would love to tell you what the point of this film was, but I’m not sure it knew.

Advertisement

An elite school has turned into a magnet school, attracting some “undesirables,” so a group of students known as The Sentinels take up policing their school, but will they go too far?

The basic plot of the film is simple enough, but there is an oddball “twist” toward the end tht served no real purpose and somehow turns the whole thing into a murder-mystery. Mysteries only work when you know you’re supposed to be solving them, and not when you’re alerted to one existing with 15 minutes left.

Decent 80s music, some stylistic shots, absolutely no substance.

 

Fire with Fire

Advertisement

Oh wait… I may want to go back and watch Dangerously Close again over this one.

Joe Fisk (Craig Sheffer) is being held at a juvenile delinquent facility close a high-end all-girls Catholic school. One day while running through the forest as part of an exercise he spots Catholic schoolgirl Lisa Taylor (Virginia Madsen) and the two fall immediately in love because… reasons.

This film is just so incredibly lazy. The ‘love story’ really can just be chalked up to ‘hormones.’

 

Last Resort

Advertisement

Once again I am baffled how Charles Grodin kept getting work so much through out the 1980s.

George Lollar (Grodin) is a salesman in Chicago in need of a vacation. He loads up the family and takes them to Club Sand, which turns out to be a swingers resort as well as surrounded by barbed wire to keep rebels out.

There are a lot of talented people in this movie such as Phil Hartman and Megan Mullally, but the film lets them down at every turn with half-baked ideas of jokes. Supposedly, Grodin rewrote nearly the entire script and I think that explains a lot about how this film feels like unfinished ideas. It’s a Frankenstein monster of a script with half-complete ideas that feel like they are from completely different movies.

 

Short Circuit

Advertisement

Lets just get this out of the way: What in the world was Fisher Stevens doing?

NOVA Laboratory has come up with a new series of military robots called S.A.I.N.T. (Strategic Artificially Intelligent Nuclear Transport). Following a successful demonstration for the military, Five is struck by an electrical surge and finds itself needing ‘input.’ After inadvertently escaping the lab, it wands into the life of Stephanie Speck (Ally Sheedy), who cares for animals and takes Five in. Dr. Newton Crosby (Steve Guttenberg) is trying to get five back, while the security team wants to destroy it.

Overall, the film is thin, but harmless. The 80s did seem to love a ‘technology being used for the wrong reasons’ theme, and this falls into that camp. What is mind-blowing, however, is Stevens as Ben Jabituya, Crosby’s assistant. Not only is he wearing brown face, but he’s doing a horrible Indian accent and later reveals he was born and raised in the U.S.

His whole character is mystifying.

Honestly, a couple of decades ago I may have recommended this movie, but it’s a definite pass now just for being offensive.

Advertisement

1986 Movie Reviews will continue on May 16, 2026, with Sweet Liberty and Top Gun.


Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: AFFECTION – Assignment X

Published

on

Movie Review: AFFECTION – Assignment X


By ABBIE BERNSTEIN / Staff Writer


Posted: May 8th, 2026 / 08:34 PM

AFFECTION movie poster | ©2026 Brainstorm Media

Rating: Not Rated
Stars: Jessica Rothe, Joseph Cross, Julianna Layne
Writer: BT Meza
Director: BT Meza
Distributor: Brainstorm Media
Release Date: May 8, 2026

 AFFECTION is an odd title for this tale. While it is about a number of topics and emotions, fondness isn’t one of them. Obsession, definitely. Love, possibly. The kind of general warm fellow feelings associated with “affection”? No.

Advertisement

There have been a lot of movies lately in which characters – mostly women – are grappling with false identities and/or false memories imposed upon them, mostly by men.

Let us stipulate that the protagonist (Jessica Rothe) in AFFECTION is not an android or in an artificial reality. However, we can tell something is way off from the opening sequence. A car is stalled on a tree-bordered highway. Rothe’s character is lying face down on the asphalt beside it, possibly dead.

But then the young woman rises, dragging a broken ankle. She experiences a full-body seizure. Fighting to recover, she sees oncoming headlights and tries to run, only to be hit by a car.

The woman wakes up in a bed she doesn’t recognize, next to a man (Joseph Cross) she likewise is sure she’s never seen before. One big confrontation later, the man says his name is Bruce – and that the woman is his wife, Ellie.

Ellie insists that her name is Sarah Thompson, and she is married to someone else, with a son. When she sees her reflection in a mirror, she doesn’t relate to the face looking back at her.

Advertisement

Bruce counters that Ellie has a rare neurological condition that causes her to block out her waking life and believe her dreams are real. This is why they agreed, together, to move to this isolated house, without the kinds of interruptions that can hinder Ellie’s recovery.

The set-up is presented in a way where we share Ellie’s skepticism. But Ellie and Bruce’s little daughter Alice (Julianna Layne) immediately identifies Ellie as “Mommy!” Alice appears to be too young to be in on any kind of deception, so what is going on here?

AFFECTION eventually explains this via a helpful videotape, though it’s so convoluted that viewers watching on streaming may want to replay the sequence to make sure they understand the exposition.

Writer/director BT Meza musters a sense of menace and lurking weirdness, as well as making great use of his location.

We still have a lot of questions, many of which are still unanswered by the film’s end. It may not matter to the points AFFECTION is trying to make, but a better sense of exactly how all this started might help our investment.

Advertisement

As it is, despite a heroically versatile performance by Rothe, a credible and anguished turn by Cross and appealing work from Layne, we’re so busy trying to piece together what’s important and what’s not and how we’re supposed to feel about all of it that it can be hard to keep track of the action as it unfolds.

Agree or not, Meza’s arguments are lucid and illustrated clearly by AFFECTION’s events. However, the movie is structured in a way that becomes more frustrating as it goes. We comprehend it intellectually but can’t engage viscerally.

Related: Movie  Review: ITCH!
Related: Movie  Review: HOKUM
Related: Movie  Review: ANIMAL FARM
Related: Movie  Review: OVER  YOUR DEAD BODY
Related: Movie  Review: THE WOLF AND THE LAMB
Related: Movie  Review: BASIC PYSCH
Related: Movie  Review: SCREAMS FROM THE TOWER
Related: Movie  Review: FUZE
Related: Movie  Review: LEE CRONIN’S THE MUMMY
Related: Movie  Review: HAPPY HALLOWEEN
Related: Movie  Review: NORMAL
Related:
Movie  Review: MOTHER MARY
Related: Movie  Review: FACES OF DEATH
Related: Movie  Review: EXIT 8
Related: Movie  Review: HAMLET
Related: Movie  Review: THE YETI
Related: Movie  Review: OUR HERO, BALTHAZAR
Related: Movie  Review: THE SERPENT”S SKIN
Related: Movie  Review: PRETTY LETHAL
Related: Movie  Review: READY OR NOT 2:  HERE I COME

Follow us on Twitter at ASSIGNMENT X
Like us on Facebook at ASSIGNMENT X

Article Source: Assignment X
Article: Movie  Review: AFFECTION

 

Advertisement

 

Related Posts:

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

8News Reel Talk: ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ movie review

Published

on

8News Reel Talk: ‘The Devil Wears Prada 2’ movie review

RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) — In this episode of 8News Reel Talk, digital producer Julia Broberg is joined by anchor Deanna Allbrittin and reporter Allison Williams to talk about “The Devil Wears Prada 2.”

The hosts gave their reviews and assigned the following star ratings:

Deanna: ★★★★.5

Allison: ★★★.25

Julia: ★★

Advertisement

To watch more livestreams and digital video content, head to the WRIC+ Originals page. You can also watch full on-demand videos on your smart TV using the WRIC+ app.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending