Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: A new generation drives into the storm in rousing ‘Twisters’

Published

on

Movie Review: A new generation drives into the storm in rousing ‘Twisters’

We have a complex relationship with disaster movies. Just look at the discussion about a “ Twisters ” poster, which became a perfect encapsulation of our love-hate tendencies.

In the promo for the film, in theaters Thursday, actors Daisy Edgar-Jones, Glen Powell and Anthony Ramos are standing in front a massive, menacing cyclone. It not only contains various objects swirling in mid-air, from houses to trucks, but also appears to be on fire. Some people wondered why the stars weren’t looking at said tornado. Others said if you’re asking questions like why the tornado is on fire, this movie isn’t for you.

Both lines of thought can be true though. Maybe their coexistence is essential. This makes no sense! Also, sign me up immediately! Disaster movies are almost required to be graded on a curve. And filmmaker Lee Isaac Chung’s entry into the canon is perfectly paradoxical.

It might not be fair, or rational, but there is something about the genre that inspires otherwise reasonable moviegoers to giddily give themselves over to a wild premise — the more ridiculous and illogical the better. There is something to be said about the joy of collective laughter where there wasn’t an intentional joke, or a spirited post-movie debate about the flawed logistics of a plan and exactly how many people have died from being sucked into a tornado. These are the movies that are hard to see clearly the first time but tend to become sneaky favorites over the years.

Such is the case with “Twister,” Jan de Bont’s film about storm chasing and remarriage. The modern collective love for it would probably surprise even the critics who reviewed it favorably in 1996. Part of that is certainly the fact that in the 28 years since it was released we lost both Philip Seymour Hoffman and Bill Paxton. But it’s also just fun to watch with fresh eyes, to see the internet remember (or realize for the first time) that one of the storm chasers was played by Todd Field, the man who would go on to write and direct “Tár.” I re-watched it recently on plane and had a blast. I’d forgotten the insane opening but remembered Dusty’s impassioned foot chant.

Advertisement

There’s been a lot of cautious optimism surrounding “Twisters” that’s felt different from a lot of the reboots and “new chapters” (anything to avoid calling it a sequel) that have come and gone in recent years. Audiences are craving something big and fun, but worried that it won’t live up to their idea of what it should be. This is inherently flawed because “Twister” has earned its reputation, its quotability, across many viewings and many years. “Twisters” we’re just meeting. It’s hard to get too excited about a first date.

But Chung, a filmmaker best known for the comparatively small “Minari,” has made a solid film with escalating action sequences that look great on the big screen. There is once again a crazy opening that gives Edgar-Jones’ tornado-obsessed Kate a trauma origin story. Her hubris in thinking she could “tame” a tornado with science backfired and people died; But five years later her old friend Javi (Ramos) convinces her to come back to Oklahoma’s Tornado Alley to attempt a different kind of study.

The story is credited to Joseph Kosinski (who was once going to direct) and the screenplay to Mark L. Smith (“The Revenant”) and none of them can get the original out of their heads. Yes, these are all new characters (including Powell’s YouTube star storm wrangler Tyler) and the only real connection to the first movie is that the Dorothy technology exists. But it is so referential as to be distracting: Literal lines of dialogue (“I’m not back”); An attempt to make Tyler’s crew a gang of Dustys (which underserves actors like Sasha Lane and Katy O’Brian); Making David Corenswet wear what’s essentially a recreation of Carey Elwes’ baseball cap and earpiece. Don’t they want us to think of “Twisters” on its own terms?

But Chung clearly also had a vision, attempting to ground the insanity in a real place with regionally appropriate styles and music, and deeper characterization. The supporting players were thoughtfully cast. Its leads, Powell and Edgar-Jones, are endlessly watchable with palpable chemistry, even as they’re monologuing about sodium polyacrylate.

I wish I had the ability to know how “Twisters” will play 28 years from now, in 2052. Will the 12-year-olds seeing it this weekend go back to it as a comfort watch? Will it feel like it was part of the good old days of big studio movie making? Right now, it doesn’t necessarily feel like it’s destined for that kind of longevity. And I’d love nothing more than to be wrong about that.

Advertisement

“Twisters,” a Universal Pictures release, is rated PG-13 by the Motion Picture Association for “intense action and peril, injury images, some language.” Running time: 122 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review | Bugonia

Published

on

Movie Review | Bugonia

a scary face Bugonia (Photo – Focus Features)

Part body horror, science fiction, and a fractured mirror reflecting our troubled times, Bugonia, directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, is a big-screen, kick-in-the-pants kind of movie.

House of Bugonia
Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos – 2025
Reviewed by Garrett Rowlan

Starring Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons, the film plays out like a chamber piece after Plemons’s character, the unstable Teddy, kidnaps Stone’s character, the “pure corporate evil” (his words), Michelle Fuller, with the reluctant help of Teddy’s cousin Donnie, played by newcomer Aidan Delois.

The reason for the kidnapping is best described as idiosyncratic.

After being subjected to a brutal ordeal—she’s shown in the opening minutes undergoing extensive martial arts training—Michelle is confined to a basement, where she and Teddy engage in a tense game of cat-and-mouse. The direction these exchanges take was not what I expected.

The cast is excellent. Of Emma Stone, I can only quote Celluloid Heroes by The Kinks: “If you cover him with garbage, George Sanders would still have style.” Well, Stone’s Michelle Fuller isn’t covered in garbage, but she is drenched in blood, some of it her own, shot with electricity, beaten, tackled, shorn, and chained. And yet, there’s that voice, those green eyes, and the way she’s photographed in corporate power attire at the start: from the bottom of the frame, she looks ten feet tall, every bit the star.

Advertisement

I first saw Jesse Plemons shooting a kid in cold blood on Breaking Bad, and with his recessed eyes and jutting chin, he retains that ruthlessness with a hint of madness. He’s like an auto wreck you can’t look away from. Aidan Delois, though his lines grow sparser as the movie progresses, does a remarkable job of acting with his eyes. They seem to know what his confused mind doesn’t.

There’s cruelty in Bugonia, to be sure, but it’s nothing like the impaling of a black cat I recall from Lanthimos’s otherwise-excellent Dogtooth. In fact, given the film’s underlying themes of allegiances, the shocking scenes are stomach-turning but motivated.

I liked Poor Things, Lanthimos’s last film, but Bugonia is even better.

> Playing at Regency Academy Cinemas, Regal Paseo, IPIC Theaters, Regal Edwards Alhambra Renaissance, Landmark Pasadena Playhouse, AMC Atlantic Times Square 14, AMC Santa Anita 16, Regal UA La Canada, AMC Laemmle Glendale, and LOOK Dine-In Cinemas Monrovia.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Nouvelle Vague

Published

on

Nouvelle Vague

Netflix delivers a black-and-white biopic of famed French New Wave director Jean-Luc Godard and the making of his first feature film, Breathless. The movie delivers a compelling look at the filmmaking process. But harsh (if limited) language, suggestive moments, some spiritual fumbling and constant smoking could make this a tricky film to navigate.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

“Sentimental Value” Lacks the Focus to Cut Deep – The Wesleyan Argus

Published

on

“Sentimental Value” Lacks the Focus to Cut Deep – The Wesleyan Argus
c/o The Hollywood Reporter

The pre-release screening of “Sentimental Value,” which played on Saturday, Nov. 8 at the Goldsmith Family Cinema, was both confusing and simple. A collection of vaguely assorted scenes with a lack of focus, the movie was also an interesting exploration into a troubled family desperate to improve. Although I understand why a lot of people like this movie, I think “Sentimental Value” could’ve been much better.

There were some elements I just didn’t understand. I’m not knowledgeable about the film industry or film production, so there were some references that I didn’t get. I wonder if I would like the movie more if I understood the film buff references and the jokes related to Norwegian culture, both of which flew over my head. I mean, this is quite literally a film about filmmaking. I feel similarly whenever an author focuses on their craft so directly: It detracts from the movie. It’s like a writer writing about writing; it feels almost redundant. 

The movie has a relatively simple plot that’s filled in with a lot of character scenes. In short, the film focuses on the lives and journeys of two sisters, Agnes and Nora. Their father, Gustav, was a film director, but he left them both. Agnes has a child, while Nora remains single and focuses on her acting career. The general plot structure is fine, and I actually think Gustav is a really chilly character, in an unsettling way. His very presence brings an air of unease into every scene he’s in. The character of Gustav is really intriguing and shines far above most of the other characters in the film. 

The central flaw of the movie is how unfocused it is. There are a lot of scenes that seem to be there to show off cinematography more than anything else. The film employs swift cuts to black between scenes, which is quite jarring and leaves little room for cohesion. It makes it seem like the director doesn’t know how to transition between scenes and is just throwing them together. I think there should’ve been a clearer sense of temporality to the movie with the past and present divided into separate worlds because right now, the flashback scenes look and feel basically the same as the modern-day scenes. I will say the camera quality and minute-to-minute cinematography is well crafted, but it’s not perfect.

I will give a huge amount of praise to the music, which is rich and fulfilling. I almost wonder if “Sentimental Value” would be better as a playlist than as a movie. The soundtrack is warm and comforting, fitting right into the movie and enhancing each scene. 

Advertisement

We also get a slight hint of WW2 and Nazi elements in the movie, with Nora and Agnes’ family being victims. This is more of a backdrop than a main focus, which is a bit unfortunate. I wonder how the movie would be different if they made this historical context a primary focus. They could’ve explored the impact of wartime trauma destroying families across generations. 

Also, speaking of missed opportunities…

It’s both interesting and sad how Agnes’ child, Erik, is the least boring part of “Sentimental Value.” He almost feels like the emotional center here, in a subplot where Gustav wants to have his grandchild play a role in his movie. Gustav wants to relive his golden years and connect with his grandchildren, but Agnes is still wary of him and doesn’t want to. I was quite invested in this conflict across three generations, and I wanted to see more of it. Sadly, it doesn’t go anywhere. It reminds me of another film, “Happyend” (2024), where there’s a balanced sibling-like relationship with two characters, done much better than “Sentimental Value.” Here, the focus is primarily on Nora, and Agnes really doesn’t have much screen time. I think the storyline with Agnes and Erik should’ve been a major part of the story. This plot could’ve ended many ways: either with Agnes realizing her child should bond with their grandpa, or Gustav realizing not to control his family.

The lack of this conclusion makes me wonder if there was a practical consideration about the difficulty of working with child actors. Even then, there were better ways to end that story! This brings me back to the lack of structure within the movie; it needed to have better pacing to make the story work. As it stands, the ending of “Sentimental Value” falls flat.

“Sentimental Value” is a film with a lot of room for improvement, if only the filmmaker had sorted out the disorganized nature and lack of focus within the movie. In the end, however, I can somewhat appreciate what it went for. Even if the execution wasn’t the best, the atmosphere, characters, and music made for a pretty fascinating movie. 

Advertisement

Total rating: 3 stars

Atharv Dimri can be reached at adimri@wesleyan.edu.

Continue Reading

Trending