Something that anyone who watches the perpetual ebb and flow of cinema and how certain films are received in comparison to others will discover over time is that, given the space and patience, just about any genre can be redefined in some way. Just a couple of decades ago, we emerged from a period where disaster films were at their peak, which suddenly came to a grinding halt as it became increasingly clear that audiences were not all as responsive to them as they had been in the past, and that they preferred their spectacles come in a slightly different form. Yet, we’ve now started to re-assess the films we previously viewed as hackneyed and overly conventional, repurposing their reputation to indicate that they were much more successful and worthwhile than we may have initially remembered. One of the most notable examples of this comes in the form of Twister, in which director Jan de Bont covered the story of storm chasers that risk all safety to get the rush of adrenaline that comes with a dangerous but exhilarating hobby, combining action and science into a film that was a big success at the time in terms of commercial performance, but whose popularity waned, mostly because it had the misfortune of being one of the final truly successful entries into this genre before it gradually faded away. For nearly two decades, it was viewed as a trite and cliched jumble of ideas that may be entertaining, but lacking in substance. Then suddenly, almost without warning, its popularity began to rise again, mostly through the growing nostalgia for this old-fashioned, conventional form of filmmaking that we often tend to miss in eras where innovation gets to the point of being overwhelming. It also did help that a sequel was in the works for some time, and now we finally see that coming to fruition. Helmed by Lee Isaac Chung, Twisters functions not so much as a direct sequel (outside of a few crossover references and brief nods to the original), but rather exists in the same universe as the previous film, following a very similar story of a motley crew of storm chasers who traverse the pastoral plains of Oklahoma, to satiate both their scientific curiosity and craving for adventure. Unfortunately, despite some promising ideas and an abundance of technical prowess, Twisters is a deeply flawed film and one that doesn’t quite earn our attention in any valuable way, for several very clear reasons.

Another trend that we find in a lot of contemporary cinema is one that occurs far too regularly – a director makes one or two critically lauded independent films that establish them as exciting and essential voices in cinema, and are immediately recruited to direct some major studio fare, ranging across genres but very rarely, if ever, reaching the same heights that they had previously. Chung has been directing for well over a decade, mostly in small-scale independent dramas that were not widely-seen but adored by the small subsets of the audience that were able to see them. His biggest success, and ultimately the film that proved to be his breakthrough, was Minari, a deeply personal and beautiful drama that tackled themes of identity, race and the importance of family and honouring your roots. The fact that someone saw this achingly beautiful, tender film and thought that the same person who made this should direct a sequel to a big-budget disaster film that was considered enjoyably tacky at the best of times is beyond bewildering. He was not a good fit in theory, but ultimately Twisters is not a film that truly needs much of an authorial vision. This film is a clear instance of the fact that some genres don’t need to be guided by any strong voice, but rather can be perfectly successful by being guided by nothing but the conventions that usually pad these films. Audiences can be forgiven for seeking out mindless entertainment, which is entirely appropriate and acceptable when it is done well, and the disaster thriller genre usually satisfies all the conventions, mainly because it offers clear stakes and a solid structure that can easily be followed without too much effort. Twisters mainly follow the same trajectory, to remind us of the peak of the genre, but it is one made by someone trying to infuse it with artistic resonance, to very little actual success, which can erode any developing goodwill we find scattered throughout the film, leading us to wonder whether or not this production was necessary, or if it simply is just yet another example of a gratuitous sequel constructed to pander to the feelings of nostalgia rather than having any artistic or real entertainment value on its own.

One of the other qualities shared between Twisters and its predecessor (as well as many other films from within this genre) is the use of an ensemble cast. Much like the original, this film consists of about a dozen actors, varying in the length of their roles and impact on the plot, but which nonetheless form a strong tapestry of individual personalities. The problem is that despite having some very strong actors committing themselves to playing these roles, the film ceases to develop the characters beyond their brief, one-sentence role description, which is a major problem and one of the many reasons the film feels so lacking in depth. The central roles are played by Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell, both exceptional rising stars who have been gradually emerging as some of the most exciting and gifted actors working today, and likely representatives of the future of the industry. They’re joined by the likes of Brandon Perea, David Corenswet, Anthony Ramos, Katy O’Brian and Tunde Adebimpe, all of which are very talented based on previous work, but are all singularly wasted here. No one in the film gives a bad performance – everyone is objectively gifted and shows themselves to be very eager to participate in the film. The problem is the screenplay gives them nothing valuable to do, and the film ultimately becomes too much of a chore for any of them to stand out. However, none of them should bear the blame – in theory, taking on these roles seems like a good career move, especially since the industry has always been run based on the idea that an actor needs to be adjudicated not on their gifts, but rather whether or not they’re able to carry a big-budget studio film, and everyone here should receive considerable boosts to their profile – we can only hope that they will be able to take advantage of their newfound popularity and choose better projects that not only showcase their skills but also allow them to grow as actors, something that is never a priority in this film, which is truly quite limited in its perspective.

There are many methods we can use to assess whether or not a sequel is successful as a film, but perhaps the most revealing is attempting to determine whether or not it is capable of standing on its own without constantly pandering to the legacy of the original. Twisters fails this very simple test almost right from the start – despite being an entirely original story (and thus removing the need to spend too much time catching up with the existing characters and instead being free to be as unique and innovative in terms of the plot as it desired), it is almost exactly the same story as de Bont’s film, right down to the two protagonists being young experts who undergo the enemies-to-lovers arc that is beyond tacky, even by the standards of when this genre was at its peak. Other than updating the story to include contemporary elements, including the idea of social media influencers and new technology such as drones and the immense power of the internet, this is essentially the same story as the original, at least in terms of how it consists of the same narrative beats. The problem is that Twisters is relying on the legacy of a film that was never quite that impressive or interesting, to begin with – Twister was extremely fun and genuinely entertaining, but it was mostly very predictable, with this film going a couple of steps further and actually coming across as extremely hollow and one-dimensional, which is unforgivable in an era where even the most insincere of action films have some sense of complexity or at least something valuable embedded within. This film is beyond predictable, and it can even be viewed as just a few very common tropes stapled together and passed off as a film. In the hands of a less-experienced or newcomer director, this would be acceptable, but there are very few excuses an established filmmaker Chung could have for making something as uninspired and lacklustre as this film. It lacks any real identity or substance, and can’t even bring itself to move at the brisk, exciting pass of the original film. Comparison is never a good idea when discussing art, but when dealing with a film that builds its entire identity around being a rehashing of the ideas introduced in the original film, it’s a very fair assessment.

As harsh as it may sound, Twisters is quite a severe misfire of a film. It takes an existing film produced in a wildly popular genre and combines it with modern sensibilities, but somehow manages to draw out the worst quality of each – this film has the cheesiness and predictability of the disaster thrillers of yesteryear, blended with the insincerity and blandness of more modern action films, as well as the lack of nuance or any real stakes outside of those that exist within the most obvious versions of these stories. Chung is too gifted of a filmmaker to be wasting his time on something that lacks this much nuance, especially considering his previous work consists of films where the most significant merit and source of their acclaim was their deep humanity and incredible nuance, none of which is reflected here. It’s a chore of a film, one that doesn’t possess even an iota of identity or complexity, and which can actually come across as quite inane in some moments, particularly those where there is supposed to be some sense of subversion guiding the narrative, when in reality there is nothing in this film we haven’t come across many times before. It’s not even daring enough to be considered a genuine failure in the sense that it at least offers some sense of entertainment value – there is simply nothing unique or endearing about this film, which is intent on doing the bare minimum, cobbling together a few very obvious, cliche-riddled components and calling itself a film, which leads to a singularly dull, overly-predictable jumble of ideas that never amount to anything other than the most surface-level commentary, making Twisters a massively disappointing and forgettable film without any real substance, nor any clear indication that it intends to be anything more than dreadfully vapid in both story and style.