TWISTERS - July - Trailer

[AndyDursin]

Funny enough, we watched TWISTER just a couple of weeks ago with Theo (1st viewing in 20+ years for us). This looks like an agreeable MAVERICK-ed "requel" complete with Glen Powell starring.

[Monterey Jack]

Directed by the master of roiling visual kinesis, the man who gave us this...!



Remember when you have to have SOME experience making this kind of F/X movie before you got handed a big franchise reboot? Spielberg had been making F/X movies for almost twenty years before Jurassic Park. Tim Burton had two F/X-intensive comedies (Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice) before getting handed Batman. Hell, Jan De Bont had been an ace action/thriller cinematographer for over 20 years before getting to make his directorial debut on Speed, which led directly to the original Twister.

Recently the solid action filmmaker and stuntman David Leitch (John Wick, Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2, Bullet Train, the upcoming Fall Guy) was attached to the forthcoming Jurassic Park re-reboot...for about a day, citing "creative differences" for walking away. More like Universal just wanted some indie-movie puppet who would point the camera where they wanted and would keep the actors in focus in front of the greenscreen while the F/X team did all of the work.

[AndyDursin]

One movie is all you need these days.

Sadly it doesn't matter pretty much at all now. These directors are technicians pretty much today on movies like this. Very little "director's vision" is in evidence in these films, not like 30 years ago when it was clear when you were watching a film by Tim Burton, Joe Dante, Paul Verhoeven or whoever.

[AndyDursin]

Recently the solid action filmmaker and stuntman David Leitch (John Wick, Atomic Blonde, Deadpool 2, Bullet Train, the upcoming Fall Guy) was attached to the forthcoming Jurassic Park re-reboot...for about a day, citing "creative differences" for walking away. More like Universal just wanted some indie-movie puppet who would point the camera where they wanted and would keep the actors in focus in front of the greenscreen while the F/X team did all of the work.

Going back to this, I do have to defend what they're doing with JURASSIC, because like TWISTERS, remember it's a Spielberg production -- not just a studio property, it's still "his" baby.

This JURASSIC project does sound interesting and is a little bit different in that nobody scheduled this movie for 2025. In fact they didnt have any date slotted -- unlike how Disney operates scheduling dates first and coming up with scripts second. The project came together because David Koepp had an idea and wrote a script that got them all excited. So Spielberg pushes to fast track it because the last movie was pretty lame but still made a fortune -- looks to me like a sign of confidence. HOPEFULLY.

With all due respect to Leitch, they don't need an auteur. Like we said before, they need technicians, but in this instance, they have a script and that's the driving force in getting this made. The storyboards are probably already done. They undoubtedly have a VFX team already mapping out set-pieces. Spielberg needs a director to make it, and if Leitch (or anyone) thought he was going to implant his "creative vision" on the movie or influence where the story is going -- forgetaboutit. Those elements are already set in place.

[Monterey Jack]

8/10



Surprisingly entertaining "requel" (far closer to a re than a quel) to the 1996, um, "classic", works far better than a lot of recent nostalgia-grabs I can think of, mainly because it barely has any gratuitous nostalgia to grab onto. Aside from a cameo by the "Dorothy" machine, there are absolutely no characters or plot threads directly tying this to Jan De Bont's film, and it's to the movie's credit. Could you imagine what a lead balloon it would have been if lead Daisy Edgar-Jones came home, and her mom was a leathery Helen Hunt, and the camera pushed in for a closeup of a framed picture of Bill Paxton (that would, of course, be an obvious production still from the first movie) with maudlin music playing? This is a straight-up remake, for all intents and purposes, and while the characterizations and dramatics remain paper-thin, the more routine elements aren't exaggerated to the point of annoyance (there's no rote, mustache-twirling villain leading a convoy of ominously gleaming black trucks here), and the movie delivers the goods on the disaster-porn setpieces, with great F/X and enveloping sound design (see it big and loud). There's also a surprisingly solid score by Benjamin Wallfisch, with some tinkly, awestruck piano and string clusters and a rousing hoedown chase theme that's a good match to the bevy of sh!tkicker country songs on the soundtrack (reminding me of the days of the "Music from and inspired by..." albums we all detested in the 90s). It's nothing more than a cinematic roller coaster, but it's one that's honestly more fun than the original, and the chemistry between Edgar-Jones and the tremendously ingratiating Glen Powell (as a tornado-chasing glory hound who's a little more conscientious than you'd expect) keeps you invested even if the movie denies us the satisfaction of seeing them share a celebratory smooch at the end (sex bad...!). This is a "legacy sequel" done right, mainly by not being a sequel at all, and if only on a pure sensation level, offers a lot of unpretentious fun (the kids behind me applauded at the end).

[Monterey Jack]

$72 million opening for a "sequel" with none of the original cast (and nearly three decades after the original) is pretty damn impressive.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie ... 235952688/

[AndyDursin]

The original was a HUGE hit, and I'm not surprised this is "overperforming". Bringing in Powell who is apparently the new Remake King was good casting, but TWISTER made money because of the concept -- it wasn't because of the cast (no offense to the late Bill Paxton but he was hardly ever a leading man). The FX were the show, not the characters, and the movie was always sold that way -- a thrill ride so to speak. (The real, and arguably only, standout performance in TWISTER was actually Jami Gertz).

Thus, nobody really needed a connection to the original for this to work. It's not a "franchise". Do a smart reworking of the material effectively and you could make $$ and it seems like they're going to. Add in a marketplace still desperate for content and there you go.

Good work by Spielberg choosing a capable director it sounds like. I'm going Tuesday in Xplus to get the doors rattled off.

[Monterey Jack]

Thus, nobody really needed a connection to the original for this to work. It's not a "franchise".

This is why it's strange they didn't position it as a remake, despite the fact that is truly is. The "Based on characters created by..." credit they give to Michael Crichton and Anne Marie Martin is ridiculous, as there ARE no characters from the original movie! The "Dorothy" device from the original is shown (referred to as "old" tech, of course), but this is an IP movie that truly needs no knowledge of the previous movie to be accessible to an audience that wasn't alive when it came out, and that was a very smart decision.

I'm going Tuesday in Xplus to get the doors rattled off.

I saw it on the XPlus screen, and the sound was definitely worth the extra few bucks. Also one of the rare blockbusters in recent years shot on actual 35MM celluloid, thus it feels truly "old-school" in a way most of these current $200 million movies rarely do (which have that glossy, fake "Netflix Sheen").

[Monterey Jack]

...and the chemistry between Edgar-Jones and the tremendously ingratiating Glen Powell (as a tornado-chasing glory hound who's a little more conscientious than you'd expect) keeps you invested even if the movie denies us the satisfaction of seeing them share a celebratory smooch at the end (sex bad...!).

[AndyDursin]

That actually irritates me...

Another bow down to international markets I believe.

UPDATE -- looks like "the experts" VASTLY underestimated the popularity of the old movie and/or this movie's potential. Estimates weren't even close. $80 mil opening!

https://deadline.com/2024/07/box-office ... 236015127/

[Monterey Jack]

That actually irritates me...

Another bow down to international markets I believe.

So why not shoot the kiss-free version as an alternate for the international markets and allow us boorish heathen Americans to enjoy a celebratory smooch? Did Warners think audiences would react like this if they saw Edgar-Jones and Powell lock lips at the end...?

[AndyDursin]

Give us the alternate "Director's Cut" on UHD please!! How can you NOT get those two to kiss at the end...seriously. Most of the female audience that goes to this movie is there because of Powell (and would WANT to see it).

[Monterey Jack]

Give us the alternate "Director's Cut" on UHD please!! How can you NOT get those two to kiss at the end...seriously. Most of the female audience that goes to this movie is there because of Powell (and would WANT to see it).

Hell, the reason why Anyone But You became an unexpected hit last year was due to the palpable sexual chemistry between Powell and Sydney Sweeney, and that the movie actually allowed them to bang.

Nothing illustrates the prudish, puritanical nature of contemporary cinema more than how the first Transformers movie in 2007 ended with Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox making out on top of Bumblebee, whereas in 2018's Bumblebee, Hailee Steinfeld pulls her hand away from her would-be suitor when he tries to hold it with the line, "We're not quite there yet."



I don't know if this is just residual fallout from the late 2010's #MeToo era or what, but it absolutely sucks. It's basic cinema...the hero and heroine persevere and live through impossible odds, then share a cathartic smooch right before the credits start to roll. C'moooooooooon...!

[Monterey Jack]

Modern-day audiences when they see anything remotely sexual in movies...

[AndyDursin]

Steven!!!