Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
The dialogue was ham-handed, the performances stiff, the villain lame, the story stupid.
(Also not great:Independence Day.)
But then something strange happened: I started to think of it more fondly.
Plus that supporting cast, which featured people like Philip Seymour Hoffman and Todd Field.
Surely the movie was better than I remembered it?
To me, that makes a movie almost immediately less interesting.
I said, No, that will kill the movie.
You dont have to explain everything.Exactly, I thought, quietly.
Part of the clunkiness of the movie lay in its attempts to explain itself.
If you dont do that, it gets very stilted very quickly, de Bont said.
Twisteris … lets say … a flawed film.
But now I feel the movie basically works, mainly thanks to the immediacy de Bont brought to it.
(Relax, there was a safety driver perched atop the bus to check that nothing untoward happened.
The reactions are so real, and that energizes almost everything immediately.
Twisterdoes have its share of CGI, but a lot of the effects were practically done.
Thats another reason why it holds up and maybe seems better today than it did back then.
Its not that CGI is bad.
Is Lee Isaac Chung, an Oscar nominee and the man behind the newTwisters, one of those directors?
Im not sure yet.Twistersdoes have some of the trappings of an older action movie.
(You canread my appreciation of the actor here.)
I mean,reallyunfinished a couple of scenes were basically just animated.
There, the vapidness of the plot and the weak central performance by Daisy Edgar-Jones really stood out.
Later, however, I saw the film with finished effects and was duly transported.
In fact, I sort of cant wait to see it again, in IMAX.
For now, no.
But ask me again in 20 years.
