The Five-Star Three-Star Movie

A few words about Twister and perfect mediocrity

Twister. Photo: Warner Bros.

Note: In my first paid subscriber newsletter update, I get into a (very silly) theory I’ve been working up in my mind about a certain kind of movie. If you’d like to read more posts like this (and help a nearly broke freelance writer out) do sign up for a paid subscription. I’ll have more regular exclusive writing for those who do, plus some fun stuff in the planning stages.

The other day, in anticipation of Twisters, the blockbuster sequel about to save cinema, I rewatched the original Twister. I’d last seen it several years ago, when the TIFF Cinematheque screened it on a 35mm print as part of their Steven Spielberg retrospective (he produced it). I’ve always loved Twister. I loved it as a kid in the ‘90s. I loved it in the years after, when I’d catch it on cable. I loved seeing it on the big screen for the first time on a beautiful print. And I loved it again this week, in its new 4K remaster. In fact, my persistent love for the movie had blinded me to the fact that a lot of people think it’s pretty mediocre, or even outright bad. I do not understand that opinion. It’s a perfect kind of Hollywood entertainment: a brilliantly simple premise sold by the title alone that completely lives up to all the absurdity that implies, written with classic studio clarity, built on the bones of old screwball romances, with an excellent cast delivering fun, distinctive performances, amid a succession of thrilling set pieces featuring groundbreaking effects work that looks better these almost 30 years later than a lot of the CGI-filled nonsense we’re forced to endure today. It is perfect, as I said, at being exactly what it is: a three-star movie.