When I set out to start this column, I made a conscious decision to stay away from sequels, particularly in lengthy series, because enjoyment of a new movie in that sequence is often dependent on having a familiar knowledge of the rest of the sequence. This column is good for one movie or short reviews and synopses of a thematic collection, but really hard to deep dive into a late sequence movie. However, I decided to break that rule for this one:

MOVIE: “Twisters” (2024, PG-13, 122 min, watch it: in theatres only)

Fortunately, my assumptions about this movie were correct in that there were a few nods to the original “Twister” but “Twisters” is not a direct sequel. For the record, I mean this one:

MOVIE: “Twister” (1996, PG-13, 113 min, watch it: DVD, Max, AMC)

You know, the one staring Helen Hunt, Bill Paxton, and a flying cow? Not the 1989 screwball comedy with Harry Dean Stanton.

In fact, if you’ve never seen “Twister,” you can still view and enjoy this movie. It’s quite an enjoyable film and certainly worth a watch for anyone who hasn’t seen it. But, what about those who have seen the first one and are wondering if this is simply a remake?

Answer: mostly no. The main thematic points of the movie are pretty much the same and several of the character beats of the movie are strikingly similar to the first movie.

In “Twister,” one of the tornado chasers lost a family member in a tornado outbreak which motivates her to get into the profession and want to save other people. “Twisters” slight twist: the storm chaser is trying to help people be safe from tornadoes, but an accident causes her to lose people and give up storm chasing.

“Twister” has a ragtag, underdog team out for science going up against a corporate sellout who is out for money. “Twisters” slight twist: the main character joins up with her corporate backed friend and meets the seemingly irreverent wildcard storm chaser in it for the money.

The characters in “Twister” say they want to improve safety for people but constantly make horrible decisions themselves on how to stay safe around tornadoes. “Twisters” huge twist: the characters are often smarter around tornadoes and are actively trying to help people before tornadoes ravage their towns.

Scientifically, the characters in “Twister” are trying to get tornadoes to suck up scientific devices that will help map tornadoes leading to more understanding of how tornadoes form and act. “Twisters” slight twist: One group is trying to create a 3D scan of an active tornado and another is seeing if they can disrupt the elements that create tornadoes to essentially make them disappear.

Interesting note here: both movies are based in scientific possibility! The main issue with what is presented in “Twisters” is a sense of scale as it would take far larger quantities of material to potentially disrupt a tornado than what the characters attempt to use.

Technology has come a long way, and I mean that both for weather forecasting and for making movies, so there is an argument to be made that this is more of an update to “Twister” than a remake. To me, however, this movie earns a spot as a stand-alone movie with enough differences to make the argument they are distinguishable and both bring different things to the viewing experience.

So, is “Twisters” (or even “Twister”) what to watch for you? Honestly, though I have a nostalgic love of “Twister” which will keep me going back to watch it, I think “Twisters” is actually the better movie. The performances of Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell were great and they had loads more charisma than Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton. These movies are a far cry from reality, but they’re great popcorn flicks worth your time.

Kent Kraft is someone who loves the 1985 movie “Clue” and was more than a little disappointed to learn the 1996 movie “Twister” was actually about tornadoes. He was surprised the 2012 movie “Battleship” was as fun as it was and awaits more attempts at basing a movie off a board game. For the record, the “Jumanji” movies are ones that star board games, not movies based on them (and the first one is based on a book).