TWISTERS movie review

Plot chasers. Despite the great chemistry between the leads of Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell, this cinematic storm is lacking the necessary elements in both thoughtful plotting and character development to form a compelling story. And while most of the special effects are excellent, it comes off feeling like one long storm chase. If it wasn’t for Edgar-Jones and Powell, I’d just as soon watch the Weather Channel instead. Twisters tries to be too many different kinds of stories, and isn’t successful at any one of them. There is an attempt at underscoring the outside-action narrative(s) with a heart-felt inside-emotional story, but even that isn’t fully developed. While there are some well-written scenes that will pique your interest, aside from the disaster porn dimension of the movie, there isn’t much here of any great interest.

Haunted by a devastating encounter with a tornado, Kate Cooper (Edgar-Jones) gets lured back to the open plains by her friend, Javi, to test a groundbreaking new tracking system. She soon crosses paths with Tyler Owens (Powell), a charming but reckless social-media superstar who thrives on posting his storm-chasing adventures. As storm season intensifies, Kate, Tyler and their competing teams find themselves in a fight for their lives as multiple systems converge over central Oklahoma.

The lack of a compelling narrative has far less to do with Lee Isaac Chung’s directing than it does Mark L. Smith’s screenwriting. No real surprise there since his other recent screenwriting credit is The Boys in the Boat, which also suffered from poor plotting and character development. While Joseph Koskinki receives a story-by credit, clearly he has demonstrated that he is a much better director (Top Gun: Maverick) than he is a writer. Both Twisters and The Boys in the Boat have a compelling story to tell, but the plotting itself (the map of how you get from beginning to end) lacks meaningful direction or focus. The movie sets up one story of overcoming trauma, then becomes a white collar vs blue collar story, then turns into a story about storm profiteering, which morphs into a melodrama about overcoming fear and guilt, just to finish as a romcom. All the while, the external goal of the story, which is setup successfully in the beginning, doesn’t get revisited and become clear until the third act. There is about as much narrative depth in Twisters as any given episode of Storm Chasers. Where is will give Smith, Kosinski, and Chung credit is that they didn’t choose to make this a “preachy” movie about ecoterrorism or climate change. Sometimes bad storm just happen. And that’s what makes them scary; there is no explanation.

Even though the themes of the movie are not very well developed, I like that Smith was trying to do with the subtext of the movie. Without getting into spoilers, there is an attempt at spotlighting how some people that appear that they are trying to help storm victims are actually more interested in profiting off the disaster. Which, I imagine does happen in real life. The movie also has something to say (and this was actually pretty well developed) about not judging the level of competence or motivation based on face-value or first impressions. The very people that look unprofessional may be even more professional and genuine than the ones that appear like they have it all together.

Other than some badly CG’d dandelion fuzz (which should’ve been done practically, c’mon). the rest of the special effects in the movie are excellent. Okay, so maybe excellent is being a bit generous, but I’m trying to give the film some credit for not putting me to sleep. I screened the film in Dolby Cinema, which is the best way to watch this movie because aside from the chemistry between the leads, the reason to watch this movie is for the storms and disaster porn thereof. Perhaps the story is on SyFy or Weather Channel levels, but the storm effects are executed very well. I was disappointed that we did not get a flying cow as a nod to one of the most memorable moments in the wildly popular original Twister. It’s well-known that the first movie literally built and destroyed houses to achieve the full effect and impact of the tornadoes, and it appears that Twisters used miniatures and models for some of the disaster scenes. Practical beats CGI nearly all the time. Also like the first movie, this one also appeared to integrate real footage of tornadoes and the disaster left in their wake.

The force that keeps this movie from falling completely apart is the chemistry between our leads of Daisy Edgar-Jones and Glen Powell. Playing Kate and Tyler, respectively, there is a throwback style (almost romcom-like) romance between the two in the vein of “will they, won’t they.” Even though Kate is our central character, it’s Tyler that receives more thoughtful development. Kate is largely the same from beginning to end, despite a great setup for overcoming trauma and guilt. Both of these characters (and their respective actor) keep this movie from falling completely flat. The playful chemistry between the two gives the film a human dimension that it is sorely lacking otherwise. Moreover, I like the fact that the budding romance between the two did not become the focus of the movie, but it certainly adds to the film in a constructive way. Both Edgar-Jones and Powell have an old-school charm that feel refreshing to see in contemporary cinema.

Whether or not you have recently rewatched the first movie, you can confidently go into this movie knowing all you need to know. There is little, if any, connection to the original 1996 blockbuster. For those that are super fans of the original, I imagine there are more nods to the first movie than that which I identified. If you’re looking for movie this summer to escape the heat with the whole family, then this is a good pick, but don’t expect much more than a mildly entertaining couple of hours.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

AMERICAN PSYCHO: a retrospective analysis

We all go a little mad sometimes. Once nearly banned on bookshelves, American Psycho (2000) is the film adaptation of a book about materialism, narcissism, yuppie culture, and the inter-personal empty feeling that comes along with it. Interestingly, despite this film commenting on and taking place in the 1980s, it also holds strong relevance for the 2020s. Except, if this movie were made in the 2020s, its social commentary would be on toxic consumerism, social media influencer culture, and political polarization.

Even though the central character of Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) reeks of snobbery and pretension, Mary Herron’s brilliant horror-meets-dark comedy motion picture is raw, gritty, and unapologetic. The movie that was once protested by women was, in fact, directed by a woman. It’s a candid, fantastical exploration of the state of humanity when it loses its identity in exchange for the facades of prestige, money, and power. Herron externalizes all the emotions and thought processes she is exploring through the actions of Bateman. It’s a visual representation of what happens when we become so consumed with the image we project to others that we lose ourselves and are left feeling empty.

Not only is this a great horror film, but a great film period. Equal parts horror and comedy, this film can be characterized as a motion picture that forces us to reconcile our aspirations for wealth, power, and what happens when we fail to make genuine emotional connections with other individuals because we are completely consumed by image and status. Furthermore, there is a fascinating character study here on trying to fit into a society that you really don’t want to fit into, but don’t know what the other options are. Therefore you act on impulses instead of recognizing them in order to critically analyze if they indeed are the right things to do.

One of the qualities of the experience of watching a horror film compared to other genres is the power it has to force us to face our fears, look in the mirror (pun intended), and question the world around us. Moreover, it allows us to explore hard-to-talk-about subjects because it approaches them in creative, visual ways. that force us to think about some societal observation or construct in new and different ways.

In many ways, Patrick Bateman is us; the us we are when no one is looking. Perhaps most of us are not serial killers, but we certainly have a running commentary on the world around us. Also like Bateman, if we are not careful, we can fall prey to our own animalistic, self-centered instincts. I also love how this movie parallels the vicious nature of Wall Street with the murder sprees of Bateman. In this movie, it’s Wall Street, but it could very well be any number of work places. Perhaps there is little relatability to the characters on the surface, but dig a little deeper and this film is quite the microcosm of the world we live in.

American Psycho provides audiences a complex central character whose existence is more indebted to the dire strife of his reality than to the antagonism or conflicts posed by others. It’s an internal conflict that manifests itself in the elaborate, personal murders as well as the masturbatory discussions of dinner reservations and business cards. Through all of this, Bateman tries to feel something because society’s expectations have made him numb to humanity.

Although the topics of materialism, narcissism, and yuppie culture are explored in the film, the core of the film is actually about one’s self-identity. And much like Bateman’s iconic character, society in the 2000s (and by extension, the 2020s), was and is also concerned with issues of identity and where to find it after the transitional 1990s. The world of Bateman is hermetically sealed, yet there is a yearning to be set apart as an individual within this otherwise homogenous world of high rises, offices, business cards, and physical fitness. Efforts to be recognized as an individual are not limited to Bateman, but can be found in his colleagues. Moreover, any effort made by our officious, pretentious characters to be individuals within the confines of the depicted toxic culture, are shunned, ridiculed, and even ostracized.

These trivial assets are used as a means to form something resembling a personality, but so benign and meaningless that they can’t be anything other than a shallow, soulless facade, lacking any substance. There is an arbitrary box that everyone must fit into, but it’s merely a device to validate one’s existence. Validation through some arbitrary societal contract that somehow defines what one is supposed to be and how one is suppose to act WHEN people are looking. Sounds a lot like social media in the 2010s and 20s.

Many horror films began to incorporate more overt socio-political arguments and conflicts that paralleled during and emerged after the terrorism events of 9/11. The source of the terror in the real world was transported into the fictional diegesis of the horror film. This era of horror was much darker and more disturbing than its 80s and 90s counterparts. More than merely an increase in the viciousness on screen, additionally, this era of horror was socially aware of the cultural context that gave birth to it. By 2004, the news was filled with stories of enhanced-interrogation techniques that came under scrutiny from some anti-war and human rights groups. And this idea found its way from the news media into horror media.

One of the great mysteries of American Psycho is whether or not Bateman has actually committed any of the murders and violent acts in the movie. There are hypotheses that suggest that it’s all in his head, that we as the audience have witnessed the imagery of his mind and not his actions in real life. While the book American Psycho doesn’t leave anything to the imagination, Harron chose to withhold dramatic information from the audience in order to afford the audience the opportunity to form images in the mind, which can sometimes (and often are) more potent and powerful.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

INSIDE OUT 2 movie review

An entertaining and thoughtful exploration of the complexities of the human condition. And one of the best hockey movies ever! Disney-Pixar’s Inside Out 2, the highly anticipated followup to 2015’s Inside Out, builds upon the original to deliver a far better movie! At best, I find the original mediocre, so I was not anticipating to like the sequel. I was wrong. I had such a great time with this movie because it’s full of many laugh out loud moments. And not just that. But this movie delivers much stronger plotting and character development compared to the first movie and that which has been released by Disney/Pixar in the last several years. I find myself sending most of what Disney releases to the penalty box anymore these days, but not so with Inside Out 2. Perhaps this movie demonstrates a return to simple plots with complex characters that strike the right balance between humor and insight. Much better than its predecessor, this movie truly personifies the emotional complexities we develop as we get older. While our central character of Riley may be a 13 year-old girl, the lessons we learn from the movie are relevant for teens and adults alike. Between the thoughtfulness of storytelling the moments of hilarity, and the commentary on human emotion, this is a fantastic movie.

Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust have been running a successful operation by all accounts. However, when Anxiety shows up, they aren’t sure how to feel. Meanwhile, Riley is faed with the challenges of transitioning to high school and the desire to secure a place on the hockey team.

Inside Out 2 excels where Inside Out failed to deliver. Everything that transpires in this movie feels authentic, feels like an organic cause and effect sequence of events. Whereas in the first movie, clearly there was an overt attempt to elicit emotionally manipulative responses from the audience. The challenges Riles faces when learning her closest friends are going to a different high school and the desire to (1) land a spot on the high school hockey team and (2) build relationships that she can lean on when entering the world of high school, all feel close enough to reality to be believable yet there is still a whimsy about them. Where many movies fail these days is in proper plotting and pacing. Inside Out 2 satisfies both, and does so very well. We have a clearly defined central character with a clearly defined external goal motived by a clearly defined internal need, both of which are met with a character(s) of opposition. Yes, there is an emotional journey, which we have in the first one, but this one defines a measurable, external goal that Riley will either achieve or fail to achieve, thus raising the stakes.

One of the biggest changes between the first movie and this one is the degree to which humor is integrated into the story to balance out the more emotionally challenging moments. In fact, there are truly some laugh out loud comedic bits that I think adults will find even funnier than kids and teens. I won’t reveal any of those to you because I want you to experience them for yourselves, but there is a recurring gag that delivers every time. And the honesty about the emotions we all have and when they develop is also responsible for some of the humor. There is a refreshing candor about the expression and personification of emotions in the movie that makes the movie accessible for anyone, no matter where they are on their emotional journey.

This film also reminds us of the complexities of the human condition. There are so many areas of life that are not clear cut, black and white, right and wrong, and as such, these grey areas make life challenging. While the movie may not formalize this concept, as it is designed to be most accessible by kids and teens, one of the theses in the film posits that as we grow up, our ability to discern and reason are increasingly important as there are times we are faced with decisions that demonstrate no clear right or wrong direction, but both will have their own respective sets of consequences, both good and bad. The journey on which Riley and her emotions find themselves teaches them that both positive and negative experiences, successes and failures, and that which we regret are all needed to form our personality and value system.

Inside Out 2 is entertaining and thoughtful! Should you choose to watch it, I’m confident that you will find it as enjoyable as did I.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

CLUE: LIVE ON STAGE play review

“I. Am. Your singing telegram (POW!)” here to tell you that you do not want to miss the hilarious hijinks of CLUE: Live on Stage! It successfully channels the film whilst crafting a new experience. And yes, all the iconic, quotable lines and slapstick moments are in the show!! It’s a laugh out loud riot that will uplift the human spirit!

Playing the Straz Center in Tampa now through June 2nd.

Designed for fans of the cult classic, complete with all the camp, but can still be appreciated by all! This stage adaptation of the beloved star-studded film owes its success to the playwriting that retained the soul and memorable moments of the film yet injected new dialogue, scenes, comedic irony, and physical comedy that together craft a familiar yet fresh experience. From the moment the play opens with the original theme music, you know that you will be in for an uplifting time at the theatre. Some stage adaptations of films neglect to include so much of what makes their respective film source beloved, such as the score, quotable lines, or slapstick humor; not true with CLUE. This is one of the best stage adaptations of a film that I have ever witnessed.

One of the subtle strengths of the playwriting is the inclusion of some meta humor such as characters carrying around the original board game detective notepads and even the game board. Other elements that elevate the meta humor of the play include musical cues and slight fourth wall breaking as if to nod to the audience that “we know you know.” The stage design is fantastic! Every inch of space is used efficiently and effectively to achieve the feeling of a vast mansion on a single stage. Furthermore, the design retains that beautifully gothic atmosphere that we associate with the iconic board game and campy film.

With such great cast/character chemistry in the film, I was curious if this adaptation would be able to capture even half of the magic. It pleases me to report that the cast’s chemistry is fantastic! And while they certainly recreate notable moments from the film, each of them puts their own spin on the expression of those moments. From “Let us out, let us out; let us in, let us in” to “Fla, fla, flames, flames on the side of my face” to “I. Am. Your singing telegram,” all those memorable moments are part of the stage production!

And if you were curious if the multiple endings from the film are included, that they are! But, the solution(s) are different than the film, so don’t think that you have it figured out. Even this faithful adaptation throws curve balls that will keep you on the edge of your seat.

I had such an incredibly enjoyable time with this play, and I know you will too. CLUE: Live on Stage is currently touring the country, so look for a showing near you! CLUE is playing the Straz Center in Tampa now through June 2nd, but checkout the CLUE website for when it will be touring in your area.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA

A meandering cinematic spectacle. FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA delivers on immersive scale and scope, but fails to deliver on a compelling narrative. It’s an exhausting, endless chase through a desert wasteland that’s as devoid of life as the plotless story itself. Clearly writer-director George Miller demonstrates a love for the dystopic universe of Mad Max, but the narrative lacks focus and direction. However, he makes excellent use of world-building and drawing the audience into the high octane action. The problem is, that perpetual high octane action results in a disconnect between the audience and the characters and plot because interest in action alone isn’t sustainable. Ultimately, the spectacular visuals do not compensate for strength of story.

Snatched from the Green Place, young Furiosa falls into the hands of a great biker horde led by the warlord Dementus. Sweeping through the Wasteland, they come across the Citadel, presided over by the Immortan Joe. As the two tyrants fight for dominance, Furiosa soon finds herself in a nonstop battle to make her way home.

The setup of this saga in the Mad Max universe works quite well. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised during the first few minutes of the film because it begins as a character-driven narrative. Unfortunately, that feeling wouldn’t last long. After a fantastic start, the first act slows to a crawl, with only the chase across the desert to provide any kinetic energy. It would’ve worked quite well had there been a balance between the action and character moments, or the inclusion of emotional resets. But once that chase begins, it pretty much does so without ceasing for the remainder of the 2.5-hour movie.

At is most basic elements, well-written story features a well-defined central character with an external goal, and opposition to that goal. In Furiosa, the external goal is setup to be Furiosa returning home (to the Green Place), but then it changes direction to become something else. The something else to which it changes is no longer substantively supported by the setup of the movie and character of Furiosa. Related? Yes. But I do not feel that the movie that began, is the movie that finished. The something else to which it changes could have very well been incidental to achieving the goal of returning home, but instead the movie goes in a different direction in order to match up to Fury Road.

The scale and scope of the film, and immersive atmosphere is truly commendable. The lengths that Miller and his cast and crew had to go in order to film in such a desolate environment was not easy. And the hard work of crafting a world out of a wasteland is exceptional. It is entirely possible that the weakness of story is a result of Miller being director, producer, and writer. Often times, when there lack sufficient checks and balances between writer and director, the story suffers. Simply stated, sometimes a story makes sense in the mind of the director, but they aren’t as gifted at capturing and supporting that story on paper as a writer. And the same can be said for writers whom try their hand at directing. Just because it works on the page, doesn’t mean it works on the screen.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry