‘Twisters’ Is Another Sequel We Probably Didn’t Need

Did we need this? It’s a question I ask myself (sometimes out loud at my computer screen) every time there’s news of another movie with a number in its title.

Eighteen years after the original became endlessly rewatchable and quotable, did we need “ The Devil Wears Prada 2 ”? A sequel. Groundbreaking.

Ditto “ Freaky Friday 2 ,” now in production with the beloved duo of Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan returning. Or “ Shrek 5 ” (yes, you read that number correctly). All of these projects — that likely nobody asked for — were announced in the last few weeks, continuing Hollywood’s unrelenting churn of sequels, prequels, reboots, revivals, remakes, spinoffs, etc.

This weekend brings another variation to theaters: “Twisters,” directed by Lee Isaac Chung (following his 2020 Oscar-winning film “Minari”) and starring several of today’s most promising stars or stars on the rise, including Daisy Edgar-Jones, Anthony Ramos and leading man of the moment Glen Powell. Loosely connected to 1996’s “Twister,” it’s somewhere between a sequel and a remake: starting with the concept of the original and including some Easter eggs from it, but requiring no substantive knowledge of the first film.

One undisputed strength of this new version: Its visual effects are quite impressive and immersive. The tornadoes really do look real, something the original couldn’t achieve because the technology wasn’t there 30 years ago. Similarly, the film’s storyline illustrates how storm-chasing has changed since “Twister.” There’s also a greater sense of urgency for the characters, as storms are now more frequent and more severe.

But beyond those updates, there’s not much justifying the film’s existence. The story and characters are pretty thinly