Twixt

The "Godfather" Trilogy, "The Conversation," "Apocalypse Now" – all films by Francis Ford Coppola that DON'T come to mind when watching Coppola's latest directing venture – "Twixt." This film recently screened at the San Francisco International Film Festival and I eagerly attended. Bottom line? If you're expecting anything close to the aforementioned films, you're going to be disappointed.

Coppola has said in interviews that he's only making "personal" films from now on - maybe too personal. While there are elements in this film that show the master has not lost his touch, this film borders on the incomprehensible. Is it a comedy? A horror film? A psychological drama? A fantasy? Your guess is as good as mine - and, apparently, the cast's, as three participants in the film in attendance said as much in the Q&A that followed the screening. Actors Bruce Miroglio, Anthony Fusco, and Don Novello all had the same reaction after screening the film (only their second opportunity.) First, it was nothing at all like the film they saw a few months ago and Coppola was obviously still tinkering with it. Second, it was a helluva lot funnier than they remembered it.

Confusion maybe the theme of the film, but should that confusion have extended to the cast and, ultimately, the audience? One of the things the audience was confused about was that it was a 3-D film. Everyone eagerly played with the glasses until an announcement was made that there were only two short sequences in 3-D, and that it would be clear when those times were. That still didn't stop people from flipping the glasses on and off in a futile attempt to add some dimension to the film.

Coppola's choice to use 3-D does say something, though. Consider his contemporary - Martin Scorsese. Scorsese embraced the technology, used it to great effect to enhance his storytelling in "Hugo," and foresees using the process for all of his future projects. (We'll see.) How does Coppola use it? As a gimmick. An effective gimmick, but a gimmick none the less. Scorsese used it to draw you into the world of "Hugo." Coppola's use actually, and purposely, takes you out of his. Interestingly, only one of the two sequences was filmed using a 3-D camera. The second was added in post-production.

It really wasn't necessary, as the look of the film is one of its assets. Visually entrancing, and wonderfully atmospheric, the film has a cinematic look unlike anything else Coppola has done - even "Dracula." As for the cast, Val Kilmer giver a lead performance that almost redeems him from the trainwreck that is "The Fourth Dimension." I could have done without his umpteenth Brando impersonation, though. Uniformly fine work from the supporting cast helps. It's always good to have Bruce Dern back on screen portraying one of his "slightly-off" characters.

The script is the film's Achilles Heel, if Coppola even had one. I don't need every element of a story to be spoon-fed to me, but give me something to chew on, please. "Twixt" leaves too many threads dangling from the seams that are obviously fraying in this film. The parts are all there, they're just waiting to be sewn together in a much better fashion. Its ending is abrupt and confusing. As Miroglio said when responding to an audience member's comment that he really didn't know what happened at the end, "Francis' response would probably be – 'GOOD!'" Maybe for him, but not for an audience. Coppola says he got the idea for the film from a dream of his. Coppola's turned his dream into an audience's nightmare. Does he even care?

www.worstshowontheweb.com

It was fun watching a healthy (if hefty) Val Kilmer. His character displayed an attractive and calm way in most of the film. Fun to see Elle Fanning extravagantly made up and costumed. Bruce Dern was a hoot as the crazed town Sheriff and there were a couple of scenes that had some genuinely artistic cinematography.

However, one of the reviews informs us this story came to Coppola in a dream while he was in Turkey. He has a reputation for being a bit of a doper and this dream must have been enabled by an overdose.

The plot is an absolute mess and makes any sense in only about 3 or 4 scenes. I am not someone who requires all loose ends be neatly tied up, but this story goes nowhere.

I don't see any way to pay much attention and enjoy the film. Perhaps if you get bombed, don't think about the story and just enjoy the view, it could be worth your time.

Legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola has delivered some iconic films including the Godfather trilogy, The Outsiders, and Apocalypse Now, but when he decided to step back to start doing independent features again everyone wondered would he be able to keep producing these amazing films. His latest Twixt takes him into the world of horror and bring along Val Kilmer to lead the charge. Dose this strange looking film live up the quality we are used to or could this be the downfall of a once great filmmaker?

Twixt follows a struggling writer who arrives in a small town for a book signing but instead gets caught up in the mystery of a young girl's murder. As he gets deeper in the mystery the help of a mysterious ghost takes him on a journey that leads back to his own past and the truth of the story. This is one of those films that are going to be more of an acquired taste, you either like it or you don't not too much in the middle. The story is actually well crafted with the mystery being laced with the supernatural and never quite letting you know where it's headed until the very end. That doesn't mean it offered all that many twists and turns that you probably won't see coming, but everything works well together. Val Kilmer has delivered some real duds over the years and some may not see this as much better, but he does give one of the better performances in quite some time and carries the movie well. His supporting cast includes Bruce Dern and Elle Fanning who do a fine job with their characters, but this is all Kilmer's show. There are some strange choices with the story here, but Coppola clearly had a vision he stuck with and deserves props for that. Some of the effects weren't all that great and some appeared like they were either going for 3D or something off the SyFy channel, but still serves their purpose well enough to still maintain a decent film.

This is a strange film that doesn't deliver any real horror and leaves some of the ending up to interpretation, but has an old school feel to it that makes for an interesting experience. Is this a great film? No, but it is a brilliant filmmaker taking some chances to do what he wants and succeeds. A lot of the film was actually shot on Coppola's property which makes it an even more impressive feat that this film looks as good as it does. Coppola isn't breaking any new ground and most will look at films like these as the end of a much respected career, instead of the passion projects they actually are now.

"Maybe this is what I need, this story." Hall Baltimore (Kilmer) is a writer that has seen his recent sales drop. He begins to travel from town to town promoting his new book with book signings no one cares about. When he comes to a small town he meets the sheriff Bobby LaGrange (Dern) we is interested in writing with him. When he shows Hall the town's most recent murder victim he becomes intrigued. After learning of the town's past Hall becomes obsessed with his new story idea and wants to find the truth. I was torn before I watched this. I am a huge Coppola fan, the Godfather is my favorite movie, but the fact that Val Kilmer was in this made me a little leery. After about 20 minutes I found out that Coppola out-ways Kilmer. The movie is very interesting and sucks you in enough to keep you watching and wondering what is going to happen next. A somewhat original idea but the writing and story make it seem fresh and exciting. This is easily Kilmer's best movie since Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and Coppola's best since the Rainmaker. While the movie isn't for everyone I think it is worth seeing and it's nice to see a horror movie that isn't just how many people can we chop up in an hour. Overall, a movie I liked but again isn't for everyone. I give it a B.

The plot: A writer on a publicity tour stops in a small town and finds creative inspiration in the mysterious happenings.

Twixt is about the creative process. If you're put off by Coppola's more indulgent films, then you're simply not going to like this one, either. Early on, it becomes apparent that this is going to be a postmodern take on Gothic tales: the film opens with a hokey narration, the town is full of quirky stock characters, and the "real world" sequences play out like an interactive story. As the film progresses, these elements grow stronger, and a surreal element breaks down the barriers between reality, dreams, and fiction. This may leave some viewers exasperated or confused, as it's a far more experimental and indulgent story than something like, say, The Godfather or Bram Stoker's Dracula. What we see is a writer trying to deal with writer's block, guilt over his daughter's death, and how to make sense of the jumble of ideas that he's got in his head. Coppola seems uninterested in telling a straight-ahead Gothic story about a homicidal priest vs vampires, but I think this is the story that audiences wanted. They're unconcerned with the creative process, themes in Edgar Allan Poe's work, or metafiction.

There are many beautiful shots in the film that make use of digital effects. Val Kilmer wanders through his dreams in a black and white world that makes occasional use of striking, bold colors. The effect is similar to the semi-monochrome of Sin City, though it's used more sparingly. Unfortunately, as striking as the cinematography is, it doesn't really live up to the legendary expectations that many have come to expect from Coppola. Like Scorsese, he seems to have became a victim of his own early success, doomed to be forever judged harshly for anything that falls short of pure genius.

Val Kilmer is obviously looking a bit older, and, yes, he's gained some weight. Regardless, I found his performance to be pretty good. I was never a huge fan of Kilmer, but he's a likable guy, and he imbues this character with the same likable qualities. His performance is a bit muted and introspective, but there are occasional hammy moments, such as when he does some rather amusing impressions during a drunken scene of writer's block. Bruce Dern was really great, and I loved his character, a spunky and reactionary sheriff who served as the foil for Kilmer's character. Dern got to be as eccentric and lively as Kilmer was quiet and repressed, and it was fun to see them work off each other. The others were good, but Dern was just so much fun that I kept wishing he'd show up in every scene, do something crazy, and keep the film a bit more lively.

For fans of Edgar Allan Poe, Gothic horror, and literary analysis, this is a fun film. Others will probably be a bit disappointed. The pacing is significantly faster than Coppola's 70s work, but it's still a bit leisurely, and the lack of a coherent narrative may alienate people who just wanted to see vampires vs serial killers in a small town full of secrets.