Virgínia

Francis Coppola comes nearly full circle in his career with this embarrassing, juvenile horror pastiche, analogous to porn-parody in its mainstream pastiche of the genre. After breaking into show biz with soft porn, he first garnered attention 50 years ago with "Dementia 13" for Roger Corman, and unlike Corman's classic Poe adaptations of that era, Coppola's Poe pastiche here is terrible.

Main failing is a complete lack of self-awareness, which often besets artists full of themselves. As indicated in the dreadful "Making of" short subject directed by his grand-daughter Gia, Francis is caught up in the craft of filmmaking, including dabbling with that ever-trendy (and pointless) gimmick 3-D, oblivious to the silliness of his script and the lousy scenes printed. Clearly living in the past of his successes, married with an ill-advised affinity for independent (and amateurish) modern filmmaking, he seems to lack the necessary self- criticism that helped him fashion classic work 40 years back.

Similarly, his lead Val Kilmer is also a has-been, content with underplaying most scenes and overacting crucial emotional ones, when not indulging in idiotic impressions (the Kevin Spacey syndrome), as when egged on by Coppola to "do Mark Twain". Apparently both star and director expect to earn brownie points for not caring one whit whether they make fools of themselves.

Early in the film I sensed a promising return to a type of fantasy and horror that once gave birth to the seminal classic "Lemora" starring Rainbeaux Smith, beloved by connoisseurs if not the general public. Its director Richard Blackburn was a one-hit wonder, or perhaps less since this was not a hit but more of a cult classic.

But to paraphrase Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, as applied not to Dan Quayle in the political arena, but to leading lady Elle Fanning, "You're no Rainbeaux Smith". A talented young actress, Fanning is a dead space on screen here in the crucial part of the mysterious undead girl who lures Val into the story. Besides soft porn roots, Coppola in the '80s was famously a hanger-on to the Adult industry, attending annual AVN awards dinners and hob-nobbing with sexy XXX starlets. Had he chosen porn rather than horror for this 2011 backsliding exercise, he could have cast the perfect young beauty Elsa Jean or even fulfilled by dream of giving current jail-bait superstar Piper Perri a chance to show her acting chops in Elle's role.

Storyline of has-been, bargain-basement Stephen King horror writer Val (character name: Hall) ordered by his publisher to come up with a "bulletproof" ending for his new novel, or else, it was sad to see how perfunctory and dissatisfying an ending triple-threat Coppola concocted for this movie. The tongue-in-cheek performances (especially by Bruce Dern as sheriff and transparent bad guy, another Corman graduate) and series of stupid scenes included a rather lame in-joke of Val's nasty and venal wife played by his real wife Joanne Whalley (ex hyphenate Kilmer in her stage name). I would have preferred Nastassja Kinski doing a snake dance. Similarly, the handling of the red-herring goth cult of youngsters dangled for us was pure cliché and even less believable than such filler as presented in '60s softcore movies.

The acid test for this junker is how it would have been greeted had it not borne the prestigious Coppola name in its credits. Perhaps critics and audiences would have felt sorry for an unknown filmmaker breaking in with a failed but technically adept genre piece. But for an all-time great wasting his time and intelligence on such crap -unforgivable.

Francis Ford Coppola (THE GODFATHER, APOCALYPSE NOW, THE CONVERSATION, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, etc.) is an inarguable master filmmaker. Since 2000 he's only made four films and I haven't seen any of them until now. Originally released as TWIXT, this version, B'TWIXT NOW AND SUNRISE, is a re-edited director's cut of the film that's shorter than the original. I never saw the original cut, so I can't compare, but I can say I enjoyed this oddball low-budget film. Val Kilmer plays a barely famous horror writer stopping by a small town for a book signing and then becomes intrigued by a local murder mystery involving a young girl and possibly vampires. Kilmer is good, as always, and Bruce Dern plays the colorful over-the-top sheriff (and wannabe horror novelist). There's also a great supporting cast that includes Elle Fanning as a ghost/vampire/murder victim, David Paymer as Kilmer's agent, and Joanne Whalley (Kilmer's real-life ex-wife) playing his ex-wife, which is delightfully meta and funny. The entire film feels like Coppola is doing a goof and just having fun. After watching the behind-the-scenes documentary by his granddaughter Gia Coppola, I feel even more convinced of that or maybe it's just that Coppola runs a very casual relaxed set. It doesn't feel as substantial or weighty as his other work, but Coppola is a master filmmaker and you can see it in his frame compositions, the way scenes cut together, and the dreamlike quality he brings to the film, even if the material seems rather light and inconsequential. Overall, I'm not sure I'd recommend this film to anyone outside of Coppola or Kilmer die-hards, but I count myself as one on both parts, so this film worked for me.

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.

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

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.