Twixt (2011) User Reviews

Coppola's Dream is an Audience's Nightmare

[soncoman · 5/10 · 29 April 2012]

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

Stylish and Gothic, with Storyline with Great Potential but with a Messy Screenplay

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 6 May 2014]

The decadent writer of witch tales Hall Baltimore (Val Kilmer) travels to Swann Valley, a small town where people go to be forgotten, as part of his tour to promote his recent novel. The town does not have a book store, and Hall stays in a hardware store waiting for his nonexistent fans. Later Sheriff Bobby LaGrange (Bruce Dern), who is an aspirant writer, arrives and tells that he is his fan and asks for an autograph in his book. Then he asks if Hall could read his recent work and invites him to go to the morgue to see the body of a victim of a serial-killer that was murdered with a stake through her heart. Then Hall goes to a coffee shop and discovers that Edgar Allan Poe has once come to a hotel in the town where twelve children have been murdered. He goes to his room and tells his wife through Skype that he is going to write a novel based on the weird events at Swann Valley. Hall falls sleep and in his dream, he walks along a park where he meets the twelve year-old Virginia "V" (Elle Fanning) that tells that is her fan, and then with Edgar Allan Poe (Ben Chaplin). On the next morning, Hall decides to team-up with Bobby to write a story based on his idea, but he is blocked and uses pills to sleep and dream. Along the creation process, Hall entwines reality with his dreams.

"Twixt" is a stylish and Gothic movie by Francis Ford Coppola, with a ghost story about the writing process, magnificent cinematography and atmosphere and great performance of Val Kilmer. Unfortunately, the screenplay is messy and disappoints most of the viewers including me. The potential of the storyline is lost with the poor script. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Virginia"

Note: On 20 Juky 2016 I saw this film again.

A Mixed Bag of Pills

[nmn34 · 5/10 · 10 October 2015]

The plot is a complete mess, I'll just get that out there immediately. At times its slow, other times silly, but it is always incoherent. Characters talk in metaphors without the audience being privy to them until ten minutes later or about technical subjects that seem irrelevant to the central plot. I still don't quite know what set up the clock tower scene myself. But I still can't bring myself to hate this movie.

The reason being that so much care went into every other aspect. The art direction is first class, the ghostly dream world with its bluish gray with sharp red and yellow accents is down right beautiful. The setting is great, each location is recognizable and interesting from the vampire camp ground to the sheriff's bird house cluttered home. And in spite of having nowhere to go, so much care was put into the characters. The ghostly pallor of the dead girl drives home what she is long before the writing with just enough color to give her a somber beauty. And while the plot leaves much to be desired, the writing is excellent. The characters were written with such life in their dialogue and the narration perfectly balances being informative and entertaining. Character tropes like the drunk writer and the lazy deputy are used well, the drunken writer and the lazy deputy feel fresh where a lesser writer would make them cliché and tired.

The flaw of the film was the way it handled the theme. Coppola got so caught up in his theme that the story comes off as an afterthought. As result, it takes great leaps in the hopes that you share his mindset when he is writing it. The mind set of a writer which is not a particularly common thought process. There is so much good I can't help but like the movie on some level, it just feels like that good doesn't go anywhere.

And I would read the hell out of The Vampire Executioner.

Dementia of a great filmmaker

[lor_ · 8 November 2016]

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.

Barely watchable

[sequesteredsce · 3/10 · 26 November 2012]

I went into this movie with little expectation, seeing as I've never followed Francis Ford Coppola's work. Perhaps that's the only reason why I found it mildly entertaining. From reading other reviews, it's clear that this work doesn't even take a step toward what Coppola is capable of. But what baffles me is that a film this bad was made by a director that obviously has proved their artistic vision plenty in the past. But I digress. At 40 minutes into the film, I had a feeling that things weren't going to get any better. The storyline felt cliché, the acting was sub par, and the dream sequences were so strange and misplaced (yet somehow boring at the same time), that I was having trouble paying attention to it. But I kept watching because 'hey, you never know'. Well, now that I've watched this train wreck to its end, I can tell you with confidence that if you aren't watching this simply for indulgence of one of the supporting actors' performances, you will be greatly disappointed. Though I suppose you could argue that the dream sequences have some substance to them, the whole film feels not only unfinished, but without a true message, which is why getting to the end feels like such a strain.

Coppola has lost not only his touch, but his marbles

[UncleTantra · 1/10 · 15 June 2012]

This film is an embarrassment for all concerned. If the rumors are correct, and Coppola's inspiration for the screenplay was a night spent indulging in alcohol-fueled dreams, might I suggest that this turned out a great deal worse for him than it did for Val Kilmer's character in the film. Have you ever had a dream that seemed vivid and fraught with "meaning" and symbolic "importance" to you, and then tried to describe that dream to others? Remember how their eyes glazed over after a few moments, and they stopped paying attention to you? Well, that's what is going to happen to you if you see this film.

Shockingly, Val Kilmer is the best part of the film. Fans who have watched *his* career circle the drain, consider that statement. He has at least a couple of great scenes. The first shows him, as a failed writer struggling with writer's block, trying to come up with the first lines of his new novel. The result is hilarious. The second is him sitting down over a bottle of Irish whiskey in the dream plane with Edgar Allen Poe and getting a lesson in writing technique from the master. If Coppola had such a dream-lesson himself, he should have listened more carefully.

Plus, Coppola uses a bunch of visual techniques that make him look like a first-year film student, not the director of the first two "Godfather" movies. He pretty much flushes his career down the toilet with this film, and I'm inclined to give the handle a second push to make sure there are no "floaters" left around. I suspect that the only person who will like this film is David Lynch, because finally there is a film that is less coherent than one of his. :-)

What the hell?

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 3 June 2015]

Wow. It's hard to believe that Francis Ford Coppola (THE GODFATHER) would put his name to this travesty. It's a shot-on-video, zero budget piece of nonsense featuring a chubby Val Kilmer playing a horror writer who visits a creepy small town to work on his latest novel. While there he encounters the ghost of Edgar Allan Poe (yep), alongside a creepy vampire kid and lots of bizarre townsfolk. Is what's going on all in his head, or is there something more disturbing about the town?

As another viewer noted, TWIXT looks like one of those cheap, live-action horror video games made in the 1990s, like PHANTASMAGORIA, except worse. The whole blue-tinted look of the movie is a mess and the storyline is even worse. It seems Coppola made this as an experimental film but the experiment is a complete failure. The only interesting thing is that Joanne Whalley turns up playing Kilmer's ex-wife as an in-joke (she's Kilmer's ex in real life). Kilmer seems embarrassed by the whole thing and rightly so. Bruce Dern cameos as the town sheriff and the reliable Ben Chaplin plays Poe, but for most of the running time we're stuck with one of those annoying Fanning kids. For shame, Coppola...

A film about the creative process, not really vampires

[krachtm · 7/10 · 13 November 2013]

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.

Awful

[simon_cumming · 1/10 · 15 April 2012]

I have only ever walked out of two films at the cinema and this was one of them. If you are a Copolla / Kilmer fan then don't go and see this, you will be hugely disappointed. If you aren't a Copolla / Kilmer fan then don't go and see this, you will be hugely disappointed.

I managed to watch the first 20 minutes and the dialogue is awful and the actors frequently miss their cues. I honestly cannot believe this was made by such a great director and stars the same person who once played the great Doc Hollywood.

The filming is also very 'has been' and there are no advance in fact the opposite can be said.

What a shame.

Kilmer's best movie in a long time. It helps that Coppola wrote & directed this though. I recommend but not for everyone. I say B

[cosmo_tiger · 7/10 · 24 June 2013]

"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.

Anticipation was the ONLY fun

[x2frnz · 3/10 · 29 April 2012]

Oooh exciting! FFC working in 3D or the first time! He doesn't do anything that Scorsese didn't already do better ( and in focus!) in HUGO. There are only two brief scenes in 3D and the effect works about half of the time. The whole film is vaguely focused both visually and conceptually. VAL KILMER working with his ex- Joanne Whalley in what might be come back roles! Except they only talk by Skype and he's got a dreadful pony tail that isn't making a comeback, either. Francis is making a "personal" horror film. Unfortunately, he trades on his own tragedy, detailing the death of his son, without getting anything of value for himself, his sad little video or his audience. This is really dreary stuff. I never saw JACK but I don't think I've ever liked a Copolla film less, ever found any work of his so dishonest or unworthy of mention. You've been warned.

Mesmerizing Gothic Visuals.

[AlukardsCastle · 10/10 · 20 July 2013]

I love all kinds of movies from all genres whether they are mainstream released or independent distributed. A good movie is a good movie. Out of all the genres, I have always enjoyed a good horror movie. But even more, I enjoy mysterious Gothic horror movies!

My real rating is around 8/10. But I was so disappointed with all the negative reviews that I put 10/10 to help with the low score. I read those reviews and expected to hate the movie. But I ended up enjoying it! This movie is, like many reviewers have stated, very different from Francis Ford Coppolas previous works. Mr. Coppola has directed some of the greatest films ever made and many were destroying this film because it wasn't like the rest of his filmography. I bet if you didn't tell someone that Francis Ford Coppola directed this, the reaction would be different. This happens to be one of the best Horror films in recent memory. If you didn't know, a small aspect of this movie is based on the death of Francis son. That alone is interesting to know! I can see why this wasn't released nationwide in theaters because of it's independent art house feel. But I still thought this was better than a lot of the Horror movies that were graced with a nationwide theater count. This is a great ghost, murder mystery movie with mesmerizing Gothic visuals. It almost had a 90s feel. The vibe of the film with its small town eerie setting reminded me of the John Carpenter classic "In the Mouth of Madness" at times. The acting is decent. Val Kimmer is okay as the lead and Elle Fanning is showing that she has more acting capabilities than her sister Dakotah. Ben Chaplin does a great job as the ghost of Edgar Allen Poe. The make-up effects for the ghostly character V and others were simple yet haunting and clever. The cinematography is nicely done. One other memorable aspect of the film was the eerie soundtrack. It is beautiful and creepy at the same time which helps with the tone of the film. This movie as a whole reminded me of an R rated Goosebumps movie. I mean that in a good way. Many are saying the story is downright stupid or doesn't make sense. Well honestly, I love the dreamy incoherent plot. I could understand completely what was going on, but sometimes I just got lost in the artsy visuals that I didn't really care whether the story made sense or not. This is labeled as a Horror movie and I at first expected more scares. But when I first watched it, I only jumped one or two times, and never saw anything that frightened me. I felt a little disappointed at that and felt I had wasted 16 bucks on this movie. Then after the ending, I just felt an uneasy feeling brought to me from the film. I felt creeped out. This movie isn't terrifying, but after much thought, it was scary at times. Twixt sticks with you after the ending. That's what is masterful about this type of horror. I also realized that this movie really gets better with multiple viewings! Twixt is receiving tormented reviews right now, but I can tell that throughout the years the reviews will get more and more positive. This isn't a mega masterpiece, but it is a good enough movie to have positive feedback. I seriously cannot get over the amazing Gothic visuals during the dream sequences! I really hope the score of 4.9/10(current score when I typed this review) goes up to at least a 6/10.

I am confident in predicting this film will gain a cult following eventually. I'm saying you should give this a try before assuming it is bad because of the negative reviews. You might like it, you might hate it. But if you want a nice visual treat of a Horror/suspense movie, then rent or buy this. Turn off the lights, and enjoy the mysterious ride!

Coppola returns to some of his old tricks

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 28 July 2013]

Best known as the director of classics like "The Godfather" and "Apocalypse Now", Francis Ford Coppola has directed some unusual movies in the past few years: "Youth without Youth", "Tetro" and now "Twixt". What's particularly interesting about this movie is that Coppola uses a trick that he previously employed in "Rumble Fish": color objects standing out starkly amid a black and white setting. This could draw your attention to the object...or to the object's color.

It's not really a scary movie. Unsolved murders are a common theme in movies. But each character has something perplexing about himself or herself. Just which kind of secret does each of these individuals hold? I recommend the movie. I guess that you could say, it's an offer that you can't refuse.

Another Kilmer Flop! 1/10

[leonblackwood · 1/10 · 30 November 2013]

Review: I really can't believe that this is a Francis Ford Coppola movie, because it seemed really low budget and terribly made. The storyline took ages to get going, and once it did, it wasn't anything special. The movie is based around Val Kilmer's character, whose performance was pretty dull, and all of the other characters could have been played by monkey's. Personally, I was expecting the movie to be rubbish because Val Kilmer hasn't really made anything good recently, but I did think that Francis would have made some thing half decent, which this isn't. The whole mystical/horror element to the movie was pretty poor and the script needed a whole rewrite. The only good thing about the film was that it isn't that long and it was good to see Bruce Dern back on the big screen, even though he usually plays a racist. Terrible!

Round-Up: Val Kilmer is definitely in the movie business just to pay bills because all of his films go straight to DVD and they pretty appalling. With the amount of money that the Godfather trilogy made, I would have thought that Francis Ford Coppola wasn't hard up for money, so there isn't any excuse why he brought out the terrible film. Maybe that explains why it took 2 years for it too come out on DVD because they must have been ashamed of it. You can tell right from the beginning that it's going to be disappointing because nothing happens for ages. I think you can tell that I found it a total waste of time.

Budget: $7million Worldwide Gross: $400,000 (Terrible!)

I recommend this movie to people who are into there mystical/drama movies, about a guy trying to write a book about a haunted town. 1/10

So so

[torontomovies · 23 September 2011]

The Good:

Great eerie atmosphere throughout, although the movement made me feel like I was watching CG from a video-game.

Not the biggest Val Kilmer fan, but he delivers a good performance.

Best scene: Hall attempting to write the first chapter of his new book.

The Bad:

A bizarre script which seems to bring its audience on a goose chase but doesn't bring us to a satisfying conclusion.

I was expecting a 3d movie, however only 2 scenes are 3d, with glasses appearing on the screen signifying the point at which you must put on your 3d shades... 'it's time for your shades folks, the 3d bit is coming up, now remove your shades, now put them on again!', you get it.

Atmosphere of the movie was enjoyable but the whole time I felt like I wasn't really bothered what happened to any of the characters.

Bottom line: Wait for the DVD.

I didn't expect much when this couldn't get wide release

[askyermom-imdb · 4/10 · 15 June 2013]

Visuals = 10 Atmosphere = 10 Playfulness = 10 WTF aspect that makes audiences pay attention = 10 Getting friends to buy into a half-baked project = 10 Making a film that turns in on itself, script-wise = 10 Use of Bruce Dern = 5 Personal, heartbreaking apology woven into a film that not many people will watch = 11.

Jeez. You really need 10 lines? Okay: Val Kilmer was lovely, Elle Littlesister Fanning was lovely, but I worried as I always do about the psychology of little girls who do movies with so much anti-girl violence. I could always do with lots, lots more of Joanne Whalley. I don't even know what to CALL some of the effects they used to make this entire film have a dreamy, tilted feel that is perfectly titled with "Twixt".

Will You Two Pay Close Attention

[pattonfever · 4/10 · 8 June 2012]

Francis Ford Coppola do not do this to us again. If you want to make us wait years in between each film fine. You have earned that right even though you have not made a good film since Dracula. Still some of the films you have made will give you this right for life. If you want to make nothing, but smaller personal films fine. If you want to revive careers of actors who desperately need reviving all the better. All these things are OK with me, but you have to spend more than 2 dollars when you do so. You also have to make them watchable. When Scorcese makes a bad film I can still sit through it. When Oliver Stone makes a bad film (which is all he does lately, let's hope Savages changes this) I can still watch the entire film. If you would have put money into this it may have been at least watchable. I thought this would have been the film to put you and Val Kilmer back in your rightful positions in the film world. I was very wrong.

Val Kilmer you must stop making films until a director with talent calls you. I know you thought this was it, and you are not at all to blame in any way this time. You have not had a good role since Wonderland. If you must take supporting roles as you did in Bad Lieutenant by all means do so. Also you must lose weight. I can get past many actors weight gains, but yours for some reason I can not. Maybe it's your jaw bone. Maybe it's the image of your Oscar snubbed role as Jim Morrison constantly going through my mind. Or maybe your head is just too small for your body now. You decide. Danny Parker/Tom Van Allen reference. STOP TAKING EVER ROLE THAT COMES ACROSS YOUR DESK. Please.

Well what have we learned from this disaster Francis and Val? Francis just stick to your wine until you have a real idea. Val I really do love you, and you can do no wrong. But you should wait until Tarantino or Aronofsky calls before you do any more damage to my wonderful memories of you.

probably the worst movie I've ever seen

[pariah-careyhd1 · 1/10 · 22 September 2013]

I'm not going to put a whole lot of effort into explaining why this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I should have been tipped off by the fact that the outside of the DVD had no positive reviews. I will say that Coppola is far too good to put out a piece of crap like this. Any college kid in a film class could've come up with a better script. This film was too cheesy to be a legit horror film. There was also nothing psychologically thrilling about it. From the delivery of the opening lines, I knew it was going to be bad. The plot was at many times nonsensical, but not in a stylized stream-of-consciousness way, just in a way that shows twists were added for their own sake and for no other reason. The ending, is a prime example. The dream sequences were goofy. The attempts at comic relief (Hall doing vocal impressions to help him write) were dumb and out of place. The scenes involving this daughter that were supposed to be sad weren't. The goth kids were silly stereotypes, and by the way, if there were goth kids in the 1960s, they didn't dress that way. And it felt like the film was written to capitalize on the recent popularity of vampires in pop culture.

Great follow up to 'Tetro'

[AckleyKid1990 · 7/10 · 24 July 2013]

I have eagerly been waiting for the last two years for this film to be released, for no reason other than to add it to my collection of Tom Waits featured films. A shallow and callous reason that may be, but bear with me.

A couple months ago I had the pleasure of a good friend praising a film he had just seen called 'Tetro', a Francis Ford Coppola fanatic, he encouraged me to watch it, saying it will change my opinion on the famed director after my disappointment in 'Youth Without Youth.' Needless to say, he was right, and my eagerness for the arrival of this film increased immensely.

I watched the film last night, somewhere between twelve and one in the morning, trying to get the mood just perfect. From the opening narration (yes, it just so happens to be Tom Waits) the film grasped every bit of my attention. From the beautiful photography, to the moody music, to the ever entertaining Val Kilmer sitting behind a desk ready to sign copies of a book that no one will ever read, this film was a delightful treat, and what I had built up in my mind the last couple months, this film delivered and then some. It is greatly entertaining, with elements of horror, comedy, mystery, and hints of David Lynch's Twin Peaks, it is a film I am proud to add to my collection. I don't like horror films, and this film is so much more than that. While, at times, the horror elements may have been a bit over whelming, the film changes pace just in time, just as you're about to be pulled out of your comfort zone, cringing and clinging to your sofa. So don't let the marketing turn you away.

This is a beautiful film, and wonderfully entertaining. If you're an on and off Coppola fan like me, a Tom Waits fan, or want to see the only good Val Kilmer performance of the last decade, I highly recommend this film. In a world full of recycled ideas and unknown and untalented directors, how a little gem like this directed by the great FFC went so long without distribution is beyond me. Do yourself a favor and watch this film.

Subtle. This film is not it.

[mattbaxter72 · 4/10 · 15 September 2012]

If you're going to watch this movie, it's best to forget who the director is. Yes, Francis Ford Coppola has made some of the greatest films of all time, but that was a very long time ago; in fact, the last time he made a horror movie was nearly fifty years ago (Dracula, which was a bizarre costume drama, doesn't count). So you have to put all that out of your mind, and pretend that this thing was directed by someone you've never heard of, and have no expectations.

And it's still terrible. As Val Kilmer drives into the Mysterious Little Town where all dodgy horror movies take place, an ominous music track rises to a crescendo, a crow caws and somewhere in the distance, an actual bell tolls. Subtlety, what's that? Just in case you couldn't work it out, a voice-over tells us that something evil is occurring - the proof being that the town clock doesn't work properly. I only wish I was making that up, or the CHORD OF DOOM that strikes when the camera focuses on - a bird house! An evil bird house, obviously, with evil, demon-possessed sparrows inside it.

Well, all right, that's the opening five minutes. The movie does settle down after that, and, well, the cinematography is nice. Coppola still knows how to frame a shot, and it's all lusciously printed on proper film stock. It's horribly written, edited and scored, but the film stock is nice. To put it mildly, that doesn't make up for the film's problems, including a plot involving an Evil Vicar that is frankly idiotic.

Worst of all is the acting. You could almost believe that the actors here are in some kind of twisted competition to give the most lifeless performance possible - yes, even Bruce Dern - but you simply can't beat Val Kilmer in a competition like that. As with many of his recent performances, he seems to be asleep on his feet for most of this thing. But, just when you think he's giving the most awful performance of the movie, along comes his ex wife, Joanne Whalley, to steal the bad acting crown from under his nose. If you've wondered why she doesn't do many movies any more, this film will explain everything.

A couple of last things. Elle Fanning's character seems to be an, ah, object of affection for a good few characters in this movie. She is about twelve. The constant references to how pretty she is are seriously gross.

Secondly, there's a plot twist that references something that happened in Coppola's own personal life, which is *really* uncomfortable, especially in a cheesy horror movie. Maybe Coppola thought this film would be a lot more profound than it actually is. Maybe he should give up on the movies, and go back to making wine.

Atmospheric and macabrely beautiful, but not for everyone.

[wayward_philosopher · 7/10 · 3 January 2014]

Based on other reviews, I really thought this movie would be more confusing than it was. Perhaps the version on Netflix was different than the theatrical release. To be sure, there was some confusion and vagueness. But at the end, I was able to construct an explanation in my mind that, even if it may not have been the director's intent, satisfied me enough to get over it and focus on what did work. And what worked, really worked!

First, the movie was beautifully shot,wonderfully atmospheric and deliciously Gothic and macabre. Val Kilmer gave a solid, nuanced performance, even if it wasn't his very best. The supporting cast also turned in excellent performances. And I found the Edgar Allen Poe plot device, which could have been cheesy and tiresome, really worked, and helped weave several story lines together, not literally, but in a touching and tragically poetic way.

Still, this movie is probably not for everyone. If you want a more straightforward crime thriller or horror/slasher flick ('cause there's never plot holes in slasher flicks), this is probably not the film for you. But if you can tolerate a little ambiguity in favor of great atmosphere and certain kind of macabre poetry and beautifully Gothic visuals, then you may just find this surprisingly enjoyable and worth your while.

Twixt

[dario_malic · 3/10 · 7 July 2012]

Failed writer of witchcraft novels named Hall Baltimore comes to a small American city on his book-signing tour. There he meets a local sheriff and finds out about the mass murder that happened some years ago, one murder that happened recently (or so it seems), the clock with seven faces all showing different times and vampire (or not) kids across the lake. He decides to stay and write a new novel about all of that. Helped in his dreams by Edgar Allan Poe and a dead girl, and haunted by the memories of his deceased daughter, he tries to unravel the mysteries surrounding him and find an ending to his story.

That's the plot of a low-budget, poorly acted and very dull movie named „Twixt", which looks like a work of an amateur. Does that sound like a Francis Ford Coppola movie to you? Didn't think so. But it is. And I can't help myself asking: „Why?" Trying to find an answer to that question I listened to some interviews with FFC and found out the following. The idea for this movie came to Coppola in a dream after some excessive drinking, or so he says. It makes sense because the movie looks like a dream of a opiate-influenced man. It also seems he shot a lot of material and plans to tour the movie showing it every time a little different and with live music, trying to make a unique experience out of it, similar to watching some theatrical play or going to a concert. That idea is interesting but for it to succeed the movie has to be good, and this one isn't. Maybe because of the scenes that were left out, or just because the script is bad, towards the end it begins to make less and less sense. And when the writer in the movie creates his bullet-proof ending, the one the audience gets is full of holes.

It's obvious Coppola tries to tackle a lot of things here. Grief, guilt, death, fear of the unknown, the process of writing, the inability to move on (with the story and with the life), artist's inspiration, religious fanaticism, responsibility and probably a few more. And it's a commendable intention. But the feeling is you're watching some kid's work, who has interesting ideas but doesn't know how to make a decent movie out of them, which is very surprising considering Coppola's resume. It's a movie that can make you think, but doesn't give you a reason to. And that's a shame.

http://onlineimpressions.blogspot.com/

A Hauntingly Beautiful Piece

[jackmanandpigeonboy · 8/10 · 4 April 2013]

First thing is first. Do Not go into this movie expecting Godfather or Apocalypse now material. Those were Coppola's masterpieces and no one will ever make anything quite like those films. Okay? Okay.

I have been waiting for this film for quite the while. I saw the trailer when it came out and was very excited. It was a long and hard search to find this film but I found it eventually. My hopes had been really high since the trailer, but then I saw some of the reviews which just had nothing but awfulness to offer this film. So I lowered my expectations, and still watched it only to be confused. Not by the film itself, but by the fact that it got bad reviews and ratings. I could see what some people didn't like about it, but I didn't notice anything that would have given such an undeserved wave of hate.

I think that this movie is good for people who appreciate obscurity and uncertainty in films. Most of these are hardcore film buffs. This film was very visually fantastic and was very haunting from the start. Val Kilmer surprised me with his acting in this one. He was cocky, depressed, and stressed all at once. Bruce Dern as the kooky sheriff was great as well. All of the cast did good, and same goes for the directing.

In the movie Val kilmer starts to have these dreams, and my god these dream sequences are glorious. They are visually very pretty yet spooky. The encounters with people are creepy and quirky. Even the scenes in which he is awake share the same qualities, but there just not as intense. The story felt like homage to Gothic horror films, and there was some vampire content in it. Francis Ford Coppola has been making more personal films, and yes it's noticeable. In a specific scene, I won't reveal, was not really needed and felt like a filler.

This movie sort of feels like a really cool dream. Which makes sense knowing that Coppola got the idea from a dream which might throw some of you off, but I loved this film and recommend to all.

Val Kilmer's return to form

[alex-moreton · 7/10 · 13 April 2014]

Very strange the reviews I am reading about this film, and the harsh criticism towards the director Francis Ford Coppola. I believe they are not happy with his change of genre, it was a very unlike Francis Ford Coppola type film but also a brilliant debut in the Horror/Thriller category for him.

The acting was brilliant, a return to form for Val Kilmer, a typical reliable performance from Bruce Dern as the small town Sheriff and a good performance by Ben Chaplin as Edgar Allen Poe. Also narrated by Tom Waites.

The music was haunting and the dream sequences were very well done.

One I would deffinatley watch again.

At this point, Coppola and Kilmer deserve each other.

[ADaemonIsBorn · 4/10 · 16 August 2013]

I don't write many reviews, only making time to get behind the keyboard when I found a movie to be especially poor or strong while seeing that my opinion differs significantly from the on-line consensus.

"Twixt" was heralded as a return to F. F. Coppola's roots, having begun his career with genre fare such as "Dementia 13" and "The Terror". Critics however forget to mention that these flops would have been deservedly forgotten if their director had not gone on to produce the fine works of art he is revered for today.

At this point, Francis Ford Coppola and Val Kilmer deserve each other. Both washed up artists having suppressed whatever talent they had due to excessive substance abuse, these two gentlemen have become increasingly inconsequential since the 1990s. Coppola now only makes movies to please himself, sacrificing the most basic cinematic quality control for a "fix it in the mix" mentality. He can, of course, afford all the CGI tomfoolery he wants. Kilmer, on the other hand, has wandered out of breath and red-faced from one paycheck to the next for well over ten years now; the toll of his personal life has become painfully clear in his physique.

Their collective stab at Gothic horror is a spectacular failure due to plot holes, sub-par performances, amateurish sound mixing and some of the most god awful CGI image doctoring you'll ever see in mainstream cinema. The only thing "Twixt" has going for it is the presence of Kilmer, who as usual stumbles sleepy-eyed through sets and dialogs - and yet still manages to invoke some of the mesmerizing charm that made him so popular in his heyday. Like an old lion shunned by his pride, he's only looking for an easy meal ticket. He has my sympathies.

Apparently other reviewers consider "Twixt" to be a gem of art-house cinema, a cult classic in the making, a "difficult" movie that is "not for everyone". They even find similarities to David Lynch' work, e.g. "Twin Peaks". Not so, dear friends: Coppola's latest is a stinker, a dud, a bomb. It is neither for fans of mainstream cinema nor for fans of the horror genre.

Be warned.