Twixt

"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.

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.

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.

I'm so surprised by the low ratings. This is exactly what I look for in a surreal murder mystery. Now I'm going to have to go back and watch Twixt. All the actors are fantastic and timeless while invoking classic literature, such as Edgar Allan Poe's style.

Hopefully B'Twixt will open this classic to a wider audience, I'm sure there are a lot of people who would appreciate this film, and give it the recognition it deserves.

I love the dreamy flow of the story. I can't think of anything that resembles B'Twixt, it's funny and spooky. The camera work and editing makes it an ethereal journey from beginning to end.

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