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.
"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.