bluecoldpeace Ford Copola,God bless the man! has made an dream, a nightmare if I want to be specific. This movie is a surrealistic piece of art that can hide behind it as an excuse for violating the movie norms like plot, the form, and the concept of time in a motion picture. It is better to say he wants to experience and challenge himself as a classical director. So, yeah! this is not a movie you want to watch with bunch of kids or your girl friend as a entertaining or romantic memory, and this is cause of this poor rating in IMDB for this movie, but if you understand the art as a course in the college you sure will thanks the old Francis for making this one.Music is incredible, plot is great and more complex to catch up, and cinematography is a highlight to mention.

hal-reg If you like your films to come with a plot written out in large crayon letters then this isn't for you. It is twisted and deliberately confusing - though not so much you can't see what is going on if you pay attention. It is more intriguing than creepy, and I thought a good evocation of the atmosphere and experience it was trying to capture (an experience which most films miserably fail to achieve). Val Kilmer plays his part very well. I felt rather sorry for Joanne Whalley - an important bit part in the story, but not really present in person (one step up from an off-stage voice). It's the sort of film where you wonder afterwards if the bits you thought were straightforward were actually references and metaphors. The weakest part of the story was the group of young Goths/neo-pagan camped out on the far side of the lake. Although they were a necessary plot device, and foil to the complacent contentment of the town, they seem rather 2-dimensional.

jonathanruano "Twixt" could be confused for any direct to TV movie, except for the fact that the great (or rather once great) Francis Ford Coppola directed and produced it and the gifted actor Val Kilmer starred in the title role. The film is basically a lame murder mystery in a small town (because all murders and supernatural phenomena happen in obscure, small towns, don't you know!), replete with tormented spirits coming back from the dead, a weary novelist searching for inspiration (Val Kilmer looks so uninspired and miserable playing this novelist that he makes us, the audience, feel miserable), and an old crusty sheriff who wants to be the title character in the novelist's new book.Given the film's formulaic and boring plot, what I would like to see is a documentary on the story conferences for Twixt. I cannot imagine Coppolla directing this movie in the 1970s, when he was operating at the peak of his abilities. Back then, he had too many good ideas for great movies to bother directing a film based on a dreary and uninspired premise. So what convinced this director that "Twixt" was a film-able concept and to write a large cheque to finance it. I do not even think Coppolla would even invest money into such a film, if a director approached him with a script on this very topic. Yet thirty-seven years after directing the brilliant Godfather Part II, Coppolla personally directs this unworthy garbage. I would also like to know what convinced Val Kilmer, who was great in "Thunderheart" and "The Doors," to star in a move that gave him zero opportunity to exploit his gifts as an actor. Was he so enthralled by the prospect of working with the great Coppolla that he didn't read through the script and wonder whether he really wanted his name associated with this boring project? Or maybe Kilmer just took the money and ran, like some other actors did when they trashed their careers on mindless films (Burt Reynolds and Whoopi Goldberg are two good examples) like this one. The only semi-bright light in this whole movie is the spirit of the tormented girl, played by Dakota Fanning. But one wonders if Fanning deserved a more complicated role that could really transform her into a big star. In closing, Twixt is not only a bad film, but also an unnecessary film with nothing flesh or interesting to say and certainly not a film worth seeing.

anyhowever My first impression while watching the movie was that it is a poorly made, surreal nightmare.... a movie possessing captivating visual effects and an intriguing setting which are wasted on a nonsensical plot.But after seeing the recurring reference to a child lost in a boating accident, an accident not unlike the one that claimed Coppola's own son, I realized the movie was likely Coppola's expression of the personal hell that he has gone through. With that perspective in mind, I had a better appreciation of the story.Unfortunately, many viewers will not be familiar with the tragedy in Coppola's life and the meaning will fly over their heads. For many of the uninformed viewers, I am afraid they will have the same impression that I initially had.