Can someone explain the movie to me?
I wanted to like but was lost. I think it was trying to be artsy and I hate those films.
Nothing wrong with artsy. It's the "trying" part that is grating. Watch, by contrast, Coppola's effortless "Dracula" - art almost without trying.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
Really? I found Dracula very overblown, he was trying too hard.. Godfather 1 & 2 and Apocalypse Now were his career highs I think, from the 90s on, eh..
After watching Twixt I wondered why he bothered.. I doubt it was a money thing, certainly not much to be made here, and as for "art" this just felt like a really jumbled made-for-cable movie, not something I can imagine him putring his all into.
Maybe he's just bored?
http://www.SunbeltRyders.com
"I think it was trying to be artsy and I hate those films."
I'll bet you're excited about the new Godzilla film. Lots of shiny things and explosions and gunfire.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Dracula was a pretty straight forward narrative. What was overblown? It was ambitious and maybe didn't quite get to where he waned it to be, but it was not overblown.
I don't think he was trying to be artsy. But more like experimenting. And with that, he could have found something new, or he could have a mess he didn't know what to do with.
Hope he got something out of this little exercise and use it in his future films that's not so experimental. But that was a pain to watch for us audience.
Well, Dracula certainly is a different beast artistically than, say, Apocalypse or the first two Godfather films...but there's such poise and confidence behind the experimentation you speak of - that's a true artist at work. Whether or not it is deemed pretentious is a director's nightmare (Coppola himself says more or less this in that doc Hearts of Darkness), but a little confidence goes a long, long ways when one is experimenting with film. Dracula wowed us to a degree - Coppola knew we'd be seeing things we'd never seen before, but that weren't elusive to an audience, either.
Twixt's biggest problem was that it was utterly closed off from its audience. It's the sort of film Coppola could have made and then not distributed. It feels like a film for him alone - almost like he forgot there was going to be an audience at all. When Scorsese made Raging Bull, he strongly considered not releasing it. Turns out the images and ideas in that film were and still are mysterious and fascinating, but not completely closed off from interpretation. With Twixt, if Coppola said it was a film for himself and should not have been distributed or seen, I'd bet we could look at the film with new eyes. But since we're expected to sort of meet Coppola somewhere in the world he created here, it is equivalent to him giving us a map to a buried treasure but forgetting he forgot to bury the treasure.
Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -
I enjoyed "Twixt" more than not, even if it was a tad messy and occasionally head-scratching, but I think your analysis here is fairly accurate. A very personal film to be sure, almost to the point of being hermetic.
share