Touches You

Good concept, poorly executed.

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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 first learned of this movie when digging through my local Wal- Mart's $5 DVD bin. When I came across a copy, I thought to myself, "A new Francis Ford Coppola movie? Why haven't I heard of this movie before?" There were some obvious clues I subsequently saw - not only was the movie a direct to DVD release, it starred the washed up Val Kilmer, who isn't exactly associated with quality productions nowadays. So there was no way I was going to pay $5 to see this movie. But I subsequently found it in my neighborhood video store available for less than $2, so I decided to rent it.I will say this about the movie: If Coppola was trying to capture what a dream or nightmare can be like, there are times when he does manage to recreate the feeling. And the movie is so strange, throwing in everything from vampires to Edgar Allan Poe, that you can't help but keep watching in order to see how things will be wrapped up. However, the wrap up is kind of a cheat, if you ask me, and it wasn't worth the wait. It doesn't help that Kilmer's character is kind of unsympathetic, which may explain why Kiler's performance as this lead character is unenthusiastic, to put it kindly. To sum up, I don't think the movie is worth anyone's time, whether they are a fan of Coppola or not.(P.S. - The "R" rating slapped on this movie by the MPAA seems a bit harsh. There is some bloody violence, but I think the movie deserves more of a PG-13 rating.)

Aging writer Hall Baltimore (Val Kilmer) visits the small New England town of while on an unpopulated book tour. The local Sheriff (Bruce Dern) informs Baltimore of a possible serial murder in town, trapping Baltimore in a dream-state where he digs up the town's past and its connection to a haunted hotel and Edgar Allen Poe. Some scenes in "Twixt" are imaginative and enthralling, while others are uninspired and bland. Half of the movie has the audience on the edge of their seats, and the rest has them checking their watches. Val Kilmer's performance is bizarre. When he's in the film's reality, he's mailing it in. But when he's in the film's dream-state, he's captivating. Perhaps that is the point. A particularly cooky performance from Bruce Dern kept me watching. But Elle Fanning does the best acting in the film, even though she's not in it much. Probably the weirdest part of the film is the soundtrack. It goes from sad piano solo to Blue Man group in the same scene, and as a result much of the tone trying to be established is either done badly or just gone. Overall, a pretty uninteresting but watchable movie for its weirdness. It's worth trying out, but if your attention isn't grabbed in the first half hour, it's worth seeing what else is on.

A writer in a declining career arrives in a small town as part of his book tour and gets caught up in a murder mystery involving a young girl. That night in a dream, he is approached by a mysterious ghost. He's unsure of her connection to the murder in the town, but is grateful for the story being handed to him. He is led to the truth of the story, surprised to find that the ending has more to do with his own life than he could ever have anticipated....If you expect a comeback of sorts from Coppola, stay away, it's not in the same league of any if his greats, this was more of an experiment for him in editing, that went a bit awry.But saying that, its a strange little film that harks of Twin Peaks merged with The Company Of Wolves, If written by Stephen King. In fact, there are lots of elements that are familiar in the narrative.A sleepy town has a secret uncovered, when a writer comes to town, it's been done before, and had me thinking of Misery, The Shining, and Secret Window.But the story isn't really the important part of the film ironically, it's the cinematography and the wonderful, boozy dream sequences Kilmer has that makes this the curious piece that it is.Its a predictable enough story, fused with bizarre but brilliant things, Poe popping up every now and again, and the brilliant inclusion of Whalley as Kilmer's long suffering wife.So all in all, its nothing brilliant, amazing to look at, and very bizarre, but homaging Stephen King a little too much.