Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Powerful

How sad is this?

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Watching Coppola's "One From The Heart" feels more like a selection of cheesy 80s music videos put behind Tom Waits decent soundtrack instead of a film. The plot is very strange and doesn't really go anywhere.

I had been wanting to see this movie for years, but it never played on television and none of the video stores in my city got the special edition DVD when it came out. Today I found a copy of the movie for $3, and I brought it home and watched it. I tried to watch this movie without thinking of the bad reviews I had previously read, but it didn't take long for me to realize the critics were right. This isn't a very good movie. Yes, the look of the movie, totally constructed on sound- stages, looks fantastic. But the streets and buildings look so much like the real thing that one has to wonder why Coppola simply didn't shoot on the actual locations. It certainly would have been a lot cheaper. But there are additional problems that sink the movie. The two lead characters (played by Garr and Forrest) are really thin. We learn next to nothing about them, and the fact they can suddenly break up after five years of supposed happiness - and try to hook up with other people after hours from the breakup - doesn't make them people you can relate to or have sympathy with. Another big problem is with the Tom Waits songs. They ALL SOUND THE SAME! It gets tiring really quickly listening to one song after the other. The icing on the cake is the supposed happy ending, which feels just as phony as the lead characters and their relationship. With Coppola directing and co-writing the movie, most of the blame for this movie's failure has to fall on his shoulders. This project put him in heavy debt for years afterwards, which shows that there is some justice in this world.

Most general accounts of Francis Ford Coppola's work have identified recurrent familial themes, while visually he has come to be understood as something of a guru of the extravagant. However, neither of these positions is entirely sustainable across an oeuvre that on closer inspection discloses considerable formal and thematic scope. If Coppola had by the close of the 1970s figured, understandably enough, that his career was blessed, this, his next venture, would bring about a very hasty and categorical fall from grace. Initially conceived as a modest antidote to the excesses of Apocalypse Now, the project ballooned into an experiment of gargantuan, tragic proportions that subsequently marked an immediate shift in his career to more modest productions.This Oscar-nominated Vegas-set semi-musical, which led to Coppola's bankruptcy, is an intriguing production but not a good film. From Coppola, the inspired mastermind of The Conversation, Apocalypse Now and the Godfather films, it's a foremost letdown. A movie's innovative technical process is indeterminate. Movies make or break as per the substance of their material. The most miserable thing about this lavish exercise in style is that it has none. It's a tango of elegant and byzantine camera movements filling wonderful sets, and the characters get completely misplaced in the thick. There's never a second in this film when I'm concerned about what's happening to the people in it, and but one moment, a cameo by Allen Goorwitz as a furious coffee shop owner, when I feel that an actor's artlessness successfully slips past Coppola's suffocating panache and into the audience.The raconteur of The Godfather turns into a pure technician here. There are unsettling congruences between Coppola's fanatical command of this film and the character of Harry Caul, the wiretapper in Coppola's The Conversation, who cared solely about technical outcomes and declined to let himself consider human ones. Movies are innumerable different things, but most of the best ones are about and for people, and this unmistakably hallucinatory and dreamlike piece of filmmaking takes little notice of the difficulties of the human spirit. Certainly, it appears virtually on the lookout against the actors who inhabit its painstakingly designed scenes. They're scarcely ever permitted to lead. They're figures in a larger blueprint, one that ebbs them, that views them as part of the furnishings. They aren't offered many close-ups. They're frequently suffused in loud red glimmering or overpowering blues and greens. They're positioned before off-puttingly glitzy sets or adrift shoddily stage-managed hordes. And occasionally they're interrupted at the heart of a sentiment because the uncompromisingly planned camera has affairs elsewhere.I've forgotten, indeed, to mention the players, or who they play. That's not so much of an omission talking about a film like this. The two leads, the sexier-than-ever Teri Garr and the forgettable-as-ever Frederic Forrest occupy a Las Vegas of regret, languor, and glitzy lights. For a short time, they spring from their monotonous lives and meet new lovers, Raul Julia and Natassja Kinski, who string them along with flights of the imagination. In effect, Coppola's telling the simple story of a break-up but with the hyper-romantic lusciousness of the emotions we feel in those times, which is cool, until it becomes an unmotivated, auto-pilot story upstaged by its own, well, stages.There are trivial amusements in this movie. One is Harry Dean Stanton's phone-in as a sleazy junkyard owner, while Coppola defies showing us Stanton's most valuable instrument, his telling eyes. Kinski, as a circus tightrope walker, has a pretty decent blip on the radar when she explains "to make a circus girl disappear, all you have to do is blink." Garr is endearing, but her role makes her unrewardingly submissive, and Forrest is more or less transparent here, playing such a nonentity. Ho hum.

--- Spoilers ---I bought the DVD of this film 4$ on the web and boy, what a disappointment even for such a bargain... It's long, it's boring, it's too colorful and bright, it lacks rhythm and emotions, and to top it all, it doesn't even have this strange dark glow that gives some movies an intact power 30 years after their release ("Blade Runner" for example), a glow that could be a definition of what viewers call "cult status". It's been completely forgotten.The making-of on the second DVD is more interesting than the motion picture itself, and it explains a lot about this big fiasco.Back in 1982, Francis Ford Coppola was one of the jewels shining on the crown of the New Hollywood era, along with Spielberg, Lucas, De Palma and so, thinking it was maybe the dawn of something big. It was not, and the sun was about to go down on him.By something big, I think he wanted to build, inside Zooetrope Studios, a safe haven for filmmakers, far away from major studios and tycoon producers who were then rushing from professional domains like banking, industry, big corporations, anything but movie making, to make big Hollywood dollars.A touching moment from the documentary shows accomplished directors like Steven Spielberg, Jean-Luc Godard and others, partying and having cocktails among fans and Coppola's family members... Another one shows an aerial view of the studios alleys, named "Frederico Fellini street" or "Nino Rota street". Yeah, the dream had almost come true, as for those amazed kids allowed to visit the stages for an afternoon.But Coppola is definitely a man of movies, an "artist" - I mean a man of arts, who lives by Art, certainly not a business man. Looking at his distraught face when he announces to the press that his N-th investor just backed out his financial support, which meant for him the need to contract even more debts to finish "One from the heart" is kinda sad because it's the face of a dream wrecked on the shores of reality.To live thru this even more intensely, he'll have built more and more stages, more and more cranes, he'll have hired more and more extras, dancers, to create his "Citizen Kane", his Xanadu, his Disneyland, a runaway straight forward, without any decent script, a cast incompatible with a love story (average Frederic Forrest and unattractive Teri Garr), a gifted composer (Tom Waits) who doesn't even seem to understand the purpose of the whole project.The critics will be a blood bath, the audience won't follow, the movie will bomb. Not even a compensation : Francis Ford Coppola's ideas will be stolen for more than a decade to be recycled in 99% of the MTV music videos...It was in 1982 and Gondry, Burton, etc... had yet to catch on. Coppola started his purgatory journey, selling Zooetrope back lot, falling down from acclaimed "Apocalypse Now" director and independent studio owner to contract director, shooting impersonal movies for others, while Star Wars 7 or Indy 2 were making billions.Life is hard with poets.