User Reviews (97)

Add a Review

  • I have never been in the United States, least of all in New York. But through some directors' works I have built up an image of the city that never sleeps that's made of jazz, petty crooks and gangsters, Godard-lovers, intellectual wanna-be socialite... For all I know, New York is what can be seen through the eyes of Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese... and Francis Ford Coppola.

    I would pretty much compare ONE FROM THE HEART to Allen's MANHATTAN, in the sense that both are new-yorkers visions of romance and beauty, filtered through a broadway theatrical and glamorous sensibility. This film, however, unlike MANHATTAN, isn't about New York. It's about spining through the spotlights of a city that parties all night long (cabarets, jazz, dance and magical flirts), only to realize that in the end, it's going to be your simple significant other waiting for you in the backstage.

    The staging of the whole movie helps a lot, in the sense that's it's all filmed in studio. Magical skies and dawns that make it easy to pass from a store-window directly to a sunset in Bora-Bora; lust and life and music in what I would consider the last great musical. Every once in a while, Coppola gives us a glimpse of his more passionate side. This would then be the sunny side of the melancholic DRACULA.

    Add to the magical staging the nightly cabaret-like musical score by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle and one can't help but be amazed with it all. And I thought I was surprised by Woody Allen's EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU.

    If this is the way new-yorkers see life, that's the city I want to live in.
  • There are times a movie's style can overcome it's lack of substance. But not this time. When this movie was released back in the early 80s, it was the eagerly anticipated 'gamechanger' from the maestro himself. Coppola's novel approach to directing and editing using cutting edge technology (at the time) would revolutionize the art of film making. Instead, it was a commercial flop. Audiences found a shallow beauty. A gorgeous girl with clever quips and opening lines, but no real depth or heart.

    The biggest problem for me was that the story feels so disjointed. It's a series of beautiful looking vignettes held together by a paper thin plot and flat two dimensional characters. A lot of the scenes feel stilted and over-rehearsed. There's no spontaneity or life.

    It's not a complete waste of time, however. It is a beautiful looking movie. Terri Garr and Natasia Kinski look exquisite. There are a lot of interesting and eye catching touches. The set designs are works of art. You might like this if you are in the right mood, and want to see something different. But if you are looking for a coherent narrative, and engaging character development, you might want to pass.
  • jzappa29 April 2011
    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.
  • Yes, this movie did absolutely horrible in theaters when it was released in 1982. I saw it about 1984 on disk (CED) and was surprised. Along with the weird lighting (it was filmed on a HUGE sound stage) and strange character reactions....something in this move touched me deeply. Along with all of it I found a kernal....a morsel......some real gem that made this otherwise trite movie quite rich. Rich enough I saw the movie again....and am considering purchase of a copy.

    Apparently I am one of the 5% who actually LIKED the movie....who didn't demand their ticket money back.

    We DO exist, you know....
  • This is one of those rare movies where the cinematography (by the incomparable Vittorio Storaro) and the music (by the equally incomparable Tom Waits, probably his most beautiful bunch of songs and instrumentals ever recorded) warranted (and for the latter received) some Oscar nominations, while the script warranted a golden raspberry. Coppola decided to take a risk and experiment even further after Apocalypse Now- to go to something 'light' like musicals he directed in college after going through such a dark experience like A.N.- and in the process made something that, had it paradoxically been a silent film with most of the accompanying music, would've been a full-blown masterpiece. To say it's gorgeous to look at isn't suffice; anyone who has any interest in the abstract qualities that film can offer, the sublime levels of a "movie" in all its plastic qualities of lavish and stylized production design, ideas put into the construction of a world of fantasy with music, and bright primary colors and compositions that look like they're out of a dream, would have to make it a must-see.

    If it's necessarily a good movie is another matter. The problem is, as mentioned, when the characters have to read the lines, which have only so much development as a stunted fetus. Despite all the efforts put in by the unconventional leading players Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr, plus Raul Julia, Natassia Kinski, and Harry Dean Stanton in some clever and juicy supporting roles, and even a couple of moments of real, genuine heart and heartbreak (the latter being of note when Forrest tries to sing "You are my sunshine"), t's just too thin a story to nearly justify all the effort put into it. It makes it almost a frustrating experience to see it all unfold, as the little moments that the characters do connect are overshadowed by the moments of surrealism that Coppola can't pull off. Unlike Apocalypse Now where Coppola managed to equate the complex nature of the characters with he tremendous vision, here he can only do the latter.

    That being said, I wish it could've done a better at the box-office, if only had it been released as an art-house film, or (dare I say it) hadn't been so overblown with the finances in it, as it was the film that first put Coppola into chapter 11. However, anytime I want to hear the saddest songs of love recorded in the 80s I can always put on the soundtrack. And it provides more than a few moments of cinematography that will remain unparalleled in the years to come even as digital film grows stronger and film grows more obsolete. Bottom line, only Coppola could roll the dice on this one and almost make it a bona-fide classic.
  • Canhenha4 February 2004
    I have to start by saying that I've had this film on videotape for so long and have seen it so many times that I believe the tape must be damaged by now. I'm a huge fan of Francis Ford Coppola's films, not only his "Godfather" films, but also what he has produced in the 80's and 90's. "One from the Heart" stands as one of most beautiful and poetic art pieces I've seen, ever. He created an entire world on set, something that resembles Vegas, but that I feel, extends a bit beyond that, someplace where love does exist (and Frederic Forrest and Terri Garr are great, because they do represent the average man and woman that want to surpass their mediocrity and have the dream, represented by the late Raul Julia and the gorgeous Nastassja Kinski). The beautiful score by Tom Waits, and the entire dance acts are so wonderfully entwined, that it's impossible not to feel the taste of real cinema there. The cinematography is stunning and I can only sum this up by saying that this film is an incredible experience to watch. Please do so.
  • "One from the Heart" is the story of two kindred spirits that have to get through a separation just to find out that they belong to each other. I'm sure that many of you have had similar experiences, don't you? It is also a celebration of the Broadway performances, and of the old school cinema, when everything was hand-made. In the background we hear the voices of Tom Waits and Cristal Gayle singing and narrating what we're watching in the screen (or what we're going to watch...) on a jazz or a blues beat.

    They made a huge work of edition here and the photography is just awesome (it's no surprise, anyway, for it was Vicente Storaro the one who photographed it).

    As for the cast, Terri Garr's performance is just awesome and she looks so sexy (too bad she wasted her talent in second rate comedies), and the eyes of Nastassja Kinski are the most beautiful you'll ever see.

    Viva Las Vegas!!! My rate: 7/10
  • Many film fans are keenly aware of the circumstances surrounding Francis Coppola's "One From the Heart." It was the first film to launch his self financed Zoetrope Studios. He recruited many of the industries best and brightest for the production. It was Coppola's follow up to the legendary "Apocalypse Now." The film was supposed to mark a new direction for filmmaking as a whole. Zoetrope was to be a place where directors and storytellers could produce their films without studio interference. The artists would control the medium, not the business men. And with "One From the Heart", Coppola's dream came to a thundering halt after just one movie. Though not as well known, it stands along side "Heaven's Gate" as a film that proved that the wonder directors of the 70's would not be given the keys to the castle. "Heart" was that once in a decade disaster and it's not hard to see why it was such an ignored film. It turns out that this story behind the film is far more interesting to follow than the film itself.

    "One From the Heart" is as stylized as films can come. Shot entirely on the sets at Zoetrope, "Heart" attempts to tell the story of Franny and Hank, a long together couple possibly nearing the end of their rope with one another. The couple calls it quits and they seek solitude in the arms of more adventuresome lovers for one night in an entirely reproduced Las Vegas. Coppola's decision to cast Frederic Forest and Teri Garr seems daring at first, almost brave. But casting two such down to Earth actors against the overwhelming design of "One From the Heart" leaves the two with nothing to do but drown under the neon cinematography. Garr and Forest give it a go, but their problems seem minor against the wave of the film itself. It's possible no two actors could've asserted themselves against this backdrop. Coppola has infused every shot in "Heart" with enough technique and design that he seems to have completely forgotten to add any element of genuine drama into the proceedings. The story never moves far beyond the 'will they stay together or break up' arc. It isn't without possibility, but it's more suited to a smaller more intimate scale, not the phantasmagoric, neon coated reality that constantly draws attention to itself that Coppola labors to construct. All the design is admirable and on occasion very gorgeous. But it won't take an astute viewer very long to see that "One From the Heart" is a film more intended to be looked at than actually watched. A technological achievement in filmmaking? Yes. A genuinely involving film? No.

    Despite disliking the film I'm glad to see it's finally available on DVD in a watchable format. Viewers can finally see this much maligned film for themselves and decide about its merits. The film is also noted for it's songs and score by Tom Waits and Crystal Gail.
  • When I went to see this movie I didn't expect much of it, but I was wrong. What we have here is a very good Francis Coppola's reinvention of a musical made in 1982. A beautifully filmed and well acted romantic film with wonderful music score and songs from Tom Waits, who was then nominated for Oscars in the Best Song category for this picture. "One from the Heart" was entirely filmed on Coppola's Zoetrope Studios, what brings to memory great movies of the Hollywood Studio Era. It really contributes perfectly to create "dreamy" mood of the film, it feels like a dream wondering through studio night Las Vegas probably as false as the real Las Vegas itself. And on this background we have a very simple and sweet romantic story of a love crisis in a relationship of a simple American couple wonderfully played by Terri Garr and Frederic Forrest. Perhaps it´s a kind of movie that you either love or hate. I loved it. 9/10
  • The art work is amazingly dazzling. I would watch the movie again just for the art alone. Much credit should be given to those who are involved in the art direction and the setting. Another bright side of the movie is the exotic appearance of the talented Nastassja Kinski. Her role was brief, much too brief. She light up the screen in those brief appearance. The scene of her dancing on the cocktail glass like a ballerina is worth a sight. She even give a nice small singing rendition, kinds of a reincarnation of Leslie Caron in her prime. Finally, the two male supporting roles of Raul Julia and Harry Dean Stanton were quite lively.

    Despite the incredible art work, the enchanting performance by Nastassja Kinski, and the worthy male supporting role performances, this is really not a good movie. With all due respect, Coppola did not have his touch in his directing job to make the story interesting. Although this is a musical, since the leading actor of Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr can't sing, most of the songs were background singing by Tom Waite and Crystal Gayle. The singing and the music were nice music, but at times distracting to the movie. The casting for the leads of Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr were really nothing to be brag about. The two supporting roles of Raul Julia and Nastasja Kinski would have made the better leads.
  • It's no wonder Zoetrope went bankrupt after this lavish, great-looking but bad-tasting bore of a film. Coppola had clearly lost his mind by this point (the APOCALYPSE NOW production, as we all know, is the most probable reason) and went way over-budget with the sets, etc. Yes, they look great, but great sets and cool camerawork can only take you so far. You need a script, too, and this film didn't really seem to have one. I can only think of one director who ever worked well without a script and that was Godard (see PIERROT LE FOU for a great example of spontaneous filmmaking).

    That said, some of the acting here is inspired, especially that of Frederic Forrest. Kinski is cute but dull, but here's an honest question - why is Teri Garr constantly getting naked in this film? I'd rather see Kinski sans clothing.

    One more caveat in this bad review: the opening title sequence is amazing.
  • chrisw-329 November 1998
    One of the most amazing accomplishments of a master filmmaker, Coppola built Las Vegas on a soundstage to achieve a deliberate level of artificiality. The story is "boy and girl fight, have flings and get back together"...a simple schematic to hang the visuals on.

    One has to pay attention to the songs by Tom Waits; half the plot is told by the lyrics. In addition to Frederic Forrest as the male lead "Hank" and Teri Garr as "Franny", Harry Dean Stantion as Hank's friend and Lanie Kazan as Franny's, and Raul Julia and Nastassja Kinski, Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle are a "greek chorus", commenting on the action and the inner thoughts of Hank and Franny.

    Coppola used a number of knock-out "in camera" effects, including scrims and half-silvered mirrors. Also, he worked closely with Sony to develop "Electronic Cinema" - this may be the first electronically edited film. He was roundly criticized for this at the time, but of course now virtually every film is electronically edited.

    This film was shot in 4:3, with prime lenses for amazing depth of field. It is optimally seen on a large projection screen.

    "One From The Heart" is one of my favorite films. It's not a conventional film, nor was it intended to be.
  • BandSAboutMovies22 April 2018
    Warning: Spoilers
    In his series, My Year of Flops, Nathan Rubin said, "It's telling that when a filmmaker succeeds in running his own studio, it's because he's learned to let his inner businessman veto his inner artiste. Coppola ran Zoetrope with his heart. It nearly destroyed him." One from the Heart wasn't just director Francis Ford Coppola's dream project. It was his way of saying to producers like Robert Evans, who Coppola famously warred with as he made The Godfather, "Hey. I don't need you. I can control costs and production and make a movie all on my own."

    Somehow, One from the Heart went from a personal love story to a $28 million dollar epic. It went from a movie to a Quixotic odyssey. Or was that 1979's Apocalypse Now, a film that went from Joseph Conrad cover version to a sprawling epic that nearly killed several of the people in its orbit? From typhoons to nervous breakdowns, actors getting replaced mid-production, Martin Sheen having a heart attack, Marlon Brando showing up out of shape and not ready to perform, Dennis Hopper high on drugs before disappearing for days in the jungle and so much more, the film was delayed and delayed and delayed. The director himself succinctly put it this way: "We were in the jungle, there were too many of us, we had access to too much money, too much equipment and little by little, we went insane." Yet the movie that emerged was a classic.

    Now that Coppola was making a movie on his own terms, the odds were higher than they'd ever been before. The film had to be a winner with the public's hearts, minds and wallets.

    Coppola wanted to create something that he called Electric Cinema (I've also heard it called Live Cinema). There would be long takes, performances that felt like they belonged on the theater stage and cameras that would shoot from every angle to ensure coverage so that Coppola's editing team could craft magic from the wealth of available film. This technique - which involves modern video editing years before it was used or even feasible - isn't something that Coppola has given up on. He was part of what is said to be "an ambitious "Distant Vision" project as a "live cinema" experiment at his alma mater, the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television" in 2016 and published a book, Live Cinema and Its Techniques, in 2017.

    Roger Ebert stated in his January 1, 1982 review, "Everybody knows that Coppola used experimental video equipment to view and edit his movie, sealing himself into a trailer jammed with electronic gear* so that he could see on TV what the camera operator was seeing through the lens. Of course, the film itself was photographed on the same old celluloid that the movies have been using forever; Coppola used TV primarily as a device to speed up the process of viewing each shot and trying out various editing combinations." In short, Coppola did exactly what every modern production does today, particularly commercial shoots, using a more advanced version of the Video Assist that Jerry Lewis claimed to have invented (in truth, Jim Songer was the patent holder, read more in this fascinating article).

    What emerged is a film that is just as much theater as it is a movie as it is live TV. It begins and ends with a curtain. And what is in-between is a mix between heartfelt passion and pure cinematic gloss. Everything that can be neon will be - even the names of the cast and crew. Yet the story that is told is between two people and could happen to anyone.

    This isn't the real Las Vegas, though. This is the Vegas of movies, of dreams, of what Vegas feels like but can't be. It's a world where the music of Crystal Gayle and Tom Waits provide their voices, as the film becomes a musical. Kind of. Sort of.

    Hank (Frederic Forrest, The Rose, Apocalypse Now) and Frannie (Teri Garr, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Young Frankenstein) are a couple who've been together too long. Five years too long. They're sick of one another, they've left another one too many times and now, this is the end of their story.

    They spend their fifth anniversary with their dream lovers. Hank falls for Leila, who is youth and beauty and pure sex (it's no accident that Nastassja Kinski plays her). Frannie picks the dark, handsome and mysterious Ray (Raul Julia, who I really don't want to say is also in Street Fighter, but he was), a man who will give her what she always wanted: he will sing to her.

    It's not enough for Hank, who tracks down Frannie and tells her that he loves her, but she refuses his advances. He even follows her to the airport, where she is due for Bora Bora with her new lover, ready to leave reality behind for a life of idyllic passion. He tries to sing to her in his cracked voice but leaves in tears.

    Back in their broken home, he's lost, but she comes home to him, realizing that they are meant to be together.

    My question is, "Why?" The film never shows us why the real world is better than a dream. Would you choose a ramshackle house and a life of arguments over dancing with Julia or a neon sign graveyard with Kinski gyrating against a Technicolor sky? No. You wouldn't.

    That's my main issue with One from the Heart. Its heart seems in the wrong place, that these two mismatched souls belong together when the film repeatedly shows us that no, they belong with their fantasies.

    Another nod to the stage is that the film features understudies, including Rebecca De Mornay. I'd also be remiss if I didn't call out one of the best parts of the film - Harry Dean Stanton, who elevates every single piece of film he ever wandered into. Here, he's the owner of the neon graveyard.

    What amazes me is that Coppola would try to direct another musical, particularly after his work on 1968's Finian's Rainbow led many in Hollywood to brand him as someone who was hard to work with and hard to keep on budget. Again, I turn to the superior words of Nathan Rabin, who had this to say about the film: "As Coppola tells it on Finian's Rainbow's shockingly candid audio commentary, he was the wrong man for the job in every conceivable way. Coppola fancied himself a New Wave-style auteur. Warner Bros saw him as a cheap gun-for-hire."

    While One to the Heart was intended as a small follow-up to Apocalypse Now, obviously things didn't turn out that way. For Coppola, it meant going back to the studio system. Every movie he made for almost two decades - The Outsiders, The Godfather: Part III, Jack, The Rainmaker and even a return to working with Robert Evans (this one's a whole other tale in and out of itself) on The Cotton Club was all to pay back the debts from this film.

    Should you see it? You better after I wrote over 1,200 words about it! But seriously, the color palette of this film is something you won't see outside of Suspiria. It's a music video in an era where that art form was still growing. And it informs later works like Bram Stoker's Dracula, which is even more overt in its reference to the works of Mario Bava than simply loving his brighter color choices. And if you watch this on DVD, you even get the choice to simply watch the musical numbers, which may improve on the film for some.

    *Indeed, Coppola would direct a lot of the film from "The Silver Fish, a mobile HQ, fully equipped with a kitchenette, espresso machine and onboard Jacuzzi," which had a loudspeaker that he could issue orders from. Insane. And by insane, I mean brilliance.
  • gregory-joulin11 February 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    --- 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.
  • jbels30 January 2003
    Maybe this isn't a masterpiece, but this Las Vegas musical shot entirely on a soundstage was wildly underrated. The film is as daring as any of Coppola's other works. With enjoyable performances and the great Tom Waits/Crystal Gayle songs, slick camera work and colorful neon, there was no reason for this film to get kicked as hard as it did. Who know, maybe it is a masterpiece.
  • jpintar21 February 2004
    This movie is very weird. The movie is well made, with great sets and production design. The music is also very good. Teri Garr is excellent. Frederic Forest is miscast as her boyfriend. Raul Julia is simply a stereotypical Latin lover. The making of material is better than the movie itself. The movie is watchable, but the making of the movie is more interesting. 6/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This film has always been a favorite. My wife and I have worn out two video versions over the years, as well as a copy of the soundtrack LP (being big Tom Waits fans also). Needless to say, we were thrilled to see it finally come out on DVD. What a joke. Somewhere along the line Coppola must have decided that it could be improved upon, and managed to destroy it in the process. From the opening scenes it's a mess. The music has even been relocated. In the original version there's very little dialog needed in the beginning because the song lyrics perfectly describe what's going on. Not any more. Not only do the lyrics no longer match what's happening on the screen, but there's even dialog on top of the lyrics in spots. Scenes were added that actually take away from the film while a few favorite spots have been cut out. One truly bad judgment call is where there was a love scene with Teri Garr and Raul Julia followed by one with Fredric Forrest and Nastassja Kinski. In the new "improved" version it cuts back and forth between the two scenes like the viewers attention span must not be long enough to remember what happened last. There are also some harsh scene cuts now in the film that weren't there in the original (including one extra bad one where the music is abruptly cut off). One of the most impressive things about the original release was the way the film flowed from beginning to end much like a stage play. That's gone. One thing I can't figure out is the other reviewers of this film that are watching the DVD copy after seeing it on video, yet none of them seem to notice the difference. How is that possible? If the DVD version had been the original release back in 1982, I wouldn't be writing this now. I would have only seen the film once, and would have forgotten it immediately. In spite of the unfair rap this film got in the beginning, I've always defended it as one of Coppola's best works. He gambled and lost everything on this film including his studio complex in the process. It took many years and films to pay back the debts, but the end result was a cinematic beauty that stood on it's own merits. Sadly, what's left of it can't even do that now. I give the original release a rating of 10, but the new version isn't worth rating at all.
  • Since it opened on Valentine's day, 1982, One From the Heart was among my top 10 flicks. Indeed, I kept an old Betamax alive for years simply so I could view my tape copy. For a decade, I've eagerly anticipated a definitive re-mastered DVD release.

    I'm still waiting. As other reviewers have noted, the DVD contains only a directors cut -- without even the option to view the original release -- that utterly undermines everything exciting and magical about the movie. Ten years of waiting turned into ten frustrating minutes of watching before I ejected and junked the disc.

    The 1982 release of One From the Heart was universally considered a disaster because, supposedly, its theatrical run closed after only a week. Had Coppola instead circulated the directors cut version on the 2004 DVD, it would have shuttered in a day.

    If you've got a One From the Heart "jones," buy the Tom Waits/Crystal Gayle soundtrack. But, at least until Coppola returns to the original version, stay clear of the DVD.
  • Francis Ford Coppola and Zoetrope Studios went nearly bankrupt for this movie and it's worth every tear they must have shed! Having built the entire Las Vegas strip inside an enormous sound stage (which cost many $), Coppola was able to control every little visual nuance (just like the master, Fellini). Coppola created neon sunsets and an electric glow to bathe his cris-crossed little love story about two people looking for magic in fantasy land. Songs by Tom Waits and sung as ironic commentary by Waits and Crystal Gayle add an extra cynical spice.
  • Billiam-423 March 2022
    An expensive, audacious, but failed experiment by Francis Ford Coppola, it's visually stunning, but narrative (and music) are simply not quite from the heart; it's all too obviously artificial.
  • The five-year relationship of a bickering couple in a fantasy-version of Las Vegas comes to a boil when travel agent Frannie decides to walk out (she wants a little excitement, but Hank the mechanic is a homebody). They each link up with other partners, but will "true love" win out? Lavishly-designed studio-shot drama from director and co-writer Francis Coppola stars the talented Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr and has an amazing look of unreality; however, while we're transfixed by the production design and admiring Coppola's visual craftsmanship, the characters of the piece fall away, failing to take shape. The leads are uninteresting anyway, and are easily upstaged by their new paramours, Latin smoothie Raul Julia and pixyish showgirl Nastassia Kinski (who has the film's best scene walking a tightrope, lifted from "King of Hearts"). The country music by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle hopes to work as a narrative theme, when actually a stronger screenplay might have sufficed. *1/2 from ****
  • dmy624 November 2007
    Dreamy ! Sedate and defined ! I first watched this movie when I was on my own and it made me think of my girlfriend .It is so fantasy in a modern day setting that it cannot fail to enchant .I don't know if it is charming or stark but it does have realism in an unreal state .The story is simple but nevertheless believable .You know how they feel ! It is one of my favourites and it takes me away to a fantasy place - I have not taken drugs but I imagine that this is what is would be like .It is a fantasy world of warmth and seduction , bright and shiny coupled with building site realism and everyday feelings .You truly suspend realism and that is what films are supposed to be about .If you are looking to escape for a couple of hours , watch this
  • "Hank" (Fredric Forrest) and girlfriend "Frannie" (Terri Garr) seem to have one of those relationships that is on, then it's off, then it's on again. After five years of this, there's some love there, but there's also loads of restlessness and it's ultimately that which drives them apart. She hooks up with the swarthy "Ray" (Raul Julia) while he takes a shine to "Leila" (Nastassia Kinski). It's this latter relationship that proves the marginally more entertaining in this otherwise unremarkable drama. "Leila" works in a circus and is regularly performing death-defying feats in a big top that is clearly just an huge sound stage. There we hit on what makes this film a little more notable - it has all been filmed on a stage. It's very much presented as if it were a stage play, even down the lighting fades and the use of music to help get us from one scenario to the other. The production design and technical effects work well to create that image but they can't compensate for a really thin story that neither Garr nor Forrest really add very much too. A sort of five-year-itch romance that rarely raises a laugh and looks entirely fake from start to finish. Whilst I don't doubt that was the aim of Francis Ford Coppola it merely seems to serve his own ambitions to prove he can make something quite this faux-continuous and sterile, rather than aspire to actually engaging with the audience on any meaningful level. It's under-written and under-developed from a character perspective and try as I did, I just didn't much care for it - one way or the other.
  • What a lot of work went into a big time musical that just did not pay off. The recreation of Las Vegas in the big sound studios was well done with the brassy atmosphere and flashing lights giving us a riot of sound and colour. It's good to be experimental with the effects but sometimes it's better not to go too far. I found the singing voices superimposed on the airport noises were annoying to say the least. A lot of the images too are superimposed. A little might be acceptable but too much is bewildering.

    The theme of the film is summed up in the song "You don't know what you've got till you've lost it". A couple of lovers argue over nothing, break up, and go their own way seeking new partners. A vindictive act to teach each other a lesson.

    The beginning of the film and the end are the best parts with very little substance in between.

    Like the acting the songs were not particularly impressive and I really did not like the characters The failure of the film at the box office is not surprising. May be those reviewers who gave high recommendations saw themselves in the devastating break up between the lovers.

    I really cannot find very much to praise except perhaps the development of the atmosphere both visual and sound. All in all it's a costly experiment that went wrong and did not attract me in the least and I dare say many others.
  • I'm somewhat surprised at the number of negative reviews for "One From the Heart," and in particular those from people who had seen the film when it was initially released and have, for some reason, gone back to see the film again on DVD. If said persons were so dissatisfied with the film the first time around, then why would they bother with a second screening? Myself, I first saw Coppola's film when I rented it from Blockbuster some ten years ago, and was thoroughly impressed with a warm tale told in a surreal world. After a ten year search for it on VHS I now finally own a copy of it on DVD.

    One of the recurring criticisms with people who've critiqued the film is the choice of actors for the two leads. I imagine said folks would've preferred actors with a higher degree of visual appeal or comeliness, but what those people are missing is the fact that it's the idea of ordinary looking people dealing with very profound issues. It's the fact that everyday looking folks can suffer from problems and take the steps through an emotional story that appeals to the audience. The very same audience who say they would've preferred different actors. It just wouldn't work, and it wouldn't be the film that same audience enjoys. And for the record both Garr and Forest are appealing on their own terms. They're not super models, but have a knack for presenting their characters. This is what good actors do.

    The plot is thin, as someone observed. But then again the film's story isn't plot driven. It's a love story about two people who've found one another, but are letting their desires get in the way of their feelings, and the paths they take to satiate those desires. The film begs the question of what rules the characters' hearts. It's a question most married couples (or couples who've lived together for a long time) face at some point. The question may come to a couple in passing as they speculate what life would've been like without their partner, or it may be the cause of a rift, possibly divorce. "One from the Heart" takes that premise and presents it in a stylized format. A format that allows the audience to get lost in a world in which it's far easier and more pleasant to explore that question, than say in a "real world" analog, where the film would've lost its stylized impact. Had "One from the Heart" been shot on location, or otherwise rendered more conventionally, then it would've lost its unique visual charm. The various shots, colors, and other aspects of the film would've been lost, and "One from the Heart" would've been tossed into a sea of other relationship films.

    There's criticism of the plot, criticism of the style, the actors, and a number of things that people who saw it in its first release (as well as now) find dissatisfactory. My thoughts; typically when a thing, a really good thing, is the subject of nitpicking it typically means that thing, whatever it is, is really good, but, for whatever reason, people feel the need to take it apart because they don't want to acknowledge its total quality (and perhaps out of jealousy). That's unfortunate, because "One From the Heart" isn't meant to be a traditional film, and it would appear the critics are trying to squeeze out conventionality from a truly original piece of art.

    "One from the Heart" tells a story of normal couple facing that point of decision in their lives; will they or won't they stay together? Teri Garr's character wonders if there isn't a life of romantic adventure waiting for her beyond Las Vegas. Frederic Forrest's character wonders if there isn't some young beautiful woman out there who'll fall for him. These are typically the two notions that enter couple's thoughts: Couples that hit a rough spot in their relationship. It's a unique film about ordinary people facing ordinary, yet personally profound, questions.

    And that's what "One from the Heart" is all about.
An error has occured. Please try again.