User reviews

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.

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.

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....

"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

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.

The world, it seemed, was not ready for Hollywood's reinvention of the movie musical in 1981/1982---Steve Martin's Pennies from Heaven was a huge flop and a few months later, Francis Coppola brought One from the Heart out despite supposed urges from friends and business partners to shelve it. The film is not a musical in that its stars break out into song (and they don't, except of course for Frederick Forest's brief attempt at song during the airport scene). Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle-two voices that should not work together in song, but do-supply the soundtrack and their singing can be heard during a good portion of the running time. Coppola's decision to shoot the movie entirely on his studio instead of going to Vegas, I thought, paid off. Vegas does have a dream-like, surreal quality and he ups the ante by recreating it on his lot, thereby allowing characters to have scenes intimately close to some of the neon signs. Forest's "escape" to the desert with Natassja Kinski has an even dreamier quality, with the remnants of old neon signs buried in the desert. I thought the set direction was incredible and should have won an Academy Award. This is one of those movies that's "one time is enough" for me. The actors were okay, but only Raul Julia had fireworks. Teri Garr was adorable in her late '70s and early '80s films, but I always found her to be almost "too cute" for serious roles. She had (and still has, to a degree) a Goldie Hawn quality that's great in movies like Tootsie and Young Frankenstein, but a little unbelievable in serious movies like this and the underrated First Born. I thought Forest was not that credible either as a "ladies man" who could seduce Kinski like that. But maybe that was the whole point--the leads are "everyday people," not the beautiful people of the classic MGM musicals. But this movie's influence on later films, Moulin Rouge and Chicago in particular, cannot be denied. It is worth a look, if only to see what the "fuss" was about back in 1982.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ****

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

Francis Ford Coppola is considered one of the greatest directors of all time due to The Godfather Trilogy as well as Apocalypse Now but once the 80's began his films started to decline in quality.

Granted he made some great films after his masterworks of the 1970's Peggy Sue Got Married, Tucker the man and his Dream and Bram Stoker's Dracula were all great efforts.

However outside of those his filmography after 1979 with Apocalypse Now was a mixed bag.

I was interested in this one mainly for the cast including Fredric Forrest whom I had loved in Lonesome Dove, Terri Garr of course in Tootsie and Raul Julia.

Coppola has created a fake and realistic looking Las Vegas in this film that is simply amazing, and the choreography and cinematography are fantastic.

Unfortunately in the script co-written by him the biggest problem is the blandness of the story as well as characters who are hard to identify with and care about.

The love story here is unoriginal and uninteresting as a whole and Coppola uses a music soundtrack with songs set to the mood of what the characters are feeling.

That definitely is an original touch but the songs seem distracting and dont really add anything significant to the plot.

Forrest, Garr and Julia do their very best with the script they were given.

I think if the story itself had been more original with better characters this would be just as good of a film as The Godfather or Apocalypse Now in the directors filmography.

Unfortunately it was a huge flop that bankrupted Coppola and he spent the 80's and 90's making as many movies as possible to recover financially.

It's not the directors worst film. That spot of dishonor goes to Jack Coppola's 1996 dramedy with Robin Williams, but its definitely a film that has merits and some excellent creativity but just needed a better overall story.

Not a terrible film by any means. I can admire the creativity that went into the set design. If you're a fan of Coppola's films or any of these actors I would say it is worth at least one watch for its strengths. The story overall is pretty underwhelming but there are some things to admire all the same.

Coppola definitely has made better but he has also made worse which is why I feel this film is in the middle in terms of quality in his filmography.

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.

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

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

The film isn't the worst film I've seen, but it's a far cry from the best. First-the good stuff: Cinematography is gorgeous and Art Direction as well. Both should have had Oscar nominations for making the most out of the brilliant palette of colors that was used. This works especially well since the film was shot entirely on the Zoetrope sound stages. NOW THE BAD STUFF: There is absolutely no chemistry between Garr and Forrest - you can see it in their faces and it really leaves the viewer hoping they part forever. You don't want them to be happy because they just don't look happy. Next, the screenplay - written by the man responsible for PATTON, THE GODFATHERS, and THE CONVERSATION; comes up with some of the corniest dialogue that I can remember and the song sequence at the end - sends shudders down my spine. Speaking of songs: The Oscar nomination for the music shows you just how desperate AMPAS was to fill out the nomination ballot - one of the poorest nominations in my memory. Then you get to the sheer stupidity that makes this a fantasy. Like Forrest going to the airport at the end of the film to get Garr back - everything from that moment on is stupidity at it's finest: 1-he parks his car in the middle of a lane blocking 20 other cars. One guy says "you can't park there". When he comes out - it's not towed -he gets in and drives off from McCarran Airport in Las Vegas??????? 2 - Forrest accosts 2 ticket agents and no one says a thing. He runs thru McCarran and literally get to the plane door where he finds Garr and no one says a thing - you don't even see a gate agent or ticket taker. BUT THE BEST ONE: The plane takes off on a runway that ends at the terminal so it literally has to fly over the main terminal to take off. NO AIRPORT IN THE WORLD WOULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. Common sense is not in this film. Don't take my word though. This is one of those films that defies reason - Kinda like watching the police arrest someone or following a fire truck to see the damage the fire is doing. This film is a lot of damage.

I'm glad this film is finally being re-released. The trailer states it's "the movie you never saw," but quite a few of us did see it. I loved it in 1982 (3?), so much so that I went out and bought the S/T, which I still listen to (yes kids, on vinyl). Just saw the film again, and except for being a tad embarrassed that we wore such silly clothes back then, I think it holds up beautifully. Yes, it could have been cast differently. But the point was to drop the normal-looking, average joe and mary into a fantasy setting. IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK FAKE. The sets are gorgeous! It's based on what Vegas used to look like, before they tore it all down and put up that oversized Disneyland. The music is some of the best Tom Waits has ever made--I only just learned that Waits selected Crystal Gayle; (FFC had requested Bette Midler (after hearing her duet w/ Waits on "Never Talk to Strangers") having listened to this LP for 20 years I'm glad he did. There's not much to the story, (no back story, no character development), but there's not supposed to be. Doncha think FFC could've made that film if he'd wanted to? (and really, we've had 20 years of films that pick apart relationships ad nauseum). This film works the way it was intended to. Sit back and enjoy it, it's musical fantasy-realism, it doesn't matter that Nattassja can't sing.

"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.