This is much more than just a camp movie and great songs and production numbers, although it is all that. It does a great job of dealing with a number of important issues for today. One of these is the challenge of a profession in the arts. I loved the way it dealt with all of the issues it raised. For all of the criticism from the other reviews, I found this movie did a better job of raising all of the issues it raises and getting me to think about them, but more from a personal standpoint, and not from so much of a societal standpoint. We each have a role to play in each issue and we each have the challenge of deciding what we are going to do with each. Part of it is understanding other people. This movie showed a lot of different people and the importance of respecting all of them, even if what they are doing seems to have obvious problems.


Camp is a great film. It's entertaining, funny, an I don't even like musicals. It explores the challenges outcast drama kids face during adolescence. Some kids deal with the questionable sexuality, others deal with complicated friendship, but they all bond together through their love of musical theater.It's a wild ride but it's very entertaining, and the best part is that the cast is actually real drama kids. They are not typical Hollywood kids and they do their own singing. The acting is not all that great, but it's totally worth watching. The wardrobe is pretty much hilarious. It reminds me of all the people in my drama club a little weird but cool if you get to know them.Give this movie a chance!


This movie is a great revelation, a great treat . Several of the actors come from my home state of Maryland. If you are at all into musicals, you will be impressed,I have no doubt. Following the lives of several teens over the course of 2 months at a theater arts summer camp, the movie tracks , between very impressive musical numbers, the sex lives, personal battles, and identity crisis in a real manner without being preachy(which I hate) Watch for The Ladies Who Lunch number, also the Turkey Lurkey number, they are show stoppers.My boyfriend thought since it's a musical, it must be a kid movie, but it is quite the opposite, very entertaining. You will enjoy this movie, If you like theater or musicals.


Forget the other comments above. This movie is great, especially if you have ever been involved with any musical theatre in your life.

This young troop of actors did an outstanding job, and I guarantee that at least four of them will go on to huge careers. Tiffany Taylor, Daniel Letterle especially turned out wonderful performances.

It's been playing quite often on WAM and I find myself sitting through it every time it's on. I have yet to get tired of this movie.

The musical numbers were fantastic!

I get chills watching Tiffany Taylor sing "Here's Where I Stand" near the end of the film. And if you aren't moved by the drag party the campers hold for Michael, you're just dead inside. Dead I say.


This movie is a wonderful movie. The title doesn't really suggest it but once you begin to watch it it just captivates you and you can't resist the temptation to finish the whole movie. It inspires kids to be who they really are and not worry about others. It inspired to me to be myself and not really care about what others think. I really related to the teens in the movie primarily because most of them were dealing with and going through problems that I had. I really encourage any teen who feels like an outcast or left out to watch this movie. i know it would make you feel better about yourself. Not to mention that the singing was fantastic. The young people in this movie definitely had talent. I know it did for me.


Gosh i love this movie! It seems i catch the best movies late at night on movie channels and it's so upsetting that these kinds of movies never get the exposure they deserve. Watching this movie just make you want to get up and jump right into the scenes and start singing. The songs and numbers were so different and interesting. Seeing this movie has had me singing the like "Hey! do you wanna come out, and play the game, it's never too late" for like a year now. Its the only line i knew and i would catch myself randomly singing it in my head when i was doing boring work or just walking around. Then last night at 3:30 or so i decided to head to bed and i flipped through the TV channels out of habit and found this movie was on again. Of course i stayed up until 5 watching it. if anyone has a chance to watch this film i strongly suggest it. Then go out, buy it, and show it to all your friends. The characters are really entertaining. Their oh so familiar teen struggle to fit in, be loves, and please everyone makes you feel part of the story. Like ... I've been there. Anyway... 2Thumbs up for this movie. I wish there were more pictures like this available on a larger scale. I'm a bit sick of watching over budgeted, under-talented, lack-luster, "Hollywood Blockbusters". Watch Camp!!


i recently watched the movie this afternoon and i find it very good... it such an inspiring movie and and the cast are all wonderful... i hope ill gonna have a free copy of this movie (camp)... I relate my self in this movie reason why this movie becomes wonderful to me. I never been on the line of drama before, but i don't know what was happened, i finished this movie with a succession on my mind. I don't need to ask myself of who really i am... Because I'm a straight guy hahahahah!!! From now on ill going to love my special s0meone Very much and ill never do which can make her mad... I really want to watch this movie again... Daniel Ur the MAn!!! ur the best!!!!


I LoVe this movie i have DVR on my TV and i watch it almost every day !!!! all of them have amazing voices !!! and Vlad is so HoT !!!! he is FiNe !!!! i HIGHLY RECOMMEND this movie if u like comedy, drama , and Romance !!!! Dee in the movie has a VERY POWERFUL voice !!!! fritz in her main singing play is beautiful and indescribable !!!! the " mean girl" Jill is so convincing and i want to hate her so much !!!! i had a party and i played this movie and everyone loved it !!!! i also really loved all the music in the movie!! Jenna is just a doll in the movie too and a little low key then she starts to blossoms LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


I totally related to this movie! Being a little theater nerd all through high school I always felt left from most of my classmates, but this movie.. this is what it should have been like for me.

The movie overall may be a little formulaic, but it has a definite message of acceptance and overcoming obstacles. No matter who you are, you will find meaning within this movie. I think many people wrote it off too soon and possibly without seeing it. With the advent of the movie musical, Camp may have come out too soon. Great recommendation if you liked Rent.

am spreading the word about this movie to all of my friends!


I understand that some viewers expected this movie would be a comedy. I didn't expect anything and I liked it very much. Acting isn't great, the script is ok, but certainly not great, but I really liked the characters. But what I liked most about the movie is the soundtrack, the actors are all great singers!

Despite the not so good end scene, this movie leaves you with a feeling of great joy when you leave the theater. 7/10


Like many of the characters in this Fame-wanna-be film, the acting and the plot are extremely clumsy and awkward, but the film's heart is big and definitely in the right place. I wonder if the talent in "Camp" have ever acted before or if this is their first attempt. The film, rough in many places, is huge on singing ability. If only "American Idol" drew so many talented performers instead of the hodge-podge they do...

While I enjoyed "Camp," it seemed to gloss over many of the pertinent issues it presents such as teen sexuality, wrapping it up in a pretty "I forgive you" ending. The character of the has-been playwright seemed pointless altogether, and wholly predictable. Short on development, it could've had a lot more emotional impact had the lead male role (Vlad) bonded more with him.


Director Todd Graff brought a cast of talented young newcomers (see the IMDb page for this film for cast names)to this high-energy story about a summer at "Camp Ovation," a kind of Parris Island for theatre arts and music and dance ingenues and would-be stars. The kids aren't nerds but they're not mainstream youths either. The camp's sports counselor is the loneliest person on deck.

Bert, addressed dismissively by one teen as "Rummy," is a has-been musical theatre composer down on his luck and up on his hooch. His role is as predictable as his redemption.

Through endless training and rehearsals and shows every two weeks, the teenagers both bond and battle. "Camp" follows their developing skills as well as their personal lives. Issues of sexual identity are explored as is the pain of a first love experience by a slightly overweight but winsome young teen, Ellen. The pain of Michael, a gay youth who tested the envelope by turning up for his junior prom in drag, then being both rejected for admission and beaten badly, is acutely portrayed. Rejected also by his father, the issue of teenage gay emergence isn't exploited, it's treated with sensitivity and compassion.

The dance numbers and music of "Camp" are way outside my experience and interests. But I was engrossed by the unfolding and seamless energy of the young cast.

A cameo appearance by Stephen Sondheim appears to be for the purpose of saying, "Hey, musical theatre is alive!" Bob Fosse's vivid vitality lives on here, especially in the choreography.

To borrow from my teenage son's hip argot, "Camp" is an "uber-upper."

8/10.


Some critics have been raving to the high heavens about this film. It's about a bunch of misfits who go to a summer camp which teaches dancing, singing and acting. As the summer progresses they all bond and become stronger....sigh. This has been done hundreds of times before and this movie adds nothing to the old formula.

The plots are very trite and predictable. There was one at the end (about the alcoholic teacher who "finds" himself) that was so old that I couldn't believe I was seeing it in a 2003 film. Also characters appear and disappear with no warning (who WAS that handsome Latino boy who was buddy buddy with Michael in one scene) and some of the performances were either overdone (some of the gay boys were doing everything but lisping) or pretty bad (Daniel Letterle is VERY handsome--but he can't act and he grins way too much).

So why am I giving it a 7? There is some good acting (Joanna Chilcoat and Robin de Jesus are standouts) and the musical numbers. These kids can REALLY belt out songs and the dancing is incredible. Those musical numbers alone make the film worth seeing. But director Graff really doesn't know how to shoot some numbers--some of the quick cuts in one number were really annoying.

So--it's worth seeing for the dancing and singing...not for the cliched story and some lousy acting.


What a great movie. This movie cost probably $100 million less than Chicago which is our favorite movie by far. This little gem is simply spectacular a cast of unknowns is simply wonderful in this Danny Devito directed film. Music, dance, great story. WOW WOW WOW. We need more independent films like this. Keep up the great work Danny.


this movie was fantastic and hysterical! everyone in the theatre was crying of laughter by the end. It was a movie that everyone loved. this was so great! I felt like i new half those kids, these characters are so real, so obsessive musical theater. i think anyone would love this movie,


I originally wasn't going to compare this to "Fame", but it's kinda inevitable. Don't get me wrong...I love "Fame" and will always love it, but "Camp" just had something about it that stuck with me. I guess it's just more relatable for me. In my high school plays I was the "honest to God straight boy" among the fag hags and the gay guys. I wasn't always as lucky as Vlad...but that's a story for another time. Anyways...the songs in the movie (original and broadway showtunes)were hella rad. The cast just completely blew me away, especially the girl who played Dee, my favorite character in the movie. All around awesome movie...these kids have very promising futures with their talent. "Camp" is definitely my new favorite movie.


When I went to see this movie I was under the impression it was a John Waters film. It is not , but could have been one of his movies. Best scene ever an attractive girl singing a song and throwing up after almost every line..lol. When I went to look about info on the actors on this film I noticed it was almost all first time actors...AMAZING with this brilliant, brilliant cast. GREAT SONGS, and I even cried when the fat black gril sang a song to express to her angry dad that she is fat and that is who she is. Brilliant 10/10


On the plus side, "Camp" has a lot of energy and loads of affection for it's young characters. Some of the musical numbers are fun ("Turkey Lurkey Time" from "Promises, Promises"; the funny All About Eve-ish scene with Sondheim's "I'm Still Here;" the Todd Rundgren song at the end). So you can't really dislike the film.

However, the bad far outweighs the good. Director/writer Todd Graf has done good work as an actor, but his dual turn here is far from promising. The dreadful script leaves no tired cliche or cliched character unturned & the dialogue is stilted and amateurish.

Some of the scenes are just plain unbelievable (e.g. the straight hunk suddenly trying to come on to the gay kid). Some are groan-inducing: for example, when the group starts doing a new piece by the cynical, self-pitying, alcoholic composer, it brings him around and he joins the band.

Also, the film stretches credibility with some of the choices of shows the kids do - would anyone really try to put on a production of "Follies" or "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" with teenagers? These scenes exist for nothing more than easy laughs.

The cast of unknowns are a mixed lot - some are more personable than others, some are a little awkward, but the dialogue doesn't help any of them.

Graf based this film on his own experiences at a summer theater camp for teens, but you'd never know it. There's not one fresh or uncontrived moment in the film - it could have been made by anyone who's seen "Fame."


For a small independent film musical about a cross-dresser, overweight girl with a wired jaw, cute but screwed up teen, OTT drama queen and a doormat femme fatale...CAMP is an overwhelmingly good film.

The title aside, which may turn many people off the idea of watching the movie, the music is brilliant and after two months since I saw it I still cannot get one of the songs outta my head...Country Plant it's called.

A wonderful host of newcomer talent who all deserve to have great careers ahead of them and ignore the title, the film is bloody funny!


I saw this first at Sundance and again last week. It's great. Fantastic music and you know that some of these guys and girls are going to be big stars. Probably the best thing is that it's a completely fresh film; no hollow, over budgeted, OTT, trillion dollar musical. CAMP's got soul.


Finally a movie for us: the people who were entranced by the romance of musical theater at a young age. This film captures the longing, the enthusiasm, and the emotional growing pains of a group of teen agers attending a performing arts summer camp. The musical numbers are simply stunning, often hilarious, and leave you exhilarated at the exuberant talent on display. And what numbers! Songs from Follies, Dreamgirls, Promises Promises, an incredible Bob Telson song (from The Gospel at Colonus)which opens the film, and several new songs written by Steven Trask (of Hedwig and the Angry Inch fame)and others.

While the script remains frustratingly superficial when exploring the film's central romantic triangle, and in spite of its lopsided focus on the tribulations of the one straight male character, Camp still offers many characters and scenes that delight. And with musical performances this strong, any shortcomings are easily overlooked.


if you were, as Todd Graff says,"a f***ed up 15 year old" you're going to love this movie. And truley, who wasn't? This film is not only funny and sweet, but it's so real it hurts. The kids at camp Ovation are so real you remember being them. Highly reccomended.


If you have read my other reviews of Chaplin's comedy shorts, you may have noticed that I have generally given very poor reviews of films made during his first couple years in Hollywood (1914-1915). In general, they had no script or direction, were never really edited and just weren't particularly funny. In addition, Chaplin had a lot to learn about and develop regarding his Little Tramp character.

In light of this, it was so nice to see this film. Unlike most other films of 1914, this film had a strong plot with a definite beginning, middle and end--something often lacking in his other films. Plus, it had some genuine laughs. So, for newcomers to the films of Chaplin, it's an excellent introduction.

Charlie and Chester Conklin (a perennial Keystone actor) work in a combination restaurant and bakery. The bakers go out on strike and the two fellas are forced to do duty in the bakery. There is still a lot of punching and kicking and throwing of dough, but the plot becomes a lot more serious when the disgruntled bakers sneak some dynamite into the ovens! A decent film that is head and shoulders above other Chaplin films of the time, though awfully crude when compared to his films just a few years later.


And with John Wayne and Gabby Hayes, what else could it be? For the time, and given that this IS one of those B movies churned out constantly by the various production companies, this thing is a hoot. Its fun for fans of the Duke, seeing him in such an early role. It has its elements of excitement and plot twists. It has its style of humor, fitting for the day. Its honestly well put together for the time. None of the other players are bad actors, and several are very good. The villains, Buffalo Bill Jr. ( aka Butch Galt ) and LeRoy Mason in particular, were both very fine actors and come across quite well in their roles. The plot? Its not complicated, but it makes for a good story. Fight scenes? Several. Just keep in mind that choreography was not then what it is now. When I watch something like this I try to put myself in the time during which the flick was made. That seems to put it into perspective and helps make it a lot more entertaining. If you can wrap your head around the era, recognize that churning out B movies doesn't necessarily mean poor quality as a standard, and be thankful that Wayne doesn't sing in this one ... Rainbow Valley? Well, pilgrim, it ain't a big valley, but it is a fun one.


A routine "B" western in the Lone Star series of westerns Wayne made in the 30's. What sets this one apart is John Wayne as a "Singing" Cowboy. This was the time of the beginning of the Singing Cowboy era in "B" westerns (e.g. Gene Autry). Wayne's voice is obviously dubbed. He sure doesn't look comfortable serenading the heroine or warbling a tune while riding across the prairie. Fortunately for all concerned (especially the Duke) this experiment was quickly ended.

Anyone who wants to hear the Duke's "real" singing voice should watch the opening credits of "Cahill U.S. Marshal".


in my mind this is a fluffy,light movie,but very entertaining and fun to watch.Basically,John Wayne is stranger in town who agrees to help the men get a new road built.the workers have been continually threatened and harassed or worse,by a gang of outlaws who don't want the road built.there is no law to speak of in the town,so the gang has pretty much done whatever they please.until now,that is.this is a pretty standard western movie,which follows the general formula of westerns at that time.however,i think it it is well acted,exciting and fast paced.it's a pretty short movie(less than 90 minutes)but there'a lot jammed into the short running time.if you're in the mood to simply be entertained,you might like this movie.it's not an epic,like many of John Wayne's movies,but so what.i think "rainbow Valley" is a strong 8/10


Now we're on the weak end of the 'Lone Star' westerns. Unless you've never seen any of them, this is a retread of several tropes from earlier films in the series. If this is your first, the surprises at the end (which is well edited) will be new. Sorry to have to spoil your fun.

We get that dynamite is needed to clear the trail; dynamite is used to get water flowing in the superior first film 'Riders of Destiny' (1933). We get that John Wayne has really been sent by the government to work undercover and infiltrate the gang of outlaws; as also seen in 'Riders of Destiny,' and countless other early thirties westerns such as 'The Man From Hell's Edges' (1932) with Bob Steele, etc.

We get Lucille Brown as the "Prairie Flower," and Leroy Mason as the head villain, also from the better 'Texas Terror' (1935) in which Lucille gets more screen time than the villain, and when finding out that John Wayne is indeed a good guy at the end, rushes to his cabin to spend two hours alone with him! Unfortunately, she's wasted here with little to do. We get the Tin Lizzie driven by George Hayes, also featured in 'Texas Terror.' Note: In this film he sings a song! Now, if you don't think he's acting trying to walk and talk like an old geezer, watch him as the nasty, dastardly villain in the awful serial 'The Lost City'( 1935) ! We get shots of Yakima Canutt jumping on a horse, and plunging off a cliff into a river, among many shots repeated from earlier films in the series.

So what does it all mean? A weak Lone Star. When you have two extensive shootouts between the road workers and the villain's gang of henchmen behind rocks in a canyon, nobody, not even the camera, is moving. Surprise, that means that the film isn't moving either! It's better to spend your time on the 'Lone Stars' with either better character development or better action such as 'Sagebrush Trail' (1933),'The Star Packer' (1934), 'The Trail Beyond' (1934), 'The Dawn Rider' (1935) or 'Texas Terror' (1935). Despite the well paced ending, this one gets a 3.


POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!! (I suggest you read this after having seen the film) I don't know if what I'm gonna say can be regarded as a "spoiler", because after all, this is a documentary and maybe a lot of people know what happened. It's quite impossible too to discuss this without giving away the ending.

This documentary (though this one plays out like a terrific film) chronicles the trial of Michael Peterson, but at the same time tells you more about morality, prejudice, justice and Southern mentality than you could've imagined. The director used a fly-on-the-wall approach to the subject, which was very appropriate in my opinion, though some people clearly regarded this as being biased. But you can't argue what you CAN see in the film...

Now let me start by saying that I won't go into details about the case (in which novelist Michael Peterson was found guilty of murdering his then wife, Kathleen; the case is now up for appeal, by the way). The facts, testimonies, evidence, etc. you have to see for yourself, whether it be in this documentary, television footage or in some archive. I won't even go so far as to say that Michael Peterson didn't murder his wife, because after all I wasn't present at the trial (and even that isn't always a guarantee for justice) and I've only been offered this material in the form of a documentary (by French film maker Jean-Xavier de Lestrade) of about 6 hours. So maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. But I've studied the law myself for several years here in Belgium and after having seen this film and having read about the case whatever I could find, I really can't conclude otherwise than by saying that there's at least enough reasonable doubt to set Peterson free.

For me, more important than the technical discussions in the film (some people seem to KNOW that for example doctor Henry Lee sold out to the defense side), is the human and moral aspect at play here. I díd see the four sons and daughters of Michael Peterson standing behind their (step-)father all the way (with the exception of Kathleen's daughter Caitlin). I díd hear prosecutor Freda Black talk about the "filth" she found on Peterson's computer, talking about the homosexual pornography she found ("no relationship, but pure sex") and the triumphant look in the other prosecutor Jim Hardin's eyes (though he did his best not to show it) when he found the pornography. For these people it was apparent that the dubious sexual ways of Peterson were enough from the start to declare him guilty. I can't even begin to understand how it is possible that the homosexual stuff was allowed in the trial, or how it was possible that the autopsy report (by the clearly highly incompetent "expert" Deborah Radisch (does she even know she's not allowed to make judgments in her report?)) was put out on the internet, before the case started.

Worst of all however, I was shocked by the decision of the prosecutors to bring the death of Elizabeth Ratliff (a close friend of Peterson, about twenty years ago, who died in "similar" circumstances) into play here (they even dug up her corpse again). What were they trying to prove with that? That Peterson is a serial killer who strikes once every twenty years in the proximity of a staircase? Well, that doesn't go with the theory of Kathleen Peterson finding out about his bisexuality and getting herself killed. What was the motive of Peterson in the Ratliff case by the way? Not one single answer on that by the prosecutors.

No murder weapon, not a decent motive and not one decent theory by the prosecutor about how Michael Peterson could have killed his wife (judge for yourself when you see the staircase of the title). But a lot of dirty tricks, e.g. bringing in Peterson's sexuality, his writings (fiction!) and the death of Elizabeth Ratliff, and plenty of wild theories (e.g. the blow-poke). For me that's enough (multiplied by ten) to conclude there's reasonable doubt in this case, but the jurors concluded otherwise. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a fine concept, too bad some people use it so light-heartedly.

But it's not hard to guess why Peterson was convicted. Not because the prosecutors showed he was guilty, but because he's bisexual, quite rich and white (a majority of the jurors and the judge were black), and because, well, let's face it, the juror system simply doesn't work. The prosecutors knew very well which buttons to push (the emotional and moral ones, not too surprising in these Bush times) and even after all had been said and done (and Hardin and Black clearly didn't even have faith in a guilty verdict anymore), those issues simply made the difference. So what if there's no proof, we can't stand the man, 'kay? I could comment on the dubious role the judge (allow everything, no matter if it's relevant; if it can hurt Peterson, bring it on), some media (ignore what's been said on the trial, ask silly questions and make up a story of your own), the police, medical examiner Radisch and some of Kathleen Peterson's relatives (I understand their grief, but what her sisters did was preposterous) played here, but enough for now. You be the judge.

Like Peterson's lawyer said (more or less): "The outcome did not surprise me. It shook the foundations of my belief in the justice system, in humanity, morality and myself." I doubt if the world we're living in today is as safe as some people will have us believe. Just look around you. Who would like to be judged by such "peers"?


(I tried not to spoil anything, but I clicked the spoiler alert just in case.)

The Staircase was accidentally absorbing. Even though the filmmakers had an unmistakably obvious point of view, they did not succeed in persuading me to the same conclusion. Yet, to Maha's credit, the film was thoroughly engaging from beginning to end. Most of the characters it dwelled on were so despicable, transparent, and sad that I can think of no real life situation where I'd have spent more than five minutes in the company of such people. But it was tolerable and even darkly fascinating to observe them on screen over the course of this enthralling real life documentary.

Since I first watched the film, I've read an excellent book by Diane Fanning about the Michael Peterson case. I recommend it to all -- titled "Written In Blood." My instincts, according to this exceptionally well researched, well written book, were pretty solid as it turns out. Common sense served me well, and I believe common sense prevailed in the face of a million+ bucks in "expert obfuscation" and P.R. hi-jinx -- AKA David Rudolph's High Powered Legal Defense Team.

I can say without reservation, The Staircase is highly entertaining and well crafted. Yet I must encourage viewers to balance the heavily one-sided array of facts and suggestions by consulting additional sources. There are a number of places online offering background, evidence, testimony, and opinion. Or get one straightforward, well organized, and riveting account in Fanning's book. After bulking up your knowledge of the opposing viewpoint and forensic evidence, watch The Staircase a second time and experience a whole new set of "Aha!" moments.

One other spectacular element that must be mentioned: the exquisite and haunting original music composed (and performed?) by Jocelyn Pook. Hats off to the directors for spotting this amazing talent.


MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!!! I am from Durham, North Carolina where this took place. My family even knew Michael. I live a few blocks from the Cedar St home, and was shocked when I heard what happened. "Poor Michael.." I thought. What I was to learn about this man many of my family members and friends of my family called a friend would shock me. All things considered, I think the case is still extremely circumstantial, and the reasonable doubt is there. Can you move past the physical evidence and get into the science? I am not completely convinced as to his guilt OR his innocence, but I think the criminal justice system failed him. Was his bisexuality an issue? No. Was Elizabeth Ratliff an issue according to the events of December 9th, 2001? Most certainly not. In the end, the trial wasn't even about Kathleen anymore, but more so about trying to paint Michael as sinister a man as there could possibly be.

All in all, this is a great documentary, and I highly recommend this to everyone. Jim Hardin says this case is about pretenses and appearances, but look deeper into those, from both sides. Not even a Hollywood writer could make a script this compelling.

10/10.


THE STAIRCASE is protracted and meticulous, yet a fascinating study of how a 'Dream Team' legal defense is organized and executed. In December of 2001 acclaimed author, Michael Peterson, was accused in the death of his wife, Kathleen. It was his contention that Kathleen slipped and fell on a staircase in their home after an evening of wine and relaxation, while the prosecution maintained that Mr. Peterson had bludgeoned his wife, and positioned the body to appear as an accident. Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, the writer/director, has culled this account from more than six-hundred hours of taped documentation. Every aspect of the case is dissected and examined in great detail, and the viewer watches as each piece is crafted into the best possible case for the defense. The film demonstrates how expert witnesses are selected and coached so that the presentation to the jury becomes a calculated performance. The facts of a case are seen as nothing more than elements in a construction to portray the defendant in the most positive light. Truth is of secondary importance, and it is clear that in the American justice system, only the wealthy can receive anything approaching fairness. If you are a fan of The Courtroom Procedural, THE STAIRCASE is well worth your attention. Superb soundtrack by Jocelyn Pook.


This powerful exposition ultimately demonstrates how moralist prejudice drives administration of the law in at least parts of the American heartland. Director Lestrade obviously has condensed the trial and chosen scenes to further his point of view but much of the evidence and many of the submissions had no place in a trial seeking truth and justice. Lestrade did not stage events that showed the prosecutors creating jury prejudice, he reported on them.

Judge Hudson allowed an immunized gay hooker to testify about Internet chats with Peterson. The only purpose was to demean Peterson for his sexual interests. It certainly was not to add information about a homicide because the witness had never met Peterson face to face nor had any direct contact with the defendant or his family. The only information he could provide about the Peterson's marriage was Michael's repeated statements about love for his wife Kathleen. Similarly, evidence about gay pornography on Peterson's computer was, by itself, prejudicial. No testimony supported the notion that the material offended the dead woman but assistant prosecutor Freda Black certainly was highly offended by what she called filth.

The prosecution failed to establish a believable motive for murder of Kathleen Peterson. They suggested she was soon to lose her lucrative employment and that might cause Peterson to prefer her dead. Alternatively, they said that Kathleen might have been so offended by newly discovering his gay interest that she would end their relationship.

The most egregious act of the prosecution was to claim parallels between Kathleen's 2001 death with the death of a Peterson family friend in Germany in 1985. Her death 18 years before Peterson's trial was found by investigation at the time to be by natural causes.

Lestrade's film is probably most powerful in the way it presents the Peterson family dynamics. The natural and adopted children stood by the defendant throughout the trial and that presents the strongest evidence of innocence.

Despite my comments above, I am not convinced that Michael Peterson is innocent. However, I do believe that the trial did not prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.


This film about a murder case, about the trial after it, is one of these American films, in fact a TV mini-series, on a real case that does not go in the normal direction, the direction of what we all should think not truth is but justice should be. There is such an enormous amount of doubt about the case, about the guilt and even about the murder itself that it is unbelievable that a unanimous verdict of guilt came out of the jury pool. Such cases are examples for us to question the system of justice we set up over the last four centuries. And the judge decided to impose life imprisonment but for first degree murder it could have been the death penalty. It is such cases that prove that jury justice is maybe good in many cases but there are a few cases where it is the worst possible system, and that is why the death penalty should be gotten rid of, and that's why we should make sure the defendants, now sentenced culprits, have access to all possibilities and opportunities to appeal the decision and to have the best councilors available. Jury justice in a world that is so deeply cut in small antagonistic pieces does not work in any sensitive delicate case because of any kind of un-namable bias having to do with race, wealth, age, sex, sexual orientation, and any other parameter you may think of. This case should be compared to other cases where the reverse decision was reached, but the model of such a case of failed justice was clearly written in a book and set to the screen a long time ago: "To Kill a Mocking Bird". Miscarriage of justice due to some kind of totally unmentionable prejudice. I am not sure though that the conclusion of "Romeo and Juliet" is the proper one here: "They are all Punished", because in Romeo and Juliet's case there was no trial, and especially no jury trial.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


Well, first of all this is a great excellent documentary. The Story is great, the characters are so interesting, the edition, the photography and the music are just perfectly blended to the story. One of the things I like the most is that the plot thickens with every new chapter. When someone is shooting a documentary, you don't really know how it will end. Jean-Xavier was the one who bet everything in this particularly story. (To be able to "see through" people, stories, situations is a talent that few people have...) I think he spent 2 years and a half with the family. He got so close with the family that one is able to see everything from inside. That's one of the secrets of this film. I can't believe that after watching 6 hours straight, I was waiting for more!!! It's a great piece of artwork... Congratulations to everyone involved in this production... Thanks for inspiring me and so many people... Rating (1 to 10) Production:9 (the production spent E$1.5) Direction: 10 Photography: 9 Edition: 10 Music: 10 Story: 10


This "movie" is just a joke. It leaves out all of the completely damning money evidence. The evidence presented for the Nortel money was completely left out. The defense attorneys looked foolish and even incompetent when cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses.

While this is fascinating in that people actually believe that he is innocent, it is in no way a balanced look at this trial. The defense manages to put up a smoke screen that might work in California but it certainly will not work in North Carolina. As it is 2010 now, he still sits in prison and will remain there for quite awhile. I don't know what this director though he was getting into when he made this movie, but he did do a very good job in making a case to the completely uninformed.


Recently caught this 8-part documentary on the Sundance Channel and I can't recommend it strongly enough. "The Staircase" recounts the investigation, pre-trial strategies, familial turmoil and then the trial of a wealthy author (Michael Peterson) accused of murdering his a corp exec wife. Given incredible access to the crime scene, lawyer-accused meetings, and the trial itself, this tops the best courtroom drama films I've seen. Without spoilers, the events that are caught on film and the revelations that occur make this a riveting view. It's got all the twists, turns and emotional roller-coaster of a fine film, and the ending will have you gripped. Hopefully this will get a DVD release or replay on TV, because I keep telling people about it. If you get the chance, don't miss it. Not to give away the ending, but we sure didn't agree with the verdict, but just as the jury made up their mind, so can you.


Hoping for another Academy nod, Jean-Xavier de Lestrade unsuccessfully tries to duplicate the gritty, grainy realism that won Maha productions its first Oscar.

De Lestrade's earlier cinematic critique of the US justice system, "Un Coupable Ideal," won the 2002 Academy Award for best documentary feature.

Unfortunately, Maha's second movie about a murder on a Sunday morning fails to capture any of the reality of the North Carolina murder case, and ends up being nothing short of fantasy.

The filmmaker has bent over backward to create the impression that the accused killer, Michael Peterson, is the innocent victim of a wide-spread conspiracy.

Jean-Xavier de Lestrade's strangely biased movie masquerading as a real-life documentary represents a tragic fall from the honesty of his other work.


This is by far one of the most bizarre films I've seen, and I'm familiar with the works of Jodorowsky and Lynch. It's certainly not Jose Mojica Marins' most accessible film (the two proceeding Coffin Joe films are recommended as better starting places for the novice). However, it is his best, when all of his sub-Neitschze philosophy, violence, and common hatred for authority came together. Sure, its a bit of a mess as far as film-making goes, but its a fascinating mess nonetheless. Its an interesting parable on how the government uses scapegoats such as drugs and violent cinema (particularly that of Marins' films which were subjected to much censorship) to cover up other issues. For its subversive story, it was banned in Brazil until 1986.

Marins was always a talented if raw filmmaker. His roughie segments at the beginning are disturbing and even gross, but they contribute to the power of the film. The final LSD sequence is one of the most amazing ever caught on film. The trip sequence is comprised of censored scenes from earlier Coffin Joe films and new footage. Viewing this, its no wonder the government was horrified and called for it to be banned. In his homeland, Marins is a renowned cult figure. Unfortuantly his unique cinema isn't appreciated too much outside of Brazil. This is a shame, because while his films aren't for everybody, psychotronic fans will love them. (8/10)


The films of Jose Mojica Marins, aka Coffin Joe, aka Xe Do Caixao, (spelling?) seem to operate on a logic all their own, that is, the logic of Mr. Marins himself, and while I can't say much about truly understanding what's going on in most cases, they do make for a fascinating watch. I have seen "At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul" and "This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse", and those are more in the horror vein, but this is more a commentary on the degradation of Brazilian society due to drugs and loose morals, it seems. And Coffin Joe seems to be to blame, oh yeah, right. It is rather amusing to see the "drug addicts" which look like middle-aged folks here, and some scenes which may have been meant to be somewhat frightening are actually more amusing than anything, at least these days. 4 people are chosen as part of an experiment with LSD and the focus of these experiments is the man himself, Xe Do Caixao, and at this point the film changes gears, switches from black and white to groovy color, and lets Marins cackle and leer his way through these poor folks bad trip. All along there's a panel discussion going on between folks that blame society's downfall on what they feel are subversive comics and movies. OK, so not much has changed in the world since the 60's, eh? Anyway, if you're interested the 3 films I mention are available separately or as part of the "Coffin Joe Trilogy", all are quite interesting in their own way and well worth seeing if you enjoy things that are 'different', and believe me, you can't get much different than these. 8 out of 10 and check it out.


Having recently caught this strange film on Independent Film Channel,it certainly warrants a viewing, if only for the curiosity of Jose Mojica Marins.

Primarily,he uses two scenarios: a round-table of psychiatrists discussing drug addiction,and alternate scenes of the addicts in question, who are given LSD as part of the experiment.

The poverty and demoralization (particularly of women in Brazil) is explored, and the scenes are stark, turning gradually to crude, horrific and even at times humorous. There is one scene in particular where a young woman is interviewing for a job as a maid and she envisions her prospective employer, who is obese and wolfing a plate of pasta)as a hideous looking Pekingnese dog.

Overall a creative and strange commentary on the drug cultures of the late 1960's and 70's.8/10.


Well, I just finished watching this Coffin Joe entry on IFC and got a kick out of it. Crazy movie where talking heads converse over how "Brazilian" society is under a moral collapse due to drugs and how the use of such provokes depravity and sadism. A series of stories, or various ways taboos can be tap-danced on with relish, alternate how characters do immoral things to each other..such as these sweaty men paying for a prostitute's method of defecation over a pot, how a group of hipsters fondle a school girl before murdering her with a stick in an act of indecency, a movie producer giving an actress seeking work the "casting couch" treatment whacking off as his pal rapes her, an act of adultery where the cheating woman alternates between pleasure and guilt over what she's doing as the grinning male has his way with her, a wealthy wife looks on as her black butler gives her daughter oral sex, etc. While not explicit, these stories are still lurid enough, photographed in B&W, and used as examples at moral decay with drugs being labeled the culprit. We have a psychiatric doctor interested in what actually provokes such behavior and seeks four volunteers for taking LSD recording their reactions using the image of Coffin Joe as a catalyst in tapping into the subconscious. The first hour is that collection of stories, and the final thirty minutes is the madness that is Coffin Joe running rampant in the nightmarish realm of these four selected "victims". The "hallucinations" are filmed in experimental colors and feature some pretty bizarre visuals like women being subjected to embarrassing ordeals, Joe often appearing and disappearing blowing flame from his hands(!), with those "invaded" by Joe baring witness to the frenzy of deranged images which pop up. My favorite image was of the women being knocked silly by Joe, landing at the feet of one volunteer as they kiss his feet. Another bizarre image I found memorable was the one volunteer(..the girl who defecated in the opening of this film)who is "bombarded" with marks of blood, smidgens here and there until she is covered.

Oh, and there's this "game show" where Marins, as himself(..although the media and panel tend to refer to him as the evil character of Joe, perhaps a statement that some critics can not separate the creator from his creation), is subjected to a panel who question his art. This is witnessed by the psychiatrist who is inspired to run his "LSD test" using the character of Joe in his experiment.

The group discussing the effects of drugs on the people also includes Marins, which makes this rather odd. The climactic scene puts everything into perspective, and is a nice sense of irony. I think, also, that this was ahead of the curve in that one might look at how the media and public at large indict horror and music, in this day and age, as channels for evil which only encourage those to commit crimes and perversion. Perhaps Marins film will actually thwart that..we ourselves are behind the things committed in the movie, not some created character in a film or a comic book.


(Includes a background of characters that reveals who they are, If you want to keep all that a surprise, don't read this review.)

This movie is a movie that you feel okay with watching every once and awhile. It is one of my favorite Disney Channel Original Movies because it has a plot that you can follow. It also has a lot of people in the movie, making it a movie that all people can relate to because there is lots of different types of people as well. I liked it also because even though the family cast may not be the best of actors and actresses, they put together a family type of feeling that makes it seem like they are a family, even though they are not. The ideas that the movie used were pretty clever as well. The movie centers on a phantom terrorizing a big 26-screen movie theater. This is mainly a mystery as to who has been doing all of the unwanted actions in the theater.

To give you a background and summary of the characters I'll tell you about the family in the movie. The main character is Pete Riley, played by Taylor Handley. He is the assistant manager of this big megaplex, which means he has a lot of responsibility and duties to bring about before his shift is over. He has two siblings in the movie, his younger sister, Karen, played by Caitlin Wachs, and his younger brother, Bryan, played by Jacob Smith. They are the typical type of a younger brother and sister that nag you and annoy you mainly because they are bored. Pete is the type of older brother that in a way, tolerates it. They have a mother as well, who is probably just your everyday mother that has her sternness and fun side.

I think that Mickey Rooney, playing Movie Mason, did the best acting job. There were really no let-downs in this movie, but being a Disney Channel Original movie, it could have been better, only by adding more character development. This is a movie mainly for kids 6-11 or so. Teens may also enjoy it, only the teens today are mostly into PG-13 movies, not necessarily G movies. I enjoyed the movie because of the slight comedy, mystery, and some suspense. All in all it is worth it to see. Children will most definitely like it, maybe adults too. It's a good family movie that I give an 8.5/10.


One of my Favorites.

The film is about Pete Riley (Handley) who works at a huge Megaplex, where things begin to go wrong. His siblings (Smith)(Wachs) are two movie lovers, like myself, who want to save the Megaplex. If that isn't enough, the place is about to have a huge premiere for the owners film. Crazy huh? Anyway, the acting is pretty decent, some fiction mixed in with Non-Fiction. It's got to be one of the best and most remembered Disney Film.

Micky Rooney is in it! How much better can it get! One for the family, this film. It's entertainment on all levels.

Disney better continue to play this film, because if they don't, I have no idea whats going on in their heads.


This is the cheap mans phantom of the opera.Did Disney really think no one would notice? I mean seriously just change the word "megaplex" with the word opera! I really hate this movie. I really do. This movie has horrible acting, horrible plot development and just about everything else. Though it does have its few moments but those wont last long at all. This movie just suffers from being a ripoff i mean if you have seen phantom of the opera you would know what i am talking about. I have seen this movie once and hopefully i will never have to go threw the torture of watching it again! This movie could have been a nice little kiddy movie but it wasn't. STAY AWAY AT ALL COSTS


This one of my favorite movies. My kid hates it. but i love it. Movie Mason (Mickey Rooney) knows every thing about movies. It is a must see movie. It is scary and funny at the same time. 5 out out of 5 stars! Only on Disney. There is a man who is going around making bad stuff happen. That is all i am going to tell you.


Don't expect this film to be a major contribution to the art of film; just sit back and enjoy the silliness. Why bother to do that? Because along the way you get to see Mickey Rooney turn his sow's ear supporting role into a silk purse. As an eccentric who is obsessed with what he likes to call "the magic of the movies," Rooney lights up this film. Is he really as simple, gentle, and loving as he appears? Or is there a darker side to his character? Right up to the climactic moment of a wonderful monologue he delivers to two mesmerized kids, you're not really sure. Rooney has a great time with bringing to life a character that one would like to think resembles the actor himself. His presence makes an otherwise highly forgettable Disney product worth a look.


This movie seems like it was put together out of desperation, not the desire to make a movie. It had a terrible plot, bad acting, and the characters were not believable. It was a Disney made for TV movie, which explains much of this. Though not as bad as "Mom's Got a Date With a Vampire", it was still not worth seeing.

If you want to see a movie that doesn't require much brain work, this would be a good one. I give it 2 out of 10 stars.


I flicked on the show one Saturday, and I must say, it was horrible. I found my self thinking, "Wow, are these professional actors or bums off the street? The cast was unbelievable, and it was quite obvious who the phantom was. Also, terrible plot. I mean come on people giant balloons causing havoc? Wow.

I could not believe that stupid phantom. His laugh was obviously not by the actor, it was the laughter in a can. Really people, is it such a big deal that some guy turned on a fan in a movie? Even a maximum fan wouldn't have that effect.

If you're looking for an hour to kill and you enjoy cheesy movies, this is the one for you. Look for bad acting by the whole cast.


This story of a French couple, middle class business people leading a life that they only find boring when they encounter a young, free spirited and unisexual man, takes some weird turns but does it with excellent performances and direction. Though the ending was a bit abrupt, as well as shocking, getting there was the fun - well, pleasure, maybe. The young man has an affair with the woman, and is clearly drawn toward the man as while. The husband's reaction is the key to the drama, and the actor's subtle signs of being tempted, against his nature and resisting all the way , are truly fine acting. The whole cast is excellent, and the sensual , open tone of the movie, mixing the fairly straight-laced couple, their young child, middle class friends and family, and the worldly young man and depicting them, ultimately, as not really all that different, is almost comforting...until that ending, which came rather fast and furious after a more slow moving development, shattering the mood. Still, this is a really fine job of direction, and development of characters who all seem far more common than we would think if merely being told about them.


In a small town in France, Nicole Kunstler (Miou-Miou) and her husband Jean-Marie Kunstler is a traditional French middle-class couple, bored with their years of marriage and running a small business of cleaning and ironing clothes with some financial difficulties. When they meet the bisexual Loic (Stanislas Merhar) working as drag in a night-club with his sister Marylin (Mathilde Seigner), the sexually dissatisfied Nicole feels a great sexual attraction for him. The couple brings the young man to live and work with them, in a weird relationship, and Nicole has an affair with Loic and becomes a happy person. This intriguing triangle of love has a tragic end. "Nettoyage à Sec" is almost an excellent romance. The screenplay begins very daring, but the solution for the love situation is very moralist and resolved in a tragic, but easy way. The cast has a great performance and the direction is very good, but the story deserved a better conclusion. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Lavagem a Seco" ("Dry Cleaning")


The mellow, mesmerising tune of the theme music by Edouard Dubois made me watch this movie twice while on a transcontinental flight. The music was only one reason among others that made me watch the film twice in four hours. I am a French film enthusiast and the contents of the film (latent homosexuality, guilt, cross dressing, etc.)were not out of the ordinary. What was striking in the film was the deliberate, structured screenplay that made me recall early works of Marcel Carne. I was not surprised to learn that the screenplay won an award at the prestigious Venice Film Festival and nominated for a Cesar in France.

The film's beginning and end revolve around affirmation of marital bonds, while the bulk of the film (to me only the sub-plot) ventures into transgression of those bonds followed by redemption. There is sadness at the end but it also accompanied by a silent studied reaffirmation of faith between man and wife. The final walk of the duo is an ordinary event yet captured powerfully in this film. I recommend this film to those who have not seen it not as a film that is extraordinary, but one which encourages viewers to introspect and look at ordinary lives, not of superheroes but of less than perfect men and women. The film succeeds because of low-keyed acting (Merhar and Miou-Miou), the sombre yet mesmerising music and good mise-en-scene. The film discusses "drycleaning" of two individuals' marital life, but the script and the director elevate the wife as strong personality with a level-headed strength developed quite unobtrusively as the film progresses. Anne Fontaine, the director, is someone to watch out for in the future as is Edouard Dubois. In more ways than one (direction, cinematography, the script) the film gives a woman's perspective of the story, though a wee bit sombre.


An interesting and somewhat mysterious tale of a middle aged couple who grow disillusioned with their dry cleaning business and find outlet with a cross dressing brother-sister-lover couple of performers. Their mutual obsession naturally leads to the demise of their relationships, businesses and ultimately their lives.

The script is a bit dry, and lacks the punch that the subject matter is capable of delivering. Near the final act it tries to catch up as the homosexual attraction between the young man and the older husband comes zooming out of nowhere. A good editor would've suggested they drop some kind of hint earlier on.

The abrupt and troubling ending leaves you satisfied.


It's a cinematic tradition: the handsome young man who insinuates himself into a household of boring bourgeois types and stirs things up. Terence Stamp did it in Teorema, Robert Forster in Reflections in a Golden Eye, Peter McEnery in Entertaining Mr. Sloane, Will Smith in Six Degrees of Separation. Here, the young man is a bisexual who quickly wins the heart of a frustrated Miou-Miou and disturbs the dull, penny-pinching boss of a dry cleaners, Berling. The script and direction by Anne Fontaine are assured, but the ending is absurd, something that feels tacked-on.

Stanislas Merhar deserved the Most Promising Actor Cesar that he won as the pretty boy; you can readily see why the wife can't get enough of his caresses. Charles Berling often plays men who suffer in silence, and here he's good as the husband.


It's impossible - for me at least - to know whether or not Ann Fontaine was familiar with Joe Orton's sixties play Entertaining Mister Sloane (subsequently filmed)before writing and directing Nettoyage a sec some thirty years later but it is reasonable to assume that the central premise - bi-sexual catalyst male enters and ultimately disrupts household via sexual encounters with both male and female - is very similar with, in the case of the latter, a Gallic twist. Orton's protagonist disrupted a home occupied by a brother and sister both childless whilst Fontaine's shares a home with a married couple who have a child. There are, of course, other substantial differences, where Mr Sloane came, as it were, out of nowhere, Loic (Stanislas Merhar) is first encountered by Nicole (Miou-Miou) and Jean-Marie (Charles Berning) Kunstler in a club where he is performing a cross-dressing act with his sister Marilyn (Mathilde Seigner)and only goes to live with the Kunstlers some time later when Marilyn leaves both him and the act in favour of life with her boy friend. The Kunstlers have been married for some fifteen years and it may be said that the marriage has become as 'dry' as the dry cleaning business they own and is in need of sexual 'cleaning'. If so they came to the right place for the amoral Loic is happy to oblige, first by seducing Nicole - not terribly difficult as she was ripe for seduction - and then, with less success, Jean-Marie. What we have here is a fine, tightly written and directed script acted to perfection by the three principals and arguably the finest of Fontaines early films - Berning would later appear in her How I Killed My Father. Very definitely worth seeing.


Spoilers...

"Dry cleaning", that's what the title of this Anne Fontaine's effort means in English and it's a well-appropriated one to qualify the contents of the story she tells the audience. Its bulk essentially occurs in a dry-cleaner whose purpose is to clean the customers' clothes but the director prefers to soil her couple's clear conscience as well as their moral, sexual conventions.

Could this film be a crossing between Claude Chabrol's universe and Pier Paolo Pasolini's film "Theorema" (1968)? It's highly possible and they're respectable credentials for this novel, idiosyncratic film. The first one for the provincial backdrop and a dash of gastronomy. The author of "le Boucher" (1970) and "les Noces Rouges" (1973) excelled when it came to depict vignettes of provincial life, in the Kunstler's shop and apartment but also in the town itself. Anne Fontaine just has to describe with just a few features, the gloomy aura which reigns in Belfort. And the second reference for of course the story of the film which bears a strong resemblance with Pasolini's opus: both introduced a young man who subverted a comfortable universe and caused damage in them. "Nettoyage à Sec" could be an updated version of "Theorema".

Loïc is the disruptive element in the Kunstler's "petit bourgeois" world. More than this, he's the catalyst of their buried desires and passions. Before making their dreary universe with its constricting etiquette falter in the dry-cleaner's, he will at first indirectly galvanize them to accomplish their desires. The week-end in Bâle, unusual in the couple' life is a proof of it. Before this, one of the key sequences is the one when the four protagonists are together in the hotel room because in this moment, the persona of Jean Marie and especially Nicole is well construed and defined. It's necessary to steer well the evolution and crucial steps of the story. Nicole makes love with Loïc and it's a sign that she's tired of her life and is ready to go in a new direction. Later, Fontaine will intersperse her film with conspicuous signs which don't fool anyone. See the scene in the restaurant: she confesses to her husband that she doesn't feel courageous enough to carry on her nine-to-five life in the dry-cleaner's. She's on the verge of packing in. Jean-Marie's answer is meaningful: "however when we started, you wanted to be the first one to help me to settle here...". So, it seems perfectly logical that later she accepts Loïc's advances. As for Jean-Marie, he appears hesitant and undetermined but maybe would he like (unconsciously or not) change his life in spite of an eloquent sequence: when he takes Loïc downstairs to show him concrete memories of his first years spent in the shop. Memories to which he is deeply attached...

Loïc's demeanor is rather elusive and it's hard to decipher his mainspring. Is it because he lost his closest human being in the world (Marilyn) that he settles to Nicole and Jean-Marie? Is he sick of his nomad life despite what he says to the couple? By enticing the couple, does he try to fulfill an affective gap in his life? It was shrewd from Fontaine to make opaque his motivations. Thus, he keeps all his mystery. It was also clever from the director to have chosen evocative colors for her film and she's got a sense of light. The white of the dry-cleaner's sharply contrasts with the half-murky, dimly light rooms in the apartment, especially when Loïc is in these rooms. This to underscore that the life of the couple with Loïc's intrusion goes bit by bit unravel. She also has the gift to build her film on a relentless crescendo and to shroud it with an increasingly latent, ominous tension. A tension caused by several factors: disquieting moments or lines pronounced by Loïc, by the contrast between the appearance the couple gives to the customers and employees and what lies beneath this when they are in the apartment with Loïc, especially when the latter finds himself with Nicole. And it won't take long for Jean Marie to discover their love affair. But also with Jean-Marie's tantrums he has to try to resist to the strange attraction he feels for Loïc. His short wild mood swings are the result of a sexual repression he vainly wants to conceal. Loïc will feel it very well in the inevitable sequence in which he will try to sodomize him (a violent one which packs a real wallop). After this scene, one could argue that the couple came back to where they started but in worse: Nicole and Jean-Marie are destroyed.

The acting is uniformly good and largely lives up to the demands of the scenario. The type of character of each actor of the quartet complements one another. Although the film really put Mathilde Seigner on the map, it's her coy, brazen partner Stanislas Mehrer who gets the lion's share. I don't put Charles Berling and Miou-Miou in my straitjacket of favorite French actors but here, I was very taken with their acting.

"Nettoyage à Sec" has a taut, well-constructed scenario in which every step of the story rings true. It's an unsettling piece of work which leaves indelible stains. It may also walk a fine line with works like "Harry: Un Ami Qui Vous Veut Du Bien" (2000) by Dominik Moll which could be his little brother. I would like to discover Anne Fontaine's anterior and subsequent works to her 1997 film.


(WARNING - CONTAINS MILD SPOILER) The somewhat unresolved nature of the very last scene is ultimately dissatisfying, leaving a feeling that the film may have been inherently overly familiar - a chronicle of a straight- laced, unsatisfied couple who taste forbidden fruit and are almost ruined by it. The film's air of calm scrutiny is generally engrossing though, as it sketches the quiet disappointments and compromises of rural small business; a life caught up by routine, where years go by without a vacation. The plot initially finds the couple fascinated by sheer difference, leaving an enjoyable ambiguity as to whether there's any real sexual attraction on Berling's part toward Merhar, or whether it's largely a matter of intertwined ego, loneliness, and a symbolic yielding to the limitations of his life (the sexual encounter here looks like a pure power play). But the film's restraint makes it easy to take for the most part as a low-key, well-observed black comedy, thriving on the contrast between the ultra-orderly dry cleaning business and the flashy excess of the cross-dressing scene.


To me, a romantically inclined gay man, this was a fascinating but ultimately unfulfilling tale of a `normal' French couple, Nicole and Jean-Marie Kunstler, who have grown unsatisfied with their settled, routine lives. The couple runs a dry cleaning business in an unexciting small French town. Their lives change when they go to a bar with some business associates and encounter Loïc and Marylin, a cross dressing brother/sister act. From the first, the couple is fascinated with the pair but particularly with Loïc, the sexually ambiguous brother, (played to perfection by Stanislas Merhar).

The couple is so enchanted with the pair that they take a weekend to the city where the performers are appearing next. When the sister decides to end the act and run away with her lover, the brother insinuates himself into the couples lives. The young man claims to be, and is by all indications, straight and soon takes the wife as a lover. The husband is also aroused by the boy but denies his attraction. Soon the boy is living in the couple's home and working in the Dry Cleaning shop and is showing a talent for that type of work. He even befriends the couple's child and helps him with homework and takes him skating.

Whether his good work arises from Loïc's desire to repay Jean-Marie or from some innate talent for dry cleaning is unclear. I think that Loïc feels guilty about cuckolding this man who has shown him nothing but kindness, genuinely likes the guy, and is aware of the man's attraction to him. He wants to make amends in any way that he can. Ultimately Loïc offers himself to Jean-Marie physically but is rebuffed.

Whether it's the husband's `homosexual panic' or his actually seeing his wife with Loïc during one of their trysts, Jean-Marie decides that Loïc must go. This leads to the final and I think dissatisfying concluding scenes.


From all the French movies I've seen, this one is quite different. When I say different, I mean that this movie has faster pace compared to other French movie that are usually slow-moving.

The events folded seamlessly and the acting of the three main actors were great, with one flaw. Stanislas Merhar was supposed to look normal, not effeminate, according to the script, and according to Miou-Miou's character. However, he still looked very effeminate. I don't know if that was the real him or that was what the director wanted him to be.

On the contrary, the ending was not that good. I think it was because the writer wanted to end the story, but didn't know how to end it logically. Anyway, this movie is worth seeing.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


People who find this film boring, clearly "don't get it!" It's not an action, sci-fi, mystery, or horror film. It's not "pop" film making to achieve "box office success". It's a piece about the "art" of filmaking, about style, and use of color and lighting. It's also about elements of personality and relationships that we don't find easy to look at or admit to. It's a brilliant film by one of our most brilliant filmakers!


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.


After years of owning a grainy VHS, Its great to see Coppola's little Seen but superb 'one from the heart' On a much finer format,

Coppola's 'one from the heart' tells the of story of Frannie and hank, A loving couple, but on the 4th of July things take a different Turn, During an argument Hank and Frannie go their separate ways, But Can a Frolic with a European circus performer, a Tempting tango with a Piano Playing waiter Change the outcome of their relationship? The cast is Outstanding particularly Nastasha Kinski as the alluring Circus performer Leila, The Very much missed Raul Julia as the suave ray, Harry dean Stanton (Always a delight is on hand as hank's long suffering pal, Filmed on the stages of Zoetrope studios, the film is an Affectionate 'Love letter' to the musicals of yesteryear, Coppola even Has it filmed In standard 1.33.1 Aspect Ratio, to evoke the look of the Classic Musical. The production design of Vegas is superbly recreated On the stages of Zoetrope by long time Coppola Collaborater Dean Tavoularis is stunning as is the photography By Vittorio storaro,


I've just returned from seeing "One From The Heart" in the theater. My wife and I have loved this film for years, having first seen it on the hard-to-find VHS tape, and later on the even harder-to-find LaserDisc. Over the years we've probably watched it more than two dozen times, and we were eagerly awaiting our chance to see it in 35mm.

We were heartbroken. This is not a restoration - this is a desecration. The wonderful flow of the film was broken right at the begining. The stunning opening shot - through the "Golden Nugget" sign, down to the street, over the cars, outside the window, through the window, following Teri Garr as she talks to Lainie Kazan to a close-up of Teri looking in a mirror that cross-dissolves into Frederick Forrest looking into a mirror at his workplace and a great scene with Forrest and Stanton is chopped off right outside the window! We were jerked out of the picture, and thought there must have been a reel mixup.

No. Apparently Coppola had taken all the criticism to heart and decided to try to please all the people who hated the film by making it more conventional. The result will please nobody. The new scenes are gracelessly edited in with painfully conventional cross-cutting between the storylines, and the lyrical dance/seduction of Teri Garr by Raul Julia is completely chopped up for no readily apparent reason.

It's as if someone decided the mirror sequence in the Marx Brother's "Duck Soup" needed to be broken up by a love scene with Zeppo.

The new scenes aren't all bad. In their defense, they make some elements of the plot clearer - the anniversary gifts in particular. And the scene in the car afterwards is interesting. But I would have prefered to have seen these scenes as DVD extras, and to have a DVD copy of the film I have on LaserDisc.

I'm sure these scenes could have been added without restructuring the entire film. This is one of those films that will not appeal to everyone, and this attempt to do so has wrecked the magic that it had.


The marriage of a bickering couple in a fantasy-version of Las Vegas comes to a boil when the wife decides to leave (she wants a little excitement, but hubby is a homebody); both he and she link up with other partners, but will married-love win out? Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr star in this lavishly-designed, studio-shot concoction from director Francis Ford Coppola, who seemingly put all his heart into the unreality of the film's look and forgot to shape the characters (and involve the audience). There's nobody here worth giving a damn about, not Forrest nor Garr, nor their new paramours, Latin smoothie Raul Julia or pixieish showgirl Nastassia Kinski (who has the film's best scene walking a tightrope, which may have been stolen 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. * from ****


If you like intelligent European films and don't much care for American blockbusters, gore-fests, or trivial comedies, this is a film for you. It totally stiffed at the box office (I think there were 2 other people in the theater when I saw it), but it is an exceptionally fine, unusual flick. The Coppola film for those of us who would rather watch Antonioni.


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.


To enjoy "One From the Heart", it might help to have been brought up on musical re-runs. Coppola takes a cheesy genre, accentuates the fake and unreal and uses the most ordinary "real" actors he can find.

This combination of pure fantasy and recognisable characters drives the story. This pretty boring almost middle-aged couple re offered a last shot of romance and glamour - and dive into it headlong. Tom Waits' incredible songs add a brilliant running commentary.

And then there is the visual side, a smorgasbord of lush effects and glaring colors. Like so many movies, "One From the Heart" runs best on a movie screen, rather than a TV. The trailers I've seen don't do justice to this oddball combination of corn and touching emotion.

So you'll just have to see it and make up your own mind.


ONE FROM THE HEART (4 outta 5 stars)

Don't read too much into the 4 star rating I give this movie. It is NOT an easy movie to like... there is so much wrong with it (bland, dislikable lead characters, poor dialogue, over-stylized sets) but it means well... and there are also a lot of things that DO work (Tom Waits' music, the young and sexy Raul Julia and Nastassia Kinski, the airport scene). Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr play the two long-time partners... both kind of bored with the other and wishing for something new and exciting in their lives. Over the course of a day they break up, meet a fascinating new person, have a one-night-stand and then come to realize what they want most in life. Not much of a plot, is it? How much you like this movie will be pretty much determined by how much you like Tom Waits' music... which is heard throughout. He and Crystal Gayle sing slow, romantic ballads which give the movie the feel of a longggggggggg music video. (One the new DVD edition you can watch the movie listening to a "music only" track... and, honestly, it's probably better that way.) Forrest and Garr are kind of hard to accept as romantic leads... they both seem a little too bland and ordinary (which was the director's intention)... but also come across as too unlikable: Garr is a whiny shrew and Forrest is a macho jerk. Again, it was the director's intention that they be "real people" so he wanted to portray them with warts and all. Unfortunately he didn't seem to give audiences enough reason to *like* these people. If Raul Julia and Nastassia Kinski had been the main characters the movie may have been more successful. I think that main problem with this movie is that director Francis Ford Coppola put too much *thought* into what is supposed to be a movie heavy on *emotion*. It does seem a little cold and distancing at times... technically perfect... but not fully satisfying as a story. Still, I've seen it about ten times... and I don't think think Coppola has made a better movie *since*.


Possibly a classic, Francis Coppola's R rated 'One from the heart' has a very simple plot line set in neon lit Las Vegas in which a man and woman are tired of each other after living together for five years, they split apart for a night, then somehow or other they get back together. What is exceptional about the film is the cinematography, the spectacular lighting, seamless no transition scenes without cuts, the integral sound track by Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle, and a stunning Nastassia Kinski in an over-sized martini glass. With the use of such vivid color by cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, it is highly reminiscent of Fassbinder's 1981 'Lola' in which green and blue lighting come off skin and works quite well. Recently released on a spectacular two DVD set that was remastered by Coppola, the high quality transfer, supervised by Storaro, from Zoetrope via Fantoma works quite well on the normal sized TV screen and looks even better than it did in its short time release around the country in late 2003 and January 2004. 'One from the heart' is an unusual romantic musical with dance sequences supervised by Gene Kelly, with the only singing done by a cast member is Nastassia's 'Little Boy Blue.' The DVD is exceptionally visual with running film commentary by Coppola plus many other bonus features.


Saw this in a near empty cinema when it came out and enjoyed it all the more. Got it again on a battered old VHS and it is still as great. So why do some people hate it? I think firstly the film is more about mood than plot, so you have to be able to relax to get into it. Its dream-like and as in dreams (and musicals) not everything makes sense or looks right. The film is also about colour, every set piece has been designed to show bright neon colours - again dream like, but to others it just looks fake. And to top it all you have a dream girl in the shape of Natassia Kinski - if you do not find her attractive you are really not going to like this. It really is a lonely feeling when you know you love something as much as this and other people cannot see the beauty in it.


This is an often overlooked gem in Coppola's filmography. It was critically blasted when it was originally released because of the "high" cost at the time. The reviews at that time seemed to center more on how much Francis spent than on the movie and it's visual style.

It's a classic/simple story of a couple who have lost the spice in their relationship, who break up, seek other people and then discover that, perhaps, what they had was better after all.

Frederic Forrest and Teri Garr give excellent performances as the bored couple. Frederic Forrest in particular does a great job giving the audience the sense of a regular guy who thinks that something exotic is what he really needs. He's also gives a great emotional baring when he realizes that he may have lost what he had.

Nice performances by Nastassja Kinski and Raul Julia (at his charming fast-talking energetic best) as the "others", whose arms the main characters fall into.

The visual style is very audacious. It is very theatrical, with the most famous instance being the recreation of a Las Vegas strip street corner, built on a sound stage for the big dance number. The clever use of theatrical effects (like lighting crossfades through scrim to change from one scene/room to another) really gives this film a magical unreal feel. I might call it "magical" reality, a lot of attention to detail but not truly realistic. Americans seem very fixated on film being "realistic", which may have contributed to the lukewarm reception this film received.

FABULOUS soundtrack by the wonderful gravelly Tom Waits, partnered with the clear sweetness of Crystal Gayle's lovely voice.

Coppola on his WORST day (which some consider this film) is better than most directors on their BEST day.

Gil-Bob says: "Check it out!"


If you love early sentimental Tom Waits, this is his peak. If you love the artificial look of Hollywood musicals of the fifties, you'll love the never-to-be-seen-again soundstage creations of the then newly formed Zoetrope Studios. If you love Teri Garr, this is the starring role of her career. If you want to see one of the last great visionary creations of the American 'new wave' that came out of the seventies, this is it.


If Busby Berkley and Orson Wells had made a movie together, this mighta been it. Coppola has tried so hard throughout his career to "reject Hollywood" - and Hollywood has, in turn, often rejected him - yet he makes a truly gorgeous paean to Hollywood production values here. Though it gets SO over the top at times (can you say "Rosebud"...?), Frederick Forrest and Teri Garr keep it pretty real. And the soundtrack is my all-time favorite. Tom Waits and Crystal Gayle - it's a pure gem.

"One From The Heart" makes one wonder what kind of musical Orson Welles might have come up with - to be fair, Coppola's talent hasn't soured over the decades as he's had either critical or box office failures. The same can't be said of ol' Orson, who became a caricature of himself in the 60s and never recovered even a whiff of his genius.

Definitely give this a viewing if you've enjoyed any other Coppola film. This gives real texture to his body of work.


I love this film. I love the soundtrack written by Tom Waits and sung with Crystal Gayle. Their voices blend beautifully; one would never have guessed. This is incredibly stylized; the basic and simple plot is almost irrelevant; the imagery, the direction, the sets and the performances are all enchanting. If the DVD would only come out I would order in a nanosecond. Find a copy to rent, duplicate it and save it for your next first date with someone. A little promotion of a new DVD, theatrical re-release, and FFC/Zoetrope would probably make all their money back. I wonder what it would take to make this happen.


a great soundtrack by Tom Waits, the great director Francis Ford Coppola, the sceneries, and the most beautiful actress in the world ever (Nastassia Kinsky), make a not-very-unusual story into a movie that must figure in the History of Movies. A great love story.