I'm somewhat surprised at the number of negative reviews for "One From the Heart," and in particular those from people who had seen the film when it was initially released and have, for some reason, gone back to see the film again on DVD. If said persons were so dissatisfied with the film the first time around, then why would they bother with a second screening? Myself, I first saw Coppola's film when I rented it from Blockbuster some ten years ago, and was thoroughly impressed with a warm tale told in a surreal world. After a ten year search for it on VHS I now finally own a copy of it on DVD.

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

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

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

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

And that's what "One from the Heart" is all about.