arfdawg-1 The plot.Bennie travels to Buenos Aires to find his long-missing older brother, a once-promising writer who is now a remnant of his former self. Bennie's discovery of his brother's near-finished play might hold the answer to understanding their shared past and renewing their bond.After making a few of the best movies of motion picture history Coppola self destructed and made some of the worst. Then he scaled back and started making very artsy small personal pictures. Like Orson Welles.The movie is very stylistic but unfortunately casts no talent Gallo in the lead role.For the most part I didn't care about any of the characters and so in the end, the movie looks good but has no depth,

Sima Sid The moment I saw a poster of this movie, I understood - those are the eyes I can fall in love easily. And the first impression was 100% right. An acting of Vincent Gallo (who acts the main character Tetro) is incredible. His shoulders are hump, face is in deep pain and eyes are in mystery. Every move shows his deep soul and a secret that lie in him(reminds me Al Pacino from Coppola's "Grandfather"). Tetro's spirit is broken, at some moments even I felt all the chaos that took control of his life. A look of a devil, just misunderstood genius that can explode every second. This is it, only his acting saves the movie.It's a little bit strange to see only black/white (with some short moments of colour) movie. It reminds me those old movies where femme fatale smoke cigarettes, where everyone are so elegant. That's why I like this movie, it has an aura of elegance.And, although, the work of a camera is brilliant and the montage just takes breath away there is something missing. It has a good, strong beginning, but with every minute your attention is more and more slipping away. Moreover, the ending is too predictable and cheesy (Coppola, I didn't expected that from you).I fall in love with Vincent Gallo acting, work of a camera and an old-fashioned style of Coppola. But in this story...it's too light, there's not enough weight to stay in my mind for a longer time. Maybe it's not a love, maybe it's just a crush.

robert-temple-1 This film conceived, written, produced and directed by the renowned Francis Ford Coppola is empty and pointless. There are good performances, good cinematography, and directorial skills are in evidence. But why bother? Yes, there is atmosphere. But it is dark and depressing. The story has a germ of an idea to it, but what has happened to Coppola's writing abilities? He has in the past written such important screenplays. I suggest that Francis has nothing to say at the moment. Let us hope that his situation will improve, that he will pull himself together, and find something interesting and worthwhile to say. He is also in danger of becoming pretentious, possibly because he has been praised too much and for too long and is starting to believe in it. Waiting for him to recover from this is a bit too much like imagining Samuel Beckett's 'Waiting for (Jean-Luc) Godard'.

mark s I've walked out of two theater movies to date. The first was "Bean" in 1997. This was the second.All acting aside, the script for this movie was terrible. Dialogue was frequently cliché, and irrelevant details abounded, leaving big questions about character motivation unanswered -- characters weren't fully developed, as hard as they tried to be. Final editing was poor, as the film was pieced together strangely. The reoccurring nudity was tasteless, pointless, weird, and ultimately what caused the final offense.I am usually a fan of Art House, but I am not a fan of Art House for Art House's sake. This is what Ghost World refers to as "The Flower That Drank the Moon".