Tetro (2009)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Strong and Moving!

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

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,

This not-particularly-involving-drama is well-cast and has a rather good script but Francis Ford Coppola has done his best work now. It doesn't help that he tries to articulate emotional episodes 'through the medium of dance' in sequences that don't measure up to the ballets already name-checked, The Red Shoes being the obvious elephant in the room.The narrative has a considerable twist towards which it can wind up. Unfortunately, the breezy manner in which the characters circle one another, combined with the coming-of-age/road trip sensibility of the film (the beautiful Maribel Verdú of car-trip flick Y Tu Mamá También overbalances the story occasionally) mean that we have as hard a time believing the reveal as the disabused principal.The wonderful Klaus Maria Brandauer is wasted. I always enjoy watching Vincent Gallo and his performance is excellent - I kept asking myself why he seemed rather more 'on the leash' than elsewhere. However, his work is also boxed ineffectively in the final showing. 4/10

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'.

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".