Reseñas de usuarios

It's the huge go for broke swing everyone said it was, and an immensely interesting mess. For everything that works in Megalopolis, there's something that doesn't. Parts are very creative and unlike anything else, and then long stretches pass that are utterly boring. It's 138 minutes long but feels like it exceeds the three-hour mark. Whether that makes it feel appropriately epic or too often dull will probably depend on the viewer.

It's also the kind of movie where I'm not sure overanalysing will help. Coppola is trying to say so much in one film, and a good part of it comes out nonsensical as a result. There were a few points during the film where I wondered if it was all some practical joke. It might mean a lot to him, or maybe only parts do and the rest of the time, he's laughing at us.

Somehow, all at once, I'm disappointed, exhausted, confused, and impressed. There's a certain balance here with the entertaining and boring. Visuals that look striking alongside parts that are visually garish. It's a movie that film buffs will argue about and remember while 99% of the population will continue to live their lives in blissful ignorance of its existence.

I can't quite decide whether it would be better to have be among the blissful many or the baffled 1%. I can offer no advice to anyone else who's considering giving it 138 minutes of their finite time. I'm glad I saw it and I also feel it was a bit of a waste of time.

Full disclosure: This film is a disaster of epic proportions-an absolute train wreck that careens off the tracks, crashes, and then somehow sets itself on fire. It's so bad, it's almost brilliant, the kind of so-awful-it's-genius nightmare that future cult fans will rave about. And you know what? I respect the hell out of Coppola for it. The guy is a cinematic legend who just decided to throw all caution (and coherence) to the wind and go full mad scientist on this. It's a glorious, unfiltered mess from the mind of a genius who clearly stopped caring about what anyone thinks. Bravo, you magnificent lunatic! 👏🏻

On one hand, this film has some interesting ideas and visuals, but some ideas never evolve, and some visuals don't look good.

It's challenging to understand what Coppola's intention was with this film. It seems like he chose not to focus too much on characters but rather on themes. However, some scenes suggest that the audience should feel empathy for the characters, but one simply can't. One reason for that is the pacing of this film; it somehow manages to be fast, yet feel slow, and that might be because some scenes are dull. If we remove all the misleading character development, we are left with misleading idea development. Megalopolis bombards you with interesting ideas, but because there are quite a few of them, none of them evolves into a solid conclusion. As I already mentioned, it's hard to see where Coppola was going with all of this.

If his intention was to go against the classical narrative structure and challenge viewers with a different type of storytelling, then that didn't work either. Some scenes contain clichés, and the overall structure feels like a mix of 50s to 90s scenery. One interesting thing the movie does frequently is plant a seed that sometimes does not grow-it stays in that scene, and then we move to the next one. This method of storytelling is misleading and confusing for most audiences, and it probably would work better if this technique had a solid foundation throughout the whole film. But it simply does not feel right.

David Lynch once said that you can make any film, any art the way you want, as long as it feels right. His films are stranger and more difficult to understand than Megalopolis, yet when you watch Lynch's work, you don't feel misled-everything feels right, no matter how strange it is. Megalopolis sometimes feels right, sometimes it doesn't.

Megalopolis is a good example of how the director's stylistic touch matters to the look of the movie. The cinematography of this film was done by the same person who shot The Master. Yet this film feels like any expensive commercial shot today-too vivid, too warm, too basic.

I will definitely rewatch this film in the future, all jokes aside. This film has a shtick to it that I didn't quite get the first time watching. Overall, it's a bit sad that this is Coppola's last film, but I'm sure he has no regrets making it. After all, this is the guy who made Apocalypse Now, and I will respect him forever for his contribution to American cinema.

Megalopolis: the greatest movie-watching experience I've ever had for such a terrible trainwreck of a film. I don't know what the heck I just watched, but my god did I ever feel connected to the rest of my audience as we all suffered and laughed through it together.

Megalopolis is a mess brimming with ambition but utterly devoid of direction and cohesion. It isn't just agonizing, it is an excruciating test of patience. At best, it's mind-numbing, at worst, a total trainwreck I painfully endured.

BUT! It gave me an experience I will never forget. I saw this at an IMAX pre-screening that included the live actor during the movie and a live-streamed pre-screening Q&A with Francis Ford Coppola, Robert DeNiro, and Spike Lee. The Q&A was bonkers and spiraled way out of control right after it began. It was insane to watch unfold in real-time and ended up being a great pre-game for how insane the experience to come was.

And wow was it ever so much fun - laughing along with a full audience of cinephiles at the absurdity of this movie. And before you ask, no this is not a comedy, we were laughing at the movie. And yes, I feel bad, this is the legendary Francis Ford Coppola's passion project with a heavy artistic, experimental vision to it, but it just was such a hot mess that I couldn't help it. Luckily, I wasn't alone. And while the movie was largely a failure, this was the most connected I've felt to an audience and film community since seeing Avengers: Endgame for the first time. So while I will probably NEVER see this movie again, I am so thankful to have had the experience I did seeing it.

I genuinely cannot believe this movie is real. Needs to be seen to be believed. I have never seen a movie quite like this before. Better or worse, Coppola made the movie he wanted to make, and it's as strange and bizarre and imaginative and insane as you expect, in every single department. Part of me thinks the movie knows how insane it is, and it just gives zero craps. But who knows? I just have no clue how to actually write about it. Frankly, I could barely explain the movie to you if I tried.

You can tell Francis Ford Coppola thinks a lot about the Roman Empire because its influence is all over the mega failure that is Megalopolis. Themes of time, history, legacy, civilization, technology, politics, the media, and economics are all touched upon in this golden sun-baked, grandiose, overstuffed, and overwritten piece of filmmaking but with little to zero cohesion between them. While Francis Ford Coppola may have made some of the greatest films of all time in the 70s, Megalopolis is not one of those movies. Every member of this cast feels lost as they deliver some of the funniest line readings you'll likely hear all year. (I think Aubrey Plaza was the only one who KNEW what kind of movie she was in.) Some will appreciate the scale and ambition of Megalopolis. I would've admired it more if any of it worked, but at least I'll never forget the incoherent, messy, WTF experience of it all. Feel like I just witnessed an important moment in film history.

I so desperately wanted to be part of the minority who enjoyed Megalopolis. However, what an abhorrent nightmare; or maybe a fever dream is more accurate. There's no doubt that the actual bundle of ideas that make up Francis Ford Coppola's "masterpiece" are incredibly unique and interesting. The problem is the execution of those ideas and the dialogue that connects them together. I am obsessed with the idea of New Rome and all these quasi Roman characters plotting against each other like a Shakespearean Game of Thrones. But listening to Adam Driver give a quote from Hamlet and then immediately saying "in the clurrrrb" and Jon Voight saying "boner" are just unforgivable. I roughly understand the plot of Megalopolis, but I cannot even begin to fathom why any character does anything they say or do. The amount of talent that was wasted on what has to be one of the most beautiful, visually stunning backdrops, is disrespectfully confusing. With all of that being said, I will probably cause myself to suffer an additional viewing of Megalopolis, just to be sure I'm sure the experience was so exhausting.

In Hollywood, even the best directors can spend years trying to get a project off the ground. George Miller first came up with the idea for 'Mad Max: Fury Road' 28 years before it was released; Clint Eastwood sat on the script for 'Unforgiven' for over a decade, as did Robert Duvall with 'The Apostle'. Martin Scorsese considered making 'Gangs of New York' as far back as 1970, while it took Terry Gilliam nearly 30 years to complete 'The Man Who Killed Don Quixote'.

Were it not for their director's relentless passion, projects like these would go unrealized, and the world would be missing some truly great cinema. Conversely, after such a long gestation period, there is a risk that that same passion can cloud creative judgment, resulting in works that are more self-indulgent than impactful. Such is the case with Francis Ford Coppola's 'Megalopolis,' a meandering, exasperating epic that took the great director over 47 years to make.

Coppola is undeniably a filmmaking genius, however his best works were done in the 1970's and early 80's. His output has been more miss than hit since then, and his semiretirement after 1997's 'The Rainmaker' seemed to indicate that he was tired of the movie business. For years, he appeared content to relax on his vineyard, making the odd low-budget indie flick, while sporadically reediting and rereleasing his older films whenever there was a bad grape year. However, 'Megalopolis' was never far from his mind and, after falling back in love with the idea, finally began filming in 2022, nearly half a century after he first thought of it in 1977.

Entirely self-funded, it is set in the not-too-distant future in the decadent, debauched city of New Rome, centring on visionary architect Cesar Catilina, the inventor of a miraculously versatile substance called Megalon. He has a vision for the future of the city, which is at odds with that of the Mayor Franklyn Cicero. Drawing heavily on Roman history, particularly the Catilinarian conspiracy of 63 BC, the film delves into themes of societal decay, corruption and the eternal struggle between progress and regression. On paper, it sounds fascinating, especially with Coppola at the helm.

Regretfully, Coppola's execution does not match his ambition. He aims to weave a grand narrative that merges historical allegory with futuristic vision, but stumbles with his storytelling. The plot meanders, losing focus amid its myriad subplots and philosophical digressions. This lack of cohesion leaves one adrift in a sea of ideas that, while initially intriguing, do not coalesce into a compelling whole.

Furthermore, Coppola's exploration of the aforementioned themes has been seen before in countless other pictures (perhaps most obviously Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis', which came out nearly 100 years ago and still feels more relevant) making the film feel oddly hackneyed. Coppola's ideas do not feel fresh nor innovative (when they are comprehensible, that is- which they frequently aren't) and the parallels he draws between ancient Rome and society today feel ham-fisted and obvious.

Additionally, proceedings are burdened with pretentious, stilted dialogue and banal narration that sounds like the semi-coherent mumblings of a majorly stoned student minoring in philosophy. Moreover, his characters aren't compelling and the tone is all over the place, oscillating wildly between self-serious drama and unintentional comedy. This tonal inconsistency further detracts from the film's impact, leaving one unsure whether to ponder deeply or chuckle at the absurdity of it all.

Conversely, it is a stunning looking film; even though the heavy-handed CGI ranges from barely serviceable to incredibly obvious. Alongside director of photography Mihai Malaimare Jr., Coppola has crafted a world that is both striking and unsettling, blending the opulence of ancient Rome with the sleek, cold aesthetics of a futuristic utopia. Their use of light and shadow, as well as colour, creates a visual narrative arguably more compelling than the story itself.

This is compounded by Beth Mickle and Bradley Rubin's lush production design (both of whom exited the production before filming wrapped due to "creative differences"), as well as Lisa K. Sessions's intricate set decoration. Further, Milena Canonero's costume design is similarly stylish and effective, combining varying styles, contributing to the overall era-defying mise en scène.

Yet, visual splendour alone cannot save 'Megalopolis' from its narrative shortcomings. It is, quite simply put, a mess of ideas without a clear central point. The film's ambition is admirable, but feels like a collection of disjointed concepts rather than a cohesive story. Plot points aren't explored thoroughly, nor contribute to the overall narrative; namely Cesar's bizarrely inconsequential and pointless ability to stop time. Moreover, characters are introduced and discarded without much thought, leaving their arcs incomplete and unsatisfying.

Additionally, as alluded to above, Coppola's exploration of the grand themes at play, while interesting, lacks the nuanced execution seen in his earlier works. The film's philosophical digressions, rather than enriching the narrative, serve to muddle it, leaving viewers confused. Further, Osvaldo Golijov's score is unremarkable, and the lax editing ensures that it feels much longer than it is, suffering from a dearth of momentum or flow.

Despite its flaws, though, 'Megalopolis' does offer rare moments that remind one of Coppola's talent. There are scenes of breathtaking beauty and intrigue, hinting at what could have been with a more focused narrative. However, these moments are few and far between, making for an uneven glimpse into a brilliant mind rather than a fully realized masterpiece.

The performances, too, are uneven. As Cesar, Adam Driver comes across as detached from the material when he isn't grandiosely over-the-top. While Cesar is ostensibly a genius, Driver's portrayal makes him seem more like a tiresome diva than a visionary. As a central character, he lacks personality or charm, making him difficult to root for. Though he has delivered strong performances in the past, here Driver is as bland as unseasoned gruel.

As his love interest Julia, Nathalie Emmanuel, despite her best efforts, fails to create a compelling character in the face of Coppola's clichéd characterisation and weak dialogue. Similarly, Giancarlo Esposito, as Julia's father Franklyn Cicero, does not leave much of an impression. Neither of them elevates their roles beyond the superficial. One feels as if anyone could have played their roles with similar results.

Conversely, Aubrey Plaza, as the ludicrously named femme fatale reporter Wow Platinum, overcomes the terrible dialogue and cardboard-cut-out characterisation; delivering a terrific, tongue-in-cheek performance. Jon Voight seems content to overplay the role of Cesar's doddery rich uncle, while great actors like Talia Shire, Dustin Hoffman, Kathryn Hunter, Jason Schwartzman and James Remar are criminally underutilised; left with little more than nothing to do.

Additionally, Laurence Fishburne does fine work, even if his intermittent narration is so pompously portentous it sounds like he's in a Funny or Die sketch or a mockumentary. Meanwhile, as Cesar's cousin, Shia LaBeouf- who seems to be on a mission to outdo himself, giving increasingly terrible performances- is so self-indulgent, over-the-top and hammy that it's almost a parody of bad acting.

The film exemplifies the pitfalls of unchecked ambition. Without critical oversight, Coppola's vision sprawled into a self-indulgent narrative. The absence of external feedback and editorial control led to a lack of cohesion, while Coppola's reported choice to improvise scenes on the day led to ludicrous, stilted dialogue and inconsistent performances. Without anyone to tell him "No," it seems Coppola indulged in every whim and idea, no matter how tangential or underdeveloped. This means that what could have been a tight, impactful film instead became an overextended, indulgent spectacle of excess.

47 years in the making, Francis Ford Coppola's 'Megalopolis' is not in the same league as his best works. It is more akin to 'One from the Heart' or 'Twixt': a visually stunning film lacking narrative weight and cohesion. It's preachy, pontificatory pretension; a messy, bloated film failing to deliver on its grand ambitions. Although good-looking and showcasing Coppola's relentless drive and passion for cinema, if 'Megalopolis' is the future, it might be better to stay in the past.

"Megalopolis" is a film I wanted to like, primarily because it's an incredibly expensive indie project, written, produced, financed, and directed by the legendary Francis Ford Coppola-an auteur who has been planning this work for 40 years and loves it so much that he personally rated it 10/10 on the film platform Letterboxd. Moreover, the experience of sitting in a nearly empty IMAX theater with just a few others added to the atmosphere... However, aside from Adam Driver's Oscar-worthy performance and the stunning visual frames that looked beautiful on the massive screen, nothing else in this film is worth praising.

The plot follows the genius scientist Cesar, inventor of the revolutionary material "Megalon," with which he plans to build a utopian city of the future-"Megalopolis." This is one of the film's central themes-obsession with perfection in a world and society far from it. Envy, jealousy, greed, and the lust for power are other themes that shape the essence of this work. Coppola doesn't shy away from weaving in political commentary as well as reflections on human existence.

When I reflect on the film's themes, one might think this is a good film. On the contrary, all of these themes are destroyed by narrative chaos, which in my opinion stems from the director's pretentious ambition to present an unprecedented 'megalomaniac' work of art. The editing and narrative are disjointed-the film jumps from scene to scene with no coherence, which became tiresome after just fifteen minutes. By the midpoint, I had completely lost interest in the story and was simply waiting for it to end.

Even though most of the cast is well-known, it's difficult to connect with any of the characters-most are shallow, and some are entirely unnecessary. The only character I connected with was Cesar, thanks to Adam Driver's brilliant performance. His ability to convey Cesar's mania, dialogue, and emotions is likely the reason I stayed engaged at all, rather than the depth of the character itself. The dialogue is mixed-sometimes brilliant, sometimes dull-which made the experience quite uneven.

The cinematography is excellent, and had Coppola focused primarily on this element, this could have been an extraordinary film.

In conclusion, I can say that due to its impressive cinematography, I can't consider "Megalopolis" a bad film, but because of its awful narrative structure, I also can't recommend it to anyone. It's disjointed, unsure of which themes to focus on, and unclear about what it truly wants to convey. Uncertain in its very purpose.

You can see every cent on the screen. That's the good thing about Francis Ford Coppola's latest and quite possibly last movie. Between the cast, the costuming, and the set design, which reimagines New York City as New Rome, you can see it all. The only question this raises is why was 42nd Street from Third Avenue to Times Square left unaffected, and what about the movie theaters from 7th to 8th Avenue?

That said, it is natural to be skeptical of what is essentially an admiring biopic of Robert Moses. Especially when it has apparently been written by Ayn Rand as a reply to METROPOLIS and then handed to Abel Gance after convincing him he's making a movie about Julius Caesar instead of Napoleon. And don't forget the quotations from Marcus Aurelius.

It is, in sum, a very learned movie. To appreciate the details, you need to have read extensively in Roman history, seen a lot of silent films, and be familiar with New York City in the second half of the 20th Century, including the flight of the middle and upper classes from the 1950s through the 1980s. Through the vagaries of my upbringing and a chaotic course of self-education, I can claim those things. So. What do I think?

The performances are fine. However, I am left with the question, as I am about so many movies these days, of who Coppola made this movie for. It is claimed he spent about $140 million of his own money on this feature. The general rule is that a movie has to gross about twice its production cost to break even. I can't see a large enough audience for this to produce $300,000,000 in tickets and secondary rights. It is simply too long, a shaggy dog story about love and artistic vision being more important than anything else.

This would not, of course, be the first time that Coppola has let his artistic ambitions explode on him; even though it is claimed APOCALYPSE NOW eventually made its money back, I have my doubts about that if you add in interest costs. Certainly ONE FROM THE HEART was a disaster, and he spent a couple of decades making nicely commercial movies from other sources to dig his way out, and let the wineries and restaurants make him money. Neither do I believe this movie will ruin him. There are certainly enough movies buffs around to make the net loss from this bearable.

All of which goes a long way to answering my question of who Coppola's intended audience was. It was Coppola himself, an attempt to prove himself the complete film maker, instead of the fine translator of others' well told tales. I hope he likes what he has wrought.

I really admire the story and purpose but the interpretation of the younger generation was almost unbearable that I had to laugh. The acting is done very well but at the behest of a pathless plot and lack of an environment. Some scenes were simply bizarre; actors walking to different parts of the room for no reason as if I was watching a Cirque Du Soleil show without the art house beauty, the gaudy and exaggerated portrayal of the wealthy as if they are dumb pigs and just the overall delivery of direction was strange and not fun to watch. I really feel like Coppola had no one to tell him; "Hey that's stupid."

Obscure feelings. Megalopolis is epic and goofy mixture of different movies (Babylon, Casanova, Moulin Rouge, Cabaret, Batman, Hudsucker Proxy and Hollywoodland mini series etc.). Coppola recycles lots of styles of some famous directors like Luhrmann, Chazelle, Burton, Aronofsky, Fellini and Visconti. His own voice is somewhere there in the passing details which unfortunately reminds of his weaker films like "One from The Heart".

The film could've been set in a more realistic location. Then the fantasy of Megalopolis would've been more effective giving a wow feeling. And what is the point of the stupid and unjustified theatrecality or should I just say theatre? Personally I hate that kind of approach giving me a Baz Luhrmann puke into my mouth. It's eating the serious credibility of the story. Based on that point there's lots of loose moments without a reason: dropping the hats, some weird dance posing during the first scene and the vibe just in general.

Still, I actually liked the last fourth of the film. There was thoughtful and beautiful ideas. The ending was also fine. The story is quite good with its connections to ancient Rome etc. And without the continuing interference the film could've had a chance to be a decent adult fairy tale. Sadly the messy and restless theatre goofiness is just eating the entirety too much.

A timely movie that isn't for everyone. If you know a thing or two about the history of the western world, and are a fan of "art" movies that include symbolism and allegory, then you will appreciate this movie.

Empires don't last forever. They can crumble, or they can evolve, sometimes a bit of both. What path will we choose?

This movie is inspired, and it aspires to remind you of the distant and recent past that we may might be doomed to repeat if we don't transcend it. It hopes to inspire you to move beyond the invisible shackles of the modern remnants of the Roman empire.

It's also visually stunning, and beautiful in it's imagined potential future. The actors are extraordinarily talented and unbound by contrived lines. Bravo.

Is "Megalopolis" a masterpiece? Perhaps not, but it did work for me as a film, and I would definitely watch it again. Loosely based on the Catilinarian conspiracy of 63 BC Rome, "Megalopolis" features characters based in part on figures of Roman history.

Adam Driver plays Cesar Catilina, a visionary architect who wants to transform "New Rome" (New York City) into the city of the future, using a miracle building material he created, Megalon. The parallels to tech bros like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Steve Jobs should certainly not be lost on us.

Cesar's chief opponent, Mayor Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito) is a good man who lacks Cesar's vision, and who believes Cesar is a reckless, arrogant dreamer, whose vision of "creative destruction" will have dire consequences for the ordinary people who live in New Rome.

Into the mix Coppola throws Cesar's uncle, a Donald Trump- or Rupert Murdoch-type banker, Hamilton Crassus, III (Jon Voight), Clodio Pulcher (Shia LaBeouf), a jealous cousin of Cesar's with a gift for rabble rousing, Wow Platinum (Aubrey Plaza), an ambitious financial reporter with designs on both Cesar's affections and Crassus's fortune, Julia Cicero (Nathalie Emmanuel), Mayor Cicero's daughter and Cesar's potential love interest, and Laurence Fishburne (Fundi Romaine), Cesar's driver and the narrator of the film.

"Megalopolis" is not a realistic movie, and it doesn't try to be. Partly inspired by Fritz Lang's silent masterpiece, "Metropolis," and also by Ayn Rand's novel, "The Fountainhead," with science fiction and surrealist elements, Francis Ford Coppola has been trying to make this film for almost 40 years, and it is essentially an arthouse film with a limited budget, at least by 2024 standards.

In the end, Coppola financed "Megalopolis" with $120 million dollars of his own money, which he got from selling off part of his winery and resorts. This is not the first time he has risked everything to try and realize his artistic vision. While very few people are as privileged as Coppola, I admire his willingness to risk so much to communicate his vision, however imperfect.

As this might be the 85-year-old filmmaker's last film, and as he is probably our most operatic filmmaker, I found his thoughts about the parallels between ancient Rome and 21st Century America to be worthwhile, even though they were somewhat jumbled and unclear at times.

Although he holds out hope that artists will save humanity, in the end, I don't think Coppola is able to descend from his privileged position to understand that no one will save us if we don't act to save ourselves. Artists might be able to hold up a mirror, but in the end, they are not our saviors. We are.

Disclaimer: I am aware that there are allegations of inappropriate touching by Coppola towards some of the female cast and extras during the production, and that there is currently a civil lawsuit pending against him by Lauren Pagone.

And there was also some controversy regarding his hiring of "canceled" actors, including Shia LaBeouf and Jon Voight for the production. While I was not aware of these allegations before I saw the film, I understand that many people might not want to see the film once they are aware of these facts. Caveat Emptor.

Painfully dull, self indulgent, pretentious, incoherent mess of a movie. It looks cheap, lighting feels totally off and artificial, CGI is also all over the place but mostly bad. If it had any sense of style I could probably ignore those technical shortcomings but unfortunately it doesn't. I have nothing against this type of passion projects but this one is just so damn boring and uninteresting. It´s not even so bad it´s good type of situation, it´s simply just bad. It tries soooo hard to be smart and operatic with all those archaic phrases and Shakespearean references but it's all just terribly written pointless bulls*it and the execution is somehow even worse. It is embarrassment for everyone involved.

Performances are also all over the place, everyone tries something else which makes the whole thing even messier.

If you are really that curious, I say wait for streaming... This one isn´t worth of going to cinema.

The mere mention of Francis Ford Coppola's name brings forth a multitude of breathtaking experiences. Over decades, the filmmaker has created a monumental filmography, one few directors could even dream of matching. He solidified his legacy with *The Godfather*; with *Apocalypse Now*, he became immortal. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Yet, his latest film, the long-awaited *Megalopolis*, is a bewildering cacophony, oscillating between the sublime and the awkward, between hope and dreams. Though not an outright failure, it falls short of what one would expect from such a celebrated director.

The film's plot revolves around the ideological clash between the prodigious architect Cesar Catalina, a Nobel laureate, and Frank Cicero, the mayor of New Rome-a futuristic New York City. While the politician governs with his eyes set on the past, relying on experience and tradition in his decisions, the architect dreams of radically transforming life through a utopia enabled by "megalon," a miraculous material. Throughout the film, Coppola denounces the rampant hypocrisy and corruption of contemporary Western society. The spectacle of life, the manipulation of information, the commercialization of sex-all these are symptoms of a morally bankrupt empire, led by a decadent elite lost in excess and vanity. The only way out for such a civilization appears to be the reform envisioned by Cesar. He believes he can resolve all social contradictions through his "megalon," raising a new world from the ruins of New Rome. To achieve this, he must overcome skeptics and survive the vicious.

Although *Megalopolis* was originally conceived over twenty years ago, the discussions Coppola raises are strikingly relevant, especially in his critique of mass media and mass politics. The film has a beating heart and can engage the viewer in its most intense moments. What it unfortunately lacks, however, is structure and substance. Coppola paints his film like a Pollock painting, yet without any sense of harmony or flow in his brushstrokes, and the result is a chaotic and disjointed work. *Megalopolis* is laden with intention and argument, but it lacks direction, lacks synthesis, and fails to turn its theme into poetry. The film blends grandiose imagery, bolstered by a thunderous score, with the ridiculous, as crude visual effects bring a cheap surrealism to life. The dialogues are eloquently robotic, and they only function because of the actors who manage (which is a testament to the quality of the cast) to convey some humanity to their characters. Coppola fails to present New Rome as a believable, palpable world, which limits the viewer's ability to become involved. At no point does the city appear as anything more than a metonymy for America, and its inhabitants are not particularly compelling.

The film is also packed with homages to classics that inspired the director, with one scene, for instance, evoking the epic *Ben-Hur*. Amid so many tributes, one stands out, perhaps to the detriment of the film itself. From its very title, *Megalopolis*, comparisons with Fritz Lang's legendary *Metropolis* become inevitable. Coppola's production, in some ways, is almost a modern reinterpretation of the German master's work, with some parallels between the two films. In both, the protagonist is a wealthy young man trying to address the terrible inequalities of a futuristic society. And in both, love is a positive force that drives change-the man who loves yearns to transform society. But while *Metropolis* is flawless in its presentation, *Megalopolis* fails to convince. It does not impress with its visuals, which are largely uninteresting; it does not deliver an engaging plot, nor memorable characters. It has the virtue of saying exactly what the filmmaker wanted to say-it is assertive and confident in its message without being, however, preachy. But a dozen well-thought-out metaphors do not make a good movie.

Coppola may have become a prisoner of his own myth. Many refuse to accept anything less than a masterpiece from him, and *Megalopolis*, unfortunately, is not one of his better moments. It is a film ambitious in concept but weak in execution. It engages with the issues of its time but fails to create pathos. It reaffirms faith in humanity and the transformation of the world, but it lacks a story and characters that could amplify its message. It is certainly not a triumphant return for the director, but it is not a detestable piece of work either. For viewers willing to intellectually engage with the film and forgive its flaws, *Megalopolis* can capture attention and reasonably convey its director's ideas. It can even entertain, as the actors are fully invested in the script's quirks, and there is something charming about Coppola's vision for the future of humanity.

The greatest irony in the history of film is that man that created The Godfather created this....this mess.

How do you get great actors and have them turn in terrible performances? How do you have a ridiculously bad script and an unmotivated story and reprehensible dialogue with the budget that they had???

20 minutes in I thought, something is wrong here...and somehow, the film get worse the longer you watch it. Don't be curious- save your money.

One of the worst thing I have ever seen.

Sometimes low budget indie films get criticized but honestly, it's very hard to make a good movie without money. BUt this film had access to MILLIONS, access to some great Hollywood stars and legends and it's still trash!

I love the dreamy, beautiful, bizarre, and surreal variety of shots and scenes, as well as the strange, meta commentary dialog with multiple meanings. The cinematography is just great, and i really appreciate the effort put into the decor, sets, worldbuilding and aesthetic architecture. Technically its very impressive the cinematography is great, there's a lot happening in the background of some scenes.

The cast is full of great actors. However, the editing and plot cohesion were definitely all over the place.

Cesar's arc reminded me a bit of Legion, with him discovering maddening powers.

I am sure this will be someones favorite movie, but i think it needs time to digest for most people. It feels like a film that needs a rewatch to find new perspectives. Maybe in future retrospect, Coppola's last movie will be seen differently but for now it just doesn't hit.

What a shocker! I will be completely honest and upfront, this movie was so bad me and my friend both decided to walk out halfway through. Coppola hasn't directed a good movie since the 90's, so I didn't have super high hopes - but I expected more than this. The editing is so fast paced and disjointed that most scenes have no structure. The acting is all over the place, and my god the special effects are BAD. There are maybe a few of the vfx shots that were okay, but most were out of a PS2 cutscene. For my short version of the review, PLEASE don't go and see this for it is not worth any amount of money.

For people wondering if anything was good, there are a few things. Some shots are nice, some jokes in it are funny, and the base story is interesting. This future of New Rome and a battle for the power structure within the city is cool. However the execution makes the story seem egotistical, nonsensical, and just amateurish.

I would make the argument that this movie is objectively bad and shows the directors age horribly. Coppola is like 84 years old, so his interpretation of the youth and many directing choices in this movie are just completely aged. Also, let's go back to the editing. Shia LeBeouf plays this prince character who is a degenerate, but I swear he never has any true conversation with anyone. It is edited so that he just says one liners for a few seconds then it cuts away. We walked out right after he says, "Revenge is best served while wearing a dress", or something like that.

I am getting a headache just thinking about this movie. So I will end it with this. This movie is bad and Coppola should retire not only for his sake, but to save the consumer from more out-of-touch snooze fests made by old men. No this isn't ageism, just a really bad movie.

I believe Coppola had 4 goals with this movie: 1. What's the fastest way to make $120 million disappear with no hope to recoup it?

2. How can I make a movie so bad people will question every other movie I've made?

3. I want to make a movie people will say is so bad, it's not so bad it's good, it's so bad it's forgettable. A big FU to my fans.

4. I want people to compare this to The Room and swear The Room was MUCH better.

I think he hired 20 actors and put them in rooms alone with no interaction with each other.

He gave them this direction:

You are an ancient Roman living in Modern day NY.

Ad-lib a few scenes for me. If you want to switch up accents or languages mid-sentence, go for it. If you want to sing and dance or whatever, at any point for no reason, go for it!

Be incoherent and random with all of your lines, the more disconnected you are from any sort of reality, the better.

Play this totally serious with no humor at all.

Every word should feel like it has gravitas. Treat each word as the most important sentence the world has ever heard uttered.

After all of this is filmed, we will intentionally splice it together randomly and see what happens. We are going for a film that has no plot, no cohesion, makes no sense and none of the scenes tie together with each other.

Look, this is not an underappreciated movie that some day it will be recognized as a misunderstood at its times, masterpiece. There are many ridiculous scenes (the arrow scene in the end, for example. The awkward dialogue at some scenes that almost made me feel second hand embarassment, like the "back to the club" scene)

Yes, some times it looks like a disaster. But i liked it. I could watch easily another hour, i found it interesting and there were some brilliant lines. Again, it's not as brilliant as it thinks but there are many amazing scenes, like the statues falling on the ground, some dream-like, almost surreal scenes where i was captivated. And the conflict between the visionary Caesar and his enemies, was fascinating at times.

Adam Driver had one of the most difficult acting jobs ever. I bet he understood quickly that this movie will face a lot of criticism, to say at least. He knew it. And his effort was Herculean. He had to carry this movie on his shoulders knowing that something feels off. I think he deserves a lot of recognition and praise. I loved every moment of him on the screen, even when i didn't understand what the hell he was doing. (At some point in the beginning, he danced without reason). Was he unintentionally funny at times? Maybe. But whatever he was doing, he was still interesting to watch.

I love overambitious movies, even when they fail. I would prefer to watch movies like MEGALOPOLIS for ever than those garbage movies of this decade (2020-..). Of course, there are some good movies in this decade, but most of them make the viewers waste their time, there is nothing artistic neither intelligent: For real, they just make you dumber.

There is a lot of creativity here. There are even moments of greatness. I don't know if i should recommend it, but if you want to watch something different than the average garbage, this is it.

The cinematography was a spectacle for sure. The special effects however, were either a strong compliment to the shot sequences or embarrassing to look at. I did enjoy the films dream aesthetic, but the dialogue was either cartoonishly hard to keep up with or felt like it served no purpose for the plot/characters.

My favorite part of the film was definitely the Virgin Pledge sequence. It also did nothing for the story, however, the song was actually good and the visual delivery was pleasing to the eyeballs.

Overall, this film is definitely not for most people. I am embarrassed that I liked it. It's a terrible movie that I enjoyed for the outlandish performances that gave me a good laugh.

What I mean by the title of this review is that people are too used to mindless entertainment. Megalopolis was beautiful, thought provoking, well acted, well written, and super strange. Some scenes make you laugh or just wonder why. But that's the beauty of it. Some of the reviews said that it was funny and it's not a comedy. Not true. It's a comedy, a drama, a sci-fi flick, and a reflection of society. Shia LaBeouf's role is perfect for him. Same for Aubrey Plaza. In fact, every role seems to fit the character perfectly or near perfectly. Same for Adam driver. I have to say, when I saw the reviews it made me want to see it. Often the best movies are the movies that half the people hate and half of them love. I was not disappointed at all. The best movie I've seen in years. Anyways, I went to it with no expectations. It's always better to have no expectations. So, see for yourself. My bet is that you will either love it or hate it. Good luck.

Just Got out of a Dolby Screening of Megalopolis

Let's get the Positives First -

👌- I Loved the Roman Empire Aesthetic, Interwoven into a Modern Day America. Some wore The Roman Costume Designs, others wore, what looked like Modern Day Clothing, and some of It was a mixture of the Two, It all worked for me, in this regard.

👍 - I really Liked how it had this Shakespearian Form to it, it Played like a Shakespearian Play, with how the actors performed and the Shakespearian Dialogue(I have problems with this particular Aspects execution though), the Mannerisms and Unusualness etc.

🌌 - I actually Liked(many people didn't) The Visual Effects Here, it gave the Film this Special Dream Like Sheen to it.

Problems with the Film -

🤦 - First Stupid Decision, Making the Dialogue Incoherent(Not All of it but a lot of it). You can do the Shakespeare thing, BUT please make the Dialogue as Coherent as Possible. It's so important. If the Audience cannot Take in and process what the hell the actors are saying. Then what are we doing here?

👎 - At times during that Middle Section, I thought to myself, "At Some Point, this has to get Better" It Doesn't.

👎 - Introducing all of these Grand Ideas that, at first, you think "Ok, these threads are Going Somewhere" and by the End, either goes Nowhere or Fall Flat as Hell.

💩 - The Mainline Execution of the Fall of Rome & Fall Of America/Rise Back up of America with Adam Drivers Plan, that the film thinks it's executing very well, but it's not.

🤦 - The USSR Satellite that was set up as this major world ending timed event, was perfunctory as hell in it's execution

🤷 - Shia labeouf, I'm sorry, what was he doing again?

😂 - Dustin Hoffman gives possibly his Worst performance of his career in this film.

🙆 - And what was that time stopping superpower all about? Was It Figurative? Because it didn't work. Was It an actual Superpower? In that case, it was completely pointless.

💩 - Listen to when Esposito says to Driver at the Very End, "Promise Me, you'll build Nobly" 😬🤦. Tripe, just absolute Tripe. Also, Didn't Esposito want to Build a Casino after that huge chunk of land went down in the demolition? So what Noble Examples & Standards is he setting? This film has got to be a Joke.

So Overall, Aesthetics alone are Not Enough, so what's left is the Many Grand Elements & Ideas that by the end, they Should of Done a Way Better Job with. What an absolute Squander.

I'm not sure what this movie was supposed to be about. A schizophrenic's whiskey-fueled dream would be more coherent. There were like 6 separate plot lines going, which were all unfinished and/or filled with holes. The transitions were comprised of this Clockwork Orange style madness that will (maybe) make sense the 8th time you watch it, and all of the information that you think is necessary is haphazardly thrown around with no context or explanation (ex. Whatever the building material was), so the whole movie ended up not being about anything really.

I think this was supposed to be some surreal exploration of American society and where we are, or could be, headed. Or a romeo and julietesque love story. Or...Or...But it was really just boring and long and confusing.

Mr. Coppola has done some incredible work in his career, but this was a fever dream of random thoughts that he tried his best to make into a film. Period. Written, directed and produced. He Really wanted this made and I'm not entirely sure why.

Laurence Fishburne was wasted.

Students of film and people that love really strange, borderline pretentious movies with an ending that doesn't feel like an ending because you don't know how you got there (ex. Vanilla sky and magnolia) will love this. But if you, like me, were attracted to this movie because you saw statues moving and some big name actors and thought 'oh, this looks cool' then you will be Savagely disappointed.

One last note, in my Viola Davis voice: "Shia LeBeouf should not be playing villains...write that down." It's already hard to like him in some of the movies he does, but it's INCREDIBLY easy to dislike him as a villian....he wasn't one of those characters that you love to hate either. He just came off as deuchy and cringe.

If someone reimbursed me the price of an IMAX ticket and bought me a large bucket of gourmet popcorn, I would not sit through this again.

This may be one of the worst things I have ever watched. It is an incomprehensible mess, a chaotic mélange of multiple ideas that simply do not work together.

It feels like someone has taken every idea they had for different versions of the same story, mixed them in a pot, eaten the results and then excreted pages of words they stapled together to form an approximation of a script.

I can in all honesty say that I will never watch this again. Coppola is regarded as one of Hollywood's greatest directors. This cannot be his legacy to film. For him to be remembered for this would be an insult to every great movie he has ever made.

Overall? It's bad. The only thing I can say that it made me want was to see Adam Driver on stage doing Shakespeare. That's it. That's the only positive I have about this. 1/5 seems overly generous... #Rome #francissfordcopppla.