oleh_holodyshyn

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.

Denis Villeneuve has always stood out with his films thanks to the visual component. His pictures had a remarkable sensitivity to moving images. Of course, this aspect of Villeneuve's work evolved with each of his subsequent films. If we compare the first part of "Dune" with the second, we can see that there is even a significant leap in visual storytelling. I think this is related to the fact that the first "Dune", both for Denis and for the audience, was a film that merely introduced us to this world. "Dune 2", on the other hand, is already something more familiar for Denis and for us. However, this film never ceases to amaze. Every scene is endowed with remarkable visual narration in one form or another. There is always some aspect, detail, that adds to the world of "Dune" and allows it to be revealed from different angles. This film, for me, is what cinema is capable of in terms of visuals - it manifests imagination into reality, allowing us to see imagination without imagining, thanks the wonderful team that worked on this film and Denis Villeneuve himself.

Having been familiar with the book "Dune", I want to say that in my opinion, Denis and the screenwriters successfully conveyed the idea of "Dune". I may not be the first to say this, but the book itself is somewhat dry, considering its writing style. However, the idea of faith that Herbert embedded in the book makes this story not only about the planet Arrakis and Paul Atreides but also about the human spirit. Indeed, the film very clearly conveys this idea, making it a spiritual experience.

I believe Denis Villeneuve will make the final, third film something unforgettable.

This film has had an interesting journey. It was originally filmed in the mid-70s but faced financial difficulties that prevented its completion. However, after about 40 years, the film received new funding and was finally released on Netflix in 2018. This is a unique event in the history of cinema due to its late release, the film sheds light on the current state of the film industry.

If the film had been released in the 80s as originally planned, it would have likely been considered a classic. Some would argue that it represents the best of post-modern cinema (or even meta-modern).

Unfortunately, when the film was released in 2018, it didn't capture much attention from the general public, except for cinefiles. It's a pity because it truly is a masterpiece. However, watching it now, you can't help but compare it to other films available on Netflix.

"The Other Side of the Wind" has one remarkable quality - a genuine love for cinema. Every frame of the film exudes this passion, making it evident that it was created by not only a director, but also an artist, a rarity in today's film industry.

It's disheartening that many contemporary films lack the same level of care and affection for cinema. The prevailing trend seems to favor mediocrity. This film serves as a reminder of the importance of a deep love for cinema in creating truly memorable works.

Hopefully, someday, there will be more memorable films. But for now, Orson Wells' "The Other Side of the Wind" serves as a great reminder of the true cinema, which now seems to be lost.