Terms and conditions apply. Sweet square is not personally responsible for the seal of approval. All individuals accept the seal of approval at their own risk. Any attempts to sue for disappointment will be thrown out off the courts.
Film Megalopolis | Francis Ford Coppolla | Adam Driver
- Thread starter Hoof the ball
- Start date
Terms and conditions apply. Sweet square is not personally responsible for the seal of approval. All individuals accept the seal of approval at their own risk. Any attempts to sue for disappointment will be thrown out off the courts.
Terms and conditions apply. Sweet square is not personally responsible for the seal of approval. All individuals accept the seal of approval at their own risk. Any attempts to sue for disappointment will be thrown out off the courts.
The reviews are not exactly encouraging.
I also just checked his filmography and saw there were films of his that I've never even heard of, and these are post-The Rainmaker: Youth Without Youth, Tetro, and Twixt. One cannot see Megalopolis without seeing those 3, in release order, to truly see what the Master was building up to in his latest film.Just checked Wikipedia and I've never seen a Coppola directed film.. yes somehow I've never seen any of the godfathers
I've never heard of those three but I loved The Master and I am not watching those three before seeing Megalopolis
Holy feck this was bad
Definitely going to become a cult classic
Definitely going to become a cult classic
Oh man oh man oh man
So, to put it slightly more eloquently, what a fun bonkers ride that was. I was definitely expecting something different from the usual cinema fare, from every thing that I'd heard about it (even though I tried to read as little as possible), even though the story itself was pretty straightforward or even, to an extent, a bit basic. Which isn't a problem! I guess what is going to put a lot of people off is the unconventional narrative structure, the feeling the film goes through the motions in a sort of unfocused haze, with some plot points pretty much dropped halfway through. I get it, it's all a bit strange and at times feels like it might have been improvised on the fly - which is rather remarkable for a film 30 years in the making.
This portrayal of the crumbling and degenerescence of American culture, set against the backdrop of the fall of Rome, is weird and interesting. It's full of contradictions (its contempt for the people, depicted mostly as an angry, faceless mob, is strange), it's massively on the nose - he could have gotten Trump to play a part directly in it, wouldn't have been very different - but it's also full of soul and emotions. Basic, raw emotions, and it's pretty admirable that at this point in his career Coppola still wears his heart on his sleeve like he does in this. His desire for a culture reset, Cesar's genuine desire to "start a conversation", his earnestness at depicting a utopia not as a concrete realisation, but as a dialogue, is fascinating and frankly heart-warming, and it's also a mess. A glorious, unadultered mess, and the more the film goes on, the more you understand why no studio would have financed this and why Coppola had to sell assets to get it done.
Another of the underlying themes, that basically artists and thinkers should be allowed to create and express themselves, and should be financed to do so, is another very on-the-nose messages by Coppola, but it really should be saluted how a legendary director like him, 52 years after creating a masterpiece like The Godfather, would bare it all and put it all on the line to share his vision, his ideas, in such an earnest and touching way. Make no mistake, it's a peak directly into the director's heart we have here, his soul laid bare for all to see, and as dizzying and sickening as it might be at times, it's also glorious in its approach and its realization.
We can talk about performances (Plaza, ouhlala), cinematography, script, story structure (what?), score, etc. but it doesn't seem that Coppola cared so much about those and I'm not quite sure I care myself. It's a unique piece of art, and if only for that, it should be celebrated and lauded - if not appreciated and rated. It's very rare to have these kind of creations grace the screen (a lot of people will say "thankfully"), but there's so much to love about it, so much to frown at, be perplexed about, just SO MUCH in general, which is how I imagine Coppola anyhow, that it's worth seeing in the best possible conditions.
This portrayal of the crumbling and degenerescence of American culture, set against the backdrop of the fall of Rome, is weird and interesting. It's full of contradictions (its contempt for the people, depicted mostly as an angry, faceless mob, is strange), it's massively on the nose - he could have gotten Trump to play a part directly in it, wouldn't have been very different - but it's also full of soul and emotions. Basic, raw emotions, and it's pretty admirable that at this point in his career Coppola still wears his heart on his sleeve like he does in this. His desire for a culture reset, Cesar's genuine desire to "start a conversation", his earnestness at depicting a utopia not as a concrete realisation, but as a dialogue, is fascinating and frankly heart-warming, and it's also a mess. A glorious, unadultered mess, and the more the film goes on, the more you understand why no studio would have financed this and why Coppola had to sell assets to get it done.
Another of the underlying themes, that basically artists and thinkers should be allowed to create and express themselves, and should be financed to do so, is another very on-the-nose messages by Coppola, but it really should be saluted how a legendary director like him, 52 years after creating a masterpiece like The Godfather, would bare it all and put it all on the line to share his vision, his ideas, in such an earnest and touching way. Make no mistake, it's a peak directly into the director's heart we have here, his soul laid bare for all to see, and as dizzying and sickening as it might be at times, it's also glorious in its approach and its realization.
We can talk about performances (Plaza, ouhlala), cinematography, script, story structure (what?), score, etc. but it doesn't seem that Coppola cared so much about those and I'm not quite sure I care myself. It's a unique piece of art, and if only for that, it should be celebrated and lauded - if not appreciated and rated. It's very rare to have these kind of creations grace the screen (a lot of people will say "thankfully"), but there's so much to love about it, so much to frown at, be perplexed about, just SO MUCH in general, which is how I imagine Coppola anyhow, that it's worth seeing in the best possible conditions.
I wonder how much of the movie you liked because of the movie itself, or because it was Coppola. You've said his name a lot.
I suppose my question for everyone is would you be so glowing with the reviews if it wasn't Coppola? That's not a criticism, as it's an age old debate about whether we should separate art from the artist.
I don't think there's many directors, if any, that would make this kind of film, so it's a bit of a non sequitur for me to be honest.
More generally, when I go see films that are, at the risk of sounding poncy, made by "authors" (think Coppola, Malick, Scorsese...), a lot of my appreciation/judgment of the film is going to be linked to the fact I appreciate their other films and in the context of their body of work in general. I don't think it's an issue, I don't think art in general is created or appreciated in a vacuum or without context. As for "separating art from the artist", I feel it's more a question asked for problematic cases (Polanski, Spacey...), and it's not so much in their capacity as artists that the question is asked, rather as to what they've done as men (i.e. outside of their artistic life). My appreciation of Coppola is hardly for him as a human being (even though he comes across as a big teddy bear that used to make nice wine), but as the guy who made some of my all-time favourite films.
The fact it was Coppola could've played against it as much as it worked in its favour as my expectations for it were sky high, and had I not enjoyed it, I probably would have been scathing in my reviewing of it.
I would say the fact I mention his name many times is understandable if you've seen the film - it's a very personal and earnest piece of work that has the fingerprints of his soul all over it.
It honestly sounds dreadful, you weirdos.
It is dreadful. It's also fecking hilarious.
It’s a completely different debate. It’s about whenever you can like the piece of art if you dislike the artist (usually on a human level, but not necessarily). If you like the work because the artistic personality of the author shines through it, it has nothing to do with the “separating the art from the artist” thing since the author is, well, the crucial part of that art (instead of an asterisk below it that can make you retrospectively change the opinion about the piece).
Is it good then or what?
Some of it is good but it's mostly garbage. It's very entertaining though.
I saw it yesterday and I already want to watch it again
Wow. So hurtful.
Honestly hard to put it in those terms. It's a mess of a film, there's no doubt about it. Whether you'll enjoy it or not depends on your appetite for these type of messy films, your love for Coppola and many other subjective elements that are harder to quantify than for the majority of films released in general. I'm not trying to avoid responding to your question, but it's definitely one of those that I can absolutely imagine many people hating. Which in fairness is the case for a lot of films I see, I don't always have particularly mainstream tastes, but this one in particular.
He really did it to himself by calling it Megalolpolis.
Funnily enough that was my reaction during most of the film
It's that kind of film. It's shit. It's also the funniest thing I've ever seen in a cinema and I was thoroughly entertained for the whole 2+ hours.
You can just tell that was no studio executive there to tell Coppola "Nah, don't do that, it doesn't make any sense" (Coppola does it), or "Nah, don't do that, it's fecking mental" (Does it), or "Nah, don't use that take of Adam Driver chewing the scenery" (Uses... all of them), or "Nah, maybe make the symbolism just like, a little bit more subtle" (Has the Trump stand-in guy literally just stand on a massive swastika that only the audience can see).
I saw it about a week ago now, and I'm still thinking about random bits from the movie and laughing about it. I'm so glad I saw that rather than something that was decent, but that I'd have forgotten about as soon as I walked out of the cinema.
Saw this last night and greatly enjoyed it. Some of the symbolism and allegory was a little heavy handed but the title says it all: Megalopolis, A Fable. That's what it is, a fable. I thought the acting was excellent, especially Aubrey Plaza, and the costuming was superb with the Roman touch plus a hint of steampunk added to traditional and haute couture fashion. It's definitely going to be analyzed and re-analyzed in film schools for decades, for better and worse. It's not as gripping or emotionally as moving to me as the best noirs can be and the storytelling isn't ground breaking but again, its a fable so judged as such, it greatly succeeds. And we don't have many truly modern day fables so it does fill a gap in cinema.
Watched this today. This movie absolutely rules.
As a geek for history of the antiquities I'm pretty excited to see what the fuss is all about. Sounds though like I could also understand why this might very much not be everyone's thing.
Just looked up the reviews and critics scores on this (I never do that before watching something) and unsurprisingly a lot of people are wrong.
Who the feck is Mark Kermode and why should anyone care what he says?
Kermode called it one of the worst films he's ever seen
Who the feck is Mark Kermode and why should anyone care what he says?
Solid global opening weekend box office haul of $6.2m.
It's basically like if that Porto game was a movie.
A lot of people follow his reviews almost religiously, I think he is quite famous for what he does.
His review pretty much entirely misses the point and as much as he's entitled to his opinion, repeating a million times "it's boring, it's fantastically boring" is a really odd one - because if there's one things the film isn't, is dull. His review isn't very interesting, and is actually quite nasty.
The little rant about "the money men are sometimes right" is very, very strange too, as is the plugging of the Joker film by Todd "Hack" Phillips. All a little bit sad from a guy pretending to like cinema as an art.
I don't think the idea of it sometimes being a positive to have someone to reign in the worst excesses of the insane auteur director is all that strange when talking about most movies. However, with this film it does absolutely miss the point. The fact that Coppola had free reign to just do all the mental bullshit he wanted to do is what makes it so entertaining.
Him saying it's boring is however just factually incorrect. It's one of the most memorable, entertaining cinema experiences I've ever had. It comes across as him just throwing insults at a film he didn't like rather than getting to the root of what he didn't like about it (and there's a lot of things to validly dislike!). Nobody should listen to him at all on that point. I'm glad I didn't.
I guess that's why I never heard of him before and I'll never listen to him to give him views. For the most part, I completely ignore what any film critic (or just about any other book, music, TV critic) has to say. The one exception would be if I'm in the mood for something very specific I'll check on Crime Reads and search for a list like "6 Excellent Thriller and Horror Novels Set in Hotels" or "Spooky Sleuthing: 5 Noir and Detective Films That Feature the Supernatural" but I mostly just look at the list and don't really care about any sort of critic's opinion on the work.
I definitely agree that both those criticism are ignorant or just trying to edgy for clicks when applied to Megalopolis because one thing the movie isn't, is boring.
Kermode always seemed up his own arse to me
I love Godfather, Godfather 2 and Apocalypse Now like first born children. So I should probably avoid this as it sounds like a bigger car crash than GF3.
Brilliant interview.
The dialogue is genuinely appalling, the politics is incomprehensible and when its not it’s stupid, if not outright obnoxious, the plot is bad and nonsensical, but also simplistically predictable and hacky, the acting is soap opera level, and yet Nathalie Emmanuel from Hollyoaks barely even rises to that and the aesthetic is basically “Baz Lurhman’s Romeo + Juliet but tackier”…. But it is definitely not boring.
I’d badly paraphrase @Sweet Square and say “only a great filmmaker could make a film this bad” is about right cos there are some really cool things about it. I’m glad it exists. It’s terrible.
I’d badly paraphrase @Sweet Square and say “only a great filmmaker could make a film this bad” is about right cos there are some really cool things about it. I’m glad it exists. It’s terrible.
I think Kermode's review is hilarious, and I think he is spot on in a lot of it. I don't think it's one of the worst films ever made, but it's probably one of the worst high budgeted films ever made. Absolute drivel, and so, so, so boring. It almost makes me want to reconsider his 70s output, because I can't believe the same person who made The Godfather wouldn't realize how terrible this was.
Last edited:
Yeah I was talking about this review in particular, so in relation to this film. Of course most directors need the standy hand of a producer to guide them, or to reign them in (in the same way some could do with a stronger-willed or more talented editor). There's some directors that will thrive in that context, and others who won't. In the case of Megalopolis, it's just a nonsensical point to make.
Thinking back at it, the review is more mean-spirited than I initially felt. I have no idea why he felt the need to go in so hard on Coppola for this work, and why he had to be so fluffy and devoid of substance. I don't have much regard for critics/reviewers in general, but at least try to give substance to what you're saying - he just repeated ad nauseam that he found it boring (what) and messy, and as you said, there's a lot to actually pick apart (it would be a bit nonsensical from my perspective, but I'd at least understand it). This was lazy and pretty mean.
Kermode clearly wanted to hate Megalopolis before seeing it. He went into the screening thinking it just another old Hollywood man complaining about the current era which meant he didn’t engage with any of the ideas the film. It’s a poor review.