October 15th, 2024

Megalopolis: See It Three Times

Francis Ford Coppola's "Megalopolis" receives mixed reviews, praised for its unique storytelling and visual ambition, exploring consumerism and civil unrest in a reimagined New York, despite low box office performance.

Read original articleLink Icon
Megalopolis: See It Three Times

Francis Ford Coppola's "Megalopolis" has garnered mixed reviews, with some critics labeling it a pretentious failure while others, like James Lanternman, praise it as a fascinating and imaginative work. Lanternman describes the film as a unique experience that evolves with each viewing, likening it to David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive." Set in a dystopian New York, reimagined as New Rome, the film explores themes of consumerism and civil unrest through a visually stunning narrative. With a budget of $120 million, it showcases ambitious world-building and a diverse cast, including Adam Driver, Jon Voight, and Aubrey Plaza, who deliver theatrical performances that contribute to the film's rich tapestry. The story revolves around Cesar, an architect entangled in a power struggle with the city's mayor, while the backdrop features an impoverished underclass. The film's unconventional storytelling and dense script challenge viewers, requiring engagement and reflection. Despite its low box office performance, Lanternman finds beauty and profundity in "Megalopolis," suggesting it may be a masterpiece that redefines cinematic potential. He encourages audiences to experience the film on the big screen, emphasizing its artistic bravery and imaginative qualities.

- "Megalopolis" is praised for its unique storytelling and visual ambition.

- The film features a diverse cast delivering theatrical performances.

- It explores themes of consumerism and civil unrest in a reimagined New York.

- The movie challenges viewers with its unconventional narrative and dense script.

- Despite mixed reviews, it is considered by some as a potential masterpiece.

Link Icon 5 comments
By @drannex - 4 months
The movie is fantastic, but obviously made to be rewatched. It's a Shakespearean play in its format, dialogue, and style through and through, this is a love letter to the first major theatres, both of Shakesphere and of Rome itself.

There are several moments where the film plays with the concept of time, in that there are moments in the first watch that are so obvious to being linear, that on rewatch are painfully obvious to be flashbacks, you have to know the ending, the end game, to really appreciate the rest of it. There are so many "throw away" scenes and lines that seem so out of place, that become incredibly important and poignant for the story to make sense. Some of the scenes are purposefully flipped, so that on rewatch it makes more sense.

Is it a great movie? No. Is it a fantastic and fascinating experience? Yes.

--

Aside, since it helped a friend 'frame' the film in terms of locale and world: The United States is not in North America, it's in Italy, it's what would have happened if instead of America being founded in NA, it was a revival of the Roman Empire (as America was founded on hyperfixations of the empire). The thirteen colonies were thirteen city states that banded together, the addition of additional states are the surrounding areas for a new roman empire, New Rome is what New York would have been... if it was in Italy. Hope that helps understand the weird political and philosophy in juxtaposition to the modern era and old.

By @wryoak - 4 months
I loved it. Would like to have seen it again - something I don’t often do with theatrical releases - but my local theater dropped it pretty quick.
By @getwiththeprog - 4 months
I am glad for the dissenting opinion you voice. With so much hate for a movie from such a well renowned director made over so long with so much money... Well I think there may be something there that many people do not want to see (like the fall of Rome). I'll be looking forward to the home cinema release, which may not be too long :)