Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis

Tools    





This is easily the most fascinating and delightful movie Coppola has ever done - it's clear that anything that's deeply experimental isn't going to be for everyone. And especially not for the masses.
In your opinion.

People have been watching conventional (i.e. not experimental) movies for so long, some of them may no longer even appreciate what it is that makes experimental films worthwhile. A few years ago, I did a huge binge watch of all of Godard's films. My impression is that he became way more experimental in the later stage of his career. Some of those movies can be challenging, maddening, and frustrating at times, if you look at them from the point of view of "conventional narrative". And yet, they are also, imho, enormously rewarding, because they are the clear signs of a unique point of view, alone among all of the greatest filmmakers who have ever lived, who clearly wasn't happy with the status quo. And sadly, many of his later films didn't even get a theatrical release in the US.
So what? They'll still be looking for pop films. Experimental films are for the people who want to study films, and not every experimental film is going to be good or even has to be liked. It might be disappointing, but at least we have our forums to separate the ones who want to study films from the ones who just want to pass the time.

In short, if you're not feeling adventurous, or if you think the IMDb scores are the best way to gauge this film, definitely do not buy a ticket for it. It's very possible you may find the movie frustrating, incomprehensible, or both. Or just don't watch it for any other reason that I haven't mentioned.
You'd go on a shpeel about how the movie IS the greatest without a doubt (which is essentially the same thing as saying "objectively"). Even if someone gave it a negative review you would challenge literally everything they say.

Did it ever occur to you that he might have posted that to give us some information about the film, which is what you've been doing all week? At least the info he posted was interesting. Did it also ever occur to you that he knew it would get under your skin, regardless of whether or not you'd admit it?

The movie's getting negative reception everywhere. You're gonna have to deal with it like I do, because challenging every time someone doesn't have anything positive you say essentially means it's you against the world. And I doubt you're ready to take that on.



After watching the movie 4 times over the span of a week, many images from Megalopolis are burned in my mind because of how unique and beautiful they are; the film is as intoxicating a piece of cinema as anything I have ever seen in all of my decades as a film buff.

I do not remember if I have specifically mentioned Mihai Malaimare Jr., although I probably should have. He has been a very valuable collaborator to Coppola for several films now, and I think it's undeniable that the Coppola-Malaimare collaborations have reached an apex with his latest film.

The following interview sheds some light into the collaborative process between Coppola and Malaimare; it is very interesting to note that Coppola shot much of his latest movie on the same soundstages as Marvel, yet it is obvious he was going for a very, very different effect.



In 2007, Mihai Malaimare Jr. was a 29-year-old cinematographer working in Romania when he got his filmmaking dream job: shooting “Youth Without Youth” for Francis Ford Coppola as Coppola returned to the director’s chair for the first time in 10 years. Coppola wanted to reinvent himself and was looking for a partner who wouldn’t be afraid of trying new things, and in Malaimare, he found a willing and eager co-conspirator. “Even when he had what I thought was a crazy idea, I thought, ‘Well, it’s Francis Coppola so I better try it,'” Malaimare told IndieWire. “Then you try it and realize how much better the scene looks.”

Malaimare became Coppola’s cinematographer of choice on the movies that followed: “Tetro,” “Twixt,” and now “Megalopolis,” all of them self-financed experiments with which Coppola has attempted to find his own unique style after over 60 years of filmmaking. On “Megalopolis,” Coppola’s boldest roll of the dice yet, the director often found himself at odds with collaborators committed to more conventional methods of production. “We were in a studio in Georgia where a lot of Marvel pictures are made, and Marvel movies are very scene-centric,” Coppola told IndieWire. “I didn’t want it to be scene-centric. I wanted it to be image-centric.”

While Coppola’s differences of opinion with his original art department led to that team leaving the movie, he knew he always had one partner he could depend on. “No matter what kinds of constraints I’m operating under, or what kinds of pressures I put on Mihai, he always comes up with beautiful images,” Coppola said. “You know you’re always going to love the result.” For Malaimare, “Megalopolis” is the logical extension of method he and Coppola developed on “Youth Without Youth.” “It’s a really interesting dynamic, because secretly I enjoy being pushed out of my comfort zone,” Malaimare said. “Sometimes I find myself waiting for it to happen and craving any crazy idea Francis can send my way, because it always produces interesting results.”

Coppola has famously been thinking about and talking about “Megalopolis” for decades, and it’s been a part of his discussions with Malaimare right from the beginning of their association. “The idea with ‘Youth Without Youth’ was to use what were then new digital cameras,” Malaimare said. Among the cameras Malaimare considered was the Sony F900, which Ron Fricke had used to shoot second-unit footage of New York for an abandoned early incarnation of “Megalopolis.” “Fricke shot hours and hours of establishing shots and second unit, and I remember watching that footage to see what the F900 could do visually. Even though it was for a different project, I was becoming familiar with ‘Megalopolis’ and Francis’ concepts for it.”



Ooooh, I get it now. You're trying as hard as you can to post something about the film directly after me so that anyone who presses the thread's "recent post" arrow won't see me lecturing you. Smart.


Except they'll probably read the WHOLE thread.



Using the negative reviews of past movies as an ironic marketing gimmick kind of reminds me of the scene on Parks and Rec when when Tom says he tried to make E 720 look more successful by lying about reservations being filled up to calling customers to make it look glossy.






Biggest flop since Pluto Nash (100/2) (along with The Last Duel (Covid), Missing Link and Gulliver's Travels). I would not be surprised if the actual cost of the film was very low and this was a tax scam to funnel money into his family without having them pay inheritance tax.



Nash made 7.1 million while Link and Duel made 30...



_________________________
I’m not trying to pick on FB, but they are very vociferous and things get stuck in my head.

It’s hard to believe how great this movie is, when the same type of glowing fondness was given to Deadpool and Wolverine.

If you like something, you like it. Nobody will ever get me to recant that every bit of Predator that McTiernan directed 😏 is the perfect action movie. Why? Because it is. Nothing else.

When a gimmick comic book movie is praised the same way as an experimental/arthouse film, I lose the thread.

Kudos to FB for being this excited about something. That’s the secret.



I’m not trying to pick on FB, but they are very vociferous and things get stuck in my head.

It’s hard to believe how great this movie is, when the same type of glowing fondness was given to Deadpool and Wolverine.

If you like something, you like it. Nobody will ever get me to recant that every bit of Predator that McTiernan directed 😏 is the perfect action movie. Why? Because it is. Nothing else.

When a gimmick comic book movie is praised the same way as an experimental/arthouse film, I lose the thread.

Kudos to FB for being this excited about something. That’s the secret.

I hate to say...but this kinda was a Superhero movie.



This comparison kinda blew my mind when I first read it.

But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Al Pacino, the way he looked back in the early 70s, would have made a PERFECT Cesar Catilina.... still not sure if the thought crossed Coppola's mind.




If you like something, you like it. Nobody will ever get me to recant that every bit of Predator that McTiernan directed 😏 is the perfect action movie. Why? Because it is. Nothing else.

A little off topic, but I would've liked a little more character development, and for the plot of the first act not to be pretty much entirely resolved by the first act. I'm certain a clever screenwriter could've changed that. Nevertheless I do come back to this one pretty often, and each time I see it I like it a little more. SO who knows? I may end up loving it eventually.


As for what I need to be a great movie, the type of tech it needs for its genre and time certainly needs to be maxed out while the character development needs to be at least fairly intriguing among the whole major cast. I got much of that with Megalopolis, but I will take at least 1 point off if I feel a major character is underdeveloped. I've even taken off points from Strangers on a Train, Ferris Beuller, North by Northwest and The Lion King for feeling that the female lead felt weak in comparison to the male lead. This is a major criticism when I can predict the cast's end results, a la Ratatouille and How to Train Your Dragon, both of which have similarities in the plots.


The direction of Predator was perfect for its modern tech and genre, and I'd say in the same league as Megalopolis in that regard based on what was possible at the time. The action was damn good, but everything else was decent to me.



The trick is not minding
That came our harsher than I intended, so before it goes anywhere I’ll explain.
Superhero movies are their own thing.
A movie where someone rises to fight off corruption doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a superhero film.
It’s a tricky distinction to make, sure.
I have yet to see Megalopolis, but it seems more Sci Fi/pulp noirish, although I could be wrong about the latter.



That came our harsher than I intended, so before it goes anywhere I’ll explain.
Superhero movies are their own thing.
A movie where someone rises to fight off corruption doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a superhero film.
It’s a tricky distinction to make, sure.
I have yet to see Megalopolis, but it seems more Sci Fi/pulp noirish, although I could be wrong about the latter.

There isn't as much time travel as one would expect from a movie about a man who can control time. It's only there for as long as the power is needed. If you see it, I'll expand on it.



I have yet to see Megalopolis, but it seems more Sci Fi/pulp noirish, although I could be wrong about the latter.
There's certainly a sci-fi element to it, the first time that Coppola has incorporated sci-fi into one of his movies.

But, remember, the title of the movie, exactly as it appears on screen, is: Francis Ford Coppola's MEGALOPOLIS - A Fable.

And that's exactly what it is, a fable.

There's a lot of hidden meaning and layers of context in the film; I can tell you that after watching it 4 times, I am still fascinated by all of the ideas and themes that run through the movie, defying any kind of simple explanation. There are multiple (and possibly overlapping) ways that you can interpret what Coppola has done here. That's a big part of why I think it is a real masterpiece; it defies easy interpretations and opens itself up to very different readings.

The more you think about the movie, the more you discover.

Coppola started planning this movie back in the 80s and has gone back and forth with different possible casts. So it's easy to see why the many things he wanted to say have been deeply embedded in the movie, in a way you couldn't do with a movie if you came up with the concept and wrote the screenplay in a very short time frame. It is the longest-gestating project Coppola has ever brought to the screen, so he definitely had a lot of time to figure out what he wanted to say and how to say it.



The trick is not minding
There's certainly a sci-fi element to it, the first time that Coppola has incorporated sci-fi into one of his movies.

But, remember, the title of the movie, exactly as it appears on screen, is: Francis Ford Coppola's MEGALOPOLIS - A Fable.

And that's exactly what it is, a fable.

There's a lot of hidden meaning and layers of context in the film; I can tell you that after watching it 4 times, I am still fascinated by all of the ideas and themes that run through the movie, defying any kind of simple explanation. There are multiple (and possibly overlapping) ways that you can interpret what Coppola has done here. That's a big part of why I think it is a real masterpiece; it defies easy interpretations and opens itself up to very different readings.

The more you think about the movie, the more you discover.

Coppola started planning this movie back in the 80s and has gone back and forth with different possible casts. So it's easy to see why the many things he wanted to say have been deeply embedded in the movie, in a way you couldn't do with a movie if you came up with the concept and wrote the screenplay in a very short time frame. It is the longest-gestating project Coppola has ever brought to the screen, so he definitely had a lot of time to figure out what he wanted to say and how to say it.
I’m hoping to see this soon. I was too tired after work to do so this past weekend. Hoping it sticks around a little longer, because I’d like to see it on the big screen



People aren't going to care what Coppola thinks. Stop trying to justify the movie's existence. You're only going to draw people away from it. Let other people talk about it and stop insecurely flooding your own threads. If you want the people here to watch it, let the interest build up instead of hounding them. You've been posting the same reviews on multiple threads. Some won't help but think of your obsessive posting when they think of the movie now.



Coppola recently gave an interview to Forbes where he insisted (among other things) that he preferred his films be considered "divisive" rather than boring.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Coppola when he says his latest movie really seems like a different film each time you see it (of course I have only seen it 4 times, and hope to be watching it again many times in the future), it is a filmic journey that is ripe for rediscovery on each and every viewing, imho.



"The truth is that I find the experience of Megalopolis existing and being seen by an audience very similar to what it was like when I made Apocalypse Now," explains legendary filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola as we chat over Zoom. "When Apocalypse Now came out, people saw it and said, 'Wow, what the hell is it?' There was an ambivalent confusion because it was clearly a film not made with any rules."

The director, who also wrote and produced the science fiction epic, isn't phased by, and is certainly no stranger to, his films receiving mixed reactions. Coppola would much prefer his films be considered divisive rather than boring.

"People don't expect to see food or drinks that are made without rules. Coca-Cola tastes like Coca-Cola, and they don't like it if you change it, but movies are also meant to be a certain kind of experience," he muses. "With Apocalypse Now, the experience was like, 'Wow. I have got to see it again.' People went to see it again because it wasn't boring; it was unusual, and they're still seeing it 40 years later. The same thing has happened with Megalopolis. Because it's not really boring, they're willing to see it again. My hunch is that people are going to see it again, and each time they see it, it becomes a different movie because it has a lot in it that is not apparent in the first viewing."



Megalopolis?
Yeah….not even close

You didn't see the movie though. The main character has a superpower to stop time and his goal is to save the city. Now do they take that idea and do nothing with it and then move on in 5 other different directions...yes it's a bad movie most would call it an incomprehensible mess and walk out 30 minutes in.



The trick is not minding
You didn't see the movie though. The main character has a superpower to stop time and his goal is to save the city. Now do they take that idea and do nothing with it and then move on in 5 other different directions...yes it's a bad movie most would call it an incomprehensible mess and walk out 30 minutes in.
Just because someone has an otherworldly ability doesn’t make them, or the movie, a superhero film. No one thinks Scanners is a superhero film. No one thinks Firestarter is a superhero film.



Just because someone has an otherworldly ability doesn’t make them, or the movie, a superhero film. No one thinks Scanners is a superhero film. No one thinks Firestarter is a superhero film.

Those are also horror films...this is a movie about a man with a super power who is trying to save his city.


The case can be made that it's one of the dozen or different half baked genres that Coppola pushed out.



Just because someone has an otherworldly ability doesn’t make them, or the movie, a superhero film. No one thinks Scanners is a superhero film. No one thinks Firestarter is a superhero film.
And more to the point, Coppola never makes it clear just how much of Catilina's apparent abilities should be taken literally or whether it's just an allegory.... Many of us take it as an allegory, not something literal.

(Some have interpreted it as an allegory for being a filmmaker, since it's clear Catilina is someone Coppola would identify with)