I will pay my "senior rate" at my local theatre to see Francis Ford Coppola. It sounds like a must see to me. Just a little side note; we all know that the "masses" want fast moving beginning, middle and end and in a series that's per episode (can't blame them). My son and his wife have no patience for a couple of episodes to set the stage and do a little character development. At the end of each episode one must be left with the feeling of breathlessness and not being able to wait a week to see what's next. Breaking Bad comes to mind. I have another old HS buddy who writes a news letter that includes a very short review of a popular movie he's viewed that week. One of his common complaints is "too long." That's 1:55 minutes as opposed to the 1:25 minutes that brushes up against his tolerances. So, as my mother always said to me regarding an individual tastes/views; "That's why there's chocolate and vanilla." That said, I like your review.
I just got out of the theater. In a lot of ways, the storytelling is more like a silent epic than a contemporary movie. Abel Gance's "Napoleon" came to mind more than once. I don't know that it worked, but I loved that he tried.
Having only this review to go on and summarized by you I am left with the impression that this is essentially "Atlas Shrugged" but with creatives instead of businessmen. Not in plot or characters so much but in its idealism. Driver's character sounds like an "ethical egoist" who is projected through a lens of altruism. Cicero would be a monster in Ayn Rand's universe.
And perhaps that is the link between this film and the adaptations of Rand's novels. The difference being that this is (according to you) an interesting failure "Atlas Shrugged" (in every version of it) and "The Fountainhead" are UNINTERESTING failures. Though an interesting failure hinges on the interests of the individual watching.
Remember I saw "Heaven's Gate" in its theatrical run in 1981. I went to see if it could possibly be as bad as everyone insisted it was. I found it interesting and not nearly as awful as the Hollywood elites and experts seemed to think.
I will watch this when it has been tossed in the stream.
Re Steve Singer's comparison to Cimino's 'bomb' - Heaven's Gate: The best - because it was the most piercing review - of Heaven's Gate was: "Ummm...., there's a good western in there SOMEWHERE...." Sadly, that film changed Hollywood's project greenlighting procedures forever, led by Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer - and not in a good way for narrative artistic filmmakng. Cimino didn't help either by spending $8 million in pre-production and not a frame of film was shot, but the insouciant declaration by one of Paramount's execs of the delicate ballet between studio and director ("Let me tell you, that dance has ended") didn't make it better, either. Call it a double loss. One of those in that Dynamic Duo is departed, and the other is still at it. For all that power playing and for all the enormous amount of money that team made for Paramount, ask anyone under the age of 30 who Don Simpson is and they will have the same cartoon balloon question marks over their heads as if you had asked them "Who is Mary Pickford? Who is Tom Mix? Who is Ben Turpin" (the number 2, 3, and 4 top box office draws in the one/two reeler "Silent" era, after Charlie Chaplin at number 1). For me, it is never how much you make or have made. It is how much you will be remembered after you are gone.
Wow - I just scrolled down now and saw that someone ELSE (Nate Moore) referred to ONE FROM THE HEART and Pauline Kael. A very, very haunting and heart-sinking deja vu. Think I'll just be happy with Micheal "ain't it bitchin'?' Bay Transformer-bashing and call it a draw.
In all of my sixty years of love and involvement in theatrical release motion pictures, I am wondering if the tone of your review will have a parallel ilk to the only film I ever walked out out on: ONE FROM THE HEART (another Coppola misanthropic creation). Not sure I want to find out.
Maybe, but probably not before it gets to VOD. Too much else on the docket recently. I kind of wanted to do a REAGAN/THE SUBSTANCE double feature since they both star Quaid.
As we walked out of the theatre last night, the woman behind me said, "We didn't just watch that. It just happened to us." That seemed right to me. Somehow.
If reading your review gave me a headache ( not about you, but, the movie itself) I doubt I would make it through this movie or feel good for watching it...lol
Yeah, that is what I think too, it seems too complicated to enjoy, if I have to constantly figure out what is going on or what it means...that isn't very interesting or fun...lol
Thanks for your great review, as always. I'm really excited to see this. Do you think Megalopolis would have been better if it had been put through its paces with a studio? Maybe Coppola, even this late in his career, still needs that tension with the suits to bring out his best work. Will always be fascinating that Hollywood's most visionary/impactful projects only succeed if the Director and Studio hate each other...
I'll just note that Caesar, Catiline, Clodio and Crassus were not nice people in their time just before the Roman Civil War. (And where is Pompey in the movie anyway?) And say what you like about Cicero (and why change his daughter's name from Tulia?) he wasn't the one who brought chaos and war to the late stage Roman Republic.
I haven't seen the movie and the names may just be names, but these are not the people I would valorize. In the end, they were chaos monkeys.
The thing that struck me is that it was both a justification for and indictment of the studio system. The film desperately needed an adult in the room to collaborate with Coppola and try to hone all of his ideas and his visuals into a cohesive and consistent whole. It’s like he knew this was his last film and he didn’t want to leave anything left unsaid. The disparate mess takes away from individual moments of brilliance in acting, ideas, and visuals. The film vacillates wildly between themes and visuals… I wish he would have settled on a unified approach. One could imagine the best version being the Terry Gilliam-esque satire that Voight, Plaza, and LaBeouf embody. For all the talk of Coppola indulging in weed during the production, it feels more like he was on cocaine.
Last thought, Nathalie Emmanuel was the worst part in whatever version of this movie this could have or should have been.
Drew Magary's review in SF Gate is very worth reading on this as well:
https://www.sfgate.com/sf-culture/article/megalopolis-movie-review-19760949.php
Holy crap, that review was devastating. Worth reading.
Any review that starts with "This is not a review. This is a warning." is worth reading
I will pay my "senior rate" at my local theatre to see Francis Ford Coppola. It sounds like a must see to me. Just a little side note; we all know that the "masses" want fast moving beginning, middle and end and in a series that's per episode (can't blame them). My son and his wife have no patience for a couple of episodes to set the stage and do a little character development. At the end of each episode one must be left with the feeling of breathlessness and not being able to wait a week to see what's next. Breaking Bad comes to mind. I have another old HS buddy who writes a news letter that includes a very short review of a popular movie he's viewed that week. One of his common complaints is "too long." That's 1:55 minutes as opposed to the 1:25 minutes that brushes up against his tolerances. So, as my mother always said to me regarding an individual tastes/views; "That's why there's chocolate and vanilla." That said, I like your review.
I just got out of the theater. In a lot of ways, the storytelling is more like a silent epic than a contemporary movie. Abel Gance's "Napoleon" came to mind more than once. I don't know that it worked, but I loved that he tried.
Thanks Sunny. I have been waiting for your review to decide if I wanted to see it. I’ll wait for it to hit streaming.
Having only this review to go on and summarized by you I am left with the impression that this is essentially "Atlas Shrugged" but with creatives instead of businessmen. Not in plot or characters so much but in its idealism. Driver's character sounds like an "ethical egoist" who is projected through a lens of altruism. Cicero would be a monster in Ayn Rand's universe.
And perhaps that is the link between this film and the adaptations of Rand's novels. The difference being that this is (according to you) an interesting failure "Atlas Shrugged" (in every version of it) and "The Fountainhead" are UNINTERESTING failures. Though an interesting failure hinges on the interests of the individual watching.
Remember I saw "Heaven's Gate" in its theatrical run in 1981. I went to see if it could possibly be as bad as everyone insisted it was. I found it interesting and not nearly as awful as the Hollywood elites and experts seemed to think.
I will watch this when it has been tossed in the stream.
Re Steve Singer's comparison to Cimino's 'bomb' - Heaven's Gate: The best - because it was the most piercing review - of Heaven's Gate was: "Ummm...., there's a good western in there SOMEWHERE...." Sadly, that film changed Hollywood's project greenlighting procedures forever, led by Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer - and not in a good way for narrative artistic filmmakng. Cimino didn't help either by spending $8 million in pre-production and not a frame of film was shot, but the insouciant declaration by one of Paramount's execs of the delicate ballet between studio and director ("Let me tell you, that dance has ended") didn't make it better, either. Call it a double loss. One of those in that Dynamic Duo is departed, and the other is still at it. For all that power playing and for all the enormous amount of money that team made for Paramount, ask anyone under the age of 30 who Don Simpson is and they will have the same cartoon balloon question marks over their heads as if you had asked them "Who is Mary Pickford? Who is Tom Mix? Who is Ben Turpin" (the number 2, 3, and 4 top box office draws in the one/two reeler "Silent" era, after Charlie Chaplin at number 1). For me, it is never how much you make or have made. It is how much you will be remembered after you are gone.
Wow - I just scrolled down now and saw that someone ELSE (Nate Moore) referred to ONE FROM THE HEART and Pauline Kael. A very, very haunting and heart-sinking deja vu. Think I'll just be happy with Micheal "ain't it bitchin'?' Bay Transformer-bashing and call it a draw.
In all of my sixty years of love and involvement in theatrical release motion pictures, I am wondering if the tone of your review will have a parallel ilk to the only film I ever walked out out on: ONE FROM THE HEART (another Coppola misanthropic creation). Not sure I want to find out.
Hey Sonny, Will you review "Reagan"?
Maybe, but probably not before it gets to VOD. Too much else on the docket recently. I kind of wanted to do a REAGAN/THE SUBSTANCE double feature since they both star Quaid.
Quaid's character in "The Substance," playing Reagan in a biopic, and his recent endorsement of Trump...The irony is in there somewhere.
As we walked out of the theatre last night, the woman behind me said, "We didn't just watch that. It just happened to us." That seemed right to me. Somehow.
Feels like I should pack an extra bong for this.
Hmmm. Piqued my curiosity. I’m going to see it.
If reading your review gave me a headache ( not about you, but, the movie itself) I doubt I would make it through this movie or feel good for watching it...lol
I just saw it. My primary reaction was boredom.
Yeah, that is what I think too, it seems too complicated to enjoy, if I have to constantly figure out what is going on or what it means...that isn't very interesting or fun...lol
Thanks for your great review, as always. I'm really excited to see this. Do you think Megalopolis would have been better if it had been put through its paces with a studio? Maybe Coppola, even this late in his career, still needs that tension with the suits to bring out his best work. Will always be fascinating that Hollywood's most visionary/impactful projects only succeed if the Director and Studio hate each other...
I'll just note that Caesar, Catiline, Clodio and Crassus were not nice people in their time just before the Roman Civil War. (And where is Pompey in the movie anyway?) And say what you like about Cicero (and why change his daughter's name from Tulia?) he wasn't the one who brought chaos and war to the late stage Roman Republic.
I haven't seen the movie and the names may just be names, but these are not the people I would valorize. In the end, they were chaos monkeys.
The thing that struck me is that it was both a justification for and indictment of the studio system. The film desperately needed an adult in the room to collaborate with Coppola and try to hone all of his ideas and his visuals into a cohesive and consistent whole. It’s like he knew this was his last film and he didn’t want to leave anything left unsaid. The disparate mess takes away from individual moments of brilliance in acting, ideas, and visuals. The film vacillates wildly between themes and visuals… I wish he would have settled on a unified approach. One could imagine the best version being the Terry Gilliam-esque satire that Voight, Plaza, and LaBeouf embody. For all the talk of Coppola indulging in weed during the production, it feels more like he was on cocaine.
Last thought, Nathalie Emmanuel was the worst part in whatever version of this movie this could have or should have been.