Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis

why did it bomb so bad??

The movie was obviously just there to appeal to the arthouse fans, despite all the effort put into it. I suppose you could say, "most people aren't ready for a movie like that," but whether or not it's true, I don't want to act like I know everything about the movie or decide how good it is. I mean, anyone of us here can dislike it, and most of us are definitely well-educated, especially those of us who've spent a few years here. But most people are likely going for blockbusters, and this certainly doesn't fit the pop bill. So I'm going to bank on the quality acting and effects' replay value to hopefully get this film dissected in colleges over the years and hopefully acquire a more merciful overall score, such as Coppola's Apocalypse Now and Lynch's Lost Highway (and musically, Kate Bush's The Dreaming).

You're the fanboy. You tell us.

i'm not but it's a legit question.

Why do you worry about Coppola's finances? He's going to be fine. He already knew what it was like for a movie to drive him into bankruptcy, and he emerged from that decades ago.

He knows what he's doing. He knows what his priorities are.

I don't know if you can blame the audiences for not liking this. To be frank the supporters feel like Synder fans pushing the idea of the filmmaker over the reality of the work. The idea of people who support this work are like...yes we know it's bad but still it's the commercial films fault. I don't buy that...I'll support a polarized film...this one was just so poorly constructed and conceived

I'm not "blaming" them, just acknowledging that they won't be spending time with movies like this that came before it. In my case, I just put The Holy Mountain as my number 3 of all time, and I know I'm not the first of us to go through such experiences. However, I CAN blame a fan of blockbusters for walking into a movie not built for that type of fan. In your case, your top ten already says you've got range. Not counting the year and a half that I forgot about this site after my first attempt at creating an account failed for some reason, you've been here about a year longer than I have. If you went and saw it and didn't like it, there's not a damn thing I can do. In a normal person's case, you can't break them into experimental movies like this without slowly getting them into movies like that, first. In other words, there's no surprise that they'll likely hate it, which means the joke's on them.

My thoughts after watching the movie for the 3rd time...


They say that "third time's the charm," and that certainly applies to Megalopolis.

I can't say enough about how transformative this movie really feels to me, but honestly I'm having a hard time thinking of another movie in recent years that has been such a mind-blowing experience as this.

So, there are some things that ran through my mind during my 3rd viewing of Coppola's masterpiece. The character of Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver) might be the most unambiguously heroic figure of any of Coppola's films; I think many of his best works feature anti-heroes or, at best, people with very mixed motives. Catilina is a Nobel-prize winning genius whose sole concern, as far as we can tell, is the future of humanity - namely, making it a better future for everybody.

Throughout the movie, Catilina survives all kinds of nefarious plots against him, and somehow manages to get through all of it, if not completely unscathed, certainly without his spirit being in the least affected.

This seems to me like a marked departure from some of Coppola's best films; since they were inherently dramatic, it was probably very appropriate that they would explore some of the darkest motives of human endeavors, or at the very least, the actions of flawed individuals.

And to be sure, Megalopolis is full of very flawed individuals, although for the most part, Catilina is downright heroic by comparison with his peers and other assorted individuals who are prominent in the milieu of the movie.

Another character I've been thinking about a bit more is Vesta Sweetwater; I've been wondering to what extent she may have been at least partly inspired by Taylor Swift. No, not in the specific details of what Vesta most prominently claims to be, but just in the general sense of being some kind of pop-culture phenomenon who attracts a huge amount of attention from her fans (for a really fun Easter egg, check out what car she's riding in when she arrives to one of the big events in the movie).

Like I said, the very broad outline of who Vesta is may be partly inspired by a real-life superstar, but the specifics that the movie gets into are obviously meant to show that she's different in some key ways, but also that the image a performer presents does not always correspond to who they really are.

To be sure, the way the entire political elite of New Rome is presented is far from flattering, but also, crucially, probably not entirely detached from our reality, what exaggeration there is may be simply a matter of Coppola's artistic sensibilities being in full display.

And speaking of things being on display, I think I may have an even greater admiration for Milena Canonero's costume design now that I have had more time to look at some of the most outlandish costumes here. After being in the business for over 50 years, Ms. Canonero is still full of amazing ideas, especially when given full rein by a top director.

After watching the movie 3 times, the first thing that struck me as I was leaving the IMAX cinema was... how boring the real world seems by comparison. Yes, reality does seem rather dreary after spending quite a few hours inside Coppola's astonishing vision of, well, some kind of alternate reality.

It is a nice place to visit, and I would really love living there.

You did not literally just post the same large review on two different threads

Wow this is pretty amazing... a friend of mine just texted to mention that the IMAX "ultimate experience screenings*" are pretty close to selling out and.... yup, checked it out, good luck getting a good seat for any of these shows!




*the "ultimate experience" showings are the ones with the live participation

Crazy he's able to see the film three times and yet still post in this thread nonstop.

This sounds like a dream opportunity for any actor lucky enough to be cast in the movie!

Dude, stop. You've made over 70 posts in 8 pages and you're drawing people away. You didn't even post an article pertaining to the interview in which he said that. You just posted a quote that makes the movie look better. You have an issue with people not liking the movie because you're over-emotional. Chill out, and let people talk about their OWN experiences instead of watching you try to look like you're not bragging about "pros" agreeing with you.

In 1967, Dustin Hoffman was the funny-looking kid starring in The Graduate and Coppola was still an up-and-coming director without a major hit under his belt. What a long, amazing journey it has been for these two!

After having already watched Francis Ford Coppola's MEGALOPOLIS three separate times in the IMAX format, I decided it was time to watch the regular non-IMAX presentation.

Now, to be sure, there is no better way to enjoy this cinematic masterpiece than in a larger-than-life IMAX screen. The regular screen in which I rewatched it is probably about 1/4th the size of the IMAX one. And it also doesn't benefit from the exclusive IMAX ratio in the parts of the movie that were shot with IMAX cameras.

All in all, however, it is still a mind-blowingly awesome experience, the likes of which we have never seen before presented in such a spectacular way. The smaller screen gives some of it a greater sense of intimacy, and in some individual shots, allows you to take a better look at all of the detail that Coppola has packed into every frame.

The 4th overall viewing also proved a valuable opportunity to get a closer look at some of the secondary characters. I think one of the most underrated character is that of Huey, played by a newcomer by the name of Bailey Ives. He has a very interesting arc throughout the movie, and I strongly suggest you keep an eye on him if you watch the movie.

I can't promise that I won't catch MEGALOPOLIS a few more times over the next few days; it's very likely the movie will disappear entirely from cinemas after its first week, because people these days (for the most part) aren't really interested in something that can best be described as a 21st century big-budget experimental film.

Curious to see what the theater dropoff is going to be on Friday...film finished 6th at the BO, could have a 70% week 2 drop and finish it's run with sub 7 million.


One of the all-time biggest bombs.

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.

5.3/10 on IMDB with a ton of bad reviews

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

I'm, expecting that for now. But I'll repeat this statement just in case it got glossed over: considering the effects and acting have replay value, I'm expecting people to become "more used to it" and potentially even study it. This certainly isn't unfamiliar with Coppola. I can't prove it, but that's definitely what I think will happen.


But at the same time, I could go through an evaluation and lowering my score significantly. Having said that, I'll never lower it below 5/10 for its acting, direction and effects. The themes and story satisfied me as well.

If you're gonna make a decision on whether or not to watch Coppola's latest (and, perhaps, but hopefully not, his last film) based entirely on the IMDb reviews, then, by all means, skip it.

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.

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.

Coppola has long had a tendency towards experimental filmmaking, with perhaps One From the Heart being one of the first clear examples of his forsaking traditional narrative techniques just for the sake of, well, experimenting with the possibilities of cinema. From the perspective of traditional storytelling, it may leave a lot to be desired - but all of the things it offers instead are really fascinating, imho.

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.