MEGALOPOLIS - Movie Review

Hey everybody! Today I am going to be reviewing Megalopolis. This was directed by Francis Ford Coppola. There's not a lot one can say about the legendary career of Francis Ford Coppola that hasn't been said already. He's had a very unique career over the years. He's had massive successes and major failures. All kinds of twists and turns where, you know, maybe if you had asked me in the mid-1970s how I think the career of Coppola is going to pan out, this is not how I saw it ending up. But there's a boldness in him and a vigor that just never fully dulled. Maybe he lost his way at certain points, but it's like he always maintained that that flicker. All of the films made in the 1970s are some of the greatest American films ever made, and they defined, you know, a generation of all kinds of filmmakers. And, you know, for me at least, I'd say three of those films are also some of my favorite films of all time. It's just hard to deny they're so good and they're so timeless, and yet there is there's like a subtlety and a seriousness so far as the way he maybe is accessing the emotion of these films compared to Megalopolis. So if you're looking for something reminiscent of like The Godfather or The Conversation, you're not going to get that. This is a manifesto and very operatic in its style. And it's the type of passion project that you are not likely to see often. It's a movie that he's been trying to make since the 1980s. But at this point he is 85 years old, he's rich, he is powerful in the industry, so it's like what does he have to lose? Just the sheer brashness to be able to just take everything that you have worked for and put it on the line like that? It's extraordinary. To finance this film as an example, he sold part of his winery and he put up 120 million dollars of his own money. And no matter what the final product ends up being, there is something magical about that to me. You know, somebody who is still willing to, you know, roll up their sleeves and get that elbow grease in there. There's a lot going on in this film, but I think ultimately it's a reflection of invention and artistry, existence, love, philosophy, how it often intertwines cosmically and symbolically, and how, you know, a lot of the great artists of the time kind of breathe life into that, or the great thinkers as well. But with that comes messiness and conflict, and I think while this film does embody those things, it also becomes kind of a literal reflection of them. At the end of the day, you can talk all you want about Coppola and the backstory of this film because it is, you know, really interesting, but the final product is the final product and, you know, ultimately the art is your mark on the world, not your explanation of it. Yeah, what do you say about this film? I just saw it a few hours ago, so it's very fresh in my mind. The word that keeps coming to mind, and I'm sure it's very obvious or typical, is overstuffed. Yeah, it is very ambitious. It's lofty. It's Shakespearean. You could dissect and talk about all kinds of different things in this movie all day long, and I do think, you know, it needs multiple viewings to understand. It's a film that's supposed to be about the fall of the Roman Empire, but like, you know, in the modern day, but represented again through America, so it's like this heightened version of New York City. There are moments in this film and at least ideas visually that I think are materializing into something that I see as incredibly beautiful and poetic. For all of its philosophical posturing, I think there is real heart at the root of it, like I said, but I have to be honest with you. On an initial viewing, I found myself constantly imagining what the film could have been rather than what it actually was. What if this were made at a time when Francis did have that kind of power, when he did have that backing, where he could turn this into a major spectacle? And unfortunately, that feeling just started to weigh me down, especially as the movie progressed. I will say it's easy to think about, you know, a lot of great filmmakers when I'm watching this movie. I couldn't help but think about Orson Welles, so far as the ambition and like the visuals. Magnificent Ambersons comes to mind, the film he made post-Citizen Kane, and the opening of that film has some of the greatest images, I think, in any films he made. And I think really the opening of that film is spectacular, but obviously we know the film was butchered in the editing, and that ruins two-thirds of it, so the rest of the film feels like it's slipping through your fingers. But I even thought about the trial from the early 60s. That came to mind, just kind of like the angular lines, the Kafka kind of look. I think about recent examples, like Damien Chazelle's Babylon, where the existential crisis is felt in that film, but it's more destructive, it's more cynical. It's a sloppy, slobbery mess at times, and it annoys me, and yet it's still so soulful to me, and psychedelic, and dark, bursting with flair and energy, and I love that about it. But that's the thing, is a movie like Babylon, or a movie like Magnificent Ambersons, it has that cinematic pull. There's more going for them, so far as like the quality of the filmmaking is concerned, where it does at least match the fire of that ambition. In both of those films, you know, there are moments that are hypnotic and breathtaking, but with Megalopolis, I never felt that guttural grit, even though it's like I know the passion is there, it's just not connecting. And partially it's because, like I said, we're too overwhelmed with ideas, it's too overwrought, where we don't have enough time to ruminate in anything. So it just didn't feel as meaningful to me, but there's potential for it. It's like there are, in like whiffs, there are moments where it's like you can feel like the camp, and like the Greek tragedy mixed with the operatic opulence of everything, almost finding a balancing act, almost finding a common ground. For instance, there's an opening scene with Adam Driver, where he recites the Hamlet soliloquy. I love the architectural symbolism, I love how he's standing where everything is so rickety, so it's like that city model is rocking back and forth. I thought all of that was fantastic, even though you could look at that more as like a literal symbol of like this movie is standing on faulty ground. Yeah, I really liked the scene, because it reminded me of like going to see like a black box theater avant-garde version of like, you know, a Shakespeare play. It has a stark power that, yeah, it made an impact. Another one I liked was the first kiss scene between the Natalie Emanuel character and the Adam Driver character, just, you know, again, because it's kind of an extension of that first scene. I love the angular lines in it, again, the architectural symbolism, the idea of dreams, the construction of just the scene as a whole, it's quite beautiful. The performances are both very easy, breezy, they melt into each other in a nice way, and, you know, I think that's a nice break from a lot of the performances. The rest of the performances, that tend to be more over the top. But as I said, I feel like we're losing sight of the core as the movie continues, and it's like we don't have enough, you know, emotional stickiness, aesthetic stickiness for it to have the impact that it needs to. It just doesn't connect. It's like some of the dialogue is actually very interesting, some of it can be really beautiful, but at other times it can be, you know, too vague, too simple-minded, especially when it's trying to be very, you know, intellectual and all of that. Sometimes, yes, this film does feel like an insufferable college student that took maybe their first philosophy course. And the world-building here, it has a lot of great ideas. I love the combination of, like, old film noir, the art deco from, like, the 1930s, the old silent era blockbusters that you might have seen from, like, D.W. Griffith. Aubrey Plaza even looks like she's Theta Bera or something, so far as, like, the outfit and the headdress that she's wearing. And there's a moment in the film, or several moments, that are, like, remind me of, like, this technicolor impressionistic look you might have seen from a movie by the Archers, the red shoes and the ballet sequence. Definitely some shades of that, one of my favorite movies of all time. So, again, it's like there are whiffs of very imaginative, creative stuff going on here, but it's just not enough. If they could have matched all of the ambition with maybe the right team and the right talent, even if it was a little bit messy, I think this would have been easily one of my favorite films of the year. But I still think it has potential to grow in my mind, but just so far as the feeling of it, and especially the look of it, this movie reminded me of, like, a mid-2000s sci-fi movie. And I mean sci-fi as in, like, the sci-fi channel, like the cable channel that we used to watch back in those days. And yeah, often the lighting just looks too artificial, too lacking in texture, and I think the editing just does not connect the emotion and the images to the story, where it's not constantly feeling too rushed or too choppy. But when you have almost like a tsunami of elements just spinning all around you, you need a really great actor to anchor everything. And I do think that they picked the right person in Adam Driver. He is one of the reasons why this film doesn't completely fall apart. And he also gets the humor, and I think a lot of the actors in this film did not get the humor. And, you know, I've talked about this before. I have never really gotten into Adam Driver as an actor post-Girls. I think his performance in that is a stroke of genius, and nothing ever quite matched that. But I will say, I think this is one of his best performances, just because I felt like you could sense that passion for this. It's like he wanted to be here. And it reminded me of the Adam Driver I saw in, yes, the show Girl, somebody who was vulnerable and willing to take the plunge. And like I said, like the wacky kind of campy element, it's like that the actors just could not get into the rhythm of it. And it honestly feels like Adam Driver is, like, on a tightrope, and he's, like, on a unicycle while juggling at the same time. And, you know, to a certain point, you're like, wow, that's amazing, and that's fascinating. But after a while, it's exhausting. The wordiness and the lack of visual coherence, it's like things started to feel monotonous, and I felt kind of bored. And it's interesting, because it's like I'm both bored by the film, and yet I'm still fascinated by it. It's like there's something to the dreaminess of it that I couldn't help but be a little bit intoxicated by. And just the look of everything, that, like, lesurgic floral movement of everything, where it's like the structures bend the way they do, all of that was just, it's cool. Especially when you contrast that with, like, the hardened, like, marble swirls of, like, the Roman Empire mixed with, you know, more like the modern skyscrapers of America. I want to draw images and ideas from this movie, and I want somebody to take this further. It's like, you know, when Francis Ford Coppola is long gone, maybe somebody will see this film and maybe make it more fully realized, or at least be influenced by it. There are times when something like this could have been possible, but unfortunately that time is just not now where it can, you know, really work. But I will say this, if you are a cinephile, you have to see this film. You just do. Yes, it's polarizing. Some people really dislike it. Some people think it's a masterpiece, but, you know, that's a great reason to see it, because it splits people. How does it strike you? Even if you don't like it, I think there is a lot to at least be fascinated by, and yes, a lot to be inspired by. I just think it's too unstable of a film, too inaccessible for mainstream audiences to get. You gotta be hardcore. But I have to say, I'm really proud of Francis, that he got it done, just because I never thought I was going to see this movie. And when, you know, like the opening pops up, and it's like Megalopolis by Francis Ford Coppola, I couldn't help but just like crack the smile and be like, oh my god, like son of a bitch did it. The meaning behind that is very powerful to me. I just wish that the film itself reflected more of that. And that is my review. Thank you guys so much for watching. I'm going to plug my website, as always, it is deepfocuslens.com. I'm an artist, I do commissioned portraits, and I sell prints of my work. If that is something that you're interested in, you can always go to the website below, and if you have a question about a commission or a print, you can always email me. My email is in the description box below as well. Also, I'd like to give a shout out to my patrons, who are great. Guys, thank you so much for your support. If you're interested in supporting, the link for that is below, as well as the rest of my social media information. You can watch more videos here, and you can subscribe if you'd like. Catch you next time.