Megalopolis
40 years of expectations and chaos.
“The Mayor, Caesar, the missing wife, the wayward daughter, time, the Colosseum, substances, the virgin, euphoria, the companion, the end, the child, the shot, sex, rebellion, and again the end” — even this collection of words seems more understandable and coherent than what we are about to discuss.
“Megalopolis” is a film that Francis Ford Coppola has been developing and contemplating for over 40 years. At first glance, this project promises to be truly impressive. However, reality proves otherwise. Instead of providing a captivating experience, the viewer is overwhelmed by confusion and indignation, which intensify due to the lack of interest in what is happening on the screen. After viewing, one is left with a feeling of dissatisfaction. If it weren’t for the obligation to write this review, I would have stood up and left the theater.
This film clearly does not fit the framework of “classical cinema,” but let’s figure out whether that’s good or bad. From the very first minutes, it seems that the viewers are considered unimportant. The sets, costumes, and extras look unconvincing and sparse, as if the director is reenacting a convoluted and illogical dream.
Coppola bases the film on the historical work “On the Conspiracy of Catiline,” written in the late 40s B.C., and transports the action to an alternate future of America. We are shown a utopian world of the Third Roman Empire, where battles for power take place. At first glance, everything seems logical for the plot development, but it veers off into completely unpredictable directions. By the middle of the film, it seems that a significant drama is about to unfold, the anticipated battle between the mayor and the inventor, yet everything suddenly simplifies into a family drama. The confrontation of past and future, creator and creation is mixed with tasteless jokes, gaudy outfits, and bizarre pop culture and history references. The director clearly struggles with the number of plot lines, leading to total chaos.
None of the characters evoke sympathy. However, sufficient funds have been spent on the cast, so it deserves attention. Adam Driver as the main character, “the mad genius and orator,” is a decent choice to portray a somewhat eccentric and emotionally reserved lead. Yet, attempts to draw the audience into the drama of his life fall flat, leaving viewers more confused. Natalie Emmanuel partially saves the film — every time she appears on screen with her attraction to Caesar, followed by her love for him, watching becomes much more enjoyable. The appearance of Shia LaBeouf is also surprising: he excellently plays an eccentric, and at times, his motives and actions become the only coherent elements amidst all the pseudo-grandiosity.
There’s no need to mention the quality and composition of the shots — they leave much to be desired. Boring moments are shown slowly and drag on, while thrilling events zoom by at lightning speed.
The director clearly strives to convey profound truths of this world and create a timeless piece of cinema. However, in trying to reinvent the “wheel,” he seemingly forgets about the passage of time and basic continuity. As a result, we see dozens of unfinished plot lines and just as many unanswered questions. As they say, overthinking is harmful.
To understand this film, one must be the person who conceived and directed it. Despite this, at the end of the film, we encounter the most clichéd messages: “family is important,” “the future lies in children,” “live harmoniously.” These sentiments feel trite and do not correspond with the cluttered two-hour storyline.
This may very well be the most disappointing film I have seen in a long time.
2.5/10