User Reviews

"We are not here to please others." A quote from Megalopolis that likely symbolized Francis Ford Coppola's motivation when he created this epic. With this project, he defied all expectations and realized an artistic dream that had occupied him for decades. He made many sacrifices to bring it to fruition. This included investing a large portion of his fortune, as no Hollywood production company was willing to finance it. But this attitude of the film industry, which has long been driven far less by artistically ambitious projects than by pure greed, did not deter Francis Ford Coppola. For this perseverance and courage, this willingness to risk damaging his reputation as a director, he deserves the highest respect and gratitude. The result is an epic full of symbolic power and profound depth. It deals with power, greed, manipulation, and the decadence of a society that resonates in both the Roman Empire and the present day. In this sense, the film can certainly be interpreted as a warning to humanity. With his late work, Francis Ford Coppola has created a great, courageous, and enduring film.

For the first fifteen minutes I thought I would absolutely hate it, but things did pick up after Julia went to Cesar's office and from then on I was totally on its wavelength. The convoluted narrative involving a plethora of different characters reminded me of my favorite aspects of Chaykin's American Flagg, you are thrown into this rich and complex universe and you have to make sense of its politics and inner workings on your own. I guess that's what didn't work for me about the opening fifteen minutes: it tried too hard to establish these characters in a rushed and unnaturally expository way instead of letting you figure things out. Either way I really dug the whole thing, the sincere approach with moments of hilarity, the anachronistic and insane digital visuals, the superimpositions, the environmental worldbuilding, the tryptich/vertical segments... I was absolutely impressed by certain scenes, the whole sequence with the statues might be my favorite cinematic moment of 2024. I'm compelled to write something extensive once I rewatch it or give it more thought, but for now what else can I say other than I'm so glad Coppola was able to realize his vision without compromises? I love how unapologetically grandiose it is, a thought exercise and philosophical exploration of an old humanist pleading us to allow people to dream. There is something special behind all its clunkiness, I don't care what the "consensus" says.

I give one point for the cast and because visually it’s impressive. But otherwise, what did I just watch? I can’t even summarize it.

A mostly atrocious film with very little to keep me watching it to the end. Way too long for what it was. Very poor storyline. Lots of imagery that was badly knitted together. I didn't buy into anyone's character. I wouldn't bother watching it again!

Just baffled at everything in here, there really are career worst performances by a lot of the actors involved here. The production design is really rough. Adam, I understand why you maybe agreed to do this but I am going to need you to start lock in from now on.

It's not as bad as people say. I think some unnecessary scenes need to be removed and it needs better CGI.

Hhahahaahha this is a joke. There is zero consistency in it's own universe. Literally nothing makes any sense.

I can't exactly place how I feel about Megalopolis. It's all over the place, and I can't tell what it's going for. I kept trying to adapt my perspective to better suit the movie, which is not a labor that is usually asked by media. I tried viewing it as a play, as a dream, as a look at society from a completely alienated lens, but it tries to do too many things and never quite nails anything.

Usually, you want a movie to offer something. A story, a visual universe, emotions, an intellectual stimulation, toughs or even just a question. Here, nothing, absolute emptiness. Politics seen by a 2 year old, visuals you could mistake with an ad for an ugly shopping mall, and of course a nonsense story

(Mauro Lanari) FFC has been among the filmmakers most aware that New Hollywood couldn't be limited to protests, denunciations, or criticisms, and that it also had to attempt to suggest some semblance of a proposal: from "Apocalypse Now" to "Paradise Now". Then, however, when he adapted one of Eliade's worst texts ("Youth Without Youth", 2007), failure was inevitable. Finding something less indecent in the philosophy of religions, from Origen to Scholasticism, wouldn't have been difficult. Instead, Francis has now directed a postmodern (Gance, Greenaway, Gilliam, Lange) and retrofuturist "Hunger Games" more hallucinating than visionary, in which the "Garden of Caesar's Eden", that is a religious utopia, is downgraded to the social utopias of the 16th and 17th centuries (More, Campanella, Bacon) in the hands of engineers like "Tucker" ('88), architects, and urban planners. Furthermore, his recurring idea of stopping time, evident since "Rumble Fish" ('83), makes no sense if it merely serves as an infinite dilation of the present or coexists with the becoming, growth and future of Sunny Hope (sic). It's not a fable, it's a raving.

Francis Ford Coppola sempre foi sinônimo de ousadia e visão artística. Afinal, ele é o responsável por algumas das maiores obras do cinema, como O Poderoso Chefão e Apocalypse Now. Contudo, mesmo gigantes têm seus sonhos desafiadores, e para Coppola, esse sonho sempre foi Megalópolis. Concebido nos anos 1980, o projeto começou a tomar forma com suas primeiras páginas de roteiro e a busca incansável por referências literárias e teatrais, como Shakespeare e a Roma Antiga. Durante anos, o filme parecia um mito, algo grandioso demais para ser realizado. Mas Coppola decidiu não esperar mais e tomou uma atitude arriscada: financiou o projeto do próprio bolso, acreditando que o mundo estava pronto para sua visão. Infelizmente, o resultado não foi o que o lendário diretor **** um orçamento de 120 milhões de dólares, Megalópolis encontrou dificuldades antes mesmo de começar. Estúdios de Hollywood recusaram o projeto, temendo o risco de investir em um filme que não seguia o formato de um blockbuster convencional. Quando finalmente encontrou apoio na Lionsgate para distribuir o filme, as condições eram duras: o diretor precisaria arcar com o marketing e repassar 20% dos lucros ao estúdio. O problema é que esses lucros nunca vieram. O filme arrecadou míseros 13 milhões de dólares, um dos maiores fracassos do ano, tanto em bilheteria quanto em crítica. Essa aposta pessoal deixou Coppola em uma posição financeira precária, com dificuldades até para planejar seus próximos **** coisa, no entanto, é inegável: a paixão de Coppola por Megalópolis transborda na tela. Desde os primeiros minutos, é possível perceber que este não é apenas um filme, mas uma tentativa de criar um palco para discussões profundas sobre sociedade, política, utopia e os caminhos da humanidade. A intenção é clara, mas a execução tropeça. Coppola tentou abarcar tantos conceitos e referências que a narrativa perde o foco. O filme fala de tudo, mas acaba não dizendo nada. Ideias brilhantes surgem apenas para serem abandonadas rapidamente, como se o diretor tivesse pressa em mostrar o próximo conceito antes de desenvolver o anterior. Essa sobrecarga de temas faz com que a trama pareça rala, superficial, e prejudica o impacto emocional que poderia ser **** problemas se estendem ao elenco, que inclui nomes de peso como Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito e Aubrey Plaza. Apesar do talento inquestionável, os atores se perdem em uma narrativa fragmentada e pouco envolvente. A sensação é de que o elenco está navegando às cegas em meio a tantas referências, o que resulta em atuações caricatas. Mesmo com performances que tentam salvar algumas cenas, especialmente de Driver e Esposito, a direção parece incapaz de aproveitar o potencial dos atores. Em vez de uma experiência cinematográfica envolvente, Megalópolis muitas vezes se assemelha a uma peça teatral desajeitada, sem a sofisticação de uma produção de Broadway e mais parecida com um ensaio escolar.Ainda assim, é inegável que Coppola tentou criar algo único. O filme traz reflexões sobre religião, poder, controle e as escolhas humanas. Mas essas questões filosóficas são apresentadas de maneira tão caótica que o público é mais confundido do que instigado. Em vez de um debate inteligente, o que vemos é uma enxurrada de informações desconexas que tornam a experiência **** resumo, Megalópolis é a prova de que até os maiores visionários podem tropeçar. O filme tinha tudo para ser um marco na carreira de Coppola, mas se perdeu em sua própria grandiosidade. A paixão do diretor é evidente, mas sua incapacidade de transformar essa paixão em uma narrativa coesa torna o filme um esforço frustrante de acompanhar. Uma das maiores decepções do ano, Megalópolis é um lembrete doloroso de que até as ideias mais brilhantes precisam de execução sólida para brilhar.

Un guion malo, escenas grandielocuente y demasiado boomer para mi gusto. Tal vez si hubiers sido estrenada en los 80 o los 90 habría tenido una oportunidad. Se reconoce el esfuerzo y el valor de Coppola, aunque no sea una obra de nuestro gusto.

An emptiness within grandeur. Megalopolis lacks clarity in its narrative, purpose, and destination. It’s a dry and hollow film. While it attempts to merge the style of past eras with a futuristic approach, the absence of a compelling story prevents it from drawing me in.

Megalopolis is certainly visually apart. The story is trying to make a parallel with Rome and modern civilization. But it is done with dialogues that make no sens. They seems to have been written by a 4-5 years old, or someone that had dementia. There is no logic, no cohesion. The film seems to be made with cools scenes put together, and in between, with fillings with no links. It tries to be surrealist and it fails miserably at it. There are good actors in this, but they pass has incompetent because of the overlay pretentious writing. I give 22% for partially good visuals at times. I watch 35 minutes of it, and it was enough, believe me.

Coppola's passion project felt disastrous in a way that its as disastrous as Cesar character itself and his complex obstacle while trying to build Megalopolis, and i'm probably one of the few people who actually enjoy his disastrous journey, what makes Megalopolis suitable to shoot in these recent technology is what i think made the film better, the capability of all the visual and special effects was definitely an important aspect of Megalopolis while i do must admit that not all the effects worked, some felt underwhelming and in my opinion represent the film's biggest weakness, Megalopolis is a lot to take in, grand, ambitious, and at times overwhelming, but it somehow managed to resonate with me, the story may not be groundbreaking, but it is creatively executed, the cinematography, the performances by all the cast was good, and particularly the depiction of an alternate 21st-century New York City that feels quite rich and immersive, overall, Megalopolis is a passion project that won't resonate with everyone, but i personally enjoyed it as a flawed disastrous yet fascinating grand epic science fiction with its intriguing story and dedicated craftsmanship, even if some aspects don't quite hit the mark.

Easily one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It looks like crap, the acting is awful, it's horribly edited, the screenplay is absolutely absurd and makes no sense whatsoever. I can hardly believe this was made by the man behind three of the greatest movies of all time - Apocalypse Now and The Godfather I and II. Megalopolis feels like it was made by someone who has never seen, let alone made a single film in his life, yet somehow managed to land a 120 million budget. I know Coppola burnt out pretty badly after a streak of masterpieces in the 1970s. His output post-Apocalypse Now was very inconsistent, producing results varying from bad (Jack, Twixt) to okay (The Outsiders, The Godfather III) to good (Rumble Fish, Dracula). But this movie is just beyond bad. I can't even call it a movie. It resembles an avantgarde theater play at best - one that runs for a month or so and then gets cancelled. No producer in their right mind would ever sponsor anything like this. Coppola investing a huge amount of his own money is the only thing that allowed Megalopolis to manifest itself into reality. Was it worth it though? I'd rather prefer Coppola stick to winemaking.

I actually had high hopes for this given it was a personally funded passion project. Sorry to report, this movie is bloody terrible, a discombobulated mess. I understand the metaphors in play, and it is indeed very well made, but wow - this, frankly, ****. I can't believe Coppola was sitting on it for decades. No matter how you twist it, or try to make it allegory, or art - this movie is two hours of terrible. Do not waste your time, and believe me, I wanted to support an independent, artistic vision from a famous director. If you actually *want* an incoherent, vain and terrible movie, watch Zardoz with Sean Connery instead; there is at least some entertainment value there in the bat**** awfulness and you'll have some laughs.

At the heart of the story of Megalopolis is the idea of ​​building a utopia, which symbolizes man's search for a perfect and flawless society. Caesar Catiline, the architect of the city, strives to create an ideal society in which justice, prosperity, and environmental sustainability are fully established. This idea examines the nature of utopias and raises philosophical questions about the real possibility of building such a society. Can human society reach perfection without contradictions and flaws, or is utopia just an unattainable dream?

I cannot tell whether the movie is intentionally confusing or just bad filmmaking. At every opportunity the simple is made convoluted. What could have been expressed by a few well timed words from the actors is made into a fever dream through weird editing and very very odd storytelling decisions. It could be a great conversation starter, with all the grand topics it touches on, as long as you can take it seriously. I couldn't. Still, it is a 6/10 because I have never seen anything this bizarre in my life, which is something.

It's like watching some different cuts of scenes without any theme of a tale, maybe someone could find one? Don't watch to the end, it's useless, like some 5 year old child had written the scenario but mom called him for dinner and he haven't finished it.

It's an absolute mess of a movie, if you can even call it a movie. I came in with extremely low expectations and was still very disappointed.

O visual do filme é muito bonito, mas o roteiro se esforça tanto em se aumentar que podemos nos perder sobre o que o filme trata. São muitos temas debatidos, mas o principal acredito ser a evolução humana e o progresso da sociedade como civilização. É tão rebuscado, no modo ruim, que quase parece sem sentido a maior parte do tempo. Não gostei desse esforço em tentar ser grande e diferente o tempo todo tentando ser épico. Se fosse uma mini serie e com menos firula no texto, talvez seria bem melhor. Todo meu respeito ao Francis Ford Coppola por lutar até o fim e executar sua ambição e sonho cinematográfico.

Bonito e estanho, megalopolis tem boas atuação e varias cenas belissimas e tbm tem uma cena que pegou de surpresa

probably one of the last cinema great experiences I'll testify. cinema, pelo cinema, independente do nexo ou mesmo dá coesão completa do roteiro. uma viagem para outra dimensão onde uma utopia pode ser erguida e o tempo é irrelevant. senti vontade de dar um tiro na cara do personagem do Shia LaBeouf, Adam Driver, Aubrey Plaza e Natalie Emmanuel estão incríveis.

Coppola querendo voltar a fazer épico, misturando história, filosofia, política, elenco estelar e diálogos plastificados. É quase um Lanthimos em suas pretensões. Gosto de como a produção encontra soluções de arte para o cenário. O que pegou aqui foi um roteiro que parece que tem medo de ser mais impactante, num sexo com vergonha de se mostrar e numa violência mais preocupada em ser higiênica, num modo de criar arte teatralizado. É cansativo, com uma fotografia escura que também não ajuda muito. Tudo soturno, o filme cresce nas analogias políticas, e perde força no drama mais íntimo e familiar dos personagens. O tom mais filosófico ficou pretensioso. É um filme de muitas camadas, mas o ritmo irregular me faz querer pensar se quero reassistir a isso aqui.

If the screenplay a random nerd dude wrote during his freshman year in film school, and swears will change cinema forever, somehow got financed by some wacko.

Un film molto particolare, fuori dagli schemi, volutamente caotico barocco e pomposO. Visone pura per un film fuori dal normale. I rimandi e le citazionidal sulrealismo all’esrpressionismo, da wells a gilliam .

Megalopolis is a very interesting film. More of an art film than a Blockbuster. I can see it's not for everyone. However, i appreciate a main stream Director trying something new and making a statement about society instead of making a typical paint by numbers popcorn film. Some of it works like the juxtaposition of classical Rome with sci-f and the atypical shots. And some of it doesn't like the tongue a cheek meta humour of the writing and story progression. It's not a masterpiece but I think film buffs will like it.

Megalopolis is the movie causing the most controversy in 2024. There are people who hated it, who thought is was mid, who thought it was solid and who loved it. I'm one of those who loved it. The movie doesn't really have a story, only characters, things happening around them and themes surrounding them. These themes are the most interesting part of the film. Themes of the importance of conversation in daily life, in politics, the importance of creating something new. Some characters are afraid of the change, while others welcome it with open minds. The movie is mostly shown from Cesar Catilina's point of view, who wants the world to change and evolve, so the film's point of view is that change is needed, but I must emphasize that it’s also important to have people on the other side being afraid of change to make the others remain realistic. The main characters are interesting, each of them represents a point of view. Catilina enforces the change; Cicero is afraid of it. On the other hand, there are lots of characters who represent a type of person. Clodio is greedy and he wants to achieve power through scamming the poor with offering them total equality. Crassus III is a wealthy man, who loves spending time with pretty women. Wow Platinum is a manipulative, greedy and good-looking TV presenter, who wants to achieve more power and have more money. In conclusion, the writing is good, but not that layered, so there are no character arcs and there is no real story. The direction is great, the film's quite complete. The cinematography is even better. It sets the tone and there are a few outstanding shots. The editing is probably the most interesting part of the post-production, because there are many split screens, which was interesting, but I wanted to see all of what was happening, so it was a disadvantage at times. The score was okay, the sounds were great and the production design was gorgeous. All the residences of the main characters looked amazing, while each one is completely different and unique. The visual effects were also outstanding. It wasn't meant to be perfect, because some of it was unrealistic on purpose and I liked that. The movie lacks a coherent story or character arcs, which is not a problem for me, because this film is metaphorical on every level, just like a lyrical poem: no story, only a little plot and metaphors. The time jumps were pretty random at times and the editing was a little strange sometimes as I mentioned before. Megalopolis is a very strange, controversial, visually striking movie about today’s society and the lack of discussion. I understand why some people dislike it, but that doesn’t deter me from loving it. In my view, Megalopolis rocks.

IN A NUTSHELL: The story compares the fall of the Roman empire to our modern-day world. The city of New Rome is the main conflict between Cesar Catilina, a brilliant artist in favor of a utopian future, and the greedy mayor, Franklyn Cicero. Between them is Julia Cicero, her loyalty divided between her father and the man she becomes obsessed with. Award-winning director Francis Ford Coppola financed this passion project himself to the tune of $120 million. Critics are hating on this film and audiences are calling it a complete disaster. Despite that, the director has already been nominated for a Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Laurence Fishburne said that Francis Ford Coppola began discussing this film’s idea way back in 1979 when they were filming Apocalypse Now. THINGS I LIKED: I love Adam Driver. I fell in love with his genius in the jaw-dropping scene where he completely loses it in the film Marriage Story. He readily accepts risky scripts in the movies he chooses and seems to truly respect the craft and art of filmmaking, pushing the boundaries and forcing us to look at life through a different lens. I admire that but recognize that not all audiences want that. What a cast! It’s filled with Academy Award winners and nominees, including Laurence Fishburne, Shia LaBeouf, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight, Nathalie Emmanuel, Giancario Esposito, Aubrey Plaza, and Chloe Fineman. The director also cast his sister, Talia Shire, and his nephew, Jason Schwartzman. The creative hairstyles and costume design of the men and women definitely make you think of ancient Roman styles. Surely, costume designer Milena Canonero will, at least, be nominated for some awards for her clever adaptations. A surprise is watching America’s Got Talent winner, Grace VanderWaal, perform a couple of musical numbers. The movie is dedicated to Eleanor Coppola, the director’s wife, who recently passed away during post production. The entire apocalyptic film is extremely imaginative. Is the film’s chaos supposed to cleverly reflect the state of democracy today or is it the result of an aging director who doesn’t care what others think because he’s regarded as a genius already? Someone mentions the concept of architecture as frozen music. Cool perspective, right? THINGS I DIDN’T LIKE: The movie is a messy, overstuffed pot of ideas that’s often difficult to understand and watch. This film is WAY too long to say what it wants to say. It’s a true test of patience for the audience who is hoping it’s all going to make sense somehow. Most of the sets look like sets. Rather than getting lost in a story, you’re always fully aware you’re watching a movie. An entirely different cast was selected to do table reads before the project was scrapped after the 911 attacks because one of the scenes foretold of such a terrorist attack. After that, the actors dropped out of the project one by one. Because the director worked on this film for decades, it still feels like a jumble. TIPS FOR PARENTS: This movie is not appropriate for kids. Sexual content (clothed) Profanity, including F-bombs Lots of scantily-clad women We see several women kiss. Infidelity Transvestites

Una fábula que sorprende por su estética y guion. Acabará convirtiéndose en una película de culto.

Easily the worst movie I've ever seen. Pretentious garbage, and Driver is abysmal in everything he's ever been in, a grotesque rubber-faced gremlin.

this is an excellent movie, absolutely worth a watch. Don't be shaken by the critics. Both funny and incisive, the story blends timelines into a timeless, relevant allegory.

this movie is named specifically to confuse, conflate with the greatest film ever made : Metropolis 1927 by Fritz Lang. Watch that instead of this hack ass imperialist drivel. In the 20's various patriot leagues were employed to blockade and beat up anyone who dared to watch German cinema. Hollywood has NEVER, produced art - only one sided propaganda for the bourgeoise.

In this $120 million film that looks like a 2005 Syfy original, truly delightful moments are lost in a sea of confusion and actors of the highest caliber are boxed in by the most hostile editing imaginable.

In an era where science fiction has the potential to provoke deep thought, challenge societal norms, and offer captivating escapism, Megalopolis does none of these things. Instead, it delivers a catastrophic exercise in tedium that manages to fail on nearly every level of cinematic art. Directed by the legendary Francis Ford Coppola—once a paragon of groundbreaking filmmaking—this film represents a shocking decline in quality, both in narrative and technical execution. It is a heartbreaking reminder that even the greatest can lose their way.From the opening scene, it’s painfully clear that any semblance of a coherent plot is absent. Megalopolis meanders aimlessly, dragging the audience through a barrage of unclear character motivations, mumbling dialogue, and hollow spectacle. The bizarre powers granted to the characters are never explained, nor do they carry any significance beyond their visual absurdity. We’re left wondering why we should care about any of these poorly developed, unrelatable figures.Visually, Megalopolis is nothing short of a disaster. Rather than awe-inspiring effects that immerse the viewer in a grand futuristic world, the film subjects us to laughably bad CGI, reminiscent of a low-budget production rather than a movie helmed by a director of Coppola’s stature. The heavy-handed use of drug-induced, hypnotic camera work is not only ineffective but downright unbearable, making it feel as though the audience is being tortured rather than entertained. Instead of adding intrigue or tension, these techniques render the film nearly **** perhaps most damning is Coppola’s apparent obsession with some vague, preachy political narrative. What was clearly meant to be a bold commentary on society instead comes across as muddled, incoherent, and utterly without substance. Megalopolis strains for profundity but fails to say anything of value, leaving the audience bewildered and disengaged. It’s a film that believes it’s making a statement, yet the statement itself is so obscured by the director’s pretension that it becomes **** disappointment of Megalopolis is particularly acute given Coppola’s legendary filmography. This is not just a poor film, but a deeply troubling one, marking what feels like the lowest point in the career of a once-great artist. In his quest to create a visionary epic, Coppola has instead delivered a bloated, incoherent mess that squanders the audience’s time and **** sum, Megalopolis is a disaster on a historic level. A film that will be remembered not for its ambition, but for its profound failure. For those who had hoped for a return to form from one of cinema’s greatest directors, the result is not just disappointing—it’s heartbreaking. I wish I could have the two hours of my life back.

This is Francis Ford Coppola's self-financed passion project and he has a grand vision. Even with all its flaws, the movie isn't that bad. There's a useless plot (actually more a fable) of a political fight between a visionary artist (Adam Driver) and the greedy mayor (Giancarlo Esposito). The dialogue is usually useless, because it's the spectacle that's the film's best feature. Coppola knows how to create grand visuals and beautiful imagery. The art direction is also sumptuous. Driver is intense, while others like Shai LaBeouf and Aubrey Plaza get to go wild. At 2:18, there's plenty of stuff that might have been eliminated, but there's also plenty of masterful filmmaking.

I was able to follow the basics of the plot, but felt like there was a much deeper story being told that I just wasn't able to decipher. Unfortunately, the film wasn't enjoyable enough for me to want to sit through it a second time to try and figure it out.

After so many years of waiting for Francis Ford Coppola to unveil his long-awaited unmade epic, Megalopolis is perhaps the worst film he has ever made matching to the likes of Tommy Wiseau's The Room. Whether this film is intentionally funny or not, this film suffers on a lot of problems that made this viewing experience difficult to understand for the audience. I was glad I have survived seeing Coppola's latest and possibly his last film he got to make after all these years, and I really don't think this is the epic I envisioned from Coppola.

Saw it last night, enjoyed it then and can't stop thinking about it now. Incredible cinematography, some beautiful verse, and even some laughs to boot. Thank you Francis

Imagine reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, but completely missing all the important points. This movie is nonsensical, self-important bosche. The cast is excellent and the parts are well performed, but all for a complete waste of time.

One star for the look. This is a beautiful looking film. It really does shine with some images that are exuberant and have more potential than the movie can justify. One star for the music. It's a good score. One star for Talia Shire and Kathryn Hunter both. No stars for anyone else. Adam Driver carves ham out of an unnecessary Hamlet monologue. Nathalie Emmanuel is even worse. This should be studied for how not to deliver dialogue. No stars for the story. That's because there isn't one. It's also because there could be a great story from a very simple and timely premise: should we put up with the problems of the status quo because most of our material needs are met or should we risk our livelihood on dreaming of a better way forward and take a leap of faith into the future instead of edging towards a seemingly inevitable fall? Add ego and the bonds of family and star crossed lovers, that's a recipe for a good movie. Coppola doesn't just spill the ingredients with his ambition and vapid profundity, he ruins the whole kitchen. You will wonder what kind of evening you might have had if it had been prepared well.

Where do I even begin? I guess ‘uninspired’ would be a good start. The pacing, the directing and what on earth was that awful editing?Unfortunately the movie just didn’t cut it and for the reported budget, it should have been done much better. I guess you can’t buy good talent and in this case, the director is to blame I think.

This was the worst film I have ever seen. And just when you think, wow, this couldn’t possibly get any worse… it does. I honestly don’t understand how this has a score over 50. It’s causing me to seriously question the validity of the entire film rating system. Arguably the worst movie of all time. Bravo.

My estimation of this film is not a fluid or easily imparted one. In many regards, it resembles the film itself: disjointed and self-defensively humorous. On the one hand, I can admire, however distantly and with no small degree of pity, what may well be the final thrashings of am sunsetting filmmaker whose past accomplishments run embarrassingly roughshod over the subject under review. And, further, as a testament to...well...making the film one wishes whilst damning the consequences with every poorly composited visual effect, every baffling line of dialogue, every wooden delivery, and every called-in favour (and it was likely every last one he had). The central conceit of the film is a mishmash of Rand's two pillars of self-congratulation (the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), a healthy dose of the the trappings of Fitzgerald, and liberally garnished with science fiction ornamentals. The result is a finger wagging admonishment about...something the writer/director never really gets around to defining concretely; instead it rather amounts to two hours and twenty minutes of juvenile rumination on liberal democracy, social self-esteem, and how the both must be fed by an appreciation and application of beauty in everyday life. It's a sentiment, laudable and childish in equal parts, that suffers the tragedy of being delivered in a vehicle that feels as amateurish as it does impenetrable. I was reminded of the pedigree of this film the moment the lights when down, when the antiquated and hallowed American Zoetrope production logo appeared. Having reached the conclusion of what felt like the most expensive Neil Breen film ever recorded and still cackling from the fever dream that was the final fifteen minutes, I found myself absolutely baffled that this film could ever be product of the same mind and sensibility that was responsible for The Godfather and Apocalypse Now. It stands either as a testament to untreated senile dementia or as proof that Coppola is the Merlin of cinema, insofar as his latest, and possible final, effort should so thoroughly resemble the fumbling of a virginal filmmaker rather than the seasoned master one would expect.

It feels like I'm watching the deleted scenes of a much better film. There are a few very brief flashes of brilliance that are too few and far between. Grace Vanderwaal, Shia Labeouf, & Aubrey Plaza are all very captivating at times, but Adam Driver is so annoying and boring- he **** all the energy out of the film. The movie is thick with subtle references that trying to interpret the deeper meaning feels like homework. Designed to be pulled apart, this Ikea-couch-of-a-movie looks better in pieces than as a whole.Some parts are clearly inspired by the grand spectacle of 1920s New York, which it lands at times, but generally feels like a bad Baz Luhrmann impersonation. The film's message of imminent societal collapse is best illustrated by the fact that this 120 million dollar boring vanity project actually got made-An overpriced monument to exactly the kind of excess it pretends to critique.

A rag bag of images from other films Gladiator, Blade Runner, Wings of Desire, Batman films to name a few. Terribly pretentious, high school, pseudo philosophy dressed up in sandals and capes to make it look 'classical'. One of the worst ever!

Oy. New York City is Rome, but it's actually in America, and the main characters all have Latin names for some reason, and there's an architect who's also a physicist who invented a magical substance that can grow giant flower-shaped buildings (and he can also stop time!), and there's a MAGA-like populist movement with red caps, and there's something about bankers ... and there was a point about an hour in when I seriously considered walking out of the theater, this movie was such an incomprehensible mess. "Primer" is easier to follow and far less pretentious.

A surprisingly enjoyable experience, Coppola intrigues the audience at the start with interesting characters and a neat story that flows at a good pace. The visuals although lacking in a few places were wonderful to look at while the lighting helps to make fit well with the world. The movie is without a doubt one of the best films this year and Driver, and Esposito performances are near oscars worthy.

In the interest of full disclosure, it pains me to write this, but I feel I must be honest. Legendary writer-director Francis Ford Coppola’s long-awaited epic cinematic fable is, regrettably, a major disappointment. After decades of stop-and-start development, the filmmaker’s metaphorical opus about a renowned, idealistic architect (Adam Driver) seeking to build an ambitious utopian development in a modern-day version of New York inspired by ancient Rome follows the protagonist’s often-frustrated efforts to get the project off the ground (not unlike the production of this movie itself). Thematically speaking, the picture addresses a number of thoughtful, significant issues about the roles of greed, corruption, politics and agenda-based motivations in matters of public welfare, as well as the importance of enabling the expression of inspired creative freedom. It also delves into the relevance of love and support in fueling the success of such ventures. However, these notions are severely undermined by an overwhelming abundance of narrative clutter and style over substance. While it’s true that “Megalopolis” is gorgeous to look at with its inventive and impressive cinematography and production design, these visual aspects become so dominant that they vastly overshadow the coherence and intelligibility of the story. Admittedly, a greater sense of clarity begins to emerge as the picture unfolds, but, unfortunately, by that point, it’s difficult to imagine almost anyone genuinely caring about what ultimately happens. There are also many less-than-subtle parallels between the plot of this film and the screen adaptation of author Ayn Rand’s best-selling novel “The Fountainhead” (1949), raising some questions about the authentic originality of this work. Given that this could well be Coppola’s final film, it’s a shame to see the director wind up his repertoire with such a disappointing and underwhelming effort, and some reviewers (myself included) have tried mightily to avoid being unduly unkind, perhaps delivering more generous ratings than might ordinarily be the case. Nevertheless, it would appear that this allegorical undertaking was more than the filmmaker could manage, and it shows in the finished product, quite a letdown from the director known for such classic offerings as “The Godfather” (1972) and “Apocalypse Now” (1979). Yet, if you’re determined to see it, in light of the stunning visuals, this is probably a production best viewed on the big screen, but don’t be surprised if you walk away from this one disappointed overall.