Coppola's costly gamble: How "Megalopolis" missed the mark

The idea for "Megalopolis" was born in the mind of Francis Ford Coppola, the creator of "The Godfather," in the early 1980s. It was meant to be a story about a monumental New York of the future, modelled on ancient Rome, and it came closest to the realization at the beginning of the 21st century when the September 11 attacks became an unexpected obstacle. Another attempt to bring the idea of New Rome to film had to wait two decades until Coppola funded it entirely out of his pocket.

It's not elegant to talk about money, especially someone else's, but in the case of "Megalopolis," finances are key. Specifically, Coppola spent more than $100 million from his private savings earned from his vineyard. Because of this, the film, which hit theatres on Friday, October 25th, at 9:00 PM ET, will be talked about for years. In any other situation, Coppola's film would be quickly forgotten, even though grand advertising slogans would assure us that it would only be understood and appreciated over time. Nothing of the sort. If someone mentions "Megalopolis" twenty years from now, it'll likely be with the sentence: "Do you remember that flop Coppola spent $100 million on?" No one will say: "Do you remember that masterpiece that Coppola's descendants didn't understand?"

This is the New Rome of the future—a city ruled by Mayor Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito), whose power favours the powerful. Built on strong moral foundations, the metropolis is slowly rotting from the inside due to the elite falling into decadence. While the wealthiest gather at extravagant parties full of pleasures, ordinary Romans lead increasingly difficult lives. Their growing anger is also due to Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver), responsible for the city's urbanization. This Nobel Prize-winning visionary, who seems to stop time, has a dream. He wants to rebuild New Rome using a concept he invented called a megalon. However, he must first demolish it to do that, causing the citizens' dissatisfaction as they find themselves with nowhere to live. Amidst these increasingly unsettled social moods, a power struggle accelerates. Cicero's daughter, Julia (Nathalie Emmanuel), unexpectedly supports Catilina.

On paper, it all looks great. The idea of analyzing the modern world’s problems through the lens of Rome in the final stage of the empire works metaphorically and more literally; the architecture of New Rome is an amalgam of ancient Rome and modern New York – it's considered brilliant. Even from its description in the previous paragraph, one might also assume that "Megalopolis" has a standard plot. Adding a first-rate cast (Aubrey Plaza, Dustin Hoffman, and Jon Voight should also be mentioned here) and a legendary director behind the camera, this film is poised to shake global screens. Or so it seems.

Like it or not, we must return to the money Coppola invested in "Megalopolis." Coppola pays (for everything), Coppola demands! Thanks to this, we are dealing with completely auteur cinema, free from any unnecessary producer interference. But what if the author's megalomania overshadows his common sense? What, then, when he is convinced of his infallibility and greatness? What if he considers himself a film visionary whose work, if not now, will be appreciated in the future, and he will have built a monument with it? This is what "Megalopolis" is.

There wouldn't be "Megalopolis" if Coppola couldn't afford it. No one would invest such a large sum in a project that is a complete antithesis of what audiences expect. And I don't think they ever will. There's nothing here to recoup the costs. But does everything have to be calculated using money? Is the seventieth instalment of a popular superhero adventure more valuable than auteur cinema that defies classifications and clichés? – you might ask. Of course not. However, "You just don't get it" cannot be an excuse or proof that one is dealing with a masterpiece. "Megalopolis" is not a masterpiece.

It is a chaotic film full of concepts, ideas, experiments, clichés, morals, naivety, and good intentions that aren't adequately justified. It wouldn't be far from the truth to say that "Megalopolis" has everything. Monumental music occasionally accompanies great visual solutions but more often serves as practice for a filmmaker just beginning to experiment before shooting their first feature film. Actors repeat sermons and lessons from Coppola, the screenwriter, with eyes searching for an understanding of what they're part of and wondering why no one came on set and said, "Francis, let's rethink this!" The film ends with a naïve finale that a fifth-grader could have penned. Coppola's utopian vision, drawn with the compass and ruler of Cesar Catilina, resembles a Warsaw estate in Kampinos, from which – according to advertisements – you can reach the airport in five minutes and the city centre in six. Maybe Coppola even came up with that advertisement.

In an age of increasingly expensive movie tickets, it's worth considering every dollar twice before investing it in a screening. In the case of "Megalopolis," the matter is clear – keep your dollar in your pocket. You can spend it better; Coppola won't go broke (not that much) Similarly if you go to the cinema once or twice a month. You'll find many more interesting options that won't waste your time (as much). Truthfully, I can't think of a situation where seeing "Megalopolis" is a good idea.

Thanks to its courage, it's not such a bad film to provide a sufficiently entertaining screening. You won't discuss it with friends because there are so many more attractive topics to discuss (have you seen how much a cucumber costs now?!) unless you want to see for yourself if all those mocking reviews of the new work by "The Godfather" creator aren't exaggerated. Then go and see that they aren't. 4/10.

Łukasz Kaliński, Quentin.pl