‘Megalopolis’: It’s a boring mess

After decades of production hell, thousands of bottles of Coppola wine sold, $150 million that will never return on investment, blacklisting of Hollywood studios, allegations of sexual misconduct and a trailer with fake AI quotes, Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis” came to cinemas. leaving the audience in complete bewilderment. But factions are already forming in the film community. On the one hand, there are fervent auteurists who believe “Megalopolis” is a dazzling, uncompromising late masterpiece from a singular visionary. Others see it as incoherent nonsense spouted by a deranged octogenarian. While I love auteurism and take pride in supporting polarizing work, I fear falling into the latter camp. While “Megalopolis” is laudable for its boldness, it is often a dull mess that collapses under the weight of its imagination and ideas.

The film’s strange story stems from Coppola’s fascination with Rome’s past and America’s future. Therefore, the film is set in “New Rome”, a New York City that is part of the “American Republic”, a hypothetical continuation of Ancient Rome. It’s an intriguing slice of alternate history, and the film’s sumptuous costuming and set design make full use of this idea. But Coppola’s narrative in this setting is full of wasted potential and pointless diversions. The film focuses on Cesar Catalina (Adam Driver), a brilliant, eccentric architect who aims to build Megalopolis, a utopia in New Rome, using Megalon, a newly invented substance. Catalina is a rival to Mayor Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito), who praises her progressive ideals and advocates a more conservative administration. Cesar is also a member of the very wealthy Catalina banking family, led by patriarch Hamilton Crassus (Jon Voight) and his descendants, including his arch-nemesis Clodio Pulcher (Shia LaBeouf).

One might think that the man who made “The Godfather” could once again tell a riveting tale of political intrigue and familial drama, but “Megalopolis” is somehow both overcomplicated and simplistic. Megalopolis’ characters are ridiculous and absurd, which may be fun but adds minimal drama to the film. And their motivations, often emotions as basic as jealousy and greed, change in an instant after a polished speech. There are also a lot of digressions and expositions that add nothing and introduce information about the characters and their backgrounds that further confuses you.

The political commentary of “Megalopolis” focuses on the right places, but unfortunately is not precise. Coppola defends progressive ideals uncompromised by the status quo and reactionary sentiments, and condemns the billionaire mob who use populism to appease the masses and persuade them to betray themselves. These are strong ideas, but their execution is frustratingly lackluster and stupid. Cesar delivers breathtaking prose filled with unexciting archaic syntax, and characters inexplicably carry confederate flags and Nazi black suns because Coppola can’t think of a more subtle way to depict fascism. Defenders of the film will say these are features rather than bugs, but I think such blunt political messages are bad and a disappointing escape from the very rich potential of the world Coppola has created.

While most of the performances were surprisingly good and in tune with the film’s particular wavelength, one central performance truly brought the film down: Nathalie Emmanuel as Julia Cicero, Cesar’s love interest and Mayor Cicero’s daughter. I could tell that Emmanuel was trying to deliver a polished performance that fit the crazy script he was given, and while that approach worked for his fellow actors, I think it was a complete failure. His performance was annoying and obnoxious and further added to the over-the-top lines and dullness of the film. Emmanuel made some scenes unbearable and distracted from the incredible work his frequent partner Adam Driver was doing.

I could talk more about “Megalopolis” but I’ll leave it at that. The film is a bold, serious and majestic work that goes beyond all conventions and industry standards. But that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good movie. It often exults in its own pretentiousness and fails to deliver on its own premise and lofty themes of art, love, and society. I wish I could see it as the masterpiece that its fans consider it to be, but unfortunately I just see it as gritty nonsense.