Coppola's $100M gamble: 'Megalopolis' stirs strong reactions

The idea for "Megalopolis" was born in the early 1980s in the mind of Francis Ford Coppola, the creator of "The Godfather." It was intended to be a story about a monumental future in New York, modeled on ancient Rome. The project was closest to realization at the beginning of the 21st century, but the September 11 attacks presented an unexpected obstacle. Another attempt to bring the idea of New Rome to film had to wait another twenty years when 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 dollars from his private savings earned from his vineyard. Because of this, the film, which hit theaters on Friday, October 25, will be talked about for years. In any other case, Coppola's film might be quickly forgotten, although 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 favors the elite. Built on strong moral foundations, the metropolis slowly decays from within due to the elite's descent 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 can seemingly stop time, has a dream. He wants to rebuild New Rome using a concept he invented called a megalon. However, to do that, he must first demolish it, causing dissatisfaction among citizens running out of places to live. Against the backdrop of increasingly unsettled social moods, a power struggle accelerates. Cicero's daughter, Julia (Nathalie Emmanuel), unexpectedly supports Catilina.

On paper, it all looks promising. The idea of analyzing the modern world's problems through the lens of Rome in its final stage works metaphorically and literally; the architecture of New Rome is an amalgam of ancient Rome and modern New York – it seems brilliant. One might assume, even from the description in the previous paragraph, that "Megalopolis" has a standard plot. Adding to this is a first-rate cast (Aubrey Plaza, Dustin Hoffman, and Jon Voight should also be mentioned) and a legendary director behind the camera, positioning this film 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! This has resulted in a complete auteur cinema, free from unnecessary producer interference. But what if the author's megalomania overshadows his common sense? What happens when he is convinced of his infallibility and greatness? What if he considers himself a film visionary whose work will be appreciated in the future as a monumental achievement? This is what "Megalopolis" represents.

There wouldn't be "Megalopolis" if Coppola couldn't afford it. No one would invest such a significant sum in a project that starkly contrasts audience expectations. And I don't think they ever will. There's nothing here to recoup the costs. But does everything have to be calculated in terms of money? Is the seventieth installment 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 filled with 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—grand, spectacular bacchanals combined with scenes that seem cut from an episode of a soap opera. 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 deliver sermons and lessons from Coppola, the screenwriter, with eyes searching for understanding of what they're part of and wondering why no one on set 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 precision 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 center 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 by much). If you typically go to the cinema once or maybe twice a month, you'll find much more interesting options that won't waste your time (as much). Truthfully, I can't think of a scenario 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.