Im hearbroken. I think what happened is that studios have told him to be as safe as possible his howle career so he decided to make a 180. But Hollywood let alone our culture does not see things on a individual basis which if Megapolis fails all future original auter films with blockbuster budgets that aren't Nolan will go down with it.
What I’m reminded of, hearing various things about this, is Terry Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote. Like Coppola, Gilliam had tried getting that film off the ground for MANY years, with multiple different actors in the lead roles. There’s even a documentary that was made about the attempts to make the film. And then he finally got the film made (also starring Adam Driver, ironically enough), and the film was… decent. It’s not up to par with any of Gilliam’s previous masterpieces during his prime, but you can tell where the heart and passion was, and why Gilliam wanted to make it. So at least that film had that. This… I have so many questions, with all that I’m hearing about it.
This is a good/bad comparison in te same time, since The Man Who Killed Don Quixote is not an original idea, it is very much based on the literary classic, but with a twist. Also, no one cared for The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, it has only 22K votes on IMDB and a box office of $2.4 million, Megalopolis will be much more widely seen, at least, among cinephiles.
@@manantial773 I guess I can see your point. You could say TMWKDQ is more well known for the efforts to get the movie made (including the Lost In La Mancha documentary) than the actual movie itself. With this, I’m not sure how many times Coppola tried making this movie, if he tried with other actors and so on, but I don’t know if there’ll be a making-of documentary with this one.
W. I'm checking Brother Bro's twitter a couple of times a day, just to see what's up. Doing a very good job with the updates. I hope you and Oscar Expert can both go Cannes next year. I've heard it's a very good time over there. Exciting time of the year. I'm really excited to see Megalopolis.
Shame on film twitter nerds who haven't even seen it doxxing and attacking the critics at Cannes who gave negative thoughts. We have to stop this mindset over there that everything has to "rock" or "rule". You don't have to pretend to like everything.
Other than similarities in name alone - "Megalopolis", "Metropolis" - do you think there are any comparisons to this film and the 1927 classic? From the look of it, it seems that it has the aesthetic of "Babylon" and story of "Metropolis".
Do you think it could be edited into a better film? Like either go total trippy or totally linear narrative? It sounds like the tone is two different, or three different films needing to be separated.
The last time Coppola made a film that was anywhere near Oscar nominations was "John Grisham's The Rainmaker" (1997), which garnered buzz for both Danny DeVito and Jon Voight in supporting roles but ultimately failed to make it to Oscar.
I really liked Tetro, though it didn't garner any Oscar noms. I also know alotta people didn't like Tetro at all, so it's not considered a masterpiece or anything like that. Definitely the best Coppola flick of the last few decades tho, imo
It's always felt like The Oscar Experts (plural) to me, ever since I discovered this channel years ago. Never understood why the channel is called The Oscar Expert, in singular, but it's hosted by two people, only one of whom is the oscar expert in question (so the name of a two-person channel is the pseudonym of just one of the two persons), while the other one is just "Brother Bro", despite the fact that both of them appear to have similar movie and Oscars knowledge (from what I've seen). That was a long-winded sentence, sorry lol
Looking forward to the film. (Giving me vibes of southland tales, titus, cloud atlas and chi-raq- all films I adore) Ambition goes a loooong way for me. I could never financially support this film though due to the casting of von voight. Voight is as vile a creature as they come.
Ever since watching challengers, I can’t help but think yall look like mike faist. My friends who watched challengers with me said they fancy brother bro
he said that he thought perhaps Coppola has a mind set that says only powerful people shape society. As well he said this is how we are taught history. I believe that IS how society worked before the enlightenment and the founding of the USA. So perhaps Coppola did this to reflect the way Rome worked and perhaps he was Trying to tell a story in a way romans would tell a story. This is a fat perhaps, I have not seen the movie so maybe Coppola did it just because that’s the way he believes the world should work. Even if he did it, not because it was personal ideology, but because it works with the story, he was trying to tell. His ideology probably still aligns with it somewhat. Otherwise he probably wouldn’t have told that story.
So it’s if Ayn Rand made a movie? She was never questioned by her inner circle, surrounding herself with yes people, and shunning anyone that would give logical reasoning against her philosophy.
@@actualityfilms nah, I’m a realist that knows that any power vacuum will be filled and in that regard the powerful men argument of history and social dynamics crumbles.
@@josefonseca6144 In either case I can tell that Coppola's film sucks. He has a huge ego but lack discipline.Ingmar Bergman didn't make gaudy and incoherent junky films when he was an old man.
Haven't seen it but it sounds like it is destined to be a Cult Film. Such films are rarely successful, on first release, but thay play for decades and have a following and end up being a subject taught about in film and art schools. Also, I am reminded of when Coppola was doing Apocalypse Now and was over budget and MIA on location and the studio couldn't find him. Not unlike Marlon Brando's character in the plot. I like your analogy that Driver's Character was mirroring Coppola, in a way. Driver's Character was trying to create something big and great while trying to convince people of his vision and the politics around all that. I was a Philosophy student in college and I understand much of this film was based on Greek literature and Philosophy. So, I would probably get some references that many people wouldn't. I already know this film will be studied for decades in film schools. Either for being ahead of it's time or what NOT to do in making a film. Sounds like Coppola was letting actors do what they wanted to do.
Good point, FFC is factor that pique my intellectual curiosity for the film. LOL, that said, if Neil Breen made a movie with the same cast and scale it would pique my morbid curiosity just as much.
I'm going to watch it, regardless. I suspect from everything I've heard and read. Coppola stubbornly held on to this project for so long. He took a minimalist approach to direction and allowed the actors to self-direct. Editing will be the winning or losing stroke for this film. In your judgement, it clearly lost. Hopefully, I can make sense of it.
The actor said they were just sitting around a lot and they weren't really sure what was going to happen because Coppola was writing the movie as they went along. It'd be sitting in his trailer waiting for inspiration and they'd have to just sit there and entertain themselves waiting for him to come up with some great idea. It's really a stupid way of doing things and it almost destroyed him in his career on Apocalypse now. In the end everyone loved apocalypse now including me. But you know what's wrong with starting with a script?
I hope it still gets a theatrical run. Coppola once described the movie as "a beautiful girl you cannot have". It sounds like the film is too heavy with its themes and collapses under its own weight. Still really looking forward to it. The comparisons drawn in these reactions are crazy. Everything from Wachiowski to Tommy Wiseau to Neil Breen!!! Insane
This sounds like it would have been a better animated film. IF you are going to make an art film you may as well use the medium of paint or drawing, or art. Then at least, it would satisfy that need.
There is no need to be confused, as some are here, about whether Brother Bro wants the film to be a box-office hit. His take is more nuanced than that. As he describes it, the movie is an honest interesting failure - made by one of the great visionary artists of our times. An epic failure worth talking about and figuring out what went wrong. Why wouldn't you want your friends to go see such a fascinating oddity? In the end, the movie doesn't seem to work even on its own terms, and not everyone will be interested in something like that, obviously, but great artists are entitled to their mistakes and follies. We owe them everything. That's the thing that will draw people to the theater - certainly not enough of them to turn the movie into a financial success (and from everything we know, it's shaping up to be a huge box-office flop). But Francis Ford Coppola doesn't care about the money - that's why he invested his own fortune, he was savvy and cleare-eyed enough about its commercial prospects to know that no studio would give him the money to make it - and he himself sounds remarkably blase about actually getting a return on his investments when all is said and done. He's made peace with that. You've got to honor that. It's called artistic integrity (which few people talk about these days and may well be the source of people's confusion). Let's talk about THAT, and put aside the issue of whether the film will make a killing at the box office. In order for the film to "do well" at the box office, it would have be one of the biggest blockbusters of all time. As far as I can tell, no one ever thought that was going to happen; certainly not Coppola - but clearly he was never banking on it to begin with.
I am giving it a chance. I was drawn in by the looks of Blade Runner, Streets of Fire, The 300, and The Watchmen. This has the visual bling. Hopefully there is something behind it. This is a movie Hollywood would never make.
I’ve been curious about this film going back to when I first heard about it as a kid in the early 90s! I remember when John Cusack was his choice to front the film. It’s crazy & exciting to see that Coppola finally got his white whale… but sweet baby Gebus the reaction to it has not been good. It’s sad considering everything it took to make and everything he’s gone through personally (his wife’s passing). Regardless of quality or using it’s 100million dollar budget well I am so curious just to watch the thing. Bat shit crazy Neil Breen esque epic was never what I expected from Coppola but that’s piqued my interest even more!? That’s insane!
Check your neck on the left side. It may just be the lighting but it looks like your lymph node may be enlarged? Just make sure you don't feel a lump at the side of your neck near your collar bone. Concerned citizen.
Copolla does not make good films anymore for a couple decades now. I would love, LOVE, for that to be untrue, and that I am wrong....but he's just not doing good work anymore. Proof of that is his director's cut, re-releases of his classic movies. He's ruined The Outsiders and Apocalypse with his recuts.
As someone who truly appreciates Coppola and believe that he’s made the greatest film in cinema with apocalypse now and such masterful classics such as the godfather series, the conversation and rumble fish, to see his passion project and dream finally be realised and turn out to be such an underwhelming film in soo many critical aspects is genuinely quite saddening. We all would have expected this be at minimum a competent film, but it has received such negative reviews it really puts in question how he was not able to produce something that was objectively ‘fine’ and in turn make such a messy final product
Anybody know the movie quote that goes something like “when things are good we feel them way up here but when they’re bad we feel them way down here” not exact quote but it’s driving me crazy
“Failed” films by good directors often become cults. John Boorman’s “Zardoz” (1974) is a personal favorite. That Could also happen with this one. Besides, anyone can be a critic.
Coppola is a rich, old, self indulgent hack at this point. There are so many master directors who made great films in old age that are coherent, interesting and profound.
@@jagmeetjhajj Accept that Coppola is more nakedly self indulgent and inept? I can see even ihe trailers that his own decadence is the main feature of the film. Coppola is a pot head and from what I've hear is also a porn addict.
This movie is gonna be like the man who killed Don Quixote or Crimes of the future. Old filmmaker, massive budget, white protagonist guy who talks about philosophy
