Megalopolis review

 Having been released in 2024, Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis is too young to feature on the top 1000 films of all time. It is unlikely to feature on any future editions of this list either.

Cesar Cantilina (Adam Driver) is a famous and influential architect in New Rome - an alternate, futuristic New York City. His creation of the element Megalon has proven revolutionary in constructing buildings. It has also brought him fame and fortune. He has visions of building a new utopic city called Megalopolis, but these plans bring him into conflict with New Rome's mayor Franklyn Cicero (Giancarlo Esposito.) The huge supporting cast includes Nathalie Emmanuel, Aubrey Plaza, Shia Laboeuf, Jon Voight, Talia Shire, Grace Vanderwaal and Dustin Hoffman.

Megalopolis has long been Coppola's passion project. After decades in development hell, he finally raised the money to self-finance the film by selling off part of his wine-making business. Yet it was not smooth-sailing from here.

Megalopolis had a troubled production from filming delays caused by the pandemic to Coppola's experimental style where he encouraged his cast to improvise scenes in theatre-style workshops. The visual effects and arts departments were either fired or resigned during production too.

All of this had a negative knock-on effect on Megalopolis. It was a pretentious, bloated, incomprehensible jumble of scenes with little to no plot. Coppola certainly wasn't short of ambition, but he couldn't convert that into a cohesive film. 

Inspired by the Catilinarian Conspiracy and the transition of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire, Coppola tried modernising the story by transplanting it into a futuristic, science-fiction setting, but all this did was confuse things further. As well as being a trail-blazing architect, Cesar also had the power to stop time. Why? Because ... reasons.

I mentioned earlier that the visual effects and art departments were either fired or quit during the production. You could definitely see the end-result of that in the finished product, as the film looked incredibly inconsistent. Some parts like the cityscape from the top of Metropolis, but other parts looked like they were out of the worst acid trip ever. Did we really need to see Aubrey Plaza's face in a cup of tea? And as for the weird circus/gladitorial/Grace Vanderwaal show, that was just poor chaos. Not chaos in the good sense either. It was a confusing, overwhelming mess.

As for the acting, this matched the larger-than-life nature of the film. Driver, Esposito, Voight, Plaza and, especially, Laboeuf were dreadfully over-the-top. Granted the dialogue wasn't great - case-in-point, Voight talking about having a boner - but their performances were still so campy that it was difficult to take them seriously.

I really wanted to like Metropolis. The Godfather is one of my favourite films. Coppola is a titan of the film industry having also having also directed classics like Apocalypse Now. Yet he couldn't replicate that same success here. At eighty-years-old, this could very well be one of his last films. What a disappointing swansong. Never mind, Megalopolis. This was Megaflopolis.

Lost in Translation review

 Number 485 on the top 1000 films of all time is Sofia Coppola's romantic comedy-drama 'Lost in Translation.'

Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is a fading movie-star shooting Suntory whisky commercials in Tokyo, Japan. While there he starts to question his own direction in life. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is also in Tokyo for her husband's photography work. Feeling neglected, she starts looking for something more and finds Bob. The two characters form an unlikely relationship.

Sofia Coppola is a much better director than she ever was an actress. If you've read my Godfather Part III review, you would know that I despised Sofia Coppola in that. However, with Lost in Translation, she crafted a touching, moving and wonderfully understated film. It had moments of levity, but it also left us with plenty to think about. Engaging with themes like isolation and alienation, she creates a subtle, but powerful narrative. There was also some gorgeous cinematography. I particularly loved the shot which shows Bob and Charlotte reflected in a window while Tokyo's nightline is in a bokeh. 

In many ways, Lost in Translation  reminded me of Spike Jonze's film Her. This was an excellent film that engages with similar themes, albeit with more of a science-fiction twist. It also had a similar cinematography that made it so pretty to watch. And, of course, both films star Scarlett Johansson. Considering Coppola was married to Jonze at the time she filmed Lost in Translation, it shouldn't be any surprise that the films were so similar.

I have to admit I don't much care for Bill Murray as an actor. I find that he generally always takes the same role - a cynical, miserly, grumpy old man. In many ways that's what Bob Harris is, but this character did have much more depth than many of other Murray's roles. And I think he did a good job in making Bob Harris quite sympathetic. More impressive though was Scarlett Johansson. At only seventeen, she was incredibly charming. Granted, she was still quite rough around the edges, but she showed her raw potential.

Overall, I did enjoy Lost in Translation. It had some great direction from Sofia Coppola, as well as some gorgeous cinematography. But it was just a moving and understated experience.

American Graffiti review

 Number 777 on the top 1000 films of all time is George Lucas' directorial debut and coming-of-age drama 'American Graffiti.'

Curt Henderson (Richard Dreyfuss,) Steve Bolander (Ron Howard,) John Milner (Paul Le Mat) and Terry 'Toad' Fields (Charlie Martin Smith) are four high-school graduates preparing to go their separate ways in life. Across one summer night, we see how they spend their last hours of adolescence.

It's hard to believe this is the same director who created Star Wars and produced Indiana Jones - two of the most action-packed, fun-filled, entertaining franchises in movie history. Francis Ford Coppola also produced this film. And he directed the legendary Godfather films. But American Graffiti was so boring. Once it gets going it's okay, but it takes so long to get going.

The first half of the film, which is roundabouts an hour, nothing much really happens. The four main characters spend most of the time just driving around Modesto, California. They all have their own personal goals: Curt is trying to find a beautiful girl he saw in passing while Toad schemes and plots to impress another girl called Debbie. But none of these goals were particularly interesting or relatable. And I think relatability is one of the most important parts of a coming-of-age drama. But American Graffiti was sorely missing this key aspect.

Once things do get going, there are moments of humour and poignancy, but these are few and far between. When Toad tries asking an older man to buy alcohol for him and his date, the man instead buys wine and sneaks out of the back of the store. A second man robs the store, but at least buys the alcohol for Toad. 

When Curt scratches the car of a group of greases, they coerce him into joining them for the night and force him to engage in petty crime like robbing arcade machines. If he refuses, they'll beat him up. It was entertaining if not the most realistic. Surely the greasers would just beat him up in the first place.

I also could have done without the ending epilogue revealing the fates of the different characters. These aren't real people. We don't need to know where they end up. That can be left up to the viewer to decide.

Although American Graffiti had its funny and touching moments, it was too slow and took too long to get going. How was this the same director who did Star Wars?

Apocalypse Now Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go to my previous review of the Pianist.

"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning."

Number 49 on the top 1000 films of all time is Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 epic adventure war film Apocalypse Now.

How it all goes down:

Set in the height of the Vietnam War, Martin Sheen plays Captain Benjamin L. Willard who is tasked with assassinating Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has gone insane and commands his own Montagnard troops in Cambodia.  Accompanying Captain Willard are a Navy Boat Patrol commanded by "Chief" (Albert Hall) and crewed by Lance (Sam Bottoms,) "Chef" (Frederic Forrest) and "Mr Clean" (Laurence Fishburne in his first major film role.)

What worked:

Taking Saving Private Ryan as a prime example, I think that any good war film should do two things.  It should portray an evocative, powerful and gut-wrenching picture of war and it should demonstrate the loyalty and camaraderie that soldiers share with each other.  Apocalypse Now ticks both of these boxes.  As well as this, the location and set pieces are great too.  Filmed in the Philippines, the surrounding landscape and scenery are gorgeous.

The Vietnam War cost the lives of almost 4 million Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, American and many more soldiers and civilians, so there is no doubt that the war was bloody and destructive.  The film is just as horrifying.  Apocalypse Now contains a number of great action sequences that convey the terror the war caused.  The standout example of this is the scene involving Robert Duvall as Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore who encounters Captain Willard's group and agrees to escort them through the Viet-Cong held coastal mouth of the Nung River.  Even though, Duvall has less than 15 minutes screen-time, his scene is without doubt one of the best in the film.  Duvall's character is tyrannical, insane and terrifying.  Duvall spends much of his time screaming obscenities and he is great with it.  He also gives us some of the film's most quotable lines, such as "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning." This scene also contains one of the film's most notable sequences: a helicopter raid of the local area set to Ride of The Valkyries.  This sequence demonstrates the grotesque grandeur of war and does it well.  For example, when a local Vietnamese girl throws a grenade into the American ground troops, Kilgore responds by having her and the rest of her group shot down from the helicopter.  One can't help but sympathise with the Vietnamese girl who is very much the victim in the situation considering the Americans are the aggressors in her home and country.  Another brutal scene comes when the Willard and his crew inspect a civilian sampan for weapons.  Panicking, Mr Clean shoots all on board.  To prevent any further delay, Willard coldly shoots the last remaining survivor.

As the film progresses, we see Captain Willard and his men grow closer and closer together.  Whilst, Chief constantly comes to blows with Willard, he acts as a father figure for the seventeen year old Mr Clean and is greatly affected by his death.  Captain Willard is initially sworn to secrecy but after after the death of Chief, he comes clean with Lance and Chef.  I really enjoyed watching all of the soldier's interactions with each other.  Seeing how they're affected by each other's pain and suffering was visceral and felt realistic of how real soldiers would react.

What didn't work:

This notwithstanding, the film isn't perfect.  My main issue with it was its length.  At two and a half hours long, it does drag quite a bit and the pacing is uneven.  Whilst Coppola did well in building the suspense in certain scenes, this is completely undone in others.  For example, after Mr Clean's death scene, the survivors find an outpost held by French troops and decide to stop there to catch their breaths.  However, this led to all of the previously built up tension dissipating and turned the film into a bit of a snooze-fest.  I almost fell asleep!

Truth be told, I was also a bit disappointed with Marlon Brando's contribution.  As the only other thing I've seen him in is the Godfather, I was expecting great things from him and these expectations never materialised.  Even though he is the villain in the film, he never has much presence until the very end where when he does actually appear, he is mainly kept in shadow.  Whilst Coppola agreed to have Brando filmed in shadows, due to how he was overweight and drunk for most of the filming, this hurt Colonel Kurtz' characterisation.  Whilst it can be effective to keep some villains hidden in darkness, as it were, I argue that the same does not apply for Colonel Kurtz.

What was ugly:

This is a nitpick which is why I'm saving it for this segment.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who got confused between the three characters whose names all begin with C: Chef, Chief and Mr Clean.  Surely John Milus and Francis Ford Coppola could have been a little more creative.

This film is good.  It's good in its portrayl of war and the horrific violence that encompasses it.  It does well in its characterisation and demonstration of relationships.  It's just a shame that the pacing isn't consistent and the character names are a little confusing.  Anyway, in its portrayl of the death and destruction of the Vietnam War, without doubt, in America's struggle to rid Vietnam of communism, they left miles and miles of broken bodies and burnt crops.  With the death and destruction caused, the Vietnam War is the Godfather of war post WW2.


Click here to go to my previous review of the Godfather Part II