181
"An utopian".
You know, that's the first thing that caught my attention, and it's actually kind of bothering me. I now want to pronounce it "ootopian" to make it work, but it's just so wrong.
I was excited when I first heard about this while it was filming. Then I saw the trailer. I noped out of that pretty quick. There was not one single thing in the previews for this movie that made me want to watch it. lol
This movie is so hard to talk about, because the question is: "What is it even about?"
I like movies with abstract themes and strange storytelling, but this was just incomprehensible. Its plot revolves around the machinations of rich men to control the future of their city "New Rome", but the plot is kinda meaningless. There's never any real threat to Caesar's goal. Just plot events that could be obstacles but then are immediately resolved/neutered. Ok, fine! Surely then it's an art-house piece with a deep message? The plot points must be there for the sake of a larger theme. I was waiting for everything to add up in the finale, but it just ends up with Caesar delivering a speech filled with platitudes so bland that I thought it was a joke. Then the credits rolled and the 2 of the other 5 people in the theater with me started laughing.
This sounds like a spin on Atalas Shurgged?
Which, ew....
It's similar only in that it's about a "Great man" remaking a society in collapse.
Really none of the themes are there. Nor is there any journey of discovery to understand who Caesar is, like you get in Atlas Shurgged where other characters learn who John Galt is.
Galt is "Self interest and belief in my vision will make society better". Caesar is "McGuffin building materials and belief in my vision will make society better". For all its flaws, one is at least a political statement, while the other is milquetoast hopium.
10 min: This should be interesting. 20 min: Why does this feel... off? 30 min: I must be missing a lot of historical references. 40 min: Wait, is the audience the butt of the joke here? 50 min - 90 min: confusion/anger 100 min: Holy shit Aubrey Plaza is hot 120 min: He made a whole movie for that one scene 🤣
Idk, maybe you've sold me.
Got it. Show up 1:10 into it and leave after 10 minutes.
So it's a condensed version of Atlas Shrugged, maybe with a sprinkle of The Fountainhead?
I enjoyed it and I think the hate it's gotten is undue.
So... Is it any good?
It's you or Rotten Tomatoes and I'd prefer to trust you.
Good is obviously somewhat subjective but ...
It's visually stunning in a way that rivals Moulin Rouge or Luhrman's Romeo & Juliet.
The cast is incredible and I found many of their performances quite interesting and entertaining.
The story is unusual and compelling enough that it held my attention throughout, though I also think it's reasonable to say that there are certainly confusing elements.
I'm confident though that the main reason for the vast majority of the negative reviews are that the film draws strong parallels between certain unlikable elements and the MAGA movement in a way that upsets them.
I view it like a really fun fairy tale or a dream like bed time story.
It's fun and a mess.
I enjoyed it and it deserves all the hate LOL
good, fuck that movie
The movie didn't sexually harass anyone, Francis Ford Coppola did.
(To be clear, I agree with you, and while the movie sounds like garbage no one should watch, and it looks like at least some in the production team were complicit enablers, my point is that there is no need for the general statement, when there is a specific perpetrator to name)
It is Francis Ford Coppola's film, when I take delight in the failure of the movie it is because of how it impacts its creator (not because I'm trying to shift blame away from him onto his film).
The film is also garbage, but more importantly several critics have noted the film is sexist, like Maureen Lee Lenker's review which mentioned "troubling gender roles and gross sexual dynamics at play". Is it that surprising the film made by the man sexually assaulting people on set is also itself sexist?
I agree that it's worth specifically calling out Francis Ford Coppala and to put the blame where it belongs, and this is why I linked to the article about his specific misdeeds. At first I assumed most people knew about this already, which was maybe a bad assumption. I didn't even link my message at first thinking it was too obvious.
Yeah I can see where you were coming from, definitely wasn't trying to criticise you or anything, just think it's always good to shame and name these abusers, they've earned it.
100% agreed and a good call-out, thank you
<3
Why is art, even if not to your tastes, incorrect? Commercial viability is not the measure of quality. Even if it's an incoherent mess, it adds. Why a lust for the failure of others? Did Francis re-neg on a promise he made to you personally?
Did you actually read the link they posted? If so, why are you so quick to jump to the defence of a sexual predator? 🤔
Nope didn't read. Admittedly, thought it was just the movie wiki and didn't go that far. I made comment about the movie not the director. In the context of the article and allegations against Coppola, I am not defending gross and entitled behaviors. Another example of how complicated it is to consider or enjoy the art of transgressors.
Should probably read things before chiming in. At least, if they're pivotal to the conversation.
Not going to digest an entire article for a link with no context, which on its face doesn't suggest the actions of an individual. Why would I pick out that aspect? Why am I the defender against allegations of bad behavior? That's ridiculous.
Edit: when I first responded there was no direct link to the allegations section, it was just the wiki for the movie. A link without context saying "fuck this". But hey, people apparently know the intentions of strangers from a single hot take, what a skill. Enjoy your echo chamber.
At first I had no link, but I quickly edited to add the link, however I only ever linked directly to the "allegations of misconduct" section of the wikipedia article. You might be remembering incorrectly?
EDIT: I don't know if there is a way to view edit history in Lemmy to clarify, because of course it's possible I'm remembering incorrectly - but what I do remember is that when I edited to add the link, I linked directly to that section.
Broken link.
Works on my machine.
Here is the intended link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalopolis_(film)#Allegations_of_misconduct
I read the wiki summary and it sounds kind of incoherent and bad. Too many plot beats, and he can stop time??
Him stopping time has no point in the plot. It’s a really good bad movie if you’re into that.
I can't get over "Franklyn Cicero." What the fuck.
Yeah there will definitely never be a movie like that again
Julia's Cesar?
I'm sure he felt very clever.
Movie was an absolute trip, haha
“How do you like my boner?”
Bahahah. Hard to choose a favorite scene but that was definitely a crowd pleaser in my showing
In what way was Franklyn Cicero greedy? Wasn't his whole role to advocate for the common man?
this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
181 points (100.0% liked)
movies
1687 readers
68 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS