Francis Ford Coppola Reveals what Success Means for "Megalopolis" after Self-Funding for 120 Million

[@d2d2d28]

Amazing how people loved it or hated it. I mean there’s no in between. My vote is it’s a masterpiece. I totally got what he was going for and I feel the decisions he made for the movie supported his vision.

[@reverserebirth-bd3fg]

Great interview! Love Coppola's work on this movie!

[@simiancinema2022]

This guy interviewed Francis very intelligently, a raarity nowaday.

[@NPC8474]

Megalopolis is an absolute masterpiece.

[@amysarg]

The cut aways to the black and white phone footage looks so bad. No need for it, just use the proper cameras!

[@aaronhartshorn3029]

Good to see the interviewer dressed up for this

[@dice268926]

Great interview

[@sattwa2]

“…the character inhabits the actor.”

[@JonasPlanck]

Pay attention, this interview is part of the SECOND movie. It contains CLUES.

[@PiCheZvara]

I liked the film. The narrative was pretty much kinda a political power play similar to Succession and The Godfather, but with dialogue full of philosophical (or pseudophilosophical) ruminations and with verbiage that reflected the city in the movie is pretty much a combination of American and roman culture. That makes for an odd mix, stylistically, and if Coppola made the visuals more conservative, and more similar to modern sci-fi designs, it probably would've been received better. But the style is interesting, as is the whole film. It's kitsch, it's quality art, it's pseudo art, it's impressive visuals, it's overall very good acting and the vibe at times is similar to something like Blade runner 2049. It's basically a story about a society/city trying to become an utopia, which is both a new age mumbo jumbo and it is actually interesting, thoughtful. I liked some of the visuals a lot, in IMAX, it looked spectacular. It's a movie that would never be commercially successful, just like IDK Blade runner 2049 wasn't, but it is worth seeing if you like the concept and idea. It's not a bad film, although it will probably be very criticized and mocked in the future by many, and maybe liked by few.

[@amysarg]

The difference is 2049 is a competently made film

[@PiCheZvara]

@@amysarg This is a competently made film as well, the dialogue is just intentionally a bit different and the roman/american styles clashing is confusing/unusual. But it has its moments.

[@GR8FLMD3AD]

❤

[@NoCountryforBadMovies]

Too bad how the movie turned out though. 3 people in my already-small audience walked out, and the audience was laughing quite a lot at things that weren’t meant to be funny.

[@EgghuntRecords]

I liked it

[@tjdw5251]

yh film was hilarious haha

[@jackbentele2833]

I'd rather laugh at an overly earnest, ambitious film than chuckle at another fucking "they're right behind me aren't they" franchise slop joke

[@tjdw5251]

@@jackbentele2833 exactly exactly totally agree. Whether you think it is bad or not it is totally original and kind of facinating.

[@lxuaes6915]

I don't think Megalopolis warranted a walk out... Oppenheimer on the other hand, a couple people in the film walked out in my audience and I totally understood it for that film (Oppenheimer wasn't bad, but it was a little long and drawn out, and not showing the actual bombings, and the horrors of it, was unforgiveable; a massive faux pas). I think Megalopolis turned out alright, I'm glad he funded it. It was an ambitious, risky, creative, non-formulaic film, made by one of the masters, with an incredible ensemble and a massive budget. It was a treat.

[@Hannibal082]

Success?

[@Houdingplaces]

Crazy how Biden can't talk this fluently

[@BRAIRCO]

What a ridiculous megalopolis disaster. Very bad film and very sad that it is most likely Coppola's last film. Terrible, boring, the actors didn't know what they were doing, a lack of respect for the audience. If the director had been an unknown this movie would NEVER BE RELEASED!!!!!