I previously made a post about how Francis Ford Coppola is a massive fucking piece of shit so naturally I was against this movie from the moment it was announced.

With that in mind, I was genuinely worried that the movie would be good, that it would be a commercial and/or critical success... and I'm happy to report that none of my fears came remotely true.

I could not describe the plot of the film because I was completely unable to get invested in whatever the fuck was going on, you couldn't pay me to give a shit about these characters. There's no real story here anyway, it's basically just a series of scenes and none of them are good. The writing is atrocious, the editing is bad, the music is corny and the actors clearly did not give a shit, because why would they? (this movie's only redeeming quality is that it made a bunch of hotshot celebrities look like total idiots)


(spoilers below)

But basically it's a movie about a bunch of ultra-rich assholes who hate each other. Naturally they're all a bunch of boring perverts. The protagonist, Cesar, is an architect who invents a magic building material with which he plans to build a utopia - because, of course, only the rich can save humanity, with hand-wavy bullshit.

Oh by the way Cesar has an affair with a singer who is supposedly a 16 year-old virgin. He's arrested but it's all okay because it turns out she was lying about her age and is actually 23. This adds nothing to the plot and I don't know why it's in the movie but given Francis' history with child abuse I found it very disturbing.

The whole movie is full of misogyny. The only woman with any characterization is Aubrey Plaza, who plays a gold-digging harlot who marries a rich old man just to manipulate him. Her elderly pervert husband (played by Trump-supporter Jon Voight) murders her with a crossbow and we're expected to cheer. At one point Kathryn Hunter says "womanizer is such an awful word - as if the woman had nothing to do with it!". Francis hides behind this disgusting sentiment by having a woman deliver the line.

Oh yeah, noted abuser of women and dog-murderer Shia Lebouf also stars in the film. Coppola explicitly hired canceled actors to rebel against Woke. Shia plays the villain of the film, and would you be surprised to hear that his character is also an effeminate crossdresser? Yup, we're busting out the queer villain trope, baby!


This movie is, if nothing else, a thorough repudiation of auteur theory. This movie proves that Francis is not the genius that pathetic sycophantic film bros think he is. They will forever treat him like a god for "making" Apocalypse Now and The Godfather but in reality it takes a lot of people to make a film, and it's clear to me that the success of those films has less to do with Francis and more to do with his collaborators. It's very telling that The Godfather is often called a Coppola film and not a film by Mario Puzo, who wrote the script and the novel it's based on.

If you really want to know what kind of artist Francis Ford Coppola is, you can't judge his work by a small number of successful films he happened to direct 50 years ago (all of which had co-writers and were adaptations of novels). You have to judge him by the work he has done since, which has been mostly dogshit. And looking at the two movies where he had the most creative control, Twixt and Megalopolis, it should be clear to everyone that the man is a fraud and a hack, wholly undeserving of his status as a legendary filmmaker.

  • PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    1 month ago

    I went and saw it in theaters because I had to see it for myself

    It is dogshit, but so committed to always making the weirdest choice possible at every point that I kind of have to respect it

    • AmericaDeserved711 [any]
      hexagon
      ·
      1 month ago

      it gets zero points for being "weird" from me, it wasn't breaking the rules with any clarity of purpose, none of the weirdness was in service of any interesting ideas. Francis is just a boring creepy old man who makes these bizarre choices because he genuinely does not know how to make a movie when left to his own devices

      • PM_ME_YOUR_FOUCAULTS [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Well yeah, it's bad. If it were doing what you're talking about it would be good, or at least better. But there's different kinds of bad. And I find this, which emerged fully formed from Coppola's dying brain, more interesting than a Marvel movie

        • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]
          ·
          1 month ago

          I feel exactly the same way, I was literally just about to make the comparison to seeing a Marvel film. I knew it was going to be bad, but I made a point to see it in the theater because I wanted to see the result of this bizarre experiment in the medium for which it was intended, and I was not disappointed. Total mess of a film, but bad in ways that you simply would not see coming out of the Disney/Warner/Universal/Sony big-budget theatrical ecosystem, which gives it some redeeming value as a sort of historical artifact of filmmaking.