What an abundance of nonsense.

“New Rome” is in a state of upheaval. The disillusioned public are led by the rich elite and their insane offspring, and a lone visionary is intent on changing the world forever.

That summary is far too neat for what Megalopolis is. Directed by one of the literal grandfathers of cinema, Francis Ford Coppola, yes, the writer/director of Apocalypse Now and the Godfather. He also directed Robin Williams in Jack, so y’know, not impervious. But the trailer that got pulled by distributor Lionsgate (for having AI-generated critic quotations) was very keen on stating Coppola’s past work as being misinterpreted at first. Perhaps a panicked response to early reviews and responses to this movie being less than favourable.

Featuring a cast of recognisable faces, including Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel, Laurence Fishburne, Shia LaBeouf, and Jon Voight. As well as a ridiculous amount of production, it is clear that Coppola’s name alone carried substantial weight in pre-production. But the film had been the director’s passion project for a long time. How does a mythic sci-fi fable from an 85 year old mind stand up?

In short: it doesn’t.

Where to begin? Genuinely I don’t know.
We are introduced to New Rome, or rather, Manhattan by another name. In this self-styled “fable”, New Rome is a city of injustice; a place where the public are losing faith in those who lead them. The allegory of late-stage capitalism and the fall of the Rome empire is rife throughout. It is a retro-futurist dreamscape. The media’s press use flash-bulb photography, but also QR codes exist.
Laurence Fishburne narrates this hodgepodge of creative vagueness, who is the chauffeur for one Cesar Catilina (all of the names are references to Rome) a visionary architect. Cesar also has the ability, through sheer creative power, to stop time. But the city’s Mayor Cicero (Esposito) and its treasurer (Voight) and his incestuous brood deride him at every turn. It is a battle between tradition and corrupt systemic problems, and bold leaps of faith into the hopeful unknown.

Why have the Fall of Rome metaphor but name your hero/visionary Cesar?

The film is a confusing, fascinating, mess. From reviews seen already, that isn’t a new statement. Even reports from crew working on the film, it was a mess. But the film, at best, is a talking point. At worst, it is a clunky sci-fi experiment and undergraduate would write.
An example of the screenplay: how do we know this city of New Rome is in a state of decay? We see homeless people. We see police brutality. Rundown streets cloaked in rain and shadow. Nice. Oh wait, also… giant statues of Lady Justice animated and collapsing, fearful and defeated. Alright, cool visuals. I get it. Oh wait, in the same scene, we have characters literally commenting: “A city of injustice…”

Yes… I get it.

Patronizing screenplay aside, the film is a mirage of imagery and metaphor. Metaphor taken as metaphor, but also metaphor taken literally. Cesar (Adam Driver) plans to revolutionise the city with a new metal he has discovered called Megalon. What is it? It is, effectively, magic. It can create wonderful, magical buildings that have wonderful things… like travellators.
His “time, stop” ability is witnessed (somehow) by the Mayor’s daughter Julia (Get it? The name? Get it?) played by Nathalie Emmanuel. The two then have a relationship, which causes further strife between the Mayor and the architect.
Meanwhile, the petulant son of the wealthy banker, played by Shia LeBeouf, has political machinations. I wonder what that is in reference to. A glamorous tv presenter marries into power. And a whole lot of sexual favours, bribes, assassinations, and power grabs happen. All through a kaleidoscopic lens.

The very best one can say is that it’s ambitious. It does talk about the need for change in a world filled with systemic problems, and stating that the change needs to come from a creative source is a noble cause. But on top of the wildly strange (and often poor) visuals and clunky script, this nobility is hamstrung with a sense of naivete. Is it bold to announce that we live in a society? Not really. When our story here finally ends, it does not feel earned. We should praise and endorse the creative spirit but this is not the way to do it; the film practically destroys its own message by existing.

Therefore it is hard to recommend Megalopolis to anyone outside the hardest of hardcore science fiction fans. Or those studying film-making and perhaps how not to do it. Running at over two hours, audience minds are dumbed from the experience, making any meaning become lost in the mire.

Additional Marshmallows: While we are at it, who designs a utopia and the first thing they do in it is play poker?