Patrician architect Cesar Catilina is one of New Rome’s leading lights. Cesar wins the Nobel Prize for inventing the revolutionary building material Megalon. In addition, he can secretly stop time.
I can’t fathom how a director can dream about telling such a generic story. Like, really? Out of all the stories you can retell or invent you chose a story of revolutionary building material and… stopping time? I might see it just out of curiosity.
This reminds me about “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote”. He worked for decades to film it and the result was terrible. Maybe some directors are just terrible producers.
Why would there be a director’s cut? Didn’t the director do the original cut? He was the producer; if he didn’t do it, it was because he didn’t want to.
This line from the article really sums it up:
He also supposedly plans for a “director’s cut” – sorry, then what was it we watched last fall, exactly? Someone else’s cut – called Megalopolis Unbound: longer, weirder, maybe some dream sequences. (Was the whole movie not his own dream sequence?)
In all seriousness, the “director’s cut” is mostly used nowadays as a marketing term, it seems.
It always was a marketing ploy.
The way I think of it, the “directors cut” is the version the director wanted without outside influences. The theatrical release was cut by a group with the director, editor, producers, and studio all having a say in the final result.
Normally yes, I agree with what you say, but in this case the director, producer, editor and editor were the same person or were 100% supervised
I mean, nobody is forcing anyone to see any of this. I haven’t even seen the movie. I might. I might not. It’s up to me.
I think this sentiment reveals one of the major flaws within the movie industry, specifically that reviewers feel compelled to watch (and review) movies. But going to the movies is a self-selecting process. If you don’t enjoy Hallmark Christmas movies because they are all the same, or you hate comic book movies because you’ve seen all of them, or you think auteur experiments are self-indulgent and pointless, you can just watch something else. Those movies weren’t made for you.
But capitalism has turned snark into a commodity. People don’t click on glowing reviews. Take-downs, drama, and wit entertain readers the same way that Hallmark Christmas movies do. The audience and the creators attract each other.
If you want it to go away, the best advice remains the catchy jingle by Paul Anka and Lisa Simpsons: “Just don’t look.”
Your comment sounds wise and probably is. But have you actually tried watching Megalopolis?
I gave Glitter a 7/10, and even I couldn’t watch Megalopolis.
No, but then it probably isn’t for me. I also haven’t seen Glitter. I might have gone to see it if Coppola was there to lead a discussion on the themes of the film, though. Good or bad, that would be a fascinating experience.
I remember one time at the Philadelphia Film Fest, I saw a terrible movie starring Alan Cumming and David Boreanaz, and while I didn’t think it was a great film, Boreanaz was there for a post-film Q&A. Cumming might have also been there, but it’s hard to remember exactly who was on the panel. I just vivdly remember Boreanaz because he mentioned his dad was in the audience, and he pointed to the guy seated next to me. Regardless, it would be fun to hear any creator talk about their labor of love, their process, and what they were trying to create.
Glitter is an 8/10 so-bad-it’s-good movie for sure, just randomly watched it last night!
I agree, but I also think as part of the larger conversation about movies and cinemas it’s pretty obvious how this fits in. People with enough money or sway can force their poorly conceived garbage down the public’s throats long after it’s clear it doesn’t perform well. Hard for me to go along with the sympathy movie theaters are trying to drum up when there are plenty of local or indie movies I’d happily pay to see but instead they’re screening this. Not to mention that articles like this, even though they’re negative, prompt more conversation about the movie and may be the reason some people go and see it. It’s a failure of capitalism in the microcosm. The market decided this was bad, but capital does not care. They will force it to the forefront out of sheer vanity.
Well then, sir, the internet will shame you until you do see the movie… or don’t.
I honestly hadn’t even heard about it before this post, so talking about it certainly just brings it more attention
You should try it. Can you endure it for 15 minutes? Are you strong enough?
It is on Netflix (Germany), and so I already paid for it. Had to give up after 6 minutes.
Id watch it if it streamed free. otherwise like most things. meh.
Might be streamed in public TV in some places, if you wait around enough
I mean it is gone for me…
“The people just haven’t had time to understand my vision”
No, because someone with more money than sense won’t admit defeat.
I’m interested in watching it, but it’s still not available to buy.
Just hit the high seas, then?
It’s a pretty weird film but I enjoyed it. Maybe in 20 years I’ll watch it again.
I actually enjoyed it as well and found it memorable.
Strange and interesting.
But, I also enjoyed my dinner with Andre.
So… Yeah.
I don’t have plans to see Megopolis, but I did see 2001: A Space Odyssey, and if that movie can achieve long term success, anything can.
