What The Worst Critic Reviews Say About Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis

The cinematic event of the year is finally upon us now that Francis Ford Coppola's (presumable) swan song "Megalopolis" is playing in theaters, although the overall reactions couldn't be more mixed. In terms of pure drama, the months-long lead up to its release might go down as something just as shocking and over the top as the film itself has been described. Long before the general public ever set eyes upon this passion project about the rise and fall of an empire, the internet has been packed with headlines about behind-the-scenes troubles, alleged sexual harassment, and even a bizarre controversy resulting from AI-generated review pull-quotes.

It's been a wild saga to get to this point, and that's without even getting into the actual reviews of the film. /Film's Chris Evangelista ended up more on the mixed-positive side of the debate in his "Megalopolis" review, calling it a "sprawling, confusing, confounding, messy extravaganza" that nevertheless demands to be seen on the biggest screen possible. Not all critics ended up on the same page, mind you, though that's nothing new for someone who's been in the business for as long as Coppola has. Despite having multiple movies under his belt that are now considered to be stone-cold classics, from "The Godfather" to "The Conversation" to "Apocalypse Now," audiences and critics alike haven't always appreciated such artistic genius at first blush.

Could the same hold true for "Megalopolis," you ask? Stranger things have certainly happened ... but that might be asking a lot from a blockbuster epic that, at the time of this writing, is currently holding steady at a perfectly divisive 50% score on Rotten Tomatoes. A new movie from one of the all-time greats of the medium is always worth celebrating, but that only makes the harsher reviews all the more interesting. Here are what some of the worst ones have to say about "Megalopolis."

The thing about a new Francis Ford Coppola movie is that there are absolutely no shortage of opinions — in the interests of a more informed perspective, however, we're going to limit ourselves to only reviews from top critics, with apologies to all the Lights Camera Jackson stans out there (an admittedly niche joke that, for everyone's sake, I sincerely hope goes over the heads of most readers). Kicking things off is Brian Truitt of USA Today, who crowned the effort a "disappointing, nonsensical mess of messages and metaphors from a filmmaking master." Anyone who puts serious time and effort into understanding film simply has to acknowledge Coppola's massive influence and talent, which Truitt is quick to do, of course. But reputation alone doesn't automatically make one worthy of praise, and the critic goes so far as to liken Coppola's latest to past failures such as "Jack" and "Twixt." Harsh, but there's a reason why this review only amounts to 1.5 stars out of 4.

Taking shots at the "incoherent" plot and the quirky worldbuilding that doesn't seem to add much to the proceedings, Truitt's review doesn't pull any punches. He notes Adam Driver's leading turn as the architect attempting to keep the fading city of Megalopolis afloat (named Cesar, of course) and how this brings an appropriately mythic feel to the story, but the supporting cast surrounding him isn't given much to work with as they "seem to exist just to make 'Megalopolis' more bizarre than it already is." Keep an eye on Aubrey Plaza (as the delightfully-named Wow Platinum) and Giancarlo Esposito as corrupt politician Franklyn Cicero in two of the more energetic performances of the ensemble, he makes sure to point out, but even they can't save this mess from itself.

There are certain descriptors that no filmmaker ever wants within a mile of their decades-in-the-making vanity project and, well, "laughingstock" and "train wreck" would probably land at or near the top of that list. Both of those come courtesy of Esther Zuckerman of The Daily Beast, who reviewed the film out of the Cannes Film Festival premiere in France earlier this year and noted how even that prestige screening descended into fits of giggles as the action unfolded on screen. To truly get a sense of what kind of tone this movie has going for it, the critic succinctly sums up the off-putting experience thusly, with a bit of backhanded praise that "Megalopolis" could very well be destined for cult-classic status down the line:

"This is the kind of movie that will live on in midnight screenings. The phrase 'destined to be a cult classic' gets thrown around a lot these days and mostly inaccurately — something that is weird but popular and critically acclaimed does not a 'cult classic' make — and yet it seems to actually apply here. 'Megalopolis' is stilted, earnest, over the top, CGI ridden, and utterly a mess. And yet you can picture a crowded theater shouting along with Jon Voight as he says in one key scene, 'What do you make of this boner I got?'"

Even such silliness as that could've avoided becoming a deal-breaker, however, if only any of the movie's political messaging came through without feeling "muddled." By now, most interested fans will have heard about aspects such as the live element included at one point in the film (preserved only in certain "immersive" public screenings), and Zuckerman echoes the train of thought that this movie "has to be seen to be believed." Somehow, even the most negative reviews only make us want to watch this more.

Sometimes, even the most bombastic and spectacular empires are built on sand. That seems to be the main lesson of "Megalopolis" and the Romanesque city at its center, but could that extend to the basic narrative bones of the movie itself, too? Worse still, maybe all the self-funded budgeting and mostly dazzling visuals weren't enough to save this venture from simply feeling boring. That's the contention put forth by Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian, whose review describes the film in dire tones and pronounces it as "mega-bloated and mega-boring." He goes to say that — well, you know what, I'll just let his own words do the talking:

"But for me this is a passion project without passion: a bloated, boring and bafflingly shallow film, full of high-school-valedictorian verities about humanity's future. It's simultaneously hyperactive and lifeless, lumbered with some terrible acting and uninteresting, inexpensive-looking VFX work which achieves neither the texture of analogue reality nor a fully radical, digital reinvention of existence."

The whole enterprise isn't entirely without its bright spots, as he goes out of his way to praise the movie's "flashes of humour and verve," the moments where Coppola's distinctive production design "creates an interestingly self-aware spectacle," and even praises Jon Voight's, ah, eccentric character ... but none of this is quite able to prevent "Megalopolis" from its fate as a rare "failure" in Coppola's filmography. 

Everyone loves a good underdog story, even one that involves the biggest name in the business. Yet that compelling narrative wasn't to be, sadly, according to the last (but far from the least) review in this roundup. In Richard Lawson's review for Vanity Fair, the critic noted that he hoped this would be one last definitive case of Coppola proving the doubters wrong. Instead, he believes we've ended up with "a near unmitigated disaster." I'll let him lay out his initial impressions of the sci-fi epic and all its disappointments:

"'Megalopolis' is a choppy ramble of a movie, stuffed with poorly elucidated ideas. It's as if someone has spent $120 million — more money than most Americans make in a year! — to film the chicken scratch scrawls of a notebook, hastily staged with actors and garish green-screen effects. It is, I'm afraid, tedious nonsense."

Lawson goes on to lay out the convoluted plot as best he can — no small feat, considering the film's many twists and turns and (seemingly) the sprawling, unfocused nature of Coppola's script. Yet despite describing far-out concepts, like gladiator-like events held in what's clearly a stand-in for Madison Square Garden, this part of the review ought not be mistaken for tacit approval. According to Lawson:

"If any of this sounds interesting, I assure you it is not. Coppola's dull but voluble script says very little, or at least very little that can be cogently deciphered. The film plays as if the entire thing was rewritten after the actors had shot their parts and gone home. Nothing — no reaction shot, no transition between scenes — seems to sync, leaving the performances completely at sea."

Brutal. Unlike some other decidedly negative reviews, Lawson can't quite bring himself to find much of any silver lining here. "Maybe some of them will indeed see value in what Coppola has made. Many more, though, will scratch their heads in utter disbelief." We can't wait to see which side we'll end up on now that "Megalopolis" is playing in theaters.