Megalopolis (2024)

The critic praises the film's kaleidoscopic, enriching vision as a grand old master's work with nothing to lose, celebrating unfettered creativity. They single out its unique city symphony and expansion of reality for praise.

The critic calls it a wildly ambitious if flawed look at power and avarice, praising fierce invention and moments of innovation like live interactive theatre while noting mixed performances.

The critic describes the film as wildly ambitious, conceptually bold, frequently inscrutable, endlessly fascinating and frustrating, ultimately calling it a brash and bonkers $120 million fable about town planning that does not always hang together. They single out Coppola's audacity and drive at age 85 as the standout element.

The review describes the film as a magical, meandering, maddening epic that is batshit crazy, pompous and campy while echoing divisive recent works. It praises the experimental process and the joy of its ensemble performances but notes it feels nonsensical and in need of more shaping.

The piece portrays the film as wildly divisive with genuine passages of beauty alongside storytelling failures, conceptual quirks and uneven performances, yet one that is too crazy and alive to dismiss. It singles out the intensely personal nature, raw sincerity mixed with goofiness, and the conversations it provokes about risk, art and the future.

The critic sees the film as an ambitious but flawed passion project that is windy, overstuffed, baffling and overly talky, yet also amusing, playful, visually dazzling and filled with hope for humanity. It singles out the director's risk-taking flair and the sheer curiosity it inspires despite its narrative shortcomings.

The critic calls the film a bold but sloppy, garish and idea-bloated epic that is a deeply personal allegory on the director's relationship to art. He praises the ambition and late-career statement while noting it is unwieldy and does not fully work.

The critic finds the eccentric epic best when silent and notes that creative autonomy proves a mixed blessing for the self-funded project. They single out the visual language and tonal extravagance for praise while complaining about stilted dialogue and uneven editing.

The critic labels it an indulgent epic that's almost so bad it's good. They single out the sheer scale and personal vision on display at Cannes.

The critic says the grand vision fails to live up to its ambition, stymied by arbitrary plotting and numbing excess, with cartoonish performances, though acknowledging echoes of past works.

The critic calls the film an epic fail and a strident retro-futurist folly that is muddled and empty despite its visual ambition. They single out the incoherent screenplay and uneven performances for complaint while praising the opulent production and costume design.

The critic calls the result an unholy mess with delusions of grandeur that is unwieldy yet admirably ambitious, presenting only an anodyne statement on American society. They single out the striking compositions and sense of tinkering originality amid the messiness.

The critic finds the film pompous and fun-free, an indigestible self-serious epic that is little fun and deadening intellectually. They complain about its self-important vibe and lack of stylistic flair.

The critic describes the film as a bloated mess of philosophising and incomplete plotlines but finds it fascinatingly lovable due to its sincere ambition and Coppola's dedication. They single out the film's heroic datedness and quixotic overreach for praise.

The critic finds the film a bursting, hallucinatory personal statement on an epic scale, a great-man story about an architect driven by ideals. She singles out its entrancing, confounding images and ideas that invoke different epochs.

The critic calls it a mess but a stunning achievement and true modern masterwork of audacious vision. They single out its ability to never be boring and its reinvention of cinematic possibilities.

The critic calls it a sprawling, confusing mess but a beautiful one that must be seen on the big screen, praising its earnestness and the miracle of its existence as a self-funded artistic vision. They complain about it being overwhelming and not fully earning its hopefulness but appreciate the act of creation it represents.

The review describes it as grandiose and goofy with sprawling ambitions, some realized and many not, making little compromise. It singles out Aubrey Plaza's campy performance as the MVP highlight amid the film's frustrating yet ambitious execution.

The critic views the film as a meandering, farcical mess that fails to deliver substance despite its big ideas and Coppola's passion project status. They single out Aubrey Plaza for having fun amid otherwise broad or ineffective performances and note the film's watchability but lack of depth or memorable swings.

The critic finds it an unfinished, scattershot work with flashes of brilliance but ultimately uneven and uninvolving; praises Aubrey Plaza's performance and some visual moments.

The critic describes the film as a bizarre, messy, and unapologetically artistic passion project that isn't playing it safe, praising its existence as a personal vision despite its flaws like naff CGI and lack of character development. They single out its human quality and audacity as the main points of praise.

The film is weird, wacky, and needs editing; dialogue and acting are bizarre and uneven, visuals mixed; credits Coppola for self-funding and predicts cult status.