• OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    631·
    2 months ago

    This movie is so hard to talk about, because the question is: “What is it even about?”

    I like movies with abstract themes and strange storytelling, but this was just incomprehensible. Its plot revolves around the machinations of rich men to control the future of their city “New Rome”, but the plot is kinda meaningless. There’s never any real threat to Caesar’s goal. Just plot events that could be obstacles but then are immediately resolved/neutered. Ok, fine! Surely then it’s an art-house piece with a deep message? The plot points must be there for the sake of a larger theme. I was waiting for everything to add up in the finale, but it just ends up with Caesar delivering a speech filled with platitudes so bland that I thought it was a joke. Then the credits rolled and the 2 of the other 5 people in the theater with me started laughing.

    • Jerkface@lemmy.worldEnglish
      321·
      2 months ago

      10 min: This should be interesting. 20 min: Why does this feel… off? 30 min: I must be missing a lot of historical references. 40 min: Wait, is the audience the butt of the joke here? 50 min - 90 min: confusion/anger 100 min: Holy shit Aubrey Plaza is hot 120 min: He made a whole movie for that one scene 🤣

    • altasshet@lemmy.caEnglish
      161·
      2 months ago

      So it’s a condensed version of Atlas Shrugged, maybe with a sprinkle of The Fountainhead?

    • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.worldEnglish
      82·
      2 months ago

      Directors like this have no idea what real people are like anymore. Why would I want to watch another movie about weird rich people doing weird rich people shit?

      • OneCardboardBox@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        9·
        1 month ago

        It’s similar only in that it’s about a “Great man” remaking a society in collapse.

        Really none of the themes are there. Nor is there any journey of discovery to understand who Caesar is, like you get in Atlas Shrugged where other characters learn who John Galt is.

        Galt is “Self interest and belief in my vision will make society better”. Caesar is “McGuffin building materials and belief in my vision will make society better”. For all its flaws, one is at least a political statement, while the other is milquetoast hopium.

    • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      357·
      2 months ago

      The movie didn’t sexually harass anyone, Francis Ford Coppola did.

      (To be clear, I agree with you, and while the movie sounds like garbage no one should watch, and it looks like at least some in the production team were complicit enablers, my point is that there is no need for the general statement, when there is a specific perpetrator to name)

      • dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        7·
        2 months ago

        It is Francis Ford Coppola’s film, when I take delight in the failure of the movie it is because of how it impacts its creator (not because I’m trying to shift blame away from him onto his film).

        The film is also garbage, but more importantly several critics have noted the film is sexist, like Maureen Lee Lenker’s review which mentioned “troubling gender roles and gross sexual dynamics at play”. Is it that surprising the film made by the man sexually assaulting people on set is also itself sexist?

        I agree that it’s worth specifically calling out Francis Ford Coppala and to put the blame where it belongs, and this is why I linked to the article about his specific misdeeds. At first I assumed most people knew about this already, which was maybe a bad assumption. I didn’t even link my message at first thinking it was too obvious.

    • Ghostwurm@lemmy.caEnglish
      746·
      2 months ago

      Why is art, even if not to your tastes, incorrect? Commercial viability is not the measure of quality. Even if it’s an incoherent mess, it adds. Why a lust for the failure of others? Did Francis re-neg on a promise he made to you personally?

      • ShareMySims@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        322·
        2 months ago

        Did you actually read the link they posted? If so, why are you so quick to jump to the defence of a sexual predator? 🤔

        • Ghostwurm@lemmy.caEnglish
          523·
          2 months ago

          Nope didn’t read. Admittedly, thought it was just the movie wiki and didn’t go that far. I made comment about the movie not the director. In the context of the article and allegations against Coppola, I am not defending gross and entitled behaviors. Another example of how complicated it is to consider or enjoy the art of transgressors.

          • Ptsf@lemmy.worldEnglish
            13·
            2 months ago

            Should probably read things before chiming in. At least, if they’re pivotal to the conversation.

            • Ghostwurm@lemmy.caEnglish
              24·
              2 months ago

              Not going to digest an entire article for a link with no context, which on its face doesn’t suggest the actions of an individual. Why would I pick out that aspect? Why am I the defender against allegations of bad behavior? That’s ridiculous.

              Edit: when I first responded there was no direct link to the allegations section, it was just the wiki for the movie. A link without context saying “fuck this”. But hey, people apparently know the intentions of strangers from a single hot take, what a skill. Enjoy your echo chamber.

    • abysmalpoptart@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      You know, that’s the first thing that caught my attention, and it’s actually kind of bothering me. I now want to pronounce it “ootopian” to make it work, but it’s just so wrong.

  • shreddingitlater [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    8·
    2 months ago

    For some reason, I thought this movie was based on or influenced by an Ayn Rand novel (foundationhead maybe?), and I was about to say something like “guess they didn’t learn their lesson since their attempt to make Atlas Shrugged a movie”.

    Is it any good?

      • scottywh@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        2 months ago

        Good is obviously somewhat subjective but …

        It’s visually stunning in a way that rivals Moulin Rouge or Luhrman’s Romeo & Juliet.

        The cast is incredible and I found many of their performances quite interesting and entertaining.

        The story is unusual and compelling enough that it held my attention throughout, though I also think it’s reasonable to say that there are certainly confusing elements.

        I’m confident though that the main reason for the vast majority of the negative reviews are that the film draws strong parallels between certain unlikable elements and the MAGA movement in a way that upsets them.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lolEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          I view it like a really fun fairy tale or a dream like bed time story.

          It’s fun and a mess.

    • Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.worldEnglish
      43·
      2 months ago

      I’m sure it’s fine but I don’t have the patience for these movies that are so far up their own ass in “style”. Also Coppola isn’t a good director. He’s a shit director who made a classic.

  • Jerkface@lemmy.worldEnglish
    7·
    2 months ago

    In what way was Franklyn Cicero greedy? Wasn’t his whole role to advocate for the common man?

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.networkEnglish
    81·
    2 months ago

    I read the wiki summary and it sounds kind of incoherent and bad. Too many plot beats, and he can stop time??

  • Universal Monk@lemm.eeEnglish
    55·
    2 months ago

    I was excited when I first heard about this while it was filming. Then I saw the trailer. I noped out of that pretty quick. There was not one single thing in the previews for this movie that made me want to watch it. lol