MovieChat Forums > Megalopolis (2024) Discussion > Did George Lucas Write This?

Did George Lucas Write This?

posted 2 months ago by TheCatman (277)
14 replies | jump to latest

I never turn off movies once I start them because I always assume something interesting will happen.

However, I turned it off after an hour.

I thought the dialogue and acting were horrible. It sounded like the actors were reading lines, much like the prequel to the Star Wars movies.

I don't get how that happened since the actors were all good in other films. Even their body language in the open scenes was stiff, like they only shot one take and the actors hadn't warmed up yet.

Instead of proceeding with the film, I read the wiki to see what the plot was, and after that I turned it off. Not only was the acting/direction horrible but the plot made no sense. It had an "Atlas Shrugged" theme but with senseless fantasy, not science fiction, about the main character stopping time...and why?

Lawrence Fishburn's voiceover was also extremely pretentious and annoying. He looked extremely miserable as well.

I have been saying for years that movies need "Logic checkers" because so many bad films are made; all they need is a sensible person to help figure out what's wrong. However, they seem to be made in bubbles by people who are delusional about their abilities.

reply

[–] mikethemartian (6705) 2 months ago

Did Adam Driver’s character talk about how much he hated sand by any chance?

reply

[–] TheCatman (277) 2 months ago

That was post credit scene.

reply

[–] DarthAckbar (2039) 2 months ago

STAR WARS (1977) got George Lucas Oscar nominations for:

Best Picture,

Best Director,

and Best Screenplay

so this film must be a great one

reply

[–] TheCatman (277) 2 months ago

I'm talking about the prequels which have been made fun of for over 20 years.

Overall, they were good STORIES but the dialogue in the prequels was much like this film....only better.

I watched the first have of Mega and is was like...

"You seem angry"

"I am angry because I'm not happy"

"If you realized the existential crisis you would not care"

"I want you. Let's kiss"

I was stunned and kept waiting for something to happen that had some quality to it.

Later, the main character can stop time, but there was zero reason why.

It was like something a kid in high school would write.

The Lucas dialogue made sense for the characters and story but the actors needed direction to sound more real and emotional. Mega had dialogue that no one would say in a setting that made no sense.

reply

[–] MyPhoneAccount (235) 2 months ago

Episode 4 had alot of hokey dialogue and stilted acting too, and the original few cuts of the film made no sense. So maybe you’re onto something. Maybe Megalopolis just needed a really good editing session.

reply

[–] TheCatman (277) 2 months ago

It did not.

I saw IV opening weekend and people were seeing like 120 times back then. Since 1977 it's been a nonstop classic.

If it had been annoying with fake dialogue it wouldn't have made it out of 1977.

it also had very few plot holes and was one of the most epic films of it type ever made in that time period.

reply

[–] MyPhoneAccount (235) 2 months ago

Never said it was a bad movie or had plot holes. Episode 4 is actually my favorite Star Wars film. But yes, it does have some cheesy dialogue and flat direction. You can look up that the first few cuts of the film were apparently pretty awful, and it was heavily reedited several times for it to make sense.

reply

[–] TheCatman (277) 2 months ago

How many movies shoot multiple scenes until they get a good one?

Probably, 99.9% of all movies do that.

In addition, many movies have dull spots and that's fine, but when a film has nonstop bad acting, a bad plot, and story, it's a bad film.

As I noted, the star Wars prequels had some very bad acting, dialogue, and direction, but most of the films had a good story, action, and acting.

Metropolis was nonstop bad so it was like Lucas at his worst.

If you ever want to see a bad Lucas written film watch Radioland Murders.

reply

[–] 123Guy (7259) 2 months ago

"turned it off" ??

You work at a movie theater?

Or, maybe you illegally downloaded an illegal copy, that thsoudands of people worked hard on (good or bad), and watched on a tiny screen?

If so....Theif. Thanks for ruining yet another digital industry.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8730) 2 months ago

That's what I was thinking. How exactly can you "turn it off" when it just debuted in theaters. You can certainly walk out of the theater, but you can't exactly turn it off.

reply

[–] TheCatman (277) 2 months ago

I watched it streaming.

I used to be a diehard about not watching "free movies". However, over the last five plus years most films have been so horrible I will not pay for them.

Going to movie can now be 30 to 60 dollars and you are watching some trite crap with moronic dialogue. Meanwhile, I used to go to the movies and see almost all the new films on the weekend and also loved arthouse foreign films, which no longer exist in my city.

People DO NOT work hard on most movies today and deserve to lose their jobs and be replaced by people who know how to create quality stories.

They will not rob me because I, and millions of others, will get them first.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8730) 2 months ago

and be replaced by people who know how to create quality stories.

"Megalopolis" is the movie you're describing since it's the furthest thing from 'blockbuster' drivel. True, Coppola's storytelling may not always be compelling (in the conventional sense), but there are several highlights that can be appreciated by viewers who value the road less traveled in cinema.

Also, since you quit watching after only one hour (less than half the flick), you're hardly credible at criticizing the film as a whole.

reply

[–] TheCatman (277) 2 months ago

I am a huge movie lover and have watched all era of cinema from silent films to today. I am also a foreign film fan and so your comments apply to someone else.

This film sucks and if a two hour movie has stilted boring dialogue, weirdly out of place fantasy elements, and no clear plot, it is not a good film.

Many people are comparing it to some of the worst amateur movies ever made, and that is accurate.

On top of all of THAT the trailer sold it as a blockbuster, lol.

It's not even a story.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8730) 2 months ago

The trailer didn't sell it as a conventional blockbuster (like the Star Wars or Marvel flicks), but rather as Coppola's "passion project," first conceived in 1977.

no clear plot

Really? The plot is simple: A brilliant architect (Driver) wants to recreate a core section of New Rome (an alternative New York City in the near-future) with a revolutionary bio-adaptive material. But the mayor resists these creative plans because he's content with the way things are (Giancarlo Esposito). As such, he's not happy when his daughter (Nathalie Emmanuel) starts to develop a relationship with the flawed prodigy.

Cicero (Driver) obviously parallels Coppola: An award-winning genius who has an ambitious new project that will revolutionize the landscape, but those in power oppose his efforts. So, he's constantly slandered or framed with his indiscretions not helping matters. He's also troubled by the death of his wife and his unborn children (remember the tragedy of Francis' eldest son, Gian-Carlo, in 1986?). Yet he presses on with his vision and ultimately changes the world with his art.

I reckon it's Francis' artsy style that throws people off wherein he respects the intelligence of the viewer to put the pieces together. This approach was evident in his previous pictures, like "Rumble Fish," "Bram Stoker's Dracula," "Youth Without Youth" and "Twixt" (aka "B-Twixt Now and Sunrise"). This one's just on a bigger scale than those.

Obviously you didn't like what you saw in the first hour and so bailed. That's okay; the film's obviously not for everyone. I found it entertaining on several fronts and stuffed with quality mindfood (inspired by Lucius Sergius Catiline's failed attempt to take control of the Roman republic in 63 BC, but lost to his rival Marcus Tullius Cicero), not to mention it has a welcome warmhearted close. I busted out laughing on several occasions in light of the creative madness of it all. For those who say the amusement was "unintentional," I guess they never saw Coppola's previous film "Twixt," as well as earlier ones like "You're a Big Big Boy Now."

Many people are comparing it to some of the worst amateur movies ever made, and that is accurate.

Talk about an overreaction, not to mention totally false in light of Coppola's decades of proven skill and the colorful pizazz of this particular film. I get that his style isn't for everyone, but come on.

reply