I wont lie, I had a great time watching this. I went under the influence of drugs and had a blast. This movie is so damn funny and campy, I really wish FFC woulda leaned harder into the comedy. This would be a comedy classic. But yeah, this movie is completely nonsensical. It’s a guilty pleasure if I ever saw one.
shareThe bits of amusement were intentional, as they were in Coppola's previous flick "Twixt," aka "B'Twixt Now and Sunrise."
shareTrue, several moments were intended to be funny and they usually were. However, so much of the movie clearly isn’t trying to be funny but is very, very funny.
shareI hated it and found nothing funny.
People on drugs can thing something is funny, profound, etc but it's just the drugs.
Explain what was funny in this, please.
Oh mama. The whole circus montage was hilarious. Like a college film student throwing random crap at the screen. Anytime it cut to Driver tweaking in front of the bullseye. Anytime two characters would have a philosophical stoner bro conversation about “time”. Adam Driver’s ridiculous overacting, Shia LeBouf shouting “shut the fuck up!” thru the megaphone, and Jon Voight’s boner. All great spots to start!
shareI wish I would have watched it with you.
I did a post on here asking if George Lucas wrote the movie. When you were laughing I was cringing at how wooden and fake the dialogue and situations were. I couldn't take it and turned it off.
This is why people take drugs.
This 8-minute video offers a good explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJB5m1nBDHw.
shareThe person narrating that video thinks they know about art but they don't.
I am a huge movie fan and have watched and learned about films from the silent era until now. I am also an avid reader and have read thousands of books.
I love naturalistic stories and purposely artificial ones.
I used to be a big fan of the director Hal Harley. Many of his films had the characters speaking in stilted robotic ways but they made the film interesting. You know you were watching a movie, but it was like watching some kind of artwork vs an immersive story.
Mega was not exciting because the "Shakespearian" thing is cliched. Making a film that's like a play doesn't work for me when it's supposed to be "science fiction" (this was not). That's because a wild concept must have "suspension of disbelief". Mega did not have that so we got artificial dialogue mixed with crazy ideas.
That made the film seem fake and underdeveloped.
In the first half of the film, I was astounded by the horrible dialogue and the terrible way it was delivered. I mentioned in another post, that even the body language of the actors looked like they were rehearsing it for the first time.
A story like this needs the dialogue to sell the psychology of the characters and it didn't. Further, the "poetic" and "Shakspeanian" tone made me aware that actors, not characters, were speaking. Also, the story was not amazing or anything new philosophically about politics, culture, etc that we haven't heard before.
The film was a mess while being boring, and I will give almost any film, including cartoons, a chance because I realized that the creators thought it a good idea and worked hard at it. I have almost never turned a film off in my life, and I am old, lol, but I turned this off.
Just watched it again before it vanished from theaters forever. The audience was DYING with laughter, I'm talking uncontrollable wheezing laughter. We were having our own commentary tracks too; one guy in front mentioned it looked like Spy Kids, I said it looked like Shark Boy and Lava Girl, and they heard me and burst out laughing.
shareSame thing in my theater. Random "what the fuck?" met with everyone laughing.
share