MEGADOC - Mark Reviews Movies

Megadoc, Utopia Distribution

Follow on Facebook | Follow on Twitter | Become a Patron

Review by Mark Dujsik | September 18, 2025

After decades of consideration and planning, filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola's Megalopolis came and went with a whimper that, in retrospect, is a bit disappointing. The movie was a mess, to be sure, and probably too ambitious in Coppola's mind for it to make any real sense as a story. Still, he put more than $100 million of his own money into it, and one would think even a general audience would have some level of curiosity about the movie, if only because of Coppola's conviction.

Generally, movie-goers aren't curious anymore, and that will eventually kill off the possibility that someone could conceive, finance, and make a movie as ambitious as Coppola's but also pull off the trick of making it work. Coppola is in his 80s, and that old guard of what was once New Hollywood aren't going to be making movies or even around for much longer.

Coppola's friend and colleague George Lucas, for example, is just a talking head in director Mike Figgis' Megadoc. He seems content, as one would expect from someone whose self-financing ambitions paid off in unthinkable sums of money, and a bit wistful about the old days, but nostalgia seems to be Lucas' only thought about making movies. Some of Hollywood's greatest and successful dreamers are either finished dreaming or getting there, and if no one shows up for what they have to offer, why would anyone give money to a younger generation of dreamers?

This isn't to make a turnaround on Megalopolis, of course, because even the clips from the movie in Figgis' behind-the-scenes documentary don't do it many favors. If Figgis himself even has a clue about what the cast and crew are filming or what that completed footage means, he's not offering an explanation. He has an idea of the basic plot, to be sure, but then again, that's all Coppola himself seemed to have, since so much of his futuristic fable was filled with endless philosophizing and on-the-nose political allegory.

What Figgis' film does do by showing us Coppola at work, however, is to prove that all of that actually was the filmmaker's purpose and point. Watching him work on this movie is, weirdly enough, more engaging than the end result of the movie itself. By the end, the man believes he still has something to offer as a filmmaker. With this passion project that has taken up at least more than two decades of his life in some way out of his system, he might prove that to be true. If he can find some cash or assets or an enthusiastic financer lying around, that is.

Figgis, himself a director whose career has faltered lately (He hasn't made a narrative feature in more than a decade for whatever reason), is pulled toward but conflicted about the idea of filming another director at work. He knows it is work, after all, and doesn't want to get in the way, but the notion of seeing another filmmaker, especially one of Coppola's caliber, is too enticing to pass up the opportunity.

He quickly becomes an observer, watching the lengthy rehearsal process, which amounts to a collection of the cast—including Aubrey Plaza, Nathalie Emmanuel, Shia LaBeouf, and Jon Voight—do assorted acting and improvisation exercises, and eventually documenting some difficult moments on set. LaBeouf points out that his career at this particular moment in time, with too many issues and allegations to name, is "nuclear." The actor worries that he could be fired any day and seems to do his job with the goal of making those worries come true.

The actor and director clash often, mainly because LaBeouf wants to do things his way and Coppola doesn't want to just say no to him. He likes actors, after all, and wants them to have some say in their performances. One time, at least, Figgis shows us that LaBeouf's idea for blocking a scene actually makes it into the final cut of the movie, but the actor's behavior becomes increasingly uncomfortable to watch, especially when he "improvises" what a co-star probably could call a physical assault on him.

With that notable but unfortunate stuff out of the way, the documentary is more than just tensions and conflicts, although there are plenty of those, such as when one production designer quits with her team. There's no animosity here, just a misunderstanding about what Coppola wanted to do in terms of assorted in-camera effects that wasn't fully communicated to the team. Coppola's budget-friendly solution actually seems to make him happier than the original plan, which definitely put the money being spent on screen.

Coppola knows what he's doing, which might be the biggest surprise for people who saw and were confounded by Megalopolis. Figgis even includes archival footage from a table reading and some test shoots in 2001, when the cast was very different, and seeing that whole scenes from more than 20 years ago haven't changed at all says something about the filmmakers commitment to and trust in the material.

What's nice, though, is to see Coppola, apart from what surely were avoidable on-set conflicts, genuinely excited by the work. He says the process of making a movie should be more like play than work, and it often looks like that, even if LaBeouf and, to a far less severe degree, star Adam Driver, who doesn't want Figgis filming him acting, don't seem entirely onboard with that philosophy.

Megadoc isn't illuminating about Megalopolis, but it is in showing us Coppola's process, his enthusiasm, and his belief that he still has something to offer. It is still a shame about the end result of all that this time around, though.

Back to Home

Buy Related Products