Youth Without Youth

[B-side]

Oddly, the critical destruction of this film made me more interested in it than I would've been otherwise. It's a phantasmagorical fever dream and rumination on aging, legacy, art and love. I understand why it wasn't showered with love, but that didn't stop its visually and formally experimental dealings from capturing my attention. It's totally unhinged Coppola, and kinda reminded me of a mix between Ruiz's Time Regained and Forman's Amadeus. Roth delivers a nice performance. Definitely a criminally underseen and underrated picture.

[baby doll]

I want to see this, but I feel like I should read some Borges first to appreciate how Borgesian it is.

[B-side]

I want to see this, but I feel like I should read some Borges first to appreciate how Borgesian it is.

I've read nothing from this Borges person. It's based on a novella by Mircea Eliade, though.

[baby doll]

I've read nothing from this Borges person. It's based on a novella by Mircea Eliade, though.I'm aware that it's an adaptation of a book by Eliade (which I haven't read either). I was just making a joke since, since it seems like the sort of film that people would compare to Borges (you yourself compared it to Ruiz who's often compared to Borges).

[Pop Trash]

I'm always tempted to rent this because I so want Coppola to not be "the guy who used to be amazing then started to suck." But then I think of some of the reviews I read and if it's disappointing it will be even more troubling since I do really think Coppola is an awesome guy. Then I put the DVD back on the shelf and rent something else.

[Ezee E]

I'm always tempted to rent this because I so want Coppola to not be "the guy who used to be amazing then started to suck." But then I think of some of the reviews I read and if it's disappointing it will be even more troubling since I do really think Coppola is an awesome guy. Then I put the DVD back on the shelf and rent something else.
Check it out. It's definitely not horrible. It's actually pretty interesting, just hard to follow. Worth seeing for sure.

I hate using these, but if this was from a first-time filmmaker, people would be highly anticipating anything he did next.

[B-side]

Check it out. It's definitely not horrible. It's actually pretty interesting, just hard to follow. Worth seeing for sure.

I hate using these, but if this was from a first-time filmmaker, people would be highly anticipating anything he did next.

Definitely agree. It's far from the disaster some claim it to be, too. Coppola knows what he's doing and what he wants to say. The film maintains a constant surreal and ethereal tone to it. Like I said in the OP, I'd almost compare it to Ruiz's Time Regained. They both share similar themes of love, memory and aging.

[balmakboor]

I hate using these, but if this was from a first-time filmmaker, people would be highly anticipating anything he did next.

I thought that as well.

It is definitely worthwhile and truly striking to look at. And it explores its themes well. My only problem was its failings as a narrative. Now, I have no problem with non-narrative and experimental cinema. I love quite a bit of it actually. My problem here stems from this film not seeming -- to me anyway -- to wish to be non-narrative. Or, in other words, Coppola was trying to tell a story with a lot of stylistic flourishes, failing on the first count, miserably, and succeeding on the second count, brilliantly.

[Ezee E]

I thought that as well.

It is definitely worthwhile and truly striking to look at. And it explores its themes well. My only problem was its failings as a narrative. Now, I have no problem with non-narrative and experimental cinema. I love quite a bit of it actually. My problem here stems from this film not seeming -- to me anyway -- to wish to be non-narrative. Or, in other words, Coppola was trying to tell a story with a lot of stylistic flourishes, failing on the first count, miserably, and succeeding on the second count, brilliantly.
Agreed on the attempt at a non-narrative approach. Coppola has many interviews where he talks about experimental films, and what he had done before The Godfather. Those seem to be his favorite projects, and it doesn't surprise me that he's going that route.

Despite that, it still comes close to be great. I wonder if anything would change on a second viewing where I know what I'm getting into.

I'm actually surprised it isn't more well-liked by fans of Lynch.

[balmakboor]

Agreed on the attempt at a non-narrative approach. Coppola has many interviews where he talks about experimental films, and what he had done before The Godfather. Those seem to be his favorite projects, and it doesn't surprise me that he's going that route.

Despite that, it still comes close to be great. I wonder if anything would change on a second viewing where I know what I'm getting into.

I'm actually surprised it isn't more well-liked by fans of Lynch.

I've seen it three times actually. Each time, I found it easier to follow and overall more satisfying. I, obviously, still have my reservations though.

I've been a huge fan of Coppola since seeing Apocalypse Now in the theater in 1979. I've only missed one film since, Jack. I just didn't have the heart.

I still google every few weeks on "megalopolis" in hopes of new information.

[Ezee E]

I've seen it three times actually. Each time, I found it easier to follow and overall more satisfying. I, obviously, still have my reservations though.

I've been a huge fan of Coppola since seeing Apocalypse Now in the theater in 1979. I've only missed one film since, Jack. I just didn't have the heart.

I still google every few weeks on "megalopolis" in hopes of new information.
He's got a new one coming out with Vincent Gallo. WTF indeed.

Hopefully he'll accomplish Megalopolis at some point.