Francis Ford Coppola returns to completing his own films for the first time in 10 years (he's been working on Megalopolis which he's more or less abandoned and done some re-shoots for friends). He's made a film that is probably best described as philosophical pulp. Its based on a deeply philosophical Romanian novella that has haunted him for much of the last ten years.
The plot an aged scholar turning 70 and feeling he has been a failure. Deciding to go to the big city and commit suicide he is struck by lightning not long after arriving and while he is recovering from his injuries it is discovered that he is in fact now seemingly half his age. Its 1938 and during his recovery the Nazi's invade and they take a very keen interest in his condition causing him to flee.
Recounting the plot further (the Nazi bit is more a catalyst then the point since the film covers over 30 years from the point of the lightning strike.) would be foolish since odds are it will leave you incredulous (its very mystical and plays at times like a pulp novel with a great deal on its mind) not to mention give you a false sense of what is really going on. This is a movie that has a definite direction in which it is going and odds are you will not completely see most of it coming. The best thing to do is just buckle up and let the film take you where its going to go. And lets face it this is the sort of story that with slight revision would have fit very nicely in an old copy of Weird Tales. The driving force is very much like a pulp story from the 1930's or 40's.
Its very heady stuff. Reincarnation, personality, the question of what is a successful life, the nature of love, language, atomic war, the evolution of man, what would you do with a second chance, are among the many questions raised by this film. The plot is not constructed to be just a ripping story, but rather a means to the examination of the ideas that Coppola is tossing about. Coppola has hung a great many ideas and notions on his narrative threads and he's done so in such away that in order to navigate through the maze the threads form you will have to deal with the laundry hanging from them.
Its this juggling of ideas in a pulp frame work that has been the bane of this film. I know that many people don't know what Coppola was getting at, I'm not entirely sure myself. The plot seems almost silly, its almost like Stephen Kings Golden Years but spiced up with almost too many ideas. No doubt its confused people who were looking for another Godfather, Bram Stokers Dracula, The Rainmaker or any other Coppola film. Its not something that an American filmmaker would make, certainly not one of Coppola's pedigree.
Then again I would argue it is. the film is very much a European film. It looks and feels like a film that belongs in the line up of a European director. There is nothing typically American in the film at all. It feels alien when compared to most American films. Though if you look at the scenes in Italy in the Godfather, or even the first two Godfather films in total, this film fits neatly into how the earlier films feel visually. There is a lyric beauty and sense of place and time that is rare in films. there is a poetry.
Its a film you will have to think about. You have to be willing to let the film go and do what ever it wants to. Certainly one can easily dismiss it as not meeting your expectations, but doing so will cause you to miss out on a film that will get your little gray cells going.
Is it a perfect film. No. I like the film and think its a good film. I think its a grasp exceeds its reach. To be perfectly honest somewhere in the last 20 minutes the film shifts gears and goes into a coda (Coppola's words in the commentary) that ends the film. Its here I think that the film falters since I don't think the ending really works. No doubt its what the end of the original story is (in the commentary Coppola talks about what he had to do to make it work on screen) but its something that didn't translate to the screen well. I was left wondering what it all was about in total. Don't get me wrong I didn't hate it, but I just felt out of sorts and desirous of a second viewing where all of the bits through the film might come together.
Perhaps thats the best thing I can say about the film, its not a film one should dismiss until one has had a chance to see the film twice since there are too many pieces that don't connect up until the very end.
Worth a look for those willing to work with the film, those will expectations go and for those that like head trips.
7ish out of 10
The plot an aged scholar turning 70 and feeling he has been a failure. Deciding to go to the big city and commit suicide he is struck by lightning not long after arriving and while he is recovering from his injuries it is discovered that he is in fact now seemingly half his age. Its 1938 and during his recovery the Nazi's invade and they take a very keen interest in his condition causing him to flee.
Recounting the plot further (the Nazi bit is more a catalyst then the point since the film covers over 30 years from the point of the lightning strike.) would be foolish since odds are it will leave you incredulous (its very mystical and plays at times like a pulp novel with a great deal on its mind) not to mention give you a false sense of what is really going on. This is a movie that has a definite direction in which it is going and odds are you will not completely see most of it coming. The best thing to do is just buckle up and let the film take you where its going to go. And lets face it this is the sort of story that with slight revision would have fit very nicely in an old copy of Weird Tales. The driving force is very much like a pulp story from the 1930's or 40's.
Its very heady stuff. Reincarnation, personality, the question of what is a successful life, the nature of love, language, atomic war, the evolution of man, what would you do with a second chance, are among the many questions raised by this film. The plot is not constructed to be just a ripping story, but rather a means to the examination of the ideas that Coppola is tossing about. Coppola has hung a great many ideas and notions on his narrative threads and he's done so in such away that in order to navigate through the maze the threads form you will have to deal with the laundry hanging from them.
Its this juggling of ideas in a pulp frame work that has been the bane of this film. I know that many people don't know what Coppola was getting at, I'm not entirely sure myself. The plot seems almost silly, its almost like Stephen Kings Golden Years but spiced up with almost too many ideas. No doubt its confused people who were looking for another Godfather, Bram Stokers Dracula, The Rainmaker or any other Coppola film. Its not something that an American filmmaker would make, certainly not one of Coppola's pedigree.
Then again I would argue it is. the film is very much a European film. It looks and feels like a film that belongs in the line up of a European director. There is nothing typically American in the film at all. It feels alien when compared to most American films. Though if you look at the scenes in Italy in the Godfather, or even the first two Godfather films in total, this film fits neatly into how the earlier films feel visually. There is a lyric beauty and sense of place and time that is rare in films. there is a poetry.
Its a film you will have to think about. You have to be willing to let the film go and do what ever it wants to. Certainly one can easily dismiss it as not meeting your expectations, but doing so will cause you to miss out on a film that will get your little gray cells going.
Is it a perfect film. No. I like the film and think its a good film. I think its a grasp exceeds its reach. To be perfectly honest somewhere in the last 20 minutes the film shifts gears and goes into a coda (Coppola's words in the commentary) that ends the film. Its here I think that the film falters since I don't think the ending really works. No doubt its what the end of the original story is (in the commentary Coppola talks about what he had to do to make it work on screen) but its something that didn't translate to the screen well. I was left wondering what it all was about in total. Don't get me wrong I didn't hate it, but I just felt out of sorts and desirous of a second viewing where all of the bits through the film might come together.
Perhaps thats the best thing I can say about the film, its not a film one should dismiss until one has had a chance to see the film twice since there are too many pieces that don't connect up until the very end.
Worth a look for those willing to work with the film, those will expectations go and for those that like head trips.
7ish out of 10