It's an allegoric fairy tale, a symbolic fantasy with multiple metaphors and some straight up political criticism. It is indeed an art exhibition, but if you understand the meaning behind the visuals then it's not that confusing. And the meaning is not very hard to understand. Coppola is clearly a liberal philosopher, pondering in his own artistic way about the state of the society, culture and the politics in US. He is not trying to be neutral and objective, he has opinions and he is pushing them. I personally would call his view of humanity as naive and gullible, I think the real world events in recent years proved to us what a horrible animals human beings are, but Coppola is making art film and he is allowed to show whatever he wants. I personally enjoyed this movie very much. It is not a great movie by his standards, but even his weak work is still quite good.

Why does it contain so many weak scenes? The ending in particular. The script seems to be written the opposite of chronologically. I do not mind films where you can tell the story was not written linearly, but it almost seems like this has been made too quickly and without much critical rereading and editing. The acting disappointed me (especially Plaza was flat, Adams too grotesque from time to time, Fishburne just sitting on his laurels from the Matrix still without changing his facial expression). Scenes felt interjected, the parts where the screen split into three (distorted) were out of place and cheap (perhaps they refer to biblical or mythological triptychs) and served no purpose, like many other scenes.

I don't think it was ever explained (this can be done without exposition) why the characters do what they do. We as an audience just vaguely distinguish between the 4, 5 or 6 parties with each their own agenda. Most have no idea why they do things, and I don't think this is Coppola critiquing society. Adams does things because of 'love and the greater good', another party because of money, but what does Gustavo String believe and why does his daughter rebel against it? Never becomes clear.

Maybe it just boils down to the fact that Coppola is 85, but apparently he had the script, or perhaps the central idea, ready, 40 years ago...

I quote from a Guardian article: 'My greatest fear is to make a really shitty, embarrassing, pompous film on an important subject, and I am doing it,” Francis Ford Coppola said in 1978'

Pompous it is.

I think it's just Coppola's swan song where he is trying to summarize his philosophical views and thoughts, which he holds now at such advanced age. He is doing it based on his own logic and vision, he is not trying to speak to a common logic of others or to make a movie while considering how others will receive it. Seems he doesn't care about that and I think he achieved a privilege to do it.

Usually people think that their view of the reality is formed and not going to change, but the truth is that perception of reality, of the moral values and etc., is changing as the person grows older. Whatever seemed important to you at the 20's may be negligible and unimportant at 50's. You can see that many of the big directors tend to Primitivism when they get old. This is what Coppola thinks, he doesn't care what others may think. So it's take it or leave it kind of situation.