Napoleon

Ridley Scott and another historical romp. This time he chose the historical icon Napoleon and, according to the previews, it was expected to be an adept for the film of the year, but according to the current rating of 72%, it will definitely not be and I was expecting more. It is still a great cinematic and genre event, though, especially since we don't get many huge historical films (when we do get one, it's usually without battles), so I thank Scott for this one. But the film suffers a lot from being a shortened version (it would have benefited from being split into two films), because even at 4 and a half hours, I don't think it can fully hold your attention. Joaquin Phoenix is of course excellent, he gives a great performance, and Vanessa Kirby follows suit. Surprisingly, the rest of the characters don't have much to work with here, they have small roles and no one else manages to impress in such a small space. The production design and craftsmanship are of course top notch, what the film presents historically seems to be true (the traditions, the coronation, the wedding, the paternity test). The are only three battles are they could have been longer (I'm sure they will be in the extended version). I was most impressed by the battle of Waterloo, where the strategy and tactics were nice. The battle itself is not that gripping, it's spectacular, but I missed proper gore, dirtiness and a bleak atmosphere, it's just not the same as the wrestling as with knights or vikings (at least there was one awesome gore scene with a horse right in the beginning, that was over the top), in short I've seen better, but I'm glad for this one too. The politics are dealt with rather quickly, with unfortunately no big intrigue. But what disappoints the most is that the emotions are completely absent, the film doesn't do much with the viewer. Napoleon's relationship with Josephine is cold, and I missed a downright memorable moment. I had a great time though, the film held my attention for the whole two and a half hours (maybe I was more entertained than in Oppenheimer), and it's definitely better than Fincher's The Killer – I haven't seen Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon, but I don't trust it to justify the running time at all. We'll see what the extended version brings. While this is not the movie of the year, it's still above average and deserves the big screen. 75% (11/24/2023)

I hate to say it, but despite its grandeur and Ridley Scott’s classic touch, I can't give Napoleon more than three stars. The main issue lies in the script. For the first hour, I was lost in the political machinations and had no idea how Bonaparte ascended to the throne. The second half skims the surface, showcasing the pivotal moments of Napoleon's career interspersed with scenes of his relationship with Josephine. On the technical side, it's a masterpiece. No one captures the chaos of battle like Ridley Scott. However, it’s a shame he didn’t visit Austerlitz himself; the terrain in the film feels less authentic. That aside, I have no complaints. At 85, Ridley Scott still has the energy to create these epic tales that many contemporary directors can't match. (03/13/2024)

Kingdom of Heaven, Robin Hood, Napoleon. Imagine two movie theaters side by side. The first one plays the theatrical versions of these historical epics, while the second one screens the director's cuts at the same time. It's clear which audience will head home earlier, and almost certain which will leave with a more complete experience. I don’t like this—Ridley Scott is doing to the viewer what Josephine did to that arrogant man from Ajaccio in the 29th minute. I saw a narrative sieve of grand gestures that didn’t offer a single scene I'd want to revisit. Bondarchuk didn’t suffer defeat on the battlefield. Someone, even an enemy, should have told Scott he was making a mistake. (04/15/2024)

Not any weaker than Gladiator (as we had hoped), but only a bit better than Robin Hood (unfortunately). Passages from the historical stages of Napoleon’s rise to power and “world conquest”, intimately interspersed with his relationship with the woman in his life. The film is entertaining with its actors and the occasional battle, but it is so inwardly reserved that it borders on being bland, with no interest or ability to find personality traits in Napoleon on which the psychology of his story or any other idea could be built. Nor does it make use of the possibilities offered by his personal confrontation with the supporting characters, which could have filled out the narrative with solid content. And Napoleon’s romantic relationship, which receives a great deal of attention, remains cold and thus fails to touch the fewer. The routine narrative raises concerns that the longer director’s cut will be richer in informational content, but equally soulless. Ridley Scott’s first historical film without a musical identity. (12/13/2023)

Short. Scott's a stud, but he might as well have made Napoleon a trilogy instead of skipping through his life like a rushed history lesson. Phoenix is great, his Napoleon oscillates between aspiring strategist and lovelorn naif. But Kirby doesn't have enough space, so she comes across as weird. The leap from infatuation to divorce is very rushed. The battles, Toulon, Austerlitz and Waterloo, are exquisite, though. There's black humour, poking fun at politicians and their lies. Also, that brute force and tactics are above all, but are useless when it rains. P.S.: Almost on the anniversary of the Battle of Austerlitz. (12/03/2023)