Napoleon

Sadness and disappointment. At times, with the often empty and self-serving droning of Josephine and Napoleon, I thought I was watching a compilation of Bridgerton instead of Ridley Scott's new masterpiece. That's how bad Napoleon is dramaturgically: disjointed, inconsistent, fragmented in plot. Decently filmed bloody battles are interspersed with an odd, para-romantic level, and if you thought it would be saved by at least a rich factual-informative level, an analysis of the personality of the brilliant warlord, you are left halfway there – which may be the only reason to watch the director’s cut, to get a larger and more detailed overview of what Napoleon actually accomplished during his time. That is, assuming you accept the medium of film and don’t want to look at Wikipedia or history books. But I highly doubt it the director’s cut will give the film any specific shape or identity. Scott's worst historical major historical film, along with Robin Hood. (02/17/2024)

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)

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)

The quality of the material is undeniable, although (so far) rather tentative. The strangest edited film in a long time. One thing is that it's abridged to the point of shame, that even a layman feels that whole long passages are missing. Another thing is that even in the scenes that did make it into the theatrical cut, it's often obvious that those are also significantly cut; there's no continuity of shots, dialogue, logic, sequence. I have no doubt that when it is in its final, considerably longer form, it will be a very much improved and coherent experience that, while not historically faithful, will be spectacular in the best sense of the word. So far, however, these are merely impressive scenes with shoddy characterisation; more a feature length trailer than a film. (06/14/2024)

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)