Napoleon

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)

Ridley Scott is a master of these historical spectacles and Napoleon turned out exactly as I imagined it before the screening - in the good and the bad. I'd start with the bad. Unfortunately, even with a two-and-a-half hour running time, the film is such a fast-paced tour through Bonaparte's life and career that at times it just jumps around too much from scene to scene, with secondary storylines and characters sort of appearing and disappearing again and connections left unfinished. That's a problem that will hopefully be solved in the promised four-and-a-half-hour version on Apple TV+. The war scenes are great, as we've come to expect from Scott, and overall the period stylings work perfectly, really throwing the viewer into the setting of wild Europe at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. Joaquin Phoenix approaches the legendary figure of world history with in a very civil way, and his Napoleon is engaging every minute he's on screen. I believe he will pull it off in the two hour longer version. Satisfaction with reservations. (11/21/2023)

The cinematic cut turned out as it probably had to: as an obviously incomplete fragment of a larger work. It's hard to rate it, it's like reading a novel and skipping every ten pages. What is in the cinema cut is fine, but it doesn't coalesce into a comprehensive experience. Napoleon's personal life is there, the battles are there, but the "politics" between them are missing, so you don't really know why any given battle is happening. Quite absurdly, from the cinematic cut, the character of Napoleon doesn't actually strike me as an active instigator of all this wartime fury, nor as a figure that the rest of Europe feared. (11/23/2023)

If I apply the perspective of an ordinary consumer viewer unburdened by knowledge of history, who came to the movie theater to see a grand blockbuster with a world-famous star in the lead role, where it's all about a fateful love and spiced up with shots from several magnificent battles, then I can be reasonably satisfied. Masses of extras, costume scenes, a few exciting war scenes, and a plot that makes some kind of sense. If I apply the perspective of a film fan and also a history enthusiast, then I would have to be significantly, and I emphasize significantly, more critical. Ridley, as expected, fails in the very intention to capture the entire active life of Napoleon. You simply cannot fit such a complex personality and time into one feature film in such a vast time span, no matter how hard you try. The film looks incredibly fragmented, completely skipping crucial sections of Napoleon's life and cramming others into a single scene. The crucial Italian campaign, which brought Napoleon fame and enabled his dizzying political career, is dismissed by the film with a single brief sentence. There is no time at all to develop any of the characters or significant military figures, and French and European politicians remain mere pawns. Ridley plays with historical facts very carelessly in the name of his artistic vision, and the more you know about the life of Napoleon and Josephine, the more you will suffer. However, the most fundamental thing, in my opinion, is the lack of Napoleon himself. Joaquin Phoenix is indeed a great actor, but he has been miscast in several significant films in his career, and unfortunately, Scott's film is one of them. A man on the verge of his fifties acts throughout the film with the same appearance without any aging, which seems inappropriate for a young artillery officer. The same mistake is repeated in Joker - Phoenix plays his character as a pushover. Although ambition shines through Napoleon, what is missing is his incredible vitality, charisma, and rebelliousness. You somehow don't understand how this self-centered, gloomy loner could rally his army and win over crowds to his side. History portrays Napoleon and, ultimately, his relationship with women completely differently than Ridley presents it to us. I don't regret seeing the film on the big screen, but you, Ridley, unfortunately, won't get an overall impression of more than 55% from me. You have significantly worse films in your career, but Napoleon looks up to your top-notch films from a great distance. Your debut The Duellists, paradoxically also set in the environment of the Napoleonic Wars, filmed with a fraction of the budget, still evokes much greater respect and interest in me to this day. What disappointed me, especially, is the choreography of the Battle of Waterloo. There are plenty of war films about the Napoleon era that are better and more inventive for war history fans. (11/23/2023)

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)