Napoleon

Spoilers/History – The unexpected gift in the form of a director's cut raises the biggest question: are three and a half hours enough for a comprehensive look? Not even close. At least not for something with the gigantic scope that David Scarpa's screenplay was seeking. Ridley Scott thus faces the traditional drawback of dream projects that have been brewing in the head for years until they have grown to unwatchable proportions. Every twist of life is important for the author, every civilian is indispensable for character development, every military commander or even monarch is necessary for understanding. And yet such encounters are ultimately just smaller moments that often cause the whole to suffer. The historical and military aspect feels like an excerpt from a history textbook. Visually dazzling, for example with the impact of the Battle of Austerlitz, but in other places, starting with Egypt, it is just a hopped-up coloring book, scene by scene. I am much more interested in Napoleon's private side, his love (?) for Josephine, an obsession with a woman who was never completely his and who was always her own priority. Their peculiar, and sometimes fragmented relationship in such a generous space is a fit of passion, hatred, desire, and contempt that is a joy to watch, but no way in hell would I ever want to experience it myself. And no matter how I look at it, I still don't know who Napoleon was created for, why I feel like he should have either had two hours to focus on a specific period of his life (e.g. the return from exile because of a woman, during which he casually turns the entire army around, is a fascinating episode that has nothing but its essential place in the film and nothing more) or it should have had a running time of ten hours and finally made the framed moments into a coherent storyline. (09/23/2024)

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)

A return to a classical theme that never gets tired. In my preparations, I watched the films Conquest and N (Io e Napoleone) and the series Napoleon and Love. There are, of course, other phonebooks of Napoleonic films, but we'll talk about them some other time. Ridley Scott understands Joaquin Phoenix as an actor, so they are an ideal combination. The battles of Slavkov and Waterloo are excellent but should be watched in a movie theater, as I assume that watching them at home will slightly reduce one's adrenaline. As for the selection of other chapters from Napoleon's life, it is somewhat surprising how exclusively David Scarpa focused on Empress Josephine, as if other women did not influence Napoleon, although he had three children with three other women and of course a whole range of other relationships. However, within the whole, this main relationship with the empress is functional and creates a certain framework. The events from the Reign of Terror are hectic, as well as the Congress of Vienna, but there is also enough room for Egypt and Russia, so most viewers can enjoy it. Films of this kind need to be made every generation. (11/22/2023)

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)

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)