gudaulin

I can't deny Villeneuve's amazing ability to create captivating images and materialize fantastic book worlds, but Herbert's "Dune" with giant worms and a strange combination of spaceships and medieval society equipped with cutting weapons always seemed dysfunctional to me. I just can't immerse myself in that world, I can't enjoy it, and I'm not able to appreciate it. Unfortunately, Denis Villeneuve did not use his talent for dozens of other titles of science fiction literature, on which the genre is built. Something like "Roadside Picnic" in Villeneuve's rendition would be an irresistible treat. Overall impression: 60%.

This is more functional and entertaining than any of Tarantino's films since Jackie Brown. Tarantino-esque films, where violence and corpses are not spared, have long worked better for me in the films of other creators. It's solidly cast, and while veteran Jeff Bridges caught my attention the most, no one drags the film down. It has an inventive screenplay, which I would only criticize for being a clever play that relies on the screenwriter's imagination. I prefer films that are capable of creating the impression of something real, where the factor of chance triggers a shocking sequence of events. Here, the meeting of people with a dirty past in one hotel complex represents madness, but it has order and, to some extent, makes sense. Overall impression: 75%.

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.