gudaulin

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.

This is perhaps the first thing from the Dejvice Theater that I really did not understand. What was supposed to be funny became awkward with its loudness, overacting, and stylization. I understood every third word and the affectation of the actors made me feel unwell. This was a mistake for me. Honestly, I am quite surprised by the positive reviews. Neither the playwright nor the direction stood out. Overall impression: 25% for the Dejvice ensemble.

Belle is a perfect example of a contrasting film that presents the viewer with dual aspects. The first aspect showcases highly professional production values with a strong cast and corresponding performances, excellent set design, and overall well-executed craftsmanship of the project. The second, less sympathetic aspect of the film is its perfect predictability, which can be likened to a primitive children's puzzle. A new character appears, and you immediately assign them the appropriate role - that's the lecherous seducer, that's the devoted admirer with a pure heart who leads the heroine to the altar, and so on. Practically never making a mistake, the film's script could easily be written by even you, as practically nothing in it can surprise or astonish you. Three stars are as good as guaranteed, and I can even imagine a fourth star for fans of Emily Watson or Tom Wilkinson. Overall impression: 60%.