Napoleon

Not any weaker than Gladiator (as we had hoped), but only a bit better than Robin Hood (unfortunately). Passages from the historical stages of Napoleon’s rise to power and “world conquest”, intimately interspersed with his relationship with the woman in his life. The film is entertaining with its actors and the occasional battle, but it is so inwardly reserved that it borders on being bland, with no interest or ability to find personality traits in Napoleon on which the psychology of his story or any other idea could be built. Nor does it make use of the possibilities offered by his personal confrontation with the supporting characters, which could have filled out the narrative with solid content. And Napoleon’s romantic relationship, which receives a great deal of attention, remains cold and thus fails to touch the fewer. The routine narrative raises concerns that the longer director’s cut will be richer in informational content, but equally soulless. Ridley Scott’s first historical film without a musical identity. (13/12/2023)

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. (23/11/2023)

Rimmer may have traveled through Europe with the greatest general of all time and mowed down Belgians, but I suspect fraud in the movie theater admission fee that I decided to sacrifice despite the poor reviews. Visually, Scott still has it at eighty-six, and I caught myself thinking about who will shoot this once Ridley is gone. But there were more and more similar mental escapes from the movie, mostly into history class, where I struggled in vain to remember the reasons why defenders of the republic suddenly ended up with a royal crown on their heads, or when one dinner and one letter were enough to return from the Elba. The battles drew me in like nothing else. Damn the historical accuracy, because when the ice cracks at Slavkov, you go underwater with the stuntmen, while at Waterloo, you feel total despair and devastation that makes you physically sick. But instead of more military campaigns, and more of Napoleon's egoistically maniacal journey that tore Europe apart, we get completely senseless flirting with Josephine, and summarizing their relationship in letters would save screening time in favor of the aforementioned. The promised four-hour stream leaves me cold, partly because it's a deception against the viewer, and also because I probably don't have the strength to watch the cringe-worthy relationship of two people where one is enticed to sex by horny neighing while the other complains about freshly styled hair. (11/12/2023)

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% (24/11/2023)

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. (23/11/2023)

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. (03/12/2023)

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. (23/11/2023)

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. (17/02/2024)

Basically, Napoleon has everything I was looking forward to, but it's always too short. The film jumps from scene to scene for two and a half hours, but gives little space to make an impact. Phoenix's Napoleon is the same (or rather, just as unpleasant) from beginning to end and doesn't surprise in like Vanessa Kirby's Josephine. The other characters are unfortunately stale, however interesting they could have been – Napoleon's brother and their mother, Josephine's lover, Wellington... I believe that in the long version they will be given their due space, but I would also like to see those promised spectacular battles get their due space, because we didn't get much of those either. What I wouldn't give for the whole film to take place during the Egyptian campaign, for example! But no, we're here for a while, there's no time for a tactical demonstration, the scenes need subtitles with years so they don't blend in. Ridley Scott doesn't really show his hand until the end, at Waterloo, where I got everything I wanted, but I'm not going to lie when I say I was already wishing for the film to end about half an hour before that. I'm sorry, but I rate it as I rate it. If you want to see a really good cinematic Napoleon, check out Bondarchuk's masterpiece, the Czech Waterloo with Rudolf Hrušínský if you're in the mood for a TV psychological treat. And if you want to see a long film about a controversial warlord who deserves every minute of its runtime, Patton is for you. (25/11/2023)

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. (21/11/2023)

For the first time in more than two decades, Ridley Scott and (one Oscar heavier) Joaquin Phoenix meet behind and in front of the camera to take us from the year 180 to the early 1800s to tell the story of one of the most famous warlords and rulers in European history. The fact that a shorter, but still solidly expansive, version of nearly two hours went into theaters was most noticeable in the film's opening ten minutes, which felt a little too cut up for me. Napoleon's relationship with Josephine was – apart from the animalistic, disappointing sounds – portrayed believably; from the tentative beginning to the bittersweet end. As for the action, I'm at a loss for words: on this field, Scott did not disappoint, offering spectacularly shot and raw (but not overly raw) scenes from famous battles, of which Austerlitz was clearly the one that most captivated me in the cinema. Although two and a half hours long and there is a lot of talking, I was not bored at all and I thoroughly enjoyed the screening – which was certainly due to the fact that I am not an outright historical nitpicker. (03/12/2023)

More entertaining than downright dramatically gripping. At times, it even reminded me of Yorgos Lanthimos' The Favourite. Ridley Scott, Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby probably had great chemistry on set, but if history itself hadn’t aided David Scarpa, the “narrator”, I'm afraid even the aforementioned trio would have drowned in the waters of mediocrity. A big warning before the sequel to Gladiator, which will be purely out of his noggin. The best scenes are therefore more likely to be in the small acting details and when the maestro of historical tentpole movies starts painting epic scenes on the battlefield. Waterloo, Ridley-style, certainly didn't disappoint. (24/11/2023)

Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix are names that will always automatically raise expectations. I definitely can't say I was bored because the production design, the battlefield scenes are very engaging. But less is sometimes more, and Ridley, to his detriment, tried harder. Napoleon is such a bloated montage of Bonaparte's most pivotal battles and campaigns, interspersed with a "romantic" line with Josephine. I would have appreciated a lot more focus on one or two specific periods and battles, and I would have especially packed in a lot more psychology and politics to go much more in depth in the characters, because honestly I found Napoleon presented this way to be terribly flat and soulless, despite Joaquin's standard good acting. I would have delved more into his motives and complexes. The relationship with Josephine feels terribly underdeveloped, because on the one hand we have mutual love letters full of respect, and on the other, in front of the camera, we see a kind of cold relationship where love and respect are not visible even from a distant express train. It's a shame, I think the audience would have been much more interested in a deeper analysis of the character of Napoleon himself, to take something we've seen hundreds of times and present it in a slightly different way as we saw in, for example, Todd Phillips' Joker. I just don't see any added value here. But I'm also quite interested in the Director's Cut, because I only just realised that I saw French actress Ludivine Sagnier in the opening credits, who is not in this cinema version at all So what is the Director's Cut hiding? (11/02/2024)