Napoleon

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. (2023-11-25)

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. (2023-12-11)

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. (2024-02-17)

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. (2023-11-22)

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% (2023-11-24)