littleging12

Napoleon: Theatrical Cut 7/10

Pros

• Epic battles - great battle at Waterloo - Ridley Scott was born to stage epic battle scenes
• Amazing sets, costumes and production design
• Very good CGI
• Some humorous bits
• Interesting historical setting
• Good soundtrack, no Hans Zimmer though
• R-rated violence - sets it apart from the old epics
• Made me interested in the Napoleonic Wars

Cons

• Historical inaccuracies - Napoleon leading cavalry charges
• Not showing his strategic "genius" and military battle tactics
• Joaquin Phoenix wasn't charismatic nor fearsome "French Hitler" "Doofus" "simp" "depressed brute"
• Too much focus on boring Josephine - should've been called "Napoleon and Josephine"
• Speeds through 32 years of history without any firm footing in any time period- failed to flesh out the social, political, and historical context of each moment of history. A glorified Wikipedia page
• Not an educational lesson on who Napoleon was or what he was actually like. Didn't learn much

The Director's Cut of Napoleon added another 48 minutes extending the runtime to 3 hr. 25 min. The Director's Cut added to Napoleon exactly what it needed: more time to flesh out characters, plotlines, and the historical context. Many of the scenes added more to the characters' experiences, feelings, and emotions. For example, Napoleon's letters to Josephine showed his vulnerabilities, fears, and desires. Some scenes were not necessary though and showed something that was already mentioned or explained in the theatrical cut. However these scenes were still entertaining to see. For example, the extra guillotine victims in the beginning, and Josephine's time in prison and what she had to do to survive.

Some standout scenes that were added in the Director's Cut were the battle of Marengo - even though it only lasted 30 seconds - Napoleon's brief campaign into Italy, the scenes in the Russian winter showing the French's hardships including a burning barn, the assassination attempt scene and the aftermath, an awkwardly funny scene showing Napoleon asking one of his captains for bedroom advice, and finally the extended scenes of the Tsar Alexander of Russia courting Napoleon's ex wife, and Napoleon's quite funny reaction to it.

With all the added scenes and extra detail, it still could not fix the major issues of the film. For this film to be really fixed it needed to be a miniseries of 9 or 10 hours in length. Covering over 30 years of eventful history while spending nearly half the time on Napoleon's less than interesting relationship with his wife was never going to fully suffice. Some parts still felt lacking in detail and context like the significance of his Italy campaign, and the build up to Waterloo. However the added scenes gave a more consistent pacing and better flow to the overall story than the choppily edited theatrical cut. Also egregiously the film did not capture Napoleon's charisma nor his fearsomeness. Why did the French people get behind this man? What made him so genius on the battlefield? How could this melancholic simp revolutionize battle tactics, history, politics, and leadership and inspire admiration in his countrymen and instill fear in his enemies?

All in all, Napoleon is a mostly entertaining historical epic that's saved by exhilarating battle scenes, and amazing sets and costumes. It's still an interesting film; it just misses greatness frustratingly so because it had the potential. I would still check out the 4 hour cut of the film if they release it to get even more backstory.

The Director's Cut: 7.5/10.

From Dusk Till Dawn is a half crime drama half vampire gorefest. Given my own bias against vampire films (the only good ones being Bram Stoker's Dracula and John Carpenter's Vampires), I much prefer the crime-laden first half of the film. The first half is stylish, suspenseful, entertaining, smooth as ice, and contains an electrifying opening scene. The initial appeal is the dynamic duo of George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino acting opposite one another. But the real appeal is hearing the always smooth George Clooney recite snappy Tarantino dialogue. Music to our ears. It makes you wonder why these two haven't teamed up since.

The second half of the film does a complete 180. While it delivers a seductive dance sequence from a young Salma Hayek, and some funny cameos from Cheech Marin, it deviates into a high-octane vampire bloodbath. The vampire makeup effects look cheesy and some vampires inexplicably explode for no reason. By the end you wonder what was the point of the film, and realize it had nothing below the surface. Yet this is how B-movies are supposed to be. The vampire carnage can feel stupid and not scary, but the second half is never boring and there's always something happening. Most notably being Harvey Keitel's character regaining his faith, and exclaiming how he is "a mean mother effing servant of God."

From Dusk Till Dawn is a guilty pleasure mashing up black comedy, crime thrills, action spills, horror chills, and some eye candy courtesy of Salma Hayek. The talent in front of and behind the camera elevates the trashy material to enjoyable heights.

Tenet is a work of genius. Christopher Nolan delivers again with another heady action blockbuster. Like some of Nolan's previous efforts, Tenet is original and not a sequel, prequel, remake, or book adaptation. The film's story can be described as James Bond meets Inception, or Bond on acid. With new talent at his disposal like John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, and musical composer Ludwig Göransson, Nolan proves yet again his mastery of cinema.

Nolan continues to create original concepts for each of his films. In Memento, the story unfolded in reverse. In Inception, he had multiple dream layers all moving more slowly in time the deeper the layer. In Interstellar, time was relative to space travel. In Dunkirk, time was disordered and then later reordered at a single climactic moment. In Tenet, characters and objects become inverted and travel backwards in time against objects moving forward. Only Christopher Nolan could come up with concepts so revolutionary and brain busting, only to make all of them work. It is even more astonishing that he makes these remarkable films only two or three years apart from each other.

Tenet has Christopher Nolan written all over it. It features a lot of his trademarks such as: practical effects, gorgeous visuals, a talented ensemble, savvy banter, cerebral sci-fi themes, heart-pounding action, and an obsession with time. The characters were cool with the standout being Robert Pattinson. Pattinson was witty, stylish, and sophisticated in typical British fashion (he has come a long way since playing an albino vampire). The soundtrack from Ludwig Göransson -- doing his best to mimic Hans Zimmer who's absent due to commitments to Dune -- was epic and exciting. The sound design was loud yet immersive. The pacing was electric with an exciting set piece around every corner. The inversion concept humbles your own intellect. It leaves you in awe that Nolan could concoct such brilliance and make it work cinematically. The action, visuals, and music is a sensation for the eyes and ears, but the inversion is an all new experience for the mind.

Tenet also features some of Nolan's worst trademarks such as: inaudible dialogue, extremely complex narrative structure, and emotional coldness. All of Nolan's films since The Dark Knight Rises muffle dialogue, the worst being in Tenet. Perhaps Nolan does this on purpose to intellectually mess with the audience, and hinder their ability to solve this cinematic Rubik's cube. Or maybe he wants to emphasize the visuals and the music instead of the dialogue. Either way subtitles are a must. To say Tenet is difficult to fully comprehend is a massive understatement. Events unfolding in reverse while action unfolds in real time is a brain buster in itself. Tenet wastes no time and spends much of the infrequent downtime explaining the plot or the physics of inversion. Many of Nolan's previous efforts are difficult to fully grasp after first viewing, which only increases the likelihood of watching the film again. Nolan's films are highly rewatchable thanks to this complexity, and of course the spectacle. In defense of this film being too difficult to follow, the scientist girl from the beginning said it best, "Don't try to understand it. Feel it." The spectacle and the theatricality feel incredible, yet is there an emotional core? There is attempted emotion, but most people do not go to see Tenet for the character relationships, and emotional catharsis. In defense of the film feeling emotionally empty, most films probably feel this way to people. All of Stanley Kubrick's films are emotionally cold. Nolan likes to stir our imaginations, our brains, and our adrenaline glands, not as much our hearts.

Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time because with each film he makes he manages to thrill his audience with surface level action and drama, as well as layer each of his films with meaning and depth. There is always something new to pick up on after each viewing. Nolan combines the best elements of art house and commercial films to create the best kinds of films. Essentially, he combines the depth and intelligence of 2001: A Space Odyssey with the entertainment value of Star Wars. Tenet is another welcomed addition to this breed of artistic entertainment.