Napoleón

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a high-budget cinematic exercise in "Whatever, man, that'll do." The film, both in terms of what it presents and how it presents, reeks of hollowness. Characters are shadows(not defined enough to even be considered parodies or mockeries of their real-life counterparts as some people like to see them), story is a shadow of a proper story( at times feeling as if written by A. I), atmosphere, with the exception of some of the battle scenes and the Russian segment, sterile and practically non existent(disasterous for Scott who is known to be one of the greatest world builders in history of the artform). Stuff just happens in the film. No significance or weight to anything or anybody... Sure, it's not all bad. The classic Ridley Scott elements are here - battles are engaging, the costumes and set designs very well-done. Something he can't help but always be good at.

Overall, Ridley Scott's Napoleon feels like a simulacrum, a reduced copy of a real film, where, it seems, all life is sucked out . If I had more reverence towards the post-Gladiator Ridley Scott, I'd, perhaps, think of the film as some kind of metajoke, a self-aware self-parody, but, frankly, I think it's just a matter of the filmmaker not caring much. Just another day at work for Ridley, gotta keep working, do one thing, move on to the next one immediately, have fun, try things out, don't overthink it - this seems to be the way to go for the good ol' Ridley these days. Can't blame him, he's 85, for Christ's sake, but the movie's not good, kind of proto A. I-produced entertainment.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is more hysterical than historical. History is like an uninvited guest in this movie. Stunning battle visuals don't make up for gross historical approximations.

If you want to watch a masterpiece then see Waterloo, with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer. And if you want a historical enumeration then watch the Napoleon series with Christian Clavier, Isabella Rossalini, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu.

This movie was made for Apple streaming. Then they made a butchered version for cinema to be able to compete for the Oscars. The original Apple streaming version will be at least 2 hours longer. This cut version for cinema is somewhat rushed, disjointed and, as a result, confusing.

We never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful and won the admiration of so many. Here it's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in reality, over here he's shown as a childish brute. The focus was more on set pieces and his relationship with Josephine.

Joaquin Phoenix can play odd or troubled characters well. Here he barely succeeds in persuading the viewers that he is Napoleon. He's too old for this role (Napoleon was 24 when Marie Antoinette was guillotined) and made the character seem bizarre than a charismatic leader. Vanessa Kirby as Josephine gets more traction.

The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski is of a very high order. The battle scenes are filmed well. Ridley Scott knows how to make action scenes slick and impressive. But overall it's a below average movie. Napoleon deserves better than this shambolic movie.

Yes, that's a real quote from Joaquin Phoenix to Ridley Scott right before they started filming. I love Joaquin Phoenix, but you can really tell that he doesn't "get" the character of Napoleon that he's trying to play. I honestly don't know if Phoenix even has that kind of charisma and confidence within him, but then again I don't know anything about Napoleon either. But it was just uncomfortable watching him stumble his way through the movie, often just looking clueless.

The other problem with the movie is it's just plain dull and uninteresting. It really does feel like a "highlights" movie. For an almost 3-hour film, it has surprisingly little dialogue. The dialogue that's there isn't' that illuminating or interesting. I normally like politics and romance (which is the bulk of this story), but I would have loved to see more military and war stuff in a movie like this. Isn't Napoleon supposed to be a brilliant war leader? There's like none of that here. Except "oh we'll do a sneak attack in the night."

The cinematography was also really surprisingly dull. It looked super digital. The colors were so bland and washed out.

Vanessa Kirby is really the best thing about the movie. And also the first battle taking over that fort, which was admittedly pretty epic. I have never seen such a thing happen to a horse in a movie, and it was wonderfully horrifying.

I fully blame Ridley Scott for this dud. Hopefully Spielberg's Kubrick miniseries about Napoleon will be much better.

The success of any film depends mostly on the script. Why Scott would initiate such an expensive project without ensuring a refined and sophisticated script is a mystery. I'm not convinced there is a single interesting scene that provides insight into the characters or captures through language the prevailing political ideas. Scott's frequent missteps as a director reflect a greater interest in the cinematic rather than in the dramatic. However, this seems inevitable when your priority is delivering a blockbuster that will have broad appeal instead of digging deeper into culture, society, or history. A colossal waste of an extraordinary opportunity to create an important film about a fascinating historical figure.

History is an undesired guest taking the backseat in Mr Scott's sprawling epic on Napoleon's life.

Mr Scott's craftsmanship is such that it's undoubtedly able to offer the viewer some unique experiences. But stunning battle visuals and great performances by the lead actors don't make up for gross historical approximation.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr Scott knows his history and, if he didn't, he surely has a fat staff of assistants to tell it to him; so what he does here (as he did already in Gladiator) is a very deliberate and blatant choice to bend historical reality to the purposes of his own art, which looks like an act of unforgivable artistic hubris.