Avis des utilisateurs

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.

Ridley Scott directed one of the best movies ever made set during the Napoleonic Wars: unfortunately, that movie is not Napoleon but his cinematic debut, The Duellists, forty years ago.

Unsurprisingly, The Duellists had a strong source material (it was based on a novel by Joseph Conrad which it often followed almost verbatim), while Napoleon has an uneven screenplay by David Scarpa.

Even past the age of eighty Sir Ridley can still shoot pretty and energetic pictures but his hits and misses depend on the scripts he picks, and he hasn't always shown the best discernment.

The elephant in the room is the large amount of historical inaccuracies. Even as a history buff I can forgive many of those: cutting or simplifying events for the sake of narrative, or even some overdramatization like the meeting between Napoleon and Wellington (it never happened) or Napoleon being present at Marie Antoinette's execution (he wasn't); however, stuff like Napoleon charging with his troops at Waterloo is absolute cringe, a kid's (or a lout's) idea of history.

Still, the big problems here are characterization and pacing.

The movie is a demythologization (some would say emasculation) of Napoleon. If you want to take this route then fair enough, but the character here fails to be consistent. I can buy a Napoleon who is an egomaniac and an overrated tactician (like in Tolstoy's War and Peace). I do not buy one who is an anxious, insecure, uncharismatic cold fish but also a stern tactical genius and an effective leader of men, one who flees from Egypt because Josephine is unfaithful but is also an unflappable military mastermind.

Phoenix is a great actor and does what he can but the two sides of the character just don't gel with each other. You can't have parodic moments like Napoleon rolling down the stairs during his coup against the Directory, despondently pouting as he waits for the rain to stop at Waterloo or awkwardly climbing on a box to stand face to face with a pharaoh's mummy (with his diminutive stature becoming a not-too-subtle metaphor of his overall mediocrity)... AND THEN have him magnetically charm the French soldiers into obedience after the Elba. This gawky Napoleon would have been shot to pieces there.

The other problem is pacing. A single movie about the whole life of Napoleon is in itself absurd, like making "a movie about World War 2". There is material in Napoleon's life for a VERY dense miniseries (which Steven Spielberg is reportedly planning).

Napoleon's first wife Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) plays a huge role here but I would argue the movie has either too little or way too much of her. This needed to be either focused mostly on Napoleon's personal life or to drastically reduce the (fairly repetitive after a while) moments where Napoleon is obsessed with his wife.

As it is now, it tries to tell - but rushes through - twenty very eventful years of European history and yet devotes more time to Napoleon visiting Josephine after their divorce than to his Russian campaign.

It's like making a D-Day movie which keeps cutting back and forth from the Normandy landings to Hitler spending time with Eva Braun. You can have either The Longest Day or Der Untergang, not both.

Still, it's not worthless. There are some interesting moments and set-pieces and, while Phoenix is saddled with a contradictory character, Kirby at least is excellent.

6/10.

This should have been called "Napoleon and Josephine" because, frankly, there's too much of Josephine in it, and not nearly enough of the brilliance and personality of Bonaparte. The historical inaccuracies are manifold. I read that director Scott says that "If you weren't there then you can **** off". Well I was not there, but the erroneous simplification of one of history's greatest characters shows Scott wasn't there either. The battle scenes are gaining accolades, but even they shouldn't. Wrong and over simplified. If you are going to make a movie about Napoleon, his generalship should have taken centre-stage, not his domestic tussles with the Missus. A grand disappointment. An artilleryman, as Napoleon was, taking part in a cavalry charge? I don't think so! Oh, how I wish Kubrick had carried through to make his version. I give this six stars, mostly for having the courage to take on such a mighty story. Too bad it fell far short of its subject matter.

There's so much available content to tell this story. Why the hell was it a 2.5 hour film rather than the multi part limited series it deserves to be? The film has over 20 years of history to cover but includes so many huge time skips that you can't help feeling that you're missing out on a huge amount. This should have been a series and given the writers and the actors the time they deserved to tell the story properly but instead we get something that seems rushed and has huge gaps in time where things are shunted forward just se we can reach the end of the story before time runs out. The acting is above par (Despite Phoenix mumbling through some scenes) and the action sequences are excellent but there is just a feeling that it could have been so much more.

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.

I will not get in to the historical inaccuracies, as in a lot of historical movies history is adapted for dramatic purposes. It is Hollywood after all and especially for big budget movies the goal is to make a lot of money. Beautiful Trailer.

My main criticism is the portrayal of Napoleon. Of course all who knew him are long gone and many accounts are subjective, so we have to make do with that information.

But I can not imagine that a man who ends up on top after all the chaos of the French Revolution, whose generals and soldiers stay loyal to him after all the battles and blood, wasn't an enormous charismatic man.

And that's where the film completely fails for me. You can hate him, admire him, love him, belittle him as Wellington, but the film makes him, and his relationship with Josephine, uninteresting and dull, and as the title is Napoleon, that was my feeling leaving the cinema. A bit more effort of Mr Scott and Mr. Phoenix to know the character and history would probably have added value.

Much like Scott's other historical epic Kingdom of Heaven, Napoleon is a movie that is saved by the long cut. After seeing all the negative reviews at release, I decided to put off watching until the Directors Cut was released, and with close to an hour of extra footage added, the film feels expansive and fleshed out. The romance of Napoleon and Josephine plays a central role in the movie, much like it did in the man's life. Vanessa Kirby does a great job playing the empress, capturing a delicate nobility in her character. Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon might be the weakest part of the film unfortunately. He seemed miscast from the beginning, and there were many scenes that I felt could have been performed better. Still, he did do well in any scene where the role demanded he be powerful and angry. There are also beautifully shot battle scenes from many of the major campaigns of the wars (Tolstoy fans take note!). The costumes and set pieces are meticulously designed and make for a rich frame, with the movie at its best when every shot seems like a grand oil painting one would see hanging in a national gallery. Ultimately I think the Directors Cut delivers a better film, one that is as grand and ambitious as the subject matter deserves.

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.

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.

Back in 2005 Ridley Scott's 144 minute version of 'Kingdom of Heaven' premiered in theatres to somewhat mixed reviews. A couple of years later the vastly superior 190 minute director's cut version finally arrived, with the general consensus that the final product was a masterclass in storytelling, directing, acting and cinematography. - without doubt the best motion picture ever made about the crusades.

Almost 20 years later we are yet again treated with a compiled highlight reel of a Ridley Scott movie in the theatre, rather than a full-fledged historical epic, since it has already become official that 'Napoleon' will be released later on streaming with its entire runtime of almost four hours, which clearly is needed to flesh out many parts of the movie and fill in the emotional and historical blanks, because this - somewhat butchered cut - moves in a breakneck speed and feels too rushed.

Whereas the underappreciated 1970 movie 'Waterloo' starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte, featuring thousands of extras, portrayed events only during the 100 days campaign in 1815, Scott's 'Napoleon' takes us through decades of various major events and battles beginning with the siege of Toulon in 1793. In this version we never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful. Why did he win the admiration of so many? It's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in real life, but here he is portrayed as a childish brute? It felt like the focus was more on setpieces and his troubled relationship with Josephine, than on him as a ruthless and cunning emperor, and in the theatre cut there really isn't a lot of places where Joaquin Phoenix truly shines as an Oscar contender. Maybe the director's cut will remedy that.

In spite of its shortcomings (no pun intended) 'Napoleon' is still one of the best movies I have seen this year, but I am baffled. Because if people can sit through 3+ hour box office hits like 'Avengers Endgame', 'Avatar 2' and 'Oppenheimer' - why the need to release just a very extended trailer of 'Napoleon' in the theatre, especially when everyone know that they can just wait a couple of months for it to arrive on streaming in its entirety? An attempt by Apple at a cash grab? "You need a subscription to our streaming service to watch the whole thing"?

With that being said, I do predict some Oscar nominations here. Ridley Scott yet again proves why he is one of the best filmmakers out there. But a word of caution: If you only plan to see this once, you might consider waiting for the director's cut.

Napoleon was the most significant man of his age and no film can explain his significance in 2.5 hours. Scott decides to focus on three specific aspects of Napoleon's life and personality to show who he thinks Napoleon was at the expense of omitting much of what makes him such a fascinating figure in history.

The first aspect Scott focuses on is Napoleon the lover. Much of this film shows his infatuation and on-again off-again relationship with Josephine. Both actors handle their parts well and while there is some humor and tension, it is the least interesting part of the movie. Still, some focus is necessary as his marriage to Josephine was certainly a key aspect of his life.

The second aspect is Napoleon the megalomaniac. We all know of Napoleon as the short guy who had insecurity issues. Even if there is truth to this, it is probably an overstatement, but there is no denying the massive ego of the man. In many respects his ego is understandable for all he accomplished, and Scott paints Napoleon's inflated belief in himself as the reason for his fall, particularly in his invasion of Russia. Scott does not want us the think Napoleon fights for the glory of France but rather for the glory of Napoleon.

The final side of the Napoleon casts him as a butcher. Towards the end of his career we see Napoleon recklessly spending the lives of his men as he seeks to conquer for himself. The movie leaves us with a comprehensive death toll that Napoleon left in his wake, a massive number that comes as a result of his callous disregard for his own men and endless ambition.

So then we are left with a Napoleon as a man who loved Josephine, who had a massive ego, and constantly warred, causing the deaths of millions. All this is true, but what of Napoleon the tactician? What of Napoleon the reformer? What of Napoleon the leader? Scott focused on the worst aspects of Napoleon to highlight while disregarding the best. I was shocked that more was not discussed and shown over the massive victories and the unprecedented tactics he employed that make him a general still studied in military academies today. He was a multifaceted man, who accomplished much good and much bad, but he comes off in this film as a little ambitious fool.

The film also seems jumbled at times and jumps forward in ways that show Napoleon must be conquering and doing something right, but he goes from general, to consul, to emporer in quick ways we are not shown. He beats Austria and Russa, befriends Russia, then is back at war with them one scene later. I understand the politics, battles, and alliances are hard to follow of the ealry 19th century, but I left feeling like I learned little more about Napoleon and the France he ruled than I already knew coming in.

Despite the films shortcomings, it is a genuinely effective movie and shot beautifully. The battle scenes are bloody and tense, and the costumes and sets look recreate Napoleonic France beautifully.

When i first heard about Ridley Scott making a Napoleon movie with Joaquin Phoenix as lead actor, i was very excited. Little that i knew that this movie would not match the expectations set. First of all i would like to state that i didn't expect an historically accurate movie given the fact that it is not Ridley Scott strongest suite (see Kingdom of Heaven). There is a small measure of truth in all of his movies but they are not built as a documentary and they are not intended to be one. Nevertheless, this movie doesn't even come close to the vibe given by Kingdom of Heaven or other historical movies, from an historical point of view. I always look for a particular type of energy in movies, especially in historical ones but Napoleon in my opinion fails to deliver. This movie tries to much to contain all peculiarities of Napoleon's life but fails miserably. We see all and nothing. The feeling that i got was that we saw a fast forward version of his life but without any soul or essence. Even the battle scenes seemed dull and without soul. I think Ridley set the bar too high through his previous movies for this part. Regarding Joaquin's performance, there is not much to say. I think his interpretation was similar to a performance you would see in a stage theater. I don't know why but at some points in the movie, it felt like a low budget movie with very poor writing and very poor dialogue. I will wait for the extended version to see if my opinion changes for the best.

As cinema goes, this is more poetry than prose. It has to be. The history is so lengthy and intricate that hard choices must be made to capture some of the essential curiosities and lessons from Napoleon's saga, and the film takes some artistic liberties to get at those truths.

It's not perfectly accurate, and it clearly isn't aiming to be. Ridley Scott is no dummy. There is obviously something absurd about making such a colossal epic about French historical figures with unapologetically English-speaking actors. The funny thing is that it kind of works given the film's thematic point. Napoleon was kind of an absurd figure. He had this massive sublime aura in the popular imagination, this emperor, conqueror, and legend, and repository for French revolutionary ideas. Yet the man himself was just a man, and an angst-ridden, flawed, and not terribly interesting one at that. His battle strategy was great, and he had a weird personal charisma that Phoenix captures impressively. We don't exactly like him, but he's fascinating, and we can't look away. Napoleon's success was absurd too-the product of ambition, shrewd tactics in war, politics, propaganda, weird charisma, and an absolutely massive amount of luck. Events unfold in frank succession sort of like they do in a Wes Anderson movie. Things happen because they are part of the story, as if some hand of fate or grand narrator guides Napoleon through a sequence of inevitable events.

And the point here is to depict the really interesting highlights of the battles, which are incredibly fun to see depicted at the massive scale the film's budget affords, without deifying the man. A lot of people died for not such good reasons, many of which stemmed from Napoleon himself and the hold he had on the popular imagination. It's goofy seeing these French people talking in American accents. These people were also a little goofy.

This is a period of history that mainstream American audiences don't remember much about, and those who forget history are doomed to forget it. It's not perfect, and it takes a lot of liberties, but it captures the essence of Napoleon's mysterious and mixed legacy. In the end, he achieves the immortality of enduring fame, but he's not a role model. More than anything, he got lucky.

I want to see the director's cut too, but I also get why the film had to work in a sparse, poetic language and style for the theatrical release.

"Napoleon," directed by Ridley Scott, is an ambitious historical drama that chronicles the life and legacy of one of history's most enigmatic and controversial figures, Napoleon Bonaparte. The film stars Joaquin Phoenix in a compelling portrayal of the legendary French military leader, with Vanessa Kirby delivering a powerful performance as his passionate and influential wife, Josephine.

From the outset, "Napoleon" immerses viewers in the tumultuous era of the French Revolution and the subsequent rise of the Napoleonic Empire. Scott's direction is characteristically grand, bringing the sweeping battles and intricate political machinations to life with stunning visual detail. The film's battle scenes are particularly noteworthy, blending brutal realism with strategic finesse, showcasing Napoleon's military genius and the devastating human cost of his campaigns.

Joaquin Phoenix excels in the titular role, capturing Napoleon's complex personality-his brilliance, ambition, and ruthlessness-while also revealing the vulnerabilities and insecurities that drove him. Phoenix's performance is both intense and nuanced, providing a deeply human portrayal of a man often seen as larger than life. Vanessa Kirby as Josephine is equally compelling, bringing warmth, strength, and a touch of melancholy to her role. The chemistry between Phoenix and Kirby is palpable, adding depth to their tumultuous relationship and underscoring the personal stakes behind Napoleon's public persona.

The supporting cast, including Tahar Rahim as the loyal but conflicted Marshal Ney and Ben Miles as the pragmatic diplomat Talleyrand, further enrich the narrative, offering different perspectives on Napoleon's reign and its impact on France and the world.

The film's production values are exceptional, with meticulously designed costumes and sets that recreate the opulence and turmoil of the period. The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski captures both the grandeur of Napoleon's ambitions and the intimate moments of his personal life, while the score by Hans Zimmer adds a powerful emotional layer to the storytelling.

However, "Napoleon" is not without its flaws. The film occasionally struggles with pacing, particularly in its attempt to cover the vast expanse of Napoleon's life and career. Some viewers might find the rapid transitions between major events jarring, and the film's focus on certain aspects of Napoleon's life may leave others underexplored.

Despite these minor shortcomings, "Napoleon" stands out as a captivating and thought-provoking historical drama. It succeeds in humanizing a figure often mythologized, presenting a balanced view of his genius and his flaws. Scott's direction, combined with Phoenix's tour-de-force performance, makes "Napoleon" a memorable cinematic experience that offers both spectacle and insight.

In conclusion, "Napoleon" is a compelling exploration of power, ambition, and the personal costs of greatness. It is a must-see for history enthusiasts and fans of epic biographical dramas.

**Rating: 7/10**

---

Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON feels like the highlight reel of a lengthy miniseries. Considering there's a 4-hour cut of this film, that explains it all.

NAPOLEON is certainly good spectacle. The battle scenes are breathtaking. Unfortunately, it's also shallow. I know Scott has sneered at viewers criticizing the historical inaccuracies in the film, but I'm more bothered by a total lack of interesting character psychology or even coherent storytelling. Characters pop in and out, leaving little impression in their brief scenes. Relationships between characters are barely fleshed out, including that of Napoleon and Josephine, which dominates the running time. Also, potentially unpopular opinion, I thought Joaquin Phoenix's performance was a one-note bore.

Perhaps the 4-hour version is a richer piece of work. As is, NAPOLEON is a let down, especially after Scott's brilliant 2021 period piece THE LAST DUEL, which had all the drama and psychological depth this movie lacked.

I read the reviews of Ridley Scott's 'Napoleon' and knew it was not the great film everyone anticipated. Even so, I went. And what I discovered is that it's bad in the worst kind of way; It is dull. Lifeless. A flat un-involving story about characters who are in every way unlikable. Another reviewer wrote that he / she had trouble staying awake through its 2 hours 40 minutes run-time. When I read that I laughed. Now that I have seen the film, I am laughing no longer.

Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor of France did a lot of good things; much of the country's 'Civil Code' was instituted during his reign. But this film deals only with (a) Napoleon the warrior and (b) Napoleon the husband, and fails to deliver a well-rounded character in either sense. We know he loves France but aside from living there we don't know what drives his passion. His hatred for anything not France is clear, but the reasons for this hatred are never explained. There are battles a'plenty but the reason for them is elusive. Enemies become friends. Friends become enemies. We care about none of them. Thousands die. Somehow we care nothing about them either.

There is, in Napoleon, no one to root for. Making matters worse there is an uneven performance by Joaquin Phoenix. His 'later' Napoleon becomes a different character than we'd seen earlier in the film. And no, I don't think it is attributed to Napoleon's rise in power. I think it's Phoenix; his acting, his portrayal. His Napoleon is far less quirky as the film progresses (as though the actor wants out of his role), and in this way, he is far less interesting.

If there's anyone about whom we do care that character would be Josephine, Napoleon's wife and Empress of France. Vanessa Kirby is ravishing in the role. A rare beauty but one with a shadow-filled past as well as future. We can understand Napoleon's undying love her but the truth is, she's not the nicest girl on the block. There's little doubt that Mr. Bonaparte would never have 'won' her, were he not the country's future leader. So, again, no one to truly root for.

Ah, yes. The battle scenes. They're fine (though it seems as though a battle fought at the base of Egypt's pyramids was cut out). But I think fewer battles and more unraveling of the reasons behind those battles between France, England, Russia, Austria, and other countries might make the remaining battles more meaningful.

More involving.

Which, as I said, this film is definitely not.