Opération Napoléon

This film was part of a festival package for me (films based on books), but I delayed it until the last moment, because I read "action" and "conspiracy". I find American action thrillers extremely dull and dumb - I should have guessed that an Icelandic movie based on a renowned crime author would be completely different. It's captivating, refreshing, unpretentious, humorous, and fully rewarding. Anyone who's a fan of big budgets and larger-than-life "realism" would feel cheated - which already makes me chuckle. I'm glad this author has been filmed, and I'll look forward to both his books and more adaptations.

If ever there was a 'foreign' film crying out for a Hollywood remake with a big director, star names and a decent budget, 'Operation Napoleon' is it.

The premise of a mysteriously long missing WW2 Nazi plane and its clandestine mission re-discovered in Iceland (thanks to global warming) is a damn good one.

However the low event feel, wooden cast and annoying crossover of Icelandic and English dialogue ultimately ruins it. Indeed, the film plays out more like a terrestrial tv show than a big screen movie. It even audaciously sets itself up for a sequel in an unneccesary tagged-on ending.

Plus points are the stunning widescreen vistas, good pacing and some reasonable action sequences, but these are outweighed by a clunky screenplay, lack of chemistry between the two leads and the aforementioned wooden acting. Brit actor Jack Fox (from the Fox acting dynasty) is especially bad as a bumbling professor come sidekick, while the sadistic pencil-loving female CIA agent is downright laughable.

I would suggest however, if you can get past all these obvious groans and gripes it's worth a watch, but don't expect a classic of the genre like The Odessa File, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Marathon Man... this is more akin to a prime-time Netflix drama set in the snow.

I enjoy reading icelandic crime novels, and although i live in a mediterranean country, i am very attracted to the icy scenes, thick wool sweaters, snowmobiles, and aerial views of snowy forests. I also really like the detective erlendur series of arnaldur indraðsson, perhaps the greatest writer of icelandic detective fiction. The novel which the movie is based on is not one of them, but when i saw indraðsson's name, i was excited to watch it. But the result is a complete disappointment. I wish i had bought and read the book before. The movie is terrible, and now that i know the plot, i have no desire to read the book. The actors seem to have stepped out of a hollywood c-series movie. So, i was quite happy to see a familiar face in the second half of the movie: ólafur darri ólafsson. He did not surprise me again, he is perhaps the only good thing about this bad movie. With his big body, he makes you think how tired he was on the film set, but even if he was, he never shows any signs of tiredness in the films, he moves so easily within the story that for a moment, one can forget that he is watching something fictional. It can still be watched to kill time, but when you take away a few good things like ólafsson, there is almost nothing left...

This is a perfect example of how you completely fail at adapting a book into a movie. The only thing this film has in common with the book is its title.

The story, characters names; their backstory, age and even gender are different from the book in every way. I wonder how the book's author could have possibly greenlit this script. The result is a paper thin film, a typical cliché which brings nothing original or fresh to this genre of "made for Hollywood" film market.

The characters drive, ambitions and goals are never solidified in any believable way. Heck they're barely introduced to the viewer by name half of the time.

Just to top it all, the "plot" behind the movie is hastily explained after everything has transpired, followed by the lame "two weeks later" on a black screen. The tone of the film weirdly changes to an Indiana Jones movie, completely contradicting the vague character building we have been objected to throughout the film.

The ending then gives a hint at a sequel which is funny considering there is only one book. But hey, why not, the book has already been established as a mere formality at this point.

I went to the theatre with pretty high hopes. With the trailer being interesting and me being a sucker for conspiracy movies. But as i left the theatre i was kind of split on what i thought. On one hand it was a well edited and filmed movie with good set pieces. And on the other hand the acting is often suppar, the protagonists motivation often doesint feel the same as they try and present it. And the antagonist could also have been better written and more intimidating.

But for me what put me the most off, was what Operation Napoleon actually was.

The movie clearly shows that whatever is on that nazi plane that crashed in vatnajökull is top tier secretive and anyone who even lays eyes on it without permission must be killed. This is showed throughout the entire movie. So eventually at the end of the movie when it's revealed what Operation Napoleon was. I was kind of disappointed. Not just in what it actually was but in how it was presented. In most conspiracy/mystery stories, the mystery is slowly revealed over time. But here its like we get to know who was involved in this operation and thats it. Until the end, where its all slam-dunked onto the viewers. What i would have found to make it better. If they simply increased the stake at the beginning when they find the plane. For example that one of the dead people being in that plane being... what the whole reason Operation Napoleon was. Then we'd also get more insight into this and we would also understand more to why its so secretive.

And also with what Operation Napoleon was. If this was real, america could have spun this so easily on everyones head like they have done before with these kind of things.