An epic that details the chequered rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his relentless journey to power through the prism of his addictive, volatile relationship with his w... Read allAn epic that details the chequered rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his relentless journey to power through the prism of his addictive, volatile relationship with his wife, Josephine.An epic that details the chequered rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his relentless journey to power through the prism of his addictive, volatile relationship with his wife, Josephine.
- Nominated for 3 Oscars
- 5 wins & 46 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaEugene de Beauharnais, the 12 year old boy who requests his father's sword from Napoleon in the film, became an able politician and military commander in his own right. Napoleon cared deeply for Eugene even formally adopting him in 1806 and making him heir presumptive to the Italian throne and Viceroy of Italy where he was de facto ruler. Eugene followed Napoleon on most of his campaigns. In 1809 Eugene commanded his own campaign with the French 'Army of Italy' beating the Austrians in nearly every battle.
- GoofsAfter being defeated at the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon surrendered to the British on-board HMS Bellerophon. Although receiving many guests, he never met the Duke of Wellington face-to-face in real life.
- Quotes
Napoleon Bonaparte: You think you're so great because you have boats!
- Crazy creditsThe opening credits in the poster and vignettes of the film start with "Columbia Pictures and Apple Original Films present", but the opening credits in the actual film start with "Apple Original Films present".
- Alternate versionsA director's cut was released in August 2024 on Apple TV+ which includes over 48 minutes of new footage.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Jeremy Jahns: Napoleon - Movie Review (2023)
- SoundtracksÇa Ira !
Music by Jean Françaix
Lyrics by Sacha Guitry
Performed by Édith Piaf
Courtesy of Warner Music UK Ltd.
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Napoleón
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $200,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $61,524,375
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $20,638,887
- Nov 26, 2023
- Gross worldwide
- $221,394,838
- Runtime
- 2h 38m(158 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content