Napoleon

Napoleon

A personal look at the French military leader’s origins and swift, ruthless climb to emperor, viewed through the prism of Napoleon’s addictive, volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine.

  • Released:
  • Runtime: 158 minutes
  • Genre: Drama, History, War
  • Stars: Tahar Rahim, Thom Ashley, David Verrey, Joaquin Phoenix, Erin Ainsworth, Jean-Pascal Heynemand, Clyde Vassallo, Vanessa Kirby, Gavin Spokes, Paul Riddell, John Hollingworth, Cesare Taurasi, Paul O'Kelly, Ludivine Sagnier, Arthur McBain, Ed Eales White, Davide Tucci, Phil Cornwell, Edouard Philipponnat, Hannah Flynn
  • Director: Ridley Scott
 Comments
  • emjgiddy - 16 June 2024
    Okay Movie
    Ridley Scott's "Napoleon," starring Joaquin Phoenix as the iconic French military leader, is an ambitious but uneven historical epic. The film attempts to capture the vastness of Napoleon Bonaparte's life, from his rapid rise to power to his complex relationship with Josephine, played by Vanessa Kirby. While there are moments of brilliance, the movie ultimately falls short of its lofty ambitions.

    Phoenix delivers a characteristically intense performance as Napoleon, portraying the emperor with a mix of arrogance, vulnerability, and determination. His chemistry with Kirby's Josephine is one of the film's highlights, adding a human dimension to the sweeping historical narrative. Kirby's portrayal of Josephine brings depth and grace to the role, making their tumultuous relationship one of the more engaging aspects of the film.

    Scott's direction shines in the grand battle sequences, which are visually stunning and meticulously choreographed. The cinematography and production design effectively transport viewers to the Napoleonic era, capturing both the opulence of the French court and the brutality of the battlefield. The attention to detail in costumes and sets is commendable, contributing to the film's immersive quality.

    However, "Napoleon" is hampered by its sprawling narrative, which struggles to balance the personal and political aspects of Bonaparte's life. The script is uneven, with some scenes feeling overly expository while others lack necessary context. This results in a disjointed storytelling experience that can be difficult to follow, particularly for those not well-versed in Napoleonic history.

    Additionally, the film's pacing is problematic. It moves at a brisk pace through significant events in Napoleon's life, sometimes sacrificing character development and emotional depth. This rapid progression can make it challenging for viewers to fully invest in the characters and their journeys.

    While the film succeeds in depicting the grandeur and complexity of Napoleon's era, it occasionally feels more like a series of historical vignettes than a cohesive narrative. The lack of a clear focus and emotional resonance prevents "Napoleon" from reaching the heights of Scott's best works.

    In conclusion, "Napoleon" is a visually impressive but narratively flawed film. Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby deliver strong performances, and the battle scenes are a testament to Ridley Scott's directorial prowess. However, the film's uneven pacing and disjointed storytelling detract from its overall impact. For history enthusiasts and fans of epic dramas, "Napoleon" offers moments of intrigue and spectacle, but it ultimately falls short of its potential.
  • phubbs - 18 May 2024
    Napoleon
    Well well what have we here? Another historical epic from top director Ridley Scott charting the life of French military commander Napoleon Bonaparte; or a close approximation.

    I find it very difficult to try and review some historical films for the very simple reason that I don't know anything about the history of whatever it may be. I don't want to come across as ignorant but that's just the way it is, some things you know about, some things you know a bit, some things you know nothing. Obviously I have heard of Napoleon and his antics but what I know is extremely limited as I am not in any way an expert on French military or revolutionary history. I am also willing to bet that this will be the same situation for the majority of regular moviegoers the world over, and in some cases even worse.

    So when it comes to watching a film like this I have to rely on certain things such as Wikipedia and various other bits of information (often YouTube videos) to delve deeper into the history and learn what was accurate, what wasn't, and what else occurred that may not have been shown. There is no shame in this in my opinion, I am simply researching and learning more about the period. It's no different from doing homework, which in my day would have been 100% reliant on books. This is the only way to learn and discover more, it's just a shame some directors couldn't do the same.

    So when it comes to this epic biographical offering there is alas a hyper tonne of history to dig into involving lots of historical people, battles, wars, skirmishes, political theatre etc...To the point that it would take you potentially years to digest and understand everything that occurred during Napoleon's lifespan. Reading about one small aspect of his life will inevitably link to a specific event, which in turn will inevitably link to a multitude of people and other events surrounding them, in turn linking to more battles and more people, often covering multiple countries etc...So bottom line, I'm putting a lot of faith in Ridley Scott to deliver something that I can get to grips with and give me the basics to get me through. A condensed two and a half hour history lesson of the French revolution, give or take.

    Did Scott deliver on this? Yes and no. As expected with Scott the film looks tremendous with high detail both in the foreground and background. Virtually every aspect of the era has been carefully recreated to the best of everyone's ability. Again I'm no expert but what I saw on the screen, to me, looked amazingly realistic and presumably accurate. From the basic cast iron heating system steaming away in the corner of a room; to the huge array of outfits, the hairdos, the food, the landscapes, weaponry, the various methods of transportation etc...it all looks very impressive. The only tiny quibble would be the lack of most actors going for a French twang in their dialect.

    Naturally it's the battles everyone came for (all the various politics in between are interesting of course but let's be real here) and naturally these don't fail to deliver. The vast stonking scenes of war porn we get in the finale at Waterloo is what I was waiting for. Granted it is not as good or as detailed as the classic Rod Steiger epic of 1970 but I can't deny it was solid. I know nothing about actual French Napoleonic warfare and how it may have actually gone down real-time so to me it was exciting and thrilling, oh yes. Scott can certainly deliver a rousing war and this was definitely worth the wait. Charging cavalry, screaming troops, unthinkable suicidal marches straight into gunfire, thundering cannon fire, blood, thick mud, and stoic British officer types glaring at the enemy through steely eyes.

    So whilst Scott is able to deliver much visual spectacle across the board, alas he doesn't often seem to deliver much historical accuracy as proven here. Stating once again I know very little about this time period but even I had to question the moment Napoleon fired his cannons at the ancient Pyramids of Giza. This was easily the most offensive of the historical inaccuracies simply because it was so blatantly false. We know there aren't large cannonball-sized holes in the Pyramids for Pete's sake. I simply cannot understand why Scott would make such a horrifically false sequence. Everyone expects there to be inaccuracies in historical films but usually not this glaring, geez!!

    Other than some stand-out moments of pure inaccurate nonsense, quite frankly it's all good! I didn't expect every inch of Napoleon's life to get covered and it wasn't. After some reading there were obviously more battles, political guff, and whatnot but you can't expect everything to be crammed into a film, it's just not possible. Nor did I think more battles would have made it any better as this is supposed to be essentially a bit of a history lesson, not war porn, so we need the other less exciting stuff. The acting, much like most Scott epics, is pretty much flawless across the board really. Everyone looked and felt right in their respective roles. What else can I say here? It's a modern day historical epic, we don't get too many of those, I do enjoy them and this satisfied me. I was engaged right to the bitter end. I can't deny I'm surprised that Scott is apparently still able and allowed to make these sprawling flicks considering most of his flicks have a tendency to fail at the box office but there you go.

    Not as good or action-packed as 'Gladiator', but this is a different type of animal. Not as good as 'The Last Duel' which is a HIGHLY underrated medieval epic. But 'Napoleon' is much better than 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'. Very much recommended if you can overlook the inaccuracies.
  • jmiguelalmeida8 - 5 May 2024
    Historically Inacurate. No Spain or France.
    Ridley Scott's latest historical epic, "Napoleon," takes on the monumental task of depicting the life of the French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. While the film boasts grand visuals and a captivating performance by Joaquin Phoenix, it ultimately stumbles under the weight of historical inaccuracies and a narrative that fails to capture the full scope of Napoleon's impact on Europe.

    The most glaring issue lies in the film's historical accuracy. Napoleon's life was a whirlwind of military campaigns, political maneuvering, and social reform. Unfortunately, "Napoleon" cherry-picks moments and condenses timelines in a way that misrepresents the complexities of the era. Crucially absent are key events like the Haitian Revolution, a major conflict that both challenged and ultimately weakened French power. Additionally, the film glosses over Napoleon's disastrous invasion of Russia, a pivotal turning point in his military career.

    Furthermore, the movie's focus on Napoleon's relationship with Josephine, while acknowledging a significant aspect of his personal life, comes at the expense of exploring his broader political and military achievements. The film dedicates significant screentime to a tempestuous romance, neglecting to delve into Napoleon's strategic brilliance or his role in reshaping the political landscape of Europe. This imbalance creates a lopsided narrative, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of the man and his legacy.

    A particularly egregious omission is the complete disregard for Spain and Portugal's role in the Napoleonic Wars. These countries were deeply affected by Napoleon's ambitions, experiencing bloody conflicts and political upheaval. Ignoring their struggles weakens the narrative's portrayal of the wider European conflict and reinforces a somewhat Franco-centric perspective.

    One can't deny the film's visual spectacle. Scott, a seasoned director known for his epic productions, delivers sweeping battle sequences and meticulously recreated settings. The costumes are lavish, and the production design effectively transports viewers to the early 19th century. However, visual grandeur alone cannot compensate for a weak script and a narrative that sacrifices historical accuracy for dramatic license.

    Joaquin Phoenix delivers a committed performance as Napoleon, capturing the emperor's intensity and ambition. He portrays a man driven by a relentless pursuit of power and glory, even as his personal life crumbles around him. Yet, the script fails to provide him with enough depth to explore the complexities of Napoleon's character. We see his ruthlessness and ambition, but we never truly understand his motivations or the forces that shaped him.

    Ultimately, "Napoleon" squanders its potential. With a tighter script, a more balanced narrative, and a commitment to historical accuracy, this film could have been a powerful exploration of a fascinating historical figure. Instead, it remains a visually impressive but ultimately shallow spectacle, leaving audiences with a superficial understanding of Napoleon and his impact on the world.

    The film serves as a missed opportunity to delve into a pivotal period in European history. While some viewers might be swept away by the visuals and Phoenix's performance, those seeking a nuanced portrayal of Napoleon and his era are likely to be disappointed.