SummaryNapoleon is a spectacle-filled action epic that details the checkered rise and fall of the iconic French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix). Against a stunning backdrop of large-scale filmmaking orchestrated by legendary director Ridley Scott, the film captures Bonaparte's relentless journey to power through the prism of his ad...
SummaryNapoleon is a spectacle-filled action epic that details the checkered rise and fall of the iconic French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix). Against a stunning backdrop of large-scale filmmaking orchestrated by legendary director Ridley Scott, the film captures Bonaparte's relentless journey to power through the prism of his ad...
Napoleon isn’t a movie about grand triumph, or about disastrous failure. It’s a story about masculine insecurity, and how it can reduce the world to violence.
Really enjoyed this. What a refreshing change from Marvel and DC and endless sequels. Not a doco, so enjoy it for what it actually is, an interpretation of events none of us really know about anyway. Phoenix is a master of his craft, and the work of the crafts is equally masterful - predict some
Oscar love goes to these people. Bring on more epic cinema like this, we need it desperately. Experience it on the biggest of screens.
A fairly short film which tries to convey French history in 2h30 and which ends quite bitterly,The battle scenes are short but rather intense and the film focuses more on Josephine and her relationship with Napoleon rather than his military strategist
Envisions Napoleon as a complex mix of the imposing and the absurd, his dreams of conquest—and single-minded ability to make them a reality—matched by his folly and awkwardness.
Napoleon was without a doubt a complex and controversial character whose shadow loomed large over the first quarter of the 19th century. He deserves a better-focused, more passionate movie than the one Scott has provided.
Dense without feeling rushed, then done without ever having really sprung to life, Napoleon seems determined to cover a great deal of ground over its not-insignificant running time.
The short answer is I really liked this movie.
The production values are great. It looks amazing and the battle scenes are wonderful.
The biggest issue I have with the film is, I am not really sure what it was about.
Was it about the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine? Maybe, but if that is the case what was it trying to say? Napoleon is portrayed as brutal, almost autistic, and he desires Josephine for her beauty. Is Josephine a scared beautiful aristocrat who will use her charms to survive? I guess. There is no real arch to these characters where we can learn something about who they were or why they were together. They begin and end as the same people.
Was this movie about a scared French people who depose a king only to install an emperor? I guess, but you really don’t get enough of what motivated French politics to drive that home.
So maybe it was about Napoleon as a great military leader? You some great battle scenes but you never really get the sense of what made Napoleon special. Why was he the one to wipe away all the old European monarchies?
A lot of things happen in this movie, and I was entertained, but I don’t feel like there was any real point to the story.
Ridley Scott dumbs down history for the general public for this historically inaccurate and beautiful-looking yet sprawling mess of a film that details Napoleon Bonaparte's (Joaquin Phoenix) rise from ruthless French general to overbearing dictator and emperor of France who went on to invade and conquer several European territories. The film also details the tumultuous relationship with his wife Josephine (Vanessa Kirby in a scene-stealing supporting turn.) As you can maybe already tell, I wasn't too keen on this one unfortunately. Scott's historical epics tend to be rather hit or miss for me most of the time, with 'Gladiator', 'The Last Duel', and the director's cut of 'Kingdom of Heaven' being his strongest efforts, while others such as 'House of Gucci' and 'Exodus: Gods and Kings' fell a little flat. Unfortunately, this one falls a little more into the latter territory. There's a lot that's wrong with this one unfortunately. While Scott's always had a difficult time with films set in a foreign country and having it almost completely Americanized in terms of the language and lack of accents ('The Last Duel' was also set in France), this time around, it was glaringly obvious. Only in a handful of scenes is there even any actual French spoken, and no French accents are to be found anywhere here, leaving Phoenix and the rest of the cast stuck with out of place and uncertain-sounding British accents, not unlike 'House of Gucci' in which the one time Scott actually attempted to have his American actors attempt foreign accents misfired horribly, as the Italian accents were comically over-the-top and completely all over the place. As far as historical accuracy goes, Scott also decided to completely throw that out the window here too, as the real Napoleon was 35 when he became emperor as opposed to Phoenix being nearly 50. Josephine also happened to be 6 years Napoleon's senior, yet Kirby is a whole 14 years younger than Phoenix. And just to kick things off more excitingly, Scott decided to open the film by randomly placing Napoleon at the moment of Marie Antoinette's execution, despite the real Napoleon not being present for that at all. In addition, tonally, the film is completely inconsistent and all over the place with that too. What's supposedly meant to be a serious, epic, and brooding war biopic inexplicably delves into unexpected (and rather forced) humor during several moments throughout, and it all falls completely flat and simply doesn't work. The only real positives here are the fierce performance of Kirby as Josephine and the incredible and often captivating battle sequences and cinematography. Say what you will about Scott, but there's no denying the man knows how to craft a hell of a war/battle epic. It's just a shame that it can't make up for the rest of this disjointed film. Overall, highly Hollywoodized, historically inaccurate, and tonally inconsistent, not even the normally great Phoenix or scene-stealer Kirby, along with the beautiful cinematography and impressive battle sequences can save this one. Here's hoping Scott can redeem himself next year with 'Gladiator 2.' Fingers crossed, cause I definitely expected better from him here.
Мені дуже не сподобався фільм, через жахливий сценарій. Картина нагадує вирізки з історичних хронік ніж повноцінний самодостатній фільм. Щоб зрозуміти події фільму вам потрібно йти до кінотеатру з підручником по історії, і ретельно дивитись за титрами які показують час і події. У результаті ми отримали набір незрозумілих кадрів. Єдине що вдалося це сцени бойових дій, та гра головного актора.
I don't go to movies often anymore, and I used to love them and Ridley, but if you are going to present these tried and true things I'm out. I expect more. In the age of computer games and pornography, if you can't make things more flashy and sexy, then I am out. I'm sorry. RIP cinema
I mean if you love war, death and destruction of innocent young men in the fields of Europe, this is a flick for you, but there's very little beauty and entertainment otherwise...