← Back to Reviews
in
Napoleon
(2023) - Directed by Ridley Scott
--------------------------------------------
War / Historical Drama / Romance / Biopic / Epic
-------------------------------------------------
(2023) - Directed by Ridley Scott
--------------------------------------------
War / Historical Drama / Romance / Biopic / Epic
-------------------------------------------------
"You're nothing without me."
I've been looking forward to Ridley Scott's Napoleon for a while, especially considering the history of Napoleon movies, minus the forgotten one about the dog in the hot air balloon... and the one with Jon Heder. See, I watched the silent film from the 20's, wehich was five-and-a-half hours long, right after having finished the novel War and Peace. I learned to love it very quickly, forgiving its runtime thanks to its historical detail and characterization, as well as its revolutionary cinematography. Kubrick wanted to do a TV series expanding on what this film had done, but never finished it. Since the man who made his mark on the world with a French Revolution film as his debut had gotten a hold of it, it was time for me to check out The Duellists in preparation for this. I planned to see it on opening day, and I'm back from the theaters to write this review.
This gives us a look at Napoleon's six different battles from the Siege of Toulon all the way to Waterloo. During this time we see the progression of his relationship with his wife, and its eventual fall, as well as his decline in popularity and his fall from grace after having conquered much of Europe.
The wartime scenes are probably the biggest selling point here. Ridley Scott fans, history buffs and Joaquin Phoenix fans aren't "high selling" demographics to the mass market, so what's left is the "michael Bay SFX" of the history scene: good ol' fashion Mister Torgue explosions. But Ridley makes a point of making war scenes more about the unadulterated horrors of the battlefield. There are levels of detailed gore here that probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere. How did they get violence this realistic WITHOUT harming anyone? And there are even hallucinogenic visuals that go hand in hand with the violence, allowing Ridley to boast some of his greatest touches of art and direction here. Some is easily better than the groundbreaking 20's film, although I don't know if this movie has anything "groundbreaking" period, just very good for our time.
Unfortunately, among the extremely detailed history that gives us the full scoop of the Wikipedia articles, and the incredible direction of war scenes, we get a basic and under-explored recreation of napoleon's relationship with his wife. There are some bare essentials that I won't bother spoiling, but it tells me that the characterization of the movie wasn't given any true focus. Honestly, that's gotta be the biggest flaw here. This epic needed character development. I mean, movies like this attract Dances With Wolves fans, so there's no reason an extra half-hour at the very least couldn't have been put here for characterization.
Ridley Scott, being the history buff he is, really did his research into both filmmaking and history here, and from both perspectives the director paid off in almost full. But lacking characterization gets in the way of this being one of his absolute best. Either way, I liked the movie and I'm eager for a possible extended DVD edition. This doesn't hold a candle to the 1927 film, but it's a good modern day movie for people who likely don't want a five-and-a-half hour silent film to get their history lesson.
= 82
Ridley Scott's directorial score does not change. It is still 94.6 / 5.
This gives us a look at Napoleon's six different battles from the Siege of Toulon all the way to Waterloo. During this time we see the progression of his relationship with his wife, and its eventual fall, as well as his decline in popularity and his fall from grace after having conquered much of Europe.
The wartime scenes are probably the biggest selling point here. Ridley Scott fans, history buffs and Joaquin Phoenix fans aren't "high selling" demographics to the mass market, so what's left is the "michael Bay SFX" of the history scene: good ol' fashion Mister Torgue explosions. But Ridley makes a point of making war scenes more about the unadulterated horrors of the battlefield. There are levels of detailed gore here that probably shouldn't be allowed anywhere. How did they get violence this realistic WITHOUT harming anyone? And there are even hallucinogenic visuals that go hand in hand with the violence, allowing Ridley to boast some of his greatest touches of art and direction here. Some is easily better than the groundbreaking 20's film, although I don't know if this movie has anything "groundbreaking" period, just very good for our time.
Unfortunately, among the extremely detailed history that gives us the full scoop of the Wikipedia articles, and the incredible direction of war scenes, we get a basic and under-explored recreation of napoleon's relationship with his wife. There are some bare essentials that I won't bother spoiling, but it tells me that the characterization of the movie wasn't given any true focus. Honestly, that's gotta be the biggest flaw here. This epic needed character development. I mean, movies like this attract Dances With Wolves fans, so there's no reason an extra half-hour at the very least couldn't have been put here for characterization.
Ridley Scott, being the history buff he is, really did his research into both filmmaking and history here, and from both perspectives the director paid off in almost full. But lacking characterization gets in the way of this being one of his absolute best. Either way, I liked the movie and I'm eager for a possible extended DVD edition. This doesn't hold a candle to the 1927 film, but it's a good modern day movie for people who likely don't want a five-and-a-half hour silent film to get their history lesson.
= 82
Ridley Scott's directorial score does not change. It is still 94.6 / 5.