Napoleon (2023) User Reviews

An interesting failure

[petra_ste · 6/10 · 3 December 2023]

Ridley Scott directed one of the best movies ever made set during the Napoleonic Wars: unfortunately, that movie is not Napoleon but his cinematic debut, The Duellists, forty years ago.

Unsurprisingly, The Duellists had a strong source material (it was based on a novel by Joseph Conrad which it often followed almost verbatim), while Napoleon has an uneven screenplay by David Scarpa.

Even past the age of eighty Sir Ridley can still shoot pretty and energetic pictures but his hits and misses depend on the scripts he picks, and he hasn't always shown the best discernment.

The elephant in the room is the large amount of historical inaccuracies. Even as a history buff I can forgive many of those: cutting or simplifying events for the sake of narrative, or even some overdramatization like the meeting between Napoleon and Wellington (it never happened) or Napoleon being present at Marie Antoinette's execution (he wasn't); however, stuff like Napoleon charging with his troops at Waterloo is absolute cringe, a kid's (or a lout's) idea of history.

Still, the big problems here are characterization and pacing.

The movie is a demythologization (some would say emasculation) of Napoleon. If you want to take this route then fair enough, but the character here fails to be consistent. I can buy a Napoleon who is an egomaniac and an overrated tactician (like in Tolstoy's War and Peace). I do not buy one who is an anxious, insecure, uncharismatic cold fish but also a stern tactical genius and an effective leader of men, one who flees from Egypt because Josephine is unfaithful but is also an unflappable military mastermind.

Phoenix is a great actor and does what he can but the two sides of the character just don't gel with each other. You can't have parodic moments like Napoleon rolling down the stairs during his coup against the Directory, despondently pouting as he waits for the rain to stop at Waterloo or awkwardly climbing on a box to stand face to face with a pharaoh's mummy (with his diminutive stature becoming a not-too-subtle metaphor of his overall mediocrity)... AND THEN have him magnetically charm the French soldiers into obedience after the Elba. This gawky Napoleon would have been shot to pieces there.

The other problem is pacing. A single movie about the whole life of Napoleon is in itself absurd, like making "a movie about World War 2". There is material in Napoleon's life for a VERY dense miniseries (which Steven Spielberg is reportedly planning).

Napoleon's first wife Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) plays a huge role here but I would argue the movie has either too little or way too much of her. This needed to be either focused mostly on Napoleon's personal life or to drastically reduce the (fairly repetitive after a while) moments where Napoleon is obsessed with his wife.

As it is now, it tries to tell - but rushes through - twenty very eventful years of European history and yet devotes more time to Napoleon visiting Josephine after their divorce than to his Russian campaign.

It's like making a D-Day movie which keeps cutting back and forth from the Normandy landings to Hitler spending time with Eva Braun. You can have either The Longest Day or Der Untergang, not both.

Still, it's not worthless. There are some interesting moments and set-pieces and, while Phoenix is saddled with a contradictory character, Kirby at least is excellent.

6/10.

A few words of warning for those with high expectations...

[imseeg · 6/10 · 23 November 2023]

A word of warning for those expecting another Gladiator or non stop action spectacle. It is not. Truly not...

The bad: director Ridley Scott knows how to make action scenes look slick and impressive (and he does an excellent job again), but he is also known for being quite average at making a drama. And this movie tries (and partly fails) to combine action and drama and somehow ends up being neither one. THAT is one of the reasons I'll only rate it with 6 stars.

More bad: this story has a weak "dramatic" middle (love story) part, which is kinda tedious. And that brings me to a storyline complaint, namely that this story is all over the place. They cram SO much events and history and different characters from different time periods into this one movie that it kinda confused and numbed me down, instead of thrilling me, as an epic should do.

This movie was made for Apple streaming (release date january 2024) in the first place, but they made a shorter (butchered) version for the cinemas in order to be able to compete for the Oscars, which demands that a movie must have run in the cinemas for a couple of weeks. No cinema version, no Oscars.

The original Apple streaming version lasted some 2 hours longer. Nobody is gonna sit in the cinema for over 4 hours, hence they cut this movie up and now it feels somewhat rushed, confusing and disjointed at certain moments.

Not any good then? Joaquin Phoenix is the one redeeming feature. He nails it.. He makes Napoleon look like a complete joke of a man and I love Joaquin Phoenix' performance, but that unfortunately didnt compensate for the other actors being just about average and with little actor's chemistry between them.

I had been warned beforehand by friends that this wasnt the spectacle or epic drama they were hoping for and unfortunately they were right. Certainly not a terrible movie, but one that is just about average.

Thank you for reading my 2100 th review on Imdb.

Images without Words

[Eleatic67 · 6/10 · 2 March 2024]

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.

Expected an experience ... almost fell asleep

[Vic_max · 6/10 · 22 November 2023]

Many of Ridley Scott's movies are like visual masterpieces with epic storylines. I was sort of expecting something like Gladiator. Instead, it was just "meh" - I probably would have quit watching if it was on TV.

Joaquin Phoenix has demonstrated that he can play odd or troubled characters well, but I don't think he was a good choice for Napoleon. He made the character seem more bizarre than charismatic or leader-like. I think the strongest and most interesting character was actually Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) ... who will probably get the most traction from the movie.

The story itself wasn't that interesting because it wasn't explained that well. For example, his departure from Elba island seemed to randomly happen without much explanation. The elevation to a monarch-like role also happens without much explanation. It's like you're watching snippets of a bigger, more interesting story.

I become so disconnected from the story that I almost fell asleep during some of the long battle sequences.

The movie would probably have been better if it captured just one pivotal event or time period ... or better yet, if it had been a miniseries. While I will still look forward to any future movie from Scott, Napoleon deserved better.

Stuff just happens...

[granka-47093 · 27 November 2023]

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a high-budget cinematic exercise in "Whatever, man, that'll do." The film, both in terms of what it presents and how it presents, reeks of hollowness. Characters are shadows(not defined enough to even be considered parodies or mockeries of their real-life counterparts as some people like to see them), story is a shadow of a proper story( at times feeling as if written by A. I), atmosphere, with the exception of some of the battle scenes and the Russian segment, sterile and practically non existent(disasterous for Scott who is known to be one of the greatest world builders in history of the artform). Stuff just happens in the film. No significance or weight to anything or anybody... Sure, it's not all bad. The classic Ridley Scott elements are here - battles are engaging, the costumes and set designs very well-done. Something he can't help but always be good at.

Overall, Ridley Scott's Napoleon feels like a simulacrum, a reduced copy of a real film, where, it seems, all life is sucked out . If I had more reverence towards the post-Gladiator Ridley Scott, I'd, perhaps, think of the film as some kind of metajoke, a self-aware self-parody, but, frankly, I think it's just a matter of the filmmaker not caring much. Just another day at work for Ridley, gotta keep working, do one thing, move on to the next one immediately, have fun, try things out, don't overthink it - this seems to be the way to go for the good ol' Ridley these days. Can't blame him, he's 85, for Christ's sake, but the movie's not good, kind of proto A. I-produced entertainment.

Bring on the director's cut!

[zeki-4 · 7/10 · 22 November 2023]

Back in 2005 Ridley Scott's 144 minute version of 'Kingdom of Heaven' premiered in theatres to somewhat mixed reviews. A couple of years later the vastly superior 190 minute director's cut version finally arrived, with the general consensus that the final product was a masterclass in storytelling, directing, acting and cinematography. - without doubt the best motion picture ever made about the crusades.

Almost 20 years later we are yet again treated with a compiled highlight reel of a Ridley Scott movie in the theatre, rather than a full-fledged historical epic, since it has already become official that 'Napoleon' will be released later on streaming with its entire runtime of almost four hours, which clearly is needed to flesh out many parts of the movie and fill in the emotional and historical blanks, because this - somewhat butchered cut - moves in a breakneck speed and feels too rushed.

Whereas the underappreciated 1970 movie 'Waterloo' starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon Bonaparte, featuring thousands of extras, portrayed events only during the 100 days campaign in 1815, Scott's 'Napoleon' takes us through decades of various major events and battles beginning with the siege of Toulon in 1793. In this version we never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful. Why did he win the admiration of so many? It's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in real life, but here he is portrayed as a childish brute? It felt like the focus was more on setpieces and his troubled relationship with Josephine, than on him as a ruthless and cunning emperor, and in the theatre cut there really isn't a lot of places where Joaquin Phoenix truly shines as an Oscar contender. Maybe the director's cut will remedy that.

In spite of its shortcomings (no pun intended) 'Napoleon' is still one of the best movies I have seen this year, but I am baffled. Because if people can sit through 3+ hour box office hits like 'Avengers Endgame', 'Avatar 2' and 'Oppenheimer' - why the need to release just a very extended trailer of 'Napoleon' in the theatre, especially when everyone know that they can just wait a couple of months for it to arrive on streaming in its entirety? An attempt by Apple at a cash grab? "You need a subscription to our streaming service to watch the whole thing"?

With that being said, I do predict some Oscar nominations here. Ridley Scott yet again proves why he is one of the best filmmakers out there. But a word of caution: If you only plan to see this once, you might consider waiting for the director's cut.

Excellent trailer - not so the movie

[stefan-huybrechts · 6/10 · 3 January 2024]

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.

Tsk Tsk Tsk

[dorMancyx · 6/10 · 22 November 2023]

I feel unsatisfied walking out of that theater after three hours of melancholy and confusion. I understand every single word and every single scene, but when they connect into a whole film I don't understand anything. To start off, the costume/production design, naturalistic sceneries, the two meticulously-depicted ancient warfares --- one amid the doleful squall of Austerlitz and another atop the dampened prairie of Waterloo --- and all other technical stuff are spotless. However, there's an anxiety-inducing problem with the narrative --- the movie has no focus. No climax, no resonating themes like Oppenheimer, just one plain, linear, chronological plot; and even that we get multiple baffling time jumps throughout. The plot is so simple that everything in the film was taught in my AP World History class last year in one day, except it nibbles on some superficial details. Highlighting the relationship between Napolean and Josephine is a unique take, and I do see efforts from the two esteemed performers to capture their mutual toxicity and intricacy, but this love story has barely anything to do with the movie's main arc, Napolean's personal rise and fall. Nothing! Two basically unrelated storylines unfolding in the most bland way possible. Also adding to this insipid mess is the score, which is composed primarily of classical or really old-sounding French folk --- what happened to Radiohead from the trailer? God Ridley I don't wanna say three hours of my life is wasted but it kinda is!

I didn't think it was possible but, I think Oppenheimer's winning the Oscar.

Another reminder to not care about people's opinions ever again

[UrsusProblemus · 8/10 · 8 March 2024]

Yes, the film is somewhat disjointed. It would have been much better off being a mini-series. However, apart from that, I can't really fault the movie, and it's an absolute mystery to me why everyone seems to hate it so much. Granted, I can't really judge its historical accuracy, I'm merely speaking about its merits as a drama. Well, it's beautifully shot and it never gets dull. And it's still way above average. I would definitely rank it higher than Scott's "Last Duel", too.

To think that I've almost missed it reading all the negative reviews here on IMDb. This will be a lesson to me. Movies used to be more fun back in the day without the internet.

Napoleon the butcher, Napoleon the megalomaniac, Napoleon the lover

[cagebox111 · 7/10 · 22 November 2023]

Napoleon was the most significant man of his age and no film can explain his significance in 2.5 hours. Scott decides to focus on three specific aspects of Napoleon's life and personality to show who he thinks Napoleon was at the expense of omitting much of what makes him such a fascinating figure in history.

The first aspect Scott focuses on is Napoleon the lover. Much of this film shows his infatuation and on-again off-again relationship with Josephine. Both actors handle their parts well and while there is some humor and tension, it is the least interesting part of the movie. Still, some focus is necessary as his marriage to Josephine was certainly a key aspect of his life.

The second aspect is Napoleon the megalomaniac. We all know of Napoleon as the short guy who had insecurity issues. Even if there is truth to this, it is probably an overstatement, but there is no denying the massive ego of the man. In many respects his ego is understandable for all he accomplished, and Scott paints Napoleon's inflated belief in himself as the reason for his fall, particularly in his invasion of Russia. Scott does not want us the think Napoleon fights for the glory of France but rather for the glory of Napoleon.

The final side of the Napoleon casts him as a butcher. Towards the end of his career we see Napoleon recklessly spending the lives of his men as he seeks to conquer for himself. The movie leaves us with a comprehensive death toll that Napoleon left in his wake, a massive number that comes as a result of his callous disregard for his own men and endless ambition.

So then we are left with a Napoleon as a man who loved Josephine, who had a massive ego, and constantly warred, causing the deaths of millions. All this is true, but what of Napoleon the tactician? What of Napoleon the reformer? What of Napoleon the leader? Scott focused on the worst aspects of Napoleon to highlight while disregarding the best. I was shocked that more was not discussed and shown over the massive victories and the unprecedented tactics he employed that make him a general still studied in military academies today. He was a multifaceted man, who accomplished much good and much bad, but he comes off in this film as a little ambitious fool.

The film also seems jumbled at times and jumps forward in ways that show Napoleon must be conquering and doing something right, but he goes from general, to consul, to emporer in quick ways we are not shown. He beats Austria and Russa, befriends Russia, then is back at war with them one scene later. I understand the politics, battles, and alliances are hard to follow of the ealry 19th century, but I left feeling like I learned little more about Napoleon and the France he ruled than I already knew coming in.

Despite the films shortcomings, it is a genuinely effective movie and shot beautifully. The battle scenes are bloody and tense, and the costumes and sets look recreate Napoleonic France beautifully.

Tired of Romanticized and incorrect Historical movies

[epicking · 3/10 · 23 November 2023]

Im only focused on the historical aspect here ... and I only mentions a couple of out many here

In the beginning, Napoleon abandons a battle at the Egyptian pyramids because Joséphine is unfaithful at home in Paris. It is pure fiction.

Much later, when the two have divorced, he marches on Paris from his famous exile on the island of Elba, because he is jealous that the Russian Tsar Alexander is apparently taking a swing with Joséphine. From whom Napoleon, by the way, has long since divorced.

It is a distortion of history of the worst kind. Joséphine dies of pneumonia in 1814. Napoleon first marches on Paris in 1815 to regain power, a wild story that could be a whole movie in itself.

If you´re gonna make an expensive movie like this, get things right instead of just making romantic stuff up.

2 hours 38 minutes is not enough for this story!

[adamneale-73636 · 8/10 · 24 November 2023]

This is an incredibly ambitious film, telling the story of Napoleon Bonaparte from the French Revolution through to his rise to Emperor, The Battle of Austerlitz, the Russia campaign, Waterloo and his final exile, all while dedicating many scenes to Napoleon's relationship with Josephine.

That is a huge amount of subject matter and I think too much to cover in a single movie. Each element is skimmed over at breakneck speed and simplified to an extent that will infuriate some (almost certainly including Dan Snow). The Spanish campaign goes almost completely unmentioned. Potentially the story could have been split into separate 'Napoleon' and 'Wellington' films.

Having said that, I hugely enjoyed 'Napoleon'. Joaquin Phoenix is brilliantly charismatic in the titular role. He plays a Napoleon who is a military genius driven by boundless self-belief but who is also cripplingly insecure, awkward, childishly selfish and terrified. Vanessa Kirby's Josephine is fantastic and their relationship is cringeworthy and ridiculous as well as being unexpectedly funny.

The battle scenes were awesome and memorable, capturing the cannons, guns and cavalry of this era of combat better than I have ever seen!

I loved 'Napoleon' but just want more. Roll on the director's cut.

Save your money on this one

[strunckjl · 6/10 · 23 November 2023]

Like many on here, I was thrilled with the trailer and couldn't wait for this movie to hit the theaters.

Watching the movie, I felt disappointed, like I was sold something that wasn't real because the movie fell really flat. The I thought the acting, the costumes, and the sets were great, but my issue was with the tone, character takes, and general writing

The movie opens with the French queen being led to be executed. It was a very awful event, but the music being played is very lighthearted which creates a sense that the events in the movie aren't taken seriously. This can work for some movies, but the lighthearted tone that we see throughout doesn't work for an intense historical epic

Which takes me to the characters. I feel like the movie does a very reductionist take on them, and that the movie doesn't take either Napoleon or Josephine seriously. Josephine is portrayed as a woman with co-decency and anxiety issues, while Napoleon is portrayed as an idiot who stumbles into power and keeps seeking more power to impress a woman who never tells him that she wants power in the first place. She doesn't come off ambitious herself, and I spent much of the movie wondering what it is that she actually wants or why she even likes this man. There's a scene where he throws a fit and says that she's nothing without him, and later she says that he's nothing without her, but we don't see it. She's not whispering in his ear telling him to go after more and more, instead she spends much of the movie crying or staring moodily into a lake

The classical philosophers and writers were all well aware of what a tyrant was and ambitious people are obsessed with leaving a legacy. Even the biggest ego maniac doesn't seize power for power's sake, rather they seize power because they see something broken in the system that *only* they can fix. In "Gladiator," there's a scene where Marcus Aurelius explains to Maximus what legacy he wants to leave so that he is not remembered as a tyrant who just started wars, and why Maximus must succeed him. We never see this from Napoleon in this movie. No discussion of his philosophy or why he's doing what he's doing. Napoleon himself was complicated. He's primarily remembered as a military general, but he also reformed French laws and the Napoleonic Code is still the widespread law in the world (which, again, were not shown this in this movie). People don't rise to the level that he did without some level of social tact, charisma, and political genius-but we see nothing of that in this film

The movie generally cuts pretty quickly and skips over a lot. One moment Napoleon is married, and the next moment he's suddenly in Egypt, with no discussion of why. One moment he insults the British ambassador (which felt like a scene from Napoleon Dynamite), and the next moment he receives an offer to become king, and the next moment he's being crowned emperor of the French by the Pope himself. Napoleon taking the crown and placing it on his own head is one of the great moments in history, yet this movie treats it very casually

There's also lots of anachronisms that bothered me as a history buff. In a letter to Josephine, Napoleon says that he's invading Russia with the combined armies of France, Poland, ITALY, and GERMANY. I think this is meant to evoke a comparison to Hitler, because Germany and Italy didn't exist as states back then so it would've made no sense for him to say that. Also, at Waterloo, they tell Napoleon that the Prussians are twelve miles away, even the metric system was created during the French Revolution and miles is an English system of measurement anyways

Maybe the Director's cut with the extra hour adds more, but save your money and don't see it in theaters.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is more hysterical than historical.

[dhunjiwadia · 5/10 · 26 November 2023]

Ridley Scott's Napoleon is more hysterical than historical. History is like an uninvited guest in this movie. Stunning battle visuals don't make up for gross historical approximations.

If you want to watch a masterpiece then see Waterloo, with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer. And if you want a historical enumeration then watch the Napoleon series with Christian Clavier, Isabella Rossalini, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu.

This movie was made for Apple streaming. Then they made a butchered version for cinema to be able to compete for the Oscars. The original Apple streaming version will be at least 2 hours longer. This cut version for cinema is somewhat rushed, disjointed and, as a result, confusing.

We never really learn why Napoleon was so powerful and won the admiration of so many. Here it's almost as if he stumbles through greatness. He was a great politician in reality, over here he's shown as a childish brute. The focus was more on set pieces and his relationship with Josephine.

Joaquin Phoenix can play odd or troubled characters well. Here he barely succeeds in persuading the viewers that he is Napoleon. He's too old for this role (Napoleon was 24 when Marie Antoinette was guillotined) and made the character seem bizarre than a charismatic leader. Vanessa Kirby as Josephine gets more traction.

The cinematography by Dariusz Wolski is of a very high order. The battle scenes are filmed well. Ridley Scott knows how to make action scenes slick and impressive. But overall it's a below average movie. Napoleon deserves better than this shambolic movie.

A shallow representation

[nicula-eduard-andrei · 6/10 · 27 November 2023]

When i first heard about Ridley Scott making a Napoleon movie with Joaquin Phoenix as lead actor, i was very excited. Little that i knew that this movie would not match the expectations set. First of all i would like to state that i didn't expect an historically accurate movie given the fact that it is not Ridley Scott strongest suite (see Kingdom of Heaven). There is a small measure of truth in all of his movies but they are not built as a documentary and they are not intended to be one. Nevertheless, this movie doesn't even come close to the vibe given by Kingdom of Heaven or other historical movies, from an historical point of view. I always look for a particular type of energy in movies, especially in historical ones but Napoleon in my opinion fails to deliver. This movie tries to much to contain all peculiarities of Napoleon's life but fails miserably. We see all and nothing. The feeling that i got was that we saw a fast forward version of his life but without any soul or essence. Even the battle scenes seemed dull and without soul. I think Ridley set the bar too high through his previous movies for this part. Regarding Joaquin's performance, there is not much to say. I think his interpretation was similar to a performance you would see in a stage theater. I don't know why but at some points in the movie, it felt like a low budget movie with very poor writing and very poor dialogue. I will wait for the extended version to see if my opinion changes for the best.

Should have been a 10 part series

[garrywt · 6/10 · 25 March 2024]

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.

Looks Epic, does NOT FEEL EPIC

[jmperfetti · 6/10 · 1 December 2023]

Most people will agree that this film is visually stunning. The sets, the wardrobe, the battle scenes. All of the imagery is amazingly beautiful.

But as a story it flopped on several fronts. On the one hand, it tries to cover 30 years... 30 YEARS... of history, making at least 6 time skips with almost 0 context as to what happens in between. It shows iconic, well known moments of Napoleon's career, but you can barely understand why he is there, what events led to that situation, and even the ramifications of his actions after the event. Most of the important figures that cross his path, are barely mentioned or explained. His generals are not even named. This makes every side character forgettable.

If it had been focused on a shorter time period, we would have been able to understand both the context and the character more and the story would have been better off for it. The French revolution and the napoleonic wars are fascinating subjects, but there is no need to cover ALL of it to tell a good Napoleon story.

In contrast, there is too much focus on his private life with Josephine. Don't get me wrong, that is a totally legitimate and interesting aspect to explore in a film, but if you are telling the story of Napoleon, you need to show the military side of his career as well. The movie does not ever show him planning a battle (as in coming up with the plans), does not convey his knowledge of military matters and logistics, does not show his cunning cultivation of his personality cult, nor his boldness in political matters. We are constantly shown his insecurities, his arrogance and his lack of vision in crucial moments, leaving you a very pathetic impression of him as a character. He feels emasculated by Josephine. I never once got the impresión that he was loved, feared or even respected.

It feels as though the rest of the characters tolerate him because they must. The point is not whether he was evil or heroic. The point is that he was a forced to be reckoned with.

Again we are talking about a history icon that faced the combined might of Europe and prevailed for 15 years. He should feel epic, he should invoke awe. But he does not. And that to me is the biggest sin of this film.

It was OK but messy - Maybe the 4-hour cut is better?

[Vince_D · 7/10 · 23 November 2023]

I went in wanting and expecting to like it but came out thinking it was a disjointed mess.

I did like Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby as Napoleon and Josephine, and the battle scenes, although sparse and lacking context, were visually impressive. Regrettably, this is where the luminosity of the film dims. The rest of the cast is never given an opportunity to perform or bring their characters to life. Most are not even mentioned by name in the dialogue. For example, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and the man who brought Napoleon to heel at the Battle of Waterloo, is introduced at the beginning of Act 3 with an on-screen title card--very lazy storytelling.

The film vacillates between the intimate drama of Napoleon's tumultuous marriage and abrupt, though strikingly vivid, battle sequences. Yet it fails to stitch these disparate scenes into a coherent narrative. It never delves into any of the social reforms or policies that Napoleon implemented and reshaped Europe, nor does it explain the sociopolitical causes behind the battle scenes. Furthermore, it fails to show what a brilliant and charismatic leader Napoleon was or to justify why his troops were so loyal to him.

The film also completely glosses over his time spent on the island of Elba. In fact, if you're not familiar with Napoleon's history, you might not even recognize that sequence of events and why his troops rallied around him to help him regain power. It was all very strange and bordered on incoherent, as if Scott, burdened by the runtime, chose to excise the soul of the story, leaving only the skeleton of historical events.

The production value is great-the sets and costumes looked amazing and, despite lacking context, the battle scenes were well-shot and looked great on the big screen.

Ridley Scott has mentioned in interviews that he has a 4-hour director's cut that will be released when the film goes to streaming. I'm hoping the additional runtime adds the much-needed historical context about the sociopolitical environment in Europe at the time and doesn't just pad out the runtime with more marital drama.

◼TL;DR: Despite being visually impressive and the strength of its two leads, Napoleon is a jumbled mess of a story that borders on the incoherent.

6.5 out of 10.

Don't be put off by the reviews!

[astallabrass · 8/10 · 30 November 2023]

I put my hands up to say I'm not a historian so whether or not this film misses out on factual detail, I'm not sure. I also didn't see the trailer which a lot of people seemed to get excited as if it were to be a contender to stand next to Gladiator.

However I thought it was a well constructed film that didn't at any point feel as though it was 2 hour 30 minute long. Had plenty of great battle scenes and although it did focus on his love life for periods, it wasn't enough that it became frustrating. If anything it gives you a glimpse of the kind of man he was (which as I mentioned, I had very little knowledge on!)

Would definitely recommend. I can only assume the people who are disappointed are looking for a biography of great detail! Perhaps dramatisation has been added, but to me I really enjoyed it.

As a person who gets disappointed by film releases nowadays, this definitely wasn't one of them. Have faith and enjoy a well directed film with a great actor in his prime.

A film I don't recommend

[Masami-J · 30 November 2023]

Napoleon by Ridley Scott is a film about Napoleon Bonaparte, but it is a very fictional film, many sequences of the film do not correspond to historical reality. I didn't like the film because I would have preferred something much more historically faithful, not an almost fictional work.

The cinematography of the film is spectacular but the battles depicted also did so they are very fictional.

The film is very schizophrenic, it goes from one thing to another without ever delving into anything specific.

A film about Napoleon(that is not the real historical Napoleon) that I honestly do not recommend.

A film I don't recommend!!!!

Nap-oleon...

[Xstal · 6/10 · 29 November 2023]

A battle in Toulon sets up your rise, as the rebels are soon cannonballed to size, with some help and some removed, promotions are approved, sets your trajectory to take you to the skies; the pyramid of your life is Josephine, while on manoeuvres she's quite progressive and keen, although quite barren for an Empress, and you need an heir for success, but you compensate through a mass killing machine. A spell in exile lets you gather next to water, before you gather once again to kill and slaughter, but no matter what you do, this will be your Waterloo, as all you dreams go down the pan, prisoned by water.

A bit too long and not particularly engaging.

My biggest disappointment this year

[MissSimonetta · 2/10 · 25 November 2023]

Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON feels like the highlight reel of a lengthy miniseries. Considering there's a 4-hour cut of this film, that explains it all.

NAPOLEON is certainly good spectacle. The battle scenes are breathtaking. Unfortunately, it's also shallow. I know Scott has sneered at viewers criticizing the historical inaccuracies in the film, but I'm more bothered by a total lack of interesting character psychology or even coherent storytelling. Characters pop in and out, leaving little impression in their brief scenes. Relationships between characters are barely fleshed out, including that of Napoleon and Josephine, which dominates the running time. Also, potentially unpopular opinion, I thought Joaquin Phoenix's performance was a one-note bore.

Perhaps the 4-hour version is a richer piece of work. As is, NAPOLEON is a let down, especially after Scott's brilliant 2021 period piece THE LAST DUEL, which had all the drama and psychological depth this movie lacked.

Ignore the negatives, it's an impressive movie.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 22 November 2023]

The rise and fa of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who's thirst for power led him to many victories and some significant losses.

I struggle to associate any commonality with reviews that have called it slow and bum aching, it's a historical saga, if you have expectations of something different, you went to the wrong film.

The epic I had hoped for from Ridley Scott, a great story, huge battle sequences, and a detailed exploration of Napoleon, and his complex relationship with Josephine. The perfect mix I thought, it never became overly sentimental or slushy, I thought he nailed it.

Several scenes stood out in particular, for me the best of all was the battle of Austerlitz, the sheer audacity of the plan as well as the epic visuals, just phenomenal. Secondly, the siege on Moscow, again tremendous visuals, but the hollowness of the victory was cleverly executed, and of course, the battle of Waterloo, incredibly realised.

The running time was spot on, I'm glad it didn't go on any longer, it felt like that right run time.

I thought the production values were superb, incredibly sets, great battles, as well as amazing costumes.

Joaquin Phoenix delivers an award winning performance, he is phenomenal, and brings the character to life, he's definitely someone who's conflicted, addicted to power and definitely love sick. Vanessa Kirby excellent as Josephine.

Plenty of British talent on display to enjoy, the likes of Julian Rhind Tutt, Sorcha Cusack, Rupert Everett and the excellent Paul Rhys.

Overall, well worth your time.

8/10.

Are You Not Entertained?

[reelreviewsandrecommendations · 7/10 · 29 December 2023]

Do films about figures from reality need to be entirely factual? The fractious reaction to Ridley Scott's 'Napoleon' seems to suggest that some, at least, think they do. However, in his book 'Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia,' Michael Korda posits that criticizing a film- in his case David Lean's epic 'Lawrence of Arabia'- for a lack of historical accuracy "misses the point (as) the object was to produce, not a faithful docudrama that would educate the audience, but a hit picture."

A hit picture 'Napoleon' surely is. Retelling the events of the titular Emperor's life from 1793 to his death in 1821, the film is an action-packed, frequently funny epic holding great entertainment value. Focusing on Bonaparte's relationship with his wife Josephine, Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa contend that she was the great woman behind the great man, as it were, and the driving force behind his actions.

Despite the fact that the film is enjoyable, it is this last point that is problematic. Scarpa's screenplay doesn't show us how Josephine inspires Napoleon, nor how she contributes to his military prowess. It is stated that she does so numerous times, but never shown in detail, beyond her giving him the odd compliment. Although she tells Napoleon that he is the greatest man in the world, and that she loves him more than anything, this doesn't really explain how she motivated him to glory and aided him militarily.

Conversely, considering Scarpa and Scott wanted to portray Josephine as a strong, influential presence in Napoleon's life, they could have included some scenes from history where the real Josephine showed her power and intelligence. She was- in reality- a patron of the arts, while her intervention probably saved the life of Madame Germaine de Staël, a fierce critic of Napoleon's. This could have demonstrated how she was a valuable partner for Napoleon, as well as an intelligent, independent woman. By ultimately reducing her to a mere love interest, the film misses the opportunity to explore her complex personality and relationship with Bonaparte. By the time the credits have rolled, we haven't really learnt anything about her; nor do we find her interesting or compelling.

On the other hand, Scott and Scarpa's examination of Napoleon's rise to and fall from power is thrilling and engaging, while their portrayal of the man himself is nuanced. A person of massive ego and ambition, their version of Bonaparte is also something of a wit, despite being brutish and heavy-handed. He is a multidimensional personality, with traits both laudable and deplorable: a realistic, flawed person whose thirst for power could never be quenched.

As we follow on his journey, we are treated to spectacle after spectacle, from the beheading of Marie Antoinette to the carnage of the Battle of Austerlitz. Full of political intrigue, as well as gloriously gory scenes of warfare, the narrative consistently excites. The film also has a surprising amount of comedy, which adds to the charm and appeal the real Napoleon must have had, while also making proceedings more enjoyable.

Scott has always had a fantastic eye for visuals; a fact proven again here. Alongside director of photography Dariusz Wolski, Scott makes the film appear truly epic in scale and scope. Utilising multiple cameras, intricate, contrasting lighting and juxtaposing colours, they enhance the film's tone and impact, while also creating a visually stunning, immersive film. Their use of close-up lenses, high-angle views and warm, soft lighting generates a sense of intimacy when Napoleon is with Josephine, while their employment of wide-angle lenses, low-angle views and bright lighting makes Napoleon seems all the more powerful on the battlefield.

On that point, Scott's handling of the battle sequences is enthralling and gory. He captures the hectic madness of warfare astutely, while the violence is hard-hitting and palpable. The Battle of Austerlitz is particularly memorable, shot with an artistic touch that makes the gruesome scenes therein all the more poignant. In its scenes of battle, it is far more realistic and closer in tone to Scott's previous 'The Duellists' than 'Gladiator,' making it more compelling.

Furthermore, the set decoration and costume design are texturally rich and lavish. Throughout, Arthur Max's production design is visceral and detailed, while also appearing fairly period accurate. From the bedazzled palaces full of ornate furnishings, to the soldiers' decrepit tents, the locations are convincing and atmospheric. In addition, Martin Phipps' stirring score adds drama to proceedings, while his inclusion of songs from the period compounds the realism of the venture. Moreover, the film is generally well edited and has a good, steady pace- although repeatedly cutting to white to mark a scene transition seems a cliched technique far below Scott's level.

Joaquin Phoenix stars as Napoleon, opposite Vanessa Kirby as Josephine. Versatile and charismatic, Phoenix delivers a performance of wit, intelligence and strength. His Bonaparte is compelling and captivating: a more grounded character than we have seen represented before in cinema, be it Rod Steiger in 'Waterloo' or Ian Holm in 'Napoleon and Love.' Kirby gives a solid performance, but there isn't much for her to work with in the face of Scarpa's scant characterization. Despite her best efforts, she fades into Phoenix's shadow- a shame, considering her talent.

Alongside them, Tahar Rahim does fine work as Paul Barras, an early supporter of Napoleon's, as does Mark Bonnar as Jean-Andoche Junot, one of his Generals and advisors. Miles Jupp and Anna Mawn both shine in the all too small roles of Emperor Francis II of Austria and Archduchess Marie-Louise, Napoleon's second wife, respectively, while Rupert Everett is delightfully prim and proper as the Duke of Wellington.

In conclusion, Ridley Scott's epic 'Napoleon' is a solid piece of entertainment. Although questionable in terms of historical accuracy, it is enjoyable and thrilling: does it really matter if some details are fabricated or rearranged? Scott wasn't trying to make a docudrama, but a hit movie, and he has largely succeeded. Despite a dearth of characterization in regard to Josephine, the narrative is engaging and the central character compelling. Featuring lush visuals, pulse-pounding battle sequences and a brilliant performance from star Joaquin Phoenix, this film about a small Emperor is a great success.

Awful.

[krzysiektom · 2/10 · 26 November 2023]

What a disappointment. This film is BORING. A movie with a huge budget, good actors, about a person as fascinating and complex as Bonaparte, who participated in more than 60 battles and had drama, triumphs and failures that would be enough for a few lifetimes, is... BORING! Nothing is well explained, it's unclear who is who beside Napoleon and Josephine. Several unnecessary sex scenes between the two. What's even worse is that it's unclear why the French nation would follow and worship this Napoleon as he's portrayed in this movie, because in this movie he seems a mediocre personality, without much charisma or extraordinary abilities. In addition, everything on the screen looks greyish blue, without vivid colors, and it is a bit depressing. I liked only two elements of this movie: musical score and costumes.