Movie Review: Napolean
Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" presents an ambitious cinematic portrayal of one of history's most enigmatic figures, Napoleon Bonaparte. While the film showcases Scott's signature flair for visual grandeur, it does have its share of issues.
The film opens with a captivating display of Napoleon's early life and meteoric rise to power, which is depicted with a remarkable attention to detail. Scott's expertise in crafting visually stunning set pieces is evident throughout the movie. The set design and costumes are particularly noteworthy, meticulously recreating the opulence and extravagance of early 19th-century Europe. These elements not only add a layer of authenticity to the film but also serve as a feast for the eyes, immersing the audience in the era.
However, the film's dedication to historical accuracy wanes as the narrative progresses. One of my major criticisms of "Napoleon" stems from its unbalanced focus on personal and political aspects of Napoleon's life. The film dedicates a substantial amount of screen time to exploring Napoleon's relationship with his wife, which, while interesting, detracts from other potentially more compelling facets of his life. This choice will be a point of contention, particularly among history enthusiasts like myself who expected a more comprehensive exploration of Napoleon's military campaigns and political maneuvers.
The portrayal of Napoleon's military exploits, which are central to his historical significance, is surprisingly limited. Given Scott's reputation for crafting epic battle sequences, as seen in his previous works, my expectation for "Napoleon" was high. This lack of focus on key historical events contributes to a sense of incompleteness and leaves the audience yearning for more.
Another aspect where the film falters is in its narrative structure. "Napoleon" makes some unconventional plot choices that are just weird in my view. These choices often disrupt the flow of the story, leading to a disjointed experience. This narrative confusion not only affects the film’s pacing but also hampers its ability to engage the audience fully.
More on my issues with the battle scenes. It states at the end that Napolean fought over 60 battles, in the movie we get just 3 and some ridiculously short scenes of others. If you’re a stickler for historical accuracy Asterlitz and Waterloo will really irritate you. While impressive on screen they both feel rushed with not as much tension or action as they deserve. It’s a case of trying to cram the man’s entire life and career into under 3 hours and frankly it does some a notable historical figure a disservice.
Despite these shortcomings, "Napoleon" does have its strengths. The performances are generally strong, with the cast delivering convincing portrayals of their historical characters (except for Napoleon himself, more on that in a bit). Additionally, the film’s cinematography is exceptional, capturing the beauty and brutality of the era with equal skill.
Whoever made the above trailer needs a raise or a slap, as it suggests we’re going to see a powerful man’s rise to power, instead he is portrayed as a bit of weakling, weirdo and dare I say a cuckhold to his dominating wife and Phoenix’s portrayal makes him out to be a bit of a bumbling fool and frankly he’d not very believable as a man who ceased such power and was so feared by his enemies.
In conclusion, Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is a film of contrasts. On one hand, it excels in its visual presentation and attention to detail in set and costume design. On the other, it struggles with narrative coherence and fails to adequately explore the pivotal aspects of Napoleon's life and legacy. For viewers seeking a visually immersive historical experience, "Napoleon" might be a treat.
However, for those expecting a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of Napoleon's life, especially his military genius and political acumen, the film may be a disappointment. This blend of impressive visuals and narrative shortcomings ultimately earns "Napoleon" a score of 6/10.
