With its impressive production values and epic battle sequences, Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a riveting history lesson for the uninitiated, covering Napoleon Bonaparte's rise from general to the ruler of France, his glorious victories on the battlefield, and his romantic relationship with Joséphine de Beauharnais.
Dariusz Wolski's cinematography is stunning and impressively diverse, infusing shadowy grittiness into a classical painting aesthetic. The cinematography adds solid weight to the period costumes and sets, with candlelit scenes that luminously call back to Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon.
The Battle of Austerlitz and Waterloo war sequences are superbly staged and photographed with a kinetic sense of danger. The Fire of Moscow sequence was jaw-dropping.
Having no previous knowledge of history, Napoleon had me on the edge of my seat. Biopics usually wrestle with the subject's life not being dramatic enough for an exciting story, but Napoleon's is the rare exception.
Joaquin Phoenix carries the film sufficiently but doesn't get a handle on the role. It's like Phoenix is instinctually hunting for the ultimate moment to explode and iconize his Napoleon in a single scene, but that perfect moment never arrives and gets caught up in quirks. What remains is an inert ball of energy awkwardly vibrating.
What was Napoleon driven by? Was it his love for his country? Was it a thirst for power? Was it a need to prove himself to the world? It's a murky blend of all of the above.
To quote Gary Oldman in Mank, "You cannot capture a man's life in 2 hours. All you can do is to leave an impression of one."
And therein lies the problem. The script's box-ticking approach leaves no lasting impression of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon is a larger-than-life figure no doubt, however, there was nothing to take away from the film other than the historical events.
Vanessa Kirby is magnetically captivating as Empress Josephine, committing wholeheartedly to her role as written, even pulling in the seemingly overthinking Phoenix. Their scenes are on fire and the highlight of the entire film, above all the impressive battle scenes.
Historians have accused the film of being inaccurate, but I feel the film could have been more ruthless with its liberties. I wanted something more daring from David Scarpa's screenplay, hoping it would seize what it wants to say and present Napoleon boldly, instead of reenacting the events chronologically.
Ridley Scott, by reputation, has always been known as a shooter-type director and his films have always succeeded and failed based on the quality of the scripts.
I couldn't help but wonder if Scott picked up on the power of Vanessa Kirby's performance in production and reworked the Napoleon-Josephine relationship further as the centerpiece and ruthlessly cut out the excess scenes. Devoting more time to that emotional anchor would have given Napoleon that much-needed final punch.
Apple TV has announced an upcoming 4-hour cut and I look forward to it in the hope there's more of the Napoleon-Josephine story.
Dariusz Wolski's cinematography is stunning and impressively diverse, infusing shadowy grittiness into a classical painting aesthetic. The cinematography adds solid weight to the period costumes and sets, with candlelit scenes that luminously call back to Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon.
The Battle of Austerlitz and Waterloo war sequences are superbly staged and photographed with a kinetic sense of danger. The Fire of Moscow sequence was jaw-dropping.
Having no previous knowledge of history, Napoleon had me on the edge of my seat. Biopics usually wrestle with the subject's life not being dramatic enough for an exciting story, but Napoleon's is the rare exception.
Joaquin Phoenix carries the film sufficiently but doesn't get a handle on the role. It's like Phoenix is instinctually hunting for the ultimate moment to explode and iconize his Napoleon in a single scene, but that perfect moment never arrives and gets caught up in quirks. What remains is an inert ball of energy awkwardly vibrating.
What was Napoleon driven by? Was it his love for his country? Was it a thirst for power? Was it a need to prove himself to the world? It's a murky blend of all of the above.
To quote Gary Oldman in Mank, "You cannot capture a man's life in 2 hours. All you can do is to leave an impression of one."
And therein lies the problem. The script's box-ticking approach leaves no lasting impression of Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon is a larger-than-life figure no doubt, however, there was nothing to take away from the film other than the historical events.
Vanessa Kirby is magnetically captivating as Empress Josephine, committing wholeheartedly to her role as written, even pulling in the seemingly overthinking Phoenix. Their scenes are on fire and the highlight of the entire film, above all the impressive battle scenes.
Historians have accused the film of being inaccurate, but I feel the film could have been more ruthless with its liberties. I wanted something more daring from David Scarpa's screenplay, hoping it would seize what it wants to say and present Napoleon boldly, instead of reenacting the events chronologically.
Ridley Scott, by reputation, has always been known as a shooter-type director and his films have always succeeded and failed based on the quality of the scripts.
I couldn't help but wonder if Scott picked up on the power of Vanessa Kirby's performance in production and reworked the Napoleon-Josephine relationship further as the centerpiece and ruthlessly cut out the excess scenes. Devoting more time to that emotional anchor would have given Napoleon that much-needed final punch.
Apple TV has announced an upcoming 4-hour cut and I look forward to it in the hope there's more of the Napoleon-Josephine story.