A historical drama. When the author of this review found out about the release of this film, and even from Ridley Scott himself, he was delighted, especially since he loves the history of Napoleon and that time very much (maybe not his favorite historical era, but nevertheless). However, the first reviews were extremely negative (especially French ones), which was very alarming. Therefore, on the eve of the release of this film, two paintings "Napoleon" by Abel Hans and "Waterloo" were viewed Sergei Bondarchuk, in order to "plunge into the topic" and refresh his memory a little, and at the same time look at two different Napoleons from different eras. And after watching Ridley Scott's film film, the impressions are sharply negative. But the author of this review on "this" still wanted to go to the cinema, paying money for a ticket, but since this film was not rented in Russia, so I did not have to spend money (which is very pleasing), and I had to wait some time and take this film from a well-known source (after all, I did not pay To the Apple people for watching this movie on their service). And here is the brief opinion of the author of this review - A terrible in every sense and the most flawed picture about Napoleon. Despite the fact that the review will be full of analysis of the obvious shortcomings of this picture, attention should also be paid to the advantages (which are there, although there are few of them). And this should complete the introduction and move on to the analysis itself.
So, the advantages: 1. Costumes and decorations - what caused the least negative emotions in the author of this review were costumes and decorations. They were sewn expensively and quite richly (although not at all), but the uniforms look bright and distinguish the British and French, Austrians, Prussians and Russians. The latter are surprisingly few (but we'll talk about this below). Napoleon's imperial attire was especially well made. And the uniforms of the Austrian Emperor Franz II and the Russian Emperor Alexander the First are also nothing like that, they look good (although Alexander's uniform confuses with its arrangement of orders and ribbons). The scenery is also pleasing to the eye, although it is clear that everything was not filmed in France (unlike the painting by Abel Hans). But the graphics did a good job. It's nice to watch, at least Napoleon "carried" his uniforms, unlike some of the cast members.
2. Battle scenes - more precisely, not "battle scenes", but cuts of battles, of which there were only six (the Siege of Toulon in 1793, the Royalist rebellion in Paris in 1795, the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, the Battle of Borodino in 1812 and the Battle of Waterloo in 1815). They show blood, they show the horror of war, they show the war itself of that time, they showed especially well how guns shoot (although they hit painfully accurately and shoot painfully far, but these are trifles). Don't wait for details. More or less on a large scale and for a long time only Waterloo was shown, all the other battles - so, a bright advertisement for the long-released game "Napoleon Total War". But even these clippings were pleasant to watch (unlike everything else).
So, the disadvantages: 1. The script was written by a certain David Scarpa, who is practically unknown (then why was his name written on the main poster? It is unclear). So, the author of this review knows that Ridley Scott mounted a four-hour movie version (which no longer makes sense to watch), but the installation raises questions. The fact is that the painting shows us almost the entire life of the legendary Napoleon Bonaparte, literally from the siege and capture of Toulon in 1793 to his death on St. Helena in 1821. The picture literally flies at the speed of a hypersonic rocket through a series of the most famous events in the life of this legendary commander and politician, without context, without explanation, even with titles (although there are titles, but they are extremely few). The viewer does not have time to enjoy the hot Egypt, as he is abruptly jerked to Paris, then sharply Austerlitz, then Russia and so on. It is safe to say that David Scarpa did not do his job, for which he was paid at least good money. This is not a script - it is a set of vivid episodes that last terribly little. If people who are well-versed in history are confused in this scenario, then what about the ignorant? Who don't understand who all these people are at all. Did you know, for example, that General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas (the father of the future French writer) was in the picture? So they didn't even explain it to us by the title. And about the "gorgeous" dialogues, the author of the review would rather keep silent (about the dead, either good or nothing).
2. Napoleon performed by Joaquin Phoenix - as the author of this review understands, Joaquin, after receiving an Oscar for the picture "The Joker" (which the author of the review did not watch, and is not going to do it), decided that he did not need to play now, let others try, and he "Oscar" does not allow this to be done. Not only is twenty-four-year-old Napoleon played by forty-nine-year-old Phoenix, but a makeup artist has never approached him during filming. Joaquin looks all his considerable years, and speaks monotonously all the time and with an unchanging face. And he does not forget about tantrums (hello, modern Russian film school!). Here, Napoleon is a nanny, whom for some reason everyone respects and even fears (although it is not clear why for the picture at all). Joaquin's Napoleon is very reminiscent of Prince Vladimir performed by Danilka Kozlovsky from the Russian painting "Viking" (did Joaquin really watch it? Too suspiciously much of the same was taken from there). I hope it's not worth saying that the real Napoleon was not like that! It was a real lump among European politicians and rulers. Only the coalition that united the largest and strongest powers of Europe at that time could cope with it (and even then, only on the SIXTH attempt). He was the BEST commander of his time, who won many battles, while often outnumbering his opponents. The French army under him was the BEST in Europe. Napoleon was a cunning and calculating politician (although he made mistakes), who skillfully used the contradictions of European monarchs for the benefit of France. Napoleon is a reformer of the French state. You can still talk about Napoleon for a long time, but in Ridley Scott's painting, which is named after the legendary Bonaparte, this very Bonaparte is not there. There is a nanny who is being bullied by everyone, but whom everyone respects, it is unclear why. And then there's a famous actor who DOESN'T TRY A BIT!
3. Disregard for history - I will give just a few examples (if you say everything, then the review will be extremely long). Let's start with Marie Antoinette and her disheveled hair - this could not have happened, and Napoleon was not present at her execution. Paul Barras could not offer the unknown artillery captain Bonaprart a plan for the siege of Toulon (who is Napoleon and who is Barras - one of the leaders of the Directory, that is, the government of the First French Republic). Napoleon left Egypt not because of Josephine's betrayal, but because he learned that now was the time to seize power in France, Napoleon and Josephine did not behave so frivolously, as shown here, the Russian troops at Austerlitz did not die en masse on the ice, as shown here. Wateloo happened by accident, in Napoleon's plan there was no such village initially, it just happened because of the battle of Quatre Bras. The Duke of Wellington could not behave like this at the Congress of Vienna in the presence of the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia. Etc. You understood the liberties and disregard for history as it is.
4. Context and cause-and-effect relationships - there was no place in the scenario for the Italian Company (which made General Bonaparte very famous), the War of the Third Coalition (which was defeated at Austerlitz), There is no Prussian Company, the battles of Placisch Eylau and Friedland. Russian Russian company of 1812 is practically absent (and the Russian emperor was generally shown to be a fool, although he was not like that), there is no war of the Sixth Coalition (it is also the Foreign campaign of the Russian army of 1813-1814), they did not really show a Hundred Days, the Battle of Carte Bras and Ligny. Yes, a lot of things. They even spared money for the credits. But without these events, an ignorant viewer will not understand why, for example, the Russian and French emperors met in Tilsit in 1807, and not after Austerlitz in 1805.
5. Napoleon and Josephine is the main stage line that stretches through the entire timekeeping here, and it is quite poor. Let's start with the dialogues between them, which are practically non-existent, and if they are, they will be envied by Tony Wiseau from the painting "Room". Let's not talk about the naked porn between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, who plays Josephine here. Please tell the creators, why were these scenes needed? Should young people be dragged to the cinema? It didn't work out that way. Such goodness can be found without you on a well-known source and absolutely for free. Vanessa Kirby resembles Josephine in the nude version, and she doesn't look like the real Josephine. Look at her portraits, they are there. There is no romance, much less love, between these two at all.
So, the advantages: 1. Costumes and decorations - what caused the least negative emotions in the author of this review were costumes and decorations. They were sewn expensively and quite richly (although not at all), but the uniforms look bright and distinguish the British and French, Austrians, Prussians and Russians. The latter are surprisingly few (but we'll talk about this below). Napoleon's imperial attire was especially well made. And the uniforms of the Austrian Emperor Franz II and the Russian Emperor Alexander the First are also nothing like that, they look good (although Alexander's uniform confuses with its arrangement of orders and ribbons). The scenery is also pleasing to the eye, although it is clear that everything was not filmed in France (unlike the painting by Abel Hans). But the graphics did a good job. It's nice to watch, at least Napoleon "carried" his uniforms, unlike some of the cast members.
2. Battle scenes - more precisely, not "battle scenes", but cuts of battles, of which there were only six (the Siege of Toulon in 1793, the Royalist rebellion in Paris in 1795, the Battle of the Pyramids in 1798, the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, the Battle of Borodino in 1812 and the Battle of Waterloo in 1815). They show blood, they show the horror of war, they show the war itself of that time, they showed especially well how guns shoot (although they hit painfully accurately and shoot painfully far, but these are trifles). Don't wait for details. More or less on a large scale and for a long time only Waterloo was shown, all the other battles - so, a bright advertisement for the long-released game "Napoleon Total War". But even these clippings were pleasant to watch (unlike everything else).
So, the disadvantages: 1. The script was written by a certain David Scarpa, who is practically unknown (then why was his name written on the main poster? It is unclear). So, the author of this review knows that Ridley Scott mounted a four-hour movie version (which no longer makes sense to watch), but the installation raises questions. The fact is that the painting shows us almost the entire life of the legendary Napoleon Bonaparte, literally from the siege and capture of Toulon in 1793 to his death on St. Helena in 1821. The picture literally flies at the speed of a hypersonic rocket through a series of the most famous events in the life of this legendary commander and politician, without context, without explanation, even with titles (although there are titles, but they are extremely few). The viewer does not have time to enjoy the hot Egypt, as he is abruptly jerked to Paris, then sharply Austerlitz, then Russia and so on. It is safe to say that David Scarpa did not do his job, for which he was paid at least good money. This is not a script - it is a set of vivid episodes that last terribly little. If people who are well-versed in history are confused in this scenario, then what about the ignorant? Who don't understand who all these people are at all. Did you know, for example, that General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas (the father of the future French writer) was in the picture? So they didn't even explain it to us by the title. And about the "gorgeous" dialogues, the author of the review would rather keep silent (about the dead, either good or nothing).
2. Napoleon performed by Joaquin Phoenix - as the author of this review understands, Joaquin, after receiving an Oscar for the picture "The Joker" (which the author of the review did not watch, and is not going to do it), decided that he did not need to play now, let others try, and he "Oscar" does not allow this to be done. Not only is twenty-four-year-old Napoleon played by forty-nine-year-old Phoenix, but a makeup artist has never approached him during filming. Joaquin looks all his considerable years, and speaks monotonously all the time and with an unchanging face. And he does not forget about tantrums (hello, modern Russian film school!). Here, Napoleon is a nanny, whom for some reason everyone respects and even fears (although it is not clear why for the picture at all). Joaquin's Napoleon is very reminiscent of Prince Vladimir performed by Danilka Kozlovsky from the Russian painting "Viking" (did Joaquin really watch it? Too suspiciously much of the same was taken from there). I hope it's not worth saying that the real Napoleon was not like that! It was a real lump among European politicians and rulers. Only the coalition that united the largest and strongest powers of Europe at that time could cope with it (and even then, only on the SIXTH attempt). He was the BEST commander of his time, who won many battles, while often outnumbering his opponents. The French army under him was the BEST in Europe. Napoleon was a cunning and calculating politician (although he made mistakes), who skillfully used the contradictions of European monarchs for the benefit of France. Napoleon is a reformer of the French state. You can still talk about Napoleon for a long time, but in Ridley Scott's painting, which is named after the legendary Bonaparte, this very Bonaparte is not there. There is a nanny who is being bullied by everyone, but whom everyone respects, it is unclear why. And then there's a famous actor who DOESN'T TRY A BIT!
3. Disregard for history - I will give just a few examples (if you say everything, then the review will be extremely long). Let's start with Marie Antoinette and her disheveled hair - this could not have happened, and Napoleon was not present at her execution. Paul Barras could not offer the unknown artillery captain Bonaprart a plan for the siege of Toulon (who is Napoleon and who is Barras - one of the leaders of the Directory, that is, the government of the First French Republic). Napoleon left Egypt not because of Josephine's betrayal, but because he learned that now was the time to seize power in France, Napoleon and Josephine did not behave so frivolously, as shown here, the Russian troops at Austerlitz did not die en masse on the ice, as shown here. Wateloo happened by accident, in Napoleon's plan there was no such village initially, it just happened because of the battle of Quatre Bras. The Duke of Wellington could not behave like this at the Congress of Vienna in the presence of the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia. Etc. You understood the liberties and disregard for history as it is.
4. Context and cause-and-effect relationships - there was no place in the scenario for the Italian Company (which made General Bonaparte very famous), the War of the Third Coalition (which was defeated at Austerlitz), There is no Prussian Company, the battles of Placisch Eylau and Friedland. Russian Russian company of 1812 is practically absent (and the Russian emperor was generally shown to be a fool, although he was not like that), there is no war of the Sixth Coalition (it is also the Foreign campaign of the Russian army of 1813-1814), they did not really show a Hundred Days, the Battle of Carte Bras and Ligny. Yes, a lot of things. They even spared money for the credits. But without these events, an ignorant viewer will not understand why, for example, the Russian and French emperors met in Tilsit in 1807, and not after Austerlitz in 1805.
5. Napoleon and Josephine is the main stage line that stretches through the entire timekeeping here, and it is quite poor. Let's start with the dialogues between them, which are practically non-existent, and if they are, they will be envied by Tony Wiseau from the painting "Room". Let's not talk about the naked porn between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, who plays Josephine here. Please tell the creators, why were these scenes needed? Should young people be dragged to the cinema? It didn't work out that way. Such goodness can be found without you on a well-known source and absolutely for free. Vanessa Kirby resembles Josephine in the nude version, and she doesn't look like the real Josephine. Look at her portraits, they are there. There is no romance, much less love, between these two at all.
Tell Your Friends