Napoleon: Movie Review
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim
Director: Ridley Scott
Napoleon had some real promise.
And make no mistake, the electric battle scenes are swift in their brutality (heads are severed, entrails exposed from shot horses), but as a film itself Napoleon is lost looking for a narrative thread to connect it all together.
It doesn't help the whole thing races through his life, beginning with the end of the reign of terror in 1793 and ending with his death in 1821, Scott's film is more interested in depicting the major battles of his campaign and peppering his story with brief life moments than providing a movie that's a compelling portrait of the man.
Phoenix is fine as Bonaparte, and Kirby maintains an air of something as Joséphine de Beauharnais, but the emotional thread to tie this together is severely lacking. But Scott's desire to race either through key moments or worse still, key battles mean this biopic has no pull, no depth and no heft to hang that famous hat on.
Proceedings are hardly helped by the fact there's a four hour version of this film in existence, ready to be unveiled next year; to be frank, it would have been infinitely better if that version had made its way to the cinema for viewing, because, based on this 157 minute version, nobody will be tempted to return.
While Phoenix gets some acid moments to revel in, Kirby's Joséphine de Beauharnais feels underwritten and pushed to one side, a woman who apparently had Napoleon transfixed - yet none of that is evident in Scott's telling of the affairs of the heart.
Admittedly some lines reek of corniness ("Destiny brought me this lamb chop" being chief among the offenders) but much of Napoleon feels underwritten; political intrigue is cast aside for the segue to the next battle scene and the whole movie begins to feel drawn out, a story in search of a raison d'etre for its two polished performers.
Perhaps running parallel storylines as Napoleon heads to battle and Joséphine stays at home was meant to prove the pull between them, but those storylines never really interconnect and cohere into something of suitable weight.
Ultimately, Napoleon feels like a missed moment - its dour depictions and cutdown edits make it more of a bore. And the prospect of having to sit through a four hour version would leave anyone craving the guillotine.
%20&%20Edith%20Poor%20(Lizzie%20Moyle)_%C2%A9BBCS%20&%20Bunya%20Entertainment.jpg)
This film was my introduction to Napoleon as an historical figure and even I suspected it wasn’t a good film. There is a scene where young British midshipmen are listening respectfully to him as he is held captive but it doesn’t feel earned to me because we aren’t shown how effective Napoleon was as a ruler and administrator, and his military genius doesn’t get much more coverage; he refers to Tsar Alexander I copying his battle tactics, which means little when we don’t see most of his battles and have no clear idea of his favoured tactics. In fact, Napoleon doesn’t come off very well at all in the film, spending the majority of his scenes being awkward, emotional, or acting like the “Corsican brute” he is described as, such as having his way with Josephine under the dining room table while growling like a dog. Not that there’s anything wrong with making a character come across as unlikeable but they need some complexity to make them engaging!
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the 2002 miniseries of the same name where Napoleon is portrayed by Christian Clavier? Not saying it doesn't have its problems but it is a perfect demonstration of why this man’s life needs an entire TV series to do it justice.