Napoleon

Watch: Napoleon

11/22/20232h 38m

Theatrical Release (US)

~ He came from nothing. He conquered everything. ~

Overview:

An epic that details the checkered rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his relentless journey to power through the prism of his addictive, volatile relationship with his wife, Josephine.

Director:

Ridley Scott

Status:

Released

Language:

English

Buget:

$165,000,000.00

Revenue:

$220,597,098.00

Key words:

empire
epic
france
general
biography
napoleon bonaparte
based on true story
napoleonic wars
19th century
1790s
violence
bitter

Cast

Joaquin Phoenix

~ as ~

Napoleon Bonaparte

Vanessa Kirby

~ as ~

Josephine Bonaparte

Tahar Rahim

~ as ~

Paul Barras

Rupert Everett

~ as ~

Duke of Wellington

Mark Bonnar

~ as ~

Junot

Paul Rhys

~ as ~

Talleyrand

Ben Miles

~ as ~

Caulaincourt

Riana Duce

~ as ~

Lucille

Edouard Philipponnat

~ as ~

Tsar Alexander

Miles Jupp

~ as ~

Emperor Francis I

View full cast & crew

Reviews (11)

MS
Manuel São Bento
Written 1 year(s) ago
4
FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/napoleon-review-a-dispassionate-hollow-spectacle/

"Napoleon contributes to a troubling trend in cinema, transforming significant historical narratives into hollow spectacles driven by mere visual entertainment.

Despite compelling performances and visually stunning battle set pieces, Ridley Scott fails to control the shockingly inconsistent tone, leading to abrupt shifts between heavy drama and spontaneous comedy. The dispassionate treatment of the millions who suffered through Napoleon's acts testifies to the dissonant messages of the movie, which ends with an unclear feeling about the status of its protagonist. Too much creative liberty leads to absurd historical inaccuracies, including a questionable lack of French accents and actors.

Despite efficient pacing, the 157-minute runtime surprisingly feels rushed, but I don't believe the rumored four-hour cut will fix so many massive problems..."

Rating: C-
CinemaSerf
Written 1 year(s) ago
7
I think this is one of those films, like his "Kingdom of Heaven" (2005) epic that Sir Ridley Scott has made for aficionados of grand scale historical cinema, not for historians. Indeed it may well be that for this film, the less you actually know about the subject the more you might enjoy it. We start with the demise of Marie Antoinette and see Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) watching from the baying crowd. He's a relatively junior officer but an aspirational one who manages to sell a plan to relieve the British occupied city of Toulon to his boss Barras (Tahar Rahim). This success sets him on a parabola that sees him rise, his falling in/out/in of love with the charismatic Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) and his overwhelming desire for European domination. The narrative clearly illustrates the fickleness of dynastic politics, trust and betrayal, love, lust and shrieking hypocrisy in a colourful and vibrant fashion. I didn't love Phoenix in this role, but maybe because Rod Steiger was so convincing in "Waterloo" (1970) that at times he looked a little like a mimic. That said, though, he puts his heart and soul into the role and the increasingly toxic dynamic with Kirby manages to stay on the right side of melodrama throughout. Again, as with Sir Ridley's tale of Jerusalem from eighteen years ago, he manages to pull off some spectacular battle scenes and the cinematography captures well the hostile environments - human and natural - faced by the soldiers as his empire building rose and fell. Although it's over 2½ hours long, I felt the focus was rather imbalanced. A long time spent on his rise to power then his decline and fall rather rushed. Dare I say it, but this might have worked better as a part one and a part two scenario. It looks stunning and the creative forces behind the costumes and visual effects are bound to be picking up a slew of gongs in due course. The acting, well that's less impressive and though I do enjoy the genre, I fear this may just end up being famed for some historical inaccuracies rather than being for an outstanding biopic of one of the world's most enigmatic and flawed megalomaniacs.
j
janeyee
Written 1 year(s) ago
3
"Napoleon" ambitiously sets out to condense the colossal life of the French emperor into a single film but ends up biting off more than it can chew. The movie, while visually stunning and energetically directed, suffers from an overly ambitious script and a plethora of historical inaccuracies that distract rather than enhance. Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon is inconsistent, struggling to meld the complex dichotomy of the character's reputed brilliance and egotism with a more vulnerable, human side.

The film's pacing is erratic, attempting to navigate through two decades of dense European history and personal drama within a limited runtime. Key events feel rushed or underexplored, leaving viewers longing for the depth and development that a miniseries format could provide. Vanessa Kirby's Josephine provides a glimmer of intrigue and depth, yet even her story feels truncated and secondary to the hurried historical epic. Overall, "Napoleon" exemplifies a missed opportunity to deeply explore one of history's most enigmatic figures, hinting that a more expansive, serialized approach might have better served such a monumental story
P
PaoloG13
Written 1 year(s) ago
~~
Not worth the subject: the movie neglects completely how innovative Napoleon has been, just focusing on his relation with his wife. Written for English public that ignores history. A mistake. The movie is worth for battle reconstruction, even though in Austerlitz, now Vyskov in Check Republic, there are no latest. Joakim is great as always as some sights give the sense of power.
r96sk
Written 1 year(s) ago
6
Impressive battle sequences aside, 'Napoleon' fails to deliver.

Just my own opinion, of course, but this Ridley Scott movie just didn't click. I didn't feel attached to what I was watching, I wasn't hooked on the events that were occurring onscreen. Joaquin Phoenix gives a solid enough performance, I don't have any complaints with him - nor Vanessa Kirby.

It's just the film in general that disappointed. None of the non-battle scenes did anything for me, it's all so heavily forgettable. The added humour/quirkiness from the titular character felt out of place, or at least wasn't blended with the more serious stuff all that well.

The long run time, whilst certainly overdone, isn't actually all that much of a hindrance - it's moreso how poorly the run time is utilized. I, fwiw, have zero issue with historical inaccuracies. Judging it solely as a film, I highly doubt I'll want to rewatch this anytime soon unfortunately.

View All