Napoleon: The Sum Of Its Parts Is Better Than Its Whole︱Movie Review
Ridley Scott’s New Epic Is A “Good” Movie, And Nothing More
By JackonReality
Ridley Scott's new epic, Napoleon, has received mixed reviews. Some call it awe-inspiring, dazzling, brilliant, and all the other vague, positive cliches that can be associated to such a film. Others are less approving. Critics of the film are disappointed in the portrayal of Napoleon as an emotional, love-hungry baby. They also call out Napoleon's historical inaccuracies. Now, the most important question is: what does JackOnReality think of it?
Well, JackOnReality says that Napoleon is a great film, for the most part. The individual scenes of the film are brilliant. But when you put the whole thing together, two large problems prevent everything from fitting together.
The aspect of Napoleon that has everyone is talking is the portrayal of the great man himself. Napoleon is somewhat lowered from his historical pedestal in this film, and is humanized. Basically, he becomes goofy, emotional, and romantic. I don't have a problem with that. It's better than just watching a stoic and scowling Napoleon, and I felt like I could connect to Napoleon more as a person.
The aspect of Napoleon that has everyone is talking is the portrayal of the great man himself. Napoleon is somewhat lowered from his historical pedestal in this film, and is humanized. Basically, he becomes goofy, emotional, and romantic. I don't have a problem with that. It's better than just watching a stoic and scowling Napoleon, and I felt like I could connect to Napoleon more as a person.
Joaquin Phoenix made the addition of Napoleon's new character traits as seamless as possible. Phoenix's Napoleon always tries to keep his head high, and there is plenty of blind ambition in him, yet there are times when he is taken down a peg, and is left floundering. This mainly happens when he talks to his wife Josephine, or something political goes wrong. Phoenix's performance deserves actor of the year, in my opinion. The way he depicts Napoleon's emotional turmoil is simply marvelous. It's an extremely difficult task to combine all these emotions, yet Phoenix does it impeccably.
Phoenix does so well he deserves a second paragraph of compliments. He commands the screen. If there is ever a time where commanding the screen is a necessity, it's when you're acting as Napoleon. He obviously had a lot of fun playing the character, as well. He always seems completely committed to what he is doing. And that made me committed to the film. I never once thought about using the bathroom halfway through it. I cannot imagine a better actor to play Napoleon.
Moving aside from the acting, the directing in this film is exceptional as well. Ridley Scott is one of the greatest war movie directors of all time, and it's obvious in Napoleon. I watched the film in an RPX theater (which I think everyone should do), so the war scenes quite literally blew me away. I was immersed. I could hear the cannons rumbling, taste the smoke and blood press against my tongue, feel the chaos all around me. I could not help reclining in my seat and smiling. Yes, there's a lot of death and gore, but the art of it just elates you.
Now, there are problems with this film. Two of them, to be exact. The largest is the focus on Napoleon's first wife, Josephine. Yes, it's a story that needs to be told. Yes, his relationship had impacted him. But no, it was not that important. Napoleon is best summarized by his dying words, "France..Army..Josephine." "Josephine" was the last thing he needed to say. It would not have bothered him if he died a second earlier, and only said "France..Army." Those were his biggest loves. If you want to create an actual history of Napoleon, focus on them.
Napoleon is best summarized by his dying words, "France..Army..Josephine." "Josephine" was the last thing he needed to say. It would not have bothered him if he died a second earlier, and only said "France..Army." Those were his biggest loves. If you want to create an actual history of Napoleon, focus on them. Not only that, but Napoleon's effect on history was separate from Josephine. The wars he led and the laws he created are the reason he is important. So focus on that! If Napoleon had been only about his love-life, then this would not be a problem. But when you are trying to create a history of Napoleon in general, you cannot focus on Josephine. There are big holes in the history because of that focus. The relationships between France and England, France and Russia, Napoleon and Tsar Alexander, and Napoleon and his mother, even, are poorly done. That is the biggest issue with Napoleon.
The second problem with Napoleon are the character traits missing from Bonaparte. With his army, Napoleon is depicted as a grumpy, grunting, and silent general. That was not the case. Napoleon was loved for his leadership and organizational skills. Armies did not follow him solely because he had charisma, and was a genius tactician, but because he knew how to lead. This is left out of the movie, which creates a seething wound towards the end. Napoleon was exiled from France once, and then returned. In a scene showing his consequent march to Paris, France's army celebrates him, and joins him. The reason why is not clear. In real life, the reason why is clear. Napoleon, at his core, was a leader. If you're making a movie called Napoleon, you better show that. Napoleon has received mixed reviews because it is a mixed movie. It does some things really well, and others... not so much. Fortunately, it is decent enough to land on the positive side of mediocre. It's a "good" movie, and nothing more.