Joaquin Phoenix is hopelessly miscast. Napoleon was only 51 when he died (6 years after Waterloo).
That was the really astounding thing about the man that he could rise to prominence and build a French empire when so young. Instead we see a lumbering 49 year old Phoenix witnessing Marie Antoinette's beheading (he didn't) whereas Napoleon would have been a youthful 24.
The plot drags on, through key stages in French Napoleonic history, none of it adequately explained and characters appear out of nowhere then disappear equally as quickly.
Vanessa Kirby succeeds more in her role as Josephine, but even when the film tries to build the impression that she is the real power behind Napoleon she then disappears out of the story for about an hour.
The film is punctuated by some dramatic and fabulously filmed battle scenes. This is where Scott's clearly in his element. Cannonballs hit horses and we have a long recreation of Austerlitz with Russian soldiers and horses falling into icy water. It's nicely shot but we kind of get the point quite quickly but have to watch 20 minutes of cannon balls blowing holes in ice and slo-mos of horses and soldiers falling into icy water.
I think what disappointed me most about the film was the re-creation of Waterloo. Apparently Ridley Scott has reacted to criticism of the historical inaccuracies by saying 'you weren't there were you?' to his critics, and no I wasn't at Waterloo.
What I DO know though is that his portrayal of Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) is also strange - a pompus doddery old guy played by 64 year old Rupert Everett (the real Wellersley was 45 at the battle) again miscast - and what I find strange is that there are famous portraits of Wellersley from 1815 (couldn't they have been referred to in the casting??) This is not the 'Iron Duke' more the 'doddery Duke' who has no real personality or impression that people would follow him.
All in all it's a strange and contorted telling of Napoleon's story - is it about his romance with Josephine (weird focusing on the kinky s3x element where Napoleon brays like a horse when he desires his love)? Or is it about his rise to power? Or his battles with Russia or Britain. I just don't know. It would have been better(?) if things had 'built' towards Waterloo and we'd seen that as real climax, instead, like everything else in the film it is just a scene stitched together without much logic along with the other scenes to give a chronological re-telling.
I know there's a four hour version soon to be released on Apple + and that probably helps link things together better (you'd hope so), but will I be bothered to watch it now I've seen all of the issues with the 2.5 hour cinema/theatre release. I very much doubt it.
That was the really astounding thing about the man that he could rise to prominence and build a French empire when so young. Instead we see a lumbering 49 year old Phoenix witnessing Marie Antoinette's beheading (he didn't) whereas Napoleon would have been a youthful 24.
The plot drags on, through key stages in French Napoleonic history, none of it adequately explained and characters appear out of nowhere then disappear equally as quickly.
Vanessa Kirby succeeds more in her role as Josephine, but even when the film tries to build the impression that she is the real power behind Napoleon she then disappears out of the story for about an hour.
The film is punctuated by some dramatic and fabulously filmed battle scenes. This is where Scott's clearly in his element. Cannonballs hit horses and we have a long recreation of Austerlitz with Russian soldiers and horses falling into icy water. It's nicely shot but we kind of get the point quite quickly but have to watch 20 minutes of cannon balls blowing holes in ice and slo-mos of horses and soldiers falling into icy water.
I think what disappointed me most about the film was the re-creation of Waterloo. Apparently Ridley Scott has reacted to criticism of the historical inaccuracies by saying 'you weren't there were you?' to his critics, and no I wasn't at Waterloo.
What I DO know though is that his portrayal of Wellesley (later the Duke of Wellington) is also strange - a pompus doddery old guy played by 64 year old Rupert Everett (the real Wellersley was 45 at the battle) again miscast - and what I find strange is that there are famous portraits of Wellersley from 1815 (couldn't they have been referred to in the casting??) This is not the 'Iron Duke' more the 'doddery Duke' who has no real personality or impression that people would follow him.
All in all it's a strange and contorted telling of Napoleon's story - is it about his romance with Josephine (weird focusing on the kinky s3x element where Napoleon brays like a horse when he desires his love)? Or is it about his rise to power? Or his battles with Russia or Britain. I just don't know. It would have been better(?) if things had 'built' towards Waterloo and we'd seen that as real climax, instead, like everything else in the film it is just a scene stitched together without much logic along with the other scenes to give a chronological re-telling.
I know there's a four hour version soon to be released on Apple + and that probably helps link things together better (you'd hope so), but will I be bothered to watch it now I've seen all of the issues with the 2.5 hour cinema/theatre release. I very much doubt it.
Tell Your Friends