Napoleon

The film lacks depth and normal disclosure of the personality of Napoleon, Josephine and others. Some episodes (for example, the invasion of Russia) are shown too quickly and with broad strokes. I hope the additional 100 minutes of the director's version will smooth out the impressions a little.

Although the film is not perfect, it has an old-school charm. Perhaps they tried to include the most spectacular moments in shorty, like the Battle of Austerlitz or Waterloo. They're just amazing. Therefore, something broke down in some characters, as noted in Forbes, there are no dice with the name at the first appearance, there are transitions through the white screen, and there are no countries, funny moments from Wikipedia. Or maybe not :) We'll live to see the director's version, we'll see.

From the beginning, about the good, the picture, the atmosphere, the costumes, the music convey the atmosphere of that time very coolly, the battles are cool and epicly shown. But I agree with the comment above, there is not enough depth of disclosure of characters and events, Bonaparte had quite a few exploits and here they tried to cover everything in one film and it turned out superficially, alas. If it weren't for the visual component and the atmosphere, the film wouldn't have turned out very well at all. fin.

It was both tightened and blurred at the same time.

I don't really like biographical films, but here the director Ridley Scott and although he greatly spoiled the impression of him as a director with the latest "Strangers", I still decided to watch it. What cannot be taken away from the film is the scale of the battles, in which Bonaparte himself did not sit in the rear, but waved a saber with varying success, but in two and a half hours it is difficult to fit such an impressive time period, so the film jumps strongly through the main events, lingering a little on them and even the love line with Josephine does not It has been specially worked out. So, schematically sketched. For sure, history lovers will find a lot of inconsistencies in the film, the initial scene with the execution of Marie Antoinette immediately caught my eye. After all, everyone knows that she was shaved bald, and here her hair is carefully collected. And there are a lot of such examples, but is it necessary?! Epic battles, love with perversions, even the Russian tsar Alexander (Edouard Philipponne) I liked the way he played. But Kutuzov was not shown for some reason.. Well, okay, this is not a chronicle! Whether to watch or not is up to you. On the one hand, it's naturalistic, but on the other it's just a story with a bunch of invented details.

I did not expect such a monstrous cranberry from such a famous director.
There are no complaints about cinematography, but otherwise it's a complete hat, even though it's original))

The trailer captured much more than the film itself, somehow everything is crumpled, no thought-out line, there's something there, there's something, and what's what is not clear. I always thought that Napoleon was the greatest emperor, but I felt sorry for the boy with his ambitions (sorry may not be the right word, but I think the expression is understandable). I haven't even finished watching it

There is nothing to add, everything is described in the comments above. Not the level of great directors (Scott) and Oscar-winning, though I've never loved actors (Phoenix). Maybe a good miniseries of 8-10 episodes could have turned out, but they could not fit into a 2.5-hour film, so it turned out as if individual events were pulled over, and perhaps even randomly inserted into the film seasoning with vulgarity unnecessary to anyone in such a film. Phoenix is not enough. what does not fit this role in any way, so also the whole movie goes with the same face, it can be seen that he did not strain at all on the set. Plus, for some reason, the whole movie wanted to add brightness. In short, all my 2.5 points for names, and an attempt to show something about a great personality.

Not everyone will come in, but I liked it

Yes, a lot has already been said above that the film is visually good. Special effects, battle scenes, costumes and decorations are all on the level. But Scott turned out to have too much of his own view of Napoleon's biography. And if in Gladiator, which I can still review with pleasure, such a thing rolled easily over the years and a small number of facts (and a small number of those interested in these facts), then here... Well, there is too much cognitive dissonance from Bonaparte himself when watching, plus quite often facespalmit due to contradictions of historical facts. A lot has also been said about the plot in the rhythm of galloping across Europe. The reason was already Scott's own reaction to those dissatisfied with this: he stupidly sent everyone to hell. I'm an artist, that's how I see it, yeah. And yes, I watched it in quality, but even at maximum brightness it's sooo dark and sometimes you can't see anything at all, it's wildly annoying. Even the daytime scenes seemed to be filmed at dusk.

I liked the trailer for the film more than the film itself...
I did not expect this...
It seems to me that it was worth breaking it into pieces, rather than trying to put everything into one tape or at least focus on one thing. And so it turned out to be porridge...

You shouldn't go to the cinema to see it, but at home you can watch a very decent movie 👍

A very strange work, it is clear that it perfectly fit into the format of the series, what they decided to do a full meter is a mystery. Stupidly cutting some famous historical events and that's it. And the director's decision - let's show how Bonaparte fucks Josephine with cancer already twice - well, it was very controversial, and it was clear from the first time...

I just started watching, I'll unsubscribe

I hope that in the future we will have another interview with Ridley Scott Dolin, where Anton will already say: "Thank you very much sir, but f*ck you".

But seriously, it's another passing film from a once-good director. Of course, it's great that Scott doesn't lose his passion for filming even at the age of 86, but it seems to me that at such an advanced age it's time to think about something else. In the end, even the most talented person will begin to degrade over the years for absolutely natural reasons, and it is probably not worth continuing to produce empty films that even the star cast is not able to pull out.

As for the film itself, Napoleon does not carry any artistic or historical meaning from the word at all. Yes, we can note the good acting of Joaquin Phoenix and a good panorama of battles, but this does not cover the whole chaotic narrative.

How in 2 minutes Josephine becomes the emperor's best friend from a traitor, where Napoleon's brother disappears from the plot, why a mother is needed in the picture if she appears literally in two short scenes - all these are future topics for video essays from Kinopoisk, to which we may be given answers there. The film itself does not answer them, just swallowing a whole layer of events.

It is clear that Bonaparte's personality and his role in history are too huge to fit even into the serial timing, let alone the film. In any case, you will have to sacrifice something. But here even the key points fall under the scalpel, where it would seem that it is not necessary to mince.

Why show the agony of Napoleon's army near Moscow when it can simply be cut out. Why show the smooth development of a love line with Josephine, when all this can be divided into sketches (without forgetting to insert the scene where the chpoking takes place twice). We simply will not cover the rate of the anti-French coalition, and the coming to power can be reduced to a couple of minutes in the film.

As a result: almost a three-hour vinaigrette, where there is no main storyline at all. Why, for whom, and why is not clear.

2 dirty animals that are nothing out of 5 without Josephine

Ridley Scott, in his old age, gave out the most mediocre and ridiculous film of the past year. It's clear that good movies are not welcome on streaming, but why do it so badly? This picture is bad in everything: a ragged narrative, half the timing was ruined for Josephine, battles and action are zero, all battles consist of two artillery volleys, there was not enough money to draw Moscow, there were no such bad scenery for a long time. The film is not worth attention at all, it's even a pity to put 2, the epl would be better to throw the film into the furnace, along with the director and 200 million greens

Well, there were no expectations, because I didn't even watch the trailer, so there is no disappointment.
Not bad, for once. Phoenix is a little old for the role, but pleasing to the eye.
Overall, I liked it. There are disadvantages, but they did not catch my eye 🤷♀️

Napoleon is too big a person 2.5 hours is not enough and five is not enough. The series is for 3-5 seasons, yes , but there will always be claims that something was not shown .

Battles at the level of the best battles in game of thrones - visually and aesthetically, the picture is in the best shape, and isn't that why we love movies? A solid 5 from me personally

He laughed, of course, like the very horse with the ball from the beginning of the film...Jojo is a whore of whores, Nappi is just a PUPPET, hyper-compensating on the battlefield...just a laugh, not a movie. Ridley does great comedy operas.
Ps It's a pity that his Raised by wolves did not take off beyond 2 seasons, I liked the series...It would have been better if he had finished it. Although, the fact that he makes "biographical comedies" is also not bad.

A very shallow narrative that quickly moves on to some battles and then to the fall. I still don't know who Napoleon was, no depth of character other than his obsession with Josephine. What happened to his second wife? A child? An illegitimate child? What was his motivation? Why did he have so many followers who supported him? There's so much more to this story, it's never told, and it's in 2 hours and 40 minutes!!!

France……..Army………Josephine

You need to try very hard (and Ridley Scott tried very hard, believe me) to make a movie about a great personality, without revealing this very personality at all. The movie is empty, but yes, it’s beautiful, and it would be surprising if it weren’t beautiful, given its budget. I haven’t watched a more useless and soulless film in a long time, and here we have a famous director... do you know the feeling when you leave the theater and realize that you wasted your hours? Well, this is exactly how this film feels.

Many were unhappy, and we all know why. The movie came to me, no comments.)

A very superficial film, which was not even saved by the good acting of Joaquin Phoenix. All on top. Because of such sketchiness, this movie does not hold attention to itself. Where it was possible to give more immersion into the plot, they added even more about the difficult relationship with Josephine.

Everything is very close to the text, without details, rather superficial and drawn out, a lot of conversations, a minimum of action. The whole movie boils down to a relationship with Josephine. Starting from the second half of the film - more actively. The script is weak in terms of personality disclosure, and I didn't appreciate Phoenix's game either. The 2004 series with Clavier, it seems to me, is more interesting and detailed.