The title says it all. When anyone thinks about Napolean, they automatically think of the general, the egomaniacal conquerer, military genius who glorified and unified France after the French Revolution.
So going into an "epic" 2 hour and 40 minute movie, you would safely assume we'd get a glimpse into that twisted, genius mind, especially from an actor like Phoenix, right?
Wrong. Instead we get practically a two hour, unoriginal portrait of his banal relationship with Josephine; yes, the rest of the 45 minutes are indeed battles that were good, not great. The lopsided focus on Josephine is unwarranted and unjustified, merely because we didn't learn anything new that we couldn't already assume if it only featured a half hour with their relationship on screen. Honestly, I still cannot fathom any point in that narrative decision after enduring it, as again, there were no twists or startling revelations; if the point was to just humanize Napoleon, we get it, he had a wife and dealt with her toxicity.
The best part of the entire movie was the very end when the biographical title cards came up and revealed what a bloodlusting monster he really was, with the visceral explanation of the vast amount of lives he lost in his vain conquests. Back then, the world population was exponentially less than today. Three million in less than twenty years over 61 campaigns, with the Russian incursion costing three hundred plus thousand alone, seventy thousand at Waterloo. It's a shame that most of the tone of the movie not only was wasted on his love life, but moreso did not depict him as the maniacal sociopath he clearly was.
On a side note, since we're delving into European French history and this piece failed to capture the period well enough, future filmmakers should hone in on the actual French Revolution. Tale of Two Cities, anyone? Nolan would crush it!
4.5/10.
So going into an "epic" 2 hour and 40 minute movie, you would safely assume we'd get a glimpse into that twisted, genius mind, especially from an actor like Phoenix, right?
Wrong. Instead we get practically a two hour, unoriginal portrait of his banal relationship with Josephine; yes, the rest of the 45 minutes are indeed battles that were good, not great. The lopsided focus on Josephine is unwarranted and unjustified, merely because we didn't learn anything new that we couldn't already assume if it only featured a half hour with their relationship on screen. Honestly, I still cannot fathom any point in that narrative decision after enduring it, as again, there were no twists or startling revelations; if the point was to just humanize Napoleon, we get it, he had a wife and dealt with her toxicity.
The best part of the entire movie was the very end when the biographical title cards came up and revealed what a bloodlusting monster he really was, with the visceral explanation of the vast amount of lives he lost in his vain conquests. Back then, the world population was exponentially less than today. Three million in less than twenty years over 61 campaigns, with the Russian incursion costing three hundred plus thousand alone, seventy thousand at Waterloo. It's a shame that most of the tone of the movie not only was wasted on his love life, but moreso did not depict him as the maniacal sociopath he clearly was.
On a side note, since we're delving into European French history and this piece failed to capture the period well enough, future filmmakers should hone in on the actual French Revolution. Tale of Two Cities, anyone? Nolan would crush it!
4.5/10.