You think you're so great because you have boats
Continuing my trip up The Guardian's top 50 films of 2023
#36 : Napoleon
Ridley Scott dispenses with the symbolic weight attached to previous biopics in favour of a spectacle with a great star at its centre.
I've heard this is OK, but I've never had the slightest intention of watching it - my suspicion is that it will be overly long and earnest, but I'm happy to be proved wrong.
Well - 20 minutes in, and I'm pretty bored already. Only another 140 minutes to go...
OK - I made it through! And well, to no-one's surprise it pretty much tells the story of Napoleon's life. The man certainly lead a fuller life than most, so I wouldn't say it's dull - but it's not exactly thrilling either. It all looks fantastically expensive with many great locations and a lot of costumes - and some VERY silly hats. And as a result, it all looks very good - I'm sure a load of it is CGI, but it's very good looking CGI.
Joaquin Phoenix is good in the title role, but that doesn't mean I like the character and it also doesn't feel like it involves an awful lot of acting - just looking serious. In the only other role of note (in a film with a very large cast) Vanessa Kirby is unfortunately completely wasted as Josephine (and has some very unsatisfying sex in the process). There's a load of other people in it that you'll recognise their faces if not their names - Rupert Everett, Mark Bonnar, Ben Miles, Julian Rhind-Tutt, Phil Cornwell, Miles Jupp, Ian MacNiece and Kevin Eldon all jumped out at me. Oh, and Sinead Cusack as well - there's at least two women in this film (it's possible the film passes the Bechdel test, but I can't remember it happening).
It is well shot and has some impressive action - it all feels like it must have been an awful lot of work to plan and execute, but I'm also left with the nagging question as to whether it was actually worth it.
The only other thing I took away was a sense of intrigue as to whether Napoleon really managed to make the Russians march onto frozen lakes, which he then bombarded so they all fell in. Wikipedia tells me he might have done so at the Battle of Austerlitz, but probably nothing like it was portrayed in the film. Wikipedia also tells me that Ridley Scott is planning a director's cut version which will be a mere four hours and ten minutes - I can assure you I will not be watching it.
I don't really have anything more to say about this - if you fancy a believable (apparently it's not that historically accurate, but it feels it) trawl through the highlights of the life of an interesting but reasonably unpleasant man, then this is film for you. For everyone else it's perfectly watchable but hardly enthralling and plenty would find it incredibly dull. I just don't see that anyone was crying out for this film, but if it hits your sweet spot then it's available to stream on Apple TV+ or to rent in all the usual places.
Comments
Post a Comment