Napóleon

Nem valamivel gyengébb, mint a Gladiátor (ahogy reméltük), de csak valamivel jobb, mint a Robin Hood (sajnos). Napóleon karrierjének felemelkedésének és "világhódításának" történelmi állomásaiból vett töredékek, élete asszonyával való kapcsolatával bensőségesen átszőve. A film szórakoztat a színészekkel és az időnkénti csatákkal, de belül fásultságig távolságtartó és szürke, nem keresi és nem is találja Napóleonban azokat a személyiségjegyeket, amelyekre történetének pszichológiáját vagy bármilyen gondolatot építhetne. Nem használja ki a személyes konfrontációjának lehetőségeit sem a mellékszereplőkkel, akik kitöltötték volna sűrű tartalommal a sztorit. Napóleon szerelmi viszonya pedig, amelyre a film jelentős figyelmet fordít, a néző számára hűvös és átérezhetetlen marad. A példásan rutinos elbeszélés felveti az aggodalmakat, hogy a hosszabb rendezői verzió, bár tartalmilag gazdagabb, mégsem lesz lelke. Ridley Scott első, zenei identitás nélküli történelmi filmje. (2023.12.13)

The cinematic cut turned out as it probably had to: as an obviously incomplete fragment of a larger work. It's hard to rate it, it's like reading a novel and skipping every ten pages. What is in the cinema cut is fine, but it doesn't coalesce into a comprehensive experience. Napoleon's personal life is there, the battles are there, but the "politics" between them are missing, so you don't really know why any given battle is happening. Quite absurdly, from the cinematic cut, the character of Napoleon doesn't actually strike me as an active instigator of all this wartime fury, nor as a figure that the rest of Europe feared. (2023.11.23)

I hate to say it, but despite its grandeur and Ridley Scott’s classic touch, I can't give Napoleon more than three stars. The main issue lies in the script. For the first hour, I was lost in the political machinations and had no idea how Bonaparte ascended to the throne. The second half skims the surface, showcasing the pivotal moments of Napoleon's career interspersed with scenes of his relationship with Josephine. On the technical side, it's a masterpiece. No one captures the chaos of battle like Ridley Scott. However, it’s a shame he didn’t visit Austerlitz himself; the terrain in the film feels less authentic. That aside, I have no complaints. At 85, Ridley Scott still has the energy to create these epic tales that many contemporary directors can't match. (2024.03.13)

Rimmer may have traveled through Europe with the greatest general of all time and mowed down Belgians, but I suspect fraud in the movie theater admission fee that I decided to sacrifice despite the poor reviews. Visually, Scott still has it at eighty-six, and I caught myself thinking about who will shoot this once Ridley is gone. But there were more and more similar mental escapes from the movie, mostly into history class, where I struggled in vain to remember the reasons why defenders of the republic suddenly ended up with a royal crown on their heads, or when one dinner and one letter were enough to return from the Elba. The battles drew me in like nothing else. Damn the historical accuracy, because when the ice cracks at Slavkov, you go underwater with the stuntmen, while at Waterloo, you feel total despair and devastation that makes you physically sick. But instead of more military campaigns, and more of Napoleon's egoistically maniacal journey that tore Europe apart, we get completely senseless flirting with Josephine, and summarizing their relationship in letters would save screening time in favor of the aforementioned. The promised four-hour stream leaves me cold, partly because it's a deception against the viewer, and also because I probably don't have the strength to watch the cringe-worthy relationship of two people where one is enticed to sex by horny neighing while the other complains about freshly styled hair. (2023.12.11)

The quality of the material is undeniable, although (so far) rather tentative. The strangest edited film in a long time. One thing is that it's abridged to the point of shame, that even a layman feels that whole long passages are missing. Another thing is that even in the scenes that did make it into the theatrical cut, it's often obvious that those are also significantly cut; there's no continuity of shots, dialogue, logic, sequence. I have no doubt that when it is in its final, considerably longer form, it will be a very much improved and coherent experience that, while not historically faithful, will be spectacular in the best sense of the word. So far, however, these are merely impressive scenes with shoddy characterisation; more a feature length trailer than a film. (2024.06.14)