Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most influential men in recent history.
Many films, books, songs and even shows have been created regarding this controversial figure. However, the most recent adaptation of Napoleon’s life is chronicled in this month’s release of Napoleon.
Directed by Ridley Scott, Napoleon is a somewhat accurate recollection of some of Napoleon’s most influential and memorable moments.
The film’s structure is mainly composed of two alternating segments: Napoleon’s grand battles and his more intimate political happenings back home. This can, at times, become quite confusing for the viewer.
Some scenes feel as if they were unnecessarily shoved in to create some semblance of atmosphere, only to switch back to a completely unrelated segment. This lack of context left much of the audience, including myself, watching in vacant stare at a scene, which we knew nothing about.
Although the acting was not terrible, many performances came off underwhelming. Joaquin Phoenix, as Napoleon’s character, often failed to present any strong emotions where the passion and grit of his personality should have been much more present, and his wife, Josephine, also lacked the same boldness her real-life counterpart historically had.
Unfortunately, this same deadpan deliverance was consistent across most of the cast, leaving the audience rather unmoved in some scenes where they should have been.
Visually, Napoleon is impressive. Its grandiose coordinated battle scenes and atmospheric color-coding embody the spirit of the era and its overarching themes.
Thousands of soldiers crafted with CGI blend seamlessly with a real cast of extras, visually delivering the incredible scale of the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon’s coordination and cinematography are its major strong suit, and it does not underdeliver here. Beyond the actual camerawork, Napoleon’s special effects and unrelenting attitude toward gore make for an engaging visual experience.
As far as historical accuracy goes, Napoleon is lazy. Napoleon’s character himself is a dumbed-down version of his personality, regressed to a bumbling and hotheaded fool. His sensationalized weakness is only amplified by his and his wife’s complicated relationship, built upon infidelity and a lack of mutual respect.
Both of these things, historically, were real and driving forces in each of their respective lives. However, Napoleon blew this out of the water and focused almost excessively on them.
Additionally, scenes such as Napoleon shooting cannons at the Great Pyramids and his horse being shot out from under him are baseless and completely fictional. While a completely accurate biography can be, at times, material for a boring watch.
Napoleon’s life was filled with incredible nuance and interesting anecdotes, so the directorial decision to dismiss these facts in place of made-up material is confusing.
However, all of this does not necessarily create an unenjoyable movie.
Although Napoleon lacks in many regards, it still serves as a fun watch. If you disregard the inaccuracies and have a little leeway in your critique of the acting, Napoleon can be an interesting and—at times—humorous look into one of history’s most ambitious figures.
My biggest gripes lie within these criticisms, however, and I hope to see more directors take a sensible and accurate approach towards historical pieces in the future. While Napoleon is not terrible, it certainly could have been much, much better.