Napoleon (2023)★ 6.3/10

Tenía muchas ganas de ver Napoleón. No solo por Ridley Scott, que ya demostró cómo hace épicas con Gladiador, sino también porque la historia de Napoleón es puro drama, ego, poder y contradicción. Y con Joaquin Phoenix en el papel, imaginé que iba a ser una bomba emocional e intensa. Bueno… sí y no.

La película arranca fuerte, con imágenes imponentes y una batalla brutal que te mete de una en el mundo de la Revolución Francesa. Y visualmente, no hay nada que criticar: está impecablemente filmada. Las batallas son cinematográficamente gloriosas, el vestuario es precioso y la ambientación te transporta de verdad. La música acompaña bien, aunque no se roba la escena. Hasta ahí, todo muy sólido.

Pero… a medida que avanza, la historia se vuelve un poco irregular. Uno espera que con una figura tan compleja como Napoleón, la peli entre en su mente, en sus motivaciones, sus miedos, su genio militar, su ambición. Y algo de eso hay, pero no termina de cuajar del todo. Phoenix hace un laburo muy particular: su Napoleón es excéntrico, inseguro, a veces torpe y hasta un poco ridículo. Es una elección arriesgada que por momentos funciona y en otros te saca un poco del personaje histórico. Me gustó porque es distinto, pero también me dejó con gusto a poco. Quería entenderlo más.

Lo que sí me sorprendió fue la relación con Josefina (Vanessa Kirby). Es lo más humano de la película. Hay química, tensión, obsesión. A veces parece una historia de amor, a veces una guerra psicológica. Ella está increíble, muy magnética y manipuladora, pero sin caer en clichés. Sus escenas juntos son de lo más interesante y, sinceramente, algunas de las mejores del film.

El problema es que Napoleón intenta contar demasiado en poco tiempo. Pasa por años y eventos históricos enormes como si fueran capítulos de una serie acelerada. Te tiran coronaciones, guerras, traiciones, exilios, todo rapidísimo. Y eso le saca profundidad. Me faltó pausa, momentos más introspectivos, más desarrollo de los personajes secundarios. Se nota que hay una versión más larga (dicen que hay un corte del director de más de 4 horas), y la verdad, no me molestaría verla. Esta versión de 2 horas y media se siente editada con tijera.

En resumen: Napoleón es una experiencia visual potente, con momentos brillantes y actuaciones interesantes (aunque no siempre convencionales). Pero también es una película que se queda a medio camino entre lo épico y lo íntimo. No es la biopic definitiva de Napoleón, pero sí una interpretación provocadora que vale la pena ver, sobre todo si te gustan los dramas históricos con estilo y personajes intensos. Eso sí, andá preparado para ver algo distinto a lo que esperás.

Utterly disappointing. Ridley Scott had the chance and the budget to make the quintessential Napoleon movie, but he squandered it. Honestly, even a 7 feels high for this. I guess it had some great action sequences. But the story... how do you mess up the story of Napoleon? Scott found a way.

The film's epically grand scenes, such as the battles of Toulon, Austerlitz, and Waterloo, are spectacular and stirring. Scott's brilliance lies in highlighting the roles women played in history and humanitarian aspects, seamlessly incorporating perspectives of British figures like the Duke of Wellington.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon showcases a different side of the iconic figure, focusing less on his military achievements and more on his personal ambitions. Joaquin Phoenix's voiceovers of his letters allows viewers to delve into Napoleon's inner world.

The character portrayals in this commercial biopic are pretty underwhelming. The plot briefly touches on Napoleon's life but overly emphasizes his personal relationships. It feels like they went overboard trying to highlight Napoleon's extreme thirst for power and ambition through Josephine. However, the cinematography, production quality, and even the soundtrack are praiseworthy.

Among all the Napoleon biopics, this movie is truly a masterpiece. The characters are meticulously portrayed, both in the intense drama and action scenes. The costumes and makeup are spot-on, and the battle sequences, especially the Battle of the Three Emperors and Battle of Waterloo, are realistic and epic. The casting is excellent, with Vanessa Kirby shining brightly. Ridley Scott's direction and the breathtaking scenes create a visual masterpiece reminiscent of oil paintings. The tragic hero ending adds a touch of literary value to the film.

This movie just scratches the surface of a character biography. I've always believed that a hero biopic should prioritize respecting history. Humanizing a symbolized hero and showing their flaws can be attractive, but this film falls short in that regard. While it has some redeeming qualities, it fails to capture Napoleon's political maneuverings or his commanding presence on the world stage. Instead, it just portrays him as a fragile and insecure little guy being manipulated by others.

The movie "Napoleon" presents some key moments of Napoleon's life, such as the Coup of 18 Brumaire, the coronation, the Battle of Austerlitz (the Battle of the Three Emperors), the invasion of Russia, and the Battle of Waterloo. Interestingly, most of these scenes are only briefly touched upon, making the film feel somewhat superficial. In contrast, the film focuses on the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine, and despite that, this love story is not fully developed. As a result, the film feels disjointed and lacks tension. It falls short of being a grand historical biography. Similarly, as a love story, it fails to evoke any solid emotions.

There's so much fascinating source material about the historical figure Napoleon that could make for a really interesting movie. Unfortunately, all that interesting material is overlooked, and what we get is just another boring movie that Ridley Scott seems to enjoy making. Napoleon was a brilliant innovator and strategist, but none of that is portrayed in the movie. His military prowess is completely overlooked. Napoleon won numerous battles, yet this is also overlooked. Sure, there are a few battle scenes, but they're very short and lack any real substance. The battle scenes you see in the preview are almost as long as the actual scenes in the movie. Most of the movie focuses on his relationship with his wife and the scandal surrounding her infidelity. Overall, it's a complete snoozefest with little substance and a total lack of the real history of Napoleon.

I commend the movie for its cinematography and costumes, but apart from that, it really didn't have much going for it. It was dull and uninteresting. The characters didn't develop at all. There was no real emotion, except for perhaps labeling his frustration with Josephine's infidelity as “passion." When he talks about his love for France and the sacrifices he makes, it feels as lifeless as describing the contents of his refrigerator. The battle scenes were just okay. Napoleon had the same expression throughout - whether on the battlefield, or witnessing Moscow burning, or facing defeat at Waterloo. It felt like this movie was essentially a history lesson with a few battle scenes sprinkled in.

It's largely a historical remake, sprinkled with a dash of unverified historical correspondences between the two protagonists for dramatic effect. The coronation ceremony scene straight up transported me into the oil paintings I saw in my high school textbooks. However, it falls short as a biopic, barely capturing any character arcs.

Ridley Scott is unmatched when it comes to making epic movies. From "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven" to "Black Hawk Down” and now “Napoleon", Scott's ability to capture visual storytelling in film is truly remarkable. It's not something a cinematographer can influence; the impact of a scene depends on the director's taste and insight. It's an interesting film, even if this movie takes on a very negative view of Napoleon. What I truly admire is the creators' ability to pinpoint where to begin a story within a grand narrative, and then craft it into its own narrative arc.