When I first saw the trailer for this film and having in mind his previous hits 'Gladiator' and 'Kingdom of Heaven' I thought this is a film I will enjoy. Well, I went to watch it last Thursday and left feeling somewhat underwhelmed. Overall, the film felt disjointed, scenes in Paris being followed without any explanation by battle action. For instance, Napoleon was crowned (or crowned himself) emperor and before you know it, he is at Austerlitz. The battle scenes were well presented, though, as usual, the cavalry charges were long distance gallops, rather than the more measured advance the regulations prescribed. In addition everything felt rushed, perhaps the subject matter was too great for just one film? One curious move was to have the infantry digging shallow trenches at Waterloo, not something I have ever come across when reading about the battle. Also, at the end of the battle the Prussians seem to be coming from the French left (ie the west) rather than the right.
Joaquin Phoenix is too old to play a 24 year old at the siege of Toulon (1793) indeed he doesn't seem to age at all between then and Waterloo, over 20 years later. This again would support a two film approach, however, given the costs involved this is unlikely to happen. As a spectacle the film succeeds, as a film about Napoleon, I feel it misses the mark.
Your feelings seem to accord with several reviews that I have come across - one for me to miss I think!
ReplyDeleteI think your review was most generous. Im surprised you thought the battle scenes were well presented given just how bad they actually were. Napoleon leading two cavalry charges? Trenches for the artillery at Austerlitz? Deep frozen lakes that somehow destroyed the allies? As for Waterloo, Sharpe's Waterloo looked crowded in comparison to Scott's version and that's before the English were in trenches.
ReplyDeleteIt would have been a better film if all of the battles had happened off-screen and the time saved had been used to expand on the scenes set in France.
ReplyDeleteI have not seen it yet but I suspect Kaptain Kobold may be right - given the (relatively) short running time of the film, Scott might as well have missed out the unsatisfactory battle scenes and just kept some more useful stuff in the final cut instead.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, your review seems to have less issues with the film than other wargame bloggers so far!
I enjoyed it , perhaps the battles would have been better off screen
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your comments. Looking around the blogs and message boards the film has certainly caused a great deal of discussion and not a little criticism.
ReplyDeleteThis film was my introduction to Napoleon as an historical figure and even I suspected it wasn’t a good film. There is a scene where young British midshipmen are listening respectfully to him as he is held captive but it doesn’t feel earned to me because we aren’t shown how effective Napoleon was as a ruler and administrator, and his military genius doesn’t get much more coverage; he refers to Tsar Alexander I copying his battle tactics, which means little when we don’t see most of his battles and have no clear idea of his favoured tactics. In fact, Napoleon doesn’t come off very well at all in the film, spending the majority of his scenes being awkward, emotional, or acting like the “Corsican brute” he is described as, such as having his way with Josephine under the dining room table while growling like a dog. Not that there’s anything wrong with making a character come across as unlikeable but they need some complexity to make them engaging!
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the 2002 miniseries of the same name where Napoleon is portrayed by Christian Clavier? Not saying it doesn't have its problems but it is a perfect demonstration of why this man’s life needs an entire TV series to do it justice.