IR Film Review: NAPOLEON [Apple]

The context of "Napoleon" as a perspective to power is an admirable one but a film that only peripherally captures what might have been. There are certain ideas of what the French conqueror might have been or was. The new film from Ridley Scott starring Joaquin Phoenix as the monarch of sorts has some moments of beauty and sublimeness but most often seems to show the Emperor in his failings. While this is an interesting aspect to contemplate, for a 200 million dollar film that needs to bring in audiences to a point, it brings a little more of "too little too late". Even a little bit of the grandiousity of "Gladiator" with some of that inherent darkness that Phoenix had as Commodus would have been welcome. There were stakes. It doesn't feel as earned here. The movie tries to build the essence of Napoleon's drive based on his love Josephine (played by Vanessa Kirby). Some of the first scenes between them start electric but you expect him to throw caution to the wind. While Napoleon likely was clumsy in certain ways, he was also a general that commanded his army. He doesn't seem like one people would follow or a person that Kirby would fall in love with (as far as marying for stature, that is another question).

When he stands in front of men from his former army after returning from exile, there is no grandness. Again this might have been intentional but, as a result, most of the film feels flat. The best representation of the film and the battles is one that was shown to attendees at CinemaCon last April which was an ice battle with Austria and Russia. Some of the imagery there is quite good (yet when that was first screened the issue was context because Phoenix as Napoleon seemed stagnant in the footage). There are more angles to the strategy of the battles which makes this part of the film much better. The overall impact of Phoenix's performance is reflexive playing an insecure man unsure of himself in certain ways but wanting to perform in other ways. Phoenix chose to play the man this way. Whether it was inherently different before Scott cast him in unclear.

It has been said by Sir Ridley Scott that Phoenix initially couldn't find a way into the character. How that changed the tone is uncertain again in the final product. As a result, the film, although interesting as a certain character study, does not balance out for the money spent. Again, without all the facts, it is hard to discern. Although it is great to see these passion projects, as of late there is a lack of checks and balances. Scott, at this point in his career, has earned the right to make movies he wants but like "Killers Of The Flower Moon" changing the context at times to make the actor happy or engaged can sometimes be anticlimactic. Leonardo DiCaprio railled to Martin Scorsese to alter and change the focus of the film there. While it might be a more interesting story, it moves slower and necessitated a much more gargantuan run time and different pace. Again, as a series maybe it is better but as a movie with a theatrical component, "Killers" didn't not perform in terms of ROI per se. It might be the same thing here.

The battles kick into higher gear in the last 45 minutes of "Napoleon" including the infamous Waterloo but there is no real "Come To Jesus" moment. This man made mistakes but his allure and intent to the French people really is missed or not defined enough. The element of a man child has a merit but only if, in seizing his power, you see the tactician truly come for. There needs to be reflections of ruthlessness. Many lines from Phoenix/Napoleon elicited some laughter from the audience. While this was perhaps done on purpose to show Napoleon's social anxiety, it belittles him too much at the end of the day for you to feel sorry for him, at least in any small way. He lost many battles and yet his tenacity and love of country was still there. That does come through. Phoenix tries to play him slovenly but it comes off more as lazy at times, even if it was intentional (say compared to something like what he did with "Joker"). Whether this was a direction pivot combined with the reimagining is hard to say. It would be interesting to see the original script. Scott was able to make this film but one wonders (since Stanley Kubrick was fascinated by Napoleon but apparently never quite got to crack it) what that would have been like. Spielberg was trying to make the Kubrick version into a series but it never quite came to fruition (likely because of how to crack it). Time will tell but this "Napoleon" film comes up short in many ways both as a character drama but also a visceral context of what made this man so great and so much a failure at the same time. B-

By Tim Wassberg