“France… Army… Josefine.”
Over Thanksgiving break, I went to the soon to be deceased Enfield Cinema to see Ridley Scott’s latest feature film, Napoleon. Going into it, I had a lot of concerns, yet also a lot of excitement. My excitement came from wanting to learn more about maybe the best general this world’s ever seen. I surprisingly knew a lot about Napoleon from listening to Shane Gillis, and having some background about him intrigued me further.
Where my concerns emanated from was with Scott’s age. An 85 year-old man directing sweeping landscapes where thousands are battling felt ambitious. Scott is one of the greatest directors ever and has accomplished so much, whether it’s been in the horror genre with Alien or making a badass feminist picture like Thelma and Louise, he’s never feared a challenge. But as we see the great directors get older like Scorsese and Spielberg, they’ve become more thoughtful. Spielberg remade on of his childhood favorites with West Side Story and told his story through The Fabelmans. Scorsese seemed to reflect on his career with the ending scene in Killers of the Flower Moon. As for Scott, he continues to swing for the fences and seemingly doesn’t care if a film flops. He just wants to keep making movies.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
The Good
My largest concern that I mentioned prior was that the boundless landscapes and battle scenes would feel tawdry. That wasn’t the case. Whether it was the Battle of Austerlitz scene where Austrians and Russians are drowning in frozen lakes or the French wreaking havoc on the British in the Siege of Toulon, no battle scene was lacking in excitement or visual gravitas. It was quite amazing and that put me at ease when those scenes came up. It’s odd to say that a hair-raising battle sequences makes you feel comfortable, but in Napoleon, it did.
When you compound these epic sequences with a great performance from Joaquin Phoenix, which I’ll get to, then you’re cooking with fire. In those instances, it was like Scott and Phoenix picked up from where they left off with Gladiator in 2000 and didn’t skip a beat. Being able to revel in their reunion was somewhat sweet and I enjoyed experiencing the two being back together.
The Bad
While the large battle scenes were a great sign to the film being in the realm of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World or All Quiet on the Western Front, it was immediately retracted by three major points — Scott’s age in certain parts, the visual effects and the script.
Ridley Scott’s Age Negatively Affected Intimate Moments
Where I was originally concerned about Scott’s age was with the battle scenes, but they were great. What I didn’t account for was the idea of an 85 year-old man directing sex scenes. I know some of them are supposed to show the insecurities of Napoleon and make him look inadequate, but even in the ones where Napoleon and Josephine were making love with one another and the two were displaying a mutual attraction, the scenes were cringeworthy. I could feel the chemistry between Phoenix and Kirby, but never felt a positive sexual desire between them. That’s not on the actors, it’s on the director to make the sex scenes look believable.
This just shows that Scott’s age makes him out of touch when directing certain scenes. While I didn’t love Emerald Fennell’s Saltburn, she directed believable sex scenes, even when they were thematically unrealistic and looked to be purposely shocking, you felt a mutual attraction between those in the scene and that they were into each other. But this is a tale as old as time. Older directors like Woody Allen or William Friedkin struggled as they aged when they directed scenes where intimacy was vital.
Initial Visual Effects Took Me Out Of Focus
The first scene we see in Napoleon is Queen Marie Antoinette getting beheaded via guillotine as Napoleon, an officer at the time, watches on. I found the scene silly. Leading up to her beheading while the French citizens jeered her and threw vegetables in her direction was uncomfortable in an intriguing manner. A public display of angst in the midst of the French Revolution resulting in the killing of Marie Antoinette should be fazing. But then you see her head get lifted up and it looked pathetic. I audibly laughed in the movie theater when I saw this because of how unrealistic and fake her head looked.
I understand that Ridley Scott couldn’t get a real severed head, but this just looked shoddy. A few scenes later during the the Siege of Toulon, a scene in which I really enjoyed, I again found myself laughing at Napoleon’s horse getting blown up. The horse getting blown up wasn’t inherently funny, but the gash that the cannonball made and the insides of the horse looked foolish.
This became a recurring theme in the film where I thought the cinematography was great, but the closeup visual effects were second-rate. A lot like the meretricious sex scenes, I’d see a poor usage of visual effects and I’d find myself losing focus.
David Scarpa’s Script Was Surprisingly Funny, But Overall Was Tacky
Here’s where the bulk of my problem lies with Napoleon. Maybe it’s me, but I don’t think Scarpa intended for this to play like a comedy. I thought Phoenix’s delivery added a comedic layer, but I believe that this script was meant to be taken seriously and I couldn’t take it serious. Outside of the funny moments of dialogue, a lot of the lines felt forced. Many conversations never felt natural. That includes when Napoleon was talking to his closest friends or dignitaries. In my eyes, those conversations should feel natural and should ease tension. At no point does that EVER happen and I would find myself wrestling with my feelings over if I liked the movie. I ultimately found that I wasn’t huge on it.
Looking back, the line of “I found the crown of France in the gutter. I picked it up with the tip of my sword and cleaned it, and place it atop my own head.” feels less grand and more cheesy. In the moment I wasn’t huge on it, but the more I think of it, I’ve soured on it more.
Performance Report Card
I initially intended on going through a portion of the actors in Napoleon, but realized there wasn’t much to say. While ancillary characters can elevate a film, and actors like Tahar Rahim, Ben Miles, and John Hollingworth were very good, I can’t definitively say what they added to the film because I was solely focused on Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby. They were the focal point and Ridley Scott made that glaringly apparent, and I didn’t hate that.
Reflecting on past reviews, especially my one of David Fincher’s The Killer, I kind of wish I took this approach. The juice didn’t feel worth the squeeze when it came to the contributory characters in that film, yet I still wrote about them. Hindsight is always 20/20 and looking back now, that was probably a waste. Nevertheless, I’m building off my past flubs to try and make my reviews a little better and more concise.
Joaquin Phoenix: A-
While watching Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon, my first thought was that his performance felt like a mixture of F. Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce’s performances in Amadeus. Not on the same level as either, but it felt like he mended Abrahams vengefulness with Hulces sometimes aloofness together and that added the humorous aspects that I loved about this character. Probably 90% of Phoenix’s performance as Napoleon relied on his facial expressions and line delivery, and he hit that spot on. Whether he was screaming, “You think you are so great because you have boats” or jokingly stating, “Destiny has brought me this lamb chop!“, Phoenix shined.
I also thought that he was believable when he would deliver high-flown speeches to his men. The best one was when he returns from his first stint of exile and is able to prove that the French soldiers still believe in him, even though he lost half a million men when invading Russia. Nothing felt fabricated in his performance. Phoenix, per usual, was really good.
Vanessa Kirby: B
Vanessa Kirby’s performance was interesting. At times I thought she was outstanding, but in other spots I developed a strong disdain for her. But I think that was the point. For a lack of better words, Josephine was a bitch. She was sleeping around while Napoleon was out conquering the world and then, she couldn’t bear a child for Napoleon, which at the time was a big deal. He needed a successor and Josephine couldn’t provide that. As I talk myself through her performance, I grow to like it more which leads me to erase the “–” that was next to the B.
Where I really liked Kirby was that she did exude and aura of importance and that’s what Josephine had. She was an important figure during this time period and Kirby displayed that through her elegance or even her sometimes elitist dialogue. She helped to bring a hokey script to life, which is something other actresses wouldn’t be able to do.
Critical Reception
Currently on Letterboxd, 88,000 people have seen Napoleon and it has amassed an average rating of 3.2/5 stars. Out of those 88,000 users, 1,765 users gave it a 5/5 star rating. IMDB gave Napoleon a 6.7/10 rating. It’s just outside of Scott’s top ten on IMDB, behind Prometheus, The Duelists and The Last Duel. On Rotten Tomatoes, the critics and audience are in unison. Napoleon earned a 61% Tomatometer score and a 60% audience score.
For myself, I have Napoleon as my 43rd favorite movie of 2023. It’s sandwiched right between Sylvia Ryerson’s Calls From Home that I saw at the Montclair Film Festival and Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla. In the grand scheme of Ridley Scott, I have Napoleon ranked as my 8th favorite film from the director. This puts Napoleon behind Prometheus and ahead of Black Hawk Down.
Oscar Potential
In a similar vein as Maestro, there was some Oscar bait surrounding Napoleon. It’s a historical epic that stars one of the most acclaimed actors of the century with a Best Picture winning director. All of that coming together near the years end clearly created a notion that Apple Studios were trying to get the attention of the Academy and I don’t think they did that.
I’m bringing my percentages back to determine the likelihood of Napoleon getting nominated for certain categories. I did a lot of calculating and it’s surely not me just guesstimating about if I think it’ll get nominated. Surely, I’d never do that.
The Numbers
Best Picture: Whenever I write about a new movie this year, I note how competitive the Best Picture field is going to be. There feels like six to seven locks and a lot of films circling those final three spots like Past Lives, The Killer, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse and Air. I don’t see a scenario where Napoleon gets nominated for Best Picture. There are too many issues, whether it’s on the technical front or script wise. Never say never, though. 5%
Best Actor: Joaquin Phoenix has been an Academy darling since the start of his career picking up four total nominations. I’m not sure it happens this year. He’s going head-to-head with Paul Giamatti, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper, and Colman Domingo. And they’re just the tip of the iceberg. It’s a higher chance he gets nominated than the film itself, but not much higher, despite how much I enjoyed him in this role. 10%
Best Cinematography: While I did express my disdain for the visual effects in Napoleon, that doesn’t correlate to the cinematography. I found the scenes of Moscow burning down or the large battlefields to be shot beautifully. With how well it’s done, it felt like you were a French soldier laying your life on the line in Waterloo and not sitting in a movie theater. Again, it feels like there’s some locks for this category, but don’t count out Napoleon to get a nod here. 40%
Best Costume Design: It’s been bleak thus far with my nomination predictions for Napoleon, but the costume designs in this grandiose historical picture were marvelous. While it seemed as if Napoleon rarely changed, every time we saw Josephine, she sported elegant dresses that displayed the power she held in France as the wife of Napoleon. 55%
