Ridley Scott's epic is a memorable, gloriously gory, and unexpectedly hilarious portrait of Napoleon's relationship, but still feels a little incomplete.
Just saw this, mostly agree with Vince's review. Two other things:
First, there was a reference to a "succulent breakfast" while a fat guy was getting arrested that I'm convinced is a reference to the "succulent Chinese meal" guy.
Second, the end scroll where he lists how many people died during the Napoleonic wars felt facile. The obvious message was "this horny brute threw lives away in pursuit of his ambition", but I don't think the movie did the work to be able to conclude that way.
Given that France was under more or less constant risk of the European powers invading and reestablishing the monarchy (which they eventually did), it places a lot of the blame for the destructive wars on one side. Are we to believe that the Prussians, English, etc had noble intentions?
Maybe Napoleon himself *was* disproportionately responsible, but it also seems like artillery warfare is just incredibly deadly and he was good at artillery warfare.
Ultimately it's a film that asks "what if the most interesting thing about Napoleon is that he was horny?" And for me, that's not the most interesting part.
THIS is a review. This is a real analysis of the film, one that points out the successes and the flaws and still makes me happy that I'm paying to see it on the big screen tomorrow. Excellent read, thank you Vince. THIS is what I'm happy to pay for. Keep it up.
Phoenix loves playing incels who are desperate for a fuck - To Die For, Gladiator, Joker, Beau, Napoleon. Not man enough to be a man and not man enough for a woman.
I was always fine with long Scorsese or Ridley Scott movies. It's fine when the subject demands it! This is Napoleon! He's the most written-about man in all of history! Now, if you're making a movie where the premise is "spooky hotel," "everyone is assassin," or "train full of money," 140 minutes is way too fucking long. Like Guardians 3, everything after the 100 minute mark just made it worse. Sorry but Star Lord is not Napoleon.
That being said, I will freely admit that seeing every movie regardless of whether I was actually interested in it (because I knew that was the job) vs now, when I mostly only go to the ones that look like they might be good, is a fundamentally different dynamic. Every negative review I used to write, someone would always say "What did you expect bro!" And that varied with the movie, but a lot of times it was "I expected something mediocre and was hoping to be pleasantly surprised." Which I was, a lot! But it also worked in both directions.
Guess i shouldnt hold my breath for a review of the new Thanksgiving horror movie based on a fake 1 minute trailer from 16 years ago. I kid, but i hope dumb comedies are still under the purview of a boutique dad film critic
Finally have gotten around to reading the Aubrey/Maturin books (I'm on Desolation Island) so this movie is coming out at the perfect time. While I know there's little hope for another Master & Commander movie (although apparently a prequel might be in production???) I would think a great movie could be made around Lord Nelson and the various battles between the French and British navies.
The whole "let us be masters of the Channel for six hours and we are masters of the world" quote is pretty amazing when you think about it. Had the British blockade been overcome or even blown off course by a heavy storm the entirety of European history could have been changed. A movie that could effectively capture those stakes would be quite something.
What I'm saying is: dads of the world unite and demand more large scale naval battles on-screen!
Just saw this, mostly agree with Vince's review. Two other things:
First, there was a reference to a "succulent breakfast" while a fat guy was getting arrested that I'm convinced is a reference to the "succulent Chinese meal" guy.
Second, the end scroll where he lists how many people died during the Napoleonic wars felt facile. The obvious message was "this horny brute threw lives away in pursuit of his ambition", but I don't think the movie did the work to be able to conclude that way.
Given that France was under more or less constant risk of the European powers invading and reestablishing the monarchy (which they eventually did), it places a lot of the blame for the destructive wars on one side. Are we to believe that the Prussians, English, etc had noble intentions?
Maybe Napoleon himself *was* disproportionately responsible, but it also seems like artillery warfare is just incredibly deadly and he was good at artillery warfare.
Ultimately it's a film that asks "what if the most interesting thing about Napoleon is that he was horny?" And for me, that's not the most interesting part.
Yeah I wasn’t sure what to make of that epilogue text. Seems like it was there because biopics are supposed to have them?
THIS is a review. This is a real analysis of the film, one that points out the successes and the flaws and still makes me happy that I'm paying to see it on the big screen tomorrow. Excellent read, thank you Vince. THIS is what I'm happy to pay for. Keep it up.
Phoenix loves playing incels who are desperate for a fuck - To Die For, Gladiator, Joker, Beau, Napoleon. Not man enough to be a man and not man enough for a woman.
Married dudes aren’t incels. God you’re dumb.
Do they ever address the invention of his icecream? I like to mix a little of the vanilla with strawberry.
Vince’s character development is railing against movies exceeding a 2 hr run time on F——k but now embracing the Scorsese Length.
I was always fine with long Scorsese or Ridley Scott movies. It's fine when the subject demands it! This is Napoleon! He's the most written-about man in all of history! Now, if you're making a movie where the premise is "spooky hotel," "everyone is assassin," or "train full of money," 140 minutes is way too fucking long. Like Guardians 3, everything after the 100 minute mark just made it worse. Sorry but Star Lord is not Napoleon.
That being said, I will freely admit that seeing every movie regardless of whether I was actually interested in it (because I knew that was the job) vs now, when I mostly only go to the ones that look like they might be good, is a fundamentally different dynamic. Every negative review I used to write, someone would always say "What did you expect bro!" And that varied with the movie, but a lot of times it was "I expected something mediocre and was hoping to be pleasantly surprised." Which I was, a lot! But it also worked in both directions.
Guess i shouldnt hold my breath for a review of the new Thanksgiving horror movie based on a fake 1 minute trailer from 16 years ago. I kid, but i hope dumb comedies are still under the purview of a boutique dad film critic
Ah Ridley Scott historical films. Always so tantalizing but ultimately so unsatisfying.
Hey, I liked Kingdom of Heaven a lot when I was 16 and refuse to revisit that opinion.
Finally have gotten around to reading the Aubrey/Maturin books (I'm on Desolation Island) so this movie is coming out at the perfect time. While I know there's little hope for another Master & Commander movie (although apparently a prequel might be in production???) I would think a great movie could be made around Lord Nelson and the various battles between the French and British navies.
The whole "let us be masters of the Channel for six hours and we are masters of the world" quote is pretty amazing when you think about it. Had the British blockade been overcome or even blown off course by a heavy storm the entirety of European history could have been changed. A movie that could effectively capture those stakes would be quite something.
What I'm saying is: dads of the world unite and demand more large scale naval battles on-screen!