Perhaps we are just tired of dictators, and we don’t want to sit through 2 hours and 38 minutes (or a day) to deal with another dictator. We tire of little men who have squeaky voices and want to rule the world or at least subjugate others.
By MIKE SZYMANSKI
How in the world could a film mixing brilliant director Ridley Scott and courageous actor Joaquin Phoenix with a $200 million budget turn out to be such a dud?
I give it two stars because of those two stars, Scott and Phoenix, who have done a lot of stupendous and memorable work in their day.
In the dialogue Napoleon compares himself to Alexander the Great, and I can’t help but think of “Alexander” starring Colin Farrell that ended up being quite a historic dud as well.
Ridley Scott has done some of my favorite movies: “Blade Runner,” “Thelma & Louise,” “Alien” and “G.I. Jane” and he has done a few big stinkers too: “White Squall,” “Exodus: Gods & Kings,” “The Good Year” and “House of Gucci.” He never won an Oscar, but his movie “Gladiator” won best picture.
Joaquin Phoenix has an Academy Award for his bone-chillingly creepy performance in “Joker” and he did fantastic jobs in “Gladiator,” “Walk the Line,” “The Master,” and “Her.” His over-the-top roles included “I’m Still Here” (with his ridiculous beard), “Ladder 49,” “Inventing the Abbotts,” “Clay Pigeons” and a few more.
But both of them have more good work than they do bad, and both them are more talented than “Napoleon” shows.
Perhaps we are just tired of dictators, and we don’t want to sit through 2 hours and 38 minutes (or a day) to deal with another dictator. We tire of little men who have squeaky voices and want to rule the world or at least subjugate others.
It’s almost laughable when he almost whines his “I’m not built like other men” like the spoiled brat the real Napoleon must have been.
And then, when he’s asking “Who’s country are we in” it makes me think of other so-called world leaders who have forgotten where they are when they are giving speeches.
Don’t expect this to be a history lesson, it’s widely criticized for skipping big chunks of real history. But, we don’t go to Oliver Stone of a history lesson of Vietnam or JFK, so why should we look to the movies for accuracy in history. This is not a documentary.
But, it would have been nice for anyone to have brought up some of Napoleon’s intricate strategies in his war efforts. He was like a chess master in battle strategy, and the film widely overlooks that.
Also Napoleon’s attraction to his supposed beloved is non-existent. Was this to show that the dictator lacked any kind of passion at all? Even when being seduced he is barely interested in Josephine (played by Vanessa Kirby).
Napoleon did not attend the execution of Marie Antoinette as the movie shows, and she was beheaded at the Place de la Concorde (anyone who has been to Paris knows that) not the Palais des Tuileries as shown in the film.
When Ridley Scott caught wind about the online complaints of the lack of historical accuracy even before the film was finished, he countered with “Were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.” Not really a satisfactory answer.
Although the movie takes place over three decades of Napoleon’s life, he doesn’t age a single bit. Not even a smidgeon of gray in Joaquin’s temples to show that time has gone by.
There’s a lot of snow in the battle scenes, and some sad scenes showing the poor horses.
And like that, the movie plods along until his inevitable death in 1821, and there doesn’t seem to be a point to showing the story at all.
Which makes we wonder, why did I bother?
Mike Szymanski is a journalist, writer, activist and bisexual, living with Multiple Sclerosis and Dachshunds in Hollywood. He writes a regular column at Medium. He can be contacted at mikeszy@aol.com.
