Film Review: Lost in Napoleon (minus the dynamite)

 So we started watching the movie Napoleon. 

Lots of gore, Check.

Sex scenes. Check.

So what's not to like?

ugly cinematography, check.

incomprehensible screenplay, check.

Unlikeable leading actor, check.

In other words, a badly made movie, which made me sad because it is a fascinating time of history.

And the reviews were of no help:

The reviewers mentioned that the battle scenes that were gory. But these scenes were also very short., so that was no problem in today's R rated world where violence porn is common.

But here, we were given no context and no idea what was going on, or where they were, or who they were fighting. I mean, I am slightly familiar with that part of history bur I had trouble following the story.

At least this film started with his use of cannons against the British Navy. And then the film showed how he used these same cannons on civilians protesting the revolution, an atrocity that is usually left out of history or glossed over in a sentence or two. 

So I applaud that the film did show the Paris massacre since it reveals to us that he is a cold hearted B----d...

Indeed ,during the entire film, Phoenix plays Napoleon as an unemotional somewhat deluded person with a soupcon of megalomania. But how would such a person inspire the fervent loyalty of his troops, many of whom came from the common folk?

The film does show how his artillery enabled his first victory, over the British Navy early in the wars, but it is not explained why they allowed him to invade Italy  and go on to Egypt. Indeed, the campaign in Italy disappeared (as did the fact he jailed the Pope), and Egypt campaign did suggest there were numerous uprisings of locals in Egypt. But no mention of why he left there (uh, Nelson's victory might have cut his ability to get supplies) or the scandal that he left a lot of troops behind to become POWs or worse.... 

Lots about having sex with Josephine, and then divorcing Josephine but not much about why the Hapsburgs agreed to send him a princess, or what she thought about being forced into a political marriage (backstory: her story ends happily since she married for love--twice--after Napoleon's death) 

And then he invaded Russia. I think he invaded Russia: that too was glossed over so quickly I almost missed it. Kuya, who was watching it with me, kept asking if this was Waterloo yet. 

Sorry, at this point it was almost two hours into the movie and we were falling asleep, so I turned it off.

The reviewers had it wrong: it was not the gory scenes or even the emphasis on his love life that was the problem. The problem was the screenplay. And the ugly cinematography.

so my advice to Amazon: re edit it and make it into a miniseries. 

Add someone to explain what is going on (maps would help, as would dates of when things happen, or the back story of other people around him.) And this narrator not only would clarify the history for those watching the film, but would be a lot cheaper than filming more gory battle scenes.

I won't give my review a rating, since maybe the last hour of the film would improve things.

My advice? There are lots of films and miniseries about Napoleon and the various Napoleonic campaigns out there. Sharpe's Rifles, Poldark, and even Jane Austen have these wars as a backstory. And don't miss War and Peace.

But if you want a fictionalized version that might give you an idea of Napoleon's personality, check out Marlon Brando's portrayal of Napoleon in Desiree: it might not be history (it's a chick flick) but it does give insight to his charm, his ambition, his willingness to manipulate people, and his megalomania.