It's not a surprise that Ridley Scott has here produced a film that looks great, and in which the action (as far as it goes) is well staged. Neither is it a surprise, sadly, that it has a rather underfed story hardly capable of carrying all the spectacle; or that it seems as if it was written by someone who is not a native English speaker and who knows nothing whatsoever about the subject. Certainly the script is full of bad grammar and ridiculous solecisms, particularly in the battles ('Prepare to receive cavalry'? 'Charge bayonets'? 'Renounce'?!). Unfortunately Scott does not seem to think that these things matter, and so - as is often the case - his visual flair is largely wasted.
It is something of a surprise, though, that the performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby are not more compelling (maybe they were hobbled by the terrible script!); and it is surprising that the whole thing, long as it is, feels cursory and rushed.
The French (quelle surprise!) didn't like how they come across in it; but I think we Brits also have grounds for a shortage of gruntle, in not being given our full share of credit for the man's downfall. Trafalgar - ultimately the decisive battle of the Napoleonic Wars, as the Battle of Britain was the decisive point in WWII - is not mentioned; likewise the Peninsular War (the real Napoleon could not possibly have thought that the British couldn't fight on land); and, whilst yes it was a coalition that defeated him at Waterloo, it was the British who did most of the actual fighting. And that's not to mention the economic and diplomatic side of the wars. But the lack of reference to these things reflects an overall approach where events are not so much told as assumed: a series of tableaux which the viewer seems expected to connect for himself. Not the story of Napoleon, but somebody's fitful dream of him.
It is something of a surprise, though, that the performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby are not more compelling (maybe they were hobbled by the terrible script!); and it is surprising that the whole thing, long as it is, feels cursory and rushed.
The French (quelle surprise!) didn't like how they come across in it; but I think we Brits also have grounds for a shortage of gruntle, in not being given our full share of credit for the man's downfall. Trafalgar - ultimately the decisive battle of the Napoleonic Wars, as the Battle of Britain was the decisive point in WWII - is not mentioned; likewise the Peninsular War (the real Napoleon could not possibly have thought that the British couldn't fight on land); and, whilst yes it was a coalition that defeated him at Waterloo, it was the British who did most of the actual fighting. And that's not to mention the economic and diplomatic side of the wars. But the lack of reference to these things reflects an overall approach where events are not so much told as assumed: a series of tableaux which the viewer seems expected to connect for himself. Not the story of Napoleon, but somebody's fitful dream of him.