Well well what have we here? Another historical epic from top director Ridley Scott charting the life of French military commander Napoleon Bonaparte; or a close approximation.
I find it very difficult to try and review some historical films for the very simple reason that I don't know anything about the history of whatever it may be. I don't want to come across as ignorant but that's just the way it is, some things you know about, some things you know a bit, some things you know nothing. Obviously I have heard of Napoleon and his antics but what I know is extremely limited as I am not in any way an expert on French military or revolutionary history. I am also willing to bet that this will be the same situation for the majority of regular moviegoers the world over, and in some cases even worse.
So when it comes to watching a film like this I have to rely on certain things such as Wikipedia and various other bits of information (often YouTube videos) to delve deeper into the history and learn what was accurate, what wasn't, and what else occurred that may not have been shown. There is no shame in this in my opinion, I am simply researching and learning more about the period. It's no different from doing homework, which in my day would have been 100% reliant on books. This is the only way to learn and discover more, it's just a shame some directors couldn't do the same.
So when it comes to this epic biographical offering there is alas a hyper tonne of history to dig into involving lots of historical people, battles, wars, skirmishes, political theatre etc...To the point that it would take you potentially years to digest and understand everything that occurred during Napoleon's lifespan. Reading about one small aspect of his life will inevitably link to a specific event, which in turn will inevitably link to a multitude of people and other events surrounding them, in turn linking to more battles and more people, often covering multiple countries etc...So bottom line, I'm putting a lot of faith in Ridley Scott to deliver something that I can get to grips with and give me the basics to get me through. A condensed two and a half hour history lesson of the French revolution, give or take.
Did Scott deliver on this? Yes and no. As expected with Scott the film looks tremendous with high detail both in the foreground and background. Virtually every aspect of the era has been carefully recreated to the best of everyone's ability. Again I'm no expert but what I saw on the screen, to me, looked amazingly realistic and presumably accurate. From the basic cast iron heating system steaming away in the corner of a room; to the huge array of outfits, the hairdos, the food, the landscapes, weaponry, the various methods of transportation etc...it all looks very impressive. The only tiny quibble would be the lack of most actors going for a French twang in their dialect.
Naturally it's the battles everyone came for (all the various politics in between are interesting of course but let's be real here) and naturally these don't fail to deliver. The vast stonking scenes of war porn we get in the finale at Waterloo is what I was waiting for. Granted it is not as good or as detailed as the classic Rod Steiger epic of 1970 but I can't deny it was solid. I know nothing about actual French Napoleonic warfare and how it may have actually gone down real-time so to me it was exciting and thrilling, oh yes. Scott can certainly deliver a rousing war and this was definitely worth the wait. Charging cavalry, screaming troops, unthinkable suicidal marches straight into gunfire, thundering cannon fire, blood, thick mud, and stoic British officer types glaring at the enemy through steely eyes.
So whilst Scott is able to deliver much visual spectacle across the board, alas he doesn't often seem to deliver much historical accuracy as proven here. Stating once again I know very little about this time period but even I had to question the moment Napoleon fired his cannons at the ancient Pyramids of Giza. This was easily the most offensive of the historical inaccuracies simply because it was so blatantly false. We know there aren't large cannonball-sized holes in the Pyramids for Pete's sake. I simply cannot understand why Scott would make such a horrifically false sequence. Everyone expects there to be inaccuracies in historical films but usually not this glaring, geez!!
Other than some stand-out moments of pure inaccurate nonsense, quite frankly it's all good! I didn't expect every inch of Napoleon's life to get covered and it wasn't. After some reading there were obviously more battles, political guff, and whatnot but you can't expect everything to be crammed into a film, it's just not possible. Nor did I think more battles would have made it any better as this is supposed to be essentially a bit of a history lesson, not war porn, so we need the other less exciting stuff. The acting, much like most Scott epics, is pretty much flawless across the board really. Everyone looked and felt right in their respective roles. What else can I say here? It's a modern day historical epic, we don't get too many of those, I do enjoy them and this satisfied me. I was engaged right to the bitter end. I can't deny I'm surprised that Scott is apparently still able and allowed to make these sprawling flicks considering most of his flicks have a tendency to fail at the box office but there you go.
Not as good or action-packed as 'Gladiator', but this is a different type of animal. Not as good as 'The Last Duel' which is a HIGHLY underrated medieval epic. But 'Napoleon' is much better than 'Kingdom of Heaven' and 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'. Very much recommended if you can overlook the inaccuracies.
7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment