This is a “me” issue, but I wasn’t as hyped for Napoleon as everyone around me seemed to have been. I knew a few things about him, and I don’t find him any more or less fascinating than other rules, who, at one point in time or another, conquered a vast amount of the world. But, the fact Ridley Scott was behind the camera and Joaquin Phoenix alongside Vanessa Kirby were in front of it definitely intrigued and sold me on seeing it in the cinema, despite me knowing that this won’t be “the ultimate version”, as there is a four-hour director’s cut coming to the Apple TV at some point. This might sound strange, but despite this movie having a few issues, I still want to watch the longer cut.

Let’s start with the positives. Napoleon is a technically well-made movie. Scott showcases that his longevity in Hollywood (his first feature, The Duellists, is from 1977!) isn’t a coincidence and pours his knowledge of six decades of filmmaking into this film, and it shows. Especially, the battle sequences were shot beautifully, they have a scope and despite me occasionally getting lost as to who was fighting who (many dirty uniforms looked alike), I had no complaints in this department. The visuals are stunning.

The same applies to Joaquin and Vanessa. With Phoenix, this performance won’t surprise anyone, as, if we are being really honest here, it isn’t a stretch for him by any means. He has portrayed similar, if not the same characters, a few times before, but hey, if it ain’t broke… What he does with Napoleon seems to be on the edge of humanising him and almost parodying him. There were scenes where it seemed almost like a parody of this film, only for me to read how historically inaccurate Napoleon is and realise, yeah, maybe I shouldn’t take my historical information from the movies as they are here to entertain and need to make anything or anyone cinematic enough.

I have found Vanessa Kirby much more interesting, as when she wasn’t getting humped from the back by Joaquin in some of the most hilarious sex scenes of 2023, you could tell a lot about their relationship, respectively the power nature. Her character starts as a commoner when Napoleon is rising through the ranks, so there is a power imbalance already, and then we can see his obsession with her almost instantaneously. And once she marries him, she becomes an equal and treats him like it. It almost seemed like she was the only character through which we could see him for what he truly was, this man-child obsessed with power and didn’t really care much about anything else.

And with this is where my problem lies. Despite the runtime of almost 160 minutes, I felt bored, but also like there was something missing. Was my mind clouded a bit by the knowledge that there would be a longer cut at some point? Yes, probably. But even not focusing on that, Napoleon felt disjointed at times, where I thought some scenes didn’t transition as smoothly to other scenes. Especially in a biopic, albeit historically inaccurate one, we should be able to feel the progress of everything, from time to the characters. In Napoleon, occasionally, that escaped me. But I suppose that having that director’s cut available soon-ish (nobody knows when exactly this will come out, but it’s presumed either February or March 2024) should fix some, if not all, of these issues.

When I say “issues”, I am talking about pacing too. While the battle sequences were fascinating to watch, the rest of the film dragged on occasionally. To put it bluntly, I felt the runtime more often than I didn’t. Especially towards the end, I couldn’t help but check my imaginary clock at the cinema. Which sounds weird, given I am actually excited about the director’s cut and will watch it. Why? Because I truly hope and believe the extra material might fix the pacing and give me more to chew on. And especially with Ridley Scott, he’s got a good track record of having better director’s cut movies than pretty much anyone (Blade Runner (1982, my review here) is the obvious example, and I hear the same happened with his other film I still haven’t seen, Kingdom of Heaven (2005)).

But that begs the question, why does this still happen? Why does he “need” two versions; why not just release the longer one in the cinemas? Well, we can blame ourselves, and I am counting myself in that group too, as many moviegoers wouldn’t have gone and watched such a long movie in a cinema. I know many are like me and don’t like to get up and go to the bathroom when watching a film in cinemas, so you won’t miss anything, whereas, at home, you can pause the film. And as the movies aren’t getting any shorter, why not be smart about it and give us an intermission? For any movie that’s longer than, let’s say, 150 minutes, why not find a sensible enough scene in the middle where we could “cut” or “pause” the movie for about 10 minutes? That way, people could not only stretch their legs and relieve themselves, but they could also get extra popcorn and drinks, hence cinemas would make a bit more money…? I know I am not the only one who feels like this, and I still remember how The Hateful Eight (2015) had an intermission built into it, and that’s a three-hour movie that made almost $200 million. Anyway, I hope and strongly believe that the longer cut of this film will be better, and I wish I could have seen that (with an intermission) in the cinemas.

Overall, Napoleon is a technical masterpiece made by someone who understands his craft. The two main performers are excellent, and so are the battle scenes. However, the movie felt disjointed at times, and the pacing was also off, especially towards the end. That will not stop me from eventually watching the Director’s Cut once it drops on Apple TV; I simply wish I had the chance to see that first on the big cinema screen.

That’s all for this one! Did you see it? What did you think about it? Let me know!

Until next time,

Luke