A dad review of Ridley Scott’s ‘Napoleon’

rewrite this content and keep HTML tags Joaquin Phoenix in “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Before I even had children, I loved dad movies. I have every word of “The Fugitive” memorized. I once went full “Braveheart” and used “I loov ya. Ullwees have” as a pickup line in college (didn’t work). And I burst into tears at the end of “Saving Private Ryan,” to the point where my then-girlfriend actively distanced herself from me in the emptying theater because she was so embarrassed.So when I saw the trailer for “Napoleon,” which arrives in theaters this week, I immediately knew that this was my kind of movie … especially now that I have three kids and crave hefty doses of on-screen violence to get my motor running. When SFGATE got me into an advanced screening of this film, I was so pumped that I went to high-five my caddy and missed. Did I go 10 miles over the speed limit while driving my minivan to the theater? You know I did.But is “Napoleon” — directed by dad movie legend Ridley Scott (“Gladiator,” “Blade Runner,” “Gladiator,” “The Martian,” “Gladiator,” “Black Hawk Down” and “Gladiator”) — a worthy entry in the dad movie canon? To figure it out, I watched the movie and then subjected it to the following test. You may apply this test to any future movie to ascertain its dad cred if you like. You can then say “merci buckets” to me shortly thereafter. Now let’s see how “Napoleon” fares under proper dad scrutiny.AdvertisementArticle continues below this adJoaquin Phoenix in “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix in “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+A battle scene from “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Is the movie impeccably cast?Yes. Joaquin Phoenix is your titular French war general, and he’s exactly as good as you expected him to be. The rest of the cast includes the correct blend of British accents and dangerous women.Does the movie look like it cost a lot of money?Indisputably, and it did (somewhere in the $130 million to $200 million range).Is it epic?Oh, yes. “Napoleon” is two hours and 38 minutes long. This is almost merciful by modern blockbuster standards, but this is not a movie that flies by. It spans 28 years in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte — from making a name for himself as a military strategist during the Siege of Toulon in 1793, all the way through his reign as Emperor of the French and up to his death in exile in 1821. That’s a lot of ground to cover, and Scott covers quite a bit of it on foot.AdvertisementArticle continues below this adA battle scene from “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Does this movie have history stuff in it?Yes, and much of it famous. Toward the end of “Napoleon,” our great leader is laying out his master plan for yet another glorious military victory. He points to the municipality of Waterloo on a map. No further explanation is provided, because none is required. The second I saw the name “Waterloo” on the screen, my brain cried out I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE! To that end…Does the movie have cool battle scenes?F—k yeah, it does. Not only are the battle scenes in “Napoleon” gorgeously shot (Scott made his bones as an art director, which is why his movies always look so beautiful), but they include the following attractions:- Exploding horses- Decapitations- The main character defeating the bad guys by employing the element of surprise- Lines of drawn muskets- Generals yelling, “FIRE!”- Sabers- Cool old “Master and Commander”-style battleships- One army sneaking up on the other under cover of nightfall- Cannons that have super nasty recoil- Dead soldiers sinking down to a watery graveAdvertisementArticle continues below this adThat last one happens during a mesmerizing recreation of the Battle of Austerlitz, in which the enemy army is forced onto a frozen lake and then sunk under the ice. It’s the best scene in the movie.Photos from “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Photos from “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Would you test out a TV’s new sound system with these battle scenes?Yes.AdvertisementArticle continues below this adIs the s—t between the battle scenes also cool?This is where your mileage will vary. About a third of “Napoleon” is an expertly crafted war movie. The other two-thirds are a comedy of manners. If you know anything about Napoleon Bonaparte, you know that he was a petty man who was eventually undone by his own incredible hubris. Phoenix, as you might have guessed, has no compunction about showcasing that hubris in full. This movie is like “Gladiator,” if Commodus (also played by Phoenix) had been the main character. This is not a slight by any means, but it does get at a more vital question:Is the main character a powerful, difficult man that you could imagine yourself being?NO. This Napoleon is not cool. He is not a badass. He deftly wins wars and uses all of his wiles to assert his dominion over France, but he is also an enormous f—king baby. Maybe the biggest baby in world history. He abandons his soldiers when he finds out his wife is cheating on him. He demands that same wife declare, out loud, that she’s nothing without him. He stages a coup d’etat by running away from the very men he’s intent on overthrowing, and then hiding behind his goons. He’s an awful lay. He’s short (this is handled with the proper amount of subtlety). And he insists on wearing a stupid hat all hours of the day.You will not daydream about being Napoleon, the way that you (OK, me) daydream about being Doc Holliday, or William Wallace, or Jim Lovell. You will laugh in Napoleon’s face, as his wife (played by an excellent Vanessa Kirby) does in nearly every scene. This is a small and cowardly man who only fancies himself great. For a time, Napoleon’s façade is convincing enough to win him an entire country. But then the façade vanishes at Waterloo and he’s reduced to a common, narcissistic asswipe. It’s audacious to build an entire movie around this sort of character, but well worth it to have Phoenix cry out, “Destiny brought me this lamb chop” when Kirby tells him that he’s gotten too fat. We have enough epics about great and cool men, do we not? It’s time we had one that was about a real loser.Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix in “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+AdvertisementArticle continues below this adIs the movie lightly horny?Yes, and the sex scenes include their own bit of high comedy, especially when Phoenix starts braying like a donkey around his wife because he’s itching to get it on.Is the love story at the center of it convincing?No. Scott tries to make the romance between Kirby and Phoenix the true centerpiece of the film, but it falls flat in the end. Napoleon and Josephine have a marriage of convenience that turns into a marriage of love that turns into a divorce of convenience, but you’re never really all that invested in the two of them finding everlasting happiness together. The chemistry between Kirby and Phoenix only shows up when their characters argue (see the above “lamb chop” quote). This is why “Napoleon” is funny, but also why it never feels like the romantic tragedy it wants you to think it is, particularly at the end.Are there dramatic titles before the film begins and after it cuts to black?Yes.AdvertisementArticle continues below this adDo the characters drink a lot in it?Yes.Director Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix behind the scenes of “Napoleon.”Courtesy of Apple TV+Does it give you a chance to regale people with Dad Facts after you’ve seen it?Oh my God, yes, so let me do that right now! As you might have guessed, filmmakers have been dying to make a definitive Napoleon movie for decades. The late Stanley Kubrick worked for years to develop his own Napoleon opus, only to eventually give up on the project and direct “Barry Lyndon” as his historical epic instead. “Barry Lyndon” turned out to be an exquisitely photographed saga about an unremarkable Irishman who rises up through Victorian society by lying and cheating, only to end his life cast back into obscurity, right where he started. I loved it.Scott’s “Napoleon” is nearly identical in its throughline. Like “Barry Lyndon,” this is a visually stunning work about a man who is deluded into believing that he’s something more than merely the beneficiary of circumstance. In…

FOLLOW US ON GOOGLE NEWS

Read original article here