What do you get when you combine a pair of best friends, several (truly horrifying) sex scenes, and a crowded theater with an average viewing age of 45? The answer is two wildly conflicting reviews on the new blockbuster biopic, Napoleon.
Before we delve into the intricacies of our reviews, please note that we did not see the movie together, and thus had very different expectations going in. All opinions, of course, are our own.
Carter:
Going into this movie, I was pretty excited. I had six of my closest friends, a half year long TikTok obsession with Napoleon, popcorn, and a blue raspberry ICEE. I mean, what else could you possibly want in life? Within the first 5 minutes of the movie, at least 3 people were beheaded and a horse had exploded. I honestly had no clue why the movie was rated R going into the theater, but it was abundantly clear at this point. The horse explosion elucidated the duality of my friends, as half of them looked like they were going to puke, while the other half were dying laughing. I was of course in the latter half.
After I got over the entertainment high of watching big explosions and gore, I realized the movie was too quickly paced, historically inaccurate, and really just a bad film. The film is attempting to do far too much. It is impossible to fit the entirety of Napoleon and Josephine’s relationship, as well as pretty much all French history from 1793-1815 into one two-and-a-half hour movie. Despite the dry attempt at flirting when Napoleon and Josephine first meet, the second meeting leaves us with even more questions. Napoleon is approached by a young, maybe 8-year-old boy who asks him for his father’s saber, as his father was executed in the revolution. After giving the child a random sword, as no one had thought to mark them, Napoleon meets his mother, who happens to be Josephine.
After marrying Napoleon, neither of Josephine’s two children are seen again. I would be hard-pressed to tell you what happened to them, or their father’s sword. Even after this oversight, the movie simplifies the relationship far more than necessary. Instead of including historical complexities, the movie simplified their marriage to “Napoleon is obsessed and wants a kid. Josephine is … promiscuous.”
The historical aspect of the movie was (somehow) even worse than the romantic aspect. The movie never attempted to direct any level of understanding toward Napoleon’s strategic or tactical genius, instead opting to show unprompted battle clips with zero context. On top of this, the diplomatic aspect of Napoleon’s reign is only touched on briefly when he 1) throws a hissy fit at the British for not respecting him, 2) tries to suck up to the Russian Tsar, and 3) marries a 15-year-old. Even worse, the domestic aspect of Napoleon’s leadership is rarely addressed. After showing his overthrow of the Directory, no mention is made regarding any of his governing.
Overall, the Napoleon movie was essentially made using the following formula: 1) an inaccurate dramatized battle scene 2) Napoleon throws a hissy fit 3) an unnecessary sex scene 4) repeat. 1.5 out of 5 Stars
Parker:
When I walked into the theater, about a week after Carter, I felt sufficiently prepared. After all, basically the entire history department had warned me, and my expectations could not have been any lower. But dear reader, let me tell you that absolutely nothing could have prepared me for the comedic masterpiece I was about to witness.
Who was going to tell me that Napoleon was a comedy? I came into this experience thinking that I was going to watch some French Revolution combination of Saving Private Ryan and Fifty Shades of Grey and emerged mentally scarred but practically crying from laughter.
Now, a lot of this stems from the artistic choices taken in the portrayal of our titular character, Napoleon. Carter mentioned that the movie did not spend a lot of time recognizing his militaristic genius or the complexities of his personality, which is true. However, his dialogue was delightful all the same. He came across as so horrendously awkward, so filled with self-importance, that it was hard not to laugh. Some crazy Napoleon moments include the purring scene (you read that right), his constant pauses after declaring “Citizen!”, and of course, the infamous near-pedophilic marriage moment with Tsar Alexander (iykyk). Really, any of the moments where the characters were just talking were great.
When the characters weren’t talking, however, the movie verged on dull. I’m referring to, in case it’s not clear, the superfluous battle and sex scenes. Once the shock value wore off, everyone in the theater would just sort of sit there as one of two types of moans ensued: the dying on the battlefield or Napoleon’s. It was boring and added nothing to the plot (yes, the battle scenes in a movie about a general did nothing for the actual movie).
But, honestly, I could forgive the sex and gore, if not for the accents. Why, pray tell, in a movie about the French Revolution, which was notably enacted by French citizens, was there not a single accent? The Russians sounded Russian. The British sounded British. But the French ALSO SOUNDED BRITISH. Except for Napoleon of course, who was, for reasons unknown, AMERICAN. It was weird and really only served to highlight the outdated idea that any movie which takes place in the past must sound like a David Attenborough documentary.
When all is said and done, you have to make choices. If you are watching Napoleon for the brilliant leader of a historically accurate France, this is not the movie for you. But if you want entertainment that verges on discomfort, then I can’t recommend it enough. 6/5 stars.
