Director:
Ridley ScottGuión:
David ScarpaCámara:
Dariusz WolskiMúsica:
Martin PhippsReparto:
Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Ben Miles, Ludivine Sagnier, Matthew Needham, Rupert Everett, Paul Rhys, Catherine Walker, Youssef Kerkour (más)Sinopsis(1)
Napoleón es un espectáculo lleno de épica y acción que detalla el enrevesado ascenso y caída del icónico Emperador francés Napoleón Bonaparte, interpretado por el ganador del Oscar® Joaquin Phoenix. Tras un rodaje orquestado por el legendario director Ridley Scott sobre un deslumbrante telón de fondo a gran escala, la película muestra la incesante carrera de Bonaparte hasta el poder, a través del prisma de la adictiva y volátil relación con Josefina, la que fue su único amor verdadero, presentando sus visionarias tácticas políticas y militares a través de algunas de las secuencias prácticas de batallas más dinámicas jamás filmadas. (Sony Pictures Esp.)
(más)Videos (20)
Reseñas (6)
Ridley Scott sabe rodar estos espectáculos históricos con mucha seguridad, y Napoleon resultó exactamente como me la imaginé antes de la proyección: en lo bueno y en lo malo. Yo empezaría por lo malo. Desafortunadamente, incluso con el metraje de dos horas y media, la película es un recorrido tan rápido por la vida y la carrera de Bonaparte, que a veces salta demasiado de una escena a otra, mientras que las tramas y los personajes secundarios aparecen y desaparecen en él un poco, y las conexiones no se llegan a contar hasta el fin. Ese es un problema que espero que se solucione en la versión prometida de cuatro horas y media en Apple TV+. Las escenas de guerra son geniales, como ya estamos acostumbrados con Scott, y en general la estilización de la época funciona perfectamente en la película, que realmente sumerge al espectador en el entorno de la Europa salvaje de finales de los siglos XVIII y XIX. Joaquin Phoenix aborda la figura legendaria de la historia mundial con un concepto muy civilizado y su Napoleón cautiva cada minuto en pantalla. Y creo que es capaz de lograr lo mismo incluso en la versión que durará dos horas más que esta. Satisfacción con las reservas.
()
Short. Scott's a stud, but he might as well have made Napoleon a trilogy instead of skipping through his life like a rushed history lesson. Phoenix is great, his Napoleon oscillates between aspiring strategist and lovelorn naif. But Kirby doesn't have enough space, so she comes across as weird. The leap from infatuation to divorce is very rushed. The battles, Toulon, Austerlitz and Waterloo, are exquisite, though. There's black humour, poking fun at politicians and their lies. Also, that brute force and tactics are above all, but are useless when it rains. P.S.: Almost on the anniversary of the Battle of Austerlitz.
()
The cinematic cut turned out as it probably had to: as an obviously incomplete fragment of a larger work. It's hard to rate it, it's like reading a novel and skipping every ten pages. What is in the cinema cut is fine, but it doesn't coalesce into a comprehensive experience. Napoleon's personal life is there, the battles are there, but the "politics" between them are missing, so you don't really know why any given battle is happening. Quite absurdly, from the cinematic cut, the character of Napoleon doesn't actually strike me as an active instigator of all this wartime fury, nor as a figure that the rest of Europe feared.
()
Ridley Scott and another historical romp. This time he chose the historical icon Napoleon and, according to the previews, it was expected to be an adept for the film of the year, but according to the current rating of 72%, it will definitely not be and I was expecting more. It is still a great cinematic and genre event, though, especially since we don't get many huge historical films (when we do get one, it's usually without battles), so I thank Scott for this one. But the film suffers a lot from being a shortened version (it would have benefited from being split into two films), because even at 4 and a half hours, I don't think it can fully hold your attention. Joaquin Phoenix is of course excellent, he gives a great performance, and Vanessa Kirby follows suit. Surprisingly, the rest of the characters don't have much to work with here, they have small roles and no one else manages to impress in such a small space. The production design and craftsmanship are of course top notch, what the film presents historically seems to be true (the traditions, the coronation, the wedding, the paternity test). The are only three battles are they could have been longer (I'm sure they will be in the extended version). I was most impressed by the battle of Waterloo, where the strategy and tactics were nice. The battle itself is not that gripping, it's spectacular, but I missed proper gore, dirtiness and a bleak atmosphere, it's just not the same as the wrestling as with knights or vikings (at least there was one awesome gore scene with a horse right in the beginning, that was over the top), in short I've seen better, but I'm glad for this one too. The politics are dealt with rather quickly, with unfortunately no big intrigue. But what disappoints the most is that the emotions are completely absent, the film doesn't do much with the viewer. Napoleon's relationship with Josephine is cold, and I missed a downright memorable moment. I had a great time though, the film held my attention for the whole two and a half hours (maybe I was more entertained than in Oppenheimer), and it's definitely better than Fincher's The Killer – I haven't seen Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon, but I don't trust it to justify the running time at all. We'll see what the extended version brings. While this is not the movie of the year, it's still above average and deserves the big screen. 75%
()
Basically, Napoleon has everything I was looking forward to, but it's always too short. The film jumps from scene to scene for two and a half hours, but gives little space to make an impact. Phoenix's Napoleon is the same (or rather, just as unpleasant) from beginning to end and doesn't surprise in like Vanessa Kirby's Josephine. The other characters are unfortunately stale, however interesting they could have been – Napoleon's brother and their mother, Josephine's lover, Wellington... I believe that in the long version they will be given their due space, but I would also like to see those promised spectacular battles get their due space, because we didn't get much of those either. What I wouldn't give for the whole film to take place during the Egyptian campaign, for example! But no, we're here for a while, there's no time for a tactical demonstration, the scenes need subtitles with years so they don't blend in. Ridley Scott doesn't really show his hand until the end, at Waterloo, where I got everything I wanted, but I'm not going to lie when I say I was already wishing for the film to end about half an hour before that. I'm sorry, but I rate it as I rate it. If you want to see a really good cinematic Napoleon, check out Bondarchuk's masterpiece, the Czech Waterloo with Rudolf Hrušínský if you're in the mood for a TV psychological treat. And if you want to see a long film about a controversial warlord who deserves every minute of its runtime, Patton is for you.
()
Anuncio