Napoleón

  • Estados Unidos Napoleon (más)
Tráiler 16

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 (29)

Tráiler 16

Reseñas (13)

Goldbeater 

todas reseñas del usuario

español 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. ()

J*A*S*M 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés 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. ()

Anuncio

POMO 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés Not any weaker than Gladiator (as we had hoped), but only a bit better than Robin Hood (unfortunately). Passages from the historical stages of Napoleon’s rise to power and “world conquest”, intimately interspersed with his relationship with the woman in his life. The film is entertaining with its actors and the occasional battle, but it is so inwardly reserved that it borders on being bland, with no interest or ability to find personality traits in Napoleon on which the psychology of his story or any other idea could be built. Nor does it make use of the possibilities offered by his personal confrontation with the supporting characters, which could have filled out the narrative with solid content. And Napoleon’s romantic relationship, which receives a great deal of attention, remains cold and thus fails to touch the fewer. The routine narrative raises concerns that the longer director’s cut will be richer in informational content, but equally soulless. Ridley Scott’s first historical film without a musical identity. ()

EvilPhoEniX 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés 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 KillerI 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% ()

Isherwood 

todas reseñas del usuario

inglés Rimmer may have traveled through Europe with the greatest general of all time and mowed down Belgians, but I suspect fraud in the movie theater admission fee that I decided to sacrifice despite the poor reviews. Visually, Scott still has it at eighty-six, and I caught myself thinking about who will shoot this once Ridley is gone. But there were more and more similar mental escapes from the movie, mostly into history class, where I struggled in vain to remember the reasons why defenders of the republic suddenly ended up with a royal crown on their heads, or when one dinner and one letter were enough to return from the Elba. The battles drew me in like nothing else. Damn the historical accuracy, because when the ice cracks at Slavkov, you go underwater with the stuntmen, while at Waterloo, you feel total despair and devastation that makes you physically sick. But instead of more military campaigns, and more of Napoleon's egoistically maniacal journey that tore Europe apart, we get completely senseless flirting with Josephine, and summarizing their relationship in letters would save screening time in favor of the aforementioned. The promised four-hour stream leaves me cold, partly because it's a deception against the viewer, and also because I probably don't have the strength to watch the cringe-worthy relationship of two people where one is enticed to sex by horny neighing while the other complains about freshly styled hair. ()

Galería (32)