Prashanth Vaidyaraj

Short Review: A missed opportunity, lack of focus and depth; underwhelming given the expectations. Long Review: A Ridley Scott biopic starring Oscar winner Joaquin Phoenix on the legendary Napoleon had a ton of expectations. However, it seems like the two were forced to make this movie at gunpoint or under some kind of duress. Having been a fan of Ridley Scott movies for long, the expectation was to witness a classic like The Gladiator. Though the film is a biopic on Napoleon Bonaparte, it was unclear as to which aspect of Napoleon the makers wanted to highlight. This film is a complete failure in every aspect: casting, acting, editing, continuity, and historical accuracy! This may seem scathing but right from casting the wrong actor in the titular role to the insipid and tedious war scenes, the film fails in all aspects. While Joaquin Phoenix doesn't suit the character or the personality Ridley Scott wanted to portray, Vanessa Kirby carries herself well as Josephine but the lack of focus in the story renders her character dispensable. By the end of the screening, I was unable to figure out what the movie was about!!! Is it a love story between Napoleon and Josephine? It cannot be as it was marketed as a biopic which was corroborated by the trailer. Was it about his conquests? No, as the screenplay did not give that impression. Did the movie explore Napoleon's character as an emperor or a great military commander? It clearly did not as the film swayed between his battles and his personal life with no scope to understand him as an emperor or as a commander. How was the plot of the movie? It was boring! The romance between Napoleon and Josephine seemed forced. Very little engaging dialogues and hardly any quotable moments. Neither the characters nor any of the scenes/battles stick with you after the film ends. While the court and intimate scenes are elaborated abruptly, the war sequences offer nothing new. One can understand that creating war scenes in a movie after the GOT era is a huge challenge, but it seems the director did not even try to improvise or try something new here. Ridley Scott, known for pathbreaking movies like The Gladiator, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, thrillers and action movies like Black Hawk Down, American Gangster, Body of Lies and one of my all-time favorites The Martian, seems to have lost touch with the art. While Exodus: Gods and Kings was abominable, The Last Duel was strictly a one-time watch with nothing spectacular. Hence was hoping that with Napoleon and the brilliant talents of Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby, he would be able to redeem himself. Alas, that was too much to expect. His 157-minute interpretation of Napoleon Bonaparte not only failed in all aspects of movie-making but also failed to show us a compelling drama on a legendary king in a tumultuous era. One may agree that a movie can lack in authentic portrayal of history and real characters. Creative freedom permits a director to even forgo accuracy in depicting history. A director may not even get every scene or every aspect of movie-making right throughout. There are movies where just the music is great, the editing or screenplay is impeccable while other aspects fail, acting is brilliant but the story and screenplay fail. But a team with a great director like Ridley Scott failing in all aspects is very rare. Overall, Napoleon (2023) was a big disappointment. Personally, would recommend the 1970 film Waterloo for a detailed perspective on the ultimate battle and the 2002 miniseries on Napoleon for the biopic on the legendary soldier, tactician, and statesman.

Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins treat the viewer to a unique experience both in screenplay and cinematography. While most talk about the continuous-shot effect, the editing, music, no frills acting, sets all add up to the greatness of the movie. Few minutes into the movie, one realizes that you are part of the movie canvas and are witnessing the happenings in first person. The continuous-shot effect only adds up to the viewer getting closer to the two primary characters. We begin to feel for them as half way through the movie, we are virtually with them. A technically brilliant movie is surely not bereft of emotions and has done complete justice to the story which also narrates the horrors of war and its effect on soldiers. For me, 1917 is at the top of the greatest war movies of all time.

PS-1 is a good movie and cinematically well made but not a classic or a masterpiece. Story is good but has its mini plots and screenplay botched up. Some scenes and dialogues seem to be force fitted to drive the Dravidian agenda. Costumes are great, flow keeps the audience engaged and some scenes are well enacted. But overall camera work leaves much to be deserved for a movie of this magnitude. Especially, lighting and consequent editing is not up to the mark. Acting of most actors is good but only in patches. However, the screen presence of the two leading ladies, Aishwarya Rai and Trisha Krishnan, overshadows all others including Vikram's. Overall a good effort but lacks the seriousness and the effort the project demands. Hoping PS-2 will make up for these lacunae and gives us a real good classic which this story deserves.