Rodby Rules

I am sad to be writing this review. I had looked forward to this film for months, and was nervous when I saw its controversy amongst historians. I still had hopes it would be great, but unfortunately those hopes are now dashed. Napoleon is a film that covers nearly 30 years of history in less than 3 hours. As expected, it is very fast-paced, but unfortunately it is so fast paced it fails to allow any time for character development or explanations of what's happening. Napoleon is simply whisked from one major event to another, seeming without agency. He's sent to one battle, then another, then encouraged to overthrow the government, then informed he's been exiled, all seemingly without any actual input or planning by Napoleon himself. This might be excused if the characters are good, but Napoleon and Josephine are devoid of any emotional chemistry, instead coming off as a couple thrown together and told they need to be in love. Napoleon is also depicted surprisingly as a childish petulant character, abandoning entire military campaigns or embarking on new ones solely to return to Josephine. This would be acceptable if they showed his tactical brilliance, but the battle scenes show very little tactics at all, instead just being massive groups of men shooting, stabbing and killing each other. Overall, Napoleon fails in almost all aspects. It fails in character development and plot explanation, as well as historical accuracy. It is cinematically beautiful, however, hence why I will not give it one star. But overall, a massive disappointment coming from Ridley Scott, a director I admire, about Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most fascinating men in history.

This was quite easily one of the most submersive movie experiences I'd ever had the privilege of participating in. Everything pulls you into this epic Viking saga about a warrior bent on avenging his father and killing his evil uncle who stole his kingdom and forced him into a life as a barbaric Viking raider. However, beneath this grand saga is an equally sad story about a boy who's life is dedicated to avenging a father he barely knew and who has become a faded memory. Additionally, despite his whole life being dedicated to avenging his father, it feels as if no one else sympathizes with Amblett's struggle, with most people not even caring about his father's murder at the hands of his brother. It creates this sense of incredible loneliness, that Amblett is trying to avenge someone no one even seems to remember or care about. A lot of the criticism of this movie seems to be based on a lack of understanding about this movie's mythological and historical background. I saw one person describe this movie as just "another Hamlet movie", seemingly without understanding that this is literally a movie version of the Danish epic poem that inspired Hamlet. That's like watching Hamlet and then complaining that the playwright ripped off the Lion King. Most criticism seems to revolve around some of the more bizarre scenes involving Viking rituals and ceremonies. Historical ceremonies were strange compared to modern standards. Medieval weddings had the couple lie facedown under a blanket for parts of the ceremony. There is another scene where Amblett and his fellow Beserkers, dressed as wolves and bears, enter a violent, rage-filled trance where they convince themselves they have become animals trapped in human form. This is ENTIRELY historically accurate, yet I saw another one-star review call this scene "a bunch of weirdos who think they are wolves." Need I go on? I hate to be judgemental, but it does appear most critcism of this movie is from people who either don't understand the historical context and background or don't understand it is based on an epic Viking saga, weaving mythology and mysticism into real life just like the saga does. Overall, a great movie in all aspects. Visually stunning, great acting, heavy and real emotional weight, and intense action scenes. Robert Eggers does it again. 5/5.