Napoleon

history buffs have torn this one to shreds yet i think no movie should hold true to what happened despite if its a biopic.

largely, napoleon uses the titular man as a way of looking into the 1700s-1800s and the surrounding political nature of history. to be honest, history doesn't really compell me a lot, usually because a lot of whats present glorifies the past when in reality it actually fucking sucked.
that may go against my previous statement BUT i think if you use a new context to show the errors in history then i think it has something meaningfull to say.

i watched the directors cut of 3 hours and 24 min long and its a grand epic but also its not, the film is rather a film about the larger nature of idiotic men in power. its not deep in a sense but ridley scott and cinematographer dariusz wolski create such beautifull digital images that give everything a big scope. napoleon is rewarded for doing almost nothing which is mostly in his favore until it doesn't.
we are doomed to repeat this cycle but every time we do catch on but most of the time its way to late and damage has already been done.

the film is a critique on history but also modern times in terms of leaders and leadership. i do think any character that isn't napoleon isn't anything noteworthy and are just there to fill his story, even vanessa kirby who gives a good performance feels underwritten aside from having a few scenes which i really like. kirby and the script do work well in a specific scene where domination is her game and she plays it well. she knows napoleon's weaknesses and uses that to her advantages.

napoleon does have some cliché's but im kinda dumbfounded by the reception. not ridley's best film but a really good one nonetheless.

(Watch my film <a href="https://boxd.it/dNvKo1">kodak</a> )