Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Martian (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Ridley Scott's best film since Alien
It’s safe to say that Ridley Scott knows his way around a camera. From Alien to Gladiator, the director has brought to the silver screen some of the greatest films of all time, heck even Prometheus wasn’t that bad in a muddled kind of way.
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
Now, after the underwhelming Exodus: Gods & Kings, Scott returns to the director’s chair doing what he does best, sci-fi. But is The Martian as good as his earlier works?
Thankfully, the answer is yes and The Martian proves how good the director can be when he’s given the right material to work with. Andy Weir’s 2011 novel of the same name lends a good starting point and Scott ends up with his best film since 1979’s masterpiece, Alien – that’s no joke.
Matt Damon stars as Mark Wateny, an astronaut and botanist left stranded on Mars after a mission goes horribly wrong. After being left behind by his colleagues, played by talent including Jessica Chastain (The Hurt Locker) and Kate Mara (Fantastic Four), Mark must find a way to survive on the red planet until a rescue operation can reach him – years later.
Sean Bean, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover and Jeff Daniels also star as NASA directors, scientists and astrophysicists. Despite their limited screen time, each brings something to the table with a spirited performance.
Scott directs The Martian with a huge amount of confidence, clearly helped by his time on Alien and Prometheus, and his cinematography is absolute perfection. Never has Mars looked this good on film. The desolate, arid landscape is breath-taking and the numerous aerial shots that feature Damon’s character only add to the emptiness.
The special effects too are wonderful. CGI is mixed with amazing practical props that integrate so well together that it’s impossible to tell the difference. The numerous spacecraft, living quarters and vehicles all feel so real and continue to add more credibility to The Martian’s cause.
Damon is also second-to-none and over the course of the film develops new personality traits, all due to the intense stress of being stranded 50 million miles away from Earth. The film lives and dies on his efforts and thankfully, the ever-reliable actor gives one of his best performances in years.
Unfortunately, Jessica Chastain doesn’t have too much to do until the finale and feels a little side-lined – she has won an Oscar after all, though Damon’s magnetic presence is enough to forgive some of the shortcomings in other characters.
The script is, on the whole, very good indeed. Despite only featuring one character for the majority of its 140 minute run-time, The Martian is funny, witty and helped by a fantastic disco soundtrack that has hits from the likes of ABBA dotted about.
Overall, The Martian is sci-fi film-making at its peak. Ridley Scott has crafted a beautiful looking and deeply involving film that features the very best in special effects and scientific accuracy. With Matt Damon’s dry humour and emotional depth, it’s a winner all round.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/04/ridley-scotts-best-film-since-alien-the-martian-review/
JT (287 KP) rated Someone to Watch over Me (1987) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I doubt that many people would realise that this is one of Ridley Scott’s earlier films. From the opening scene you will notice a distinct Ridley Scott feel to it. The sweeping shot of New York’s Chrysler building could mirror a scene from the sci-fi classic Blade Runner.
Someone to Watch Over Me is a thriller in which a woman who witnesses a murder is sent to protective custody, there she falls for her bodyguard detective. It’s a fairly clichéd film in that it takes portions film noir as well as a classic love affair.
Tom Berenger plays the recently promoted detective who must control his desires for the women he is protecting. Claire Gregory played by Mimi Rogers is an innocent, sexy high class aristocrat who wants what she knows she cannot have.
It dips from thriller to love story and has interludes of high tension thrown in as an afterthought. The backdrop of a self obsessed 1980s America works very well and Scott’s direction is astute as it is clinical with great locations and camera shots. An average thriller but enjoyable nonetheless
Someone to Watch Over Me is a thriller in which a woman who witnesses a murder is sent to protective custody, there she falls for her bodyguard detective. It’s a fairly clichéd film in that it takes portions film noir as well as a classic love affair.
Tom Berenger plays the recently promoted detective who must control his desires for the women he is protecting. Claire Gregory played by Mimi Rogers is an innocent, sexy high class aristocrat who wants what she knows she cannot have.
It dips from thriller to love story and has interludes of high tension thrown in as an afterthought. The backdrop of a self obsessed 1980s America works very well and Scott’s direction is astute as it is clinical with great locations and camera shots. An average thriller but enjoyable nonetheless
David (771 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
May 4, 2018
Evolution of the Xenomorph (1 more)
More backstory
I hope there is another one
Contains spoilers, click to show
I see from most of the reviews that this film wasn't favoured but in my opinion I love back and origin stories. Alien to resurrection were how the Xenomorph species expanded and developed. This film and it's predecessor explore where the deadliest creature in the universe came from. I do hope there is another to link up with the 1979 Alien film.
I know with Alien franchise it's all about the horror and suspense but a story and plotline is important too. I am glad Ridley Scott did get the opportunity to fill in the gaps unanswered in the preceding films.
Bring on the next one, me want more!
I know with Alien franchise it's all about the horror and suspense but a story and plotline is important too. I am glad Ridley Scott did get the opportunity to fill in the gaps unanswered in the preceding films.
Bring on the next one, me want more!
Karl Urban recommended Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) in Movies (curated)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Jul 25, 2017
Michael Fassbender (1 more)
Better than Prometheus
Well at least it's better than Prometheus...
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'll be honest, I hated Prometheus. It had potential, but was completely ruined by nonsense and plot holes. Alien: Covenant is the film Prometheus should've been, but it still isn't anything to shout about.
There are still plot holes, although nowhere near as many as Prometheus, and some very dodgy action choices from supposedly expert characters. For example, going out onto an unknown planet without any sort of protective suit?! Advise anyone to hit up YouTube for more plot holes and stupidity if you didn't spot these yourself.
Character development was lacking. The CGI was surprisingly bad in parts. The first and last parts of the films were very similar to Alien and Aliens, which may not necessarily be bad. However there's a fine line between being an homage and being a carbon copy, and I don't think this film quite pulls it off.
Finally, the whole nonsense about David being the creator of the Xenomorphs? Utter nonsense. Personally I hate the idea of a homicidal android having created the Xenomorphs and I hate that Ridley Scott has gone down this route.
I also can't stand that Ridley has said there will be 2 more prequels before the events of these films link up to the events of Alien - is that really necessary?
There are still plot holes, although nowhere near as many as Prometheus, and some very dodgy action choices from supposedly expert characters. For example, going out onto an unknown planet without any sort of protective suit?! Advise anyone to hit up YouTube for more plot holes and stupidity if you didn't spot these yourself.
Character development was lacking. The CGI was surprisingly bad in parts. The first and last parts of the films were very similar to Alien and Aliens, which may not necessarily be bad. However there's a fine line between being an homage and being a carbon copy, and I don't think this film quite pulls it off.
Finally, the whole nonsense about David being the creator of the Xenomorphs? Utter nonsense. Personally I hate the idea of a homicidal android having created the Xenomorphs and I hate that Ridley Scott has gone down this route.
I also can't stand that Ridley has said there will be 2 more prequels before the events of these films link up to the events of Alien - is that really necessary?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Kieran Harvey (51 KP) rated Prometheus (2012) in Movies
Jul 18, 2017
Great storyline (5 more)
Effectively creates suspense
Good action
Fantastic visuals
Great cast
Very well directed
Some bad characters (1 more)
A bit cheesy in some places
Much better than everyone thinks
Prometheus is a prequel to Alien and a lot of fans weren't happy that it didn't include alien in the title however it's just a name at the end of the day and this film is very very good in my opinion.
The acting is great specifically from Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshal Green and Charlize Theron and the action is great despite coming in small amounts. The whole atmosphere of this world is fantastic because it really feels genuine despite all coming from the mind of Ridley Scott but it is evident that he is very passionate about this series and that makes the film better as it feels honest and dark and legitimately tense. It has some scenes in which I found hard to watch because of the high gore/ horror levels but apart from that it starts well and it ends terrifically as well.
The acting is great specifically from Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Logan Marshal Green and Charlize Theron and the action is great despite coming in small amounts. The whole atmosphere of this world is fantastic because it really feels genuine despite all coming from the mind of Ridley Scott but it is evident that he is very passionate about this series and that makes the film better as it feels honest and dark and legitimately tense. It has some scenes in which I found hard to watch because of the high gore/ horror levels but apart from that it starts well and it ends terrifically as well.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Napoleon (2023) in Movies
Dec 6, 2023
Whole Does Not Equal The Sum of it's Parts
The new Epic Motion Picture NAPOLEON is the perfect example of the term “the whole does not equal the sum of the parts”. There are some very, very good items in this film, they just don’t combine to make a Motion Picture above the average.
Directed by Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR), NAPOLEON tells the tale of the titular Frenchman who rises to great power only to fall to great defeat. It is a story ripe for a fascinating film, this just isn’t that film.
There are many, many things that work in this movie, like the performance of Oscar Winner Joaquin Phoenix (THE JOKER) as Napoleon. He plays him as an enigmatic figure who is over-compensating for a lack of…something. Bravery? Self-Confidence? Height? That’s the problem, the film never delves into it, it just gives us a quirky character - strongly played by Phoenix - who is, obviously, using his power and skills as a General to cover up a flaw…whatever that is.
Vanessa Kirby (Oscar Nominated for PIECES OF A WOMAN a few years back) is equally strong and enigmatic as Napoleon’s Empress, Josephine. Kirby’s performance is, probably, the strongest in the film as she plays Josephine as strong and independent, living by her own rules and knowing that she has the powerful Napoleon at her beck-and-call. But, again, we never really find out the person behind the facade and her scenes with Phoenix/Napoleon fall flat for there never is any really love or passion between the 2 of them, just a “baby boy” fawning all over Josephine and a manipulative (we think) social climber using this “baby boy”.
4x Oscar Nominee (but never a winner) Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR) knows how to produce an EPIC and he puts together some EPIC Battle Scenes and Napoleon’s Emperor Inauguration scene is one to behold (which is why you should see this film on the largest screen possible) but these scenes seem isolated and separated from the rest of the film.
And, there, is where the problem of the film is. We have an interesting performance by Phoenix, a strong performance by Kirby and EPIC scenes from Scott, but they all seem isolated and in their own film and never quite gel together to build any emotional connection. All seem cold, flat and calculated. There is none of the passion that Napoleon says he has for France.
Go to marvel at the craft of the film, leave feeling unfulfilled, emotionally by NAPOLEON.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR), NAPOLEON tells the tale of the titular Frenchman who rises to great power only to fall to great defeat. It is a story ripe for a fascinating film, this just isn’t that film.
There are many, many things that work in this movie, like the performance of Oscar Winner Joaquin Phoenix (THE JOKER) as Napoleon. He plays him as an enigmatic figure who is over-compensating for a lack of…something. Bravery? Self-Confidence? Height? That’s the problem, the film never delves into it, it just gives us a quirky character - strongly played by Phoenix - who is, obviously, using his power and skills as a General to cover up a flaw…whatever that is.
Vanessa Kirby (Oscar Nominated for PIECES OF A WOMAN a few years back) is equally strong and enigmatic as Napoleon’s Empress, Josephine. Kirby’s performance is, probably, the strongest in the film as she plays Josephine as strong and independent, living by her own rules and knowing that she has the powerful Napoleon at her beck-and-call. But, again, we never really find out the person behind the facade and her scenes with Phoenix/Napoleon fall flat for there never is any really love or passion between the 2 of them, just a “baby boy” fawning all over Josephine and a manipulative (we think) social climber using this “baby boy”.
4x Oscar Nominee (but never a winner) Ridley Scott (GLADIATOR) knows how to produce an EPIC and he puts together some EPIC Battle Scenes and Napoleon’s Emperor Inauguration scene is one to behold (which is why you should see this film on the largest screen possible) but these scenes seem isolated and separated from the rest of the film.
And, there, is where the problem of the film is. We have an interesting performance by Phoenix, a strong performance by Kirby and EPIC scenes from Scott, but they all seem isolated and in their own film and never quite gel together to build any emotional connection. All seem cold, flat and calculated. There is none of the passion that Napoleon says he has for France.
Go to marvel at the craft of the film, leave feeling unfulfilled, emotionally by NAPOLEON.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)