anthonydesmondolivier

I am fascinated with both the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon, and have dedicated more hours than I should to understand this history.

Of course there are historical errors (Austerlitz, Josephine's age). Of course it appears as if there are time slices rather than a career. But how do you possibly represent a history this complex in 180 minutes?

Kudos to Ridley Scott for creating a historical perspective this entertaining. Key items have been excluded (Rosetta Stone, food canning, the mystery of Napoleon's death) - but hopefully these will emerge in the extended version.

I would recommend this not only to film buffs, but those interested in the history of an enigmatic tyrant. One I will watch over and over again.

Well done Ridley.

Personal view: I have no issue with modernising classics, but when a movie based on the early 1800s references Sad Sack and describes an experience as electrifying it feels sloppy to me. It provides no insight at all to the time period.

Melissa McCarthy has created a character, in her career that could keep her in lucrative employment without taking any risks.

Kudos to her for playing this risky a role, and pulling it off with aplomb. Richard E Grant is whimsy to her determination, but she successfully breathes life into a complex character.

Great film

A gritty variation of Hitchcock's Rear Window, set in the Cape Flats. The Cape character is accurately reflected, and the tension grows throughout the film, in which you feel genuine fear for the central characters.

Randall and Pam are lost in a callous environment, driven to take actions they never anticipated. Their circumstances become as claustrophobic as the apartment in which Randall is confined, and ultimately depend on each other for their survival.

I enjoyed the realism in this film, as difficult as it could be to watch.