Three Gamers REACT to Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON movie
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 11. 2023
- Mark, Ben and Sean finally get to see the long anticipated Ridley Scott film about Napoleon! As historical wargamers you would think there are one of the target audiences. Mark wants new movie lines to quote during wargames, Ben is looking for great battle scenes and Sean will settle for a great Ridley Scott story....are they not entertained!!!???
Check out our Napoleonic videos!
• Could Napoleon have wo... - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The trailer had Napoleon charging on a horse, sword in hand to the black sabbath song 'war pigs' -- if that didn't telegraph it was going to be sh*t, I don't know what would...
This and Josephine spreading her legs in the trailer. Pretty obvious this had little to do with his military campaigns. Gotta have muh strong woman in the modern films
I agree… I was asking myself… in what universe did Napoleon make a cavalry charge???
I agree. When i saw that in the trailer the first time, i got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach while thinking to myself....Oh God No.
if he was in a humvee, it would have been so bad it would be good!
@@1who4me Josephine wasn't even the worst part of the movie, she should be mentionned as they had an interesting relationship BUT Joaquin Phenix was just directed poorly in his acting of Napoleon, the writing was also trash making Napoleon appear like a buffoon.
Josephine is not really a problem, it's all the rest, it's what is missing aka all the interesting things about Napoleon that they skipped over for no reason.
Ridley Scott needs to abdicate immediately, and be shipped off to some extremely remote island where he can do no more harm to history or to the legacies of great men in history!
Or you just watch another movie instead.
I rather see a new Ridley Scott movie then another Superhero movie.
@@ghostviggen - Well, I was joking. 🙂
Ridley Scott can also ruin his legacy scifi franchises, his decadence is not restricted to historical movies.
Send him to St. Helena!
@@theandfyes, unfortunately you're right but this time he won't get my money.
"He who tries to cover everything, covers nothing." Frederick the Great.
Superb paraphrasing!
Now all we have to do is bannish Ridley Scott to St Helena.
Was anyone else scandalized by that scope on the Baker rifle?
Its interesting to see this getting trashed by both Critics and History folks. I mean, I knew the historical community wouldn't like it. But seeing critics say its not good either is incredibly telling
They are spot on Unfortunately.. As a gamer and a Napoleon historian, this movie was - bad!
I understand why the critics don’t like it. It fails at storytelling. Historians may dismiss a story as false, but if it is well told the critics will love it. The cinematography was good, but the storyline was disjointed and confusing. Meaningless scenes that did not move the story. The scenes with the mummy was pointless. The negotiation scenes between a Frenchman and an Austrian did not move the storyline.
who will be left for the long version if everyone hate the short ...weird strategy even if the longer version is perfect why serve sh t for the first service even if the main course is good most would have already left ...
@@jessicalacasse6205 - Seeing how he’s completely ballsed up all the battle scenes in the short version, hard to see how the longer director’s cut will be any better.
Even if you throw out all the history --- the movie is just a mess of random scenes with little to no transition. Some scenes are completely pointless and go nowhere/add nothing to the story ... it is completely incoherent even as a work of pure fantasy.
100% agree with you. No mention of Italy, and also no mention of Spain. No mention of the killing attempts against Napo. Nearly no mention of his brothers and sisters. No mention of his political reforms either. Scott prefered filming him copulating with Josephine.
One assassination attempt could be seen in one of the trailers. I guess we get a bit of that in the 4 hours version.
Buonaparte’s whole life, civil, political, and military, was a fraud. (Wellington)
This is what happens when a director rejects historians with open contempt and disdain and uses a British former "para" with no knowledge of Napoleon or black powder age tactics and strategy as his military advisor. His advisor is quoted as saying about Napoleon, “He would write a letter after a sea battle claiming he had taken four ships, when in fact he had taken just one. He was a big bluffer and people believed him, so he got away with it. This is how he made his way up.” Really? Sea battles? Good grief.
Maybe the budget didn't extend to a former "SAS operator"...
If you listen to Wellington saying: "Buonaparte’s whole life, civil, political, and military, was a fraud." you get the same opinion.
7:04 "It feels like it was too broad. It covered too much, and it covered nothing."
_If you try to hold everything, you hold nothing._ - Frederick the Great
...and yet we spent a couple of minutes watching Napoleon climb a ladder. Who knew ? 😆
Here in France, when something goes really wrong, we say that “this is a Berezina”. And so is Ridley Scott’s movie about Napoleon….
A y penser la Berezina peut etre considereree une victoire car les sapeurs ont reussi a fabriquer les ponts qui ont permit a l'armee d'eviter d'etre prise dans un etaut .
@@jeromesanta6307 Seul pour le large groupe de "déserteurs", tous ceux en retard sur le dernier carré furent jetés aux loups.
@@2adamast c'etait principalement tous des blesses et incapable de suivre les autres . Fuat etre pratique dans la guerre . En montagne pareil tu laisse ceux qui peuvent pas suivre car tu met t'a propre vie en danger.
@@jeromesanta6307 Ce sera comme en Egypte et Waterlo, le génie de Napoléon de devancer la retraite "d'incapables "et de se présenter seul à Paris
Napoleon was planned to be a double feature, accompanied by a biopic on Marshall Grouchy. Unfortunately, the Grouchy film won't arrive until next week.
Is this a joke about Waterloo? XD
You got it.@@Dragonite43
Where is Grouchy!
I see what you did there....🤣🤣🤣
Thought it would be a joke about Groucho Marx 🥸.
🤣
Napoleon (1927) is also a great film. Its a 5 hour film, but if you don't have time just watch the first 40 minutes. Really great storytelling from silent era cinema. The shots are amazing.
Not only the greatest film ever made about Napoleon but one of the greatest films ever made period.
@@richardcahill1234 Word. My jaw dropped while i was watching it realizing that it was made almost 100 years ago. I couldn't believe it.
Where can I watch it?
I knew from the moment that the first trailer dropped and I went to imdb to look at the cast list that there was no way this was going to be good, and I was not going to waste any money on it.
This purports to be a biopic but omits Marshal Lannes!? What the actual funk?
Scott's indignation with critics saying they're nitpicking when you're asking about such things. It's not even just the history that's bad, it's a horrible missed cinematic opportunity, on Lannes death in a letter to his wife:
"The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend."
Who needs him? Apparently... I mean, sure people need to be cut even in a 3hr film, but to cut Lannes, just no effing way. Particularly missing the opportunity to his deathbed reproach at the apogee of the empire:
“It is not to concern you of my wife and children that I talk to you thus. In dying for you, I do not need to commend them to you, your glory makes it your duty to protect them, and in addressing you these final criticisms I do not fear that I shall change your disposition towards them.
You have just committed a grave error, one which has deprived you of your best friend, but it will not change you. Your insatiable ambition will finish you. You sacrifice, without need, without attention, without regret, the men who serve you best. Your ingratitude pushes away those very people who admire you; those that are left around you are nothing but fawners. I see not one friend who would dare to tell you the truth. You will be betrayed, you will be abandoned.
Hasten to bring this war to an end: it is the wish of your generals, and it is the wish of your people. You will never be more powerful, but you can certainly be more loved! Forgive a dying man these truths, for he cherishes you so…”
Talk about a cinematic moment, why on earth was this not in the film?
And don't even get me started bout the missed opportunity to have a man who was made for cinema, Marshal Murat, who I understand is *also* bafflingly absent. Just inexcusable for a so-called biopic.
Thanks guys! You just saved me $20.00. Even though the battle scenes in the trailers looked good, I had a suspicion that the movie would end up being mediocre at best. I'll wait until it streams for free. In the meantime, I think I'll re-watch the 1970 epic 'Waterloo'! That flick rocks!
I’d disagree. The trailer battle scenes looked highly dubious: troops advancing in mob rather than in formation, Napoleon himself giving the the order to fire. Big red flags.
What a wasted opportunity!
The battle scenes are the worst part of the movie.
" Italy surrendered without a fight." Wow, that really hit me hard. XD
Je suis wargamer et français. J'ai pleuré des larmes de sang pendant trois heures.
Desole ...
Mais pourquoi as-tu pleuré pendant trois heures ? Étiez-vous à ce point bouleversé, déçu ou choqué ?
@@ONFaithMinistries Déçu. J'attendais mieux de R. Scott, autant sur les scènes de batailles que sur un respect minimum de l'histoire.
Je aussi. Très triste.
Pleuré des larmes de sang, du wargame en vrai, c'est fou comme les gens se laissent prendre par leurs fantaisies. C'était juste un remake des duelists, sauf que c'est un couple.
They managed to include Waterloo but not the Battle of Leipzig? Omg! Battle of Leipzig is even called the Battle of Nations, and yet it is not present in the movie.
Exactly! Leipzig is not even hinted at.
If you want a book on Waterloo, David Howarth's "A Near Run thing", is excellent and seemed to be something the script writers of the Waterloo film used. It is tough to get a copy of it though with all it's illustrations.
The battle scenes in this movie felt like they were created using John Belushi's character from Animal House to describe what happened.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! 😊
Of the listed books at the end, I would especially recommend David Chandler's _The Campaigns of Napoleon._ This belongs on the shelf of everyone interested in the era.
Add to that Swords Around a Throne: Napoleon's Grande Armée, by Col. John R. Elting.
Three hours of your lives you will never get back, Napoleon the new addition to the Marvel franchise, leading cavalry charges and moping his way accross Europe, unable to tie his shoelace's wiithout Josephine. A man who invented trench warfare to fight the battle of Waterloo, though the English didn't quite get the hang of it, climbing out of their trench to form square. And the battle of Austerlitz was the first Ice Capade, because the Allies had inadvertently deployed on a frozen lake. Who needs history books, when you have Ridley Scott's Hubris.
Stephen Spielburg I hear is using Stanely Kubricks script and research to make a 7 part mini series hopefully they do a better job. I just dont see napoleon at all with Phoenix, maybe because rod stieger did a great job and atcully looks like the older nappy. Also Heard none of his marshalls played a key role
There is hope then.
I didn’t see the film, but from the trailer, Joaquin’s Napoleon seemed a little emo. The real Napoleon was very lively and talkative, not some dower melancholic type.
When the French infantry attack at Waterloo they climb out of a trench, someone can be heard saying “over the top lads”. That and napoleon leading a charge at Waterloo is just inexcusable.
A trench at Waterloo. F F.S.! 😆😂🤣
Sounds like the howler in the recent WW2 TV series (SAS Heroes?) where a British Hurricane in 1940 gets shot down, and while it’s falling someone calls over the radio “Eject! Eject!”
(Got so many complaints that they actually dubbed it out in the online version.)
yes i heard that too everythng was just wrong in this one battle scene alone
There was a hollow road at Hougoumont
@@2adamast the sunken road
HAHAHA the Waterloo scene said everything to me. Exactly how I felt after the siege of Toulon part, everything went downhill fast.
David Chandler's "The Campaigns of Napoleon" would be a good place to start, all 1,172 pages of it.
It was painful to watch and I'm not talking about the battles. The scary thing is that my friend liked it. She knows little about Napoleon and enjoyed. Imagine the amount of people that will have this new common knowledge/ British satirical point of view of the Napoleon.
lol, Blackadders take on Napoleon was more believeable😂
Nothing could beat Waterloo.
Ridley Scott 'lost his fast ball', decades ago.
Agree 100% The Duelists.
What a great video. I felt exactly the same way when I stumbled out of the theater, stupefied by what I'd just seen. Long and short of it is that it tried to bite off too much and they used the "Pearl Harbor" marketing plan: "Let's sell a schmultzy love story as an epic war movie!" There is rumored to be a longer version when it goes to streaming. Hopefully it's not more of the same.
I hate to tell you but Ridley Scott himself has said the extended edition is basically going to just be more stuff about Josephine.
I was hoping it would be the first of a trilogy. But now I'm glad they are only letting RScott make one.
All I have to say is that it kind of sounds like an updated version of the ABC miniseries "Napoleon and Josephine: A Love Story" from 1987 or so. That one had Armand Assante and Jacqueline Bisset as the leads.
If it makes anyone feel better, Kingdom of Heaven was also a giant mess in the theatrical release, but the directors cut was a totally different movie. Its a slim hope.
Slim
The Director's Cut can't save this disaster.
Quite enjoyed the film, but agree with all the comments. It was to me a love story with interludes of battles, which were all over the place or was it a bio pic. It certainly was never a war movie 😅. Plus did you notice the amount of flags I thought I was watching shogun at one point 😂
the waterloo film is to be recommended but also dont forget there was a Napoleon mini-series in the early 2000s, with cristian klavier as Napoleon and Isabella Rossellini as Josephine - it wasnt a big budget series but it was good for the time. It certainly made a far better effort at Waterloo than the Scott film
Saw it last night. It was awful from a historians point of view. The big miss, as stated, was that Scott did not try to show what made him so great. That would have been the key to success. Instead, we see Napoleon making funny puppy noises when he wanted sex with Josephine. Oh and as for the battles. My eyes were continually rolling: Napoleon leading cavalry charges, battles quickly breaking down into 1 on 1 fights (Austerlitz), No La Haye Sainte or Hougoumont at Waterloo, which helped define the battlefield. Hilariously, my sensitivities were so on edge by the end of the film, I almost walked out when Blucher's Prussians entered the battlefield from the wrong direction!
After watching this movie's version of Waterloo, it looked like Waterloo was someone's version of Napoleon Total War and said lets go with that.
The movie had a beautiful look and the actress that played Josephine was good. That was about it.
Artillery Captain Mercer rides up to Wellington: "Sir, we have Napoleon in our sights! Shall we fire upon him?" Wellington: "Certainly not! In war 'tis not the business of opposing commanders to be firing upon one another!"
a legend
Who can say?@@olivierb9716
Wellington: "Quite a bit of pounding going on here Picton. Let's see who can pound the longest." So many great quotes. Scott probably used none of them; instead made up his own.
Here s a great quote: “ you think you are so great cause you got BOATS!!!”😂😂😂
I did like one other line, actually it is just a word. At Austerlitz someone went up to Napoleon and said, "They know we're here". Napoleon replied, "Good". I liked that. It's something you can picture Napoleon saying.
So my thoughts kind of echo yours. The battles seemed to be tossed in for spectacle. The film would have been better to focus on Napoleon directing his generals around with distance shots of the battle going or troops marching off to the field in the background. By far if you are looking for battle scenes I recommend the 1970 film Waterloo. I was really disappointed they didn't focus on the key battles that made him recognized as the genius with the Italian campaign. And the fact that they didn't recognize the battle of Liepzig at all as the final defeat of Napoleon's Grand Armee.
The rest of the scenes regarding his growth from a nobody to Emperor really was well done but needed more context. I think alot of it was left in the 4 hour cut we will be getting on streaming. The costumes and representations of the political events that occurred on his rise to power was excellently done. So if you are a fan of Napoleon the man and the history of the final years of the French Republic then this is the film for you.
To put in a word for Ridley, he days he did read some books about Napoleon. Two of them, apparently.
Did they have pictures with captions?
@@samhavoc1066They were coloring books.
I saw the film and agree fully agree. The film is disjointed and there was no real storyline.
In the interview I saw he didn’t say anything about the books, just that he didn’t see any point in reading more. Well, he’s a busy man.
It was a book full of period British propaganda cartoons.
Funny enough, they briefly mention Italy when going to Egypt ... I believe it was something along the lines of "after taking Italy with no opposition, Napoleon heads to Egypt" ... I remember letting out an audible "Huh?" in the theater ... (easily missed, every 5 seconds there was something horribly inaccurate/wrong going on). It's like someone ask for 5 bullets points to summarize the entire Napoleonic War --- that was too much so they threw in the towel and just made it all up as they went. Trench warfare? Sure! The topper on that was when the French move out of their trenches at Waterloo (!!!!!) and you actually here someone say "Over the top men!" ... OMG!!!!! The 95th Riflemen wanting to take the 3-4 mile shot at Napoleon ... ugh ... then actually taking it when he is fleeing ... please just use a dull spoon to gouge out my eyes!
I was wondering which napoleonic miniatures i can get to play with my kids who are into this era.
I know life expectancy was low back in Napoleonic times, but Duke of Wellington & Napoleon were both 46 at Waterloo, Napoleon’s health and lifestyle aged him more than Wellington (who lived to 83) but the casting for the Duke was way off he looked mid 60’s 🤦🏻♂️
Every one was naive. We all were looking forward to it. It was like a long SNL skit.😂😂😂😂😂
And like most SNL skits, it wasn’t even funny.
Nah. After the dreadful action scenes in the trailer I was more than suspicious. Also J. Phoenix was ridiculously miscast. None of the famous optimism and charisma of Napoleon.
Thx for the review ! So sad had high hopes and then we are presented with this... Waterloo (1970) and Napoleon miniseries (2002) remain the top things to watch. The ministeries focuses more on the life of napoleon and the battles are shown but on a small local scale but man you can feel napoleon come to life!
I think he may of confused 2 wars a century apart literally.
And suffering dementia.
I have the duelists, I looked for mistakes with uniforms, in ospreys book of Napoleon's hussars.
I found nothing maybe the bear fur shako for the duel on horseback but I am being super picky.
And its old so I could forgive things but it's good.
When you try to please everyone,you’ll end up pleasing no one.
A longtime ago it was announced that Scott was going to make the movie that Kubrick had planned to make before his death.
Scott had access to all Kubrick's material.
It seems to me Scott made it his movie.
Wouldn’t surprise me if it was closely based on Kubrick’s plot. Tempestuous love plots were definitely his thing later in life.
I can't believe that. I'm not a big Kubrick fan. However Kubrick did research Napoleon to the enth degree. He had index cards documenting every day of Napoleon's life from birth to death. Not only Napoleon's life but anyone who is a major player in Napoleon's life.
Kubrick wouldn't have gone through all that trouble if he was just going to do a hit piece. Which is what this is.
Just watch Barry Lyndon. You will get a glimpse of what Kubrick's film would have looked like.
Steven Spielberg is going to be doing an HBO series of Napoleon using Kubrick's material.
@@nellgwenn - Didn’t realise Kubrick did “Barry Lyndon”. What a feast of a film, both for the story line and the battle scenes! Kubrick was a notorious stickler for detail, so you’re quite right, he was probably incapable of screwing the film up.
Trench warfare at Waterloo? Really?!? At one point "over the top boys" was shouted!! I don't play Napoleonics, I play Ancients, Medievals and WW2 so I can't claim to be a Napoleonic expert but some of stuff is so obviously silly you don't need to be an expert to know it's wrong.
So, you wouldn't have noticed the 1812 date flags being used in 1805, and the 1805 issue flags at Waterloo in 1815 ... 😲
@@grahamtravers4522 No but if he had used Macedonian pike I would have spotted a mistake in the shield design or an incorrect colour on a livery jacket on a Yorkist archer from 1461!
Honestly though you didn't need to be an expert to know they didn't use trenches at Waterloo. What jarred the most was the usual Hollywood thing of no lines, everyone just runs into a massive rugby scrum type brawl. In my opinion it was pretty dreadful stuff.
@@alangilbert6064 Agreed. Regarding command and control, I particularly noted the use of hand signals by Napoleon to order the attack at Toulon in the dark...
But there was never an explanation about what actually made Napoleon such a good general and so popular. He didn't seem to be any different from anyone else. In fact he seemed an arrogant, love struck bumbler.
A missed opportunity because the director doesn't appear to have done any research. In these days of CGI it would have been relatively easy to put together the six essential scenes from Waterloo.
British cavalry see off French infantry attack.
French cavalry defeat British cavalry.
Fight for Hougomont
British squares hold off French cavalry.
La Haye Saint falls.
Napoleon throws in the Old Guard but they are held just as the Prussians turn up.
You could get all that from watching the film Waterloo and reading a book. It would take less than a weekend.
Here's a line to use. "You think you're so great just because you have boats " or something like that. Lol
Watching the trailers, I thought that Joachim phoenix was too old for the part of Napoleon, brilliant actor though he is. Especially as the young Napoleon. It’s a shame, because I like both Ridley Scott and Joachim Phoenix.
Likewise. None of the famous energy of Napoleon.
Guys, do you realize how WEIRD it is for the CZcams algorithm to have a video done by friends!?! :D
Great video!!!
Oh, here's your line, "This porkchop is my destiny!" can easily become "This die roll is my destiny!"
Don't worry guys, I've been a Napoleonic wargamer for forty years, and I also lost my 8 quid and three hours!!
Thanks for saving me the money !!! Appreciated !!! Clearly, this film did not extend the "limits of glory" ...
Thanks for saving me the time and money. Maybe Ridley Scott can now focus on polishing Gladiator II.
I echo many of your thoughts. It is clear Ridley Scott does not like Napoleon. You'd think in a 150 minute movie, he'd find time to tell us why.
Ridley Scott. The Duelists was a great napoleonic film. I hear they have a 4 hour version of Napoleon coming out directors ✂️ cut
Alexander the Great and Napoleon's campaigns are my favorites (and yeah, I'm a biological girl who loves historic wargames), so I was really looking forward to seeing this movie. I was soooo disappointed. I call false advertising here. The should have entitled this movie Josephine (with Napoleon); at least that would have prepared us for what was to come (or not). I love Joaquin Phoenix as an actor, but he was wrong for this part (there were rumors that he didn't understand the character). Napoleon was YOUNG...Like Alexander, another reason to be astonished at his military/political/social accomplishments. He just seemed to come off as some lost, whinny, guy who needed a woman to tell him what to do. It's like Ridley Scott couldn't figure out what kind of movie he wanted to make...Military? Soap Opera? It's like Scott made two different movies and then tried to knit them together. There was just so much historic material available to work with that there was no excuse for this morass of a movie.
Thanks for sharing your opinions! Very helpful. (I'd enjoy hearing what pivotal moments in Napoleon's life you'd like to see a great movie built around!)
I’m not saying the 1970 movie Waterloo was perfect, what I am saying was, if RS couldn’t afford to do Waterloo properly he should have cut his movie when Napoleon arrived back in France and tacked the 1970 movie in. The only mention I have ever found of Napoleon drawing a sword on the field was in ‘Anatomy of Glory’ shortly before the first abdication. A squad of Cossacks surprised him and his staff and they had to defend themselves until an Imperial Guard regiment came to their rescue. I have just come from watching this movie (about an hour ago), my opinion, a dogs breakfast and I won’t be waiting for the dvd release.
Apparently, there will be a 4 hour "uncut" version released for streaming. I guess that that will just be another 1 1/2 hours of more of the same.
More of josephine
Some people say that this movie is Ridley Scott's Waterloo.
So you're saying "You laughed, you cried, you kissed 3 hours goodbye?"
they should have said not tonight Josephine.
"After I'm dead and I'm gone, what do you think the world will say of me?"
"It will say that you extended the limits of glory."
"Is that all I'm going to leave my son? The "limits of glory" ?"
Your reaction to Napoleon sounds a lot like my reaction to the movie 300. That was the biggest piece of dog leavings I’ve ever had the misfortune to watch. In Nappys case I will wait for it to hit the $5 bin at Wally World then snag a copy (along with a sixer of tall boys) and settle in for my three hour grind. Vive ‘l Emperuer!
I never knew Napoleon led calvary charges until I saw this movie. How awesome that was!!!
"...why would you want to touch lil' Nippy...?" Napoleon scene, Night At The Museum 2.
Nice lighthearted review.
Most of the action kinda reminded me of the battles in Sharpe (single unit with the battle raging on off camera or in fog), albeit flashier. With the exception of the panning long distance shots of full lines, it was too focused in on a small part of the action.
Am hopeful a lot of the issues with this movie are somewhat resolved in the extended edition at 2 hours longer should flesh alot more out, as long as its not 2 hours of Josephine. Ridleys movies do tend to improve with the extended version but this one is starting from a much lower point than most of his other films.
Ridley Scott did direct a good movie about the Napoleonic Wars - but that was his first modest feature, The Duellists. As a wargamer who does have experience as a movie reviewer, I was quite apprehensive given later Ridley movies such as Prometheus and Robin Hood were disjointed and disappointing (and remember the "landing craft" in Robin Hood?). The Last Duel was pretty good so I had some hope but not now. Making his start in TV commercials, Scott is brilliant with visuals but not in characterization or story-telling.
I had such high hopes. Well Ridley is now 86 years old and I guess it shows. What Audience was he making the movie for? Women? Not the people who know the history. Now I don't know if I want to spend the money to go and see it. A good Napoleonic era film that Ridley made was "The Duelists"
Hollywood has figured out that they can ignore the nerds. We don't buy enough tickets.
THeir target audience are the casuals who only want Vs and Es: Visuals and Emotions.
We can say what we want, but RScott is laughing all the way to the bank.
Women don't know history? Wtf kind of comment is this?
@@anathardayaldaryeah...we all know men don't have emotions...
I think you misinterpreted my statement, when he made the movie for women, what I mean is that the movie didn't have an emphasis on the history of the Napoleonic wars and instead focused on Napoleons social life instead of his incredible military triumphs. @@bryna7
Gladiator wasn’t historically accurate. Still won an Oscar for best movie.
Oh man - I am now so NOT looking forward to seeing this film. It’s going to be the train wreck you can’t turn away from.
You've at least got two wargamer lines.
When playing against the British: `You're only so great because you have boats'
Or when having a snack 'destiny has bought me ('insert food item').
The Russian production of War and Peace is really good too.
The Mosfilm version? Yes, but a bit overly heroic and patriotic in parts. The BBC 1972 version on YT is also to be recommended.
The intro made me smirk
This reminds me of my reaction to the Alexander movie when it came out.
Atleast we got one good line for naval games. "You think you're so great because you have boats!"
Decided I’m going to wait till it’s on streaming.
Had a feeling this would be dodgy based on how bad Ridleys films have been.
Last good film he did was Gladiator. Ridley just does whatever he wants even when it doesn’t work but then goes on a swearing rant when the movies flop.
Napoleon is Scotts Waterloo
If I was a film producer/director that wanted to do a Napoleon movie. I would treat my movie as a prequel to Waterloo. Something someone could watch and then hop into Waterloo to continue the story. Why mess with a classic. So I would do the story of Napoleon’s defense of France. Start with disaster at Leipzig to show Napoleon’s dangerous situation and then focus on his amazing but doomed campaign in France itself. Gives plenty of highs and lows. Then when another filmmaker makes a Napoleon film they could follow the same suite and do a movie about his invasion of Russia. Basically keep making Napoleon films but start going back in his career starting with Waterloo as the benchmark in Napoleon filmmaking.
Hilarious reaction guys. I had exactly the same reaction. I had a similar problem with the end of Gladiator where Ridley Scott wrote his own happy ending that had no basis in history. I enjoyed Gladiator but he invents an ending which is ridiculous and teaches the opposite lesson that history tells here. Ridley was remaking the 1960's movie "Fall of the Roman Empire" which understood the moment in history and how Rome had come to the end of the Pax Romana and the Five Good emperors and had changed from an empire of gold to one of rust and iron. The future would see five emperors in one year, the praetorian guard auctioning off the kingship , and a rule of a series of barracks emperors, so not what Ridley Scott showed at all. I always worried that people would believe that was real.
The battle scenes in Napoleon were worse than useless. Misleading. Had nothing to do with the actual battles which are well documented. No Italian campaign. They didn't tell the actual story of the battle of Austerlitz. You come away with no idea why that was his greatest victory. Don't Cover the Battle of Nations or his campaign to save France from all the armies of Europe, or his conquest of spain or breaking of five? different European coalitions collected against Him or his rise through the chaos of the French revolution to prominence and then preeminence and then his second rise from exile with less than a thousand men behind him to snatch france back from the installed Bourbon monarchy.
You need ten hours if you are taking france through this period. Cromwell covered a similar social and military upheaval again back in 1970 in 2 hours and 20 minutes and did a much better job. Now Cromwell certainly didn't have the career or impact of Napoleon but certainly had a similar career path.
Josephine dies in May in 1814. Waterloo June 1815
Josephine was 32 when Napoleon at age 26 first met her. Joaquin Phoenix was too old to be Napoleon, even at waterloo and his Napoleon was all flaws with none of the virtues.
Waterloo was a fabulous movie about the last 100 days of Napoleon's reign in 2 1/2 hours.
Should have been called Josephine 😂😂😂
All you need to know is that there was a historical consultant on the film and Napoleon still shot the nose off the Sphinx.
I was cautiously optimistic when I saw he was doing a Napoleon film. After "The Duelists" I kinda thought it might be good. I was incorrect.
I enjoyed the movie. I agree it wasn’t historically accurate, especially in the battle scenes. But I feel they did a lot better off the battlefield with things like the Coronation, and 13 Vendemiare.
I also take into consideration that the cut of Napoleon we saw is not the final version. Ridley Scott’s four-hour director’s cut will be hitting streaming in the near-future. I have a feeling that, just like his DC of “Kingdom of Heaven,” the film will be much-improved by the extended cut. So, I’m waiting to hold final judgment until then.
I think the 2002 Napoleon mini series was the appropriate representation of Napoleon, more accurate and on point. Time wise it was also much longer to give a more detailed representation.
😂😂😂 I’ve got that Airborne Pegasus baseball cap 🧢 😂😂😂 I was a Paratrooper 1995-1997 😂
I love you guys! You are so cool and funny and really know the Napoleon story. I saw the movie in Paris and it’s so bad and ridiculous and annoying.
You folks are fun. Have a like!
This film . it is coolest film ever made.watching all this videos in which they make fun of the movie has really brightened up my week. Btw they have also completely forgotten us Germans and Napoleon's role as suppressor..German states, Benelux and Spain all occupied territory, even froced to become part of the French state and/or fighting within the French army. You mentioned already Italy. And thx to that film where Scott reiterated Wellington's great myth of a British only victory at Waterloo, I have realised myself that the battle should have been told in a different way. The movie Waterloo is great. But a film should give Ligngy and Quatre Bras and in particular the flanking maneuver of Blücher more space. And in particular the fighting of the Prussians and when they broke the French . This was the decisive action which led to victory. The Prussians arrived at 5pm, so were involved in fightings for half of the battle, had the same amount of losses than the true British troops, but in films the battle always ends when they arrive...also neglecting the Dutch and German forces within th British army, which comprised more than 2/3 of it. And looking at Allied losses 50% were Germans who died at Waterloo. And at all 4 battles the number is even higher 60-70%. Some French papers said the movie is Anti-French, it is also Anti-German...well would be interesting to know what the Spanish and Nelson would say to this😉 but Trafalgar is renamed in Waterloo square now :)
Sounds like it's "Napoleon at Pearl Harbor" (or "The Battle of the Bulge" ...) Thanks for saving me 💸
Joaquin Phoenixs' (lack of) accent..........He should have gone full Kentucky foghorn-leghorn so that we knew it was a satire from the start.
This movie will make people reevaluate Oliver Stone's Alexander
Send Ridley to St. Helena and like Prometheus can be chained to a rock where the memory of his own greatness will gnaw at him... Funny that he made a film called Prometheus in 2012 lol...
yes, it stank!
Yeah.. WTF were they thinking..
Napoleon was quarantined twice for Covid-19
Released on Thanksgiving, it should have been called "Turkey Too Long"