NAPOLEON - Movie Review
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 11. 2023
- Website: www.deepfocuslens.com
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/deepfocuslens...
Follow me on instagram: / deepfocuslens
Follow me on twitter: / deepfocuslens
Like my Facebook page: / deepfocuslens
Email me: deepfocuslens@gmail.com - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Mel Gibson should remake Napoleon... it would be a block buster hit.
Really?
Maybe for Kubrick 40 years ago
He would completely re-write history.
Mel's a really great filmmaker who makes you feel, he connects you to the material.
Ur a genius i wish i thought of that
Napoleon, like Hitler, is a historical figure who's almost been reduced to a comedic caricature in the Anglo mindset. It's no coincidence the best movies about Hitler are European. Might I suggest Napoleon would be better served cinematically outside the US/UK.
"the soufflé didn't rise" I'm stealing that.
Was nothing short of a hit piece done by Brits....
Every movie about Napoleon is always about Napoleon and Josephine, without Napoleon Josephine wouldn’t be a comma in the footnotes of history.
I'm so impressed by both your knowledge and ability to articulate....
The film is called Napoleon. Too much Josephine. Ugh. More war. Lol.
Your sound and pic are excellent.
I read the historical tome Napoleon by Roberts.
Napoleon sucked with women but once he was emperor and Josephine was obvious about cheating and she couldn’t bear him kids he moved on.
Plus the victors write history so every chance they got England would document Napoleon as pathetic.
We definitely have a skewed view of history. France was the upstart republican nation and all the European monarchies had to put it down for their own existence. Napoleon threatened their status quo. Sounds familiar….
Of course Napoleon’s downfall was his pride and ego. Weaknesses that seem to take all humans.
I can't get over Phoenix being far too old to play a man who was a general at age 23. It's much easier for a young man (Orson Welles in Citizen Kane) then for a 50 year old to play a young man.
Bronson Pinchot would have been a good idea, 20 years ago maybe. I think Phoenix is a miscast.
me too.
Totaly agree; and despite the fact that Napoleon wasn't so short for his country and age, he wasn't a giant either. The legendary natural authority Napoleon is still known for today despite he wasn't a giant like De Gaulle, and despite his youthness and his mediterranean physic and strong accent, cannot be act by a tall old guy with yank physic and accent like Phoenix.
People would've looked older in the late 18th century. A 23-year-old probably would've looked 50 (they were basically middle-aged)
@@nicktamer4969 Joachim Phoenix just isn't napoleon. no matter how old he is. I got no sense from the movie how napoleon inspired such loyalty and authority. Also he had no chemistry at all w the girl playing Josephine. I just didn't believe they loved each other.
At the start, Phoenix is playing Napoleon in his early 20s. That's just silly. But it's funny you mention Barry Lyndon since Ridley Scott's first feature film, "The Duellists" was a full on imitation of BL.
Glad you mentioned Wikipedia articles because so many biopics these days are very surface level that Wikipedia articles are more interesting and emotionally engaging.
Just watch Waterloo 1970. Its really good.
Well....
The real Napoleon and Josephine was way more a clash between equals.
They were both outliers. Likely both a bit narcisistic. They both cheated on each other heavy.
But in ways, there is something in their letters where you get that they understood each other. Maybe precisely because there was more in common between them at the core. Which is what explains why such apparently awkward relationship did last. And despite constantly cheating on each other, they always came back together. They always had some place deep down where they really understood each other and were team mates.
It would have been interesting for instance how Napoleon actually supported her kids A LOT. He very much ensured her kids would have some of the best opportunities ever. There was a surprisingly good relationship between them. Which is obviously something you could not have in this movie because it would not fit the movie characters.
Yes, Napoleon was narcisistic and quite a tirant. He was! He could be ruthless. In real life, he had no big issues sidelining Josephine when he found out she could not get pregnant and he could. He would sacrifice anyone to his greatness / career. He would gladly send his best friend on a suicide charge if need be. That was real Napoleon. But he would also support his friends and family whenever he could. And he was also an amazing administrator. He was genius. Very few people in history come even close to his skills in administration. The way in which he reorganized his armies is still relevant today.
I get the feeling that most people will leave the theatre not understanding anything about Napoleon. And asking themselves how and why did he achieve the things he did.
Actually he put off sidelining Josephine for four years, even though he was under a lot of pressure to do so. Finally events forced him to.
Well he was the less tyrannic ruler of his time and no less narcisistic than any other kings and emperor of ANY time. he could at least put some merit on himself to where he got himself contrary again ALL his fellow rulers.
Napoleon conquered a vast area of the known world at the time. Josephine wasn't his equal. stop with this feminist driven.
@@fauxbro1983he was definitely*not* a feminist by any definition and was very regressive if women's rights as a matter of fact from what they'd been after the French Revolution.
Very good. He was caught up in the mistaken murder of The Duc d'Enhein
Scott is such an atmospheric director that often characters are indistinguishable from the set. Gladiator and Prometheus are both solid examples.
Agreed 🎉
Michael Fassbender’s David is one of my favorite characters of the last 20 years.
Prometheus was a real letdown. The more control Scott has over the whole production (such as the script) the worse his films seem to be. His strength is no compromise direction and visuals not plot.
Prometheus is a film that has been been debated for over a decade now. Some really like it and think there's big themes and discussions it presents. Others just don't get much out of it. I liked LIKE STORIES OF OLD In-depth analysis.
@@switchcapturebutton Damon Lindelof (of Bad Robot affiliation) co-wrote it hence the 'mystery box' of the 'black goo'. Just braindead writing.
I miss (historical epics). They are by far one of my favorite genres. I want all of them to be successful because that might draw more directors/producers to pick them up. Shame this does not sound like win.
DragpnSlayer is underrated
Alot of them bombed at the box office! Then they become cult classics!
I don't think it's as bad as some reviewers have said. It omits a lot, but it captures the vibe of the era, and does a good job exploring the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine.
@@Nebula37 I find it intetersting how there's a lot of criticism on Napoleon being awkward and childish insecure but isn't that where "Napoleon Complex" comes from? His insecurities....
@@luxurybuzz3681 Actually the term "Napoleon complex" comes from the erroneous assumption that Napoleon was unusually short, which was British propaganda designed to make him unpopular. But it stuck, so the term is commonly used today.
I really enjoyed this review and how you delved deeply into the performances. Thanks for your thoughts.
Thanks M! Another good honest review, I can’t remember the last movie I watched that was new to me that had any impact whatsoever and was easily forgotten maybe “A Ghost Story” from 2017 , watched that and thought it was excellent, also “Ghost Story” from 1981 is really good for anyone who hasn’t seen it, entire family went to see it on Christmas Day, I miss those Christmas days when we would all go to the movies after the festivities , thanks
Check out 'The Neon Demon' - it's horrifying, stunningly beautiful, and that age-old tale of the Devil (as a woman), 2 'witches', and a sacrifice.
Fantastic review! Seeing it tomorrow evening.
Great channel and review, thank you for posting.
The movie was almost completely devoid of the political backgrounds that presented alott of the drama and intrigue in his life~
Napoleon opens here in Australia tomorrow so I'm expecting that I'll be seeing it in the cinema sometime soon. I appreciate your review so my expectations are reduced a little bit but will make my own judgement. But it seems that the best film about Napoleon still is Abel Gance's 1927 opus, Napoleon, largely because it only covers his early years in its 5-and-a-half-hour length (all very worthwhile, mind you). Once I see Ridley Scott's version I'll probably put my Blu-ray of Gance's version on. Still, the rumoured 4-hour Scott version may do wonders to improve the Scott theatrical version.
Ugh, skip it.
Great review, keep the videos coming! :D
Imbalance between the comedy and the drama resulting in a tonally inconsistent film is just everywhere in cinema today, I feel. But that happening in stuff like the MCU or other works of pure fiction is less bad than in a historical drama, imo. It makes it come across as disingenuous or fake, which a historical film obviously should never feel.
Btw, what do you think about Kingdom of Heaven?
I viewed the weird humor in Napoleon very differently. To me, it came off as awkward and very realistic (especially considering real world accounts of Napoleon being awkward). He was great, and he was awkward, and both show something about ambition and the historic figure’s journey.
It’s a very different humor than Marvel humor (initially, it just comes off as pure awkwardness; for about the first five jokes I was the only one in the theater laughing before the audience eventually realized the awkwardness was on purpose).
when a culture is disintegrating it comes out in the art. Makes me think of the very weird late Roman art that is almost comic in its distortions of anatomy… then the whole tradition of anatomical realism was forgotten. Our sense of psychological truth in drama is falling away.
@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL It's very much expressed in the mainstream, yes. Things are becoming increasingly repetitive, infantile and banal, imo. It will be interesting to see what the popular opinion about this era will be in the future.
@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL Exactly. This is still the post-modern era of decadence, and it's reflected in our culture (certainly the mainstream) and it's never been worse. All the infantile humor to appeal to the lowest IQ demographic, the being ironic for the sake of irony, the refusal to find a consistent balance or allow egoism to weigh down a narrative (which is why there are so many supporting performances that are great nowadays but dragged down by the overall narrative). The banality is fitting with all the absurd special effects we see today where everything just seems the same. A true degeneration of culture.
@@matthewjames2565 duellists was such a fun movie 🍿 i had hopes for napoleon… different era now
Ridley Scott - some of his films are masterworks. Some are turkeys. His best stuff probably sci-fi.
No. His two best movies are Gladiator and director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven.
I don't know about that. Someone who knows a thing or two about history might think Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are not that great and I personally never liked them that much. Of course they are nice to look at, the war scene in Germania in Gladiator is very intense and well made but I always thought the overall story was quite dull. And they are clearly not as breathtaking and immersive as Alien and Blade Runner. By far his best movies if you ask me.
really interested in hearing your thoughts on saltburn. i don’t particularly think you’ll enjoy it as a whole but definitely would like to hear what worked for you and what didn’t.
Isabella Rosselini's depiction of Josephine in the 2002 French Napoleon tv mini-series does much better justice to her character (but Napoleon is weaker than Phoenix). In my head canon now, it's Rosselini and Phoenix that make the best 'marriage' of the couple. I also think Scott was afraid of retreading Rosselini's Josephine with Kirby and avoids some of the more revealing attitudes she is known to have held - deep fear of the Guillotine, of being seen as another Marie Antoinette, and deeply superstitious about her and Napoleon's fortunes as the Imperial couple and the fragility of the state they sat in power over. Great review, nailed it again.
I'd much prefer watching this reviewer than sitting through Napoleon again.
I agree with your review. It needed to focus on an aspect of his life rather than juggle between different ideas. Maybe the dynamic between him and Josephine would've sufficed. The theater I went to normally a third full was completely sold out. I have to remember those people were probably expecting a Scott Era "Gladiator" film.
I think the man Napoleon is probably one of the hardest roles Phoenix has had to fill. I dont know if it was a bad performance or a great performance but his presence does command the screen when you watch it. And his stout and chubby frame does fill the uniform as it should. I dont think he looked ridiculous as you say. But i think Kirby has the best performance in the movie. She really impressed me, playing someone so broken and off and always teetering on the edge of keeping her "pieces and limbs together" from falling apart. Whether or not if it was accurate or not i enjoyed Napoleon and Josephine's continued correspondence and lingering connection within the story. Even after she dies she remains in Napoleons heart and mind and ours as her memory continues to haunt him. It took about an hour for me to get into the movie but around the time of the royal divorce is when i started to fall into the story and began to enjoy the movie for what it is. I dont think it was bad. I didnt notice the long runtime and i was mostly engaged with what transpired on the screen. I especially enjoyed the battle of Waterloo. A better movie than Exodus by far. Im still deciding on if i like The Last Duel, and that requires a rewatch. But this might have been one of Ridley's better efforts in the last 10-15 years.
Fun fact- Napoleon and TE Lawrence had the same birthday.
The big problem for me is knowing that all the dramatic, actorly parts will come out in the Apple+ release next year. I just can't get into the "not-as-good theatrical release" ethos, I guess. In any case, Napoleon is one of those characters like Christ - impossible to depict. Such characters hide from us. Which is, I suppose, part of their mystique.
Thanks for an engaging and insightful review.
Excellent review, subbed
It’s as good as Napoleon dynamite, just without the dynamite
😆😆😆😆
The only thing the film did a decent job of Josephine's and Napoleon's relationship. The problem with Napoleon is there is WAY too much material. This is why the mini-series in 2002 was solid because it was a mini-series and could provide more depth.
It was lazy film making at how bad the history was missed. I could go on and on. They focused on his relationship and they screwed up the end. Josephine died before his escape from Elba and he wouldn't come out of his bedroom in Elba for days.
Toulon was the only battle they somewhat got right. Toulon was a siege. What they showed in the movie was the final assault on the fort.
Austerlitz was 100% incorrect. Napoleon's most brilliant battle. He evacuated the Pratzen Heights and weakened his right. He wanted the larger Austrian and Russian army to attack him where he wanted. He ordered Davout to force march to support the right. Napoleon then used the fog to cross the value and retake the Pratzen Heights when the Austrians and Russians committed all the forces there. What they showed in the movie is the end game of the battle. The Austrians were caught on 3 sides and retreated across the frozen pond. A few hundred died on the ice as the French hit it with cannon.
Waterloo was a disaster. It looked like someone played Napoleon Total War and said lets go with that. What they showed was BEYOND historically inaccurate. They didn't even acknowledge the twin battles of Ligny and Quatra Bras and the British and Prussian defeat there, which led to Waterloo. The Dino DeLaurantis masterpiece from 1970, Waterloo. The history, practical effects, Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington IS the gold standard.
I wonder what you’ll think of the 4 hour version when it’s on Apple TV
We appreciate your thoughts and insights. You’ll always have our support.
To do justice to this subject matter, it ought to have been a multi-season HBO epic, not an unfocussed miss-mash of scenes by a director with an obvious contempt for Napoleon.
Spielberg is actually doing a miniseries about Napoleon based on Kubrick's script (he ended up making Clockwork Orange instead). I don't know that Spielberg is the one for the job - I thought A.I. was completely lame - but at least it looks to be a miniseries, which is probably the only way to tell Napoleon's story.
In the PBS documentary on Napoleon (which was spectacular) the one thing that Napoleon was NOT is a weak, simpy, childish person. in fact, his second wife, the princess of the Austrian Empire--who did not want to marry Napoleon--wrote that he was completely different than she expected. She found him charming, kind, romantic and (get this) electrifying. She was quickly won over and fell head over heels in love with him.
Additionally, as Napoleon became powerful, older, fabulously famous and nearly worshipped by millions, with women throwing themselves at him, Josephine was now a former court mistress grown old.
Wonder if deepfocuslens has any thoughts on Patton (1970), another film about a war commander starring George C. Scott and 7 Academy Award Winner?
I think that Ridley Scott is absolutely great as a director - when it comes to "directing". The problems with his movies as of late have been with the writing and this makes it difficult to rate him as a director. You could argue that he should do a better job at agreeing to direct a movie if the script is lacking or pick a different writer if it's up to him, but he might prefer directing-for-pay, or as a "hired hand" as Tarantino has worded it in the past.
What do you call Napoleon hit by a cannonball?
Napoleon Blown Apart.
😆😆😆😆😆😆
Josephine was 6 years older than Napoleon. Phoenix is 14 years older than Kirby. I think that says all we need to know about this movie.
damn. I was hoping for something better. movies just suck more nowadays
Lawrence Olivier was 42 years old when he played Hamlet. The actress he cast as Gertrude, his mother, was 28.
@@stanleyrogouski sure, but Hamlet is fictional, a biopic of Napoleon isn't!
Yes, this minor detail details everything. Please tell me you're joking.
the character on which the last samurai is inspired was French and not American, I liked it all the same...
a lot of liberties with the truth in historical films.
First, some helpful hints: Never trust a movie that employs loud, thundering soundtrack as cue for its "epic-ness." Or underlit cinematography to hide more than it shows. Or flash editing to camouflage lousy action or CGI. Or clueless acting for profundity. Or script that lacks story continuity (or simply story telling for that matter.) And so forth.
Second, in this particular case, there's the elephant in the room, ie R. Scott: The older sir Scott gets the more he veers towards the visual, his mind losing grip on the mechanics of story telling (not that he cares much to begin with, his bread and butter "moving images" business lie in the realms of commercials/tv spots.) This movie is basically a 2 1/2 hour trailer of the 4 hr "movie" to be streamed later on. Expect more of the same: underlit cinematography, trickling dialog, and story continuity/exposition taking a vacation. Maybe some would appreciate the "acting" of those hired to do the job but left to their own device. Oh yes, and the washed out, colorless costumes.
Interesting review. Actual substance and no fluff. Good channel. And she's as pretty as she is smart.
Just saw Saltburn and can't wait for your review
CRAP ?
Kubrick worked for years on a version of Napolean - like he did with A.I. before he died and Spielberg finished the work - I wonder if the same happened here but Ridley Scott is such a different beast entirely that I now doubt it.
No, but Spielberg IS working on a miniseries, based on Kubrick's script. Of course, it won't be anything close to what Kubrick would have come up with as he changed the scripts radically while filming, and changed them even further during editing. A less-Kubrickian film than "A.I." you'd be hard pressed to find.
Kubrick’s Napoleon would have been a masterpiece.
I think you were very kind about this film, whilst diplomatically saying that - as history - it is virtually worthless.
Wonderful analysis. Please review The Holders next.
Vanessa Kirby was the wrong choice for the part of Josepine ! Eva Green would have been the Logical Choice and she is FRENCH !! Especially if you are going to focus on the Love Story part of Napoleon's life.
Nice breakdown
I agree. They should have chosen a section of his story. The story is too big even for a 4-hour director's cut.
That said, Napoleon was only awkward with women early in his career. By 1800 the relationship dynamic had drastically changed and Josephine was no longer controlling the relationship. Scott failed to portray that dynamic change. Napoleon might not have been dashing, but he had a strong charisma which was attractive to women at the time and they failed to reflect.
I won't even get into the historical inaccuracy of the battles. Its very apparent that the portrayal of Napoleon was colored by the British propaganda of the period.
He was above average height for his era. History has been unkind to him on that score.
“History is written by the English”
5'7" is short these days. I'm 5'11" 3/4th.
@@HBarnillimproved nutrition and living conditions
@HBarnill yeah it's genetic thru centuries. Women been sleeping with taller men. Better just round up to 6'-0"
@@HBarnill"for his era"
What you said at 5:45 - 7:00 reminds me of a description by another reviewer, that this movie "highlights the 'napoleon' in napoleon complex"
Can you please do a video praising the greatest director in history, the genius Michael Bay and can you say that Pearl Harbour is the bestest movie of ALL TIME
LOL
I get it! It’s a joke 😂
Saw the film today (in Plymouth, which actually gets a mention in the film - the whole city came out to see Napoleon at the time when the Bellerophon was in the Sound - that might have been a scene to show in the film instead of the small scale there). Not like me to go so early in a film's run. The two leads are great, but I felt the film was thin. There was too much to cover, and I didn't feel I was seeing progress or an arc, or how things were achieved. I didn't gain any insight. Maybe this is an introduction to a subject for a layman. There was a lot of value on the screen, it looked great, but it wasn't in service of anything - I was thinking of Barry Lyndon. I don't think this is a film I could love. I enjoyed it, but I'm a positive person who tries to appreciate things for what they are.
The tagline: "He came from Nothing.He conquered Everything."
Is wrong on so many levels.
Would love to hear your take on The Boy and the Heron. I thought it had a lot going for it, but it ended up really disappointing me, since I love most of Miyazaki's work.
Ridley Scott should stick to doing stories further back in history like King Arthur. A character that has more legend to them and gives more creative license.
But Napoleon comes from a more recent time in Western history that is very well documented and this is a figure that is highly attached to a national identity (France and the French people). To so carelessly handle history and the magnitude of a person like Napoleon is reckless and stupid, not bold and creative.
Say what you will about Oliver Stone's Alexander not being entertaining, but Stone gives reverence to Greek Macedonian culture being portrayed correctly, and the impact Alexander had on civilization being told through the narration of Ptolemy. Stone captures the idea of Alexander being a giant.
Scott does the exact opposite with Napoleon and it's an utter disgrace, because Napoleon is a giant in history and has such a historical impact on history we even have to mention Napoleon when talking about the history of the United States, and how the New World was left alone to develop independently from Europe because Napoleon shook the foundations of the entire continent to the core. SEVEN different coalition/alliances of the strongest European militaries had to be made to defeat Napoleon. That alone tells you how badass this man was, and I don't need Scott's Napoleon to tell me he was just an insecure narcissist that killed a bunch of people. Scott needs to check himself because he made a terrible film and needs to own up instead of making excuses.
As if Napoleon's notoriety has anything to do with Josephine and not how he conquered nearly all of Europe and shook the world.
Very weird focus for this movie. It's like doing a movie about Hitler and focusing on Eva Braun. That's.....not remotely what most people think is important about the guy.
A four hour cut is coming to Apple TV after its theatrical run.
I thought it was horrible, quite frankly. As in Gladiator (which I liked a little better), historically is so wrong. Scott may not like the criticism, but this is a biography basically. When your history is off, hard to make a case for it. Also, didn't real feel for the characters. But cool reaction and opinion.
Hey, at least it’s not as bad as anything Disney has been presenting over the past 15 years.
"Waterloo" and this version can be compared now.
The biography as a whole wasnt the greatest but the fight scenes were absolutely sublime.
James McAvoy would make a great Napoleon. Think Napoleon had more vitality than Phoenix shows in the trailer
@@debbiesroommate If you want a good depiction of Napoleon, watch the 1970 movie Waterloo.
Sounds like a lot of Black Hawk Down reviews I’ve seen!
If you’re not a history nerd and aren’t cringing at all the inaccuracies
I agree Napoleon's real life would be more compelling than this fictionalized history. The weakness of Napoleon is the same weakness that Scott was lauded for in Gladiator. The historical relationship between Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus would be more compelling.
Please do a collab with pillbox movies. You both are the only reviewers who give ACTUALLY interesting takes on films people SHOULD see . Love ya both
There is a directors cut which is 4.5 hours long. I will want to see it.
Great review
Being Riddley Scott fan is like being in an abusive relationship.
Considering her review of Phoneix in Napoleon and strong criticism of Joker I'd like to hear what she thought of his Johnny Cash performance.
"Sticks to the ribs" totally sums up my disappointment with Ridley. Gladiator didn't do it for me really but it was close. Yeah, I dunno
To understand Napoleon is to listen to the people who fought and worked with him. one of the best books written about Napoleon, but is not about Napoleon is called La Grande Armee but George Blond and translated into English by Marshall may published in 1979 and I think if you read this book you will understand Napoleon and why he was such a powerful force in world history. And why this movie fails.
Would be interested to hear your opinion on the four hour directors cut version of this film.
It would have been a better film if it was centered on the last days of Napoleon with flashbacks. Napoleon was a great general as well as left his mark as creating the Napoleon Code which was not really shown.
you gonna review saltburn next? 😊😊😊
"Post early 1990s", your tough! But I'll agree one of my favorite things to do is watch a big sprawling epic film in a theater over a holiday weekend like Thanksgiving or Christmas.
Superb review!
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I’ve found that Tony Scott’s films are far more consistently entertaining and satisfying than his brother Ridley’s films. Sure, Ridley has made a few great ones, but I am always more moved by the passion in Tony’s films. What a tragedy he chose to end his life!
Tony made one decent film, that’s it.
@@randomguy6679 Hiya. Agree that Tony hasn't done as many quality movies. Top Gun was Tony's best. He worked with Denzel Washington a lot, like Unstoppable (a good film), Deja Vu (less so), Taking of Pelham 123, but he also did True Romance (a good film). Days of Thunder less compelling. BTW if you watch the making of Top Gun, at the end of principal filming, Scott didn't have much of a movie. Editting was where it came together.
No Joaquin is the weakess part of this moving. Bonapart was young, energetic, bold and charismatic. Nothing liek an old alcholic who's lost in limbo.
I watched Bladerunner when it came out at the cinema. When I realized the same man had just directed Alien, he became my favourite director. Yet somehow, time passed by... and he never reached those heights again. How did Kurosawa's output stay so brilliant till old age whereas Ridley became so mediocre?
I would put Matchstick Men in the same tier as Blade Runner and Alien
"Matchstick Men" was brilliant. Aside from that...
What a mature, deeply thoughtful, well-versed in historical accuracy, even profound review.
“Joséphine” (and Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt film title.
Almost nothing is historically accurate; except for maybe the period costumes and most of the set designs.
There is no emotional resonance.
So much of the Napoleonic Era is overlooked. And, Napoleon is portrayed as a cartoon much to the delight of a pompous British Director.
Everything is truncated. Where is his childhood? Napoleon’s French Military School Experience? The Italian Campaign, Etcetera?
He was a Charismatic Casanova and Still had Time to Rule Europe.
Love to see a well-financed French 🇫🇷 Film Production from a French 🇫🇷 Perspective.
This should have been a mini-series in 4-6 parts.
This PowerPoint Presentation is a weak excuse for an Epic Film in only 2 hours 38 minutes.
1/5 or 2/10
And, that’s being merciful.
I'd be curious as to the review of the extended version coming to Apple+.
Kirby takes up the screen.
so how would you look at tesla's woman?
Phoenix is great, but Oliver Reed steals the Gladiator from everyone else. As for Napoleon, haven't seen it yet, judging by your review it only confirms my fear that we'll never see a great "swan song" or "closer" from Stott in the likes of his early work. Hope I'm mistaken.
It's interesting that you don't care for Gladiator. It's still as muscularly impressive as when it first came out in my view. There are only a handful of films that I saw in the cinema upon release and went back the next day to watch again.
This women is terrible at reviews, half of the time she just talking about like what!?
well yea, shes a woman
@@sonnyhuynh007 She's excellent at reviews. She's very thoughtful and analytical; not her fault if you don't understand them.
@@Sharvalgon Gladiator was awesome, yet she don't care for it is an example of "what!?" as in surprise not as in complicated mumbo jumbo.
If you watch it for the atmosphere, the acting, action and set design it is good. But the story is only serviceable and the dialog is a bit overwrought like a lot of epics at the time. edit: I forgot the music. That was also really good
I appreciate your review! I watched it last night and it was the first film where i considered walking out of. It was terrible
I am waiting for his 4 hour cut of the film which will be released I have heard
Gonna wait for directors cut on Apple TV
For me, his movies need a strong story. The visuals are not enough. What a missed opportunity for a Napoleon story, this "overstuffed" approach would have worked better as a documentary. I agree, for a movie it would have been much more effective to have told a more tightly focused period of this life and even use narration (yes, the sin of narration lol).
Great review.
I liked this film and didn't think it was as bad as ppl and historians have claimed it out to be. It's good but its not great. I was more interested in the complex marriage between Napoleon and Josephine.
Soo.. what do you look like non- mirrored?
As a lover of historical epics with incredible storytelling, even those that are noble failures, this is by far one of the worst epics I've ever seen. A fun popcorn film? Yes, but the biggest argument against that is the film is (even as it stands) far too long to sustain the popcorn appeal. In fact, you will go through more bags of popcorn sitting through this than any other epic in recent memory. To me, there is no point to even attempt to condense this failure. It's a mess with Wikipedia-style storytelling, only it doesn't even bother with perspective or details that usually matter in an historical epic (see: Lawrence of Arabia as a towering example). Is it fair to expect this film to be another Lawrence? No. Another Gladiator? No. But at least something that doesn't insult my intelligence and become unbearable with Phoenix's insufferable scowling man-child attempt at Brando-esque method acting? Sure, that was my reasonable hope. As usual, Scott just does whatever the hell he wants. Want a Napoleon worth experiencing? See Abel Gance's silent epic. Literally one of the greatest films ever made. You're welcome.
Waterloo from the 1970's dealt fairly with Napoleon, Wellington and his last 100 days, pretty well in 2 1/4 hours. No way for Ridley Scott to cover the french revolution , his entire military and political career, and his romantic relationship in 2 and a half hours.
Napoleon has little to do with the exceptional man who Napoleon was. Phoenix is too old to play Napoleon even at the end. One of the greatest military geniuses of all time. He was part of a democratization of Europe and opposed all of the monarchs of europe successfully.
I agree not the Killers of the flower moon perspective, the story should have been told primarily from her point of view, not from a feminist or female representation point of veiw but from a better storytelling point of view.
Pheonix is the weakest link. It had no chance right from the start.
Joaquin Phoenix was miscast in the title role. Joaquin Phoenix plays an awkward, soft-spoken, pensive Napoleon, which contrasts with the bold and wildly ambitious inspirational leader that he was in reality. Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" doesn't suck, but wasn't great either. It's a "meh". I give it a 5 on a 1-10. If you’re not a history buff, don’t bother.
Well, I guess the next historical figure had to be emasculated. It's all so pathetic and transparent.
As you say, there are a lot of historical inaccuracies in this film, what are these "embellishments of the truth" primarily focussed at, what is the goal. The answer should be self evident.
What's next? Atilla the Hun biopic showing us that really all he ever wanted or needed was his mommy and that all his achievements really were due to one or several women in his life?
Can this get more sad? I think I'll stay with Bondarchuk.
I mean, what the hell, it's like the latest trailer about the Leonard Bernstein biopic having 90% of the time his wife take center stage, already making it clear that basically all his artistic achievements really were due to her.
Have women really become this insecure they need to latch onto literally everything?
Ministry of truth is working overtime.