Ridley Scott's Napoleon is a Hot Mess!
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 11. 2023
- My review of Ridley Scott's new historical epic, Napoleon (2023).
A look at the military commander's origins and his swift, ruthless climb to emperor, viewed through the prism of his addictive and often volatile relationship with his wife and one true love, Josephine.
The film stars Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French and Vanessa Kirby as Empress Joséphine, Empress Consort and the first wife of Napoleon. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The 1970's movie Waterloo with Rod Steiger as Napolean and Christopher Plumer as Wellington is actually pretty damn good despite being more than 50 years old.
Ridley Scott Napoleon is a complete flop. If you ask me, Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo is a thousand times better. There is no comparison between the Magnificent Rod Steiger to the Abominable Joachim Phoenix. The Musical Score in Waterloo was exciting compared to the awful one in Napoleon. I tried my best not to leave the movie theater. The Battle scenes in Waterloo are very realistic using many thousands of live extras compared to the few hundred in Napoleon. And why is it dark in Napoleon. You would think in that age there was no Sunlight. Napoleon never charged with his horse in battle like Scott shows him in the battle of Waterloo. If you want to see a romantic Napoleon just watch the movie Desiree with Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons. Another good movie is War and Peace with Henry Fonda and Audrey Hepburn. The Movie "Waterloo" is pretty accurate historically. However "Napoleon" is pure fiction and they make the Great Napoleon look like a complete bum. The dialogue is extremely boring and there is a lot of things that never happened.
Nah what's also great is the 1927 movie; its nearly 5 hours long but its all silent
Yes, and Steigar shows both Napoleons grandeur, greatness and charme.
And Christopher Plummer's Wellington is much more memorable
You might be interested to know there is a 2022 book on the making of the movie “Waterloo”.
Its unbelievable that they didn’t show or even mention at least ONCE the war in Spain which was the beginning of the end of Napoleon's invencibility.
Exactly
exactly.
this should have been a serie, not a movie. Napoleon life is too much for only 1 movie.
and even that is only a detail of Napoleon's history compared to other things not mentioned
Hard to do that when your focused on him having weird sex with his wife
@@jameshill8493seriously the 💩they focus movies on these days is downright disgusting, disgraceful and sick.
I think it is not impossible to portray Napoleon's life reasonably well in one film. Flower Moon was like three and a half hours, and Napoleon could be as long. The main problem was that the present film was not only historically highly inaccurate, but Ridley Scott had no sense of proportion. The film was like a combination of random scenes and events, without any continuation or sense of their significance. The Russian campaign and retreat were done in 15 minutes or so - which really made me miss the King Vidor's War and Peace in the 1950s - and in the next scene Napoleon was sent to Elba. How did that happen? Waterloo lasted just about as long. Don't have any illusions about the four-hour cut. All the battles and campaigns ignored in the film - Trafalgar, Jena, Peninsular War, Leipzig, etc. - are not going to come back. Given the director's seeming obsession, you are likely to get more weird sex scenes with Josephine and hear more reciting of her letters.
Could have covered so many more actual important events and added real context to his decision making if half of the movie wasn't wasted on Josephine
Hey [Acme633], totally agree with your take on the film. The lack of historical accuracy and the disjointed portrayal of Napoleon's life left me feeling indifferent. It's disappointing when a director of Ridley Scott's caliber falls short. The film indeed needed more depth and focus on pivotal events. Also, Josephine's disproportionate presence was puzzling. Thanks for sharing your insights!
@@smith9157 The movie shows the current situation in the film world. The movie is about a strong man not a woman so it has to have a strong woman or it will be crushed by the social justice critics. This is why Josephine (a historically unimportant person) had to overshadow the main character.
You just cant have good movies anymore unless they are showing some Feminist, LGBTQ, Trans or Racist agenda.
I mean, they butchered Austerlitz. It's clear that Scott's personal message took priority before Napoleon the person.
How was it “highly inaccurate”? Other than not including every notable moment in the man’s life
Still, I will always believe that Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon is the greatest film never made. The research he put into that was insane and you can see from the cinematography of Barry Lyndon that it would've been insane
I do agree with you. Kubrick had an impeccable taste. In fact, Ridley Scott was a brilliant director but the years, the money and the fame took their toll...
I heard recently Napoleon is actually black Frenchman, whoever draw him back then was racist. Netflix should be releasing new biography how Napoleon overcome adversity being African French during the revolution and ascended to power and his battle in Japan. Its 2023 and History is malleable nowadays anyways so it doesn't matter.
@@buckrogers-lk3yr
If you get history from movies you deserve what you get.
@@buckrogers-lk3yr Arguably, Napoleon was neither black nor french. He was the most famous son of Corsica, an island that is home to a proud people and near Italy.
@@buckrogers-lk3yr that is just beyond cringe. i never understood why such people just just tell stories of actually interesting people people and instead are just erase the entire history, mythology and folklore surrounding black folk by blackwashing european canon. It seems very racist to do such things to me, yet somehow it's woke and cool these days.
I think Ridley should have focused on a single event in the life of Bonaparte, such as his invasion of russia. That was a monumental event in Napoleon's life and the history of europe. It was a tragic failure and affected the lives of millions, and involved numerous battles.
The funny thing is... I knew this movie would suck long before I watched it. You guys are just making my case further.
Or the Battle of Leipzig. He still had a somewhat functional army there but the battle cost him between 60.000 to 80.000 casualties (KIA, WIA, MIA) and marked the end of the reign of Napoleon and showed that the armies of the european Empires had finally adapted. No longer won Napoleon (sometimes Phyrric) victories (like Borodino or Wagram - there he lost between 25.000 to 40.000 against Austria's 26.000 to 40.000) but he was soundly defeated and could no longer replace those losses. While the life support was shut off at the battle of Waterloo, Leipzig was the instance where he was declared braindead.
'tragic failure'
it was a triumph of russia against the greatest military mind of the age
Funny story Napoleon listed Haiti as his greatest failure not Russia
I always wanted to see a movie based on a french soldier who is caught up in the dreaded Russian campaign? I even wrote a script and would work very well.
Ridley Scott should have made this movie into a three part series. The first one, introducing Napoleon's humble beginnings, mindset, and his rise to power. The second one about his political, and major military successes. The last one about how his old age affected his thinking and decision making, which lead to his eventual down fall in the Russian campaign, and finally the Battle of Waterloo.
That's a good thought and that would have made the story flow better, no doubt, but Ridley Scott is 85. If I were him, I would NOT be taking on epic trilogies that take up years of your life.
maybe Ridley think, he has not enough time to complete the three movies as he is 87 years old.
He died fairly young in his 50s. He was 42 when he invaded Russia.
old age, at 45? are you 12 or something?
People died very young compared to our age. Also, they were very short in stature.
It is a tragedy. When I saw the trailer and it was about Josephine and to almost to a ridiculous degree. The film seemed to indicate that Josephine made Napoleon the great man that he was. The focus seemed to be more on that rather than the amazing life of the man whose battle strategies are still used in today’s military.
What inspires a man to be great? Could it have been that woman that drove his insanity?
Agree, had the same reaction…plus the weird colors looked fake. And its a shame, as a historically accurate Josephine is plenty interesting, as she had a complex and often deep relationship with Napoleon, and was was smart, sophisticated and independent. But they wanted to make her “the power behind the throne” orsomething, and why make a movie about Napoleon a romance?
It’s like Muzak, in trying to please everyone, you end up with something no one likes.
I think what's worse, though, if they were going to take the rout of making Josephine who made Napoleon what he is, more work needed to be put into it. Its one thing to portray a woman behind a great man, its quite another to portray a man a bumbler who needed her woman to make it through the daily grind, and who happens to have some egotistical issues or something.
@@gregdrivesdriver5104 not like how they portrayed. And what greatness that was never really given any weight to it
@@Itried20takennames It should be called "Diary Of A Love Affair."
My biggest problem with this movie is that with a budget of hundreds of millions no one bothered to find out how line battles were fought at the time. Second is we just kind of glossed over the fact that the only reason Napoleon was at war with everyone was because the other aristocratic powers of europe couldn't stomach the idea of peasants ruling a country instead of their upper class betters and so kept forming coalitions and declaring war on france; but somehow napoleon is responsible for 3M deaths. How dare he defend his country and people from foreign aggression.
That's both right and wrong. Yes , France was in a horrible position because every other Monarchy in Europe was afraid that the revolution could spread and their crows could be taken so they did everything in their power to stop it. Coalitions, wars ,supporting rebels (everything).
However Napoleon himself was not innocent as well. He actually turned a lot of his own supporters against him the moment he crown-himself Emperor. It was a problem for the revolutionaries because they overthrew the monarchy and executed the king for "The rule of the people" and suddenly the biggest protector of the republic took the crown. Also the Iberia mess was his doing , not the powers.
What the other guy said. But saying Napoleon didn't go forth with offensive military campaigns is wrong. He did both defense and offense wars. He basically is the father of nationalism but that cannot be attributed to himself alone, the historical context and the industrial revolution also played a big part in that (and in the liberal revolutions at all, it probably wouldn't have happened without it).
He is famous dictator and not much better than the monarchies. It wouldn’t be fair to frame him like you are either
Napoleon was primarily a “defender” of France? Look at where his battles were fought. Not much “defending” going on.
You have a very whitewashed understanding of Napoleon if you think all his wars were "defensive" in nature. Yes the monarchies feared and despised what he represented to be sure, but he was also a narcissistic nationalist and imperialist who believed he was destined to rule Europe and made decisions to that effect. To the detriment of France.
Here's the thing... Gladiator was a massive success because Maximus was and still is f--ing BADASS. The whole indelibly amazing scene where Maximus gives the most f--ing AMAZING Resume reading: I
"I am Maximus Decimus Meridus, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legion, Servant to the true Emperor Marcus Aurelius, etc." That is a gloriously badass moment. You UNDERSTAND why men will fight and die for Maximus with STRENGTH AND HONOR.
And that, frankly, was the Young Napoleon.
Napoleon had that charisma IN SPADES. He had grown up, lonely and isolated and instead fell in love with BOOKS - and these books opened up a whole universe of science, knowledge, philosophy and military tactics, and made Napoleon a sheer genius. The man could discuss history and philosophy with Goethe, art and propaganda with Jacques Louis David, economics and law with Sieyes, etc. He was nerd enough to get elected into the French national scientific organization and yet alpha male enough to lead armies into battle and win - not through dumb as f--k video gamey moves as the movie shows, but through a brilliant combination of tactics, grand strategy and innate understanding of the mind of the soldier. Motivation plus Tactical Success which not only kept his dudes alive but brought them victory and plunder.
That was young Napoleon - he was the historical embodiment of Maximus Decimus Meridius.
And then he turned into COMMODUS.
That is the story Ridley should have told but Ridley's got his head way too far up his own a$$ to begin to comprehend that.
Napoleon, to the end of his life, lamented that "people wanted me to be George Washington / the French Cincinnatus, but I couldn't". That would have been a story worth telling.
brilliant take, completely agree
I haven’t seen it yet but it seems like a hugely wasted opportunity. We won’t get many massive budget historical films. They should have given Napoleon a different arc. Sounds like it was played in a very bizarre way.
Didn't even show the Italian Campaign... it should've been the sole focus of the movie lmao
Facts. I wanted to experience the insanity and genius move behind Napoleon in terms of accomplishments, tragedy and warfare. There's so many directions to take an unique legend like Napoleon and I don't understand why the love relationships always gets brought up because it limits his legacy on the screen. Ridley has a habit of changing history and the narrative of a time according to his own opinions and somewhat greed for understanding the past along with not being true to real life characters like most filmmakers. Also, they should have spoken in accents or at least French.
@alcottdevalte7440 100%!!!
The thing is, you don't have to LIKE the guy to tell the story or to appreciate their achievements. This movie was little better than badly written smear propaganda, emphasis on badly written. It provides ZERO insight into the person, its so bad that it only reflects on Ridley's capacity as a filmmaker - or rather his LACK thereof.
Completely agree with your analysis. What saddens me when a big budget, big name film fails to deliver is that it will be some time before the subject is put to film again. We may have to wait 20 years before any director attempts and hopefully succeeds at portraying Napoleon. How I wish Stanley Kubrick had lived to make the Napoleon film he was planning.
I was thinking the exact same thing as I was driving home from the venue. it was even dull at times. Jaquin Phoenix was miscast, too old and sullen for the part. Did like Vanessa Kirby as Josephine. She had the charisma that the little corporal lacked.
I agree I actually said maybe (3) films like LOTR, I watched an awesome doc series on YT and it went for about 8 hours, there is no way this movie can cover this, the retreat from Moscow is a movie in its self, I await the critical drinkers review
Steven Spielberg is already preparing a mini-series on Napoleon, and with a bit of luck, it won't be as disappointing.
Yes, I'm hoping so too. We're lucky Spielberg was planning this before Ridley Scott's film released. I think a mini series would better serve Napoleon's story or better yet a trilogy of films. Just hope Spielberg aims for more historical accuracy and less focus on Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. Their story should be covered but not overly so. I know a film or mini series isn't a documentary, but when portraying real historical figures I think it needs to be factual to some extent. Or what's the point? Have a good one @@tyller60
@@tyller60based on Kubrick script too
Watched the film yesterday, and i gotta say your points are exactly what i was thinking about during the film. It was very disappointing.
What annoyed me the most was how awkward Joachim Phoenix was. It looked to me he was still playing the joker and not Napoleon. He gave zero credibility to the character.
Oh well, thank god the ticket was cheap. I wouldn't bother rewaching this even for free though.
As a french, thank you for your review, you are 100% right.... everybody feels so disappointed, we were so happy and we were so hyped up for this movie, but it turned out to be quite bad sadly
As a non french, scale 1-10 how bad?
Ridley Scott should have been put out to pasture BEFORE 'Prometheus', but especially AFTER that god-awful film!
As a America, ce la vie😅
@@schrisdellopoulos9244 And your point?
"This is life?"
Funny because I had the exact opposite experience. Apparently, these history buffs haven’t seen many history movies, or didn’t expect it to be about Josephine, or are upset that Joaquin wasn’t possessed by Napoleon’s spirit during filming to perfect his character. But it’s pretty damn good, and I can admit to watching a good film when I do, despite its flaws.
Braveheart was a crap representation of history, but it’s not a bad movie
Ridley Scott was actually a pioneer of heavy color grading, making different scenes appear in a unique color scheme. He did that in Gladiator, where he chose blue for Commodus entrance into Rome. Somehow, it worked in Gladiator. It was done tastefully and wasn’t overdone. Most of the scenes in Gladiator have a natural look and at least have the appearance of a bright sunny day. He did the same in Kingdom of Heaven, with some of the scenes looking dark and gray/blue, but other scenes having a very natural sunny look. Not the case with Napoleon, where there are practically no scenes that have a natural look to them.
For anyone interested in Napoleonic era, I recommend Sergei Bondarchuk’s Waterloo and of course his War and Peace. Both films are actually available in full HD on CZcams.
I agree with you on both. Both were very well done.
This looks like it was done by a kid for a dvxuser short in 2004.
DW Griffith was the pioneer in color toning scenes - blue for night, yellow for morning, red for battles. It sounds as if Ridley Scott is just playing with the old toolkit here.
I reccoment the excellent mini series "Napoleon", great soundtrack too, which lacks in Scott's film.
@@frisianwarrior2295 There's more than one miniseries. I know of three. Which are you referring to?
The Dino Deluarentis, Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington. Waterloo was and is still great movie
One of my favourites.
I still watch waterloo great movie 1970 @@JenniferM13
That film was the finest epic ever filmed
You betcha
i have to agree: doing justice to the life of this man requires 6 films 3 hours long each
This was the first movie I EVER watched in theatres where I strongly considered walking out. The only reason I didn’t was because I was there with other people. I felt like it was a disgrace on Napoleon’s life.
Ironically, I did walk out, but only because I was desperate for the loo. Why is it so important not to disgrace the life of a long dead Corsican who was at least partitially responsible for the early deaths of an estimated 2.5 million miltary personnel and 1 million civilians?
@@psychologicalprojectionist You misunderstood the importance I was placing on his figure. It's not a benevolent significance, but a historical one. As someone who appreciates history, I don't like seeing historical figures (OR events) being misrepresented and butchered. Look at the movie 'Downfall'. It is an AMAZING movie that accurately depicts Hitler and the last moments of the war. It's a great movie because it shows you what actually happened. This movie does NONE of that, it's all over the place and focuses on a very uninteresting part of Napoleon's life, his wife.
So, I'm assuming you never paid to see, 'Drop Dead Fred'? hehehe.... Phoebe Cates and What'sHisName...
@@psychologicalprojectionist Wait until you hear how many people the Russians and Germans kill in the next century thanks to kicking out Napoleon and his liberal humanist ideas. SO much to be proud of especially if you're Russian lol.
The only thing that kept me was Josephine's story arc.
So here's one of the world's greatest generals, who also reformed the legal systems in Western Europe, and what do they focus on? His love life!
Probably an attempt to get women and normies and all of those who slept thru history class to buy tickets.
You hit every single one of my problems with this film, including the dimness of the movie. I thought it was my theater, and I even sent a text to my buddy saying it might be better on my TV where I can turn up the contrast. They didn't show anything of his military career, the battles, his inspiration. Hell, his big inspiring speech with his old soldiers muskets leveled at his chest was "hey guys, remember me? We fought together, I'm Napoleon...." and they throw down their arms and start cheering and hugging. It was an awful let down.
I think it was Ridley's exact intention to let the audience down. I hate it too
This was the greatest movie of the year. There’s nothing we can do.
Scottish Propaganda 🤔
His portrayal has almost cured me of a lifelong obsession with Napoleon. Totally agree with your review. Way too much Josephine.
You pegged this film perfectly. I was bored and like you said, at the end of it, I felt nothing or any of the characters. And who was the nobody they got to play Wellington, who seemed to strut around like he knew he was going to win the battle before hand. And did we really need to seem him backdooring Josephine more than once? I mean, we could have at least gotten the scene where her dog bit him while making out! It would have been some amusement. As you said, the battle scenes were small screen and there was no sense of grandeur. Thank you for this review.
I can only get in line with all the others here, you got it spot on! When I came home last night after the movie, my wife asked how it was. I replied it was really bad, and she asked why. I struggled to really say why, because there is so many details that all together made into just a big mess. Now I know I can just share this video, it explains all in a manner I can't. If they had the same budget, but only focused on a single campaign, changed the actor for Napoleon, excluded Josefine and included a few good actors playing some of his best marshals, like Ney , this could have been a epic movie.
Totally agree. Especially with the "get rid of Josephine" part 🙂
I totally agree with you. I saw the movie on Thanksgiving and actually was finding myself dozing off during the movie
That’s what they’ll never top the film Waterloo. That’s film did it justice. Shame it was made by a Soviet director, as it flopped in the West.
It completely skipped his genius for war in the initial campaigns in Northern Italy that made him famous. His later battles like Austerlitz weren't a simple ambush against a moronic bunch of generals; it was a series of deceptions (he pretended his army was weak and one of his flanks were vulnerable) and then heavy attacks and counterattacks that destroyed the Allies armies order of battle. His supporting actors in the movie (particularly on the military side) were weak as though he won the whole thing by himself in spite of them. I didn't mind Josephine (she was somewhat important to his psyche), but not to his genius for war and political intrigue. She should have been a supporting role, not the main focus of the movie. Also, Joaquin Phoenix is a seriously overrated actor with a limited emotional range of grunts and facial tics. I would have preferred a more serious focused actor, not someone playing a clown version of Napoleon. He was a complex character, but Ripley Scott seems more interested in portraying a caricature of a lovesick and awkward brute versus then a military genius who terrorized most of Europe for almost 20 years and keep Emperors, Kings, Military Leaders, and Statesman up at night worrying about his next moves. His Maxims on war are still taught in many military academies, he helped rewrite much of the French Judicial law, and instituted reforms in mobile warfare and logistics that are still used today. He wasn't just a clown who got lucky against morons. Many of the military and political leaders who fought him were very skilled in their arenas of politics and war. Even Arthur Wellesley (Duke of Wellington) said his only battle directly against Napoleon was "the nearest run thing you ever saw". The weather and some bad decisions by his subordinates had as much to do with his losing as did the last-minute arrival of Blucher's Army.
I did like the inclusion of one individual. The black general seen in several scenes (in history he was an actual individual, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, the father of Alexandre Dumas (famous French writer of "Count of Monte Christo" and "Three Musketeers".). General Dumas was actually captured trying to evacuate Egypt after Napoleon's failed campaign and eventually died of stomach cancer several years after being released from captivity. He was ignored by Napoleon after his release and the French Government never paid his family survivors benefits after his died (long before Napoleon was deposed). Several of Alexandre Dumas's characters are based on his father's adventures, later imprisonment, and well documented skills as a swordsman.
Well said. After watching the movie, I thought who would follow this soy boy cuck into war? They chose to follow this man, he wasn't put there because of his rich daddy.
“A couple of three things,” I see what you did there 😏
Your review captures exactly how I felt after seeing this missed opportunity to create a true epic about an epic historical character. A disappointment of a movie. Thank you for your review.
was better than Gladiator. Napolean's character was indepth, he had humility, was capable of violence, humorous was just a well done job by Joaquin. The movie looked incredible, action scenes were great, story was great it was a drama + action + love story, violence was great I dont understand why people are disappointed. These history buffs expect a long drawn out 3 part movie about every expedition he's ever done. I mean this reviewer complains about the "colour" of the battle scene. Get over it mate the scenery was incredible
I took my friend, whom is not a big history nerd as I am to the film. So many of the political nuances in the film just....absolutely went over his head. Like when Napoleon returned from Elba, there was just a brief scene of an aide informing a fat man that Napoleon had returned. At no point did my friend comprehend that this was the Bourbon monarchy returned to to power in France, and the significance that held. The other major one that I asked him about was his assentation of Emperor, I asked my friend, "did you realize that was the Pope there to coronate Napoleon?" . No, no he didn't. Nor did he understand the gasps when Napoleon rushed forward to grab the crown and place it upon his own head. ALL of this was lost on someone who didn't know Napoleon's story already.
We can just glaze over the insane war triumphs that the movie just.....left out. And why the arranged marriage had more weight due to the countless victories prior...just....so much left out.
I like that Phoenix played the role, and i understand that the movie would have to be stupid and gratuitous to make lots of money. The trailer was more than enough to confirm this, and I'll just say a few things. In 1787, Napoleon was a lieutenant in the artillery, a "nobody." By 1804 every monarch in Europe was calling him "your majesty," and damned sure didnt like it! For the best look at Napoleon, find the 5 volume series "Memoirs of Napoleon Bonaparte" by that guy Bourienne. Bourienne was Napoleons closest friend when they were kids, and because of his accounting skills, fluency in various languages, and unbelievable stamina, Napoleon made him his secretary, and he was with Napoleon from start to finish, and kept a diary, etc. Those 5 books will tell you plenty!
@@Skipjack7814 Friends are also likely to either embellish or at least portray their friend in a more positive manner than otherwise. Still a good source, just bare in mind its limitations.
@@questionmaker5666 I understand, and some people suggested this (in footnotes, the series i have is a 3rd edition, and has many footnotes and slight corrections, but Napoleon wound up turning against him, and really "jacking up" his life, and by the third volume he was in no mood to "varnish" much. If youve read Calaincourts "With Napoleon In Russia," that really shows the genius of Napoleon. (Calaincourt) shared Napoleons carriage as they left the failed Russian campaign, and Napoleon really expanded on his dreams for a unified Europe. (With him in charge of course!) Napoleon was truly brilliant, but he seriously underestimated the force of nationalism.
@@questionmaker5666 for example, if a woman sat next to Napoleon and "spread her legs," (movie) he would have been disgusted and would have humiliated her. But again, gratuity for the average moviegoer
Exactly the lack of "why" is everywhere, like why there's English fleet in Toulon, why Napoleon had to be in Egypt, why he organized a coup, why did he claimed himself emperor, why did he invade Russia if previous scene is Napoleon talking with Tsar happily. Also with the absence of many characters and events the whole story just doesn't make sense logically, such as not mentioning the war in Spain, so Wellington just came out of nowhere etc.
So awkward. I just set through 2.5hours of the weirdest teen romance drama set to the background of the 19th century. Sure Napoleons most famous events were slapped in to bring some action but the main story focused around two of the weirdest characters every put to screen in a historical film. And like I said it wasn't a good romance more of a weird one that was about two toxic people pretending to be in love while only in love with themselves. It's such a weird thing to focus on too because thats sure not how they advertised it, it was marketed as a historical action epic but all I came away with was some random battle scenes amongst two awkward teens (acting like that at least) throwing food at each other and just generally being unlikeable.
Cut most of the awkward scenes with Josephine and you would have time to tell a coherent story about the main character and his rise and fall instead of this disjointed mess. It was trying to do far too much and accomplished none of what it set out to do. I had to literally explain things to my brother and mom during the whole thing, ;like why did Napoleon invade russia. One second him and Alexander are buddies next there at war. And I know the burring city is good cinema but by that time they had already been using scorched earth tactics. Why was that not talked about before that? My moms was completely lost as too why they did that and I shouldn't have to explain these things to your audience so you can cram in awkward romance. Honestly this was one of the biggest disappointments in years to me. The trailer was far better then the movie.
What a joke of a movie.
Just saw the movie as I'm a fan of this historic period and did not want to see any reviews before. Your opinion is so spot on, and exactly my thoughts during the movie, impressed by your job!
You perfectly said everything I was thinking while I watched the movie. Nice work!
I am not surprised. I had hope Ridley Scott and Joaquin Phoenix would do a good job. It is going to be impossible not to compare this movie to 1970's Waterloo. 15,000 extras and practical effects. Rod Steiger's great performance as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington.
So far as I have seen at this point, there is no comparison. Scott's looks cheap, though admittedly, it's tough to get a way to pull off the battle scenes with any real accuracy and number of extras. It's all about the numbers really.
not just any extras, an entire soviet cavalry regiment (in the 1970’s the soviets still had active horse mounted cavalry on the far eastern steppe), thats just amazing.
@@bigsoap186 Manstein notes that the hardest Soviet units to deal with were the cavalry, particularly in the marshes. He notes that they could shift position by sixty miles overnight. They were basically just mounted infantry, but they could easily carry a lot of heavy machine guns and plenty of ammo.
woke agenda destroyed another movie that could have been Amazing.
they showed way too much women that were IRRELEVANT!
they could put at least 1 or 2 more important battles in that time wasted
@@user-hl3qv8qg2s Wow. That is by far the most ridiculous comment I have read today. But, just the same, now I realize that Playboy and Hustler magazine were part of the woke agenda...
To do the man justice and show his brilliance as a military commander, which this film does not, this needs to be either a mini-series or a ridiculous long 5-6 hour movie IMHO
And if anyone wants to watch a more accurate battle at Waterloo, than watch Waterloo itself. Scott’s depiction of that event is condensed and not very accurate.
Even the 2002 Napoleon Series (which in my opinion was good showing his life but not his battles)
was way better than this.
@@dukekevy6650 I haven’t watched so thank you for sharing. I’ll try to find it available for streaming somewhere.
that very thing is coming later (the movie made as a mini series with ALOT of scenes that didnt make the theatrical version)
exactly!!!
imagine making a 2 hour movie... about entire ww2. it would be a disaster!
this is how napoleon feels like. everything is rushed and horrible done
My husband and I just saw it, my husband knows everything about Napoleon, his life, battlles and romance. We felt there was a lack of respect for this historical character.
Right on
Typical wife. Her husband knows everything about history, not her. Same with music, movies, sports, etc.
@@schrisdellopoulos9244is a troubled individual 😅
@@schrisdellopoulos9244 you good?
@@schrisdellopoulos9244 Not true about my wife.
What a great review! I too didn't understand why everything was so dark. Phoenix was the wrong guy for the part - no charisma. A movie about a military genius didn't bother to show any of that.
Nonsense, actor was great. Plot not so much.
Saw the film yesterday. I agree with every point you made. Your review is spot on! Also, even from the little I know about his sexual relationship with Josephine (for which something is known from his letters to her), that relationship was misrepresented.
I saw a doco series on YT that blew me away it went for 8 hours, it was unbelievable what this man achieved, and no mention of J, after listening to this I doubt whether I will go an see it
@@theend9494whats the name of the docu series? I’d love to check it out
i will get back to you
@@Swagmaster021
Please elaborate on how Napoleon's sexual relationship with Josephine was misrepresented...
@@Nebula37 I mean, the dude was an absolute freak to put it gently. in the film they just have sex for like 20 seconds and that's it. in reality they were much much more passionate and Josephine was not the dominant "beast" the film portrays. she was soft and agreeable after the debacle of her cheating on him.
You would need 50 episodes of a mini series to show what he tried to show in a couple of hours
There actually is a great miniseries called Napoleon, that will always be the real Napoleon to me.
It could maybe have been done it it was made like Oppenheimer, you would have to be very creative with time to contrast the beginning with the end in which case you're taking advantage of the limited timeframe to show what you may have forgotten from episode 1 of a multi-part series.
But who else other than Christopher Nolan could pull it off?
@@Metaphix Steven Spielberg is doing just that. Look up Speilbeg and kubricks Napoleon Hbo.
@@TreblaineYeah, Oppenheimer was phenomenal and somehow compiled his whole life in a movie and made it work.
Brute rises to power and still feels like an outsider … while falling deeply in love and having a rocky relationship … and then goes down in a blaze of glory. Basically, Ridley Scott has remade Scarface (1983).
I walked out in the middle from the theater for the first time in my life. And I love history and Bonaparte era.
Just saw the film and have to say that you are pretty much spot-on with your review. If anything you are somewhat charitable with your comments about Phoenix' portrayal of Napolean as it was listless, powerless and dismal at best, almost as if Phoenix wasn't really interested in being in the film but did so to help Scott out. The editing was at best choppy and confusing, and everything you said about the color-washing appeared the same when we saw it in a state-of-the-art OmniMax theater. Too bad as I think we have all come to expect much more from Ridley Scott's work.
Totally agree , terrible editing, and no characterisation of the main players , something went terribly wrong in this film , could apple executives who held the purse strings have too much say ?
Love this review! I felt the same way coming out of theater but I couldn't put it to words because there was so much wrong with this film. You broke it down and explained it perfectly.
meh i think movie was better than anything last 20 years we've had then again critics are usually lying
True enough
why emasculate him ?
I asked myself the same question,
@@LadyVixenGameseverything woke from Hollywood flop's including this fake history load of trash. Hollywood deserves to go under.
@@LadyVixenGamesi guess if you didn’t watch anything the last 20 years this statement can be true
@@LadyVixenGames2002 Napoleon is way better than that
Felt like there was so much more left out in this. This honestly needed to be like an HBO series or something along those lines. The cinematography was amazing but just felt like years and events were rushed and skipped over
I was excited to see this film from the trailers because of Scott and Phoenix, but now that so many bad reports on it have surfaced, now not so much. Based on your description of the film, coupled with other similar reports, it feels like there were two directors on set, or one having taken over from the other midstream. This scenario of a different director having taken over a film midstream of production is precisely your description of this film, and what the audience is left with most times. Odd... very odd given Scott's cinematic reputation. However, how Napoleon’s character is portrayed based on your description, is Phoenix’s base and real-life character, so that iteration of Napoleon’s personality fits Phoenix’ perfectly in an oddball sort of way.
But I agree, based on your account of there being a longer and more coherent version of the film coming out in 2024, I’ll wait… thank you very much for the heads up!
😊
The battle scenes in Sergie Bondarchuk's epic masterpiece, 'War and Peace' are incredible. Phoenix is a great actor, but no Napoleon. Had Scott cast French actors, and had English subtitles it may have been more palatable, but it's the same old story in Hollywood where big names are offered roles they are really not suited for.
we are still lucky that Hollywood didn't race swap Napoleon
Same as with Waterloo with Rod Stieger's Napoleon you had a good actor and director invested in the character's and the battle it portrayed.
Phoenix is a terrible actor. He can do three emotions: dour, laughing mockingly, and extra dour.
My grandmother always told me; I don't care what they told you in school but Napoleon was Japanese. @@fajarkurniawan9434
Bondarchuk's "voina y mir" is a total bore...the guy was completely clueless with the camera...
Been studying N since I saw Rod Steiger's Waterloo, when it came out in the 1970's. That movie motivated me as a 12 year old, to grow up and become an Army Officer. This review is SPOT ON! I found myself bored at the theater enduring this new film.
While I do agree about phoenix’s performance in this. I must say that the set design, cinematography, unexpected comedy and excellent battle scenes made this a very enjoyable movie to watch in theaters especially compared to other Scott movies that are more serious in nature
Watch the 6 hour silent version!! It was amazing to see it in the cinema, it deserves a re-release to correct the record
I was pretty shocked that it was bad 🙄 I'd really been looking forward to it and Vanessa Kirby was fantastic 😍. Austerlitz looked great but was kind of wrong and where was the march up the Pratzen heights and turning the flank? Scott spent too much time on the retreat across the ice. The charge was off at Waterloo. Just kind of a mess.
My brother and I looked forward to this movie for months. We love military/history movies and Napoleon sucked beyond belief. I actually fell asleep during the Battle of Waterloo and got a double Tito's and Sprite for $20 just to get me through the rest of this disaster. The last good movie I saw at the theatre was the Kingdom of Heaven. I miss those days!
we will probably never have good history movies anymore.. until the woke agenda is gone.
There have been sooo many good movies since Kingdom of Heaven 😂
Damn I left the theater because it was too boring for me. First time I ever did that
My brother and I went to see Gladiator after a hard days work and we both fell asleep.
@@williammartin2593 you go watch movies with your brother?? haha what a loser.
The whole movie is so incomplete that I feels like the theatrical release is just a trailer for the eventual 4 hours director’s cut.
My main issue with the movie is that at no point do you get an inkling of why Napoleon was such a force of nature.
Rod Steiger might have come the closest to capturing the energy and charisma of Napoleon, even though his portrayal in Waterloo was of Napoleon not at his best
Yes I totally agree Steiger portrayed him as a man that was losing it and new it .
Rod Steiger captured late Napoleon, but Albert Dieudonné in Abel Gance's epic perfectly captured the energy of young Napoleon
I loved it but there was so much to be shown and the film was all over in terms of timelines
I've always felt the same way about Steiger's Napoleon's portrayal.
I have watched countless times the scene where rod steger as Napoleon is yelling at his staff who was becoming demoralized. He says " Wellington is beaten! Do you call yourself soldiers? at the battle of such and such. I had lost it by 5:00 but I had won it back again at 7:00!!!"
I'd recommend the films War and Peace& Waterloo . And I'll include the Sharpe tv series as well.
The Sharpe series is hilariously bad and inaccurate. Its like historical fanfiction
@@ghostie7028Still more respectful to the history than Scott’s messy speed-run of the Napoleonic Era.
I agree 100%. There was nothing about his military genius that’s still studied today. There was too much focus on trivial politics and the relationship with his strange wife. And his character was very aloof, expressionless and
wooden. I would have imagined Napoleon as intense, passionate and brilliant, yet volatile.
That's because this was another woke movie, which requires that a white man, no matter how important, be subordinated by a female. Every movie today is like this.
@@ChatGPT1111Or it's really just bad writing. Not necessarily because of political motivation.
@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 you can be a Pulitzer award winning writer and get zero social credits or equity points (aka Gov't Grants) to be able to move forward with a film project.
Thank you for your refreshingly honest and accurate review. When I think of historical figures like Napolean, Mozart, I think of Polanski as a winning cinematic candidate. I admit in advance that Roman Polanski may be a touch too old to underake such an epic film as Napoleon. And if we can focus on filmmaking and not his personal foibles, I believe there is something meticulous and assured in Roman's direction that prompts me to think he would have been ideal making an epic film of this kind- in French, and with more depth and cinematic aplomb. Think of Polanski's Macbeth, The Pianist, An Officer and a Spy, Chinatown. Kubrick regarded him as an exemplary technician, which he was. Again, he is possibly too old to undertake such a lofty and ambitious film, but Roman's craftsmanship and Swiss-watch-like obsession with nuance and detail would have served this material well. Just an observation based on style and previous works.
It does not surprise me that it is a mess. Ridley Scott movies are very hit or miss. His masterpiece, Kingdom of Heaven, was cut by 40+ minutes and then paraded into theatres as an amputated mess... I am still going to see it.
This could have been as epic as Gone with the Wind, Sparticus, Gladiator, etc. It looks like the money was there for it. What a bummer that it's just dull. Historically, it doesn't seem like we needed this. Thanks for the review. You saved us some money and time we can't get back!
I wasted $100 on this garbage.
@@EHou01hahaha that's on you
5:06 Yes it was dark! Mate you hit the nail on the head with this entire video. I've been gathering my thoughts since yesterday when I've seen the movie and I'd say your video succinctly wraps them all up.
Scott literally said he dislikes French. What can you expect other than caricature of France's greatest general?
I've never been persuaded by Ridley like others have and this movie seems to sum up every issue I've had with him. Such a shame. Technically, I desperately want to support this because it is a return to locations, sets and practical effects over CGI slop, but I just don't know if I can stomach the obvious miscasting/misdirection that led to Napoleon being misrepresented in this compared to his real life self or the fact that half the movie is locked into focus on his romance when the movie is wasting time that could be spent at least attempting to cover Napoleon's life like they clearly wanted to.
You should watch the Duelists. Somehow he forgot how to make a good napoleonic movie.
The issues people have are literally just people who want an entirely different Movie 😂 y’all expect something else when going in or won’t go in bc it’s not how you want it. Whatever, better to be the latter
Wyattcole. I wanted a movie that wasn't boring and disjointed. Does that make me a bad person?
@@fatdaddy1996 no, I didn’t say you’re obliged to like the movie at all, didn’t say you’re bad if you didn’t
THE Napoleon movie to see is Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" (1970) Rod Steiger as Napoleon, Christopher Plummer as Wellington. Both great performances, and the battle is FUCKING EPIC. NO CGI.
So many films today are dark (literally) and the players whisper their way through the film, so you can't see anything or hear anything. At least in this film the cannons actually recoil, something you rarely see in movies, so thumbs up for that.
Yeah, the effects were really good. Some of the battle scenes were really good. The scenes with all the horses charging were epic. Unfortunately, that only amounted to a few minutes out of two and a half hours. I would have liked to see a lot more emphasis on the battles. They never established that Napoleon was a great general. They never established that he was feared by all of Europe. Instead, he came across as wimpy, sometimes cowardly. I was mostly feeling sad for Napoleon, how his wife was treating him, how pathetic he seemed.
I tried looking online. At the end you said he participated in 60 battles but only saw 3? I can't find this anywhere. Can anyone help?
I miss the times when we got movies by people who didn't DESPISE the source material
You are looking for Waterloo, 1970, starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon.
It's free on CZcams
I'd recommend to just re-watch Steiger and Plummer's very good performance and avoid this tripe.
I think I would have loved to see a film based on Napoleon's early military career. It would help establish who he was and how he made his rise to becoming Emperor France. This cause whenever we imagine or think of Napoleon, we imagine the Emperor of France, the man who marched into Russia, and man who was exiled to St. Helena. This movie would allow us to see his early life, his schooling, his days Italian Campaign, Egyptian Campaign, Marriage to Josephine, and finally his rise to first consoul of France. This would serve the purpose of allowing us to see who the man was early in his life, and leave the door open for a sequel. We would see how a Legend rise to begin with.
Exactly, where was Marengo!
exactly
where is our Siege of Toulon's screen adaptation???
Portugal and Spain were completely absent in this.
The winter of Russia and the guerrilla war in Liberia are the two things that made the french army fall, yet they are no where to be seen!
I hope Netflix going to release Napoleon as black frenchman that would be so dope. People dont need to Don't worry about subtle innacuracies like Napoleon war conquest in China and japan. Nowadays history can be rewritten anyways. Should make a crossover battle with Genghis khan, that would be so dope.
Next, Ridley Scott does an Adolf Hitler biopic with Morgan Freeman as the young failed Austrian artist and Will Smith as the later desperate Fuhrer in the bunker. Co starring Oprah Winfrey as Eva Braun, Keanu Reeves as Herman Goering and Jim Carrey as Heinrich Himmler. At a cinema near you.
Title: The Motherf*ckin' Führer 'n' Shiet
Steven Segal as Goering
Thank you! Curiosly, all that you've divined was also revealed in just the trailer for the movie. This Napoleon had no energy, was no military genius, and was not the man whose Code Napoleon is still in existence today, and the trailer revealed this.
Absolutely spot on, great analysis and review.
It should’ve have been a 3 part series with 10 hours worth of film.
If only Stanley Kubrick, had made his version.
😢
I thought the exact same thing. I’ve been waiting for this movie for years after reading up on Napoleon. Fascinating historical figure that was reduced to a romantic story. I still thought it was ok but would have preferred a different storyline.
Rod Steiger’s Napoleon in ‘Waterloo’ is the best effort in capturing the man
This movie has 2 GLARING problems. The romantic relationship (at least how they presented it) was EXTREMELY uninteresting. Like Napoleon literally just stares at her and she just kinda admits she F’d a guy to not get killed and that’s all the context given before they get married and “fall in love” everything proceeding that felt forced and inauthentic. The movie didn’t give me a reason believe that these people were actually in love. My second major criticism is the god awful pacing for some of the events. Like the entire with Egypt had literally no context or build up. One moment he’s in Egypt, the next moment they fire a shot at the pyramid, the next scene the battle is over and Napoleon just kinda admires a mummy and that’s it. Sudden, confusing and dull. That same type of occurrence happened with the scene in which Napoleon orders for the protesters to be killed. Why are they protesting? Who knows because the movie doesn’t bother to say and it all happens suddenly with no anticipation or suspense.
The Royalists are protesting. For the restoration of the monarchy. The Movie tells so through dialogue
@@taka2517 I get that the movie was covering a lot of ground but they could’ve added in more exposition than just calling them royalists. I wouldn’t say that’s hardly context given someone watching doesn’t know very much about the topic beforehand. Could’ve been as easy as “we finally have given the public the freedom they wanted for so long and now some want to revert back to kings and queens who only serve their own interest” or something like that. Literally like 1 or 2 sentences would’ve been enough for me to shrug my shoulders and say good enough
You are right, Napoleon Bonaparte was a man who inspired men, enough so for them to gladly follow him into battle, after battle. The real Napoleon must have had quite some charisma and personality.
Damn this video blew up, congrats dude.
Ridley Scott found his Waterloo.
I'll just wait for the longer cut
No doubt...
Ridley should be ashamed and barred from entering France
"It feels more like Travis Bickle playing Napoleon." Brilliant.
I just got the tickets today for Dec 1st, 2023. Should i watch or should i cancel the tickets?
Napoleon, was one of the greatest men who ever lived. Even if you hate what he did.
You can forget all his military and even then he would rank amount the greatest.
He is too big for only 4 hours. An epic more along the lines of Winds of War and War and Remeberance would hardly do it.
No he was a killer. In Every country he conquered all citizens lost every right. He reinstalled slavery in every country.
This book would make an amazing film.Sergeant Bourgogne - with Napoleon's Imperial Guard in the Russian campaign and on the retreat from Moscow 1812
Ridley did consult a historian named Michael for the movie.
Ridley Scott should of just done an Alien movie instead.
Doing a one part movie on Napoleon is not sensible. It requires four or five parts to give a good complete movie to explain Napoleon Bonaparte.
In addition, this may not make sense due to his tall height, but Danish actor Mads Mickelson with dark hair looks like similar to Bonaparte.
He was the villain ‘Le Chiffre’ in James Bond’s Casino Royale. Dude looks like he could kill your family without flinching, something Napoleon was astute at.
Every single sentence here is on point. These were my exact thoughts when watching. You would also think that every day in the 19th century was gloomy. They even managed to make Saint Helena look hideous, presumably for dramatic lighting that made the cinematography stale and ugly
Napoleon described Saint Helena as an "unlovely place" so that should capture his view of the island that would be his prison and grave.
From a storymaking perspetive it makes sense to make Saint Helena gloomy, since Napoleon was sentenced to exile there.
The republic of Genoa gave away Corsica to France with a 1768 treaty. Napoleon being born in 1769 was a de facto French citizen. A simple fact that demolishes all pretentions that he wasn’t French.
The french are extremely regional, anyone from Corsica is Corsican first, French second.
I think there was a lot more exploration of Napoleon’s “other side” in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure.
Saw it last night. Really enjoyed it. Beautiful music.
This should've been a trilogy. I knew deep down that despite the hype and the big names that this wasn't going to be a success, doubly so because I am a MASSIVE fan of that era of history and know the Napoleonic wars pretty well. The trailer's confirmed it all for me when they showed off a real modernized "girl boss" Josephine and elevated her to being a main character when in reality she wasn't even a side character. Its a real tragedy because his 21 (don't quote me on the number I'm too lazy to look it up) marshals were some of the greatest historical characters of all time, most of them just leap off the historical page, and many died leading heroic actions on the battlefields or even ordered the firing squad to fire at their own executions.
But no. Girl boss Josephine. That's what we get.
Three movies as slow as this one would have been the end of Hollyweird.
@@EHou01 I don't think so. I think the Marshals alone could've carried the first film, perhaps only focusing on a couple of the major ones and not all 20 odd. It would help them to get the audience to actually invest in the cause and the people's who's lives were at risk rather than just doing 5 minute battles and 20 minutes with boring Josephine.
The Napoleonic era to me is almost like a drama, its much more about the characters and the heroics rather than purely the action scene battles. But even with 3 movies its unlikely they could do the battles justice where hundreds of thousands perished and so many destinies were changed.
@@EHou01This movie isn't slow what the hell
I enjoyed the movie; just saw it two hours ago. Josephine was beautiful and interesting but I am much more interested in the battle strategy which I give only a B+. Bonaparte was never in a full horse charge. As well Wellington sure wasn’t the fun Christopher Plumber version from “Waterloo” 1970. One of the most interesting part of the British strategy was having the Brits lay down on the far side of the ridge then suddenly standup, fire, and surprise as the French came close.
Sending the French Imperial Guard at the last was also missed. As well I don’t think that the lake scene was such a big part of the Battle of Austerlitz.
exactly... is like making a movie about the entire ww2... it would be a complete disaster.
you cant make a movie and portray everything.
thats why the best movies of ww2, ww1 etc. only portray 1 campaign (max), even 1 just battle is enough to make a entire movie.
napoleon life deserves a entire serie... and that would need at least 3-4 seasons.
this movie is a complete joke for anyone that knows basic history.
Napoleon was just 26 years old in the 1st Italian campaign, Phoenix seems too old for the role.
I haven't seen "Napoleon" yet, but there are other R. Scott films that (for me) became watchable/understandable only in the "director's cut" versions. Specifically (tho not limited to) "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Blade Runner." While Scott got his start with brief commercials, I think he comes into his own in the long-long form of the medium.
If you toss out your preconceived expectations you will enjoy this film...Any film ever made can be picked apart personally I enjoyed this movie it went past very quickly which for me is a sign of an enjoyable movie.
I have one very small point about the horse @3.45 . I have seen the skeleton of his actual horse, I think, in the Imperial War Museum. That horse is bloody small for a small man. The horse in the clip I reference seems huge.
I'd imagine horses have been selectively bred (and fed) to be bigger over the last 200 years.
@@cockoffgewgle4993 perhaps. I guess I was saying that it is not an accurate portrayal, but of course it is a very small point
I expect movie like "Saving private Ryan" or "Braveheart" and I get movie like "Alexander".
At least the battle scenes on the movie Alexander were quite realistic and good.
Saw it yesterday at the local IMAX, bit disjointed at the start but really good!
It should have been called "Diary Of A Love Affair."
I mean first it’s a movie for the public so to focus purely on one specific thing or war loses a lot of people. A generalization of his life with key points that lead to his growth in power and fall is what works for everyone. The combat scenes were amazing and seeing how his wife was very important to him it would be right to include her. It’s his life and the movie focused or nation army Josephine. That’s how it was written not just army or nation but everything in his life
Of course Josephine had an outsized role. It's the current year. Girl power, baby. Maybe this was Ridley's version of a Gillette commercial.
I watched an interview with the actress and she came off as a bit of a narcissist, kind of like Napoleon was doing all this stuff for Josephine. He made her an empress and she repaid him by cheating. I'm going to skip the movie because I think I'd just hate Josephine. I also watched an interview with Scott and he said that Phoenix was profoundly insecure. He didn't come off that way in Gladiator. Your comment that the French should be pissed resonates.
Ridley Scott is a really inconsistent director. He's kind of like a slot machine where you get a few good movies out of a sea of mediocre ones. I would actually argue that Alien is his only truly great film.
Spot on. They look great, but not great.
Ridley Scott is the cinematic equivalent of successfully doing dazzling acrobatics in one second and then tripping and falling over a pothole in the ground
And Gladiator.
I’d have to agree. He has a lot of movies that are just kind of okay. Nothing great. Alien and Gladiator are his two “masterpieces”. Everything else is just good or okay.
imagine making 1 movie, about all the events of ww2.
this is how napoleon feels like.... you cant make 1 single movie and pretend to show everything about 30 years+ of battles.
napoleon would need at least a 2 seasons, 12 episodes serie to show half of his life....
I'll be waiting for the four hour deal...Thank you for that information my friend...
Some great points in this video. I am rather disappointed with this film.
Something that shocked me while watching it, is that they mention his birthday being the 12th of February 1768 during the wedding sequence, which is off by miles. His actual birthday was in august 1769. The same year Wellington was born.
For a film named after someone, you'd expect to get their birthday right... Right?
Always thought that if someone was ever going to do such a complicated figure as Napoleon, it would be in the form of a series of maybe 2 to 3 seasons. It is virtually impossible to do something good in a movie, so I totally agree. Imagine if handled like HBO's "Rome". I know Scott was pissed off at the history buffs complaining but between this film and the severely over-rated "Gladiator", there are so many historical inaccuracies, it makes you wonder. Is this a biography? Hardly.
There is no way Gladiator us an over rated film, fist time I have ever heard someone say that,
IMO it is. The whole ending was as cringy as it gets, right down to the whole slow clap to the fallen hero. the whole premise of the gladiator restoring the Republic is ridiculous and just the kind of cheezy, unoriginal writing that plagued it, IMO. @@robanks3895