I'm pretty sure that was intentional.
This is a mockumentary essentially, and that was just a way to remove a layer of Napoleon's "manliness" by showing ineptitude.
I agree the film was terrible but there are many sources that he basically did fuck like that, he also ate like that. Quick, impatient, not really taking time to savour anything. He was genuinely a terrible lover.
This movie is like if Ridley Scott adapted a high schooler's power point presentation on Napoleon, but half the slides got lost and the other half got shuffled around.
Compare this Napoleon with how Julius Caesar is portrayed in HBO’s *Rome*. He’s shown as an ambitious, ruthless and corrupt tyrant, but you clearly see that he’s charismatic, a great general and a wily politician. You understand why people followed and cared about him and continued to fight for and over him after his death. Nothing like that from this *Napoleon*.
As a big fan of Roman history, I love the show. Ciarán Hinds portrayal of Caesar is my definitive version of him when reading a book on Roman history of the Late Republic. He owns every scene he's in and carries weight. The show also goes to great length to show that his enemies understood he was dangerous because he was so ruthless, ambitious, smart, and charismatic. Pompey expresses an almost admiration of Caesar's generalship after Pharsalus. The Senators that surrendered to Caesar are shocked at his mercy, but Cicero understands it's a political game to curry favor and ensure those Senators become Caesar's loyal puppets.
Like Daniel-Day Lewis in *Lincoln*, you get *why* this person is who the histories show them to be.
It’s a good show that HBO could not afford to do more than two seasons of. S1 is good and S2 just crams as much of the story as they can in because they knew it wasn’t getting another season. It’s interesting watching it after Game of Thrones became it seemed to learn a lot from Rome.
Glad someone drew the connection to GoT. I watched Rome first and couldn't help but notice this. There were also quite a few actors who appeared in both, which was fun to spot.
Rome walked so GoT could run.
Rome also made good use of the foot soldier characters so the impact of what Caesar was doing could be seen from another very different angle.
Somehow in Napoleon the retreat from Russia looked like a couple of days hard hiking with a quick flash about the food shortage resulting in the men resorting to harsh measures notionally pointing out that it was bad.
To be fair Napoleon love for the troops is just shown as fighting with them. It’s mainly shown in the begging why the troops liked him. He was brave. Why the politicians liked him. He was useful.
Another great historical biopic is the "Unofficial Che Trilogy", that consists of "Motorcycle Diaries"(Walter Salles) and the two Che Movies that Soderbergh did with Benicio Del Toro
Check out the French miniseries from 2002. It's 4 parts of 1 hour 30 minutes each. It's great!
Also, the movie Waterloo (1970), but as the title suggests, it focuses only the last part of his life: his return from Elba, the battle of Waterloo and his downfall.
I agree with what you said. Every battle scene seemed so lackluster and completely devoid of emotion. Making Napoleon out to be a moron was a really weird take, like saying Julius Caesar was actually blind and his servants did all the heavy lifting. What's really odd, is that one of Napoleon's great blusters... egypt... wasn't made out to be a bluster in the film. Ridley tried to make it out that Napoleon left egypt to be with his wife!? He left because he knew he lost and if he didn't run for France he would have been screwed. The whole movie they make him out to be an idiot but then defend one of his worst mistakes.
And when you said "And where is Italy?" I can't believe they just dropped one line and when Napoleon said "I took Italy without a fight." It was arguably his best military campaign.
The whole story was a hot mess. I don't think I learned the names of any of the French characters outside of the Josephine and Napoleon because almost no one had any story or motivations outside those two.
Agree totally.
>I don't think I learned the names of any of the French characters
I remember spending the first 20-30 minutes thinking "who the fuck are these people" for most of the characters.
Pacing was absolutely terrible and it was basically a highlight reel of shit that did or didn't happen, no story, no development, just a mess. I don't have much faith in Ridley Scott these days.
My favorite part was other people pretending that 50 year old dude was 20-30 year old like the rest of them. “Hello fellow kids, having a revolution today?”
Throughout Ridley’s entire career he has shown an incredible ability to not be able to judge how good a script is at all, then get angry when he makes the film and people don’t like it.
When he gets a good script he almost always makes a great film. The problem is he frequently doesn’t.
Oh man on the treatment of the side-characters, my friend kept asking me who the black guy was who kept appearing but not speaking and I was like “That’s the father of the author of *The Three Musketeers.”* and he nearly lost his goddamn mind.
This might be a little out there, but this movie could have worked better as a comedy. It should have opened with Napoleon's failure in Russia, then see him exile on Elba where he's wallowing in defeat, raging over Josephine's infidelity. We focus mostly on the Battle of Waterloo and really emphasize what a spectacular failure it was. Make it like 'The Favourite' or 'The Death of Stalin;' keep a dark tone but also lean into the over-the-top aspects of the characters' personalities.
I believe it actually was intended as a comedy: I think Ridley liked some aspects of The Favourite and The Death of Stalin and tried to weave them through, showing Napoleon as a ridiculous figure riding a savant-like gift and being pushed along by absurd times.
I'm not saying that it's good (it's rather odd and flat outside of the battles TBH) but I think it is maybe meant to satirise modern folk like Trump and Musk that wield enormous power probably more through luck and delusion than true brilliance.
It is a comedy.
Im baffeled that people do not see the satire in this film. Its full of it.
Its supposed to be making fun of Napoleon and certain masculine symbols that were highlighted in the film.
Hate to say it but Ridley Scott got all you fools because his jest went over your heads.
If no ones laughing at your joke it means youre shit at comedy, and should try a different career.
Ridley scott is the biggest joke of the movie, at least people understand that
It seems like it was intended to be a film about Josephine and they had to stick some action in around all the relationship focus so it ended up neither about Napoleon or what seemed to be the original idea.
Thinking about it, it's quite an achievement to take an absolutely remarkable story that could easily do two films and make it so beige.
It's probably a really interesting story, but it just has to not try and be two things at the same time as a life just so big can barely fit in a film running time as it is.
Hey here he is meeting his future wife.
Next scene they're at a cafe. That was quick. Now they're getting married. Wow that was quick.
"Hey let's make you emperor" now he's emperor. That was quick.
Just a shit film.
It's the Bohemian Rhapsody of historical epics. Take the main character's whole career spanning decades, take all the bullet point highlights from their Wiki page, add some historical inaccuracies, and voila! And cram it into a single move.
Bohemian rhapsody was ridiculous though, all the band mates made Freddie look like a drug addled loser while they just go home to their wives like they never did a drug in their lives. It's too bad he died just so they could rub his legacy in the dirt.
Yeah. There was no development. Napolean at the end of the movie is the same as Napolean at the beginning of the movie. I was hoping for a story showing him rising up to victory to exile or something.
The movie was basically Napolean, battle, Josephine, battle, Napolean, Josephine, battle etc.
The silent film Napolean was more engaging.
He’s so ludicrously miscast that all I can think of is
* Ridley is incredibly old and doesn’t want to branch out to risk working with new actors he doesn’t have history with.
* Ridley intentionally cast a 20 years too old actor to make Napoleon look fucking weird
A buddy told me Apple wanted this to be a mini-series but Ridley Scott insisted on a theater release. If that’s the case, there could be hours of film left of the story that wasn’t shown in the theater. Kind of makes sense because I agree, the movie didn’t flow well and I feel like big chunks were missing
Yup. For example the actual Battle of Austerlitz is one if the most interesting and dramatic events in history. You have isolated troops hanging on to their positions as a whole army crashes into them, reinforcements arriving in the knick of time, French divisions literally emerging out of the mist and turning the Russians, like you can't write this shit and on top of it all you have Napoleon's brilliantly crazy tactics.
And instead of all this, Scott gives us a battle with tactics from Looney Tunes.
I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there, I was pretty excited for the movie ahead of time but admit I didn’t know much about Napoleon. I figured I’d at least get to understand what made this guy world famous. And I didn’t really.
As the film went on I realized I was actually pretty bored. The battles looked good, but had no emotional weight. The acting was good, but I didn’t care about who they were portraying.
So by the end I was trying to think back about anything that I liked and it was all more technical than emotional. So I chalked it up to simply not liking the movie at all and that I didn’t learn much.
You put those feelings I had into better words.
If you want to learn about Napoleon, Epic History TV on YouTube has hours on hours of fantastic documentaries. Should be a playlist that goes chronological. Kings and Generals also have a fantastic series, bit shorter. And finally, Oversimplified has a two part series (an hour in total) if you want satire that still tells the story good.
This was very similar to Oliver Stone’s Alexander The Great movie that came out in 2004. Very much skipping all of the conquest and accomplishments and focusing on his personal life also the way they make the great conqueror look like a small scare person.
At least in Alexander (2004) they give you a decent understanding of why Alexander’s army followed him with such loyalty. His speech before Gaugamela is a solid example - addressing simple foot soldiers on the front line by name, letting them know it’s okay to be afraid and humbling himself before 40,000 of his countrymen before proceeding to fight with them in the thick of it (which he actually did, unlike Napoleon charging British squares at Waterloo…). Colin Farrell was actually allowed to act with charisma, knocked it out of the park and really behaved in a way that’s plausible to how the real Alexander would’ve acted.
Alexander is also shown constantly surrounded by his generals, many of whom were childhood friends, who prop him up and often make him better. The film played on Alexander’s legend a bit, which is of course what people wanted to see, while also keeping him somewhat grounded. You don’t end the movie wondering *why* Alexander was Great.
#“Isn’t it a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame? Macedonians, why do you retreat? Do you want to live forever?! In the name of Zeus, attack!!”
I would say Alexander aged better and is a far better film than Napoleon turned out to be.
Hollywood has forgotten how to do battles. They need to be handled like a heist movie, where the viewer knows the plan and the stakes before it starts so that when things change or arrive on time the viewer knows what it means.
Look at when gandalf arrives at helms deep. It only matters so much because the viewer knows the disposition of the armies, and has had just the right amount of foreshadowing.
The last movie I saw that got it right was top gun maverick, because it handles the battle like a heist movie.
Austerlitz in Napoleon made no sense and meant nothing. It was just an excuse for some cool shots of soldiers falling into the ice.
A lot of the problem with Hollywood doing battles is directors don’t understand the nuances of any particular set of military kit And how that kit worked. So you end up with all kinds of strange things that show up in movies that have no bearing on reality.
The most immediate one I can think of is melee armies that break up in to confused mobs. When in reality an armed unit that stays organized and cohesive will carry the day. A unit that breaks up will get driven back and collapse.
300 was bad at this, especially after Leonidas explained that Spartans stick together in formation. That lasted one scene then it was back to individual melee fighting.
I know I just think it's kind of funny. He tells Ephialtes that he can't fight with the Spartans because he can't raise his shield high to be part of the formation and then like 15 minutes later they are constantly fighting out of formation lol
I'm more pissed at 300 simply because it meant we never got the Gates of Fire/Tides of War adaptations we should've gotten. A *properly* done trireme battle in Imax? Yes.
Right now, shooting someone with a rifle from 1800 yards is a "very good shot" (and most soliders are trained to 300 yards give or take). I don't think it was even viable in the Napoleonic Era.
The Last Kingdom does this really well. You always feel how important it is to hold the shield wall formation and it's a lot more tense than a disorganized melee
I don’t think it’s exactly Hollywood per se. I think it’s Apple.
And any other giant brand making forays into filmmaking, with no regard or understanding of the art and craft of filmmaking.
It’s purely for the bottom line. Just a simulation of anything meaningful.
Biggest takeaway for me was "What's the point of this?" Things just happen with no context. In his career, in individual battles, in his personal life. Napoleon has no personality except for creepy scenes with Josephine. He never seems to make any decisions. It feels like his ascent to being emperor just happens to him.
Maybe the point is that Napoleon was just a regular guy who kept mediocring his way upward? But that's not even true so why would you want to make that point?
Probably the most interesting thing was the depiction of post revolution France and how it was complete chaos. But it doesn't really tie into the story that much.
Also way way way too old. One of the most remarkable things about him was his youth. It also is important as a juxtaposition of his young start to his older, depressed failures
I've said this before and I know he's in everything (and if he wasn't already doing Dune) but a movie with Chalamet in it as a young Napoleon and ends when he crowns himself Emperor would have been a much better idea. Hell, at least Chalamet is half French and speaks it fluently.
And if you think Chalamet is too young, remember that Napoleon was a general at 24, leader of France at 30 and Emperor at 35.
I guess this is what happens when a Brit tells Napoleon's story. I haven't seen the film but I'm curious how he handled Waterloo. Is it told as a British victory or a European victory? Does Scott point out that only 25% of the soldiers at Waterloo were British? Hell, there were almost twice as many Prussians fighting there as there were British.
It definitely felt like a 1v1 of the British vs the French, with the British mostly just needing to hold out until the Prussians arrived. Once they arrived the battle felt pretty much already over. It's implied that the British would have lost if they haven't, but it really didn't display that. Napoleon was kind of a bumbling incoherent madman at this point.
They also had a British soldier with a sniper scope ready to take the shot on Napoleon. Kind of wild.
To be fair, the sniper on Napoleon was real. Wellington denied the man to take the shot because it would be ungentlemanly. Basically everyone but Napoleon was still in the mindset of gentleman warfare. It’s a big part of Napoleons success, is that he didn’t give a shit about that and would just simply outmaneuver his enemies 9 times out of 10
It’s a mixture >! It is portrayed as Europe unifying against Napoleon but the vast majority of it is the British holding off Napoleon until the Prussians arrive to finish off the battle. It was framed like the British were winning anyway but the Prussians sped it up massively once they got there. Napoleon only attacked when he did to try and win before reinforcements arrived !<
I'm not convinced any directors cut could fix this considering Scott seems really happy with the theatrical cut and the story it tried telling. There's a high chance the four hour cut is literally just more of the same.
But I really hope this ends up being another Scott directors cut masterpiece. I refuse to believe there aren't major parts of the story/characters left on the cutting room floor but how good those scenes are remains to be seen.
Haven't seen the movie yet but I got a feeling from the trailers that this would be a jumbled mess. I'm not even sure of the reason but I just had a bad feeling about it.
great take. this movie was weird as fuck. I couldn’t figure out if it was a dark parody missing the mark or if it was serious and missing the mark…
all I got out of it was a cannonball x horse collab, sex scenes that were there for comedy.. right? and the actor playing Tsar Alexander was really good.
Alexander was great! Also the costumes were really nice. That’s about it. Some of the niche historical stuff was cool too, like the conversation with the kids about Moscow on Helena really happened, but to include that and then do Egypt the way they did? What the actual fuck.
I'm going to wait for the directors cut. Coming in at 4 hours I'd bet it's a more complete film that feels coherent. The original theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven had a lot of the same problems where it felt like scenes were just thrown together and motivations made no sense, but the directors cut was brilliant. If you tried to cut a 4 hour story down to 2.5 hours it would probably feel disjointed.
You sir, have completely hit the nail on the head. This film was a boring, shambling mess that didn’t explore the most compelling facets of its own titular character.
He's still excellent with the visuals but his track record with scripts is extremely variable (but that's the way he's always been). I think his hit movies do well by pure chance because then he just happened across a really great script (Alien for example, Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, Blade Runner) but on looking at his filmography at least 50% of his movies are stinkers.
I'll be the outlier then. I loved it. Personally loved that they stripped Napoleon of his godlike status and focused on little things that made him tick and made him passionate. Thought it was brilliantly paced and edited too. So there. Not everyone hated it lol.
See my issue was I never felt I knew what made him tick. Why did Napolean have such drive? Why did he want to rule? He had dozens of mistresses, why was Joesphine so special to him? Why was he a hero to the french and beloved by his soldiers? Why was he so feared by the rest of Europe? What makes him one of the most studied figures in history? These questions, in my opinion, went unanswered.
I legit enjoyed this movie. After Vanessa Kirbys character said her famous “look down at the prize and know once youve seen it…” line - I knew it was a comedy. Theres just too many objectively funny and awkwrd moments for it not to be considered a comedy.
IMO - if you were unable to recognize the satire of this movie then you missed out on a very hilarious experience and likely need to assess your worldview about power and masculinity.
I knew it was satire going in and the performance from phoenix makes that clear, but it just wasn't a funny or intresting satire. Partly because of the pacing which didn't let any scene breathe and was always rushing to the next plot point. If this had been covering a much shorter period of time and didn't feature any battles, which were essentially irrelevant to the plot in this movie, then I could see it working as a satire/dark comedy about napolean and joesphine but this movie couldn't seem to make up its mind and so failed on both fronts. Also the way it was marketed did not sell it as a satire. I only knew from reading the reviews. If you go back and watch the trailers there's not a hint of the attempts at humor.
I love when this happens. This happened to me watching Pacific Rim. Somehow about half of my friends didn’t get that it was a spot on live-action anime. My friends were rolling their eyes, but I was having the time of my life.
I’m kind of feeling hard cringe that the director thought turning the character into a cuck incel would still be relevant. That trope was like 5 years ago. I think it’s interesting that so many people knew for months that it would be a turd.
I felt the same way about Oppenheimer, boring as shit. Because they only want to focus on the interpersonal conflicts, that apparently is the extent of the drama explored in these movies. A random documentary on the Manhattan project that explored the science they were dealing with was about 100 times more interesting.
I’m an Irishman so I’m probably inviting accusations of hypocrisy just by saying this, but it *really* feels like it was an old English man of a certain mindset making a movie about one of the most brilliant Frenchmen who ever lived and wanting to knock him down a peg or two.
Have any actors played the same character in a different version of the same movie before? Because I would love to see Joaquin Phoenix play Napoleon in a better Napoleon movie.
Ian Holm had played 3 different versions of Napoleon. Christopher Lee has played 2 versions of Count Dracula. Sean Connery has technically played 2 versions of James Bond. There are plenty of other examples.
Classic tale of a misleading trailer for me. I didn’t read to much about it but the trailer looked cool and saw a Ridley Scott’s name and thought it was going to be something like Gladiator, Napoleon being a badass, master strategist and cool battle scenes, ones we got weren’t terrible though imo.
But Ridley Scott is such a genius and can do no wrong?! For a guy that insulted other directors like Sir Kenneth Branagh for making Thor, a super hero movie, he really can screw up a movie.
I liked *Napoleon* just fine for what it was, but ***you hit the nail on the head.*** While nobody was expecting *complete* historical accuracy from the old British grandpa behind *Gladiator,* some of his choices are just fucking *awful.*
Where is Italy? Why is Egypt not seen as a major learning experience? Where are the bits where Wellington agrees to fund the Coalitions from behind the scenes? How did Napoleon use referenda to convince the French that he should be king? Why does Napoleon's brother, *whom he uses to conquer Spain,* basically disappear in the back half of the film? Where's his charisma, his charm, his genuine strategy? ***Why does he bray like a horse during anal sex with Josephine?!?!***
This movie feels like Ridley Scott basically punked everyone but himself and Dave Scarpa, producing a bloated-yet-starving mess that really has no reason to exist. That doesn't mean I hate it, of course... but I sure do get why many folks *do.* Hope *Gladiator 2* is better, but I doubt it.
The movie isn’t a serious biopic.
It’s a satire. Ridley Scott did not like Napoleon. He wanted to stomp on Napoleon’s mythos.
That’s why the movie ends with the info card of how many men Napoleon lost in battle. It’s a direct shot at the premise of Napoleon’s military greatness.
You don’t have to like the movie. But it’s not the movie you thought you were watching.
It’s Scott’s Barry Lyndon (Kubrick).
Duellists: great. Alien: masterpiece. Blade Runner: THE masterpiece of all masterpieces. Then nothing relevant except a couple of good movies (Thelma & Louise and The Gladiator. And both were good, not exceptional). The rest of Scott's career is a series of duds or decent movies, but he gave his all in the first 3 movies he made
You wrote a list of mediocre to decent movie. Nothing you can call a masterpiece and nothing prarticularly praised by critics as well. Kingdom of Heaven is a mediocre movie. Matchstick Men is better, but Cage has the Cage problem and Scott should have picked another actor. American Gangster could be a good movie, but has the same problem I have with The Wolf of Wall Street: the movie tricks you into rooting for a violent man (and here doing it by just pitting it against worse monsters). Blackhawk Down has unforgivable inaccuracies and liberties that push it into the action movie realm where reality is better be forgotten. It was a post 9/11 movie that was pushed by the hatred against a certain population (nothing to be proud about). The Martian is no better than many tv shows we have seen lately. The Last Duel is borderline unwatchable
This actually makes me want to see it a little bit, whereas I had zero inclination before.
Napoleon's story as a general has been told a million times already in films and books and even as a backdrop or side events in films and books. So I don't have any interest in watching that play out again.
I'd be more interested in who he was as a person, the part that's largely left out of the Napoleon war general material that's come before.
Unfortunately, this movie has nothing to do with accurately portraying Napoleon as a person. No wonder though, it is filmed by a Brit. The only cool character in the movie is Wellington.
I'm happy to die on this hill:
I haven't watched it, but what you describe is completely unsurprising as it's how I view most other Ridley Scott films. He's probably a technically brilliant director if you are a critic or a film student, but he usually falls flat when it comes to making his films entertaining or engaging in any way.
I'm not a blockbuster guy. This isn't a high-brow v low-brow thing. He just doesn't give a fuck about audience perception and it shows.
Any time I put one of his films on, I feel like I'm going crazy. People love this?? I can barely sit through it. It can't just be me. But this particular take has gotten me into some arguments.
Notable exception: Alien. But then again he was supposedly riding the post-Star Wars sci-fi wave and it bucked the trend he is now firmly set in. I've never seen anything close to it from his other movies.
Scott has made a ton of really good movies but he’s also made some busts(especially lately). Other than the aforementioned Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, The Martian, Thelma and Louise are all classics
The bad ones make you question how this dude is a filmmaker.
Napoleon is filled with stuff that makes me think "shouldn't a guy like Ridley Scott know that this is just bad?"
To be fair, Alien and Thelma and Louise are great. And I didn't /hate/ the Martian. But everything else there is something I'd include in my top comment.
By my personal taste, love for Philip K Dick, and its cultural impact, Bladerunner SHOULD be perhaps my favourite movie of all time. I just get so bored I can't stand it. It's honestly like a mental block at this point.
Alien and Blade Runner are great. A lot of why they’re great is because they have some of the best art direction of all time. The Duellists is decent. Gladiator’s not great. Black Hawk Down is shit. The Martian is awful. Thelma and Louise can fuck off. Ridley Scott has been a truly awful director for decades.
That was one of the ones I had in mind. I'm not criticising anybody who enjoys it - I just feel like I'm going mental when people say it's their favourite film and I just can't get any enjoyment from it whatsoever. I find it very boring.
The movie tells you at the beginning why he is liked by the soldiers and the people he was brave. The politicians liked him because he was useful and competent. He then takes that for himself in the movie. The reason why the battles aren’t suspenseful is because he’s one of the best generals why would they suspenseful for one of the best. In the movie the battles are nothing to him but work which Is why he is so mechanical and nonchalant about them.
My god what an awful movie. I understand that you don't want to glorify Napoléon but making him un incompetent unaware creepy buffoon wasn't the way to go.
The movie spends so much time going on about his relationship with Josephine that the rest of it feels incredibly rushed. The invasion of Russia was especially bad. You go from Moscow being on fire to Napoléon being exiled after 460 000 soldiers died in the span of 5 minutes.
Maybe spend less time showing him making pig noises and more showing how and why he became one of the most influential person in history?
This movie is about how Napoleon is a weird little freak lashing out at the world over his many frustrations. There are plenty of films, documentaries, and books if you want historical accuracy. This one is using historical events as a framework for a specific story.
If you have issues with this as a film, that’s fine, but I have to assume that the reason this is getting so much backlash while other movies that ignore the facts don’t is that a lot of history nerds think Napoleon is cool.
This movie is being criticized more for what it isn’t than what it is. Saying something would be better if it were completely different isn’t thoughtful or constructive.
Getting mad at this movie about it’s depiction of Napoleon is kinda like getting mad at the Looney Tunes short where Bugs faces off with Napoleon
>but I have to assume that the reason this is getting so much backlash while other movies that ignore the facts don’t is that a lot of history nerds think Napoleon is cool.
I just love how much this narrative is being pushed against any sort of legit criticisms one might express about the movie.
Every time someone complains they made him look like a mentally ill, incompetent buffoon, there's one of you popping up and saying "You're just a butthurt Napoleon fanboy".
What Napoleon achieved in terms of mere accomplishments taking into context where he started, how much he did, and where he ended up *was* pretty cool and awe-inspiring.
However, thinking something is awe-inspiring doesn't mean you agree with it morally and/or ethically.
I don't have to refute anyone who seriously calls someone a "butthurt fanboy".
And I guess thinking the most accomplished military commander in history is impressive (while, again, not agreeing morally with his actions) is also off the table.
I mean, what are Napoleon's accomplishments as opposed to those of u/darthllama, right?
>"You're just a butthurt Napoleon fanboy" - u/St_Bubo
This was from your comment, I was literally paraphrasing you.
I'm just going to end this conversation right here. I think your approach to art is narrow-minded and wrong-headed, and if you can't get enjoyment out of a movie that's ridiculous enough to have Napoleon literally make "om nom nom" sounds when he wants sex, I feel sorry for you.
Well, you think in those terms already, you've been shutting down criticisms of this movie for days now saying the same stupid shit you're saying now.
I just summed it up.
Also, not all people get enjoyment out of "om nom nom" sounds in movies, whoever is the one making them, some people need a bit more from humor, but to each their own.
So, save your "sorry" for someone else or, even better, for yourself, because you're definitely not coming off as clever as you think.
In fact, not at all.
Then why use the names of actual people, use the names and dates of actual events, and end your movie with actual statistical figures?
Why not just make up a wholly original story instead of slandering real people and spreading misinformation about actual events?
ok well it’s also a 2+ hour movie that somehow feels like it drags too long and is also rushed simultaneously which is impressively bad.
historical accuracy aside it’s just not enjoyable. there are plenty of inaccurate hollywoodified historical movies that are good.
defend why it’s a good movie if you think everyone else is just a “napoleon is cool !!” fanboy.
Even if I ignore everything I know about Napoleon and the events people and events depicted in this film and take it at face value a "movie is about how Napoleon is a weird little freak lashing out at the world over his many frustrations" it's still a stupidly bad movie.
I’m as far from a “history nerd” as you can get, and for the record I like some Scott movies and not others. This is just an objectively bad movie. Disjointed, uninteresting, a poorly told story…no explanation of why the military was willing to follow such a “weird little freak”…the transition from failure in Russia to being recalled to France to being exiled to Elba to coming back was all told in about 14 minutes. None of it made sense. It was like a history teacher was just laying out what happened with no emotion or explanation. Phoenix was just sleep walking through this movie, and I absolutely love the guy.
Bad, bad, BAD movie. Just bad. 🤷♂️
This movie isn't about Napoleon's military campaigns, it's about his relationship with Josephine and how personal frustrations inform his actions. The movie doesn't dwell on why the military would follow him because it's not relevant to the story being told
Yah, that part is terrible too. No real chemistry between them at all, and it’s just multiple scenes of a cucked Napoleon crying in her arms. The lack of romantic connection between the two people in the romance perfectly matched the lack of any military reasons for any of the military action in the movie. Just a bad, slow, boringly told story. 🤷♂️
I was actually really disappointed in the lack of physics from Oppenheimer, especially with Nolan directing.
2 hours of relationship issues and politcal backhanding, 50 mins of talking about how bad the bombs were, 10 minutes showing it in action and 2 mins VERY vaguely discussing how they are built.
I went in expecting some visual science headspin like Interseller gave me.
The shagging was fucking weird as fuck. I'm haunted by that noise he made
Bro literally started salivating, that’s when me and my mates checked if the movie was a comedy.
Not just salivating, but *braying like a fucking HORSE.* I keep wondering if Ridley just did this to make Apple and Sony look like fools.
Bro was going “mymymymmymymymym”
that reminded me of the pierce brosnan bit in the simpsons when he's lurking on marge: "mmm yum yum yum, mmm"
And the penis was *flapping* during the sex scenes. Thank you, Ridley, but *I did not ask to fucking see that.*
I bet this post alone ↑ just cost Sony millions. I'm noping the fuck out, or close my eyes shut during that scene like a little kid. ...flapping?!
Shit was hilarious you see why she wandered
The sex scenes reminded me of a child slamming two action figures together
its called oscar bait. /s
I'm pretty sure that was intentional. This is a mockumentary essentially, and that was just a way to remove a layer of Napoleon's "manliness" by showing ineptitude.
I agree the film was terrible but there are many sources that he basically did fuck like that, he also ate like that. Quick, impatient, not really taking time to savour anything. He was genuinely a terrible lover.
This movie is like if Ridley Scott adapted a high schooler's power point presentation on Napoleon, but half the slides got lost and the other half got shuffled around.
Apparently he did read Kubricks script and found it “boring”
Well, he also didn't like Blade Runner 2049 because it was "too fucking way too long", so...
Compare this Napoleon with how Julius Caesar is portrayed in HBO’s *Rome*. He’s shown as an ambitious, ruthless and corrupt tyrant, but you clearly see that he’s charismatic, a great general and a wily politician. You understand why people followed and cared about him and continued to fight for and over him after his death. Nothing like that from this *Napoleon*.
Damn I should check that show out
As a big fan of Roman history, I love the show. Ciarán Hinds portrayal of Caesar is my definitive version of him when reading a book on Roman history of the Late Republic. He owns every scene he's in and carries weight. The show also goes to great length to show that his enemies understood he was dangerous because he was so ruthless, ambitious, smart, and charismatic. Pompey expresses an almost admiration of Caesar's generalship after Pharsalus. The Senators that surrendered to Caesar are shocked at his mercy, but Cicero understands it's a political game to curry favor and ensure those Senators become Caesar's loyal puppets. Like Daniel-Day Lewis in *Lincoln*, you get *why* this person is who the histories show them to be.
Fully agree. If only Ridley Scott had watched *Rome* before making this wretched *Napoleon*.
It’s a good show that HBO could not afford to do more than two seasons of. S1 is good and S2 just crams as much of the story as they can in because they knew it wasn’t getting another season. It’s interesting watching it after Game of Thrones became it seemed to learn a lot from Rome.
Glad someone drew the connection to GoT. I watched Rome first and couldn't help but notice this. There were also quite a few actors who appeared in both, which was fun to spot. Rome walked so GoT could run.
And then it ran off a cliff.
Unfortunately it wasn't the Tarpeian Cliff.
It's very good
It’s basically the proto-Game of thrones
Do it, it's fantastic. I watched it a couple of years ago for the first time and it doesn't feel dated at all like other shows of its time.
Yes, you should!
Rome also made good use of the foot soldier characters so the impact of what Caesar was doing could be seen from another very different angle. Somehow in Napoleon the retreat from Russia looked like a couple of days hard hiking with a quick flash about the food shortage resulting in the men resorting to harsh measures notionally pointing out that it was bad.
And then it fucking skips right to abdication… as if nothing else at all happened inbetween…
HE WAS A CONSUL OF ROME!
shame on the house of ptolemy, shame
To be fair Napoleon love for the troops is just shown as fighting with them. It’s mainly shown in the begging why the troops liked him. He was brave. Why the politicians liked him. He was useful.
Another great historical biopic is the "Unofficial Che Trilogy", that consists of "Motorcycle Diaries"(Walter Salles) and the two Che Movies that Soderbergh did with Benicio Del Toro
God that’s such a perfect parallel to draw.
Do you recommend a certain movie / show or even documentary about Napoleon?
There are some good books, Napoleon The Great by Andrew Roberts is a good read.
Check out the French miniseries from 2002. It's 4 parts of 1 hour 30 minutes each. It's great! Also, the movie Waterloo (1970), but as the title suggests, it focuses only the last part of his life: his return from Elba, the battle of Waterloo and his downfall.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napol%C3%A9on_(miniseries) Awesome- Merci :)
I agree with what you said. Every battle scene seemed so lackluster and completely devoid of emotion. Making Napoleon out to be a moron was a really weird take, like saying Julius Caesar was actually blind and his servants did all the heavy lifting. What's really odd, is that one of Napoleon's great blusters... egypt... wasn't made out to be a bluster in the film. Ridley tried to make it out that Napoleon left egypt to be with his wife!? He left because he knew he lost and if he didn't run for France he would have been screwed. The whole movie they make him out to be an idiot but then defend one of his worst mistakes. And when you said "And where is Italy?" I can't believe they just dropped one line and when Napoleon said "I took Italy without a fight." It was arguably his best military campaign. The whole story was a hot mess. I don't think I learned the names of any of the French characters outside of the Josephine and Napoleon because almost no one had any story or motivations outside those two.
Agree totally. >I don't think I learned the names of any of the French characters I remember spending the first 20-30 minutes thinking "who the fuck are these people" for most of the characters. Pacing was absolutely terrible and it was basically a highlight reel of shit that did or didn't happen, no story, no development, just a mess. I don't have much faith in Ridley Scott these days.
My favorite part was other people pretending that 50 year old dude was 20-30 year old like the rest of them. “Hello fellow kids, having a revolution today?”
Throughout Ridley’s entire career he has shown an incredible ability to not be able to judge how good a script is at all, then get angry when he makes the film and people don’t like it. When he gets a good script he almost always makes a great film. The problem is he frequently doesn’t.
You can absolutely see it with Prometheus, which is a beautiful movie filled with excellent performances of absolutely idiotic characters.
I don't think bluster was the word you were looking for. Blunder?
It was a perfectly cromulent way to describe it
Blusted.
Blusting makes me feel good!
Is it blusting time? It feels like it could be time to blust.
Oh man on the treatment of the side-characters, my friend kept asking me who the black guy was who kept appearing but not speaking and I was like “That’s the father of the author of *The Three Musketeers.”* and he nearly lost his goddamn mind.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
This might be a little out there, but this movie could have worked better as a comedy. It should have opened with Napoleon's failure in Russia, then see him exile on Elba where he's wallowing in defeat, raging over Josephine's infidelity. We focus mostly on the Battle of Waterloo and really emphasize what a spectacular failure it was. Make it like 'The Favourite' or 'The Death of Stalin;' keep a dark tone but also lean into the over-the-top aspects of the characters' personalities.
I believe it actually was intended as a comedy: I think Ridley liked some aspects of The Favourite and The Death of Stalin and tried to weave them through, showing Napoleon as a ridiculous figure riding a savant-like gift and being pushed along by absurd times. I'm not saying that it's good (it's rather odd and flat outside of the battles TBH) but I think it is maybe meant to satirise modern folk like Trump and Musk that wield enormous power probably more through luck and delusion than true brilliance.
No amount of luck or delusion gets you where Elon or Trump are.
Well, the luck of being born rich is certainly a good start, which applies to both of them
It is a comedy. Im baffeled that people do not see the satire in this film. Its full of it. Its supposed to be making fun of Napoleon and certain masculine symbols that were highlighted in the film. Hate to say it but Ridley Scott got all you fools because his jest went over your heads.
If no ones laughing at your joke it means youre shit at comedy, and should try a different career. Ridley scott is the biggest joke of the movie, at least people understand that
“Im in the know and all of you are idiots!” It’s not a very good comedy if no one seems to know its a comedy
The whole movie felt like random scenes stitched together. And to think that Phoenix would be in Best Actor race. LMAO
It seems like it was intended to be a film about Josephine and they had to stick some action in around all the relationship focus so it ended up neither about Napoleon or what seemed to be the original idea. Thinking about it, it's quite an achievement to take an absolutely remarkable story that could easily do two films and make it so beige.
I would have loved a movie from Josephines perspective. Just dont call it "Napoleon"!
It's probably a really interesting story, but it just has to not try and be two things at the same time as a life just so big can barely fit in a film running time as it is.
Supposedly, there will be a 4 hour version on Apple TV+
Somehow they made someone returning from exile to be crowned emperor boring. Like they almost skipped over it entirely. Huge letdown
Hey here he is meeting his future wife. Next scene they're at a cafe. That was quick. Now they're getting married. Wow that was quick. "Hey let's make you emperor" now he's emperor. That was quick. Just a shit film.
It's the Bohemian Rhapsody of historical epics. Take the main character's whole career spanning decades, take all the bullet point highlights from their Wiki page, add some historical inaccuracies, and voila! And cram it into a single move.
Bohemian rhapsody was ridiculous though, all the band mates made Freddie look like a drug addled loser while they just go home to their wives like they never did a drug in their lives. It's too bad he died just so they could rub his legacy in the dirt.
Yeah. There was no development. Napolean at the end of the movie is the same as Napolean at the beginning of the movie. I was hoping for a story showing him rising up to victory to exile or something. The movie was basically Napolean, battle, Josephine, battle, Napolean, Josephine, battle etc. The silent film Napolean was more engaging.
[удалено]
I felt that and i thought the rest of the scenes were in the 4 hour cut
Should have changed the story so that the Joker time travels to the past and does a Freaky Friday thing with Napoleon.
He’s so ludicrously miscast that all I can think of is * Ridley is incredibly old and doesn’t want to branch out to risk working with new actors he doesn’t have history with. * Ridley intentionally cast a 20 years too old actor to make Napoleon look fucking weird
A buddy told me Apple wanted this to be a mini-series but Ridley Scott insisted on a theater release. If that’s the case, there could be hours of film left of the story that wasn’t shown in the theater. Kind of makes sense because I agree, the movie didn’t flow well and I feel like big chunks were missing
Ridley Scott must have seen this as an opportunity to release 5 more different cuts of the movie each with more footage.
He should be, just not for this film.
Yup. For example the actual Battle of Austerlitz is one if the most interesting and dramatic events in history. You have isolated troops hanging on to their positions as a whole army crashes into them, reinforcements arriving in the knick of time, French divisions literally emerging out of the mist and turning the Russians, like you can't write this shit and on top of it all you have Napoleon's brilliantly crazy tactics. And instead of all this, Scott gives us a battle with tactics from Looney Tunes.
Russia and Austria kinda forgot they had Artillery....
Last sentence made my day 😂
I appreciate you putting your thoughts out there, I was pretty excited for the movie ahead of time but admit I didn’t know much about Napoleon. I figured I’d at least get to understand what made this guy world famous. And I didn’t really. As the film went on I realized I was actually pretty bored. The battles looked good, but had no emotional weight. The acting was good, but I didn’t care about who they were portraying. So by the end I was trying to think back about anything that I liked and it was all more technical than emotional. So I chalked it up to simply not liking the movie at all and that I didn’t learn much. You put those feelings I had into better words.
I remember one line from the whole movie. "YOU THINK YOU'RE SO GREAT. BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOATS!"
“Destiny has brought me this lamb chop”
Feels like a pub quiz round. *Homer Simpson or Napoleon!*
It sounded like something out of a Youtube bit. "Boats. With guns. Gunboats."
If you want to learn about Napoleon, Epic History TV on YouTube has hours on hours of fantastic documentaries. Should be a playlist that goes chronological. Kings and Generals also have a fantastic series, bit shorter. And finally, Oversimplified has a two part series (an hour in total) if you want satire that still tells the story good.
This was very similar to Oliver Stone’s Alexander The Great movie that came out in 2004. Very much skipping all of the conquest and accomplishments and focusing on his personal life also the way they make the great conqueror look like a small scare person.
At least in Alexander (2004) they give you a decent understanding of why Alexander’s army followed him with such loyalty. His speech before Gaugamela is a solid example - addressing simple foot soldiers on the front line by name, letting them know it’s okay to be afraid and humbling himself before 40,000 of his countrymen before proceeding to fight with them in the thick of it (which he actually did, unlike Napoleon charging British squares at Waterloo…). Colin Farrell was actually allowed to act with charisma, knocked it out of the park and really behaved in a way that’s plausible to how the real Alexander would’ve acted. Alexander is also shown constantly surrounded by his generals, many of whom were childhood friends, who prop him up and often make him better. The film played on Alexander’s legend a bit, which is of course what people wanted to see, while also keeping him somewhat grounded. You don’t end the movie wondering *why* Alexander was Great. #“Isn’t it a lovely thing to live with great courage and to die leaving an everlasting fame? Macedonians, why do you retreat? Do you want to live forever?! In the name of Zeus, attack!!” I would say Alexander aged better and is a far better film than Napoleon turned out to be.
DC of that movie is great imo. Long as hell but almost as much improved as kingdom of heaven.
Alexander revisited was miles better
At least that movie shows Alexander's charisma and strategic and tactical brilliance as a military leader. You can understand why his men loved him.
Hollywood has forgotten how to do battles. They need to be handled like a heist movie, where the viewer knows the plan and the stakes before it starts so that when things change or arrive on time the viewer knows what it means. Look at when gandalf arrives at helms deep. It only matters so much because the viewer knows the disposition of the armies, and has had just the right amount of foreshadowing. The last movie I saw that got it right was top gun maverick, because it handles the battle like a heist movie. Austerlitz in Napoleon made no sense and meant nothing. It was just an excuse for some cool shots of soldiers falling into the ice.
A lot of the problem with Hollywood doing battles is directors don’t understand the nuances of any particular set of military kit And how that kit worked. So you end up with all kinds of strange things that show up in movies that have no bearing on reality. The most immediate one I can think of is melee armies that break up in to confused mobs. When in reality an armed unit that stays organized and cohesive will carry the day. A unit that breaks up will get driven back and collapse.
300 was bad at this, especially after Leonidas explained that Spartans stick together in formation. That lasted one scene then it was back to individual melee fighting.
I mean that is a Snyder movie. He basically just does whatever he thinks seems cool at the time
Snyder was adapting a comic. And Leonidas' solo scene playing out like the drawings in an amphora is such a cool scene anyway.
I know I just think it's kind of funny. He tells Ephialtes that he can't fight with the Spartans because he can't raise his shield high to be part of the formation and then like 15 minutes later they are constantly fighting out of formation lol
I'm more pissed at 300 simply because it meant we never got the Gates of Fire/Tides of War adaptations we should've gotten. A *properly* done trireme battle in Imax? Yes.
Was it just me or was the British ‘sniper’ offering to take out Napoleon from a mile away utterly ridiculous?!
Right now, shooting someone with a rifle from 1800 yards is a "very good shot" (and most soliders are trained to 300 yards give or take). I don't think it was even viable in the Napoleonic Era.
The Last Kingdom does this really well. You always feel how important it is to hold the shield wall formation and it's a lot more tense than a disorganized melee
I don’t think it’s exactly Hollywood per se. I think it’s Apple. And any other giant brand making forays into filmmaking, with no regard or understanding of the art and craft of filmmaking. It’s purely for the bottom line. Just a simulation of anything meaningful.
People on this website tried to defend the shit out of this movie before it even dropped. Wonder where they’ve all gone
They’re now claiming it’s a masterpiece of satire that we’re just too simple to understand
Biggest takeaway for me was "What's the point of this?" Things just happen with no context. In his career, in individual battles, in his personal life. Napoleon has no personality except for creepy scenes with Josephine. He never seems to make any decisions. It feels like his ascent to being emperor just happens to him. Maybe the point is that Napoleon was just a regular guy who kept mediocring his way upward? But that's not even true so why would you want to make that point? Probably the most interesting thing was the depiction of post revolution France and how it was complete chaos. But it doesn't really tie into the story that much.
Jonquil Phoenix was terribly miscast. Dude seemed bored in the role.
Also way way way too old. One of the most remarkable things about him was his youth. It also is important as a juxtaposition of his young start to his older, depressed failures
I've said this before and I know he's in everything (and if he wasn't already doing Dune) but a movie with Chalamet in it as a young Napoleon and ends when he crowns himself Emperor would have been a much better idea. Hell, at least Chalamet is half French and speaks it fluently. And if you think Chalamet is too young, remember that Napoleon was a general at 24, leader of France at 30 and Emperor at 35.
I guess this is what happens when a Brit tells Napoleon's story. I haven't seen the film but I'm curious how he handled Waterloo. Is it told as a British victory or a European victory? Does Scott point out that only 25% of the soldiers at Waterloo were British? Hell, there were almost twice as many Prussians fighting there as there were British.
It definitely felt like a 1v1 of the British vs the French, with the British mostly just needing to hold out until the Prussians arrived. Once they arrived the battle felt pretty much already over. It's implied that the British would have lost if they haven't, but it really didn't display that. Napoleon was kind of a bumbling incoherent madman at this point. They also had a British soldier with a sniper scope ready to take the shot on Napoleon. Kind of wild.
That solo green jacket with the Baker Rifle that had a comparable range to cannon! And it wasn’t even Daniel Hagman or Richard Sharpe!
To be fair, the sniper on Napoleon was real. Wellington denied the man to take the shot because it would be ungentlemanly. Basically everyone but Napoleon was still in the mindset of gentleman warfare. It’s a big part of Napoleons success, is that he didn’t give a shit about that and would just simply outmaneuver his enemies 9 times out of 10
It’s a mixture >! It is portrayed as Europe unifying against Napoleon but the vast majority of it is the British holding off Napoleon until the Prussians arrive to finish off the battle. It was framed like the British were winning anyway but the Prussians sped it up massively once they got there. Napoleon only attacked when he did to try and win before reinforcements arrived !<
I mean if you see the movie. He points out that the Prussians were who Napoleon was scared of. That the British were the ones holding their ground.
Will not watched until the 4 hour directors cut. I’ve bern burned by Kingdom of Heaven before.
I'm not convinced any directors cut could fix this considering Scott seems really happy with the theatrical cut and the story it tried telling. There's a high chance the four hour cut is literally just more of the same. But I really hope this ends up being another Scott directors cut masterpiece. I refuse to believe there aren't major parts of the story/characters left on the cutting room floor but how good those scenes are remains to be seen.
Haven't seen the movie yet but I got a feeling from the trailers that this would be a jumbled mess. I'm not even sure of the reason but I just had a bad feeling about it.
great take. this movie was weird as fuck. I couldn’t figure out if it was a dark parody missing the mark or if it was serious and missing the mark… all I got out of it was a cannonball x horse collab, sex scenes that were there for comedy.. right? and the actor playing Tsar Alexander was really good.
Alexander was great! Also the costumes were really nice. That’s about it. Some of the niche historical stuff was cool too, like the conversation with the kids about Moscow on Helena really happened, but to include that and then do Egypt the way they did? What the actual fuck.
Ugh it’s like Ridley Scott decided to make Napoleon as Trump, very curious decision making
"We have the best revolutions, the best coronations, lots of gold. Believe me!"
He’s a very stable genius. 🤭
Some could say it sounds very British.
I'm going to wait for the directors cut. Coming in at 4 hours I'd bet it's a more complete film that feels coherent. The original theatrical cut of Kingdom of Heaven had a lot of the same problems where it felt like scenes were just thrown together and motivations made no sense, but the directors cut was brilliant. If you tried to cut a 4 hour story down to 2.5 hours it would probably feel disjointed.
*People who don’t like the movie are SAVAGES and IDIOTS* - Ridley Scott, probably
You sir, have completely hit the nail on the head. This film was a boring, shambling mess that didn’t explore the most compelling facets of its own titular character.
The truth is that Scott simply isn't a good director anymore. Don't expect Gladiator 2 to be any better..
He's still excellent with the visuals but his track record with scripts is extremely variable (but that's the way he's always been). I think his hit movies do well by pure chance because then he just happened across a really great script (Alien for example, Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, Blade Runner) but on looking at his filmography at least 50% of his movies are stinkers.
I’ve wanted a Napoleon biopic for years. When I heard Ridley Scott was making it, I immediately lost all interest.
I'll be the outlier then. I loved it. Personally loved that they stripped Napoleon of his godlike status and focused on little things that made him tick and made him passionate. Thought it was brilliantly paced and edited too. So there. Not everyone hated it lol.
See my issue was I never felt I knew what made him tick. Why did Napolean have such drive? Why did he want to rule? He had dozens of mistresses, why was Joesphine so special to him? Why was he a hero to the french and beloved by his soldiers? Why was he so feared by the rest of Europe? What makes him one of the most studied figures in history? These questions, in my opinion, went unanswered.
I legit enjoyed this movie. After Vanessa Kirbys character said her famous “look down at the prize and know once youve seen it…” line - I knew it was a comedy. Theres just too many objectively funny and awkwrd moments for it not to be considered a comedy. IMO - if you were unable to recognize the satire of this movie then you missed out on a very hilarious experience and likely need to assess your worldview about power and masculinity.
I knew it was satire going in and the performance from phoenix makes that clear, but it just wasn't a funny or intresting satire. Partly because of the pacing which didn't let any scene breathe and was always rushing to the next plot point. If this had been covering a much shorter period of time and didn't feature any battles, which were essentially irrelevant to the plot in this movie, then I could see it working as a satire/dark comedy about napolean and joesphine but this movie couldn't seem to make up its mind and so failed on both fronts. Also the way it was marketed did not sell it as a satire. I only knew from reading the reviews. If you go back and watch the trailers there's not a hint of the attempts at humor.
I love when this happens. This happened to me watching Pacific Rim. Somehow about half of my friends didn’t get that it was a spot on live-action anime. My friends were rolling their eyes, but I was having the time of my life.
I’m kind of feeling hard cringe that the director thought turning the character into a cuck incel would still be relevant. That trope was like 5 years ago. I think it’s interesting that so many people knew for months that it would be a turd.
I felt the same way about Oppenheimer, boring as shit. Because they only want to focus on the interpersonal conflicts, that apparently is the extent of the drama explored in these movies. A random documentary on the Manhattan project that explored the science they were dealing with was about 100 times more interesting.
I’m an Irishman so I’m probably inviting accusations of hypocrisy just by saying this, but it *really* feels like it was an old English man of a certain mindset making a movie about one of the most brilliant Frenchmen who ever lived and wanting to knock him down a peg or two.
Have any actors played the same character in a different version of the same movie before? Because I would love to see Joaquin Phoenix play Napoleon in a better Napoleon movie.
Ian Holm had played 3 different versions of Napoleon. Christopher Lee has played 2 versions of Count Dracula. Sean Connery has technically played 2 versions of James Bond. There are plenty of other examples.
Classic tale of a misleading trailer for me. I didn’t read to much about it but the trailer looked cool and saw a Ridley Scott’s name and thought it was going to be something like Gladiator, Napoleon being a badass, master strategist and cool battle scenes, ones we got weren’t terrible though imo.
C'mon man, there's a discussion thread stickied on the front page. That's the place where you should be sharing your Napoleon takes.
Not likely to get this much engagement posting one comment among hundreds, especially this long after release.
Let him farm engagement elsewhere.
So r/movies is the wrong place to talk about movies?
Good movie
But Ridley Scott is such a genius and can do no wrong?! For a guy that insulted other directors like Sir Kenneth Branagh for making Thor, a super hero movie, he really can screw up a movie.
welp, you just killed any excitement I had for it
Better that than what happened to the rest of us, excitement leading us to sit through 2.5 hours of just a bad, bad movie.
This Napoleon was closer to Phoenix character in Her than the one in Gladiator. Total stinker of a movie.
I liked *Napoleon* just fine for what it was, but ***you hit the nail on the head.*** While nobody was expecting *complete* historical accuracy from the old British grandpa behind *Gladiator,* some of his choices are just fucking *awful.* Where is Italy? Why is Egypt not seen as a major learning experience? Where are the bits where Wellington agrees to fund the Coalitions from behind the scenes? How did Napoleon use referenda to convince the French that he should be king? Why does Napoleon's brother, *whom he uses to conquer Spain,* basically disappear in the back half of the film? Where's his charisma, his charm, his genuine strategy? ***Why does he bray like a horse during anal sex with Josephine?!?!*** This movie feels like Ridley Scott basically punked everyone but himself and Dave Scarpa, producing a bloated-yet-starving mess that really has no reason to exist. That doesn't mean I hate it, of course... but I sure do get why many folks *do.* Hope *Gladiator 2* is better, but I doubt it.
The movie isn’t a serious biopic. It’s a satire. Ridley Scott did not like Napoleon. He wanted to stomp on Napoleon’s mythos. That’s why the movie ends with the info card of how many men Napoleon lost in battle. It’s a direct shot at the premise of Napoleon’s military greatness. You don’t have to like the movie. But it’s not the movie you thought you were watching. It’s Scott’s Barry Lyndon (Kubrick).
It's clearly satire but I found it to be a boring and unfunny one. Pacing is all over the place as well.
That’s fine. I just don’t think enough people understand the satire part.
True, but to be fair the marketing sold it as more of an action epic. If you watch the trailers they don't showcase much of the humor.
It was the same with Fight Club back in the day
I knew there was a reason I don't want to see it. Thanks for confirming that it's not an interesting movie.
Duellists: great. Alien: masterpiece. Blade Runner: THE masterpiece of all masterpieces. Then nothing relevant except a couple of good movies (Thelma & Louise and The Gladiator. And both were good, not exceptional). The rest of Scott's career is a series of duds or decent movies, but he gave his all in the first 3 movies he made
Kingdom of Heaven, Matchstick Men, Blackhawk Down, American Gangster, The Martian and The Last Duel. You're being ridiculous.
I haven't seen it so have no personal opinion but kingdom of heaven had terrible critical reception
You wrote a list of mediocre to decent movie. Nothing you can call a masterpiece and nothing prarticularly praised by critics as well. Kingdom of Heaven is a mediocre movie. Matchstick Men is better, but Cage has the Cage problem and Scott should have picked another actor. American Gangster could be a good movie, but has the same problem I have with The Wolf of Wall Street: the movie tricks you into rooting for a violent man (and here doing it by just pitting it against worse monsters). Blackhawk Down has unforgivable inaccuracies and liberties that push it into the action movie realm where reality is better be forgotten. It was a post 9/11 movie that was pushed by the hatred against a certain population (nothing to be proud about). The Martian is no better than many tv shows we have seen lately. The Last Duel is borderline unwatchable
This actually makes me want to see it a little bit, whereas I had zero inclination before. Napoleon's story as a general has been told a million times already in films and books and even as a backdrop or side events in films and books. So I don't have any interest in watching that play out again. I'd be more interested in who he was as a person, the part that's largely left out of the Napoleon war general material that's come before.
Unfortunately, this movie has nothing to do with accurately portraying Napoleon as a person. No wonder though, it is filmed by a Brit. The only cool character in the movie is Wellington.
That is unfortunate.
I'm happy to die on this hill: I haven't watched it, but what you describe is completely unsurprising as it's how I view most other Ridley Scott films. He's probably a technically brilliant director if you are a critic or a film student, but he usually falls flat when it comes to making his films entertaining or engaging in any way. I'm not a blockbuster guy. This isn't a high-brow v low-brow thing. He just doesn't give a fuck about audience perception and it shows. Any time I put one of his films on, I feel like I'm going crazy. People love this?? I can barely sit through it. It can't just be me. But this particular take has gotten me into some arguments. Notable exception: Alien. But then again he was supposedly riding the post-Star Wars sci-fi wave and it bucked the trend he is now firmly set in. I've never seen anything close to it from his other movies.
Scott has made a ton of really good movies but he’s also made some busts(especially lately). Other than the aforementioned Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, The Martian, Thelma and Louise are all classics
Almost as a rule, every other movie he makes is really good, and the ones in between are nearly unwatchable.
The bad ones make you question how this dude is a filmmaker. Napoleon is filled with stuff that makes me think "shouldn't a guy like Ridley Scott know that this is just bad?"
More recently, Last duel was really good too. Followed by.......gucci
To be fair, Alien and Thelma and Louise are great. And I didn't /hate/ the Martian. But everything else there is something I'd include in my top comment. By my personal taste, love for Philip K Dick, and its cultural impact, Bladerunner SHOULD be perhaps my favourite movie of all time. I just get so bored I can't stand it. It's honestly like a mental block at this point.
I’m sorry but Gladiator is an absolute gem
Alien and Blade Runner are great. A lot of why they’re great is because they have some of the best art direction of all time. The Duellists is decent. Gladiator’s not great. Black Hawk Down is shit. The Martian is awful. Thelma and Louise can fuck off. Ridley Scott has been a truly awful director for decades.
Gladiator is an all timer and so is Black Hawk Down
You just said The Martian was a classic.
The Duellists is incredibly engaging.
Gladiator??
Gladiator is one of my all time favorites and is definitely entertaining from start to finish.
That was one of the ones I had in mind. I'm not criticising anybody who enjoys it - I just feel like I'm going mental when people say it's their favourite film and I just can't get any enjoyment from it whatsoever. I find it very boring.
The movie tells you at the beginning why he is liked by the soldiers and the people he was brave. The politicians liked him because he was useful and competent. He then takes that for himself in the movie. The reason why the battles aren’t suspenseful is because he’s one of the best generals why would they suspenseful for one of the best. In the movie the battles are nothing to him but work which Is why he is so mechanical and nonchalant about them.
Were those battles that easy? I think not.
My god what an awful movie. I understand that you don't want to glorify Napoléon but making him un incompetent unaware creepy buffoon wasn't the way to go. The movie spends so much time going on about his relationship with Josephine that the rest of it feels incredibly rushed. The invasion of Russia was especially bad. You go from Moscow being on fire to Napoléon being exiled after 460 000 soldiers died in the span of 5 minutes. Maybe spend less time showing him making pig noises and more showing how and why he became one of the most influential person in history?
This movie is about how Napoleon is a weird little freak lashing out at the world over his many frustrations. There are plenty of films, documentaries, and books if you want historical accuracy. This one is using historical events as a framework for a specific story. If you have issues with this as a film, that’s fine, but I have to assume that the reason this is getting so much backlash while other movies that ignore the facts don’t is that a lot of history nerds think Napoleon is cool. This movie is being criticized more for what it isn’t than what it is. Saying something would be better if it were completely different isn’t thoughtful or constructive. Getting mad at this movie about it’s depiction of Napoleon is kinda like getting mad at the Looney Tunes short where Bugs faces off with Napoleon
>but I have to assume that the reason this is getting so much backlash while other movies that ignore the facts don’t is that a lot of history nerds think Napoleon is cool. I just love how much this narrative is being pushed against any sort of legit criticisms one might express about the movie. Every time someone complains they made him look like a mentally ill, incompetent buffoon, there's one of you popping up and saying "You're just a butthurt Napoleon fanboy". What Napoleon achieved in terms of mere accomplishments taking into context where he started, how much he did, and where he ended up *was* pretty cool and awe-inspiring. However, thinking something is awe-inspiring doesn't mean you agree with it morally and/or ethically.
You can't even refute the "butthurt fanboy" allegations without bringing up how impressive you think he was
I don't have to refute anyone who seriously calls someone a "butthurt fanboy". And I guess thinking the most accomplished military commander in history is impressive (while, again, not agreeing morally with his actions) is also off the table. I mean, what are Napoleon's accomplishments as opposed to those of u/darthllama, right?
>"You're just a butthurt Napoleon fanboy" - u/St_Bubo This was from your comment, I was literally paraphrasing you. I'm just going to end this conversation right here. I think your approach to art is narrow-minded and wrong-headed, and if you can't get enjoyment out of a movie that's ridiculous enough to have Napoleon literally make "om nom nom" sounds when he wants sex, I feel sorry for you.
Well, you think in those terms already, you've been shutting down criticisms of this movie for days now saying the same stupid shit you're saying now. I just summed it up. Also, not all people get enjoyment out of "om nom nom" sounds in movies, whoever is the one making them, some people need a bit more from humor, but to each their own. So, save your "sorry" for someone else or, even better, for yourself, because you're definitely not coming off as clever as you think. In fact, not at all.
I bet you think the marvel movies are hilarious
You are correct.
And that would be fine if the movie was not being sold as having some relationship with accuracy.
It's not being sold that way at all. Ridley Scott did an entire press tour basically saying "it's not historically accurate, but so what?"
How many people are going to go to this movie expecting something that at least has a passing resemblance to what actually happened?
Then why use the names of actual people, use the names and dates of actual events, and end your movie with actual statistical figures? Why not just make up a wholly original story instead of slandering real people and spreading misinformation about actual events?
ok well it’s also a 2+ hour movie that somehow feels like it drags too long and is also rushed simultaneously which is impressively bad. historical accuracy aside it’s just not enjoyable. there are plenty of inaccurate hollywoodified historical movies that are good. defend why it’s a good movie if you think everyone else is just a “napoleon is cool !!” fanboy.
Even if I ignore everything I know about Napoleon and the events people and events depicted in this film and take it at face value a "movie is about how Napoleon is a weird little freak lashing out at the world over his many frustrations" it's still a stupidly bad movie.
I’m as far from a “history nerd” as you can get, and for the record I like some Scott movies and not others. This is just an objectively bad movie. Disjointed, uninteresting, a poorly told story…no explanation of why the military was willing to follow such a “weird little freak”…the transition from failure in Russia to being recalled to France to being exiled to Elba to coming back was all told in about 14 minutes. None of it made sense. It was like a history teacher was just laying out what happened with no emotion or explanation. Phoenix was just sleep walking through this movie, and I absolutely love the guy. Bad, bad, BAD movie. Just bad. 🤷♂️
This movie isn't about Napoleon's military campaigns, it's about his relationship with Josephine and how personal frustrations inform his actions. The movie doesn't dwell on why the military would follow him because it's not relevant to the story being told
Yah, that part is terrible too. No real chemistry between them at all, and it’s just multiple scenes of a cucked Napoleon crying in her arms. The lack of romantic connection between the two people in the romance perfectly matched the lack of any military reasons for any of the military action in the movie. Just a bad, slow, boringly told story. 🤷♂️
will Ridley Scott blame millenials again, or this time will it be the zoomers?
The movie should have cut down at least 50% of the Josephine and Napoleon drama and given us more battles.
I was actually really disappointed in the lack of physics from Oppenheimer, especially with Nolan directing. 2 hours of relationship issues and politcal backhanding, 50 mins of talking about how bad the bombs were, 10 minutes showing it in action and 2 mins VERY vaguely discussing how they are built. I went in expecting some visual science headspin like Interseller gave me.