Napoleon Review: A True Disappointment
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2024
- John and the crew discuss and review Ridley Scott’s Napoleon starring Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby which opens in theaters today November 22, 2023.
Subscribe to The John Campea Show Podcast:
Spotify
open.spotify.c...
Apple podcasts
podcasts.apple...
Please support the sponsor of this TJCS segment by using the link below and/or using our promo code for a special bonus deal!
DraftKings | Official Sports Betting Partner Of The NFL
DraftKings Sportsbook is keeping your Thanksgiving week full of action! Go to sportsbook.dra... to download the DraftKings Sportsbook app and use code CAMPEA. New customers can bet $5 on the NFL Thanksgiving action to score $150 INSTANTLY IN BONUS BETS! Only on, DraftKings Sportsbook, an Official Sports Betting Partner of the NFL, with code CAMPEA. The crown is yours.
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-Gambler. In New York, call 877-8-HOPENY or text HOPENY (467369). In West Virginia, visit www.1800gambler.net. Please play responsibly. In Connecticut, Help is available for problem gambling call 888-789-7777 or visit ccpg.org. On behalf of Boot Hill Casino & Resort (KS). Must be 21 or older in most eligible states but age varies by jurisdiction. See draftkings.com/sportsbook for details and state specific responsible gambling resources. Eligibility and deposit restrictions apply. Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance. Terms at sportsbook.DraftKings.com/footballterms.
Watch John's new documentary, "Movie Trailers: A Love Story" available now worldwide at www.vimeo.com/o... and also available in the US and UK on Amazon Video.
Support the channel or submit a question for Open Mic using the following tip link:
streamelements...
Become a John Campea Channel Member here:
/ @johncampea
JOHN’S GEAR LINKS
Main Cameras
Sony A6400 - amzn.to/2VsMMyx
Sony A6600 - amzn.to/3bbfivl
Canon XC15 - amzn.to/3abgZY8
Mic pre-amps
Cloudlifter - amzn.to/3ckgvRa
Good Cheaper Cameras John Uses
Canon Vixia R800 - amzn.to/2yfa8zI
Logitech c920 Webcam - amzn.to/3eiul8m
Main Microphones
Rode Procaster - amzn.to/3cum1AT
Good Cheaper Mics John Uses Sometimes
Audio-Technica ATR2100x (usb and xlr) - amzn.to/34FSIID
Blue Yeti (usb) - amzn.to/2XyVZb8
Lapel Mic
FiFine (usb) - amzn.to/2VvzocW
Shotgun Mics
Rode VideoMic GO (small on camera mic) - amzn.to/34A3YX0
Rode NTG2 (main Studio mic) - amzn.to/2REkH6d
Sennheiser MKE 600 (main Studio mic) - amzn.to/3eo5boY
Soundboard/Mixer
RODEcaster Pro (main) (usb) - amzn.to/2RzozFC
Behringer Xenyx 1204USB (backup board) - amzn.to/2yf8VZn
Streaming Software
Wirecast Pro
Wirecast Control Surface - amzn.to/34DzjrG
Lights
Nanlite Lumipad 25 (main studio lights) - amzn.to/2XAeVXd
Neewer Ring Light (secondary lights) - amzn.to/2RDRoAP
FalconEyes F7 Pocketlite (background color lights) - amzn.to/3emBgNT
Selfie Ring - (guest light) - amzn.to/3a6esOZ
Show Notes Computer
iPad Pro 2020 - amzn.to/34ALhCA
Submit your topic or question for The John Campea Show here:
www.thejohncamp...
Follow John on Instagram:
/ johncampea
Did John plan to have the Napoleon hat placed perfectly behind his head? 😂
Lol right? That’s also the first thing I noticed
I’m thinking the same thing
his technically french because his Canadian.
@@jonathanlopez6953I'm Canadian. Our country is mostly English.
@@jonathanlopez6953John is of Italian origin.
They got even the most basic facts wrong in this film. In one scene there is a character who declares the birth year of Josephine (played by Vanessa Kirby) to be 1767 and the birth year of Napoleon to be 1768. Josephine was born in 1763 and Napoleon was born in 1769.
@@djparaenseit was one of many stupid moves by Ridley. His audacity has finally gotten the best of him ~
Disclaimer, Gladiator is my favorite movie of all time. Napoleon was utter hot garbage. Audience cheered when he finally dropped dead, everyone just wanted the movie to be over I think. It really felt like Apple had a heavy hand in this. At least I hope that's the reason this Ridley Scott film turned out so truly terrible.
@@fileload9806Source? That sounds interesting.
The cinematography was good but the the movie hung on how charismatic he was as a leader to the French people, but you never saw him actually win the French people over. You just saw the war scenes, not the admiration of the everyday people.
Ridley Scott was so proud of how many movies he puts out compared to Scorsese. Have to say, you can tell the difference
Ridley is hot garbage compared to a genius like Scorsese even on his best days. Comparing the two is an insult to filmaking.
Last duel was good though but yeah he is nothing compared to scorsese
Joaquin Phoenix was so miscast, he was just awful, so flat, ..zero chemistry with Vanessa Kirby.
The movie should have been titled Josephine.
Bad acting, terrible pacing, an unbelievable love story and battle scenes that are crap. Won't even list historical inaccuracies. Scott needs to retire.
He's English, writing a Frenchman's biopic. It was doomed from the beginning
Another thing - Napoleon’s troops’s undying loyalty to him feels very unearned. Not for a moment did he address them, I was expecting at least one speech or a moment of connection between Napoleon and his troops, but instead they just love him for… no reason? Is the viewer supposed to know that they loved him prior to watching the movie? Like why did they help him do a whole ass coup d’etat or betray their own king after he comes back from Elba? I hope the director’s cut addresses all of this…
Yeah, been wonder where was the f-n Old Guard thru the whole movie?
Bro made a romance movie. And the main character had negative rizz. 🤦♂️
fr
Tik Tok is a disease
they made napoleon look like he was bootywhipped and autistic. phoenix had his worst performance ever in this one...gonna be tough to be this bad for him in the future. ridley scott...he either hits homeruns like gladiator or strikes out...save your 9 bucks!
Phoenix was terrible. If he didn't want to do it he shouldn't have signed on
I’m glad my brother and I are not the only ones who thought this. It’s almost like they were trying to say Napoleon was autistic
Typical Ridley Scott…always makes gorgeous, well-acted films, but is entirely dependent on the script.
I enjoy the hate for this movie more than I enjoyed the movie
They should have focused on Napoleon the Conquerer not the relationship with Josephine. That should have been a B storyline at best! This movie gave no justice to Napoleons story imo.
It was HORRIBLE! i did not come to watxh a freaking Chick Flixk.. men dont come to see Freaking LoVe stories smh... worst Historical movie iv seen EVER
I agree. What makes it worse is while Austerlitz and Borodino where not completely accurate with history they were nonetheless great pieces of the movie. Instead we now miss out on stuff like the battle of Leipzig arguably the second most important battle during the closing stages of the wars of the coalition. So that we could get more fictional Josephine stuff. Really unfortunate and frustrating. We see so little of the genius Napoleon and too much of the wierd kink Napoleon. Also no Prussians and Blucher's legendary charge at the battle of waterloo is a big miss.
@@christianandersson4345I also really dislike that they try to say he was making military decisions based on Josephine. Like them showing him leaving Egypt for Josephine
Personally I’m waiting for the 4 hour director’s cut
Me too. All the thing being criticized about it sounds like would be addressed by extra runtime. It's Kingdom of Heaven all over again.
This movie was an unnecessary deconstruction of Napoleon filled with historical inaccuracies and random drivel. Watch the 1970 Waterloo instead, much better depiction of Napoleon than this spiteful nonsense. I knew where this movie was heading when I first saw Joaquin Phoenix casted for Napoleon. Joaquin is a phenomenal actor, especially when it comes to playing pathetic men such as Commodus and the Joker, when he was cast i immediately knew what kind of movie was being made, hate to say i was correct.
The 4 hour cut won't help this movie. The vast unnecessary historical inaccuracies are bad enough. Even the battles were just all over the place.
This is what happens when an Anglo Saxon Napoleon hater gets to waste a lot of money on making a ..... Napoleon movie...
Hopefully the longer version will fill in these weaknesses.
They turned Napoleon into a simp too and they did not put more scenes when they went into Russia.
Horrible. Ridley Scott and his script writer have absolutely ZERO idea of who Napoleon was. The "Napoleon complex" of a crazy little blood thirsty tyrant going to war against everyone is a tired trope invented by the English in the early 19th Century based entirely on propaganda. When factually it's England and the rest of Europe who declared war on Napoleon, not the other way around. Up to 1808, all that Napoleon ever did was defend France and the ideals of the French Revolution against foreign invaders. He certainly wasn't the bad guy. How sad to see that 220 years later a famous English director is unable to stay away from that dumb caricature and not deliver anything else. Napoleon is one of the most complex and fascinating characters in all of History and Scott shows us nothing. No insight, no analysis, nothing. This is a garbage film made by completely idiotic people. I hope Spielberg gets to do his Napoleon with a TV show, the Emperor's life deserves it.
100% , feel like Ridley simply read the first Wikipedia paragraph and added some private anecdotes/Josephine letters. Complete disaster.
Wished to have seen more of Napoleon’s brilliance, could have been contrasted with some vulnerability but at least show us why Napoleon is an immortal in the history books.
Wish to have seen more of the period between the revolution and 1907, see Napoleon’s contributions to the modern world.
Also, they gave a totally shit image of Robespierre in the beginning. People who knew nothing about him will think he was a simple fool… disrespectful movie.
Disappointed with this movie. I hope the directors cut fill all the gaps. They went from 1805 to 1811. Missed many important events and battles.
Honestly ive felt for a while that ridley scott uses history setting the way bad celebrity news media uses bombastic headlines to get people to click or read.
Idk,,, John is the same guy who didn’t like the planet of the apes part 3 movie…a movie that was nominated for an Oscar…but he liked the Shazam movie…so I think I’ll make up my own mind
COMPLETLY agree! His analogy of randomness hits it squarely. In addition I think Joaquin Phoenix was stiff, he delivered the majority of his lines with lifelessness, and for God sakes give him a French accent. It was tough imagining Napoleon as being some run of the mill army officer from Chicago. What Ridley and the writers should have studied is Patton with George C. Scott. If you watch Patton by the end of the film you will understand Patton's approach to leadership, his disdain for incompetence , his admiration of courage, why and how he fought the battles he did, and you'll know his inner most thoughts by way of the brilliant use of George C. Scott performing VO narration from Patton's memoirs. The film Napoleon did almost NONE of this. It's shame to take on such a great historical character and screw-the-pooch.
It was sad to see such a great actor go to waste...
I don't know why he did it, kinda like Mark Hamil in Star Wars, it's not the money, maybe they genuinely like the movie?
Or they think they can "save" it somehow...
I think that the goal here was not to herald the greatness of Napoleon; a brilliant tactician with charisma that garnered the complete and utter loyalty of his armies. Instead Apple portrayed him as a simpleton, a shallow villain that caused the deaths of 3M people.
@@parallel_53 so basically they decided to lie.
He wasn't a simpleton, we know that.
I get showing his evilness and the results of his "achievements", but that's just it.
Wouldn't it have been way more compelling showing how a genius's delusions or sense of honour led himself and millions of others to folly?
Wouldn't it have been great to show his thoughts regarding his upcoming coronation or if he should even be emperor?
Wouldn't it have been great to show the thoughts,, discussions, arguments he and his closest advisors had regarding the Egyptian, Italian and ultimately Russian campaigns?
What about the Napoleonic code?
There were so many things they could have picked yet all we got was to watch a 2 and a half hour movie about a cuck who also did some things on the side.
My main problem with the movie is I didn't care about any of the characters whatsoever. Wasn't sad when Josephine died, and actually cheered Napoleon being exiled again.
This coming from the guy that says Madam Web looks good
I saw Napoleon yesterday... review is 💯% correct! Beautifully shot, but unfocused!
Me too
This movie made me hate Ridely Scott. I just saw. It was marketed as a cinematic depiction of why Napoleon was a renowned military leader. There are glaring historical inaccuracies that anyone with a brain could point out. Plus, they wasted so much time on the "heir" plotline and mention all the military battles as a list at the end of the movie instead of showing them. We only saw 3 battles.
Agree with you on the military battles, I got so excited around the second half because it was building up to the battle of Borodino, which was EXTREMELY important historically not only for Napoleon but for Russia as well and I was pissed that it was summarized with a 10 second slow-mo cavalry charge!! Tell me though, I'm not well versed in Napoleonic history but I did see there was quite a number of black officers portrayed in the army, I couldn't confirm or deny it due to the fact that I was thinking about how the French had established African colonies, yet had no idea if they would allow their colonial subjects to serve in their army. What other inaccuracies were there?
@@virgil0065 Napoleon having cannons fired at the Great Pyramids never happened. There would at least be a crater in the side of one of them.
He was not present at the queen's execution.
He was not THAT emotionally unstable.
His tactical skills as a military leader were severely undercut, minus one of the 3 battles they actually showed.
I read somewhere that Napoleon never respected the British general. Napoleon in the movie goes out of his way to respect the general.
They completely ignored that Napoleon essentially gave the Catholic Church the middle finger and I forget the exact reason why he did it. In the movie, the Pope ignored and seemed to approve the action of him crowning himself as Emperor during the event. In reality, this deeply troubled the Pope. It caused a huge uproar in real life. In the movie, everyone accepts Napoleon as emperor without question and this creates not tentions with the Catholic Church
Scenes of Napoleon participating in battle make him seem like he is having an anxiety attack, which seemed a very odd detailed and am not sure if he was actually like that.
The movie never really explains many moments making all historical context lost.
Ridely Scott comes across as a pervert to me with the number of tasteless, thankfully not nude, s*x scenes that makes Napoleon seem s*x crazed. Josephine was at least 5 years older than Napoleon, yet they make them seem closer in age, and this detail is never implied. This is weird to point out; however, Ridely thought it was "important" to focus on this and supposed details about THAT thing right.
The Waterloo battle made Napoleon look like he had no idea what he was doing. In reality, Napoleon knew the odds were against him.
Napoleon was 5'6". A British translator failed to properly convert French measurements to ones ised with Britain and somehow came up with 5'2".
I can forgive some historical inaccuracies in movies. For this movie, there is so much different that this is essentially not the Napoleon from history.
fr and they kept saying Germany and Italy at keypoints when it didnt even exist and im pretty sure the Holy roman empire did exist which they dont mention
@@ajflink Ah yes I did feel REALLY off about how Napoleon shot a cannon at one of the Egyptian pyramids, after the movie I was wondering; "there's no way... right?"
And yeah I also thought just how undermined he was at the coronation ceremony, I already understood the integration of church and state in Europe at the time, so, having people audibly gasp and then be totally cool with him is just weird. Like many have said this movie just portrays itself as a highlight reel.
I also hated how pathetic Napoleon was and how hard he simped for Josephine, I couldn't confirm or deny the way he acted though because again I don't know everything about him. In regard to Josephine being 5 years older than Napoleon, it just comes down to Joaquin Phoenix being a terrible choice for the role of Napoleon. He's a good actor, but god all I can see him as is Joaquin Phoenix. If Napoleon smoked meth in his château for 5 years, then yes Joaquin would be a perfect fit.
I already came into the movie expecting the battle of Waterloo to be disappointing as nothing can top the 1973 movie, it still disappoints me however that a movie made 50 years ago still has 10x the amount of scale and awe inspiring action than a modern production movie...
Don't know if you noticed/cared about this, but the movie just looked like SHIT. I watched the Last Duel from Ridley Scott a few years ago and was surprised to see that the color palette of gray and shitty had carried over to Scott's next movie. Characterizing the Middle Ages as gloomy and gray isn't anything new, even if it was far from the truth especially among the noble class who wore colorful attire. Ridiculous to see such a DULL palette for a movie taking place in the middle of the modern era!!! A shame because the costumes and sets were fantastic from what I saw, yet you could never truly appreciate them because they were shrouded by a filter of SHITTY GREY. Only like 5 scenes in the whole movie had actual sunlight that accentuated the vibrant colors of the scenery and uniforms, easily one of the most disappointing movies I have ever watched.
There is a 4 hour cut which will be released on apple tv +. Clearly the movie looks incomplete because it is
4 hours Jesus Christ
HBO needs to make a show on Napoleon.
And cast a 8lack woman for the role.
Spielberg is actually working on hoping to get that made and adapt Stanley Kubricks unused scripts for HBO
Can we just comment on the perfect placement of the napoleon hat right over John’s head. lol.
The biggest issue is that his movie was originally 4+ hour long movie, but for theatrical restrictions it had to be cut to pieces. The fault in that goes to scott arguably but i think itll be a more coherent movie when apple tv releases the directors cut, but that remains to be seen.
Hesitant to give the “4 hour director’s cut” a chance
Every time I hear Ridley Scott, I look for the same magic & greatness of Gladiator, and Martian. But sadly its been disappointing.
I almost walked out. The writing, the story line and even the soundtrack didn't work. As you said it is unfocused, random and yes zero pay off . So poorly written!
I went with 4 friends and one of them walked out mid way. Didn’t realize it was a romance
Me too
This is what happens when you make a 4 hour film and it gets cut down to 2 1/2 hours.
don’t make a film then. if it’s unwatchable in the theatre, then it’s not supposed to be a film. and that’s a pretty fucking good excuse, oh, this is shit, watch a 10 hour cut please
Fact is you can not compare Napoleon to Braveheart or Gladiator. The two laters were fictional characters or loosely based on the life of William Wallace (which is not that documented from a historical standpoint) giving the director free hands to build whatever narrative he wanted. On the other hand, Napoleon Bonaparte has arguably been the most documented person in history. Thousands of books on his life from childhood to death. you can NOT take the same narrative liberties with him and that's what make a Napoleon movie so hard to produce. You have to stick to History.
The con with this movie is that Ridley Scott tried to tell too much in no time and the result is somewhat a mess with a weird narrative. But taking the assumption that making a 2hours 40 minutes piece on the entire life of Napoleon is mission impossible... I think he came up with the best possible film.
Yes agree. Apparently Spielberg is doing a HBO mini-series on Napoleon's life. Perhaps a series will be better since more time will be given to cover his life.
Amen
If the movie is exactly what you just said, then it's what i call a Wikipedia Movie.
I can't even enjoy looking at the movie because of how grey and desaturated it all is - apparently Scott forgot how to film colour when he shot the Europe parts of Kingdom of Heaven. Seriously, I don't understand why he decided to shit on the fantastic work of the costume designers and cinematographer by making everything so lifeless and dull. This would have been a dull, but visually stunning movie, but Ridley couldn't leave well enough alone.
I keep hearing people say how the acting was good. I disagree. Joaquin Phoenix looked bored and checked out most of the time. The few times he showed expression were the best. The Josephine angle bogged the movie down. It should have been left out. It was not interesting at all. The last act was the best, but the Waterloo battle was nowhere near depicted how it went down. This was a real disappointment for Ridley Scott. It’s like he wanted to make a film using Napoleon as the character, but had no direction on which way to go. Maybe he should retire now.
I'll wait for the Ridley Scott directors cut.
The movie was beyond terrible. Other than the action, there’s nothing moving the story along. Scenes just happen that have nothing to do with the next. 3/10
True bravery is the 1st critic that says this movie just sucks.
Completely agree
Dumpster fire. Should be banned in France ~
Just saw it and it is terrible. For one thing, the supporting cast is weak very weak. Compare it to the strong supporting cast in the Napoleon TV mini-series. Phoniex was the wrong choice for the lead as well. But overall this critic is correct: it is an unfocused mess. (BTW Alexander was the Czar not a prince.)
John, I agree with you. Just watched it today and was massively disappointed. Didn’t hate it but I didn’t like it either
The story of Napoleon deserved so much better than this. His story is one of the greatest in history yet no one seems to be able to get it right☹️
It’s because he’s one of the greatest that it’s so hard to build something giving him proper justice
The biggest issue I had with this film is that Napoleon doesn't DO anything, but rather things are DONE to him. At no point in the movie does he utter a line like "I am going to be King if it kills me" or "all of Europe will fear my wrath one day" - he never establishes a clear goal for the audience that he moves towards. Instead, the idea of rule is just sorta suggested to him by others and he just goes along with it. To add to this, later on, when they exile him, he just surrenders to it and says "oh well, okay." His wife constantly controls him emotionally throughout the film, even 180ing his rage towards her in less than a minute. He doesn't seem to even desire to storm across Europe, spreading his battle fame. Really, the only time in the movie where Napoleon LEADS and makes a decision for himself is when he is advised to not march into the Russian winter and then the next scene shows him doing just that. Am I forgetting something? Napoleon felt like a side character in his own movie; he did not feel like a protagonist that moves the story forward. He didn't feel like a leader, the battles didn't have any emotional weight because there were no established stakes: No moment of Napoleon saying "this battle determines my future" or "if we lose here, France will fall." Nothing of the sort. It was just battles for the sake of battles, with no emotional connection for the audience. There wasn't even an established antagonist other than MAYBE the Russian Czar kid, but even that's swiftly dropped after a single scene of the kid dancing with Napoleon's now ex-wife. And France - Napoleon throughout the film talks about his "love" of France, but the France we see is just chaos, corruption and muted colors. It's not like the Shire in the LotR where we clearly understand why Frodo and Sam are fighting so hard for their homeland; France in this film seems like a lackluster shit hole that isn't worth anyone's time. I could go on and on, but this movie was horrendously disappointing as someone who LOVES historical films.
Source?
Lotr is an epic fantasy not a historical piece.
Just came from the movies, true, a big disappointment
Me too
I enjoyed it wasn't disappointed at all,another oscar nod for Joaquin
@@donnamiller5222 opinions at the end of the day, but I'd say Phoenix acting was sub par, really, I expected more from him, I even felt at times he was still playing Joker
This movie is SO BAD ... I have no words for this. This movie is anti-French, anti-historical... the realities of the battles DO NOT EXIST, Napoleon is some idiot, whining like a dog about sex with his wife... It is truly a scandal that this film exists. Ridley Scott is over. Long time ago.
I guess I have to wait for the directors cut on apple tv. Just like the kingdom of heaven.
Being a random collection of unrelated events is one of my main complaints too (another is that the movie is mind-numbingly boring). It feels random because the events from Napoleon's life are chosen at random and given absolutely zero historical context. So if you're not an expert, or at least somewhat knowledgeable about this era - you will have no idea why anything happens. Why are there British in Toulon? Why does Napoleon go to Egypt? Why does he leave Egypt (hint - not because he finds out Josephine cheated on him, he knew that for several years already and had mistresses of his own)? Why does the coup of 1799 happen and what is this very corrupt Directory? And so on ... Nothing gets any context and it makes the movie tedious and boring.
It is possible to make a very interesting movie about any of the events shown in Napoleon. It is impossible to cram his entire life into a 2.5 hour long movie.
Reminded me a lot of Oliver Stone's Alexander, which similarly felt like a disjointed bloated mess of random scenes.
I disagree I thought the cinematography was awful. That is just my thoughts.
I mean, I get to make jokes about how they only did battles at dusk because daytime fights were way too easy.
I saw Napoleon tonight. A very difficult movie to sit through. The movie showed the highlights of Napoleon’s life and that is all. It is an incomplete, poorly told movie. Napoleon is a random mess, it is all over the place. If it was a tv show, there would had been more time to tell a complete story. Sadly, Ridley Scott did not have enough time to tell a complete story.
He could have had 10 hours and couldn't have told the "complete story".... just think that he'd need to show how each war started and at least a little about the resolution of it. And it's not only Napoleon, he interacts with other huge figures in history... from the rest of Europe.
Ridley Scott started in 1977 with a superb historical piece, "The Duelists" (based on Joseph Conrad's novel), but he's ending his career with a garbage of a movie. Bad screenplay, chockfull of historical inaccuracies, to the point of absurdity. A forgettable soundtrack, actors either too old or too young for their respective roles, and a bit of redemption when it comes to costume design. There were no real military history consultants on this project or if there were, they were locked in a hotel room. The film is also unabashedly Anglo-centric. The role of the British is showcased and the role of the others presented as rather secondary. Only a third of forces blocking Toulon were British, nor was the majority of Wellington's army at Waterloo British (even before the arrival of the Prussians). The wars of 1806 and 1809 were entirely omitted. Is it because France did not initiate them? The opportunities for excellent subplots were wasted, e.g., Napoleon in relation to Marshal (later King of Sweden) Bernadotte or Napoleon in relation to Eugène de Beauharnais.
It’s just a complete mockery of the character
Even the battles don't make sense, no movement of troops, no military tactics, just armies colliding. In the real Austerlitz battle, the Austrian army started on Pratzen Heights, but Ridley Scott made it the other way around with the French army having the high grounds. So sad.
do we have these same complaints about braveheart?
@@david-z1m6t The battle of Stirling Bridge was missing something important, but I can't remember at the moment.
When they show u historical events that didnt happen constantly in the trailer, this isnt suprising
You nailed it, I didn’t care about anyone in the movie, walked out half way through when they started throwing food at each other.
I should have taken your advice and saved $100 for a family of 5. I was so excited for this movie thinking it was an epic masterpiece. It turned out to be a dull and slow moving movie. I posted on FB to warn my friends to save their money.
I have been noticing that whoever is writing modern screenplays seems to think a story narrative = a series of unrelated tik-tok shorts.
I actually really liked it. I see it more as a character journey more than anything.
Ridley Scott movies do tend to be very flat. Visually beautiful and full of spectacle, but not much else.
The word is "disjointed." Napolean wasn't random per se, but disjointed. Tonally disjointed. Narratively disjointed. Everything but perhaps visually.
ok it’s disjointed. That’s why it’s disappointing
marketing team deserves some major props if its as bad as I'm hearing, because it looks badass.
It is.
Objectively, this movie is a complete mess. Shame. Total frigging mess.
@@consciousgentile5141 The marvels did they exist can i read about both the positive and negative they did??
The story of Napoleon would be better served as a trilogy.
I agree with you on that
Just watched it. I was waiting for it to end less than halfway through. I'll need to rewatch Waterloo to get this bad taste out of my mouth.
I literally thought the same thing, I'm watching Waterloo just after seeing Napoleon
A lot of these narrative issues could have been solved if the movie was split into two or three films. I know there are a lot of sequels that are completely unnecessary, but this is Napoleon's life we are talking about here; one of the defining figures of the 19th century. No one would take issue with a Napoleon trilogy if it were done well throughout. Napoleon's rise to power is part one, the Russian campaign is part two, the Battle of Waterloo and Napoleon's downfall would be part three. This narrative structure would have worked. Why Ridley Scott of all people couldn't figure this out is mystifying. Such a squandered opportunity!
Sounds like there's a 4 hour director's cut...
Man, its sad, movie fell hard compared even to Waterloo from the 70s, which like BraveHeart, took time to build things to end at one específic single event: Napoleon's defeat...but yes, RS made the same mistake again that with Kingdom of Heaven and his movie theater version🤷♂️😒
2 hours of napoleon crying with his wife?!? This movie is no “Gladiator”….its ALL over the place. I was confused on what happened during the wars!!!! Ex) when the guys fight in Russia…I had no clue who Is burning the town. What town they were in…or why he was fighting Russia in the first place.
Then u weren’t paying attention lol those questions were answered
Isn't Spielberg planning to do a HBO show or mini-series on Napoleon perhaps that will be better since much more time will be given to cover Napoleon's life.
It would have been a better choice to do a tv series for the lots of content.
It was more than having just drinks and a good time with the czar. That meal represented the cease fire between france and russia. So we were expecting something meaningful, coming out of that scene. But end up being redundant.
I felt like I was watching a glorified Hallmark Film when I was expecting a monumental bio of Napoleon and his generals. Sad because Gladiator was so tremendous, this just was horrible. Such a shame. Good review man!
Ridley Scott should have just made a Napoleon Dynamite sequel instead…
Just remember if you wait for the 4 hour streaming version, it won't change the historical inaccuracies. There might be more of them.
Ridely Scott's directors cut are better anyway. Plus also are the historical inaccuracies shouldn't be the focus. Like the shot at the pyramids.
And they made Napoleon into this awkward simp. The guy would threaten divorce one second and then beg for her attention the next. Like pick a lane. Everytime he interacted with Josephine it came off like two awkward teenagers. Hell there was even a food fight between them. Kind of hard to take a world conqueror serious when he's behaving like a virgin schoolboy. This whole movie would have been infinitely better simply cutting out Josephine which is surprising considering how much there love story is entangled in his story.
Yes it is also not historically accurate either, from what we know, Napoleon while was smitten in the beginning, their relationship changes over time she cheats on him, he also cheats on her, and the love story is mostly about political purposes, and propaganda
Best, most honest, accurate of the 15 or so reviews I have watched. Unlike the other reviews I really believe we watched the same movie
I'm not thru the entire segment, but when I hear about the "randomness" of this movie, I immediately think of Oppenheimer. I personally think Oppenheimer was disjointed and random. The idea that "movies are subjective" and and everybody looks at art differently is fine, but a bad story, or bad story-telling should be universal, I believe. I haven't seen Napolean, but if people's main complaint is the randomness of it and these same people say Oppenheimer was one of the best movies of the year, I don't understand that because that movie seemed all over the place to me
Oppenheimer did great at the box office.
Oppenheimer was a dumpster fire and I'm sick of the world trying to gaslight me into thinking it was a good movie.
Randomness? Oppenheimer was incredibly cohesive, its mostly chronological and any time to differs from the path it’s to represent his scattered psyche or to tell something in a more engaging matter. These 2 films are entirely different; Oppenheimer has very strong historical accuracy, it changes a few things but doesn’t stray from the actual events. Napoleon is a series of made up events and has little historical accuracy in order to get as much explosions in as possible and make Napolian seem way cooler and more involved than he actually was
@@uncle7215Gaslighting is lying on purpose. The film is currently, and only because historical drama character studies are literally my favourite genre and it’s not close, my second favourite film of all time. Oppenheimer is a fascinating character played to perfection, Nolan flexes his artistic talents seamlessly throughout the film and it takes risks at almost every turn. The entire 3rd act was brilliant and so unexpected, but obviously I’m not surprised that lots of people who don’t care about history or who aren’t as into character studies would be bored to death. You need to be a very specific type of person to love the film I think, if you go in expecting a movie about the bomb or a film with lots of action then you are watching the wrong film
@@dustinmartin6524 Oppenheimer was rubbish in my opinion and I went in with high hopes
Movie should be banned in France ~
Having come back from watching it, I think I agree with your take. Hoping the 4 hour cut on Apple TV+ might correct some of those issues.
Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut was a masterpiece! The longer version shoulda been the one in theatres!
Yup but in that case they could have actually released it in theaters... but a 4 hour cut of Napoleon in cinemas?? It's just too much, movies can't be that long, it means you wrote a wrong story. The idea to make a single movie about the entire life of Napoleon was ludicrous from the start and in my opinion actually insulting. Another huge disappointment after the Alexander the Great waste of time.
I’m just going to wait for the extended cut to watch it
Hopefully they do have one of those
I was trying to figure out how to explain my disappointment with the movie. You said it perfectly “it was a highlight reel”. I’d watch again with my friends because it was a cool highlight reel but it is just that and the Josephine love story I really liked as well.
It was not “bad” imo but it’s not Oppenheimer.
Tbh I think Oppenheimer is very very overrated, was very long but at least it took itself seriously, it wasn’t Oppenheimer making “you think youre so great because you have boats” jokes
I was hoping they went a-historical and just offed Josephine within the first 30 minutes, she portrayed no emotion throughout the entire film and actively made me want to walk out of the film.
Bit of advice for anyone here giving a star rating for this film, if you post three stars, it will be altered to show only two stars. I guess there's a conspiracy to downvote this film? I can't see any other reason why my rating in my response comment was altered to show a worse review. I responded to another person and said that the film was three and a half stars out of four, but my post was changed to say two and a half stars out of four. Suspicious indeed.
I thought the film was terrific, minor flaws aside.
I am waiting for the 4 hours uncut
I thought the movie came up short.
Har har har
That joke was a low blow.
I like Joaquin Phoenix but he should not have played Napoleon. I knew this was going to be a mess from the start when it was announced to be one film, you can't cover Napoleon in a single movie.
I loved Vanessa Kirby, she stole every scene she was in.
I didn’t like it. I really tried to but didn’t like anything about it. I expected more from gladiator
it's time for HBO to step in
and NAIL IT with historical accruacy
just like they did with ROME
Just seen it. Boy it was hard to get through it. Big fan of Ridley Scott but that was mostly nonsense. 🤦🏻♂️
I understand your pain
the movie was an adequate summary. But, it completely lacked drive and focus --- two traits you never want, when trying to describe Napoleon.
i HATED the cinematography. The blue/gray tint is so overdone. I also thought Phoenix's acting was below average at best. The story was meh, but i did think the battles were well done. But Napoleon's success was portrayed as a result of A. Josephine and B. a result of him just sacrificing troops in numbers rather than him being any kind of genius military strategist.
Yup, saw the pictures from the movie and from the set... and those amateurish shots taken on set look so much better, so much more color.... I mean come on, it's Napoleonic Europe, all the armies should be full of bright colors.
I am French and you said it all it’s exactly that
No build up to any scene
no attachment to anything
And most importantly all the best moments of his career are left out
It should have been done in a trilogy to take time
Or just choose a specific time
Doing an entry like in gladiator explaining what happened before and start in Italy campaign which is amazing
Ending the movie with the coup of 18 Brumaire
Second movie : explaining what happened just after the 18 Brumaire
First scene starting with coronation
And then end with invasion of Russia and leaving us with having to take the decision to retreat
Third movie : his downfall starting
Explaining the retreat of Russia (we all know about it no need to spend long in the thing everyone knows about)
But after the battle of Leipzig and most importantly seeing the campaign in France which made Napoleon enter even more in the legend defending france with 50.000 men against 600.000
And finishing with a much more epic Waterloo it felt like there was 1000 men on the battlefield when there was 100.000 on each side
And no scenes with the Imperial guard 💂♀️
The most feared troop in Europe
No emotions in this movie
I had people leaving the theater before the end …
The Imperial guard were routed at Waterloo.
I wonder if the longer Apple+ version will be better
Imagine if Mel Gibson made the Napoleon movie...probably badass