Surprised to see so many positive comments about the battle scenes. Felt like 5% of the film about a ‘brilliant strategist’ actually focused on battle. Aside from a few ‘epic’ shots, much of the very limited battle filming felt lazy and detached. Almost nothing about his commanders or specific units, I found myself not caring about his forces at all. Artsy shots of cannon balls breaking ice and then the massive battle of Waterloo felt like a small engagement lasting an hour or 2. The entire military campaigns portion of Napoleon’s life was reduced to an afterthought in this film. This movie is ‘Napoleon & Josephine.. with a snippet of battle.’
@@grigorov1914 It's a Hollywood movie .. go watch a documentary if you want 'accuracy' ... Most historical records have been embellished to adhere to some sort of agenda anyway ... Who gives a crap.
Very poor take on Napoleon. Phoenix is an amazing actor but Napoleon just was not Comodus or the Joker. Not at all. There would be an awkwardness with Napoleon in social events. He was introverted and not very at ease in big social events. But that was not insecurity. It was just that he was too focused on other things to care. He was briliant as an administrator. And everyone around him recognized his skills and commitment. So, no, he would not have had any reason to doubt himself. Because he delivered and people recognized it. Even in his romantic life its way more complicated vs what the movie did. Napoleon also betrayed Josephine. They both betrayed each other quite a bit. But they also formed this weird partnership in which they seemed to understand each other. They rallied around her kids and Napoleon was very supportive of her children. But all in all, both Napoleon and Josephine looked like they were too narcisistic to just be faithful ;) He totally wanted to have his official heir with Josephine. Allas, real life Josephine was older vs Napoleon and already in her 40s when they got crowned. So...a baby was really not easy for her. And yes, he sidelined her and went to get another official marriage with a younger wife (and a noble one) because....he cared more about his own legacy. The Napoleon complex is just something the british invented. Their own Wellington was shorter vs Napoleon lol Not to say Napoleon did not have his flaws. He had them plenty. But his flaws came mostly from where he shined above all. He was so determined that he ended up not being able to give up. He would throw himself at the most desperate challenge and always want to press on. Which did end up causing a ton of destruction. Stuff like the Iberian campaign going way past the point where it made sense. The Russian campaign same thing. The come back and the Waterloo campaign was such a desperate last shot. Do not be fooled, Napoleon was actually pretty good during the Waterloo campaign. He came close to a win. But it was all so desperate....eventually he would have to face more and more armies. There was no way he would be the best for France at that point in time. But because he was Napoleon, he would try! And that´s why they had to finally place him on a remote island guarded by the british navy. Because everyone was afraid he might still want to try again. Now think if this is the character that they told Phoenix to do. It just isnt! They portrayed someone else going through Napoleon´s life. And even their pitty attempt at covering everything was always destined to fail. They could not possibly put his entire life in one movie. You had many really key events completely absent from the movie. Like him fighting for Corsica´s independence in his youth (important to establish his personality), his entire Italian Campaign which was basically the one which sky rocketed him into power. It was the Italian Campaign which made the Egypt one possible. And which made it possible for him to go for power even after Egypt. And the movie just completely jumps over Italy. In the Austerlitz campaign you get nothing of his army marching all the way through Germany and completely blitzkrieging the germans way before blitzkrig was a word. But that´s how he got to Austerlitz as he did. And you also did not see how he outmanouvered Wellington and Blucher in order to isolate Wellington and get the chance at Waterloo. Its like....the movie attempted to do something impossible and it will remain impossible with 4 hours. Only made worse by their uninspired portrayal of Napoleon. Its a bit sad that they manage to do something so mediocre with such a larger than life story. For good and evil, Napoleon was one of the most influential personalities in world history. How can you possibly make a mediocre movie with so much content available? mehhhhhhh
Yeah, I had my doubts already when I heard about the casting, but it's actually worse than I thought. Joaquin Phoenix is a talented actor, but the character he's playing is not Napoleon. Not even close.
Perfect description. And, unfortunately, none of this has been successfully portrayed in the movie. His downfall started the day he decided to betray Spain. He lost almost 300k men and supplies for the Grand Armee. From that point his life suffered from an unstoppable domino effect and he was constantly under a lot pressure ("A big ulcer" he would call it).
@@sprPeeYes, but he was taller than Nelson (5.4, but others say 5.7...very strange) and the same height than Churchill (Churchill being born more than 100 years after Napoléon, we can say that Napoléon was relatively taller than him...).
I agree, most of the battle scenes were chronologically inaccurate. But truth be told. Not that many people really know the order of the battles. The majority don't care either, they just want to be entertained. I took my two sons to watch it yesterday ,they loved it and are now interested in learning about him .
I don't think that any of Napoleon's Marshalls were individually mentioned by name . The Austerlitz scene. The French have the high ground. Waterloo , its just rain followed by a cavalry charge led by The empreur himself, before the prussians arrive.
It's interesting that Ridley Scott's directorial debut was "The Duelists," (1977) which was about two officers in Napoleon's army (we never see Napoleon in that movie.) In my opinion, "The Duelists" is still Scott's best movie.
@@bdleo300 Unfortunately, I have to agree again. About the budget of The Dualist, I didn't know that, but it makes sense, interesting. Perhaps movies without big budget are often more interesting to watch, it force the director to make essential choices, improvise, and cutting unnecessary corners in movies. (and make them less long, I mean, movies nowadays are minimal 2.5 hours, often such a dread.
I'm not saying Phoenix was horrible. But he was miscast. His portrayal of Napoleon was off. Napoleon was known for being very charismatic. He was able to win over soldiers, and common folks with speeches, and wit. The scene in the end of the movie where his 5th Army joins him vs kill him. That scene is horrible. If Napoleon was like that in real life, they would of shot him dead. But historically he won them over with a speech on brotherly love and love of country. Now, there is truth that the English, Russians, and Austrians didn't want to have relationships with him. But that was because the Monarchs of Europe didn't want the Republican Revolution of France to enter their Monarch countries. They were hellbent on invading France to restore the King of France. Wasn't because Napoleon himself. Sadly, people who see this film are not going to see a realistic portrayal of Napoleon. But maybe a "paying if forward" of the Phoenix - Scott relationship. And Phoenix is probably the worst part of a great cast surrounding him. THat's never good.
I haven't seen it yet but from every clip and in your review he is cold and emotionless. That wasn't Napoleon at all. Phoenix is an awful choice for the fiery, charismatic Corsican. He didn't wear his heart on his sleeve but he could be quite emotional, even in front of his troops. They loved him because he held nothing back.
It's not a bad film, but I felt there could have been improvements. 1--They tried to squeeze Napoleon's entire career into one single movie, 2--Instead of being a movie about what he was famous for (successes in war), they tried to make it a halfway love story, 3--I felt Joaquin Phoenix did as good job as he could despite appearing way too old for the role.
Agreed, I didn’t mind the emphasis of Napoleon and Josephine but I found that it sucked they skipped a lot of the retreat from Russia and the business with the Austria and Spain. If it was a 3-4 hour long movie which would be daunting, I think would willfully tackle the life of Napoleon
it is a bad movie, it insults Napoleon's legacy by taking so many creative liberties with a very different man, than whatever they tried portraying, if youre truly interested in seeing an accurate and well executed biography film on Napoleon, watch the 2002 series named: Napoleon (2002).
@@Callsign-Cobra Scott's movie is basically the reverse of what the directors did from the 2003 Gods & General movie (which was 4 hours long), who all tried to cramp everything during the early days of the Civil War. I saw this coming a mile away and without any serious historical military experts/oxford professors/et (like Dale Dyle for military expertise with Band of Brothers, etc), Scott's ego got the best of him. He followed the ignorant Hollywood route, recounting historical figures/periods in a limited time with an almost biased intent of the overall narrative. The 2002 Napoleon TV series showed people that doing a TV/Netflix-like show format was more appropriate for respecting the historical context of Napoleon's long career that lasted almost 20+ years from 1793/4 to 1815.
Ridley Scott said he will release the director's cut of Napoleon, it will be 1 hour and 30 minutes longer, so hopefully it will be better and fix the problems in the film like it did with Kingdom of Heaven.
@@freakexecutiveofficer Did he? Everything I have seen he played Napoleon as dour and unemotional when in in reality he was fiery, charismatic and hotblooded.
@@artm1973 Well from a historical standpoint yeah the acting was off, but for someone who doesn’t know much about the napoleonic wars and his character it was alright.
@@freakexecutiveofficer So he and scott both failed by not doing any kind of research into the kind of man the main character was to portray him believably. It's not just an oversight, the man we see in the movie would not have been able to be as charismatic, inspirational and downright worshipped by his subjects who'd follow him to hell and back. It's not a believable performance.
@@joshua6207nope not in a single scene clearly there. His Marshalls and generals were not really present or interesting characters in the movie. Missed opportunities..... That is this movie
@@13fafo damn that sucks because Murat, Davout and Ney are great marshals who did some badass stuff.. what a shame. Maybe the new show thats supossed to go on hbo will go more in depth into the french empire not just a movie about napoleon and his wife's
I’m hoping that the Apple TV director’s cut will improve on some of the aspects of the runtime. There’s also the Stanley Kubrick script for Napoleon which is still releasing as an HBO miniseries with Spielberg producing, so I’m hoping that will be a better accurate version of the character.
Napoleon leading a cavalry charge at Waterloo? The tactics shown for Austerlitz were something worthy of the fantasy film Willow. Napoleon loved Josephine but it didn't impinge on what he did. Two days after he married her he was off to Italy at the head of the french army. His military success was unparalleled and he repeatedly defeated coalitions of the greatest european powers united against him. The troops were loyal to Napoleon. Phoenix was crap in this movie. He was much too old to play the 20 year old Napoleon. Napoleon was 26 when he met the 32 year old Josephine. His performance was incomprehensible. You come away with no idea how he came to power or why he was militarily and politically so successful.
You’re generous to give it a 3. I could give it a 2 out of 5. And that’s only because the battle sequences were good. Other than that, if you know how much story they had to work with and how many missed opportunities they had to make this movie even mediocre, you will feel the urge to leave the theatre. They took a story about one of the most successful human beings in all of history and made it about an insecure, c*ck with only circumstantial winnings. Someone who was beloved by both citizens and military personnel to just being some random moron. It is essentially the British propagandized caricature of Napoleon and no sincere attempt at trying to explain who he was and what drove him.
He is probably right in saying that it would fit better into a TV format like "Breaking Bad" or The Sopranos", where it could develop and unfold the long and winding story of Napoleon over weeks, months, and seasons. In TV series, viewers certainly get to know the characters quite well, like family members or their group of friends.
@@Artyom_K. No, rather for a more personal grasp of a complex man. Why are we concerned about Tony Soprano and Walter White? Because we see their romances and their battles, or because they are noble and chivalrous? No. Because through the TV serial format, we relate to the quite-human nuances of how they respond to their crazy difficult place in life. They have become our acquaintances over the serial time format.
The opening scene was enough to frustrate me - it’s the details of Marie Antoinette’s execution that should have been depicted accurately - Napoleon wasn’t even present at the death Artistic liberty aside - it was unnecessary to include so many inaccuracies when the reality was dramatic enough
Super bummed about this movie. We won't see another attempt for 20-30 years and I'll likely be dead. Would have been great to see a trilogy for Napoleon.
Napoleon only declared two offensive wars every other war he fought was a defensive war, he just decided the best defense was a good offense, Napoleon is a champion and opportunist of the revolution not so much a conqueror in the way Alexander, Caesar or Genghis Khan had been
1796, Campaign in Italy (1796-1797).Second Campaign in Italy (1800). Campaign that lead to Austerlitz. Campaign in Prussia (1806).Campaign in Poland (1807).Egyptian Campaign (1798-1799).Campaign of Germany (1809).French invasion of Russia (1812).Last Campaign in Germany (1813).
@@David-j3o7kPutting aside the fact you begin this list before Napoleon even had political power, invading someone after they declared war on you does not mean you declared war.
Napoleon was an innovator of offensive warfare, but he started losing when his enemies started working together instead of trying to claim all of the glory for themselves.
Ridley, Scott has already confirmed that there will be a 4-hour long extended cut of the film, at a later date. I'm sure that will make the movie even better and fix some of its pacing problems. I watched it last night and I really enjoyed it. Really looking forward to the longer version.
The movie could have done without the whole focus on Josephine. It bogged the film down. Plus Joaquin Phoenix seemed not to be acting for most of the movie. The few times he put in more expression were the best. Not sure why he looked so bored playing this role.
NO OSCAR for Scott for this one - What a stinker of a 'history' movie! and even as simply a general entertainment movie IT HAS NO DECENT STORYLINE NOR PLOT. IT COULD'VE EASILY BEEN A WINNER MOVIE IF THE HISTORICAL DETAILS WERE ACCURATE. Seems Ridley chose High School students to be his history consultants. The battle scenes depicted in the movie were NOT how the battles were actually fought. SPOILER ALERTS >>> Napoleon never led a cavalry charge at Borodino. Napoleon did not charge into hand to hand combat at Waterloo. As for Toulon the battle, the movie depicts the British fort 100% wrong; it was more like a huge dirt hill. 5:10 > The MOVIE GIVES INACCURATE DEATH TOTALS AT THE END OF THE MOVIE; The reviewer is correct in referring to those totals as casualties (DEAD AND WOUNDED). For example the movie inaccurately states for the battle of Waterloo " 45,000 killed in one day ", but the reality is 10,000 were killed and 35,000 were wounded thereabouts. Napoleon-Joaquin looks like Josephine's dad, lol. She was older than him in reality. Very annoying to watch throughout the movie. The movie completely got Napoleon's personality wrong; Joaquin does a Godfather impersonation, whereas the real Napoleon was a LONG talker and very feisty when communicating directly.
Other than the historical inaccuracies, poor pacing, complete lack of character development of Napoleon’s Marshalls, the complete omission of his tactical genius in battle, the downplaying of the Napoleonic Code, the fact Phoenix never aged a day in thirty years, etc., it was an ok film. Better to skip it and watch ‘Waterloo’ possibly the greatest historical movie ever made staring Rod Steiger as Napoleon. And historically accurate.
It reminds me of Desiree, the film with Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons. A romance rather than biopic. The difference being that Marlon Brando at least tried to act like Napoleon and looked like him. The best thing for us all is if Scott just stays away from history. He has no respect for it.
I've watched a few reviews now, and I'm appalled that so many reviewers LIKED the Waterloo scenes. Really? Trenches? A soldier with a musket asking Wellington if he should shoot Napoleon, who was probably a mile away at LEAST? The British infantry ADVANCES into the open to form squares? And, worst of all, Napoleon JOINS IN AN ATTACK? Too many other inaccuracies to even remember. Napoleon fired artillery at the pyramids? He melted down and recast artillery and captured a castle-fort at Toulon? Wellington visited him on the ship that was taking him into exile? Really? Just awful, start to finish.
We want to present Napoleon as a dictator, but the royalty of the time were dictatorships. Dictatorship overthrown in France by the Revolution which united neighboring royalties against it, for fear that their people would take an example from this Revolution. This is what led to all these wars and Napoleon's coming to power. What remains today of these kings of the time? Who can name them? We only talk about Napoleon, even though he was beaten. Ask yourself why?
Another lad talking about russian winter having an effect on Napoleon's army. Meanwhile Napoleon losing most of his man during summer and autumn, be like: *what is blud cooking* ?
They completely misunderstood the warfare of the napoleonic wars and why napoleon was such a genius. The battle scenes are lazy and feel like some bad action game scene or something that might happen when 2 people who just downloaded napoleon total war try to battle each other. They showed nothing of his brilliant planning and how he divided his armies and exploited his enemies position to on to divide them and take them one by one
Agree that the latter half was much better than the beginning but good entertainment nonetheless. As to historical accuracy I can live with that as i'm not intending to write a thesis!
This is what happens filmmakers have zero respect for history: they just know that they disagree politically and philosophically with a given historical figure, so they defame them rather than presenting them from a neutral, interesting, and historical perspective!
I will remember this year as the one where Nolan, Scott and Scorsese all made horrible movies not worth watching. The Killer from David Fincher was at least enjoyable, instead of being total waste of time.
After watching interviews of Ridley Scott, I feel like he thinks he's too great a director to be bothered by historical accuracy. That's very disappointing.
@@azDanqs - First of all, he was 35 when he was crowned and Joséphine was 6 year older than him. It was important because she was too old to give him an heir. That is why he then married Marie-Louise of Austria who gave him a son, even though he was still very fond of Joséphine.
Ho i must have missed the bit were Napoleon lead the French cavlary at Waterloo in the two hundred + books i have on him and his battles. THIS FILM IS A TOTAL JOKE.
He didn't say "Josephine!" with his last breath .. he said "Joe's a fiend!" He finally twigged Joe the decorator who put the wallpaper up, had poisoned him.
the battle of Waterloo was a JOKE in the movie....all the battles were...but in the Waterloo sequence, ridely scott PUTS HIS DAMN FLAGS ALL OVER THE LANDSCAPE LIKE HE DID IN KINGDOM OF HEAVEN....it was a JOKE
Good battle scenes but a poor narative of Napolian. Seemed like there was a thread of wokeness throughout the movie portaying him as a coward and focusing on his relationship with Joesaphine far too much.
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, average camera work, 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.
You said it perfectly that the movie is choppy. The movie skipped so fast to different time periods and without any character development maybe ? It could have been so much better darnit. I love Joaquin so much, I’ll still watch the extended version on Apple, I’m not saying it was all bad but I’m still processing what I just watched. Great video
Too much time spent on Josephine and not enough on his rise to power and popularity. They glossed over his early career and we never got a sense of WHY he was so popular. And there were many scenes about his wife that we didn't need to tell the same story. And as much as I like Joaquin his american accent broke character for me.
i liked the movie but i agree with your points, it really was choppy. As someone who loves to study history i was disappointed with how it turned out to be since i expected it to be much better. The part i didnt like the most however was that the first half of the movie was literal porn, we dont need to see napoleon having sex with josephine every 5 minutes. What i think was not explained enough in the movie, is how much of an impact he had on europe. From the movie i wouldnt be able to tell that he conquered literally all of it. They couldhave also mentioned that the prussians and austrians were allied to him, but betrayed him. I was also disappointed with how saint helena turned out to be. It was shown for like 2 minutes out of the 2.5 hours, I think they should have make Helena much longer. Really make the audience feel the tragedy and sadness with him. I would make it at least 7 - 10 minutes long. I think that a more emotional end would be appropriate to such conqueror... I still liked the movie tho, i just feel like it could have been better. They chose awesome historical figure with which they had a lot of Awesome opportunities which they just didnt use.
I think these battles would have happened regardless. Those men would have died regardless. Napoleon just got to play the game, and it turns out he was one of the best ever at it. It just allowed him to grow into his unabashedly, weird self. This movie encapsulates how weird Napoleon was. He loved his wife. He loved her kids, who were not his. He was ahead of his time in many ways. He just happened to be amazing at archaic warfare. If Napoleon never became a general, he would have lived and died as a nobody in Corsica. Playing with his dogs and what not.
He was not responsible for the deaths or the wars. That's British propaganda you're repeating. He was defending France from the royal famlies of Europe.
Napoleon never was a Corsican Hitler, that narrative is typically British, but that's not what historians tell us about the man, not even close, he was neither evil nor good, he was complex, as were the reasons of his rise and fall. To be surprised that the movie isn't giving you an evil character feels quite weird to me.🤨
I didnt hate the movie. Im going to watch the 4hr cut when released. I hate they boil his legacy down to how many died under him....when 25min earlier we are shown an army defect to him because of their respect for him. I could go on and on. Its not the worst, but its not fantastic. Battles were cool, just wish they were longer or more of them Him shooting the pyramids was dumb
I just watched it and it just seemed like they just talked about him and Josephine, it didn’t really go in depth about how good of a strategist he was. And they made it seem like he had more losses then victories but he had many wins. It wasn’t a bad movie tho 😂
1/10 don't waste your money. Also Scott has really fallen far especially with casting choices and not being able to take a hint of criticism. Sorry you'll never be able to convince me that two Bostonians were the right choice for High Medieval Frenchmen. Phoenix portrays a man I wouldn't follow into my own house let a lone a battlefield. Also a telescope strapped to a Baker Rifle! The people who made the choices in this film were either on drugs or suffering from dementia.
Thanks for the review and pointing out some of the historical inaccuracies. I realize that movies are not documentaries and movies exist for entertainment but more care needs to be taken when portrying historical figures and events. I think I will save my money and re-watch the Napoleon miniseries from 2002. I think the miniseries has its own problems with historical accuracy, but I'd fancy a guess the miniseries does a better job overall. Also, a few corrections... I don't recall the exact month, day and year that Napoleon and his army crossed over into Russian territory. What I can say with certainty is the war with Russia was underway during the summer months and the summer heat was brutal. The problem wasn't invading during the winter. Part of the problem was that winter came early and he stayed too long in Moscow before leaving. Considering the outcome, going to war with Russia was a massive mistake, but attempting to resolve things peacefully by renegotiating Russia's compliance with Napoleon's Continental System would have massive ripple effects. If Russia can renegotiate to what extent they comply with the trade blockade of Great Britain what is to stop other countries from doing the same and making it harder to force Great Britain to the bargaining table to create a lasting peace? It is a commonly repeated anecdote that on his death bed, one of the last things Napoleon uttered before passing was the name of his first wife, "Josephine." It is my understanding that eyewitness accounts of his passing do not support this. To the best of my knowledge this story simply isn't true. I would strongly recommend that people check out Epic History TV on RUclips to learn more about the Napoleonic Wars.
@@niruban2635yeah it's super awkward even with me at 32 and my dad at 75 so maybe don't take family. He bangs her doggy style like thwap, thwap, thwap like a dirty dog a few times
I walked out of this movie with about ten minutes left because there was literally no reason to finish it. I wasn't invested in the characters, none of them were likeable, there was zero exposition to help explain the historical aspects for those of us non historians, it was more of a romance drama, and characters were introduced only to never be mentioned again.
I definitely think Ridley Scott will give his director’s cut on Apple TV which is a total of 4 hours and it feels because many things felt rushed on the theatrical version
Just saw it, i agree strongly with the feeling of choppiness, ut kind of ruined it for me that they tried to cram too many events into the time frame of a movie.
What went wrong with this movie is what goes wrong with EVERY current Hollywood movie - The only thing anyone pays attention to any more is directing, special effects, acting, cussing. But STORY? The actual STORY and the history which it is supposedly based upon? All absent -
A movie about Napoleon at the height of the French Empire, should really not be visually similar to the Last Duel. Or look like it takes place on the same planet as Prometheus. Meanwhile Napoleon comes off as the human personification of said planet.
I love The Last Duel as well and I was interested in Napoleon; however all the critics that I follow (including yourself) have convinced me to wait for the Apple version. Thanks to you too for saving me some time and money!
Napoleon deserved a better portrayal than this garbage heap of a movie. This is just another product of a long line of British propaganda meant to demean and minimize his accomplishments. (3 out of 10). Napoleon was not a warmonger and did not set out to conquer Europe. Other nations, particularly Britain, were the aggressors against France-declaring war on Napoleon more often. Remember, Napoleon was a revolutionary at heart-a child of the Enlightenment. He came from humble beginnings and was seen as a threat by the great royal houses of the Holy Roman Empire (Austria), Britain, Prussia, and Russia. Napoleon made two significant mistakes in his career. He invaded the Iberian Peninsula (which became his Vietnam) and instituted the Continental System (essentially Brexit in reverse), which wreaked havoc on the French and European economies. Napoleon only invaded Russia because the Czar reneged on his agreement to uphold the Continental System and was about to betray him by joining Austria against France. Ultimately, it was always about Britain vs. France and Royal families vs. Revolutionaries.
This is just my opinion but I loved it, despite its flaws. I might go as far as saying its my second favorite movie of the year, although I can understand why people might not be as high on it as I was. I just found it incredibly entertaining.
You would probably enjoy a movie on the flat earth theory then. From a historical perspective, this movie is horrible. From a character perspective, Scott portrayed Napoleon as a spoiled cockold brat teenager. Scott should be ashamed of his work. This movie is more of a parody than a documentary. A real joke.
Please, How can one not see this movie in the movie theater!? I feel your comments are basic. I respect them, but clearly you don’t share the deep admiration so many of us have for Napoleon. Just taking time to portray a minuscule part of his life is infinitely appreciated by many. Best wishes!
Michael mann ferrari succesed while this failed because if Ridley wanted to make a movie about his whole life he needed to make it into 3 parts or he could make it like Ferrari where it was focused only on one period
What went wrong? Pretty much everything. They lost me at the Battle of Toulon. The Phoenix performance was fine, except this characer in no way resembled someone who inspired the kind of courage and loyalty in men that the real Napoleon inspired. And by the way, Hunger Games, released on the same day, was longer.
Perhaps a bit unfairly, but before seeing a movie like this, I have to know going in that'll be on par with "The Ten Commandments" or "Gladiator" where every scene leads to the next smoothly because of the protagonist's ACTIONS and fate. I really dislike movies where they TELL you someone is great without SHOWING you how or what got the person there. It's like a movie about a brilliant photographer such as Diane Arbus but that never shows any of her photos. Plus, from the trailers, the main actor was miscast. I always liked his work, but sometimes, no matter how good someone is, their approach and very essence is not right for the person they're portraying.
Terrific review, thank you. You mentioned that there appeared to missing aspects of character and story development, I understand that what’s coming to Apple will be a 4hr + version of the theatrical release which’ll hopefully plug those gaps for you.
They missed our his early year failures during the revolution. They made out he stepped up and had been successful ever since (until the end of course)
The battle scenes are great. The fluff in-between was just an excuse to set up more battle scenes. The movie could have used some tits if I was forced to watch all of this love story.
I was looking forward to this movie so much all year when I found out it was being made. But like napoleon this movie was too ambitious for its own good. Trying to cover 30 years of napoleon is just not possible in a 2 hour movie. It felt really shallow as it jumped from important moment to moment. Only problem though is unless you are a history nerd like me you wouldn’t understand why people were doing what they were doing or the context of the events going on. Even I who has a good knowledge of napoleon was confused at times to what was going on. The movie would have been so much better if it focused on one part of napoleon’s life. Whether that be his rise, peak, or his fall.
R.S is my favorite director I thought Phoenix would have been great for a Napoleon, but honestly I realized though the movie he was just not right specially when playing Napoleon as young, also not enough battlefield action or focus on his Marshals who were great man of valor. The movie just jumped around and it was hard to figure time lapses how he became Napoleon, British actors playing French parts with a heavy British accent and around the same frame British agents playing their version of the role confused me to know who is who I think this should have been better played since knowing which side is which is very important. To much of Josephine as well, made the movie boring. And at times the painted out Napoleon to look like a clown
It always makes me giggle when a historical movie is being revised. They have to say spoilers for those gigsntic sooks that think the world revolves around them 😂 Like bruh, spoiler this all happened before you were born
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/af0phKxitX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Surprised to see so many positive comments about the battle scenes. Felt like 5% of the film about a ‘brilliant strategist’ actually focused on battle. Aside from a few ‘epic’ shots, much of the very limited battle filming felt lazy and detached. Almost nothing about his commanders or specific units, I found myself not caring about his forces at all. Artsy shots of cannon balls breaking ice and then the massive battle of Waterloo felt like a small engagement lasting an hour or 2. The entire military campaigns portion of Napoleon’s life was reduced to an afterthought in this film. This movie is ‘Napoleon & Josephine.. with a snippet of battle.’
the battle scenes were not historically accurate
@@airconditionedrelco7099 Who cares? 😂
Battle scenes are ridiculous.
@@Fiveash-Arta whole lot of people. The entire population of France, for a start.
@@grigorov1914 It's a Hollywood movie .. go watch a documentary if you want 'accuracy' ... Most historical records have been embellished to adhere to some sort of agenda anyway ... Who gives a crap.
Very poor take on Napoleon.
Phoenix is an amazing actor but Napoleon just was not Comodus or the Joker. Not at all.
There would be an awkwardness with Napoleon in social events. He was introverted and not very at ease in big social events. But that was not insecurity. It was just that he was too focused on other things to care.
He was briliant as an administrator. And everyone around him recognized his skills and commitment. So, no, he would not have had any reason to doubt himself. Because he delivered and people recognized it.
Even in his romantic life its way more complicated vs what the movie did.
Napoleon also betrayed Josephine. They both betrayed each other quite a bit. But they also formed this weird partnership in which they seemed to understand each other. They rallied around her kids and Napoleon was very supportive of her children. But all in all, both Napoleon and Josephine looked like they were too narcisistic to just be faithful ;)
He totally wanted to have his official heir with Josephine. Allas, real life Josephine was older vs Napoleon and already in her 40s when they got crowned. So...a baby was really not easy for her.
And yes, he sidelined her and went to get another official marriage with a younger wife (and a noble one) because....he cared more about his own legacy.
The Napoleon complex is just something the british invented. Their own Wellington was shorter vs Napoleon lol
Not to say Napoleon did not have his flaws. He had them plenty. But his flaws came mostly from where he shined above all. He was so determined that he ended up not being able to give up. He would throw himself at the most desperate challenge and always want to press on. Which did end up causing a ton of destruction. Stuff like the Iberian campaign going way past the point where it made sense. The Russian campaign same thing. The come back and the Waterloo campaign was such a desperate last shot. Do not be fooled, Napoleon was actually pretty good during the Waterloo campaign. He came close to a win. But it was all so desperate....eventually he would have to face more and more armies. There was no way he would be the best for France at that point in time. But because he was Napoleon, he would try! And that´s why they had to finally place him on a remote island guarded by the british navy. Because everyone was afraid he might still want to try again.
Now think if this is the character that they told Phoenix to do. It just isnt! They portrayed someone else going through Napoleon´s life. And even their pitty attempt at covering everything was always destined to fail. They could not possibly put his entire life in one movie. You had many really key events completely absent from the movie. Like him fighting for Corsica´s independence in his youth (important to establish his personality), his entire Italian Campaign which was basically the one which sky rocketed him into power. It was the Italian Campaign which made the Egypt one possible. And which made it possible for him to go for power even after Egypt. And the movie just completely jumps over Italy. In the Austerlitz campaign you get nothing of his army marching all the way through Germany and completely blitzkrieging the germans way before blitzkrig was a word. But that´s how he got to Austerlitz as he did. And you also did not see how he outmanouvered Wellington and Blucher in order to isolate Wellington and get the chance at Waterloo.
Its like....the movie attempted to do something impossible and it will remain impossible with 4 hours. Only made worse by their uninspired portrayal of Napoleon.
Its a bit sad that they manage to do something so mediocre with such a larger than life story. For good and evil, Napoleon was one of the most influential personalities in world history. How can you possibly make a mediocre movie with so much content available? mehhhhhhh
Yeah, I had my doubts already when I heard about the casting, but it's actually worse than I thought. Joaquin Phoenix is a talented actor, but the character he's playing is not Napoleon. Not even close.
great
Perfect description. And, unfortunately, none of this has been successfully portrayed in the movie.
His downfall started the day he decided to betray Spain. He lost almost 300k men and supplies for the Grand Armee. From that point his life suffered from an unstoppable domino effect and he was constantly under a lot pressure ("A big ulcer" he would call it).
Napoleon was not taller than Wellington. Napoleon was 5ft 6, Wellington was 5ft 10.
@@sprPeeYes, but he was taller than Nelson (5.4, but others say 5.7...very strange) and the same height than Churchill (Churchill being born more than 100 years after Napoléon, we can say that Napoléon was relatively taller than him...).
I agree, most of the battle scenes were chronologically inaccurate. But truth be told. Not that many people really know the order of the battles. The majority don't care either, they just want to be entertained. I took my two sons to watch it yesterday ,they loved it and are now interested in learning about him .
Was Murat the cavalry commander in the film ? I heard he was cut which would be a shame
I don't think that any of Napoleon's Marshalls were individually mentioned by name . The Austerlitz scene. The French have the high ground. Waterloo , its just rain followed by a cavalry charge led by The empreur himself, before the prussians arrive.
@@fernandolopez3905 that's unfortunate.
I wanted more battle scenes less love
It's interesting that Ridley Scott's directorial debut was "The Duelists," (1977) which was about two officers in Napoleon's army (we never see Napoleon in that movie.) In my opinion, "The Duelists" is still Scott's best movie.
I couldn't agree more!
Great movie. For me, his best are Alien and Gladiator, but we all have different tastes.
Agree. If not the best, definitely one of his best movies (with very limited budget). Sadly, he failed to make a half decent movie in decades...
@@bdleo300 Unfortunately, I have to agree again.
About the budget of The Dualist, I didn't know that, but it makes sense, interesting.
Perhaps movies without big budget are often more interesting to watch, it force the director to make essential choices, improvise, and cutting unnecessary corners in movies. (and make them less long, I mean, movies nowadays are minimal 2.5 hours, often such a dread.
We never see Napoleon in this one.
I'm not saying Phoenix was horrible. But he was miscast. His portrayal of Napoleon was off. Napoleon was known for being very charismatic. He was able to win over soldiers, and common folks with speeches, and wit. The scene in the end of the movie where his 5th Army joins him vs kill him. That scene is horrible. If Napoleon was like that in real life, they would of shot him dead. But historically he won them over with a speech on brotherly love and love of country. Now, there is truth that the English, Russians, and Austrians didn't want to have relationships with him. But that was because the Monarchs of Europe didn't want the Republican Revolution of France to enter their Monarch countries. They were hellbent on invading France to restore the King of France. Wasn't because Napoleon himself. Sadly, people who see this film are not going to see a realistic portrayal of Napoleon. But maybe a "paying if forward" of the Phoenix - Scott relationship. And Phoenix is probably the worst part of a great cast surrounding him. THat's never good.
I haven't seen it yet but from every clip and in your review he is cold and emotionless. That wasn't Napoleon at all. Phoenix is an awful choice for the fiery, charismatic Corsican. He didn't wear his heart on his sleeve but he could be quite emotional, even in front of his troops. They loved him because he held nothing back.
Watch it, he is great in this.
No, no he was not.
@@k.vn.k I watched it. Phoenix was TERRIBLE. No range of emotion, he looked like he was constipated the whole time.
Don’t go. Unless you like parodies.
It's not a bad film, but I felt there could have been improvements. 1--They tried to squeeze Napoleon's entire career into one single movie, 2--Instead of being a movie about what he was famous for (successes in war), they tried to make it a halfway love story, 3--I felt Joaquin Phoenix did as good job as he could despite appearing way too old for the role.
EXACTLY!
Agreed, I didn’t mind the emphasis of Napoleon and Josephine but I found that it sucked they skipped a lot of the retreat from Russia and the business with the Austria and Spain. If it was a 3-4 hour long movie which would be daunting, I think would willfully tackle the life of Napoleon
4- they cast Phoenix. He was terrible
it is a bad movie, it insults Napoleon's legacy by taking so many creative liberties with a very different man, than whatever they tried portraying, if youre truly interested in seeing an accurate and well executed biography film on Napoleon, watch the 2002 series named: Napoleon (2002).
@@Callsign-Cobra Scott's movie is basically the reverse of what the directors did from the 2003 Gods & General movie (which was 4 hours long), who all tried to cramp everything during the early days of the Civil War.
I saw this coming a mile away and without any serious historical military experts/oxford professors/et (like Dale Dyle for military expertise with Band of Brothers, etc), Scott's ego got the best of him. He followed the ignorant Hollywood route, recounting historical figures/periods in a limited time with an almost biased intent of the overall narrative.
The 2002 Napoleon TV series showed people that doing a TV/Netflix-like show format was more appropriate for respecting the historical context of Napoleon's long career that lasted almost 20+ years from 1793/4 to 1815.
Ridley Scott said he will release the director's cut of Napoleon, it will be 1 hour and 30 minutes longer, so hopefully it will be better and fix the problems in the film like it did with Kingdom of Heaven.
The problems are the writing and Phoenix. Hard to fix that by adding more time.
@@artm1973 Phoenix did fine in the movie, what's the issue there?
@@freakexecutiveofficer Did he? Everything I have seen he played Napoleon as dour and unemotional when in in reality he was fiery, charismatic and hotblooded.
@@artm1973 Well from a historical standpoint yeah the acting was off, but for someone who doesn’t know much about the napoleonic wars and his character it was alright.
@@freakexecutiveofficer So he and scott both failed by not doing any kind of research into the kind of man the main character was to portray him believably. It's not just an oversight, the man we see in the movie would not have been able to be as charismatic, inspirational and downright worshipped by his subjects who'd follow him to hell and back. It's not a believable performance.
I really wanted this movie to be a lot better than what it was. I gave it 3*/5. Let me know your rating below!
nothing went wrong but expect another Kingdom of Heaven situation and just wait for the extended cut.
Was joachim murat in the movie ? Some say he was cut but he's a huge part of the story ..
@@joshua6207nope not in a single scene clearly there. His Marshalls and generals were not really present or interesting characters in the movie. Missed opportunities..... That is this movie
1.5 out of 5
@@13fafo damn that sucks because Murat, Davout and Ney are great marshals who did some badass stuff.. what a shame. Maybe the new show thats supossed to go on hbo will go more in depth into the french empire not just a movie about napoleon and his wife's
I’m hoping that the Apple TV director’s cut will improve on some of the aspects of the runtime. There’s also the Stanley Kubrick script for Napoleon which is still releasing as an HBO miniseries with Spielberg producing, so I’m hoping that will be a better accurate version of the character.
Ahhh that could be good!
the directors cut is just more josephine @@BrainPilot
It won't.
Napoleon leading a cavalry charge at Waterloo? The tactics shown for Austerlitz were something worthy of the fantasy film Willow.
Napoleon loved Josephine but it didn't impinge on what he did. Two days after he married her he was off to Italy at the head of the french army.
His military success was unparalleled and he repeatedly defeated coalitions of the greatest european powers united against him.
The troops were loyal to Napoleon. Phoenix was crap in this movie. He was much too old to play the 20 year old Napoleon. Napoleon was 26 when he met the 32 year old Josephine. His performance was incomprehensible. You come away with no idea how he came to power or why he was militarily and politically so successful.
It did Napoleon an injustice. I don't understand how you can ruin his story.
Ridley Scott is englisman and they are still bitter about Napoleon being so great. He ruined it by purpose.
@@petrstanovsky7648 he should just have made a movie about Arthur wellesey owning him then
You’re generous to give it a 3. I could give it a 2 out of 5. And that’s only because the battle sequences were good. Other than that, if you know how much story they had to work with and how many missed opportunities they had to make this movie even mediocre, you will feel the urge to leave the theatre. They took a story about one of the most successful human beings in all of history and made it about an insecure, c*ck with only circumstantial winnings. Someone who was beloved by both citizens and military personnel to just being some random moron. It is essentially the British propagandized caricature of Napoleon and no sincere attempt at trying to explain who he was and what drove him.
Ridley Scott had to try really hard to make a subpar Napoleon movie. It's rather impressive. Maybe the 4 hour cut changes things
He is probably right in saying that it would fit better into a TV format like "Breaking Bad" or The Sopranos", where it could develop and unfold the long and winding story of Napoleon over weeks, months, and seasons. In TV series, viewers certainly get to know the characters quite well, like family members or their group of friends.
Yet still Phoenix would be too old for an ambitious man, who was energetic, convincing, and at the peak of his life.
@@Artyom_K. No, rather for a more personal grasp of a complex man. Why are we concerned about Tony Soprano and Walter White? Because we see their romances and their battles, or because they are noble and chivalrous? No. Because through the TV serial format, we relate to the quite-human nuances of how they respond to their crazy difficult place in life. They have become our acquaintances over the serial time format.
The opening scene was enough to frustrate me - it’s the details of Marie Antoinette’s execution that should have been depicted accurately - Napoleon wasn’t even present at the death
Artistic liberty aside - it was unnecessary to include so many inaccuracies when the reality was dramatic enough
Super bummed about this movie. We won't see another attempt for 20-30 years and I'll likely be dead. Would have been great to see a trilogy for Napoleon.
it reminded me of season 8 of game of thrones.... so looking forward to and was sadly let down....
Steve Jobs got 2 movies in the same year so hopefully not 20 years..
Spielberg is working on one. Based on Stanley Kubrick’s unmade movie on Napoleon. It’s supposed to be an HBO mini-series
Napoleon only declared two offensive wars every other war he fought was a defensive war, he just decided the best defense was a good offense, Napoleon is a champion and opportunist of the revolution not so much a conqueror in the way Alexander, Caesar or Genghis Khan had been
1796, Campaign in Italy (1796-1797).Second Campaign in Italy (1800). Campaign that lead to Austerlitz. Campaign in Prussia (1806).Campaign in Poland (1807).Egyptian Campaign (1798-1799).Campaign of Germany (1809).French invasion of Russia (1812).Last Campaign in Germany (1813).
@@David-j3o7k kind of you to name his campaigns lol 😂
@@David-j3o7k Do not forget Spain.
@@David-j3o7kPutting aside the fact you begin this list before Napoleon even had political power, invading someone after they declared war on you does not mean you declared war.
Napoleon was an innovator of offensive warfare, but he started losing when his enemies started working together instead of trying to claim all of the glory for themselves.
I’m sorry but the movie never showed how brilliant of a leader he actually was and how he excelled at almost all aspects of leadership
Character assassination has never been better defined ~
Ridley, Scott has already confirmed that there will be a 4-hour long extended cut of the film, at a later date. I'm sure that will make the movie even better and fix some of its pacing problems. I watched it last night and I really enjoyed it. Really looking forward to the longer version.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the extended versions!
Probably will be crap aswell
The movie could have done without the whole focus on Josephine. It bogged the film down. Plus Joaquin Phoenix seemed not to be acting for most of the movie. The few times he put in more expression were the best. Not sure why he looked so bored playing this role.
Yeah I get that. I understand the importance of Josephine, but there was a large focus for sure!
@@BrainPilot Joaquin Phoenix is noting like the real Napoleon and he is also to old.
The real Napoleon is more interesting.
NO OSCAR for Scott for this one - What a stinker of a 'history' movie! and even as simply a general entertainment movie IT HAS NO DECENT STORYLINE NOR PLOT.
IT COULD'VE EASILY BEEN A WINNER MOVIE IF THE HISTORICAL DETAILS WERE ACCURATE.
Seems Ridley chose High School students to be his history consultants.
The battle scenes depicted in the movie were NOT how the battles were actually fought.
SPOILER ALERTS >>>
Napoleon never led a cavalry charge at Borodino.
Napoleon did not charge into hand to hand combat at Waterloo.
As for Toulon the battle, the movie depicts the British fort 100% wrong; it was more like a huge dirt hill.
5:10 > The MOVIE GIVES INACCURATE DEATH TOTALS AT THE END OF THE MOVIE; The reviewer is correct in referring to those totals as casualties (DEAD AND WOUNDED).
For example the movie inaccurately states for the battle of Waterloo " 45,000 killed in one day ", but the reality is 10,000 were killed and 35,000 were wounded thereabouts.
Napoleon-Joaquin looks like Josephine's dad, lol. She was older than him in reality. Very annoying to watch throughout the movie.
The movie completely got Napoleon's personality wrong; Joaquin does a Godfather impersonation, whereas the real Napoleon was a LONG talker and very feisty when communicating directly.
Other than the historical inaccuracies, poor pacing, complete lack of character development of Napoleon’s Marshalls, the complete omission of his tactical genius in battle, the downplaying of the Napoleonic Code, the fact Phoenix never aged a day in thirty years, etc., it was an ok film.
Better to skip it and watch ‘Waterloo’ possibly the greatest historical movie ever made staring Rod Steiger as Napoleon. And historically accurate.
pretty sure ridley scott confirmed that a 4 hour cut of the film is real and might come out. if thats true i have high hopes for it
Hopefully it doesn't just add 90 more minutes of Josephine....
best scene were the battle of austerlitz. epic scene. the music that appeared after napoleon gave the order to fire the cannons, just epic
You do not seem to understand that Napoleon did not declare all those wars. The majority of those wars where plan an organized by the brittish king.
It reminds me of Desiree, the film with Marlon Brando and Jean Simmons. A romance rather than biopic. The difference being that Marlon Brando at least tried to act like Napoleon and looked like him. The best thing for us all is if Scott just stays away from history. He has no respect for it.
Joaquin is great doing introverted characters but he's just not convincing as Napoleon.
Exactly. This is supposed to be a charming megalomaniac. He comes across as a depressed introvert. Where's the emotion? The guy was French!
@@vanyadollyworse even, Napoleon ancestry was Italian!!
"The man's hat alone is worth 40,000 soldiers."
Seeing the screenshots of this make me want to watch Gladiator … yep…. That’s all…
I've watched a few reviews now, and I'm appalled that so many reviewers LIKED the Waterloo scenes. Really? Trenches? A soldier with a musket asking Wellington if he should shoot Napoleon, who was probably a mile away at LEAST? The British infantry ADVANCES into the open to form squares? And, worst of all, Napoleon JOINS IN AN ATTACK?
Too many other inaccuracies to even remember. Napoleon fired artillery at the pyramids? He melted down and recast artillery and captured a castle-fort at Toulon? Wellington visited him on the ship that was taking him into exile? Really? Just awful, start to finish.
We want to present Napoleon as a dictator, but the royalty of the time were dictatorships.
Dictatorship overthrown in France by the Revolution which united neighboring royalties against it, for fear that their people would take an example from this Revolution.
This is what led to all these wars and Napoleon's coming to power.
What remains today of these kings of the time? Who can name them? We only talk about Napoleon, even though he was beaten.
Ask yourself why?
This review echoed my own assessment quite accurately
Glad we're on the same page
Another lad talking about russian winter having an effect on Napoleon's army.
Meanwhile Napoleon losing most of his man during summer and autumn, be like: *what is blud cooking* ?
If you are even mildly familiar with Napoleon's life and historical facts, how armies worked, etc...this movie is an abomination
They completely misunderstood the warfare of the napoleonic wars and why napoleon was such a genius. The battle scenes are lazy and feel like some bad action game scene or something that might happen when 2 people who just downloaded napoleon total war try to battle each other. They showed nothing of his brilliant planning and how he divided his armies and exploited his enemies position to on to divide them and take them one by one
Agree that the latter half was much better than the beginning but good entertainment nonetheless. As to historical accuracy I can live with that as i'm not intending to write a thesis!
I want to see a video on why Oppenheimer work and Napoleon did not
Why do a historical epic to ignore 'history'? No surprise that the French hate this movie.
Exactly! Scott should have just made a fictional general and just been inspired by the real figure!
Been watching these reviews and reading the comments: “Films too long, film skip over historical events.”
Pick one! Can’t have both!
The dialogue was pretty rough tbh
Awesome Movie. 100% Better than those SuperHero Crap Movies.
This is what happens filmmakers have zero respect for history: they just know that they disagree politically and philosophically with a given historical figure, so they defame them rather than presenting them from a neutral, interesting, and historical perspective!
I will remember this year as the one where Nolan, Scott and Scorsese all made horrible movies not worth watching.
The Killer from David Fincher was at least enjoyable, instead of being total waste of time.
The Killer was divisive but I was a fan of that one for sure!
After watching interviews of Ridley Scott, I feel like he thinks he's too great a director to be bothered by historical accuracy. That's very disappointing.
Yeah it is a shame because you'd think doing a movie about Napoleon, the historical accuracy would be something that would be considered
@@BrainPilot i dont understand what exactly is not historically accurate apart from him learning about josephines affair only in his last years?
@@azDanqs - First of all, he was 35 when he was crowned and Joséphine was 6 year older than him. It was important because she was too old to give him an heir. That is why he then married Marie-Louise of Austria who gave him a son, even though he was still very fond of Joséphine.
The battles, where the drop on the hot stone for me. So inaccurate 😢
Ho i must have missed the bit were Napoleon lead the French cavlary at Waterloo in the two hundred + books i have on him and his battles. THIS FILM IS A TOTAL JOKE.
I also found the film a bit dark, like not very well lit. Id also agree with almost all of your review.
Thank! Glad I’m not the only one
He didn't say "Josephine!" with his last breath .. he said "Joe's a fiend!" He finally twigged Joe the decorator who put the wallpaper up, had poisoned him.
His wars were mostly defensive.
the battle of Waterloo was a JOKE in the movie....all the battles were...but in the Waterloo sequence, ridely scott PUTS HIS DAMN FLAGS ALL OVER THE LANDSCAPE LIKE HE DID IN KINGDOM OF HEAVEN....it was a JOKE
Yes, it was terrible!
Did they have a discount for non historical French flags?
Good battle scenes but a poor narative of Napolian. Seemed like there was a thread of wokeness throughout the movie portaying him as a coward and focusing on his relationship with Joesaphine far too much.
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, average camera work, 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.
Super upset about this movie just left the theaters
Yeah same!
You said it perfectly that the movie is choppy. The movie skipped so fast to different time periods and without any character development maybe ? It could have been so much better darnit. I love Joaquin so much, I’ll still watch the extended version on Apple, I’m not saying it was all bad but I’m still processing what I just watched. Great video
Thanks - glad you enjoyed the video!
Hot take ig but I’d recommend the movie
That’s fair!
I wouldn't ~
Too much time spent on Josephine and not enough on his rise to power and popularity. They glossed over his early career and we never got a sense of WHY he was so popular. And there were many scenes about his wife that we didn't need to tell the same story. And as much as I like Joaquin his american accent broke character for me.
Yeah I’d agree! We didn’t need as much on Josephine!
There's going to be a directors cut with an extra 45-60 minutes just like with Kingdom of Heaven. Not even joking.
Now let's see what that ends up being like lol
I be curious what the review would be of the extended version that's coming to Apple+
Yeah that's true! Hopefully it will make the story feel a bit stronger
i liked the movie but i agree with your points, it really was choppy. As someone who loves to study history i was disappointed with how it turned out to be since i expected it to be much better. The part i didnt like the most however was that the first half of the movie was literal porn, we dont need to see napoleon having sex with josephine every 5 minutes.
What i think was not explained enough in the movie, is how much of an impact he had on europe. From the movie i wouldnt be able to tell that he conquered literally all of it. They couldhave also mentioned that the prussians and austrians were allied to him, but betrayed him.
I was also disappointed with how saint helena turned out to be. It was shown for like 2 minutes out of the 2.5 hours, I think they should have make Helena much longer. Really make the audience feel the tragedy and sadness with him. I would make it at least 7 - 10 minutes long. I think that a more emotional end would be appropriate to such conqueror...
I still liked the movie tho, i just feel like it could have been better. They chose awesome historical figure with which they had a lot of Awesome opportunities which they just didnt use.
Glad they focused on Josephine and got this one right. I was worried from the trailers they might show some battles. Great movie
I just finished reading War and Peace by Tolstoy, but I still loved this movie.
Accoring to movie, Napoleon conquered Europe from his bedroom without even knowing it.
I think these battles would have happened regardless. Those men would have died regardless. Napoleon just got to play the game, and it turns out he was one of the best ever at it. It just allowed him to grow into his unabashedly, weird self.
This movie encapsulates how weird Napoleon was. He loved his wife. He loved her kids, who were not his. He was ahead of his time in many ways. He just happened to be amazing at archaic warfare.
If Napoleon never became a general, he would have lived and died as a nobody in Corsica. Playing with his dogs and what not.
He was not responsible for the deaths or the wars. That's British propaganda you're repeating. He was defending France from the royal famlies of Europe.
Napoleon never was a Corsican Hitler, that narrative is typically British, but that's not what historians tell us about the man, not even close, he was neither evil nor good, he was complex, as were the reasons of his rise and fall. To be surprised that the movie isn't giving you an evil character feels quite weird to me.🤨
Anyone that says Phoenix's performance is great, never saw the 2002 mini series
I didnt hate the movie. Im going to watch the 4hr cut when released. I hate they boil his legacy down to how many died under him....when 25min earlier we are shown an army defect to him because of their respect for him. I could go on and on. Its not the worst, but its not fantastic. Battles were cool, just wish they were longer or more of them
Him shooting the pyramids was dumb
I just watched it and it just seemed like they just talked about him and Josephine, it didn’t really go in depth about how good of a strategist he was. And they made it seem like he had more losses then victories but he had many wins. It wasn’t a bad movie tho 😂
The real question is: Are you not entertained?
1/10 don't waste your money. Also Scott has really fallen far especially with casting choices and not being able to take a hint of criticism. Sorry you'll never be able to convince me that two Bostonians were the right choice for High Medieval Frenchmen. Phoenix portrays a man I wouldn't follow into my own house let a lone a battlefield. Also a telescope strapped to a Baker Rifle! The people who made the choices in this film were either on drugs or suffering from dementia.
Embarrassing badd ~
Thanks for the review and pointing out some of the historical inaccuracies. I realize that movies are not documentaries and movies exist for entertainment but more care needs to be taken when portrying historical figures and events.
I think I will save my money and re-watch the Napoleon miniseries from 2002. I think the miniseries has its own problems with historical accuracy, but I'd fancy a guess the miniseries does a better job overall.
Also, a few corrections...
I don't recall the exact month, day and year that Napoleon and his army crossed over into Russian territory. What I can say with certainty is the war with Russia was underway during the summer months and the summer heat was brutal. The problem wasn't invading during the winter. Part of the problem was that winter came early and he stayed too long in Moscow before leaving. Considering the outcome, going to war with Russia was a massive mistake, but attempting to resolve things peacefully by renegotiating Russia's compliance with Napoleon's Continental System would have massive ripple effects. If Russia can renegotiate to what extent they comply with the trade blockade of Great Britain what is to stop other countries from doing the same and making it harder to force Great Britain to the bargaining table to create a lasting peace?
It is a commonly repeated anecdote that on his death bed, one of the last things Napoleon uttered before passing was the name of his first wife, "Josephine." It is my understanding that eyewitness accounts of his passing do not support this. To the best of my knowledge this story simply isn't true.
I would strongly recommend that people check out Epic History TV on RUclips to learn more about the Napoleonic Wars.
Can we watch this movie with family( asking whether there is any nudity)?
No nudity except for a guys butt for a few seconds but about like 4 sex scenes that aren’t too explicit. It is very gory tho in the first hour
Bro is banging like every 10 minutes
Lol, he wanted that heir
Then I won't be going with my family. I should go alone ig.
@@niruban2635yeah it's super awkward even with me at 32 and my dad at 75 so maybe don't take family. He bangs her doggy style like thwap, thwap, thwap like a dirty dog a few times
None of the battles where even near historical, they guy who did this vid know nothing of this period
Where was Joseph Fouche?
I walked out of this movie with about ten minutes left because there was literally no reason to finish it. I wasn't invested in the characters, none of them were likeable, there was zero exposition to help explain the historical aspects for those of us non historians, it was more of a romance drama, and characters were introduced only to never be mentioned again.
You need to know the Napoleonic wars to understand what’s going on. Because of that I enjoyed it a lot
@@TripDownBritishTownI really enjoyed it too! It’s definitely not perfect but to me the story is bigger than Napoleon. The story is history itself
Lol who walks out of a movie they paid for with only 10 minutes left
I definitely think Ridley Scott will give his director’s cut on Apple TV which is a total of 4 hours and it feels because many things felt rushed on the theatrical version
I think this movie portrayed Napoleon how he was emotionally etc. should showed his two pistols and dagger he carried into battle
Just saw it, i agree strongly with the feeling of choppiness, ut kind of ruined it for me that they tried to cram too many events into the time frame of a movie.
Yeah that was definitely my biggest issue with it. Because with 2hr 40 you'd think they'd find a way to make it work!
"Never interrupt a movie director, when he is making a $200 million mistake"
😏😏😏
What went wrong with this movie is what goes wrong with EVERY current Hollywood movie -
The only thing anyone pays attention to any more is directing, special effects, acting, cussing.
But STORY? The actual STORY and the history which it is supposedly based upon? All absent -
I got a good laugh and learned some new seduction moves. lmao
A movie about Napoleon at the height of the French Empire, should really not be visually similar to the Last Duel. Or look like it takes place on the same planet as Prometheus. Meanwhile Napoleon comes off as the human personification of said planet.
I love The Last Duel as well and I was interested in Napoleon; however all the critics that I follow (including yourself) have convinced me to wait for the Apple version. Thanks to you too for saving me some time and money!
Yeah The Last Duel was SO good! This just fell short compared to that which is a shame. As I thought the story would told as well as that was!
The battle scenes alone on the big screen are worth the price of admission.
Watch the 1970 Waterloo movie and you'll see what was missing here.
Napoleon deserved a better portrayal than this garbage heap of a movie. This is just another product of a long line of British propaganda meant to demean and minimize his accomplishments. (3 out of 10).
Napoleon was not a warmonger and did not set out to conquer Europe. Other nations, particularly Britain, were the aggressors against France-declaring war on Napoleon more often. Remember, Napoleon was a revolutionary at heart-a child of the Enlightenment. He came from humble beginnings and was seen as a threat by the great royal houses of the Holy Roman Empire (Austria), Britain, Prussia, and Russia. Napoleon made two significant mistakes in his career. He invaded the Iberian Peninsula (which became his Vietnam) and instituted the Continental System (essentially Brexit in reverse), which wreaked havoc on the French and European economies. Napoleon only invaded Russia because the Czar reneged on his agreement to uphold the Continental System and was about to betray him by joining Austria against France. Ultimately, it was always about Britain vs. France and Royal families vs. Revolutionaries.
I'm actually Sick and Tired of Films shot in Washed Out Colour! .... That's Not the way the World Really Looks!
Just got back from cinema... Was looking forward to seeing this but felt it was okay but sadly... There was something missing here a lack of something
Yeah that’s the biggest problem. It felt like 60% there. So much more needed to be done to make it feel complete!
This is just my opinion but I loved it, despite its flaws. I might go as far as saying its my second favorite movie of the year, although I can understand why people might not be as high on it as I was. I just found it incredibly entertaining.
You would probably enjoy a movie on the flat earth theory then. From a historical perspective, this movie is horrible.
From a character perspective, Scott portrayed Napoleon as a spoiled cockold brat teenager. Scott should be ashamed of his work. This movie is more of a parody than a documentary. A real joke.
Please, How can one not see this movie in the movie theater!? I feel your comments are basic. I respect them, but clearly you don’t share the deep admiration so many of us have for Napoleon. Just taking time to portray a minuscule part of his life is infinitely appreciated by many. Best wishes!
Michael mann ferrari succesed while this failed because if Ridley wanted to make a movie about his whole life he needed to make it into 3 parts or he could make it like Ferrari where it was focused only on one period
What went wrong? Pretty much everything. They lost me at the Battle of Toulon.
The Phoenix performance was fine, except this characer in no way resembled someone who inspired the kind of courage and loyalty in men that the real Napoleon inspired.
And by the way, Hunger Games, released on the same day, was longer.
Saw it today, flopped, I’ve read too much history
Yeah it's a shame! I thought it would be so much better than what it was!
Yeah,.It's obviously made for un-read people with low IQ's~
Perhaps a bit unfairly, but before seeing a movie like this, I have to know going in that'll be on par with "The Ten Commandments" or "Gladiator" where every scene leads to the next smoothly because of the protagonist's ACTIONS and fate.
I really dislike movies where they TELL you someone is great without SHOWING you how or what got the person there. It's like a movie about a brilliant photographer such as Diane Arbus but that never shows any of her photos.
Plus, from the trailers, the main actor was miscast. I always liked his work, but sometimes, no matter how good someone is, their approach and very essence is not right for the person they're portraying.
Terrific review, thank you.
You mentioned that there appeared to missing aspects of character and story development, I understand that what’s coming to Apple will be a 4hr + version of the theatrical release which’ll hopefully plug those gaps for you.
Yeah that's true! Let's hope so!
They missed our his early year failures during the revolution. They made out he stepped up and had been successful ever since (until the end of course)
Joaquin Phoenix looks like he's wearing a hat with dog ears on it... not right.
The battle scenes are great. The fluff in-between was just an excuse to set up more battle scenes. The movie could have used some tits if I was forced to watch all of this love story.
9/10
Wow, fair!
I was looking forward to this movie so much all year when I found out it was being made. But like napoleon this movie was too ambitious for its own good. Trying to cover 30 years of napoleon is just not possible in a 2 hour movie. It felt really shallow as it jumped from important moment to moment. Only problem though is unless you are a history nerd like me you wouldn’t understand why people were doing what they were doing or the context of the events going on. Even I who has a good knowledge of napoleon was confused at times to what was going on. The movie would have been so much better if it focused on one part of napoleon’s life. Whether that be his rise, peak, or his fall.
R.S is my favorite director I thought Phoenix would have been great for a Napoleon, but honestly I realized though the movie he was just not right specially when playing Napoleon as young, also not enough battlefield action or focus on his Marshals who were great man of valor. The movie just jumped around and it was hard to figure time lapses how he became Napoleon, British actors playing French parts with a heavy British accent and around the same frame British agents playing their version of the role confused me to know who is who I think this should have been better played since knowing which side is which is very important. To much of Josephine as well, made the movie boring. And at times the painted out Napoleon to look like a clown
It always makes me giggle when a historical movie is being revised. They have to say spoilers for those gigsntic sooks that think the world revolves around them 😂
Like bruh, spoiler this all happened before you were born