I think the only way to do the Napoleonic era would be a series like HBO's Rome. There is just alot of important moments that would never get the proper justice in a movie.
I thought a couple of times he was channeling Marlon Brando as Don Corleone in the Godfather, ie, when he was talking to the Austrian Emperor, I was expecting him to say ‘why do you treat me with such disrespect, you don’t even think to call me Godfather’.
It was a horrible story. The set designs and battles were epic and spot on. Loved Vanessa Kirby ❤️ JPs portrayal of Napoleon was a real downer. Ridley Scott is definitely hit and miss. Loved Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, Alien. He reminds me of Logan Roy with his narcissistic response to French criticism.
The choice to cover huge swaths of Napoleon's life in a single film was a big mistake. I agree with you on the production design and Kirby as Josephine.
You cannot have a movie where the main character over a twenty five year period, starts the movie looking older than he does at the end. And the hairlip tend's to draw my eye, Napoleon did not have a hunchback a clubfoot or a peg leg. Reality is that this movie is a deconstruction of Napoleon by Hollywood, Ridley Scott on his soapbox again. not a serious movie, by a fantasy/Sci-Fi movie maker.
I don't think Ridley Scott having directed genre movies is the issue. It's more to do with him seemingly rushing through the filmmaking process, having a bad script and not being able to settle on how Napoleon should act.
@@chrisjherman So sounds like a bit of a mess, the end result is that this movie will not be a go to, if you actually want to learn something about Napoleon the man. It could have some entertainment value to some, not for me though, there is just to much wrong with it to make it anything other than a one off watch.
@@chrisjherman I got the impression from press interviews and statements made, Scott didn't care how Napoleon should've been portrayed. He voiced his disdain for historians and Napoleon pretty plainly.
The fact that we didn't get a single scene of the the Italian Campaign is insane to me. I had a similar feeling when I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" but after seeing the directors cut of that movie, I became a big fan of it.
The voiceover in beginning of the Egypt part of the movie says "Italy surrendered without a fight". I almost shouted "WHAT THE FUCK" when I saw it in cinema couple of days ago.
The battles were neither epic or spot on. Musket era battles did NOT involve both sides running towards each other and clashing in a melee like vikings. They manoevred and counter manouvred so as to get their line infantry and artillery to inflict as many casualties as possible, while sustaining as few casualties as possible, using cavalry to cover their flanks and to neutralise enemy artillery. This was the stuff Napoleon was expert at and we saw none of it. Aside from Toulon and a couple of the Peninsula campaign battles (never mentioned), battles in this era were not fought in the dark or at dusk, trench warfare was not used, riflemen did not have telescopic sights and Napoleon did not set up his HQ tent within musket range of the British line. I agree that JP's portrayal was bad. He delivered his lines like he was reading the news.
In 2002 A&E did an 8 hour mini series which was not too bad. The length made for much better pacing and at least Christian Clavier affected a credible French accent as Napoleon.
This movie is baffling on so many levels. First of all, why didn't they released it as a 2-part movie, like Kill Bill instead of completely butchering it in the editing?! Oh yes, that would make too much sense, instead they will release the full version on Apple TV+ and expect us to pay again for a subscription, because Hollywood is run by brainless monkeys. Then, there's the decision to not focus on Napoleon's triumphs and defeats, his rise & eventual fall and how he influenced an entire era of European history. Nooooo... instead the movie focuses on his relationship with Josephine, because when I go to watch an epic biopic about one of history's greatest generals, I'm interested in his pillow talk with his wife. Then there's the way Joaquin Phoenix portrays Napoleon, as if he's a stoner or something. Sleepy, timid and almost looking embarrassed when he's going to war. Meanwhile, Napoleon was known for being a highly energetic, charismatic and arrogant Alpha male. Hell, even Bill & Ted portrayed him more accurately. Oh and what's with the color grading in this movie? It looks like Ridley Scott put a Zack Snyder filter on. And don't get me started on all the historical inaccuracies, because who wants historical accuracy in a historical drama, amirite?! Just watch Waterloo (1970) with Rod Steiger & Christopher Plummer instead.
@@chrisjherman Waterloo (1970) not only has better acting, impressive battle scenes ( they used 20,000 extras & 300 horses), is far more historically accurate ( they even recreated the maneuvers & troop movement of the actual battle) but it also does a far better job in giving a human face to the war. Throughout the movie, we see not just Napoleon & Wellington and their staff, but also some common soldiers and spoiler alert, not all of them survive the battle. There are some powerful scenes specially during the end, with Napoleon's Old Guard who refuse to surrender despite their emperor had already fled the battle or Wellington riding through the battle field, afterwards and seeing all the death & carnage and despair. ( both scenes happened btw. irl) Meanwhile Ridley Scott is just throwing some numbers at the end.
I think rhe only way to do the Napoleonic era would be a series like HBO's Rome. There is just alot of important moments that would never get the proper justice in a movie.
Yeah, I really don't want any historical epics from him if he's just going to keep making them like this. Check out Rome! Really good series covering Julius Caesar, Octavian, etc.
Agreed..I think Marc Antony make make a better movie,.Caser has wayy too long of a career like Napoleon,. You're gonna be upset they missed something,. Maybe Octavian/Augustus would be really cool and at the End he's crowned Emperor
It's kind of funny that I keep wanting to compare this to my experience with Dune. So glad that I didn't repeat that monumental disappointment. This was going to be the first time I wanted to see a movie with Phoenix in it. I've seen 3 of his films, one of which was Gladiator and I have seen Gladiator twice, which was more than enough times for me.
@@chrisjherman Dune is a great scifi film. It's a subpar Dune adaptation. I literally left the theater, drove at least an hour to get home, and proceeded to watch all 4 hours of the 1990s Dune miniseries. Funny thing, both films reach the death of Janus in about the same amount time. Yet, somehow, in some way, Scifi Channel was more true to the source material...
You're right. It might have a negative impact on other adaptations of this era. I would hope the opposite though. Get a filmmaker and writer in there to do it right for a longform TV series.
There is so much epic shit that happened in his life and to his many marshals and generals, heroics and immense bravery in so many desperate situations that a person today cannot fathem the hopelessness and horror, yet you push on with all your troops together. I can start listing them off but... all that are reading this should watch EpicHistoryTVs animated documentaries about The Napoleonic Wars, very well made.
“Joséphine” (And Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt title for this PowerPoint Presentation. There is almost nothing historically accurate except most of the period costumes and some of the set designs. 1/5 or 2/10
Historians really seem to hate this film based on Ridley's Scott reaction to them being "Shut up! You weren't there!" Also lots of people hate Napoleon's wife being a young actress when the real wife was actually OLDER than Napoleon, again typical Hollywood refusing older actresses in favor of younger actresses to make the main lead look Mature.
You always walk a tightrope when trying to balance historical accuracy and entertainment with these historical epics. Some do it better than others. Ridley Scott's reaction to that particular criticism hasn't been the best 😆
I enjoyed the movie despite its many flaws. I'll be watching the extended cut as well. It reminds me of when Oliver Stone made Alexander in 2004. The theatrical cut was poorly received, but when I watched the final cut, I loved it.
If you can't judge a movie because it "is not the full version" or whatever why should anyone pay the full price for watching it? And I really doubt the full version will be the "real thing" because i don't think an hour and a half more of Josephine will make it any better as there are so many flaws to fix! And the battle scenes were so disastrous in so many ways: no real intensity to show the importance, nor any movement to show Napoleon's greatness as a general, no real leadership...it was like an emotionless zombie master throwing his army of zombies to a senseless melee with the enemy zombies like in the Middle Ages which is so stupid and inaccurate. And that dark blue grey filter to mask the CGI is so boring and makes it harder to understand what's actually going on on the battlefield. In those grand battles regiments of so many different nations took part each with its own uniform and color and all that was turned into the orcs' assault on Helms Deep. And again without the proper context or even a hint of their importance they were totally meaningless. The whole movie was like Josephine, battle, Josephine, battle or some other event with no real context and cohesiveness. 10 days later i can't understand yet the main purpose and direction of this movie and i bet that if someone who has no clue of Napoleon watch that film will ask themselves "why is this guy so important so that 200 years later people spent enormous amount of money to make a movie about him"
Seems there was such a rush to do an epic. Threw me off when I heard RS was in process to do this. Had my doubts especially with JP in the lead. Better to have done a trilogy with French/Italian actors. Or focus on 1 or 2 most profound battles and flashbacks to lesser ones. Or do the Wellington side to cover Napoleon and that era with English, French, Russian, and German where appropriate. Subtitles are fine. Something grandiose in all this... One reviewer, entrenched in that era, mentions that there was no credit to Napoleon's marshalls. Something to be said about a more humble approach rather than going half-baked and selling it by announcing that $200M was spent. Such waste...
Agreed, an incredible waste of resources. I would have preferred a French/Italian TV series covering all these events longfrom. Even if they couldn't showcase all the battles, I'd gladly take well-written characters and great performances over spectacle.
Napoleon let his mark on history so much that 200 years later some people still can't get over it and feel to plot to assassinate his character. There's good chance that Napoleon will be study for many many 🎉century to come. Because he has live One of the richest life that any individual will ever live on earth. But will people remember Ridley Scott in 200 years ? Probably not. Ridley has bitterly fail to kill a Legend. People ain't as fool as he tought.
I think Ridley Scott will definitely be remembered as well. Even though he has made a number of bad and disappointing movies throughout his career, films like Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Thelma and Louise are timeless.
@@chrisjhermanI want to say yes, but at the same time I have to look up his filmography to remember if I had seen it. I have to do the same thing with Scorsese. It depends on why you watch movies. I need a film to have just the right elements in order to find it interesting. Scorsese and Scott are legendary directors, but I really don't find much of their stuff interesting.
It may be true that Ridley Scott has made more "bad" than good films. However the good one are influential for eternity in the industry. Napoleon is technically flawless but history wise the director has an axe to grind wirh Bonaparte
He's made a number of iconic and beloved films. No question about that. It's just frustrating that he's also made so many mediocre and bad films as well.
I think that I have seen 7 of his films. Funny enough, Alien is not among those films. And Prometheus is the only one that I have come close to enjoying, including Blade Runner. Actually, I'm on the fence about Blade Runner, it depends on how I approach it.
No, the battle scenes were far from epic. If that's what you're going for, don't bother. Go find a copy of Waterloo, or even one of the Sharpe's TV films if that's what you're looking for. The scene of the British climbing up out of a WWI trench to form square was so completely ridiculous it belongs in a bad sitcom, not a big budget historical epic.
Haven't seen the film and certainly don't plan to pay to see it. I am not surprised at the bad reviews. Scott has made wonderful films. Alien is one of my favorites. But he should stay away from history. Even though Gladiator was a really big success, it was really bad history. That was less of a problem because few people know much about Roman history. It was so long ago that whether it is correct or not matters little to the modern world. But the period of the Napoleonic wars still has relevance in the present. More people would see its faults. I would say that Scott should stay with scfi, but he has demonstrated that he can screw that up to.
I love history, but the worst thing about this movie is that it is BORING !!!! I could forgive historical inaccuracy if it was a good story. But the real is history is far superior to this absolute lazy muck. Never want to see a movie by this writer again.
There are so many scenes in the movie where very little happens. So much dialogue, but so little is actually said. The more I think about it, the more I really dislike this movie.
@@chrisjherman I was initially excited to hear that Ridley and Joaquin were doing Napoleon. Then the trailer came out and I found myself asking " what are they doing and where is the dynamic and charismatic Emperor?"
Scott should have gone with an unknown actor to play Napoleon. Phoenix just doesn't work as Napoleon for me. Also, the battle scenes look grim and grey like later 'Game of Thrones'. This is blueprinted film-making. We are not getting the level of detail necessary to stimulate the mind.
Agreed! Phoenix was completely miscast in the role. I didn't care for the blue gray color palate either. He keeps using those colors in his historical films.
I won't see the movie until the four-hour extended version comes out, because I've heard that this theatrical release is too fast-paced and it shows that many things have been omitted. I don't understand why they do this, I guess it's a marketing strategy so people pay twice to watch the film 😂
That might be the best option. I have a ton of issues with this movie, but the editing is the worst thing about it. They skip over so much stuff. It becomes nonsensical at points.
all the reviews are the same for this movie. It's a huge miss. agree with your assessment of his current career. he's been more miss than hit and even those movies that are considered hits like The Martian & The Last Duel that I frankly don't care for.
Thank you! I appreciate the comment. So many of his movies for the last two decades have been mediocre or awful. A handful of exceptions, but the bad outweighs the good for me. I just expect mediocrity from him at this point. The days of Alien are long behind him.
I'm going out on a limb here. Ridley Scott is 85 years old and I'm no spring chicken myself although NOTHING approaching 85. That said, I get why and I assuming here as to why he's still making movies. He's lost his fastball BUT he could still throw some wicked change ups and curves. Working is what we do. And "slightly" less than prime Ridley Scott is still better than 99.8 percent of what is called Director today. That said I hope he doesn't stop working but I think he needs to find someone(s) that can look at a script and tell if it crap or not(good luck with that in todays cinema). I think Q/T has realized that and it's why he says that his next movie is his last and he's only 60. @@chrisjherman
Hello! Thanks for finding my channel! No, I am no longer with Double Toasted. I left in August, but you can find me here and several other platforms as well. Twitch, Patreon, etc.
@@chrisjherman Even 6 hours of this Tripe would never explain to a layman why he was such a charismatic tactical genius. Just Ridley not taking the subject matter seriously on so many different levels is maddening 😡
I Yesterday return from Austelitz reeactment battle i was been Austrian Grenadier on this show and i must say every reeactor there thing that Napoleon movie is terrible and our show there in that reeactment was much more fun and realism that movie
I doing napoleonic historical reeactment from 2006 and battlescenes in this movie are parodi and joke even people whit basic info about wars in 18-19 century or even some info about battles know that nobody ever doing that stupid charge and fight like in some pub,every Battle in movie is historical nonsence,for exaple Battle of pyramids was 15 km from pyramids,nobody shot cannons on pyramids,battle of Austelitz have flat fields and some hills and only few small ponts not alps hills like in movie and only 2 soldiers die in ponds not all army 😂 etc even old movies like War and Peace or documentary have better battles that this movie.Yea and Napoleon never charge on horse on enemy its total nonsence.I sow this movie Yesterday and its terrible and i dont speak only about his nonsence but boring story only about his lust for wife and they portraid Napoleon like weak near crying children and not like charismatic commander that people follow him ,Yea if you wanna see how battles was fight in that era take look on Austelitz reeactment Battle on yt or Waterloo reeactment Movies like Napoleon whit Clavier or old movies about Napoleon from 70-80 are much better or look on Barry Lyndon movie its historical accurate and still fun to watch
@@chrisjherman And some super tv series about Napoleonic wars are Sharpe and Hornblower or movie Master and commander and thx for your answer its good to show peoples how Real history or realistic historical movies and tv shows are accurate and fun too
I liked recent films Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon, but Napoleon was better, looking forward to 4 hr version. Phoenix deserves an Oscar for this, also the film put Edouard Philipponnat on my radar. Best performance from Everett in decades. The battle scenes were the best action I have seen this year. Not a film for kids. Disagree with most of you accessment.
I think the only way to do the Napoleonic era would be a series like HBO's Rome. There is just alot of important moments that would never get the proper justice in a movie.
I'd say 5 seasons, 20 episodes per season would be good. His life's too complex to be shown in a movie.
Joaquin Phoenix looked sad and tired. It seems to me he played Napoleon as the Joker: Napolean Jokeaparte.
He's more like the Joker than Napoleon in this movie. He does so many odd things in the movie.
CUCKoleon Bonaparte.
I thought a couple of times he was channeling Marlon Brando as Don Corleone in the Godfather, ie, when he was talking to the Austrian Emperor, I was expecting him to say ‘why do you treat me with such disrespect, you don’t even think to call me Godfather’.
Historical epic. The only thing historical about it is that there was a guy called Napoleon.
At least they got that right 🤣
It was almost like a parody. Had they named it Napoleon and Josephine, then maybe i could have given it a pass.
It felt like a parody multiple times while watching 😆
It was a horrible story. The set designs and battles were epic and spot on. Loved Vanessa Kirby ❤️ JPs portrayal of Napoleon was a real downer. Ridley Scott is definitely hit and miss. Loved Gladiator, Thelma and Louise, Alien. He reminds me of Logan Roy with his narcissistic response to French criticism.
The choice to cover huge swaths of Napoleon's life in a single film was a big mistake. I agree with you on the production design and Kirby as Josephine.
You cannot have a movie where the main character over a twenty five year period, starts the movie looking older than he does at the end. And the hairlip tend's to draw my eye, Napoleon did not have a hunchback a clubfoot or a peg leg. Reality is that this movie is a deconstruction of Napoleon by Hollywood, Ridley Scott on his soapbox again. not a serious movie, by a fantasy/Sci-Fi movie maker.
Amen. It crushed my hype right away.
I don't think Ridley Scott having directed genre movies is the issue. It's more to do with him seemingly rushing through the filmmaking process, having a bad script and not being able to settle on how Napoleon should act.
@@chrisjherman So sounds like a bit of a mess, the end result is that this movie will not be a go to, if you actually want to learn something about Napoleon the man. It could have some entertainment value to some, not for me though, there is just to much wrong with it to make it anything other than a one off watch.
Just that alone was egregious. He got 3 yrs older in 20 year's. Ridley Scott needs hospice ~
@@chrisjherman I got the impression from press interviews and statements made, Scott didn't care how Napoleon should've been portrayed. He voiced his disdain for historians and Napoleon pretty plainly.
The fact that we didn't get a single scene of the the Italian Campaign is insane to me. I had a similar feeling when I watched "Kingdom of Heaven" but after seeing the directors cut of that movie, I became a big fan of it.
Or any of Spain
Agreed, and that's why this film really should have been a TV show. Could have covered so much, but it just ends up being a series of cliff notes.
i really need to watch kingdom of heaven
@@areyoutheregoditsmedave yes, you do.
The voiceover in beginning of the Egypt part of the movie says "Italy surrendered without a fight". I almost shouted "WHAT THE FUCK" when I saw it in cinema couple of days ago.
The battles were neither epic or spot on. Musket era battles did NOT involve both sides running towards each other and clashing in a melee like vikings. They manoevred and counter manouvred so as to get their line infantry and artillery to inflict as many casualties as possible, while sustaining as few casualties as possible, using cavalry to cover their flanks and to neutralise enemy artillery. This was the stuff Napoleon was expert at and we saw none of it. Aside from Toulon and a couple of the Peninsula campaign battles (never mentioned), battles in this era were not fought in the dark or at dusk, trench warfare was not used, riflemen did not have telescopic sights and Napoleon did not set up his HQ tent within musket range of the British line. I agree that JP's portrayal was bad. He delivered his lines like he was reading the news.
Thanks for the detailed information!
Double Toasted also had the exact same opinion if not worse, as Korey refer to it as a "Comedy".
Yeah, the trailers really don't showcase the satirical comedy at all. I was surprised how goofy it was. A lot of the humor didn't work for me.
In 2002 A&E did an 8 hour mini series which was not too bad. The length made for much better pacing and at least Christian Clavier affected a credible French accent as Napoleon.
That series sounds good! Thanks for the recommendation.
This movie is baffling on so many levels.
First of all, why didn't they released it as a 2-part movie, like Kill Bill instead of completely butchering it in the editing?! Oh yes, that would make too much sense, instead they will release the full version on Apple TV+ and expect us to pay again for a subscription, because Hollywood is run by brainless monkeys.
Then, there's the decision to not focus on Napoleon's triumphs and defeats, his rise & eventual fall and how he influenced an entire era of European history.
Nooooo... instead the movie focuses on his relationship with Josephine, because when I go to watch an epic biopic about one of history's greatest generals, I'm interested in his pillow talk with his wife.
Then there's the way Joaquin Phoenix portrays Napoleon, as if he's a stoner or something. Sleepy, timid and almost looking embarrassed when he's going to war. Meanwhile, Napoleon was known for being a highly energetic, charismatic and arrogant Alpha male. Hell, even Bill & Ted portrayed him more accurately.
Oh and what's with the color grading in this movie?
It looks like Ridley Scott put a Zack Snyder filter on.
And don't get me started on all the historical inaccuracies, because who wants historical accuracy in a historical drama, amirite?!
Just watch Waterloo (1970) with Rod Steiger & Christopher Plummer instead.
I've had several people recommend Waterloo to me as well! I think I'll check that out eventually. Thanks for watching the review!
@@chrisjherman Waterloo (1970) not only has better acting, impressive battle scenes ( they used 20,000 extras & 300 horses), is far more historically accurate ( they even recreated the maneuvers & troop movement of the actual battle) but it also does a far better job in giving a human face to the war.
Throughout the movie, we see not just Napoleon & Wellington and their staff, but also some common soldiers and spoiler alert, not all of them survive the battle.
There are some powerful scenes specially during the end, with Napoleon's Old Guard who refuse to surrender despite their emperor had already fled the battle or Wellington riding through the battle field, afterwards and seeing all the death & carnage and despair. ( both scenes happened btw. irl)
Meanwhile Ridley Scott is just throwing some numbers at the end.
Trailer : Battles, rise to emperor ...
Movie :Josephine & Napoleon ,and love/hate story.
It wasn't a very good or interesting love story either.
I think rhe only way to do the Napoleonic era would be a series like HBO's Rome. There is just alot of important moments that would never get the proper justice in a movie.
That's a great idea! I would love that. You can cover those events from so many perspectives and characters. That's what they should have done.
the movie felt like an intentional and malicious deconstruction.
Ridley Scott definitely went into it with a very specific view of Napoleon.
Holy shit, I didn’t know Chris had a channel I’m glad I found this 🔥
Hello! Glad you found my channel. Recently went through a rebranding to make it easier for people to find me. Hope you enjoy the review and channel!
I used to want Ridely to make a movie about Caesar. There's few things I want less from the man now.
Yeah, I really don't want any historical epics from him if he's just going to keep making them like this. Check out Rome! Really good series covering Julius Caesar, Octavian, etc.
Agreed..I think Marc Antony make make a better movie,.Caser has wayy too long of a career like Napoleon,.
You're gonna be upset they missed something,. Maybe Octavian/Augustus would be really cool and at the End he's crowned Emperor
It's kind of funny that I keep wanting to compare this to my experience with Dune. So glad that I didn't repeat that monumental disappointment. This was going to be the first time I wanted to see a movie with Phoenix in it. I've seen 3 of his films, one of which was Gladiator and I have seen Gladiator twice, which was more than enough times for me.
I liked Dune, but I wasn't over the moon about it like so many other people. Beautiful looking movie, but most of the characters were so flat.
@@chrisjherman Dune is a great scifi film. It's a subpar Dune adaptation. I literally left the theater, drove at least an hour to get home, and proceeded to watch all 4 hours of the 1990s Dune miniseries. Funny thing, both films reach the death of Janus in about the same amount time. Yet, somehow, in some way, Scifi Channel was more true to the source material...
My only surprise was, they didn’t have Napoleon saying not tonight Joséphine. Movie was a dogs breakfast
It really is a disappointing slog. I've started putting together my worst films of 2023 list and this movie will probably make the cut.
This is such a lost opportunity. There probably won't be another film made about this era for years.
You're right. It might have a negative impact on other adaptations of this era. I would hope the opposite though. Get a filmmaker and writer in there to do it right for a longform TV series.
Napoleon Dynamite was much closer to an accurate depiction of Napoleon
And a better movie too!
There is so much epic shit that happened in his life and to his many marshals and generals, heroics and immense bravery in so many desperate situations that a person today cannot fathem the hopelessness and horror, yet you push on with all your troops together. I can start listing them off but... all that are reading this should watch EpicHistoryTVs animated documentaries about The Napoleonic Wars, very well made.
Thanks for the recommendation! I'll be sure to check those videos out. 😊
@@chrisjherman They are excellent. Better time spent than Ridley's historical trainwreck.
I saw it this past weekend. I liked it. I usually fall asleep in movies I stayed awake the whole time.
Glad you enjoyed the film. Thanks for watching the review!
“Joséphine” (And Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt title for this PowerPoint Presentation.
There is almost nothing historically accurate except most of the period costumes and some of the set designs.
1/5 or 2/10
Yeah, the title and marketing was pretty deceptive. One of the worst and most disappointing movies of the year for me too.
Historians really seem to hate this film based on Ridley's Scott reaction to them being "Shut up! You weren't there!"
Also lots of people hate Napoleon's wife being a young actress when the real wife was actually OLDER than Napoleon, again typical Hollywood refusing older actresses in favor of younger actresses to make the main lead look Mature.
You always walk a tightrope when trying to balance historical accuracy and entertainment with these historical epics. Some do it better than others. Ridley Scott's reaction to that particular criticism hasn't been the best 😆
I enjoyed the movie despite its many flaws. I'll be watching the extended cut as well. It reminds me of when Oliver Stone made Alexander in 2004. The theatrical cut was poorly received, but when I watched the final cut, I loved it.
Let me know what you think of the Director's Cut! I'm curious to hear about the additional scenes.
If you can't judge a movie because it "is not the full version" or whatever why should anyone pay the full price for watching it? And I really doubt the full version will be the "real thing" because i don't think an hour and a half more of Josephine will make it any better as there are so many flaws to fix! And the battle scenes were so disastrous in so many ways: no real intensity to show the importance, nor any movement to show Napoleon's greatness as a general, no real leadership...it was like an emotionless zombie master throwing his army of zombies to a senseless melee with the enemy zombies like in the Middle Ages which is so stupid and inaccurate. And that dark blue grey filter to mask the CGI is so boring and makes it harder to understand what's actually going on on the battlefield. In those grand battles regiments of so many different nations took part each with its own uniform and color and all that was turned into the orcs' assault on Helms Deep. And again without the proper context or even a hint of their importance they were totally meaningless. The whole movie was like Josephine, battle, Josephine, battle or some other event with no real context and cohesiveness. 10 days later i can't understand yet the main purpose and direction of this movie and i bet that if someone who has no clue of Napoleon watch that film will ask themselves "why is this guy so important so that 200 years later people spent enormous amount of money to make a movie about him"
Agreed! I have no interest in this longer cut. Thanks for watching the review as well. Really liked reading your in-depth comment.
Seems there was such a rush to do an epic. Threw me off when I heard RS was in process to do this. Had my doubts especially with JP in the lead. Better to have done a trilogy with French/Italian actors. Or focus on 1 or 2 most profound battles and flashbacks to lesser ones. Or do the Wellington side to cover Napoleon and that era with English, French, Russian, and German where appropriate. Subtitles are fine.
Something grandiose in all this...
One reviewer, entrenched in that era, mentions that there was no credit to Napoleon's marshalls.
Something to be said about a more humble approach rather than going half-baked and selling it by announcing that $200M was spent.
Such waste...
Agreed, an incredible waste of resources. I would have preferred a French/Italian TV series covering all these events longfrom. Even if they couldn't showcase all the battles, I'd gladly take well-written characters and great performances over spectacle.
Napoleon let his mark on history so much that 200 years later some people still can't get over it and feel to plot to assassinate his character.
There's good chance that Napoleon will be study for many many 🎉century to come.
Because he has live One of the richest life that any individual will ever live on earth.
But will people remember Ridley Scott in 200 years ?
Probably not.
Ridley has bitterly fail to kill a Legend. People ain't as fool as he tought.
I think Ridley Scott will definitely be remembered as well. Even though he has made a number of bad and disappointing movies throughout his career, films like Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and Thelma and Louise are timeless.
@@chrisjhermanI want to say yes, but at the same time I have to look up his filmography to remember if I had seen it. I have to do the same thing with Scorsese. It depends on why you watch movies. I need a film to have just the right elements in order to find it interesting. Scorsese and Scott are legendary directors, but I really don't find much of their stuff interesting.
True comments
Thank you! It just has so many problems.
It may be true that Ridley Scott has made more "bad" than good films. However the good one are influential for eternity in the industry. Napoleon is technically flawless but history wise the director has an axe to grind wirh Bonaparte
He's made a number of iconic and beloved films. No question about that. It's just frustrating that he's also made so many mediocre and bad films as well.
I think that I have seen 7 of his films. Funny enough, Alien is not among those films. And Prometheus is the only one that I have come close to enjoying, including Blade Runner. Actually, I'm on the fence about Blade Runner, it depends on how I approach it.
First saw Ruppert Everett in Another Country. Great performance.
Nice! He's not in Napoleon very much, but he's good in this small role.
I am almost ashamed to admit this, but I think that my first Everett film was Inspector Gadget. I have since corrected with a few other films.
Whoa! I was wondering why you haven’t been on DT and here you are doing your own thing
Welcome to my channel and thanks for finding me! Been making a lot of changes recently to my content. Glad to have you here. Thanks for watching too!
No, the battle scenes were far from epic. If that's what you're going for, don't bother. Go find a copy of Waterloo, or even one of the Sharpe's TV films if that's what you're looking for. The scene of the British climbing up out of a WWI trench to form square was so completely ridiculous it belongs in a bad sitcom, not a big budget historical epic.
Waterloo and the Sharpe series have both been recommended to me. I'll definitely check them out one day. Thanks for warching!
Haven't seen the film and certainly don't plan to pay to see it. I am not surprised at the bad reviews. Scott has made wonderful films. Alien is one of my favorites. But he should stay away from history. Even though Gladiator was a really big success, it was really bad history. That was less of a problem because few people know much about Roman history. It was so long ago that whether it is correct or not matters little to the modern world. But the period of the Napoleonic wars still has relevance in the present. More people would see its faults. I would say that Scott should stay with scfi, but he has demonstrated that he can screw that up to.
I love Alien as well. One of my favorite movies. He doesn't have it anymore. For every good movie he makes, he makes four or five bad ones in between.
I love history, but the worst thing about this movie is that it is BORING !!!!
I could forgive historical inaccuracy if it was a good story. But the real is history is far superior to this absolute lazy muck. Never want to see a movie by this writer again.
There are so many scenes in the movie where very little happens. So much dialogue, but so little is actually said. The more I think about it, the more I really dislike this movie.
I've heard virtually nothing positive about this movie, for me I'll always picture Rod Steiger as the Emperor
Outside of the battle scenes and Vanessa Kirby, it's a complete mess.
@@chrisjherman I was initially excited to hear that Ridley and Joaquin were doing Napoleon. Then the trailer came out and I found myself asking " what are they doing and where is the dynamic and charismatic Emperor?"
Scott should have gone with an unknown actor to play Napoleon. Phoenix just doesn't work as Napoleon for me. Also, the battle scenes look grim and grey like later 'Game of Thrones'. This is blueprinted film-making. We are not getting the level of detail necessary to stimulate the mind.
Agreed! Phoenix was completely miscast in the role. I didn't care for the blue gray color palate either. He keeps using those colors in his historical films.
I won't see the movie until the four-hour extended version comes out, because I've heard that this theatrical release is too fast-paced and it shows that many things have been omitted. I don't understand why they do this, I guess it's a marketing strategy so people pay twice to watch the film 😂
Doubt they have it in that imaginary country of yours...
That might be the best option. I have a ton of issues with this movie, but the editing is the worst thing about it. They skip over so much stuff. It becomes nonsensical at points.
@@JinxSanity There's a bit of comment in your tears darlin
@@chrisjherman They definitely shouldn't have cut so much.
Thank you Latinx.
all the reviews are the same for this movie. It's a huge miss. agree with your assessment of his current career. he's been more miss than hit and even those movies that are considered hits like The Martian & The Last Duel that I frankly don't care for.
Thank you! I appreciate the comment. So many of his movies for the last two decades have been mediocre or awful. A handful of exceptions, but the bad outweighs the good for me. I just expect mediocrity from him at this point. The days of Alien are long behind him.
I'm going out on a limb here. Ridley Scott is 85 years old and I'm no spring chicken myself although NOTHING approaching 85. That said, I get why and I assuming here as to why he's still making movies. He's lost his fastball BUT he could still throw some wicked change ups and curves. Working is what we do. And "slightly" less than prime Ridley Scott is still better than 99.8 percent of what is called Director today. That said I hope he doesn't stop working but I think he needs to find someone(s) that can look at a script and tell if it crap or not(good luck with that in todays cinema). I think Q/T has realized that and it's why he says that his next movie is his last and he's only 60. @@chrisjherman
Yes😊
I keft the theater after 5 secobds Borodino's battle
You didn't miss much! 😆
The last 30 minutes were the most agonizing ~
When you see this movie in cut shots like a Trailer it looks Awesome,.But then when you watch it Normal is just sucks~
Exactly that. Solid trailers, but the film itself is so disappointing.
Amazing you failed to mention 'Black Hawk Down' or 'Blade Runner' as Scott's great work.
Couldn't mention his entire filmography, but thanks for watching!
You no longer at double toasted? Haven’t seen you there in awhile
Hello! Thanks for finding my channel! No, I am no longer with Double Toasted. I left in August, but you can find me here and several other platforms as well. Twitch, Patreon, etc.
Alien and Blade Runner are really great. The rest of his movies are so so, though they always look and sound very good.
He's made a few other great films, but he's made more bad ones at this point.
Clueless comment.
Great review. Movie was a complete disaster and embarrassingly juvenile ~
Thank you for watching! Juvenile is a very good way to describe this film. It felt like a parody at times.
@@chrisjherman Even 6 hours of this Tripe would never explain to a layman why he was such a charismatic tactical genius. Just Ridley not taking the subject matter seriously on so many different levels is maddening 😡
I Yesterday return from Austelitz reeactment battle i was been Austrian Grenadier on this show and i must say every reeactor there thing that Napoleon movie is terrible and our show there in that reeactment was much more fun and realism that movie
That sounds pretty cool! Hope you had a great time. Yeah, the film is just a mess.
Historical revisionism?
There's a lot of that in this movie.
Yeah,.Napoleon being a self-loather was defintely THAT,.lol~
Napoleon Mumblepart
I doing napoleonic historical reeactment from 2006 and battlescenes in this movie are parodi and joke even people whit basic info about wars in 18-19 century or even some info about battles know that nobody ever doing that stupid charge and fight like in some pub,every Battle in movie is historical nonsence,for exaple Battle of pyramids was 15 km from pyramids,nobody shot cannons on pyramids,battle of Austelitz have flat fields and some hills and only few small ponts not alps hills like in movie and only 2 soldiers die in ponds not all army 😂 etc even old movies like War and Peace or documentary have better battles that this movie.Yea and Napoleon never charge on horse on enemy its total nonsence.I sow this movie Yesterday and its terrible and i dont speak only about his nonsence but boring story only about his lust for wife and they portraid Napoleon like weak near crying children and not like charismatic commander that people follow him ,Yea if you wanna see how battles was fight in that era take look on Austelitz reeactment Battle on yt or Waterloo reeactment Movies like Napoleon whit Clavier or old movies about Napoleon from 70-80 are much better or look on Barry Lyndon movie its historical accurate and still fun to watch
Thanks for the recommendations! I'll look at those older films in the future.
@@chrisjherman And some super tv series about Napoleonic wars are Sharpe and Hornblower or movie Master and commander and thx for your answer its good to show peoples how Real history or realistic historical movies and tv shows are accurate and fun too
braaaaaaaaaam!!
The Counselor was much better ~
Personally, I don't like either film. They both have so many issues.
Did you just say Prometheus is a bad movie? 😳
Absolutely! One of the worst films in the Alien franchise.
@@chrisjherman personally I think it’s the best in the franchise ☺️
100%
Thank you! It was such a disappointing film.
I liked recent films Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon, but Napoleon was better, looking forward to 4 hr version. Phoenix deserves an Oscar for this, also the film put Edouard Philipponnat on my radar. Best performance from Everett in decades. The battle scenes were the best action I have seen this year. Not a film for kids. Disagree with most of you accessment.
Let's agree to disagree! Thanks for watching the review.
Actually, even though he has clearly lost the plot, take them or leave them, Prometheus and Covenant were highly meaningful speculative horror films.
I think there are some good ideas behind Prometheus and even Covenant, but the story and the characters in the film really bothered me.