Making Of NAPOLEON (2023) - Best Of Behind The Scenes, Set Visit, Stunts & Interviews | Apple TV+
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2023
- "Napoleon (2023)" Making Of | Behind The Scenes | Set Visit With Joaquin Phoenix | Building The Sets | Creating The Costumes, Hair & Make Up | On Set Bloopers | On Set Interviews With Director Ridley Scott, Actress Vanessa Kirby, Costume Supervisor Janty Yates & Production Designer Arthur Max | Featurette | Sony Pictures | Apple TV+ | Subscribe➢ bit.ly/2ncNY5W (OT: NAPOLEON)
ＫＥＹ ＦＡＣＴＳ:
🔑 Release Date 22.11.2023 (Theatres)
🔑 Release Date: Q1 2024 (Apple TV+)
🔑 Duration: 2h 38m
P L O T:
An epic that details the checkered rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his relentless journey to power through the prism of his addictive, volatile relationship with his wife, Josephine.
ＣＡＳＴ:
❌ Joaquin Phoenix (Napoleon Bonaparte)
❌ Vanessa Kirby (Josephine Bonaparte)
❌ Tahar Rahim (Paul Barras)
❌ Rupert Everett (Duke of Wellington)
❌ Paul Rhys (Talleyrand)
❌ Ben Miles (Caulaincourt)
❌ Riana Duce (Lucille)
❌ Ludivine Sagnier (Theresa Cabarrus)
❌ Mark Bonnar (Junot)
S C R I P T:
❌ David Scarpa
D I R E C T O R:
❌ Ridley Scott
📺 No Apple TV+? Here you go: bit.ly/2gYqCzc
❗️ amzn.to sind Affiliate Links. Wenn ihr darüber etwas kauft ändert sich für euch nichts, ihr unterstützt jedoch meine Arbeit.
| Trailer: Promotional use only. | All Rights Reserved. | Trailer property of Apple Inc. |
#napoleon #makingof #appletv 
Развлечения
The horses are magnificent. We need more horses around to get us back in touch with natural power.
Calling Napoleon a "war criminal" is intellectually disingenuous and show the overall approach of this production. The sets and the costumes are somptuous, which is really sad given how bad and messy the script is.
must be a comment by an angry Frechman🤣
@@paulamdick or by somebody interested in history
@@josefavomjaaga6097 when did we reach the point where blockbusters had to be documentaries?
@@paulamdick Calling somebody a "war criminal" is a dire accusation. Blockbuster or documentary, the least thing the audience can expect to get is facts of evidence, wouldn't you agree?
Other than that, famous director or not, I do not like to be lied at. At 2:39 Scott claims with regards to the battle of Waterloo that he was "actually reconstructing the real thing". Riiight. - They constantly talk, throughout this trailer, about how they "recreated" history. I'm not the one claiming this mere "blockbuster" has documentary value. They are. And they lie.
@@josefavomjaaga6097 i agree
This is one thing I never understood about the movie's defenders
They say it's not a documentary, so they don't have to get things right
But the production team says it's recreating what happened so quite contradictory isn't it?
3:59 "[...] Joaquin you see all these soldiers Joaquin these fields"
I have never been more disappointed by a movie in my life!
why
@@cyborgclarke because it was so inaccurate
@@Dodgers-sw2ukyou were expecting a documentary then?
@@abbofun9022 no for me it was just poorly put together. Napoleon was 24 at the Battle of Toulon and yet we have some frumpy, cowardly old man depicting one of the greatest military tacticians of all time. The editing felt like a college film, the story made little coherent sense and even the battles were underwhelming. This would have been better off as a 10 part mini-series IMHO, which would have been possible given the tens of millions of $ Apple gave him.
@@abbofun9022no they made Napoleon a Down syndrome Michael Scott…
See, I watched this film in the cinema with my dad. I watched it for Joaquin as he is one of my favourite actors, my dad watched it for Ridley Scott as he grew up watching his films and he always tells me how great Ridley Scott is, especially with science fiction films. However, we both left very unsatisfied and disappointed.
BUT, I feel like the blame shouldn't only be on Ridley Scott. There's also David Scarpa who wrote the script, Claire Simpson and Sam Restivo who edited the film etc, and sure Joaquin played Napoleon and the focus was more on Vanessa's Josephine than Napoleon himself, but still, if you wanna blame someone then blame all of them and not just one person.
But acting wise (and coming from someone who is aspiring in both acting and filmmaking), I personally believe Joaquin and Vanessa did a wonderful job with what they were working with (if the whole Ridley Scott not telling his actors the vision for their roles he had and just letting them do whatever is true), and of course so did the rest of the cast members (and please, I would LOVE to see more of Édouard Philipponnat, he was so charming and charismatic it really made me root for Alexander I at some point during the film! 😂😊🩷
Sir Ridley Scott ❤❤👍👍
Ridley Scott all movies bast director
Ridley Scott the history slayer
so everything is perfect?! great director
Good movie # good knowledge,, in history # napoleon
I saw this amazing movie in New Zealand
Will there be a 4 hour director cut?????and when ?????‼️🙏🙏
Yes, early 2024. 4hours 10 minutes.
There is a current movie appropriately named “Priscilla” which is about Elvis’ wife and not about him. This helps set the expectations for the audience.
Best Napoleon is from 2002 with Christian Clavier
I loved this movie, because Joachim’s Napoleon was like Comodus in “Gladiator”, and very convincing as emperor. It was great to see him in all the most important Napoleonic battles. Josephine was outgoing like in her portrait wearing a see thru dress made of the most expensive silk in the world.
Ridley Scott looks great for his age.
The best behind the scenes nice job stream wars
I have been fascinated by Napoleon since I was a teenager.
I was very disappointed the the huge inaccuracies of the movie
I know it concentrated on Jospehine
But to go from the retreat from Moscow to Elba was stupid
They spent 7 days on Waterloo and its nothing like the real battle.
Nor was Austerlitz!
The Prussians were at Waterloo, Allied with the British.
Agenist the French.
I thought trench warfare was weird for the time period
Why are the cannons recoiling in that strange way? Maybe they're pulling them back from the trail at the moment of firing, since using actual loads would be too dangerous.
"How can a man who is on his way to take Moscow be obsessed with what his wife is doing back in Paris." He summarizes well here why this film has very little to do with Napoleon and why he is portraying a man who presents a fantasy figure of him or the screenwriter. "Beautiful pictures" is one thing, telling a real story is something else. Mr. Scott has failed magnificently here. I came out of the movie theater completely disillusioned, I really didn't expect that.
How more vivid and beautiful this film would have looked without the grey filter in post production!
No Armouire Plastique song??
🇧🇷 🇧🇷 Muito bom filme 👍🏻...🎦 🍿
"Apart from being an incredible strategist..."
We literally never saw any of his prowess for battlefield strategy or acumen..
yes we did. they literally showed him winning multiple battles using strategy. you didn't even watch it
Actually the movie is very good. I look forward to watch the 4 hour long cut!
i saw that there is an extended version coming... 4 hours and a half
Woww Batik From Indonesia 😎😎
Mana pula?
I love this movie 🔥
Seems like it’s just not a movie about Napoleon Bonaparte
Alien Prometheus 3?
Cmmon Ridley! Do it just one more Time!!!
Don't let your Legacy rot like others...Terminator etc.
Greez from Germany
Award.
I must admit Ridley's Josephine was much better than the one in the 2002 series!
Good. We want more, could be in the next cut director.
the director's cut will be even more embarrassing.
Coming from Napoleonic reenactment- I see the pics and know- I won't go to the movie but will go to the next reenactment
🙂
But visual beauty is awesome
I am French and this is my opinion:
The impeccable casting. Joaquin Phoenix is accused of being too hieratic but the role wants that in my opinion. Vanessa Kirby does really well in the role of Joséphine. In short, a piece of French History shot like a blockbuster, but the whole thing is pleasant and easy to watch.
I have heard of that The Whole of Europe was in Deadly Fear with Bony!
Their So Scared of him!
Based on 'Napoleon', I'm really looking forward to Ridley Scott's upcoming film about Churchill. It departs from the usual narrative featuring much footage about him drunkenly making love with his wife, and focusing extensively on his liking for Brandy and cigars. Boring figures such as Anthony Eden, Charles de Gaulle, Stalin, Rossevelt, Atlee and Chamberlain are glossed over or not mentioned at all, and there is a nice little (but totally made up) scene of him shooting at some Zulu artifacts with his elephant gun. Boring irrelevancies such as proposing the European Court of Human Rights or leading the only major power fighting Nazism for over a year are likewise omitted. Title role played by Russel Crowe, with Cameron Diaz co-starring as Clementine Churchill. Oh, at the end, there is a subtext stating 'Churchill did and said some racist things'. Can't wait...
unironically want that movie
Yeah lets see his abuse of stimulants while he has raunchy g*ys*x in brothe*s while wearing a MAGA-hat.
Because he was such a Torie. Thats about what to expect from this moviemaker nowadays.
Such at sad turn of events.
This is what happens when you make a Brit direct such a movie. Napeleon all is about Waterloo right?
@@emreyldz4324 You mean the film? Not at all, no. Half of it talks about Josephine, involves sex, portrays Napoleon as either a very horny, weak and whatnot person, or a completely strategic guy whose strategies you barely see. Not to mention that half of the cast is British and instead of the film feeling "French" it feels more like it was made from a "British POV" - think as if Nolan's Oppenheimer would be made from a Japanese director's and Japanese people's POV, that's how it feels.
@@emreyldz4324Austerlitz, Leipzig, Russia Campaign, Waterloo
7:33: I see a lot of good things about Napoleon. A genius. A hero to his men. A brilliant and extraordinary general. Discipline and skill. Thorough. Resilient. Fighting tot he end. All things I believe in.
Nah dude defs about his wife glad they got this one right 👌🏽
And yet ridley Scott decided to portray him as a weak, awkward, sex pervert with zero charisma. This movie was a deliberate hit piece / character assassination.
And the re-introduction of slavery, don't forget that!
This movie doesn't show it at all. This is a movie about a stupid man floating with the flow of history. The story is completely incoherent. The biggest disappointment in many years and wasted potential.
La voy a ver igual, por Joaquín Phoenix
I love Vanessa Kirby. She was so Josephine
The best movie about Napoleon, great job !
I hope you are trolling. If not please watch „Waterloo“ from 1970.
U can watch it for free in youtube btw
@@legofan4047 thanks for advice))
@@Nameless-pi8sx thanks
It's a Ridley Scott movie, just like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. The more they tried to make it into a Biopic, the more it was going to fail
its not a story its just moments. But those moments were really cool. I dont think it fits that much though unless you know much about napolen. Amazing battle scenes!
No one will remember this film next month.
Mr. Scott is "86" years of age and still rocking the cinema @ it's best!
Le film "Napoléon" réalisé par Ridley Scott est présenté comme une vision subjective de l'histoire de Napoléon, mais il est difficile de ne pas ressentir une certaine partialité dans cette représentation. Malheureusement, le film semble mettre l'accent sur les aspects négatifs de la personnalité de Napoléon, plutôt que de présenter une image équilibrée et nuancée du personnage historique.
Dès le début du film, il est évident que Ridley Scott a choisi de montrer Napoléon sous un jour négatif. Loin de refléter la grandeur et l'intelligence stratégique de l'empereur, le film le présente comme un individu sombre et sans culture. Cette représentation réductrice ne fait pas justice à la réalité historique de Napoléon.
De plus, la scène de la bataille d'Austerlitz est particulièrement décevante. Au lieu de montrer l'ingéniosité tactique de Napoléon et le génie militaire dont il a fait preuve lors de cette bataille, le film réduit la victoire à une simple ambuscade sur un lac gelé. Cette représentation est non seulement simpliste, mais également inexacte par rapport aux événements historiques.
Une autre scène particulièrement problématique est celle où Napoléon tire au canon sur les pyramides en Égypte. Cette représentation est totalement déconnectée de la réalité historique. En effet, Napoléon avait emmené avec lui des centaines de scientifiques et d'érudits pour étudier l'Égypte, ce qui témoigne de son intérêt et de sa volonté de préserver la culture et l'histoire de cette région.
Il est vrai que Ridley Scott a déjà réalisé de nombreux films de qualité par le passé, mais dans le cas de "Napoléon", il semble être guidé par une jalousie viscérale envers l'histoire de France et la figure emblématique de Napoléon. Cette vision biaisée a pour conséquence de réduire l'homme le plus connu du monde après Jésus-Christ à un simple gangster usurpateur de la couronne d'empereur.
En conclusion, le film "Napoléon" réalisé par Ridley Scott souffre de sa partialité et de sa vision déformée de l'histoire. Il ne parvient pas à rendre justice à la grandeur et à la complexité de Napoléon Bonaparte en tant que personnage historique. Il vaut mieux se tourner vers d'autres sources pour obtenir une représentation plus équilibrée de cette figure emblématique de l'histoire.
Je suis totalement d'accord avec toi sur tout les points. Il suffit de regarder le message négatif de Napoléon qui nous reste à la fin du film en se concentrant sur le nombre de personnes tuées sous sa direction !
Huh?
Oui
ehm..critcism on Ridley is correct. He screwed up big time..but not for the reason YOU make up.
And..sorry..Napoleon first after JESUS CHRIST ?!??! I dont think so..(Mohammed ;( ) .so fokkin arrogant of a frenchman to think like that..
Seems you didNOt see the film..only repeating regurgitated critique of others..you have missed the HUMONGOUS amounts of AFRICAN people in the WILDEST roles and functions amongst the french chracters..
THAT is cultural appropriation...
Tout à fait d'accord avec ton avis
Do you want detailed information about Napoleon? Go study for the library! I like the movie
I guess most people would have been happy to get _any_ information on Napoleon at all...
@@josefavomjaaga6097 Ridley Scott "says that 10,400 books have been written about Napoleon."
@@Darth_Victrus And apparently he could not be bothered to pick up a single one of them. - Btw, he also said that there are 200, 200k, 10k etc. books written about Napoleon, the number seems to change for every interview. - What I do not understand: He decided to make a movie about one of the best-researched human beings on this planet, and about somebody from fairly recent history with a huge impact lasting to this very day. So naturally he could expect a large chunk of his audience to have _some_ knowledge of the subject. Yet he still decided to put together a Fantasy!Napoleon instead of doing some research on him, and now wonders why the first thing people yell at him is: But that's not Napoleon! - What did he expect?
I was wondering if this is due to him being British (and a fairly old one, meaning what he learned at school about the subject may be somewhat outdated?). The British basically never saw Napoleon (with a brief exception during the peace of Amiens) before Saint Helena, unlike everybody else in Europe. Maybe that's why Scott got the characterization and in particular the behaviour so completely wrong? I'm grasping at straws here.
@@josefavomjaaga6097 You have to understand, Hollywood is entertainment, it is not a history school. He made the film he wanted to make, simple as that.
@@Darth_Victrus Of course, that's his right as an artist. Nobody wants to take it away from him. However, it's also the right of his audience to be disappointed in what he made. And given the little love he seems to have had for his subject, this disappointment cannot have come as a surprise. - In order to be entertained by a story that is told to me, I need to believe what the author (or film maker) shows me. How am I supposed to do that with this movie?
Josephine had no permission to be who she was?
Most Emperors or his underlings would have her killed on her own merits.
This movie is super weird.
Breathtaking film. Surprised most scenes filmed under overcast skies. Talent, Talent Talent
A wasted opportunity of such a historic time. But these mad times not surprised
How can it be classed as film, when captured on a video camera? It's a video production nor a film.
In my opinion, this movie was spectacular on so many levels. The intense battle scenes, the reconstructions of the cities and not least the costumes.
The film is exciting and you never get bored. But there are some scenes that can get a little long-winded, especially the big focus on Josefine, which was possibly a little unnecessary.
What we would like to have seen more of are the epic battles of Napoleon such as Ligny, Trafalgar and Marengo. In other words, since this is a filmed biography of one of the most important people in human history: they should have included more of what Napoleon actually did. The coordination before the massive battles, meetings with his Generals and not least why he actually chose to conquer Europe.
Good film, but the representation of who Napoleon actually was and what he did is somewhat weak.
it was a shit film boring as hell had no story the battles didnt even make sense not to mention none of it happened in history
The greatest battle of the Napoleonic era is also missing: the pivotal battle at Leipzig, the "Battle of the Nations" in 1813 - a direct consequence of Napoleon's disastrous Russian invasion, which resulted in his withdrawal from Germany and the dissolution of the "Confederation of the Rhine" after which he lacked the resources to defend his grip on power against all the great powers of Europe.
Sigh, what a disappointing movie...
By the way: Josephine (her real name was Marie Josephe Rose, but Napoleon created this nickname in honour of her father) de Beauharnais is an interesting historical figure in her own right and deserved a movie about her life. But Ridley Scott tried to do the impossible: he wanted to include the narrative about Napoleon AND Josephine, while covering an insane period from 1793 to 1821.
I really hope for Spielberg's HBO project.
Terrible movie. Joaquin was a terrible choice for Napoleon. A mumbling, soft spoken, sex crazed idiot. Ridley blew this big time. Boring. Scrambled and disjointed. Historically incorrect to the point going clearly against the history. It was 60% about Josephine...why call it Napoleon.....that was disingenuous of Ridley. $200 million? Ridley and Joaquin should have at least watched the 1970 movie Waterloo. That movie had great acting and battle scenes. Ridley even made the battle's look lean. The horses acted great.
I liked it but expected more. Ridley scott opens with the fact napoleon was a tactical genius and a political genius but in the movie we se so little of it. His was a charismatic guy and i don't have that feeling in the movie. I hope we se a more flashed out version in the directers cut.
Ridley Scott has gone senile and lost his mind. He says the directors cut will focus EVEN MORE on Josephine 🤣
Too bad all the hard work these people did was for such a terrible and historically inaccurate movie. It is clear that Ridley and Phoenix did zero research before making this film, and it shows on screen. There is so much information out there on this man and this time period and none of it shows in the movie.
If you want a documentary go to the history channel this is a movie. I get tired of all the armchair quarterback, saying how inaccurate it is. Ever watch Star Trek or Aliens- none of that stuff ever happened either. And I’m sure it’s a lot more accurate than some Schmoe posting on RUclips.
@@mikealvord55 well the movies you mentioned are marketed as science fiction which they were
Napoleon was marketed as a biopic, an historical epic which it clearly failed to be
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie as a spectacle, good cinematography
But it was no biopic, it was almost as if it was historical fiction
And when you say to watch documentaries, no! We don't want slow and old documentaries, the actual story of history is so epic that made into a properly paced accurate movie it would be better than any fake plotlines
And lastly, it is more accurate than the ai bait shorts but if that's what you compare it to then you are setting a really low bar
Yeah, like the actual stuff that happened was really epic but instead people just want to make up things cause "history is boring", like read the details, you will find out it's not
And after reading the many news articles of behind the scenes, both Ridley and David( the writer) messed up
So many accurate scenes and important scenes were cut [ Napoleon had bad stomach problems which made him really weak at waterloo( was cut cause the writer thought it to would be too distracting) and the assassination attempt on Napoleon( presumably will be added in the director's cut) ] , all for the sake of adding scenes that didn't make sense sometimes
waterloo 1970 is an accurate display of waterloo, not what they did here, 300 horses for that kind of battle is simply to less.
Hats made from this boots made from that … lol vegan eccentrics !!
Id bet money napoleon here had childhood pets he sat on the couch stroking their fur … an extensive history of close bonds with fluffy and cute . Vampire rule number one … you never make friends with your food. Thats why cows wear serial numbers before slaughter instead of name tags .
Just out of curiosity i wonder what Napoleon thought of the vege burger at McDonald’s. I thought of him believe it or not and purchased two . Banged both back and gauged the wind on their success? Did napoleon try the burger i wonder? Expensive being critical of meat . For the greater population anyway. However every community has their advocates . The vegetarian community has napoleon here . I respect his devotion but ignore the example!
I wonder what the reaction would be to a movie about Joachim peiper the waffen SS commander of ww2
They shouldn't of bothered.
Did Napoleon really meet Wellington?
No. In reality they never met. Napoleon was captured by the allied army and Wellington remained on the field for some days if I recall correctly. But they did never meet, although Wellington would later meet some of Napoleon’s marshall (Massena and Soult come to mind).
I'm a keen on Wellington.
They didn't atoll meet each other.
No, he didn't, the entire movie is an inaccurate mess.
@@JohnDouglasist Napoleon escaped Waterloo 18th June, he was fleeing to America and surrendered to The Royal Navy 15th July. As you say he never met Wellington but it would have been fascinating to have witnessed if they had.
❤ this film, was scared at first bcs house of gucci was rubbish, but left suprised, great cinematography and characters. Great film!
A bit tragic scenes of the British Army Troops!
Losing their lives in battle like back then in the early 19th Century. Napoleonic Wars Times.
What an incoherent shambles of a film…not a patch on Waterloo…just where did the 200 million go…a film focusing on just the invasion of Russia, Borodin and retreat from Moscow could have been epic
Ridley Scott a gâché son film par ces incohérences historiques
Quel dommage....un si grand réalisateur.
“War criminal” yeah thats whats wrong with the movie, they had no ide who Napoleon really was.
I find it interesting so many people are angry that Scott didn't make the movie the way they envisioned it should be. Maybe this will be another "Blade Runner", which bombed at the box office but is now considered a classic.
What Scott did was make a movie of Napoleon's rise to power as he envisioned it NOT as history saw it. He should stick to fiction.
For those who knows a little about Napoleon and the Napoleonic wars this is a very very bad movie. It should be named Josephine and Napoleon or something like that.
More battles less Josephine would have made this film great. Didnt even show Napoleons first campaign into Italy which was essential to his turning into the Napoleon we know today. Egypt was barely even shown. Just a completely missed opportunity.
Firing canons at the Pyramids!
@@Digmen1 STOP IT! That makes me anxiety
Unfocused, random, zero buildup.......
This movie is an embarrassment. I have the impression that it was created only to make fun of Napoleon and cure English complexes. The only thing missing is the off-the-cuff laughter. Only the cinematography and costumes are noteworthy.
I was super disappointed
Apple TV, you did a terrible job on creating a movie.
It sucked!!
Left the Theater
Nebraska, Omaha
Great costumes, boring movie.
Very little interest can be had from the making of this movie, when at the end of the day it was nothing short of a disaster. on all levels.
Ce film est une grosse blague, c'est une honte
Bad bad movie, a lost of time in the cinema.
Had all the potential and the big budget to be a classic movie but sadly Ridley Scott decided to make a movie which is more of an adventure spoof than a historical movie. It's a film funded by Apple and designed to appeal to the masses - big battle scenes for men and a love story for women - a film where if you didn't know that Napoleon's surname was Buonaparte you would probably enjoy, but for those of us who live history you will find disappointing. I rate it about a 6 out of 10
FYI Napoleon himself dropped the "u" from the spelling of his surname.
yous guys need to screw up even the history, do it with the future isn't enough?
I was absolutely blown away by this movie! Just don't listen to these pseudo-internet-tiktok-historians 😂 it's literally one of greatest movies i have ever seen! This alone overshadows what hollywood has produced in over 10 years! Ridley Scott is on another Level.
😂🤣🤣🤣😂 is your name Ridley Scott by any chance…
@@spartakas659 no it's not, been watching blockbuster epics since before you was even born 😂 so i know what the hell i talk about, you on the other hand, i dont really think so.
Love Ridley, but this type of movie belongs in a limited series or a trilogy of movies. Just too much to cover in 2.5 or 4 hr cut. Battle scenes were too short.
@@user-lj1ch8uh4n You have extremely poor taste sir.
@@user-lj1ch8uh4n are you drug ?
Vegan boots? Really?
He had a huge French Army because prior to being in Napoleons army you were starving and in rags. The best way to stay clothed and fed was in the Revolutionary army. In the mean while Napoleon is compelling countries to trade with France by going to War with them if they refused. Europe finally had enough of his strong arm tactics. Sounds like the USA's diplomatic methods .
The script wasn’t even close to what the set designer and extras deserved. How can you display the battle of austerliz this inaccurate. Just stick to history itself and you got the best blockbuster ever.
Seems all you reviewers didNOt see the film..only repeating regurgitated critique of others..you have missed the HUMONGOUS amounts of AFRICAN people in the WILDEST roles and functions amongst the french (ánd english, ánd prussian!!) characters..
THAT is cultural appropriation...
..
Then you must be onebof those pseudo internet tik tok historians either that you know nothing about the napoleonic wars
Was there not a hint of wokeness in this film? Look for it!
lol it was a woke farcical revisionist Josephine fan-fiction film...
the gayist of the gayfish :-)
All the critics are failing to see the focus of this movie; the relationship between the French Emperor and his Josephine
I guess they should have changed the title from Napoleon to "Josephine & the Cuck."
Then it should have been named accordingly: Napoleon and Josephine..🎉
The focus has not meterialized imo lmao. we just see a cuck
The focus of this movie was on inventing a cringe farcical Josphine fan-fiction film, the ACTUAL complicated "relationship between the French Emperor and his Josephine" wasn't depicted at all.
Ive sometimes felt a bit sorry for the French Royalists.
King Louis & Queen Marie.
I wish France was a Monarch today.
Its such a shame its not anymore.
⛪✝️➕⚰️⚰️💐🌹🥀💔😞😢😔🙏⚜️⚜️⚜️
This movie is a mistake.
It was the movie that should have been blown away. Total waste of money and time. An insult to history and the great people of their time who lived it. Scott is an egotistical faker. He should stick to sci-fi. We are very sorry Napy.
Jesus the women always gotta ruin the movie boys
very poor film
Tremendous production values for such a messy script.
An awful, ahistorical movie. I don't care if you deviate from the historical record, but at least make it entertaining.
the battle scenes ..... are such a waste of time , they are realy bad . Every single Movie did it better . The german TV Series about Napoleon are better ....