the battle scenes are terible! 30 jears old movies done it better! They just cgarged and charged with those bayonets newer firing by rank LOL!! @@SydneyVolpe
The issue with this movie is not the fine points of historical inacuracy, the issue is that they absolutely butchered Napoleons character, he comes across as having none of the charisma and dynanism he was known for in life. The Josephine/Napoleon story is ultimately boring because it feels like a one sided character assination of Napoloen, Ridley seems desperate to convince us that one of the most powerful men in European history is nothing without his wife who's only claim to success in life was sleeping with successful men. The things that are actually interesting about the Napoleonic wars like the drama, political manouvers and the action are all put on the back burner and just feel like backdrops to a boring attempt to belittle Napoleon by depicting him as nothing but a sad grumpy cuckold who throws tantrums.
Very good criticism.The film is appalling and the statement " a boring attempt to belittle Napoleon ".... is precisely true. There is NOTHING recommendable about this film and I am glad that 95% of critics and vie- wers think so. I don't see why a senile and arrogant old filmmaker should be allowed to denigrate important historical personalities like this,at liberty. Liberty of opinion and expression does not mean that anybody has the right to turn EVERYTHING upside down.THAT is infantile !
Yeah, that movie is a pure character assassination. They try to portray Napoleon as the one who is the reason for the death of so many people, especially with that ending where they show the death tolls, but strangely avoid to mention that all those wars are wars which were declared AGAINST Napoleon, not him declaring war on Europe. This is purely the old british propaganda against l'Empereur...
My prediction is that the extended 4-hour cut will merely feature an extra hour of Napoleon neighing like a horse and chasing Josephine around the palace.
Agreed. The scene of the coronation was enough to save me soooo much money. I'm sorry, but you could have convinced me that Napoleon was an alien easier
I just wish the film didn't adhere so closely to the British narrative that gave Napoleon sole responsibility for the Napoleonic wars, when a very large portion of the conflict was started by and paid for by the British themselves. Napoleon making France too strong threatened the British's ability to exert power globally, and when he was defeated the Pax Britannica began where Britain became the first superpower.
That's fair, but to me that reads less like a British agenda and more like details that just can't be fleshed out in a film like this. David Scarpa is American, so ultimately who knows what his intentions were writing the script.
I feel like Joaquin was not the right choice here. He felt out of place and did not seem like he wanted to be present, felt like a very phoned-in performance. His chemistry with Vanessa Kirby was also not there at all. Threw off the entire movie for me tbh.
You are too lenient on Scott. He screwed up. Napoleon comes across as little pathetic man. Which he wasn`t by any measure. There is no hint of his true strategic genius in the film, he lacks charisma and self-control. As well, he was actually taler than average frenchman at the time. Many of his decisions are misrepresented, too much of important history is missing in order to have more of Josephine, who was older than him. And as a history nerd, I cannot forget the wild inaccuracies (I live 25km away from Austerlitz, that battle on the screen was pure non-sense).
The PBS documentary on Napoleon is far, far superior and, ironically, more entertaining. The movie is drab and dank. The documentary is bright, colorful and accurate to the period. The soundtrack of the documentary is spectacular and, again, true to the era. The relationship with Josephine in the movie is bizarre and Napoleon comes across as a whiny child. In the documentary you hear experts actually explain the real relationship and also the actual words of Napoleon and Josephine. In reality, she was a court "cougar" and he was a naive young rising soldier. Later she was an aging court "has been" and he was a powerful, urbane leader. By the way, everyone in his era said the same thing--he had amazing self-confidence. He was not a modern simp hipster with ego problems. See the PBS documentary for a thrilling experience.
While Napoeleon embellished some of his accomplishments you have to remember that the monarchies of Europe were threatened by what was happening in France following the revolution and they also made up a lot of stuff about him, especially Britain. Disappointing, but not surprising, that Ridley chose to perpetuate a lot of those ridiculous British tropes.
French people often don't see Napoleon for the self-ceentred villain t to their future that he was. Without him wrecking France's future, they would have transitioned to a constitutional monarchy, as that is what Lafayette envisaged for them before the American war off Independence. Like previously in history, their meddling is a militarily, diplomatically and economically strong power, the contiinued French constitutional monarchy, or whatever hybrid emerged, would prevent the unification of Germany through meddling, as that was an incredibly complicated amalgamation, which only happened due to the isolation of France.Therefore, no Germany, no world wars and a current world where USA, UK and France are mmodern superpowers, no atomic weapons and a slower trajectory techhnologically… Probably leaving the environment less damaged, but certainly no current emergence of China
I think my favorite depiction of Napoleon was by Christian Clavier in a miniseries that came out on PBS in 2002. The best Napoleonic battles are in Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace and Waterloo films.
If you come away from a Napoleon pic without the full understanding that he was one of, if not, the greatest military tactician of all time, the film failed. I totally get that Scott has license to shape the narrative, but this is just strange
@@cordcuttercam how is a four hour cut you haven't seen going to be "epic", when this one failed to be so? You didn't see anything that made Napoleon great beyond his lust for what was Josephine and how she drove everything he wanted to do. Become emperor so he was equal to Josephine? Check. Battles that don't display his his tactical genius, Check. His lack of charisma or why anyone would *possibly* follow him? Check. His relationships outside of Josephine, Check. Honestly, this was better titled. Josephine and Napoleon.
A Russian directed a film about Napoleon and it's great. Everyone is talking about Waterloo (1970) right now and how superior it is to this... whatever this is.
Ridley Scott and Clint Eastwood: Kings at making movies quicker than normal! The constant white fade outs feel jarring, and a part of the disjointed editing, but you're pretty much spot on. Scott's craftsmanship is still impressive as ever.
I am a history professor and just saw the movie. I made a review on it as well if people want to know what was historically accurate in it and what was fiction. I know some people don't mind what is right and wrong in the movie, but if you are curious you can check it out.
I remember seeing star wars as a child, and we laughed at some of the ridiculous scenes, like space ships 'banking' in space, where there is a vacuum. I still enjoy star wars even though the physics is ridiculous.
Napoleon has divided movie goers like so many movies recently. There are those who prioritize style. And those who prioritize substance. Scott hit the mark on the former and did a complete misfire on the latter. However, with an IMdB of 6.7, clearly more people want substance. I loved Gladiator, but I have no expectations for Gladiator 2. In fact, given this travesty, I almost hope Scott would let it be, but maybe he'll surprise us again with substance. You mentioned Napoleon is a character study. More like a character assassination. There's no way Phoenix's portrayal was accurate.
I'm kind of shocked people say that there aren't enough battle scenes in the movie. I would've gladly traded two battles for more time with Phoenix and Kirby on screen together. There are times where you can tell they're building chemistry, but everytime I feel like I started to get invested in their relationship I was ripped away to another scene of cannons and horses. There is a tight, 130 minute relationship drama in here somewhere that I think would've just been a better movie.
It is very annoying when you watch a character behave nothing like the real Napoleon and instead falls right into all the stereotypes and outright propaganda about him. Like why make him seem small, when the whole story of him being insecure about his height was a British fabrication and part of a larger smear campaign against him, that turned out to be so successful that unknowledgeable people still believe it. He was average height for a man at the time and definitely taller than Josephine.
This is a definitely a movie that I’ll buy on 4K next year on Black Friday and then forget it on my shelf for a couple years and then eventually watch it and say “that was fine”
You're praising the movie for presenting Napoleon/Phoenix as small? Even if every historian agrees on the fact, that Napoleon was of normal hight. You're praising the movie as "character study"? Napoleon is portrayed like a incel, when in reality he fathered several children to several women? You're really getting a kick out of the "lies" thing. "Get a life and lie, lie, lie."
This movie was a total disaster in so many ways! The lack of any real story line and direction, different events put together which because of lack of any context and cohesiveness seem randomly selected, only 2 characters which take part for more than 2 minutes, both of which so static with no real development...nobody would mind the historical inaccuracies if they were not bored to death during much of the screen time that simply had nothing to watch but the flaws...Battle scenes were ridiculously bad as well for so many reasons: even with wide angles of view failed to depict the grand scale of miles and miles of front lines with regiment movement and artillery fire; same old dark blue grey green filter to mask the CGI which again made them look like the orcs assault on Helms Deep, while failing to display the color of different nations' uniforms, the drum rolls, even the music by which columns would march into battle; crappy melees so that more legs and arms could be cut which again is so far from how battles were conducted in those days; and worst of all - no real intensity, it's like watching zombies who would cut, slash and die and their generals watching from above with the same facial expression they have while reading the morning newspaper...and of course inaccuracies tat are so silly and unnecessary and quite frankly are an insult to anyone with at least a tea spoon of brain...by far the worst Napoleon movie ever made...it's even worse because with modern day technology and cinematography and an enormous budget they failed to produce a movie even half as good as the likes of Waterloo or War and Peace shot more than 50 years ago...
I'm very curious about the 4 hour cut. I'm glad you found something redeemable with the writing, Sydney, because I thought the writing was one of the worst parts! I felt like there was important context missing, and I was FEELING the "highlight reel" energy.
In an era where many artists, both in movies and in other media, are taking a great deal of time to create their work, I'm beginning to respect creators like Scott who can quickly turn around reasonably well-made (and occasionally brilliant) works at a rapid pace. Napoleon isn't Oppenheimer, but it *is* an easy, enjoyable watch. There has to be a place for that kind of filmmaking.
I wasn’t expecting a documentary but being off so much about historical events is a bit mind boggling for anyone who likes history and/or Napoleon. I’m not a huge Scott fan (I appreciate some of his films). Phoenix is rather bland in the role. The bluish photography or sepia is annoying imho. For all these reasons I don’t think I’ll watch the short or long version. Napoleon said «impossible is not french» but «terrible could be english (meaning Scott)» for this biopic! 😉
Ridley Scott is a terrific director, and has made many great movies, but this 'Napoleon' sounds 'messy'. Is is about Napoleon, the General and Emperor, Napoleon and Josephine, Napoleon and Wellington, or Napoleon as some weird, dog-child? It just doesn't sound like it knows what story this film has to tell.
Great review Sydney! I haven’t seen it yet but I’m not surprised by your thoughts at all because I feel that Scott is a limited filmmaker. He’s technically skilled sure but he doesn’t have consistent taste in scripts or consistent abilities as a storyteller. I wouldn’t consider him amongst the great non writer directors like Scorsese, Spielberg, Fincher etc. Would you?
Thanks so much for watching! Yeah, that's a very interesting topic. None of these men are the kind of auteurs who always write their own scripts, but I think the three that you mentioned actually have more of an ability to elevate the substance of what they're putting on the screen. I always think of how War of the Worlds could have been an abysmal movie without Spielberg's touch. And yeah, they have better taste. Ridley seems to have a layman's eye for a script and the touch of a god technically. However I don't think Ridley adds NOTHING to what he's telling, and doesn't receive enough credit for how he enhances these stories. I just think his main appeal is scale. Very few directors out there right now who can consistently deliver epics on the level he can do with his pinky finger.
I checkout of any of these reviews when they start to hype up the battle scenes as good when they are abysmal safe for maybe the first one. It's borderline empty bullet-point parroting. Like it's something that is supposed to be a given yet it clearly is not.
I appreciate your review. I disagree with a bit of it - historical accuracy *has* value - but your enthusiastic thought was good. I saw the movie and thought it was a mess. This director obviously had contempt for the subject matter and treated Napoleon with the same regard he would give Hitler or Stalin. It was disappointing considering what a master director he is. And there was a fixation on the negative to such a degree that it made no sense why his men loved him and supported his return from Elba. Why could he rule a demonstrably unruly country like France if he didn't get some things right, like fixing the monetary system or creating the Napoleonic Code? In fact, too much of the movie makes no sense AS A CHARACTER STUDY which is why the argument about handwaving historical accuracy makes no damned sense.
Thanks for watching! I appreciate your thoughts - I wouldn't say he was depicted to be as evil or psychopathic as someone like Hitler, though yes the film was choosing to argue that a lot of his actions were motivated at least in part by ego and insecurity. I have a friend who is very into Napoleon who said he appreciated that he took exile gracefully in the film, which he did, because of his devotion to France. Though I do completely agree that I didn't get the proper sense of his charisma. There are small moments like him motivating his soldiers and handing them bread but it wasn't enough. Perhaps even things like that are more fleshed out in the longer cut!
My personal Ridley ranking: 1 Kingdom of Heaven 2 Gladiator 3 Napoleon (loved it!) 4 Body of Lies 5 Alien 6 Black Hawk Down 7 Last Duel 8 Covenant 9 Exodus G&K 10 Prometheus 11 Thelma & Louise 12 Hannibal 13 Blade Runner 14 The Duelists 15 American Gangster 16 GI Jane 17 The Martian 18 Matchstick Men 19 The Counselor 20 House of Gucci 21 Black Rain 22 Legend 23 Robin Hood 24 Someone to Watch Over Me 25 All the Money in the World 26 1492 Haven't seen: White Squall & A Good Year
Holy crap, you have seen a lot of his movies!! Kingdom of Heaven that high is a cool pick, but I'm sad to see Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise lower down haha
It was a tour de force art film through the eyes of Scott. In his interviews he stated that the purpose of the film was to explore how a blood thirsty man could be so weak for a woman. It wasn’t meant to be a super heroes Marvel film with sword’s lopping off heads. The haters just didn’t get it.
Napoleon was not on any way " bloodthirsty ".Not even his worst enemies said so. Scott is an arrogant ass,THAT is obvious. Beware of know-it-all ignorance all around....! Its stupid and only denotes lack of quality and judgement in a person.
I'm a massive Ridley Scott fan, just cant help myself even if his filmography has been shaky as of late. But “history is a set of lies agreed upon" is a great quote to touch on here because this isn't a straightforward bird's eye view biopic, and it makes a lot more sense when we treat Napoleon as an unreliable narrator. That being said, didn't love this one but I am hyped for the yearly Ridley Scott 4 hour director's cut. Great review, Sydney!
The problem with your logic of 'history is a set of lies agreed upon' and "it makes a lot more sense when we treat Napoleon as an unreliable narrator" is that you are assuming that historians just accepted Napoleons personal version of history and what occurred to date rather than having actually investigated the matter. With that logic *all* history is interpretive and can be considered whatever you want it to be because as RS put it in a recent interview, "you weren't there, so shut the fu*k up".
@@Slayer398 Haha well I just mean taking that stance for the sake of this specific movie, I'm sure historians have a much better idea of what actually happened in Napoleon's life than Ridley Scott!
hard to understand why he was so loved. if you look at the movie as a person lost, but for tactics, then the interactions with and theme of josephine's role in his life make the movie, with some great battle scenes thrown in
You've confirmed some of my comments in why it's inspired by Ridley.The 2 themes not thoroughly explored are the dynamic of his relationship with his wife and the ultimate flaws in his strategic ccapability, when he was the best tactician in history. Ultimately, he was not a good strategist because he had many opportunities to ooffer each treaty with the continental European powers, which would have been enough to protect HIS vision of France from the British meddling.Most strategists would have seen that there was no future to continuing the war, when it was clear he could never invade Britain and would therefore always have them as an enemy that he would need to find a clever protection mechanism against He left France in its weakest position ever since its inception, and made the unification of Germany possible when it otherwise wasn't, because a strong militarily, financially annd diplomatically would never allow a Germany with greater numbers of German-speaking peoples and far better natural resources to become unified for the same reasons as what happened after.Therefore there will be no defeating the Franco-Prussian war and no massacres leaving Britain and France as shadows of their former capability now in the modern world, than they were in their ascendant posittions before World War I
Am I insane that I had more fun watching Napoleon than I did watching KOTFM, The Killer, or Oppenheimer? All are top 10 of the year for me maybe top 5, but Napoleon has more heart and more comedy than those other films, which is funny to say about a warlord biopic. KOTFM and Oppenheimer were actually kind of depressing at times even though I enjoyed both films.
Not at all!! I wish I had mentioned something about personal affinities for epics like this... it has a scale that you can't get in just about any other film this year. No one is putting many people in a frame like Ridley Scott!
This was the first thing on my recommended list after I got out of the theater from watching Napoleon, it's almost as if destiny brought me this review
As far as Phoenix, for this version of Napoleon, the socially awkward guy, he is definitely the right choice. I never doubted that through the lens of awkward military genius, he was Napoleon.
This is the problem when people keep perpetuating lies. Napoleon was known for being somewhat introvert and he had a mad temper. But he could also be quite charming and he was 100% charismatic, full of self confidence. The awkward thing I never know where do people get that. What events in his life would you present in order to show he was or acted awkward? Can you give a single example? I would be interested!
"Destiny has brought me this lamb chop" had me chuckle a bit in a theater. I was like "sure". lol but hey the battle scenes in Waterloo and Austerlitz freaking rules with that my brother and I enjoyed it.
Great review, Sydney! Personally, I loved that they wanted to focus on Napoleon's relationship with Josephine in concept, but I feel like there was so much more to explore there. Seriously excited to see the 4 hour cut, hoping it will really make the movie click for me. And yes, even more battles, please))
Anyone expecting historical accuracy from Hollywood needs to chill out haha. I take them with a heavy pinch of salt or just refuse to see them if it’s too much of an insult (e.g. green book). Also what is it with Ridley and his edits? How many were there for blade runner? 🤣
There are a lot of historically accurate Hollywood movies. I think this is a huge trial balloon to see what he can get away with for Gladiator 2. Maybe he has a thought to set it at Woodstock or the stadium where the Cowboys play.
I wanted to love this film. Hell, I'm trying to find something redeeming in it. The reality is, though, it's simply an awful film. From a purely artistic view, it's long, slow, shallow, tedious, and just flat boring. As a romance, we have scene after scene of Napoleon and Josephine sitting in awkward silence staring at opposite walls. As a historical epic, he got none of the history right. As a biopic, it isn't even a remote caricature of Napoleon. As a war film, we need to decide which war we're doing and stick to it. At least try to keep the anachronisms within a couple hundred years of the event... Trenches and telescopes tied to muskets at Waterloo are as silly as machineguns and B-52s. Scarpa admitted his research was checking out a book and flipping through it. If the author has no interest in his subject, why should I? I don't need absolute historical fidelity nor do I think it makes a good movie but at least make it FEEL like it's true to the history. Gladiator and The Wind And The Lion are entirely fictional accounts of actual events but are wonderfully entertaining films. It doesn't diminish Scott's other films as each rises and fall on its own merits, but this is the low mark for Ridley Scott's career.
I don't like very mutch Napoleon as a person but at the same way i can't stand the superficiality of this film. To me it's legit for a writer o a filmmaker reinterprets an historical figure as long as you don't turn it completely upside down. Napoleon was not a superman but neither a perfect idiot and we can know this because we have tons of testifies from acquaintances, allies, opponents and even enemies. Whatever Napoleon himself says, history is not (only) a lie and letting this message pass is profoundly wrong.
Are you going to review Ferrari? How about Boys in the Boat? Ferrari had like no Italians in the lead roles about Italians. The director was not Italian either. I watched a documentary about Enzo Ferrari on RUclips, and the story is completely different and way more interesting and plausible than the one told in the movie. I feel like the same thing is going on with Napoleon. It is more like a director's weird interpretation than an accurate portrayal.
I’m not going to review Ferrari but I’m with you i didn’t like it all that much despite being a huge fan of Michael Mann! I hate to call accents distracting, but my family is authentically Italian and man it was like nails on a chalkboard for the first 40 minutes! I didn’t know about the story differences, that’s interesting
He didn't win Egypt. He won a couple battles but then was cut off by Nelson. Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies of all time. I liked Gladiator but he is remaking the 1960's movie Fall of the Roman Empire and he's drawing the exact opposite lesson that history tells us of what happened to the roman empire after the death of Commodus and because Marcus Aurelius chose his biological son to succeed him rather than the previous four emperors who chose The battle scenes are crap and have no connection to the actual battles. The Waterloo scenes had again almost no connection to the actual battle. See 1970 Waterloo for an actual accurate as possible last 100 days of Napoleons rule. You can't tell why Napoleon is great or how he won his battles or how he managed to survive the french revolution and in fact rode that wave to the top ... twice. His appeal wasn't as a figurehead. He loved Josephine but that didn't effect what he did. Two days after he married her he went to Italy at the head of an army to conquer it. Ridley Scott is a bit of an idiot. Don't use a famous historical figure if you have no interest in the history. The actual story of his life is way more interesting than this miserable fantasy Ridley has cobbled together.
I still think the original blade runner is a hot steaming pile of garbage. I've watched all the cuts and I still don't get the hype. And trust me. I'm a sucker for good cinema and dialogue but blade runner just seems like a cop out
And? It's a historical one that represents a famous historical figure and people also tend to believe what they see in movies as "Truth". Lastly, how would you feel if a movie lambasted a figure you liked, turning them into a whining, man-baby among other things? It's easy to say "It's a movie" or who cares when it has no importance to you personally (I have no personal attachment to Napoleon myself) however, I do dislike when filmmakers outright falsify and distort under the banner of "it's just a movie" when the promote it differently (see how Egypt sued Netflix).
You think you're so great because you have boats Sydney??
DESTINY BROUGHT ME THIS LAMBCHOP
the battle scenes are terible! 30 jears old movies done it better! They just cgarged and charged with those bayonets newer firing by rank LOL!! @@SydneyVolpe
The issue with this movie is not the fine points of historical inacuracy, the issue is that they absolutely butchered Napoleons character, he comes across as having none of the charisma and dynanism he was known for in life. The Josephine/Napoleon story is ultimately boring because it feels like a one sided character assination of Napoloen, Ridley seems desperate to convince us that one of the most powerful men in European history is nothing without his wife who's only claim to success in life was sleeping with successful men. The things that are actually interesting about the Napoleonic wars like the drama, political manouvers and the action are all put on the back burner and just feel like backdrops to a boring attempt to belittle Napoleon by depicting him as nothing but a sad grumpy cuckold who throws tantrums.
Agree with you, but the historical accuracy was almost non existent.
Very good criticism.The film is appalling and the statement " a boring attempt to belittle Napoleon ".... is precisely true.
There is NOTHING recommendable about this film and I am glad that 95% of critics and vie-
wers think so.
I don't see why a senile and arrogant old filmmaker should be allowed to denigrate important historical personalities like this,at liberty. Liberty of opinion and expression does not mean that anybody has the right to turn EVERYTHING upside down.THAT is infantile !
Yeah, that movie is a pure character assassination. They try to portray Napoleon as the one who is the reason for the death of so many people, especially with that ending where they show the death tolls, but strangely avoid to mention that all those wars are wars which were declared AGAINST Napoleon, not him declaring war on Europe.
This is purely the old british propaganda against l'Empereur...
My prediction is that the extended 4-hour cut will merely feature an extra hour of Napoleon neighing like a horse and chasing Josephine around the palace.
Instant camp classic if true
🐴
Silly and pathetic? Yeah, Napoleon wasn't either of those things.
Agreed. The scene of the coronation was enough to save me soooo much money. I'm sorry, but you could have convinced me that Napoleon was an alien easier
I just wish the film didn't adhere so closely to the British narrative that gave Napoleon sole responsibility for the Napoleonic wars, when a very large portion of the conflict was started by and paid for by the British themselves. Napoleon making France too strong threatened the British's ability to exert power globally, and when he was defeated the Pax Britannica began where Britain became the first superpower.
That's fair, but to me that reads less like a British agenda and more like details that just can't be fleshed out in a film like this. David Scarpa is American, so ultimately who knows what his intentions were writing the script.
I feel like Joaquin was not the right choice here. He felt out of place and did not seem like he wanted to be present, felt like a very phoned-in performance. His chemistry with Vanessa Kirby was also not there at all. Threw off the entire movie for me tbh.
You are too lenient on Scott. He screwed up. Napoleon comes across as little pathetic man. Which he wasn`t by any measure. There is no hint of his true strategic genius in the film, he lacks charisma and self-control. As well, he was actually taler than average frenchman at the time. Many of his decisions are misrepresented, too much of important history is missing in order to have more of Josephine, who was older than him. And as a history nerd, I cannot forget the wild inaccuracies (I live 25km away from Austerlitz, that battle on the screen was pure non-sense).
The PBS documentary on Napoleon is far, far superior and, ironically, more entertaining. The movie is drab and dank. The documentary is bright, colorful and accurate to the period. The soundtrack of the documentary is spectacular and, again, true to the era. The relationship with Josephine in the movie is bizarre and Napoleon comes across as a whiny child. In the documentary you hear experts actually explain the real relationship and also the actual words of Napoleon and Josephine. In reality, she was a court "cougar" and he was a naive young rising soldier. Later she was an aging court "has been" and he was a powerful, urbane leader. By the way, everyone in his era said the same thing--he had amazing self-confidence. He was not a modern simp hipster with ego problems. See the PBS documentary for a thrilling experience.
While Napoeleon embellished some of his accomplishments you have to remember that the monarchies of Europe were threatened by what was happening in France following the revolution and they also made up a lot of stuff about him, especially Britain. Disappointing, but not surprising, that Ridley chose to perpetuate a lot of those ridiculous British tropes.
French people often don't see Napoleon for the self-ceentred villain t to their future that he was. Without him wrecking France's future, they would have transitioned to a constitutional monarchy, as that is what Lafayette envisaged for them before the American war off Independence. Like previously in history, their meddling is a militarily, diplomatically and economically strong power, the contiinued French constitutional monarchy, or whatever hybrid emerged, would prevent the unification of Germany through meddling, as that was an incredibly complicated amalgamation, which only happened due to the isolation of France.Therefore, no Germany, no world wars and a current world where USA, UK and France are mmodern superpowers, no atomic weapons and a slower trajectory techhnologically… Probably leaving the environment less damaged, but certainly no current emergence of China
I think my favorite depiction of Napoleon was by Christian Clavier in a miniseries that came out on PBS in 2002. The best Napoleonic battles are in Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace and Waterloo films.
Thanks 🎉 looking forward to the 4.5 hour release
Josephine was a whoo-aah.
If you come away from a Napoleon pic without the full understanding that he was one of, if not, the greatest military tactician of all time, the film failed. I totally get that Scott has license to shape the narrative, but this is just strange
Idk why everyone thought an Englishman directing a French biopic would end well.
The 4 hour cut is epic
@@cordcuttercam how is a four hour cut you haven't seen going to be "epic", when this one failed to be so? You didn't see anything that made Napoleon great beyond his lust for what was Josephine and how she drove everything he wanted to do. Become emperor so he was equal to Josephine? Check. Battles that don't display his his tactical genius, Check. His lack of charisma or why anyone would *possibly* follow him? Check. His relationships outside of Josephine, Check.
Honestly, this was better titled. Josephine and Napoleon.
@@Slayer398 I'll let you see it yourself , there's no need to bicker
A Russian directed a film about Napoleon and it's great. Everyone is talking about Waterloo (1970) right now and how superior it is to this... whatever this is.
@@nellgwenn You're thinking of the epic movie by Abel Gance who filmed the movie Napoleon in 1927.
A discerning and passionately delivered review. Thankyou. ❤
Thanks for watching!💜
Ridley Scott and Clint Eastwood: Kings at making movies quicker than normal!
The constant white fade outs feel jarring, and a part of the disjointed editing, but you're pretty much spot on. Scott's craftsmanship is still impressive as ever.
I am a history professor and just saw the movie. I made a review on it as well if people want to know what was historically accurate in it and what was fiction. I know some people don't mind what is right and wrong in the movie, but if you are curious you can check it out.
I remember seeing star wars as a child, and we laughed at some of the ridiculous scenes, like space ships 'banking' in space, where there is a vacuum.
I still enjoy star wars even though the physics is ridiculous.
Napoleon has divided movie goers like so many movies recently. There are those who prioritize style. And those who prioritize substance. Scott hit the mark on the former and did a complete misfire on the latter. However, with an IMdB of 6.7, clearly more people want substance. I loved Gladiator, but I have no expectations for Gladiator 2. In fact, given this travesty, I almost hope Scott would let it be, but maybe he'll surprise us again with substance. You mentioned Napoleon is a character study. More like a character assassination. There's no way Phoenix's portrayal was accurate.
Be ready for Animal this weekend. Its gonna be Great.
Maybe a bit controversial, but I feel Timothée Chalamet could have made a great young Napoléon.
I'm kind of shocked people say that there aren't enough battle scenes in the movie. I would've gladly traded two battles for more time with Phoenix and Kirby on screen together. There are times where you can tell they're building chemistry, but everytime I feel like I started to get invested in their relationship I was ripped away to another scene of cannons and horses. There is a tight, 130 minute relationship drama in here somewhere that I think would've just been a better movie.
Well said!!
It is very annoying when you watch a character behave nothing like the real Napoleon and instead falls right into all the stereotypes and outright propaganda about him.
Like why make him seem small, when the whole story of him being insecure about his height was a British fabrication and part of a larger smear campaign against him, that turned out to be so successful that unknowledgeable people still believe it. He was average height for a man at the time and definitely taller than Josephine.
This is a definitely a movie that I’ll buy on 4K next year on Black Friday and then forget it on my shelf for a couple years and then eventually watch it and say “that was fine”
hahahah
You're praising the movie for presenting Napoleon/Phoenix as small? Even if every historian agrees on the fact, that Napoleon was of normal hight. You're praising the movie as "character study"? Napoleon is portrayed like a incel, when in reality he fathered several children to several women? You're really getting a kick out of the "lies" thing. "Get a life and lie, lie, lie."
This movie was a total disaster in so many ways! The lack of any real story line and direction, different events put together which because of lack of any context and cohesiveness seem randomly selected, only 2 characters which take part for more than 2 minutes, both of which so static with no real development...nobody would mind the historical inaccuracies if they were not bored to death during much of the screen time that simply had nothing to watch but the flaws...Battle scenes were ridiculously bad as well for so many reasons: even with wide angles of view failed to depict the grand scale of miles and miles of front lines with regiment movement and artillery fire; same old dark blue grey green filter to mask the CGI which again made them look like the orcs assault on Helms Deep, while failing to display the color of different nations' uniforms, the drum rolls, even the music by which columns would march into battle; crappy melees so that more legs and arms could be cut which again is so far from how battles were conducted in those days; and worst of all - no real intensity, it's like watching zombies who would cut, slash and die and their generals watching from above with the same facial expression they have while reading the morning newspaper...and of course inaccuracies tat are so silly and unnecessary and quite frankly are an insult to anyone with at least a tea spoon of brain...by far the worst Napoleon movie ever made...it's even worse because with modern day technology and cinematography and an enormous budget they failed to produce a movie even half as good as the likes of Waterloo or War and Peace shot more than 50 years ago...
I'm very curious about the 4 hour cut. I'm glad you found something redeemable with the writing, Sydney, because I thought the writing was one of the worst parts! I felt like there was important context missing, and I was FEELING the "highlight reel" energy.
Nice review, I was going to see this, but I knew this wasn't going to be done right.
In an era where many artists, both in movies and in other media, are taking a great deal of time to create their work, I'm beginning to respect creators like Scott who can quickly turn around reasonably well-made (and occasionally brilliant) works at a rapid pace. Napoleon isn't Oppenheimer, but it *is* an easy, enjoyable watch. There has to be a place for that kind of filmmaking.
Brilliantly said!!
I still gotta check this one out, but always appreciate your breakdowns, Sydney!
“The analysis writes itself” that was hilarious. Thank you! Great review!
Thanks so much for watching!!
I wasn’t expecting a documentary but being off so much about historical events is a bit mind boggling for anyone who likes history and/or Napoleon. I’m not a huge Scott fan (I appreciate some of his films). Phoenix is rather bland in the role. The bluish photography or sepia is annoying imho. For all these reasons I don’t think I’ll watch the short or long version. Napoleon said «impossible is not french» but «terrible could be english (meaning Scott)» for this biopic! 😉
EXCELLENT criticism,to the point !!!
Btw you are an extremely articulate and thoughtful reviewer you earned my subscription
Thanks so much, happy to have you here🙌🏼
I almost always disagree with Sydney on movies, but props to her for making a really good and thoughtful video where I learned a lot.
Aww that’s really kind i appreciate it!
Ridley Scott is a terrific director, and has made many great movies, but this 'Napoleon' sounds 'messy'. Is is about Napoleon, the General and Emperor, Napoleon and Josephine, Napoleon and Wellington, or Napoleon as some weird, dog-child? It just doesn't sound like it knows what story this film has to tell.
Yes, it is certainly about all of those things in short supply haha. A simple but detrimental issue
Hey Sydney please review 'Animal' . It just released in theatres.
Great review Sydney! I haven’t seen it yet but I’m not surprised by your thoughts at all because I feel that Scott is a limited filmmaker. He’s technically skilled sure but he doesn’t have consistent taste in scripts or consistent abilities as a storyteller.
I wouldn’t consider him amongst the great non writer directors like Scorsese, Spielberg, Fincher etc. Would you?
Thanks so much for watching! Yeah, that's a very interesting topic. None of these men are the kind of auteurs who always write their own scripts, but I think the three that you mentioned actually have more of an ability to elevate the substance of what they're putting on the screen. I always think of how War of the Worlds could have been an abysmal movie without Spielberg's touch. And yeah, they have better taste. Ridley seems to have a layman's eye for a script and the touch of a god technically. However I don't think Ridley adds NOTHING to what he's telling, and doesn't receive enough credit for how he enhances these stories. I just think his main appeal is scale. Very few directors out there right now who can consistently deliver epics on the level he can do with his pinky finger.
I checkout of any of these reviews when they start to hype up the battle scenes as good when they are abysmal safe for maybe the first one. It's borderline empty bullet-point parroting. Like it's something that is supposed to be a given yet it clearly is not.
How did I miss this review?? Smh RUclips notifs
I appreciate your review. I disagree with a bit of it - historical accuracy *has* value - but your enthusiastic thought was good. I saw the movie and thought it was a mess. This director obviously had contempt for the subject matter and treated Napoleon with the same regard he would give Hitler or Stalin. It was disappointing considering what a master director he is.
And there was a fixation on the negative to such a degree that it made no sense why his men loved him and supported his return from Elba. Why could he rule a demonstrably unruly country like France if he didn't get some things right, like fixing the monetary system or creating the Napoleonic Code? In fact, too much of the movie makes no sense AS A CHARACTER STUDY which is why the argument about handwaving historical accuracy makes no damned sense.
Thanks for watching! I appreciate your thoughts - I wouldn't say he was depicted to be as evil or psychopathic as someone like Hitler, though yes the film was choosing to argue that a lot of his actions were motivated at least in part by ego and insecurity. I have a friend who is very into Napoleon who said he appreciated that he took exile gracefully in the film, which he did, because of his devotion to France. Though I do completely agree that I didn't get the proper sense of his charisma. There are small moments like him motivating his soldiers and handing them bread but it wasn't enough. Perhaps even things like that are more fleshed out in the longer cut!
My personal Ridley ranking:
1 Kingdom of Heaven
2 Gladiator
3 Napoleon (loved it!)
4 Body of Lies
5 Alien
6 Black Hawk Down
7 Last Duel
8 Covenant
9 Exodus G&K
10 Prometheus
11 Thelma & Louise
12 Hannibal
13 Blade Runner
14 The Duelists
15 American Gangster
16 GI Jane
17 The Martian
18 Matchstick Men
19 The Counselor
20 House of Gucci
21 Black Rain
22 Legend
23 Robin Hood
24 Someone to Watch Over Me
25 All the Money in the World
26 1492
Haven't seen: White Squall & A Good Year
Holy crap, you have seen a lot of his movies!! Kingdom of Heaven that high is a cool pick, but I'm sad to see Blade Runner and Thelma and Louise lower down haha
@SydneyVolpe BR and T&L are both great films. But I'm a Ridley megafan so he has a lot of great ones bunched up near the top of my ranking.
Mr Scott probably has the same mindset as Henry Ford.
"History is Bunk!"
It was a tour de force art film through the eyes of Scott. In his interviews he stated that the purpose of the film was to explore how a blood thirsty man could be so weak for a woman. It wasn’t meant to be a super heroes Marvel film with sword’s lopping off heads. The haters just didn’t get it.
Napoleon was not on any way " bloodthirsty ".Not even his worst enemies said so. Scott is an arrogant ass,THAT is obvious. Beware of know-it-all ignorance all around....! Its stupid and only denotes lack of quality and judgement in a person.
I'm a massive Ridley Scott fan, just cant help myself even if his filmography has been shaky as of late. But “history is a set of lies agreed upon" is a great quote to touch on here because this isn't a straightforward bird's eye view biopic, and it makes a lot more sense when we treat Napoleon as an unreliable narrator. That being said, didn't love this one but I am hyped for the yearly Ridley Scott 4 hour director's cut. Great review, Sydney!
The problem with your logic of 'history is a set of lies agreed upon' and "it makes a lot more sense when we treat Napoleon as an unreliable narrator" is that you are assuming that historians just accepted Napoleons personal version of history and what occurred to date rather than having actually investigated the matter. With that logic *all* history is interpretive and can be considered whatever you want it to be because as RS put it in a recent interview, "you weren't there, so shut the fu*k up".
@@Slayer398 Haha well I just mean taking that stance for the sake of this specific movie, I'm sure historians have a much better idea of what actually happened in Napoleon's life than Ridley Scott!
hard to understand why he was so loved. if you look at the movie as a person lost, but for tactics, then the interactions with and theme of josephine's role in his life make the movie, with some great battle scenes thrown in
You've confirmed some of my comments in why it's inspired by Ridley.The 2 themes not thoroughly explored are the dynamic of his relationship with his wife and the ultimate flaws in his strategic ccapability, when he was the best tactician in history. Ultimately, he was not a good strategist because he had many opportunities to ooffer each treaty with the continental European powers, which would have been enough to protect HIS vision of France from the British meddling.Most strategists would have seen that there was no future to continuing the war, when it was clear he could never invade Britain and would therefore always have them as an enemy that he would need to find a clever protection mechanism against
He left France in its weakest position ever since its inception, and made the unification of Germany possible when it otherwise wasn't, because a strong militarily, financially annd diplomatically would never allow a Germany with greater numbers of German-speaking peoples and far better natural resources to become unified for the same reasons as what happened after.Therefore there will be no defeating the Franco-Prussian war and no massacres leaving Britain and France as shadows of their former capability now in the modern world, than they were in their ascendant posittions before World War I
Am I insane that I had more fun watching Napoleon than I did watching KOTFM, The Killer, or Oppenheimer? All are top 10 of the year for me maybe top 5, but Napoleon has more heart and more comedy than those other films, which is funny to say about a warlord biopic. KOTFM and Oppenheimer were actually kind of depressing at times even though I enjoyed both films.
Not at all!! I wish I had mentioned something about personal affinities for epics like this... it has a scale that you can't get in just about any other film this year. No one is putting many people in a frame like Ridley Scott!
3/5 for me, will watch the extended cut because I think it desperately needs it
Real
Ridley doesn't F about in interviews. I kinda love him for that. He's always been like that.
It's certainly very funny!
He should f...himself and get out of sight.
This was the first thing on my recommended list after I got out of the theater from watching Napoleon, it's almost as if destiny brought me this review
The algorithm is a brilliant strategist
Nap was 5'7" why is that a considered "small" !!!!!!!!!!!!
British propaganda of the time perpetuated to this day, that Napoleon was short 5' 2"
That's another thing that I would argue is more symbolic than anything!
Idk what Paul is on. But Joaquin is one of the greatest actors ever 🤷🏼♂️
There is nothing reedming about Napoleon 2023 beyond the actor who played Alexander the Great & the costumes.
Hiiii Sydney.... Any update about.... Sardar udham....?????
thought it was better than flower moon but thats just me
Fair enough!
As far as Phoenix, for this version of Napoleon, the socially awkward guy, he is definitely the right choice. I never doubted that through the lens of awkward military genius, he was Napoleon.
This is the problem when people keep perpetuating lies.
Napoleon was known for being somewhat introvert and he had a mad temper. But he could also be quite charming and he was 100% charismatic, full of self confidence.
The awkward thing I never know where do people get that. What events in his life would you present in order to show he was or acted awkward? Can you give a single example?
I would be interested!
Napoleon re-instated slavery in the French Colonies that was ignored in this ham fisted film/script.
"Destiny has brought me this lamb chop" had me chuckle a bit in a theater. I was like "sure". lol but hey the battle scenes in Waterloo and Austerlitz freaking rules with that my brother and I enjoyed it.
Great review, Sydney! Personally, I loved that they wanted to focus on Napoleon's relationship with Josephine in concept, but I feel like there was so much more to explore there. Seriously excited to see the 4 hour cut, hoping it will really make the movie click for me. And yes, even more battles, please))
Omgg hey Marianna!! Thanks so much for watching, completely agree. Loved your biopic roundup, kind of can't contain my excitement for Maestro🤩
Whinie the bear Napoleon, and Barbie and Ken under the first Empire ! Scott BS
Anyone expecting historical accuracy from Hollywood needs to chill out haha. I take them with a heavy pinch of salt or just refuse to see them if it’s too much of an insult (e.g. green book). Also what is it with Ridley and his edits? How many were there for blade runner? 🤣
There are a lot of historically accurate Hollywood movies.
I think this is a huge trial balloon to see what he can get away with for Gladiator 2. Maybe he has a thought to set it at Woodstock or the stadium where the Cowboys play.
Haha, can't wait for Napoleon directors cut, the Josephine cut, the final cut
I wanted to love this film. Hell, I'm trying to find something redeeming in it. The reality is, though, it's simply an awful film. From a purely artistic view, it's long, slow, shallow, tedious, and just flat boring. As a romance, we have scene after scene of Napoleon and Josephine sitting in awkward silence staring at opposite walls. As a historical epic, he got none of the history right. As a biopic, it isn't even a remote caricature of Napoleon. As a war film, we need to decide which war we're doing and stick to it. At least try to keep the anachronisms within a couple hundred years of the event... Trenches and telescopes tied to muskets at Waterloo are as silly as machineguns and B-52s.
Scarpa admitted his research was checking out a book and flipping through it. If the author has no interest in his subject, why should I? I don't need absolute historical fidelity nor do I think it makes a good movie but at least make it FEEL like it's true to the history. Gladiator and The Wind And The Lion are entirely fictional accounts of actual events but are wonderfully entertaining films. It doesn't diminish Scott's other films as each rises and fall on its own merits, but this is the low mark for Ridley Scott's career.
I don't like very mutch Napoleon as a person but at the same way i can't stand the superficiality of this film.
To me it's legit for a writer o a filmmaker reinterprets an historical figure as long as you don't turn it completely upside down.
Napoleon was not a superman but neither a perfect idiot and we can know this because we have tons of testifies from acquaintances, allies, opponents and even enemies.
Whatever Napoleon himself says, history is not (only) a lie and letting this message pass is profoundly wrong.
This was a really weird rom-com. Didn’t like it but it was entertaining.
Documentaries aren't really great for historical accuracy either. Did you watch the Hunger Games prequel?
Yes i did! Gave it a 2.5 actually didn’t love it. Have you seen it?
@@SydneyVolpe Nope not yet, I will do next week. I think the reviews are mixed just like for Napoleon.
Are you going to review Ferrari? How about Boys in the Boat? Ferrari had like no Italians in the lead roles about Italians. The director was not Italian either. I watched a documentary about Enzo Ferrari on RUclips, and the story is completely different and way more interesting and plausible than the one told in the movie. I feel like the same thing is going on with Napoleon. It is more like a director's weird interpretation than an accurate portrayal.
I’m not going to review Ferrari but I’m with you i didn’t like it all that much despite being a huge fan of Michael Mann! I hate to call accents distracting, but my family is authentically Italian and man it was like nails on a chalkboard for the first 40 minutes! I didn’t know about the story differences, that’s interesting
Wonder if Ridley considered calling it 'Cuckoleon'.
😭
He didn't win Egypt. He won a couple battles but then was cut off by Nelson. Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies of all time. I liked Gladiator but he is remaking the 1960's movie Fall of the Roman Empire and he's drawing the exact opposite lesson that history tells us of what happened to the roman empire after the death of Commodus and because Marcus Aurelius chose his biological son to succeed him rather than the previous four emperors who chose
The battle scenes are crap and have no connection to the actual battles. The Waterloo scenes had again almost no connection to the actual battle. See 1970 Waterloo for an actual accurate as possible last 100 days of Napoleons rule. You can't tell why Napoleon is great or how he won his battles or how he managed to survive the french revolution and in fact rode that wave to the top ... twice.
His appeal wasn't as a figurehead.
He loved Josephine but that didn't effect what he did. Two days after he married her he went to Italy at the head of an army to conquer it.
Ridley Scott is a bit of an idiot.
Don't use a famous historical figure if you have no interest in the history. The actual story of his life is way more interesting than this miserable fantasy Ridley has cobbled together.
I still think the original blade runner is a hot steaming pile of garbage. I've watched all the cuts and I still don't get the hype. And trust me. I'm a sucker for good cinema and dialogue but blade runner just seems like a cop out
DID YOU NOT GO TO WATCH TIGER 3 ?
I actually enjoyed this lol
New Sydney video new Sydney video new Sydney video
Wait she ate with the vest
HAHAH
Hiii
How are your teeth so white !
Hahah idk, always make sure to brush my teeth after coffee!
I dont like that movie!
its a movie!
This is so true
And? It's a historical one that represents a famous historical figure and people also tend to believe what they see in movies as "Truth". Lastly, how would you feel if a movie lambasted a figure you liked, turning them into a whining, man-baby among other things?
It's easy to say "It's a movie" or who cares when it has no importance to you personally (I have no personal attachment to Napoleon myself) however, I do dislike when filmmakers outright falsify and distort under the banner of "it's just a movie" when the promote it differently (see how Egypt sued Netflix).