I thought there was a lot to love about Ridley Scott's Napoleon, but I also feel like there was a lot of missed opportunity too. Here's my review of the film and I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it down below.
Outside of the battlefield he kind of was. Especially infront of Josephine as he was absolutely desperate to make their relationship work. Of course he had to sideline Josephine in order to have a male heir but not after Napoleon had tried absolutely everything.
The LOTR movies demonstrated that even significant cuts don't have to impede the story being told and R.S. has done that with so many movies it now feels like a cop out to say "the directors cut will be better." And they should have called it Napoleon and Josephine.
It was such a weird movie. I went in thinking it would be a biopic of Napoleon but what I got was so shallow it could’ve been mistaken for a dream sequence. It was weird that they tried to add humor…. Like the line about boats. Like wtf was that? There’s no way anyone would follow a guy like that NOW much less back then.
I found it was very very shallow. We get no idea of his thinking and his contempt for women, as shown in legal code. Visually exciting but no real content.
Waterloo is probably the best Napoleonic era film ever made. Over two hours focused on a single decisive battle really shows the drama and grittiness compared to two and a half hours in this new film trying to cover Napoleons entire life. I can definitely see how the rumors that this was a four-hour film cut down to the current running time. The focus on the Napoleon/Josephine relationship as the key narrative device would have benefited from longer more sympathetic character development. It seemed hard to care for any character in the film. The score was also a little wanting, with some rousing battle music and other classical ambience, but also some weird almost mongolian moaning at some points. The historical events & politics should have been the driving force. a mid-tier rating film for me. If you want to enjoy a good Napoleonic era film go watch the Classic Waterloo again, far superior with two hours being devoted to just one battle rather than the entire period
War and Peace (1966) is better than Waterloo, but everybody forgets about that movie because it is 7 hours long and in Russian. Same director, too. Also there is the 1927 biopic of Napoleon which is considered a masterpiece of the silent era.
I thought so also. So grey ,dark, and grainy .. That's not even counting the total lack of tactics. I guess there's just Soo many stupid people out there that they just don't try. But Ridley Scott should be embarrassed ~
@@AnonymousAnonposter yeah I know Spielberg is not as epic as he used to be. But he's apparently going to be using Stanley Kubrick's script. So there's hope there.
@@araadhitpareek6798 Haven't seen Fableman and I'm really not putting all my faith in Spielberg. If anything I'm putting faith in Kubrick's script, he was obsessed with Napoleon for years and wanted to make something accurate. I'm just hoping someone gets this right because I am very well read on Napoleonic history and Scott's film doesn't do it justice.
The Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven was an enormous improvement (and arguably ones Ridley Scott's best) over the Theatrical release. After seeing the mixed theatrical reviews of Napoleon, I'm hoping a similar thing will happen. It's disappointing because i wanted to see it in the cinema and support original films as well as the fact that Ridley Scott has made some of my favourite films of all time. At least the 4 hour cut is coming and I still have high hopes for that.
Looking at the press and the reviews, and being a fellow deep admirer of the DC of KoH, I’m getting strong vibes that this is going to be a repeat of that gap between versions. I was thinking of venturing to the theater, but I think now I’m just gonna catch it on the App, and maybe rewatch KoH
I paid money to see a war film, not a romantic comedy. They played Black Sabbath's War Pigs in the trailer for crying out loud. The battle sequence jumped the shark. Fail!
Spoiler alert? I’m not sure “spoilers” are possible in biographical movies. For example “Spoiler alert, the French retreat from Russia in 1812.” Is everyone going say, “damn, I didn’t know that.”
The complete disregard for historical accuracy is embarrassing. Napoleon is one of the most important historical figures of the last 200 years, and Ridley Scott turned his life into a fucking joke.
During this movie’s press tour, Ridley Scott has definitely become a pretentious & selfish filmmaker. It’s disrespectful the way he has responded to negative comments about the movie such as: “The French don’t even like themselves” to French critics. Or when he responded to historians criticizing the movie: “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up”. I was really excited for this movie, but I was also prepared to be let down this way given Scott’s track record. I love Ridley Scott’s work as a filmmaker, but so far right now, I don’t like him as a person, I’ll keep watching his movies (the good ones) and I’ll look forward to a new movie of his, but this is the most disappointing movie of the year.
It's been years since he's been getting the public's hate, it started with the Alien fans, and it started to get even worse in the last few years with people getting tired of his vanity. He's still good as a director, but don't let him write the script or give interviews.
I share your disappointment, particularly as I had been looking forward to it since I saw the first trailer. The film looks great, but that can't save the dreadful script, riddled with clunky dialogue, or the catalogue of errors in relating well-documented events of history and battles that have been discussed endlessly by military strategists (of which I don't claim to be one). When it came to depicting Waterloo, they might as well have given Wellington Spitfires to use. If it's any consolation to those who recall Napoleon as a hero and are angry having him shown as a petulant man baby, I'd only add that all the other characters were destroyed by this portrayal as well. Every man meets his Waterloo at last; perhaps this was Mr Scott's.
Totaly agree n felt the same way last few weeks. It almost feels like he purposely made him a cuck n apparently the 4 hour cut has more Josephine in it
Initially I was excited to hear Ridley was doing Napoleon but then I watched the trailer and wondered where was the dynamic and charismatic Napoleon. He also appears to have done some creative reimagining of the Battle of Austerlitz. Not at all sure if I'll watch it
Scott doesn’t always know what a good script looks like favoring style over substance. Phoenix may not have been the right guy for this movie. He insisted on remaking large parts of the script and it didn’t payoff.
I just came back from the cinema, where i watched Ridley Scott’s version of Napoleon… the pre release build up from the medias was huge, but the result was almost disappointing. I am French and English and fluent in French to hear a hoard of English looking sans culottes shout “Viva la France” killed the film there and then. Anyone with a crêpes worth of French should know that it is “Vive la France”! The positive was some interesting music one in particular the Edith Piaf version of revolutionary song “Oh ça ça ira ça ira”… also the Corsican tonal singing was good. I wish the blue grey tinted film would just try to put in LIGHT AND COLOUR. score 5.5/10
For me there is very little to like about this film, the battles are terrible and grossly inaccurate (Baker Rifle with a scope strapped to it), Napoleon is not shown to be the master tactician he was, major historical events that affected future events are glossed over if not completely omitted, contemporary leaders figures are brushed aside and when they aren't are incorrectly portrayed (Wellington), he is portrayed as leading charges at Borodino and Waterloo, and he not shown to be feared and respected by his enemies. The pacing was off along with inconsistent time jumps. One positive is that General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas father of the author Alexandre Dumas is shown, sadly not mentioned by name so most will miss the reference.
The battle sequences were NOT expertly pulled off. Musket era armies did not rush headlong into each other in a grunting mass like Vikings. They jostled for position so that their artillery and line infantry could deliver the most effective shots and volleys, using cavalry as a screen to neutralise or capture enemy artillery. This was what Napoleon was expert at, and the film showed nothing of this. Apart from Toulon, they were not fought at night or at dusk, and I suspect this was a device used by Scott to cloak the fact that he had not many extras, and that the tactics were wrong. Trench warfare was not used in the Napoleonic wars. And thats before I even get onto Napoleon's reforms - how a peasent could become an officer or a politician if he was up to the job. His introduction of universal education. Emancipation of the Jews. Promotion of Arts and Sciences. His mathematical genius, introduction of legal codes still widely used throughout the World. None of this was shown. At the end of the film Ridley Scott's ridiculous 'gotcha' saying how many people were killed in Napoleons wars, whilst neglecting throughout the film to show that most of the wars were declared against Napoleon, precisely because the established monarchies of Europe disagreed with the reforms mentioned above. It was pure BS. Watch Dino de Laurentis' excellent 'Waterloo', with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer depicting accurate characterisations if you want a real view of Napoleon and his contemporaries. And also superb depiction of Napoleonic era warfare.
This film was awful. Scott said the script was reworked during shoots and he shot the film at lighting speed. It showed. I was massively disappointed. There’s no chance a longer cut fixes it.
Half of the movie was romance and so much stuff from Napoleon’s empire building, managing, and conquest was missing. Normally, I don’t mind some historical inaccuracies but there was just too much in the movie, plus the annoying romance sideplot that was a huge distraction and the film’s poor depiction of Bonaparte ruined the movie for me. I don’t like the story telling at all. But, I do like the costumes, the cinematography, and the soundtrack. Felt like I was watching Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor again loool
How can you go wrong with historical events to make a movie? I didn't feel any connection with any of the characters, and there was no chemistry between Josephine and Napoleon. Even though the movie's title is called Napoleon, the film does not tell us much about his life, politics, etc. I'm very disappointed; it was a total waste of my time. The History Channel did a better job!
All in all, what is the difference between this character assassination of a great historical figure and the contemporary caricatures of Napoleon by Gilray?
Great battle scenes? It was the worst portrayal of Napoleonic warfare I've ever seen put to film. Austerlitz, one of the greatest set piece battles in the history of the world STARTED as the classic Hollywood mosh pit. What in god's name are you talking about.
Nepoleon was a disappointment. I paid money to see a war film! I mean, they had Black Sabbath's War Pigs in the trailer. Instead, we got a romantic comedy. Not to mention, Waterloo jumped the shark. Epic fail!
Joaquin Phoenix was miscast in the title role. Joaquin Phoenix plays an awkward, soft-spoken, pensive Napoleon, which contrasts with the bold and wildly ambitious inspirational leader that he was in reality. Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" doesn't suck, but wasn't great either. It's a "meh". I give it a 5 on a 1-10. If you’re not a history buff, don’t bother.
I fully concur. It was an error to focussing on the relationship with Josephine at the expense of his tactical brilliance and motivational ability with his soldiers. His writing of the Code Napoleon completely ignored - still in use today. I am a fan of the Napoleonic Wars and have read many books on the subject and have studied the battle of Waterloo closely. The film's portrayal was historically inaccurate. This film is at the opposite end of the spectrum when compared with Mr Scott's early masterpiece "The Duellists". I was disappointed and expected better. What I saw was a disappointment.
BIEN QU'IL SOIT PHOENIX, LE NAPOLÉON DE RIDLEY SCOTT NE RENAÎTRA JAMAIS DE SES CENDRES. Le retour des cendres de l'Empereur ? Avec ce navet cinématographique, impossible. Hormis l'absence de scénario, les erreurs et les raccourcis historiques, il contient un parti-pris d'effondrement. Deux scènes du film se répondent (sans doute involontairement) et suffisent à son échouage et à son échec. La première représente Bonaparte en Égypte, devant la momie d'un pharaon. Disposé à la verticale, le cercueil est ouvert et Bonaparte ose un doigt indiscret sur la face momifiée, la faisant basculer de droite à gauche. La seconde montre Napoléon, à Sainte-Hélène, censé mourir sur un siège (qui n'est pas d'aisance, ouf !), vu de dos, basculant lentement de droite à gauche, jusqu'à sortir du champ de la caméra. Ces deux scènes résument tout le propos lourdingue d'un film emmerdant comme la pluie : une momie, qu'elle fût pharaonique ou impériale, doit s'écrouler, coûte que coûte. Et l'excellente entreprise de démolition, Scott & Cie, a pris 200 millions de dollars pour tout saccager. Le permis de démolir fut confié à Joaquin Phoenix, hybridation entre Le Rien et Le Trop. Cet acteur mal dégrossi, cet imposteur qui pense trop, qui parfois réussi (Le Joker), figure le chantre du déséquilibre. Son exhibitionnisme coutumier, sa volonté constante de "chercher l'incarnation" en déshabillant son âme, sa façon d'appréhender un rôle dans chaque expression ou non-expression du visage, tout cela est absent ici, laissant place à un Droopy coiffé d'un bicorne. Ce Napoléon bringuebalé fait peine à voir (est-ce encore un homme ou bien une défroque usée qui conserverait en creux l'empreinte de son propriétaire ?) et dément l'épopée hugolienne d'une "force qui va". Il est lentement momifié, puis il s'écroule, comme l'ensemble du film. L'excuse de Scott et de Phoenix tient dans une époque grise, dépressive, d'où le cynisme ni le prosaïsme ne s'extirpent facilement, moins en tout cas qu'une prose épique ou qu'un soleil d'Austerlitz. De la grande histoire jusqu'aux mauvais films, si tout est poussière, rien ne vaut la peine d'être montré, débattu et, à ce compte-là, nos jours le sont, comptés. [F.D.]
I genuinely liked the cold environment scenes they were shot beautifully, i enjoyed the film regardless of it's historical inaccuracies but for sure it had the potential to be a masterpiece and it definitely missed that hope that 4 hour version makes it better
Just listen his voice when he took the crown - pathetic ! One of the greatest personalities of history compressed into 2 hours 30 ? You can't do that, period ! And the inevitable sick feminism that strikes from all positions. Of course that this movie is bad ! If you want to see a real Napoleon movie just watch Waterloo - 1970.
It sucked. I so wanted it to be great, but it was long and boring and just glossed over the politics that put Napoleon in power, glossed over the many battles and years of campaigning and completely simplifies his return from Elba - as if one day he just decided to leave and everyone and everything just clicked into place for a coup. Ridiculous.
Yeah this movie gives me no idea why Napoleon was a successful general or politician or anything. He climbed to the top of France in the middle of the chaos of the revolution. He survived being sent to Egypt by the directory, ostensibly to fail. They were trying to harass the English but also in getting rid of Napoleon who was becoming loved and troublesomely powerful. Another general was sent off to Ireland to lose and did in fact die there. Yeah the "traps" from the Battle of Austerlitz had nothing to do with the batttle of austerlitz or why that was such an amazing victory. The actual history is quite interesting. It's a shame Ridley preferred to make something up that was just less interesting than what actually happened. My second question would be why? This movie is a two. He was entranced with Josephine. There is a huge set of their correspondence extant. He was 26 when he met her. She was a 32 year old widow at that time who desperately needed a protector. The Revolutionary government had killed her first husband and imprisoned her and her children. She only escaped death because robespierre died. Joaquin was way too old to play Napoleon except maybe by Waterloo when he was 46.
i started laughing out loud at the terrible dialogue and when napoleon slaps josoaphine during the devorce scene, made me think about the airplane scene with the historical lady getting slapped over and over lol
Why the token Black person in just about every scene ? bloody insulting to black people, if they were not historically there why place them there ? The battle scenes were pathetic, Waterloo seemed to be trench warfare, with men climbing out of the trenches to be shot at or receive cavalry charges, why ? would have been safer to stay in the trench, that for some bizarre reason was protected by wooden stakes, and the sequence of the actual battle was thrown out of the window. The way it degenerated into a punch up/brawl at the end was hilarious. Rupert Everetts portrayal of Wellington was a pathetic caricature, and bore no resemblance to the man himself, what happened to the quote "the worst thing to a battle lost is a battle won" a reflection on Wellington's dislike of the waste in war. Scott should be ashamed at this garbage, Phoenix seems to be heavilly medicated during most of the movie, and his Napoleonic genius was lost in the mumbling. Only saving grace was Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) actress did a great job, any scene she was in was worth watching. Any one wanting to see a great Napoleonic movie see "Waterloo" it is the best ever made, Rod Steiger is awsome as Napoleon and Christopher Plumber is a elegant and engaging Wellington. The battle scenes are the best ever made no CGI all practical. And the movie follows the history books, not Scotts political agenda, you can take the man out of Tyne but you can't take the Tyne out of the man. Stick to Aliens. And why was the battle of Austerlitz reduced to a Icecapade show.
@@Dragonite43 He deserves his own movie, just the basic overview that Biographics gives makes me want one. Could also show him and Napoleon butting heads.
well several black people appeared in the movie...during the meeting of Josephine and Napoleon, you can see a dancer for exemple. This person could be the Chevalier. Of course, when you see a black "general" , this one could only be Dumas (but that's a nonsense because they never met. But you know that ;-))@@Dragonite43
Terrible film. It was the worst Napoleonic era film i have seen. Too broad, too shallow and not true to history. Also, somehow this film failed too convey the primary reasons napoleon is still studied today - his military genius, his unexpedcted rise to power etc...
This was the best movie by Ridley Scott has ever made but people have totally missed the point. This film is not about history but it is an intimate character study. Investigating the context and motivations of the characters. History about the great heroes is more like a game of Chines whisper. This is why they say it is written by the victors but even the losers are twisted the reasons for which are obvious. If you really look at the context and consider where Napoleon was born, his family, his mother, the atmosphere of France at the time and his letters to Josephine then you might understand why he fell in love with her, why it never worked. His every action is explained in the presence sense, not the past or by others. Look for motivations of actions, the subtle ones.
It wasn’t what I expected, but I enjoyed it. It doesn’t too Gladiator or The Last Duel. I also enjoyed more of the scenes with him and Josephine, just like you I stated yesterday how I felt some scenes were missing cause it just jumps to another scene with them and it seems like something happen that we didn’t see. It’s enjoyable but it’s not up as his best I guess. I’d like to see the other cut, but I read that Ridley Scott said that one in theaters it’s his.
I don't mind a director taking a small artistic liberty here and there for expediency or to add a bit of excitement. But this entire film seems to be an exercise in historical revisionism and a slanderous smear campaign against one of history's greatest military commanders. Methinks Scott is on the British crown's payroll.
Are You Blind and Deaf? This film does absolutely nothing to connect us with how Napoleon became Napoleon. Where is his childhood in Corsica? His relationship with his father? His brutal experiences in a French 🇫🇷 Military Academy? The importance of the Italian Campaign. Everything feels truncated. Everything. Even the few Battles. Ridley Scott ridicules Napoleon, as most Englishmen have done. Almost nothing is historically accurate, not even the few battle scenes. There is almost zero historical continuity. “Joséphine” (And Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt film title. This should have been a 4-6 episode mini-series. Love to experience a well-financed French 🇫🇷 Perspective Film Production. 1/5 or 2/10 And, that’s being merciful for the period costumes and most of the set designs.
This film, although I still endorse seeing, if purely for the interest of investing in ambitious epics, is a solid dud for me. This film, however, cannot be even categorised as an epic, because it fails in the fundamental job of making a strong case for why the subject deserves to have their story be told. All the film comes out to be is a sequence of events without an intelligible through line. The first sin is to build the audience's expectation on a lie with the tagline "He came from nothing," when in reality his father was an important political figure in Corsica, which was a big reason how he got the opportunity to attend a prestigious military academy in Metropolitan France. Next, regarding his most important relationship, with his first wife Josephine, the development of which and the intellectual fire that made it so are completely unbelievable and absent, respectively. Third, what is Napoleon remembered in history for? The answer are his significant political and legal reforms, such as the Napoleonic Code, which he promulgated across the states he brought to heel, the bulk of which still are retained to this day in countries like NLD, and beginning the glorious process of secularisation. Not only are these two pillars not the focus of the film, there aren't even the barest of mentions of them! And lastly, even if I were to disregard all the ahistorical crimes Scott commits throughout the film, I would've been at least entertained had the battle scenes been handled well. Unfortunately, apart from the Battle of Austerlitz, all the others ones are one dimensional and don't pass the smell test, as no one remotely intelligent can believe in the age of mass-issued handheld firearms, the go-to military tactic is to have one's forces marching like cannon fodder. And because of Scott's blatant and over-the-top anti-Napoleon lense, I can't even trust the context-free figures at the end of the film at face value. Onto the performances, I find Kirby and Phoenix to be pretty good in their roles. Both show stretches of brilliance, with the former have more of it than the latter. In my judgement, Kirby is on the fence of deserving a prestigious award nomination; Phoenix? Not so much. To appropriate Kirk Lazarus, "Never go full clammy horse noise fetishist.
i waited 2 years for this film to come out.. i think it such a missed opportunity and it portrayed him so bad. i missed his rise to power he is characterised as a weakling too much about Josephine and the negative feelings around him, also a bit to comedy.
Ridley and I have a strange box office relationship, I absolutely appreciate that he has a vast range of genres he understands, admires and he goes after them. Some work beautifully, others disappoint. I was a history minor at University and one of my focuses was strongly pursuing military history, from Kadesh to the Surrender on the Missouri in 1945. Bonaparte is so intriguing to me and I have taken 'Austerlitz' into what I know will be adversarial meetings (I work in the film industry) and simply wait until my chief opponent has stepped too far upon the ice, I have then fired, and give my thanks to an Angry Corsican who became an Emperor. Ridley has stumbled at times, history forgotten or misplaced, or, more honestly, I simply dislike the film. However. Should this happen, I will simply sit and look at the astonishing visuals and attentions to details. I loved the theatrical cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" (they fact that Ridley is an ardent lover of horses and never fails to put the correct breeds and stage brilliant equine battle sequences will always leave me with a deep appreciation for his research.) I very much agree with the poster down thread who lauded the 5 hour cut of "Kingdom ..." It is beautiful, Saladen was a master strategist and I continue to love that film. I look forward to the theatrical cut of "Napoleon", and will devour the 4 hour release. I believe it will restore vital scenes and pay off set ups that currently go unfulfilled. Ridley Scott makes exquisite works that fill the whole screen with color and lush visuals, and then you simply laugh at Mark Watney. There will never be a film on Bonaparte that will come close to touching the 1927 Able Gance film. It transcends its screen, and is breathtaking, and Albert Dieudonné's commanding performance has never seen its equal. The finale is something you simply have to experience, as Gance introduces the debut of three screen 'Polyvision'. "Napoleon As Seen By Able Gance" (its full title) remains the only film to use the technique, which paved the way for Cinerama, Vista Vision, Cinemascope, Todd-AO and now IMAX. It is again under restoration as over an hour of new footage has recently been found. It is the Halley's Comet of earlier cinema, it occasionally appears, with a full orchestra, and simply leaves you breathless and reeling in the wake of its shimmering passage.
I haven't seen this movie but from a few reviews I feel sad to know that one of the great directors makes such diappointing narrative of the famous emperor , Napolean.
Forget this terrible movie. If you are intelligent (and not an armchair warrior who has never seen war with its utter destruction of humans and their families yet still get your cheap thrills by watching such rubbish), read War and Peace.
The narrator appears to complain about this movie not covering the entirety of the Napoleonic era to include the French Revolution. How much can be packed into a movie before it becomes mere chaos?
If the other 1 hour 30 minutes is the same style of editing as the theatrical then probably not. But I think primarily it depends on the content of that new footage. We'll have to see man.
If you do not show the murder ruthless mass murdering side of the man, you can not develop the character properly. The story can only be told one way. And that is that he was a murdering sociopath.
Yet it's ten times better than Killers of the Flower Moon, and five times better than Oppenheimer - and the four hour cut will double that dominance ratio.
I thought there was a lot to love about Ridley Scott's Napoleon, but I also feel like there was a lot of missed opportunity too. Here's my review of the film and I'm interested to hear your thoughts on it down below.
John Larroquette passed away tonight. Thoughts and prayers for the family!
Your review is as bad as this movie. Not as bad as Phoenix performance
@@michael-4k4000John Larroquette reported death, has been confirmed as a hoax.
This whole movie was a character assassination attempt of Napoleon. Turned one of the most calculated men in Military History into a man-baby.
Typical brit tude…
Outside of the battlefield he kind of was. Especially infront of Josephine as he was absolutely desperate to make their relationship work. Of course he had to sideline Josephine in order to have a male heir but not after Napoleon had tried absolutely everything.
I concur
Have you seen his letters to Josephine? They are absolutely pathetic - he is a man baby. That part is accurate.
And once again America’s schools have failed
The LOTR movies demonstrated that even significant cuts don't have to impede the story being told and R.S. has done that with so many movies it now feels like a cop out to say "the directors cut will be better."
And they should have called it Napoleon and Josephine.
It was such a weird movie. I went in thinking it would be a biopic of Napoleon but what I got was so shallow it could’ve been mistaken for a dream sequence.
It was weird that they tried to add humor…. Like the line about boats. Like wtf was that? There’s no way anyone would follow a guy like that NOW much less back then.
I found it was very very shallow. We get no idea of his thinking and his contempt for women, as shown in legal code. Visually exciting but no real content.
Waterloo is probably the best Napoleonic era film ever made. Over two hours focused on a single decisive battle really shows the drama and grittiness compared to two and a half hours in this new film trying to cover Napoleons entire life.
I can definitely see how the rumors that this was a four-hour film cut down to the current running time. The focus on the Napoleon/Josephine relationship as the key narrative device would have benefited from longer more sympathetic character development. It seemed hard to care for any character in the film. The score was also a little wanting, with some rousing battle music and other classical ambience, but also some weird almost mongolian moaning at some points.
The historical events & politics should have been the driving force. a mid-tier rating film for me. If you want to enjoy a good Napoleonic era film go watch the Classic Waterloo again, far superior with two hours being devoted to just one battle rather than the entire period
It is a four hour mini series to be shown on Apple TV next year.
War and Peace (1966) is better than Waterloo, but everybody forgets about that movie because it is 7 hours long and in Russian. Same director, too. Also there is the 1927 biopic of Napoleon which is considered a masterpiece of the silent era.
@@Jezza_One Doesn't matter, in it's current format it's a bad film.
Did we watch the same movie ? This was an Epic Failure, the battle scenes were shambolic
I thought so also. So grey ,dark, and grainy .. That's not even counting the total lack of tactics. I guess there's just Soo many stupid people out there that they just don't try. But Ridley Scott should be embarrassed ~
Hopefully Spielberg's rumored Napoleon will show Scott how it's done.
>Spielberg
Hahahaha
@@AnonymousAnonposter yeah I know Spielberg is not as epic as he used to be. But he's apparently going to be using Stanley Kubrick's script. So there's hope there.
Spielberg’s last film(The Fabelmans) was better than Scott’s napoleon and last duel
@@araadhitpareek6798 Haven't seen Fableman and I'm really not putting all my faith in Spielberg. If anything I'm putting faith in Kubrick's script, he was obsessed with Napoleon for years and wanted to make something accurate. I'm just hoping someone gets this right because I am very well read on Napoleonic history and Scott's film doesn't do it justice.
The Director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven was an enormous improvement (and arguably ones Ridley Scott's best) over the Theatrical release. After seeing the mixed theatrical reviews of Napoleon, I'm hoping a similar thing will happen.
It's disappointing because i wanted to see it in the cinema and support original films as well as the fact that Ridley Scott has made some of my favourite films of all time.
At least the 4 hour cut is coming and I still have high hopes for that.
I’m going to give the 4 hr cut a watch on 🍎 tv and watch at home
Looking at the press and the reviews, and being a fellow deep admirer of the DC of KoH, I’m getting strong vibes that this is going to be a repeat of that gap between versions. I was thinking of venturing to the theater, but I think now I’m just gonna catch it on the App, and maybe rewatch KoH
KoH's theatrical version was better than this.
Is it confirmed? There is a 4hrs cut coming?
@@acfan8253 I don’t have a source to cite, but I know that MANY reviewers have mentioned it
I paid money to see a war film, not a romantic comedy. They played Black Sabbath's War Pigs in the trailer for crying out loud. The battle sequence jumped the shark. Fail!
Spoiler alert? I’m not sure “spoilers” are possible in biographical movies. For example “Spoiler alert, the French retreat from Russia in 1812.” Is everyone going say, “damn, I didn’t know that.”
Thanks for the laugh!
The complete disregard for historical accuracy is embarrassing.
Napoleon is one of the most important historical figures of the last 200 years, and Ridley Scott turned his life into a fucking joke.
During this movie’s press tour, Ridley Scott has definitely become a pretentious & selfish filmmaker. It’s disrespectful the way he has responded to negative comments about the movie such as: “The French don’t even like themselves” to French critics. Or when he responded to historians criticizing the movie: “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up”. I was really excited for this movie, but I was also prepared to be let down this way given Scott’s track record. I love Ridley Scott’s work as a filmmaker, but so far right now, I don’t like him as a person, I’ll keep watching his movies (the good ones) and I’ll look forward to a new movie of his, but this is the most disappointing movie of the year.
It's been years since he's been getting the public's hate, it started with the Alien fans, and it started to get even worse in the last few years with people getting tired of his vanity.
He's still good as a director, but don't let him write the script or give interviews.
Nah that stuff is hilarious. Love his press tours 😂
He never said STFU so STFU.
I share your disappointment, particularly as I had been looking forward to it since I saw the first trailer. The film looks great, but that can't save the dreadful script, riddled with clunky dialogue, or the catalogue of errors in relating well-documented events of history and battles that have been discussed endlessly by military strategists (of which I don't claim to be one). When it came to depicting Waterloo, they might as well have given Wellington Spitfires to use. If it's any consolation to those who recall Napoleon as a hero and are angry having him shown as a petulant man baby, I'd only add that all the other characters were destroyed by this portrayal as well. Every man meets his Waterloo at last; perhaps this was Mr Scott's.
Totaly agree n felt the same way last few weeks. It almost feels like he purposely made him a cuck n apparently the 4 hour cut has more Josephine in it
The “Napoleon” in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure is more accurate than this.
Initially I was excited to hear Ridley was doing Napoleon but then I watched the trailer and wondered where was the dynamic and charismatic Napoleon. He also appears to have done some creative reimagining of the Battle of Austerlitz. Not at all sure if I'll watch it
Napoleon was miscast horribly
@@Paulmatthew22 although I havent seen this film, I would venture that Rod Steiger gave a better performance in 'Waterloo'
Scott doesn’t always know what a good script looks like favoring style over substance. Phoenix may not have been the right guy for this movie. He insisted on remaking large parts of the script and it didn’t payoff.
they couldn't cast a french/italian/corsican actor?
I just came back from the cinema, where i watched Ridley Scott’s version of Napoleon… the pre release build up from the medias was huge, but the result was almost disappointing. I am French and English and fluent in French to hear a hoard of English looking sans culottes shout “Viva la France” killed the film there and then. Anyone with a crêpes worth of French should know that it is “Vive la France”!
The positive was some interesting music one in particular the Edith Piaf version of revolutionary song “Oh ça ça ira ça ira”… also the Corsican tonal singing was good.
I wish the blue grey tinted film would just try to put in LIGHT AND COLOUR. score 5.5/10
For me there is very little to like about this film, the battles are terrible and grossly inaccurate (Baker Rifle with a scope strapped to it), Napoleon is not shown to be the master tactician he was, major historical events that affected future events are glossed over if not completely omitted, contemporary leaders figures are brushed aside and when they aren't are incorrectly portrayed (Wellington), he is portrayed as leading charges at Borodino and Waterloo, and he not shown to be feared and respected by his enemies. The pacing was off along with inconsistent time jumps. One positive is that General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas father of the author Alexandre Dumas is shown, sadly not mentioned by name so most will miss the reference.
The battle sequences were NOT expertly pulled off. Musket era armies did not rush headlong into each other in a grunting mass like Vikings. They jostled for position so that their artillery and line infantry could deliver the most effective shots and volleys, using cavalry as a screen to neutralise or capture enemy artillery. This was what Napoleon was expert at, and the film showed nothing of this. Apart from Toulon, they were not fought at night or at dusk, and I suspect this was a device used by Scott to cloak the fact that he had not many extras, and that the tactics were wrong. Trench warfare was not used in the Napoleonic wars. And thats before I even get onto Napoleon's reforms - how a peasent could become an officer or a politician if he was up to the job. His introduction of universal education. Emancipation of the Jews. Promotion of Arts and Sciences. His mathematical genius, introduction of legal codes still widely used throughout the World. None of this was shown. At the end of the film Ridley Scott's ridiculous 'gotcha' saying how many people were killed in Napoleons wars, whilst neglecting throughout the film to show that most of the wars were declared against Napoleon, precisely because the established monarchies of Europe disagreed with the reforms mentioned above. It was pure BS. Watch Dino de Laurentis' excellent 'Waterloo', with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer depicting accurate characterisations if you want a real view of Napoleon and his contemporaries. And also superb depiction of Napoleonic era warfare.
This film was awful. Scott said the script was reworked during shoots and he shot the film at lighting speed. It showed. I was massively disappointed. There’s no chance a longer cut fixes it.
This is actually a replicant acting like Napoleon many years in the future!
I really wanted to go see this movie, until I heard it butchered histroy... and Scott's reaction. Hard pass now.
Remember the good old days of the Pink Panther movies, when actors could be bothered to do the French accent.
🤣
Half of the movie was romance and so much stuff from Napoleon’s empire building, managing, and conquest was missing. Normally, I don’t mind some historical inaccuracies but there was just too much in the movie, plus the annoying romance sideplot that was a huge distraction and the film’s poor depiction of Bonaparte ruined the movie for me. I don’t like the story telling at all. But, I do like the costumes, the cinematography, and the soundtrack. Felt like I was watching Michael Bay’s Pearl Harbor again loool
For some of us it was an epic disappointment
awful movie, nothing about it was even adequate. Avoid
THE STUDIOS KNEW THIS WAS NOT GOOD. IT WAS A BIG MISS FOR ME.
How can you go wrong with historical events to make a movie? I didn't feel any connection with any of the characters, and there was no chemistry between Josephine and Napoleon. Even though the movie's title is called Napoleon, the film does not tell us much about his life, politics, etc. I'm very disappointed; it was a total waste of my time. The History Channel did a better job!
All in all, what is the difference between this character assassination of a great historical figure and the contemporary caricatures of Napoleon by Gilray?
Great battle scenes? It was the worst portrayal of Napoleonic warfare I've ever seen put to film. Austerlitz, one of the greatest set piece battles in the history of the world STARTED as the classic Hollywood mosh pit. What in god's name are you talking about.
This movie is complete disaster. really really bad
It breaks my heart to say it because I'm a huge Ridley Scott fan. But this is a clusterf..k of a movie. One of the worst movies ever made.
Is it worse than Alexander?
Haha. It's hard to believe, but unfortunately yes @@Jezza_One
Nepoleon was a disappointment. I paid money to see a war film! I mean, they had Black Sabbath's War Pigs in the trailer. Instead, we got a romantic comedy. Not to mention, Waterloo jumped the shark. Epic fail!
So was planning on going with my brother 2 see this is it worth it in ur opinion or should I wait for the extended version
Definitely wait. Don't waste your money.
Joaquin Phoenix was miscast in the title role. Joaquin Phoenix plays an awkward, soft-spoken, pensive Napoleon, which contrasts with the bold and wildly ambitious inspirational leader that he was in reality. Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" doesn't suck, but wasn't great either. It's a "meh". I give it a 5 on a 1-10. If you’re not a history buff, don’t bother.
Sir Ridley’s Waterloo.
I fully concur. It was an error to focussing on the relationship with Josephine at the expense of his tactical brilliance and motivational ability with his soldiers. His writing of the Code Napoleon completely ignored - still in use today. I am a fan of the Napoleonic Wars and have read many books on the subject and have studied the battle of Waterloo closely. The film's portrayal was historically inaccurate. This film is at the opposite end of the spectrum when compared with Mr Scott's early masterpiece "The Duellists". I was disappointed and expected better. What I saw was a disappointment.
This movie was beautiful! It looks like a painting! The source material was the neo classical Art from that era - genius!
I enjoyed it,thought it was a good film. Looking forward to watching the 4 hr cut.
See it in the cinema for the Battle scenes especially Waterloo.
Nappy was obviously a replicant…
Napoleon was a linear biopic that somehow was incredibly messy and made way less sense than Oppenheimer *despite* that movie being non-linear.
BIEN QU'IL SOIT PHOENIX, LE NAPOLÉON DE RIDLEY SCOTT NE RENAÎTRA JAMAIS DE SES CENDRES.
Le retour des cendres de l'Empereur ? Avec ce navet cinématographique, impossible. Hormis l'absence de scénario, les erreurs et les raccourcis historiques, il contient un parti-pris d'effondrement. Deux scènes du film se répondent (sans doute involontairement) et suffisent à son échouage et à son échec.
La première représente Bonaparte en Égypte, devant la momie d'un pharaon. Disposé à la verticale, le cercueil est ouvert et Bonaparte ose un doigt indiscret sur la face momifiée, la faisant basculer de droite à gauche. La seconde montre Napoléon, à Sainte-Hélène, censé mourir sur un siège (qui n'est pas d'aisance, ouf !), vu de dos, basculant lentement de droite à gauche, jusqu'à sortir du champ de la caméra.
Ces deux scènes résument tout le propos lourdingue d'un film emmerdant comme la pluie : une momie, qu'elle fût pharaonique ou impériale, doit s'écrouler, coûte que coûte. Et l'excellente entreprise de démolition, Scott & Cie, a pris 200 millions de dollars pour tout saccager. Le permis de démolir fut confié à Joaquin Phoenix, hybridation entre Le Rien et Le Trop. Cet acteur mal dégrossi, cet imposteur qui pense trop, qui parfois réussi (Le Joker), figure le chantre du déséquilibre. Son exhibitionnisme coutumier, sa volonté constante de "chercher l'incarnation" en déshabillant son âme, sa façon d'appréhender un rôle dans chaque expression ou non-expression du visage, tout cela est absent ici, laissant place à un Droopy coiffé d'un bicorne. Ce Napoléon bringuebalé fait peine à voir (est-ce encore un homme ou bien une défroque usée qui conserverait en creux l'empreinte de son propriétaire ?) et dément l'épopée hugolienne d'une "force qui va". Il est lentement momifié, puis il s'écroule, comme l'ensemble du film. L'excuse de Scott et de Phoenix tient dans une époque grise, dépressive, d'où le cynisme ni le prosaïsme ne s'extirpent facilement, moins en tout cas qu'une prose épique ou qu'un soleil d'Austerlitz. De la grande histoire jusqu'aux mauvais films, si tout est poussière, rien ne vaut la peine d'être montré, débattu et, à ce compte-là, nos jours le sont, comptés.
[F.D.]
Yeah this movie was so disappointing and a complete waste of time which is sad because this story had potential but they dropped the ball badly.
Well I liked it.
Phoenix and Kirby were great with some surprising humor.
Austerlitz sequence was incredible!
Was that Austerlitz? As what was in the film didn’t happen at Austerlitz.
I genuinely liked the cold environment scenes they were shot beautifully, i enjoyed the film regardless of it's historical inaccuracies but for sure it had the potential to be a masterpiece and it definitely missed that hope that 4 hour version makes it better
Just listen his voice when he took the crown - pathetic !
One of the greatest personalities of history compressed into 2 hours 30 ? You can't do that, period !
And the inevitable sick feminism that strikes from all positions. Of course that this movie is bad !
If you want to see a real Napoleon movie just watch Waterloo - 1970.
It sucked.
I so wanted it to be great, but it was long and boring and just glossed over the politics that put Napoleon in power, glossed over the many battles and years of campaigning and completely simplifies his return from Elba - as if one day he just decided to leave and everyone and everything just clicked into place for a coup. Ridiculous.
Yeah this movie gives me no idea why Napoleon was a successful general or politician or anything. He climbed to the top of France in the middle of the chaos of the revolution. He survived being sent to Egypt by the directory, ostensibly to fail. They were trying to harass the English but also in getting rid of Napoleon who was becoming loved and troublesomely powerful. Another general was sent off to Ireland to lose and did in fact die there.
Yeah the "traps" from the Battle of Austerlitz had nothing to do with the batttle of austerlitz or why that was such an amazing victory. The actual history is quite interesting. It's a shame Ridley preferred to make something up that was just less interesting than what actually happened. My second question would be why?
This movie is a two. He was entranced with Josephine. There is a huge set of their correspondence extant. He was 26 when he met her. She was a 32 year old widow at that time who desperately needed a protector. The Revolutionary government had killed her first husband and imprisoned her and her children. She only escaped death because robespierre died.
Joaquin was way too old to play Napoleon except maybe by Waterloo when he was 46.
Yes a bit of a mixed bag, but I still enjoyed myself very much and it motivated me to read up about Napoleon!
And visually stunning, for me 8/10!
i started laughing out loud at the terrible dialogue and when napoleon slaps josoaphine during the devorce scene, made me think about the airplane scene with the historical lady getting slapped over and over lol
Why the token Black person in just about every scene ? bloody insulting to black people, if they were not historically there why place them there ? The battle scenes were pathetic, Waterloo seemed to be trench warfare, with men climbing out of the trenches to be shot at or receive cavalry charges, why ? would have been safer to stay in the trench, that for some bizarre reason was protected by wooden stakes, and the sequence of the actual battle was thrown out of the window. The way it degenerated into a punch up/brawl at the end was hilarious. Rupert Everetts portrayal of Wellington was a pathetic caricature, and bore no resemblance to the man himself, what happened to the quote "the worst thing to a battle lost is a battle won" a reflection on Wellington's dislike of the waste in war. Scott should be ashamed at this garbage, Phoenix seems to be heavilly medicated during most of the movie, and his Napoleonic genius was lost in the mumbling. Only saving grace was Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) actress did a great job, any scene she was in was worth watching.
Any one wanting to see a great Napoleonic movie see "Waterloo" it is the best ever made, Rod Steiger is awsome as Napoleon and Christopher Plumber is a elegant and engaging Wellington. The battle scenes are the best ever made no CGI all practical. And the movie follows the history books, not Scotts political agenda, you can take the man out of Tyne but you can't take the Tyne out of the man. Stick to Aliens.
And why was the battle of Austerlitz reduced to a Icecapade show.
The black person was likely Thomas-Alexandre Dumas.
or, the Chevalier de Saint-Georges ;-)@@Dragonite43
@@LoveBowman He died in 1799, and I think the scene in which the Black person appeared in was after 1799.
@@Dragonite43 He deserves his own movie, just the basic overview that Biographics gives makes me want one. Could also show him and Napoleon butting heads.
well several black people appeared in the movie...during the meeting of Josephine and Napoleon, you can see a dancer for exemple. This person could be the Chevalier. Of course, when you see a black "general" , this one could only be Dumas (but that's a nonsense because they never met. But you know that ;-))@@Dragonite43
Terrible film. It was the worst Napoleonic era film i have seen. Too broad, too shallow and not true to history. Also, somehow this film failed too convey the primary reasons napoleon is still studied today - his military genius, his unexpedcted rise to power etc...
This was the best movie by Ridley Scott has ever made but people have totally missed the point. This film is not about history but it is an intimate character study. Investigating the context and motivations of the characters.
History about the great heroes is more like a game of Chines whisper. This is why they say it is written by the victors but even the losers are twisted the reasons for which are obvious.
If you really look at the context and consider where Napoleon was born, his family, his mother, the atmosphere of France at the time and his letters to Josephine then you might understand why he fell in love with her, why it never worked. His every action is explained in the presence sense, not the past or by others.
Look for motivations of actions, the subtle ones.
It wasn’t what I expected, but I enjoyed it. It doesn’t too Gladiator or The Last Duel. I also enjoyed more of the scenes with him and Josephine, just like you I stated yesterday how I felt some scenes were missing cause it just jumps to another scene with them and it seems like something happen that we didn’t see. It’s enjoyable but it’s not up as his best I guess. I’d like to see the other cut, but I read that Ridley Scott said that one in theaters it’s his.
Ridley Scott's last best pic was Thelma and Louise.
I don't mind a director taking a small artistic liberty here and there for expediency or to add a bit of excitement. But this entire film seems to be an exercise in historical revisionism and a slanderous smear campaign against one of history's greatest military commanders. Methinks Scott is on the British crown's payroll.
Looks good, painful to watch
Battles are Braveheart with muskets
It was one of my favorite movies ever
Are You Blind and Deaf?
This film does absolutely nothing to connect us with how Napoleon became Napoleon.
Where is his childhood in Corsica? His relationship with his father? His brutal experiences in a French 🇫🇷 Military Academy? The importance of the Italian Campaign.
Everything feels truncated. Everything. Even the few Battles.
Ridley Scott ridicules Napoleon, as most Englishmen have done.
Almost nothing is historically accurate, not even the few battle scenes.
There is almost zero historical continuity.
“Joséphine” (And Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt film title.
This should have been a 4-6 episode mini-series.
Love to experience a well-financed French 🇫🇷 Perspective Film Production.
1/5 or 2/10
And, that’s being merciful for the period costumes and most of the set designs.
Joaquin Phoenix's Napoleon is crazy good maybe to subtle and clever for the masses
Biopic like Oppenheimer without the flashbacks
This film, although I still endorse seeing, if purely for the interest of investing in ambitious epics, is a solid dud for me.
This film, however, cannot be even categorised as an epic, because it fails in the fundamental job of making a strong case for why the subject deserves to have their story be told. All the film comes out to be is a sequence of events without an intelligible through line.
The first sin is to build the audience's expectation on a lie with the tagline "He came from nothing," when in reality his father was an important political figure in Corsica, which was a big reason how he got the opportunity to attend a prestigious military academy in Metropolitan France.
Next, regarding his most important relationship, with his first wife Josephine, the development of which and the intellectual fire that made it so are completely unbelievable and absent, respectively.
Third, what is Napoleon remembered in history for? The answer are his significant political and legal reforms, such as the Napoleonic Code, which he promulgated across the states he brought to heel, the bulk of which still are retained to this day in countries like NLD, and beginning the glorious process of secularisation. Not only are these two pillars not the focus of the film, there aren't even the barest of mentions of them!
And lastly, even if I were to disregard all the ahistorical crimes Scott commits throughout the film, I would've been at least entertained had the battle scenes been handled well. Unfortunately, apart from the Battle of Austerlitz, all the others ones are one dimensional and don't pass the smell test, as no one remotely intelligent can believe in the age of mass-issued handheld firearms, the go-to military tactic is to have one's forces marching like cannon fodder.
And because of Scott's blatant and over-the-top anti-Napoleon lense, I can't even trust the context-free figures at the end of the film at face value.
Onto the performances, I find Kirby and Phoenix to be pretty good in their roles. Both show stretches of brilliance, with the former have more of it than the latter. In my judgement, Kirby is on the fence of deserving a prestigious award nomination; Phoenix? Not so much. To appropriate Kirk Lazarus, "Never go full clammy horse noise fetishist.
For the algorithm damn Ridley Scott
i waited 2 years for this film to come out.. i think it such a missed opportunity and it portrayed him so bad.
i missed his rise to power
he is characterised as a weakling
too much about Josephine
and the negative feelings around him, also a bit to comedy.
I thought it was shit, though vensaa kirby would get it
Ridley and I have a strange box office relationship, I absolutely appreciate that he has a vast range of genres he understands, admires and he goes after them. Some work beautifully, others disappoint. I was a history minor at University and one of my focuses was strongly pursuing military history, from Kadesh to the Surrender on the Missouri in 1945. Bonaparte is so intriguing to me and I have taken 'Austerlitz' into what I know will be adversarial meetings (I work in the film industry) and simply wait until my chief opponent has stepped too far upon the ice, I have then fired, and give my thanks to an Angry Corsican who became an Emperor. Ridley has stumbled at times, history forgotten or misplaced, or, more honestly, I simply dislike the film. However. Should this happen, I will simply sit and look at the astonishing visuals and attentions to details. I loved the theatrical cut of "Kingdom of Heaven" (they fact that Ridley is an ardent lover of horses and never fails to put the correct breeds and stage brilliant equine battle sequences will always leave me with a deep appreciation for his research.)
I very much agree with the poster down thread who lauded the 5 hour cut of "Kingdom ..." It is beautiful, Saladen was a master strategist and I continue to love that film. I look forward to the theatrical cut of "Napoleon", and will devour the 4 hour release. I believe it will restore vital scenes and pay off set ups that currently go unfulfilled. Ridley Scott makes exquisite works that fill the whole screen with color and lush visuals, and then you simply laugh at Mark Watney. There will never be a film on Bonaparte that will come close to touching the 1927 Able Gance film. It transcends its screen, and is breathtaking, and Albert Dieudonné's commanding performance has never seen its equal. The finale is something you simply have to experience, as Gance introduces the debut of three screen 'Polyvision'. "Napoleon As Seen By Able Gance" (its full title) remains the only film to use the technique, which paved the way for Cinerama, Vista Vision, Cinemascope, Todd-AO and now IMAX. It is again under restoration as over an hour of new footage has recently been found. It is the Halley's Comet of earlier cinema, it occasionally appears, with a full orchestra, and simply leaves you breathless and reeling in the wake of its shimmering passage.
I haven't seen this movie but from a few reviews I feel sad to know that one of the great directors makes such diappointing narrative of the famous emperor , Napolean.
the 4 hs cut it is just more Josephine
Scoott needs to retire imo...he totally screwed up this movie. It could have been great and he ruined it.
Forget this terrible movie. If you are intelligent (and not an armchair warrior who has never seen war with its utter destruction of humans and their families yet still get your cheap thrills by watching such rubbish), read War and Peace.
What an utter disrespect to the big man Napoleon - WTF … movie was an epic fail and a complete disaster … feel bad for the French
The narrator appears to complain about this movie not covering the entirety of the Napoleonic era to include the French Revolution. How much can be packed into a movie before it becomes mere chaos?
This movie is chaos. It rushes through everything that would build a character and instead focuses on napoleon being a cucked weirdo
@@chris_jorge 😂😂😂
@@stoneymcneal2458 🤣 I’m not triggered . Not one bit 🤣
Do you believe the 4 hour director cut will do this film justice?
Nope
If the other 1 hour 30 minutes is the same style of editing as the theatrical then probably not. But I think primarily it depends on the content of that new footage. We'll have to see man.
@@CortexVideos Ripley Scott said the 4 n a hour cut is more Josephine that's his words so I doubt it.
more of napoleon being a cuck and groveling before his wife, no thanks. @@travisgray8376
can someone tell me why does he talk like that?
hollywood in never historically accurate.
That's not true.
6.2 Ok.
not look alike at all.
Movie was a Huge Letdown ~
Lol. Turned this off 30 seconds in.
not gonna watch it
Joaquin Phoenix ❤
Joaquin Phoenix ❤🎉
Movie = usual Scott garbage like all last 20 years.
trilogy!
Ridley Scott is losing it . A movie about the biggest Narcissist that ever lived . He wasn’t even a hero.
u smoke what weed there? send me some
@@nonye0Are you saying Napoleon wasn't narcissistic??
His soldiers would have said the opposite. There are hundreds of contemporary accounts of his charismatic effect on his troops.
Ridley Scott is Beta
If you do not show the murder ruthless mass murdering side of the man, you can not develop the character properly. The story can only be told one way. And that is that he was a murdering sociopath.
I knew this would be bad . Napoleon is a pathetic subject .
Are you nuts he was one of the most influencial men in European history.
Yet it's ten times better than Killers of the Flower Moon, and five times better than Oppenheimer - and the four hour cut will double that dominance ratio.
Not Oppenheimer but keep hating I guess
@@mattcosentino123
Yes, hating. And I've got enough for you too, dip.
Absolutely not
@@Red_Spidey
You're not equipped to despite me. I said so, therefore it is. Definitively.
Oppenheimer was garbage.
U wanted more josephine? Jesus christ