A fine analysis. I'm very disappointed by what I've heard of the movie (having not seen it myself). I figured that it was covering too much about Napoleon's life in such a short run time, but having watched and read reviews, am even more disappointed with the final product. Considering that Ridley Scott made one of the best Napoleonic Era films early in his career (The Duelists) and his filmography containing many decent (if not historically accurate) historical based films, this is such a let down. I guess I'll just keep watching Waterloo. Rod Steiger was perfect as Napoleon.
Excellent review of the film. In an age where we are blessed with so many biographies, first person accounts, reenactor groups, professional historians and enthusiasts, it is shocking that Sir Ridley Scott gets it so horribly inaccurate. To quote Mark Schneider, who accurately portrays Napoleon and Marquis de Lafayette, “It’s such a great story. The real story. Why did you want to change it? I thought the underlying theme of this film is that it is a love story. It is a love story between Napoleon and Joséphine, and I thought that Vanessa Kirby did an outstanding job in the role of Joséphine. Really she showed the many, many layers of the empress. I don’t know if Joaquin was directed to portray his Napoleon like that, but he’s a bit two-dimensional to me. You know, Napoleon has… there’s so much to Napoleon that I don’t think you can portray him just one way. So I didn’t see that coming out of Joaquin, either through direction by Ridley Scott or out of his own choices. There were certain things that I thought were absurd, such as Napoleon leading cavalry charges at Austerlitz and at Waterloo, which never happened. It’s just, I’m not sure why they put that in, and I don’t see how that moved the narrative forward with something like that happening.” (from Reviewing Napoleon with Napoleon on Walk with History) Schneider also went on to say that none of the military actions in the film were accurate. For example, at the Siege of Toulon, Napoleon didn’t sink a British fleet and he was stabbed in the leg with a pike while leading an assault; at the Battle of the Pyramids, Napoleon didn’t fire upon the pyramids, the battle was a one-sided affair with Napoleon’s squares defeating the Mameluke cavalry, and he brought many scientists, historians, and artists to Egypt to study ancient Egyptian culture and history; at the Battle of Austerlitz, the principal battle was a field and town engagement, the fish ponds were an afterthought, there weren’t fortifications, and very few casualties occurred on the ice (based on recent archaeological research at the now-drained ponds), and Napoleon didn’t lead a cavalry charge; at the Battle of Borodino, there were fortifications, the battle was an all-day affair, and the subsequent occupation of Moscow was peaceful; the Burning of Moscow was principally due to Russian insurgents and criminals who were released to commit arson and chaos; at the Battle of Waterloo, there weren’t any fortifications, the British squares were on the wrong side of the hill, there wasn’t a sniper with a scope, and Napoleon didn’t lead a cavalry charge; at Napoleon’s death he was in bed, not speaking with two girls, and his last words were about the army and Joséphine, his two great loves. As someone new to the period, reviews like yours and Schneider’s are very helpful. The first book I have read is Jeremy Black’s “The Battle of Waterloo.” What book on Napoleon and what book on one of the campaigns would you recommend to someone just starting out?
Thx for Your comment. Recomanding the right books isn't easy. It depends on personal interest and taste. Nowadays I prefer campaign books, taking a deeper look into history. One of my favorits would be John H. Gills 1809 series. But there are a lot of other great books out there. Starting with Ospreys up to Frontline Books Napoleonic Library. The question would be, what exactly interests you?
I agree with your opinions - Ridley Scott knew full well what he was doing. I'm not inclined to see the film at the cinema as it is clear to me that it does not contain a great deal I want to watch, but that does not mean that it is a poor film just because I and other wargamers and historians find fault with it. Two things that have occurred to me recently - 1. The film was in production during the screen writer's strike and I wonder if Ridley Scott was obliged to use an early draft that it was impossible to improve? This might explain some of the discrepancies such as his quoted last words in the end titles differing from the actor's spoken words just before he dies. 2. Much of a film's income derives from views in Asian countries such as China, where Napoleonic History is less understood. This would explain why it was necessary to place an anachronistic scope on the rifle of a sharpshooter so that the role of the soldier and what he was attempting to do (shoot Napoleon) was better understood by a Chinese audience.
The screen wrtiter's strike could have made an impact. 🤔 But I would have expected corrections from a professional. (This was Really bad. ) We will still see “Kingdom of Heaven” like every year in the run-up to Christmas. This year the praised Directors Cut 😊 and forget “Napoleon”.
The idea of an anti-hero is used in War and Peace, sort of debunking the idea of a hero. But with lesser characters. Here we are shown a version at a different level. But I’d need to watch it fully! I think a full version MIGHT have more going for it. Wonder when a Directors Cut is due release?😮
If the Directors Cut is better, please let me know. I'm just afraid... it's a lost hope. (I had the same hope after SW Episode 1 and 7... in vain. ☹️ )
@@stephens2895 Ah.. "Star Wars". I'm having the same problem at the moment with a book that I thought was a historical one and now turns out to be more politically motivated.
Hi all, just adding to the thread - I have watched it now. I don’t see how a directors cut could help with the historical license. For example, stating that Napoleon was forced to resign by the French for losing most of his army in Russia! It’s not so much an anti-hero as almost a counter-factual dimension one is in. So, it’s like a romantic flick which o.c is focused on the theme of hopeless love! The war and politics kind of running aslant the idea of a man who doomed his own love affair. It’s a kind of truth maybe; as to that relationship? Who knows!!?
@@stephens2895 So the director's cut doesn't save anything. I was afraid of it. Thanks for the info. It saves me from the temptation to give this work another chance and be disappointed. Thanks.
Das ist eine gute und zutreffende Filmbesprechung. Ich empfehle Günter Müchlers "Napoleon. Revolutionär auf dem Kaiserthron" zu lesen. Das Buch ist eine hervorragend zu lesende und spannende Napoleon-Biografie, die dem Kaiser der Franzosen gerecht wird.
It stinks. It's quite clear that Scott has made a film assault on 'the patriarchy.' The first scene, which normally would introduce the audience to our young, male striver Napoleon, is instead dominated by the figure of the noble, heroic female, Marie-Antoinette. Napoleon himself is literally marginalized. Phoenix's and Kirby's performances are interesting, but nowhere near interesting enough to power a 2 1/2 hour movie, much less four. Instead of the historical Josephine, we get a twisted 'Barbie.' Instead of the historical Napoleon, we get a Gen-Z incel as her Ken. It's like a Beavis and Butt-Head cartoon. The killer is, neither of these raging narcissists is worth caring about, nor anyone else in the film, for that matter.😠😠😠
scott is english. the english tend to hate napoleon, the french, and most things continental- and can't pronounce blucher. napoleon is considered the second most influential man in human history. this movie portrays him as an idiot. character assassination. thanks so much for telling the truth.
This is definitely a piece of propaganda, and as a 'Bonapartiste' I am disappointed by the trailers and the bad reviews. I will probably download it at some point once the price has gone down, perhaps in a year or two, and enjoy the positive parts, but I have no intention of wasting my money to see it in the cinema.
Scott has lost more than a couple steps in his later years here. It's very obvious he's capable of creating a historical based movie that is both captivating and gives history some proper respect; The Duelists and Gladiator. It's qu8te obvious here there's an agenda at play here. Napoleon as historical hero is problematic for overt leftist Hollywood types. Tear down the image first through cartoonish mockery will make it much easier to tear down any actual monuments later. A clear "killing of the olds" Maoist assault upon France is e play. Scott's deathbed turn towards cultural vandalism is utterly indefensible. Definitely not supporting this English produced dross.
That he hates history and he hates Napoleon
What's shocking is that he even expresses such opinions in official interviews.
@@totalburnout5424 turns out you dont do your best work at 85. Don’t think I’ll be watching Gladiator 2 anytime soon.
That he's an old English man that wants to embarrass the French before he dies through the cultural vandalism of Napoleon.
A fine analysis. I'm very disappointed by what I've heard of the movie (having not seen it myself). I figured that it was covering too much about Napoleon's life in such a short run time, but having watched and read reviews, am even more disappointed with the final product. Considering that Ridley Scott made one of the best Napoleonic Era films early in his career (The Duelists) and his filmography containing many decent (if not historically accurate) historical based films, this is such a let down. I guess I'll just keep watching Waterloo. Rod Steiger was perfect as Napoleon.
Good decision. 😉 Had really high hopes as "Kingdom of Heaven" is on our christmas watchlist every year. *sigh* It's just sad...
The problem is that the movie doesn't even cover Napoleon's life at all. It's just a bunch of scenes masquerading a dude dressed like Napoleon.
Rod Steiger was and it remains the best Napoleon.
@@laurbar8877 Yeah, he was one of the best. 😄
Excellent review of the film. In an age where we are blessed with so many biographies, first person accounts, reenactor groups, professional historians and enthusiasts, it is shocking that Sir Ridley Scott gets it so horribly inaccurate. To quote Mark Schneider, who accurately portrays Napoleon and Marquis de Lafayette,
“It’s such a great story. The real story. Why did you want to change it? I thought the underlying theme of this film is that it is a love story. It is a love story between Napoleon and Joséphine, and I thought that Vanessa Kirby did an outstanding job in the role of Joséphine. Really she showed the many, many layers of the empress. I don’t know if Joaquin was directed to portray his Napoleon like that, but he’s a bit two-dimensional to me. You know, Napoleon has… there’s so much to Napoleon that I don’t think you can portray him just one way. So I didn’t see that coming out of Joaquin, either through direction by Ridley Scott or out of his own choices. There were certain things that I thought were absurd, such as Napoleon leading cavalry charges at Austerlitz and at Waterloo, which never happened. It’s just, I’m not sure why they put that in, and I don’t see how that moved the narrative forward with something like that happening.” (from Reviewing Napoleon with Napoleon on Walk with History)
Schneider also went on to say that none of the military actions in the film were accurate. For example, at the Siege of Toulon, Napoleon didn’t sink a British fleet and he was stabbed in the leg with a pike while leading an assault; at the Battle of the Pyramids, Napoleon didn’t fire upon the pyramids, the battle was a one-sided affair with Napoleon’s squares defeating the Mameluke cavalry, and he brought many scientists, historians, and artists to Egypt to study ancient Egyptian culture and history; at the Battle of Austerlitz, the principal battle was a field and town engagement, the fish ponds were an afterthought, there weren’t fortifications, and very few casualties occurred on the ice (based on recent archaeological research at the now-drained ponds), and Napoleon didn’t lead a cavalry charge; at the Battle of Borodino, there were fortifications, the battle was an all-day affair, and the subsequent occupation of Moscow was peaceful; the Burning of Moscow was principally due to Russian insurgents and criminals who were released to commit arson and chaos; at the Battle of Waterloo, there weren’t any fortifications, the British squares were on the wrong side of the hill, there wasn’t a sniper with a scope, and Napoleon didn’t lead a cavalry charge; at Napoleon’s death he was in bed, not speaking with two girls, and his last words were about the army and Joséphine, his two great loves.
As someone new to the period, reviews like yours and Schneider’s are very helpful. The first book I have read is Jeremy Black’s “The Battle of Waterloo.” What book on Napoleon and what book on one of the campaigns would you recommend to someone just starting out?
Thx for Your comment. Recomanding the right books isn't easy. It depends on personal interest and taste. Nowadays I prefer campaign books, taking a deeper look into history. One of my favorits would be John H. Gills 1809 series. But there are a lot of other great books out there. Starting with Ospreys up to Frontline Books Napoleonic Library.
The question would be, what exactly interests you?
I agree with your opinions - Ridley Scott knew full well what he was doing. I'm not inclined to see the film at the cinema as it is clear to me that it does not contain a great deal I want to watch, but that does not mean that it is a poor film just because I and other wargamers and historians find fault with it. Two things that have occurred to me recently - 1. The film was in production during the screen writer's strike and I wonder if Ridley Scott was obliged to use an early draft that it was impossible to improve? This might explain some of the discrepancies such as his quoted last words in the end titles differing from the actor's spoken words just before he dies. 2. Much of a film's income derives from views in Asian countries such as China, where Napoleonic History is less understood. This would explain why it was necessary to place an anachronistic scope on the rifle of a sharpshooter so that the role of the soldier and what he was attempting to do (shoot Napoleon) was better understood by a Chinese audience.
The screen wrtiter's strike could have made an impact. 🤔 But I would have expected corrections from a professional. (This was Really bad. )
We will still see “Kingdom of Heaven” like every year in the run-up to Christmas. This year the praised Directors Cut 😊 and forget “Napoleon”.
that he needs to retire?
The idea of an anti-hero is used in War and Peace, sort of debunking the idea of a hero. But with lesser characters. Here we are shown a version at a different level. But I’d need to watch it fully! I think a full version MIGHT have more going for it. Wonder when a Directors Cut is due release?😮
If the Directors Cut is better, please let me know. I'm just afraid... it's a lost hope. (I had the same hope after SW Episode 1 and 7... in vain. ☹️ )
@@totalburnout5424 SW?
@@stephens2895 Ah.. "Star Wars".
I'm having the same problem at the moment with a book that I thought was a historical one and now turns out to be more politically motivated.
Hi all, just adding to the thread - I have watched it now. I don’t see how a directors cut could help with the historical license. For example, stating that Napoleon was forced to resign by the French for losing most of his army in Russia! It’s not so much an anti-hero as almost a counter-factual dimension one is in. So, it’s like a romantic flick which o.c is focused on the theme of hopeless love! The war and politics kind of running aslant the idea of a man who doomed his own love affair. It’s a kind of truth maybe; as to that relationship? Who knows!!?
@@stephens2895 So the director's cut doesn't save anything. I was afraid of it. Thanks for the info. It saves me from the temptation to give this work another chance and be disappointed. Thanks.
Das ist eine gute und zutreffende Filmbesprechung. Ich empfehle Günter Müchlers "Napoleon. Revolutionär auf dem Kaiserthron" zu lesen. Das Buch ist eine hervorragend zu lesende und spannende Napoleon-Biografie, die dem Kaiser der Franzosen gerecht wird.
Das kenne ich noch nicht. Werde ich mir merken. 🙂 Danke.
Thank you.
I have to thank for watching. 😉
It stinks. It's quite clear that Scott has made a film assault on 'the patriarchy.' The first scene, which normally would introduce the audience to our young, male striver Napoleon, is instead dominated by the figure of the noble, heroic female, Marie-Antoinette. Napoleon himself is literally marginalized.
Phoenix's and Kirby's performances are interesting, but nowhere near interesting enough to power a 2 1/2 hour movie, much less four. Instead of the historical Josephine, we get a twisted 'Barbie.' Instead of the historical Napoleon, we get a Gen-Z incel as her Ken. It's like a Beavis and Butt-Head cartoon. The killer is, neither of these raging narcissists is worth caring about, nor anyone else in the film, for that matter.😠😠😠
Ridley is just a two-bit propagandist now.
scott is english. the english tend to hate napoleon, the french, and most things continental- and can't pronounce blucher. napoleon is considered the second most influential man in human history. this movie portrays him as an idiot. character assassination. thanks so much for telling the truth.
@@hoserhouserules7291 Yes, the film was a depressing event. I hope this film will be forgotten soon. 😔
This is definitely a piece of propaganda, and as a 'Bonapartiste' I am disappointed by the trailers and the bad reviews. I will probably download it at some point once the price has gone down, perhaps in a year or two, and enjoy the positive parts, but I have no intention of wasting my money to see it in the cinema.
The most successful part is the costumes and set. It's really a shame for them. Someone should use them for an alternative film.
@@totalburnout5424 A British director making a film about a French leader. Is anyone really surprised?
@@darylwilliams7883 I really hoped... 😢
That he didn't understand what history is. Made napoleon boring and dull.
And I had high hopes as I must admit. 😥
Scott has lost more than a couple steps in his later years here. It's very obvious he's capable of creating a historical based movie that is both captivating and gives history some proper respect; The Duelists and Gladiator. It's qu8te obvious here there's an agenda at play here. Napoleon as historical hero is problematic for overt leftist Hollywood types. Tear down the image first through cartoonish mockery will make it much easier to tear down any actual monuments later. A clear "killing of the olds" Maoist assault upon France is e play. Scott's deathbed turn towards cultural vandalism is utterly indefensible. Definitely not supporting this English produced dross.
You said it. Sad but true.
Boring and dull napoleon rather read a history book.
For sure... even Napoleon comics are better.