Films on Napoleon always focus on the wars and conquests but what makes Napoleon a key figure was his creativity and foresight in shaping the French state and ultimately modern democracy in France. Napoleon created the codification of laws that resulted in the civil, penal and commercial code. This legal system often referred to as Civil law (vs common law countries like UK, US) was broadly adopted by a number of other countries throughout Europe and the World. Napoleon also brought in the Conseil d'Etat which is a jurisdiction before which people can legally challenge state decisions and executive orders. He also created high school in France, reformed university and created both ENA and the Engineering school Ecole Polytechnique which are leading instituions in training France's elite. Effectively, Napoleon shaped modern France and his influence is still very present 200 years later. He was a flawed man but also a truly remarkable man.
At the end of the day it's only a film when Napoleon deserves a whole series to show all his life, there is a time limitation and what is the most outstanding about Napoleon is that he is most likely one of the best if not the best General / military leader in history
@@blitzhill9533 He abandoned one army in Egypt, another in Russia. Was beaten in Spain, sold off France's interests in America to finance his obsession with beating the British. And then got what was left of France's military slaughtered at Waterloo. The guy was a psychopath and a loser. He did to France what the equally psychopathic Austrian painter did to Germany.
1. Correction: The ice didn't break beneath the Allies' feet, it broke beneath the Coalition's feet. Those aligned AGAINST Napoleon were called the Coalition, those allied WITH him were called the Allies. As you note few were actually killed on the ponds and it was at the end of the battle as they were retreating. Napoleon actually sent his men down to the ponds to help the enemy troops out of the water. 2. Napoleon didn't see Marie Antoinette beheaded, he was in Toulon fighting the British. And yes Napoleon believed her murder was wrong. 3. Napoleon in most of those scenes was in his early to mid 20s but Phoenix looks WAY too old. In fact he is way too old for the role. 4. The quote of Napoleon about the crown of France may be real but of course he didn't say it at his coronation, it was a private comment. At the coronation he took the oath of office to the republic and the French people.
Yet reality is, nobody knows for sure what happened with anything. People can say they do but they don’t. It’s all assumed. Also age doesn’t mean shit you want the best actor for the role so they got one of the best ever.
@@LUCCI_25 If that's the case why bother with anything? Why bother making a movie, or writing a book or commenting? How do you know he's the best actor? You're just assuming he is. It's all pointless.
Thanks for the video. In fact, there are several errors in the first trailers: - As you said: The bombing of the pyramids when the battle took place a few kilometers away; - The colonel's epaulettes during the sequence at the fort of Toulon, which are different from the real ones; - But the fort was not like Yorktown. They were built in the 17th century and are made of stone; - When Marie-Antoinette died, he was already at Toulon; - Napoleon's charge on horseback...he never charged; - The French flags, which were not identical to those used in the movie. But as a Frenchman, I can't wait to see the movie, because it gives the impression that the Emperor is looking at his own legend, his own history.
I can't imagine Napoleon played by someone who is almost 50 years old. His face looks like Mt. Rushmore, grim, set in stone. Napoleon was half his age at the Battle of Toulon--a young, ambitious 24-year-old bundle of energy who at twenty had written a romance novel. The worldly Josephine was six years older than Napoleon, had been married and had had affairs. He was smitten. I fear this film will be the fairy tale version of Napoleon himself, but maybe the battle scenes will save it.
People need to stop being weird about ages and Appearances. If anyone is capable of bringing Napoleon to life it's Joaquin Phoenix. He will 100% do it justice. Story and acting are way more important than age differences.
Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor, but from what I've seen in the two trailers, he's playing a different character than Napoleon. More of a fictional character created by Ridley Scott. But I'm sure the film will have a lot else to offer.@@wizarddragon
Let's not forget that a 25 year old back then wouldn't look like a 24 year old now. Lives were way harder and shorter back then. I bet the average 24 year old looks closer to a 40 year old today
As a kid, I saw 'Waterloo' (1970) with Rod Stieger and Christopher Plummer when it first came out. These two great actors went head to head and were magnificent. It was the greatest game of chess I'd ever seen. In that panoramic extravaganza of a film, the overly vibrant colour palette of red white and blue was that of an old painting brought to life. For a kid it was a especially a very very long film. In this film 'Napoleon' a patient audience were sent into the old 1790 painting and other original paintings along that time line. The experience remained dull, sad and cold. Consequently, the horrors of the revolution and subsequent battles and life of Napoleon were more easily absorbed. Despite snippets of genius from Joaquin, I began to see references to 'Joker' coming out in his performance. I personally would have cast Christoph Waltz as Napoleon who was born for this role. He can speak French. I think Joaquin was brilliant as Commodus in Gladiator. In conclusion this film was like a long depressing emotional yet strangely alluring song with no significant intro, chorus, guitar break or outro, so-to-speak, that we didn't already know about. Even though it was 30% historically correct the incorporated new invented stuff was not doing it for me. It just extended the story. The many tough hard faced characters generally cast were gritty enchanting and captivating. Josephine was perfectly cast. I think the film should have been centred more around her not Naploeon. Vanessa Kirby was brilliant. A new star is born. I judge a film on how many times I wanna watch it again. I'd like to watch this film from home. Maybe I'll see it in a better light. How many times would I want to watch it again? For now, one more time at least.
He is a GREAT actor, he would have been a GREAT older Napoleon. I have studied Napoleon for years. There is NOT a chance they could have done a single movie about Napoleon. It would have been a LOTR type 3 part movie!
It's great to see Ridley Scott returning to his cinemagraphic beginnings, I'm going to review "The Duelists" his first movie, also set in this historical time frame before seeing this. Let's be sensible, we are historians, few that we are. and already know the subject matter intimately. The masses will arrive, expecting a spectable: que sera,sera.
1) The trailer alone contains numerous historical inaccuracies, obvious to anyone, who knows at least a little about Napoleon. One can only imagine the mistakes and anachronisms awaiting us in the film itself. 2) Gladiator also contains multiple historical errors, but, in defense of Gladiator I will say that: a) Gladiator is more a fantasy than historical fiction; b) artistic liberties are almost always more permissible in a work of fiction about antiquity, as opposed to more recent history; 3) Gladiator is undoubtedly a great cinematic achievement and a masterpiece. It is truly an epic and tragic tale that has become classic. Unfortunately, judging by the Napoleon trailer, I can't say it looks like a great work of cinematography. Everything was obviously shot digitally, the perspective in many shots looks odd, and most scenes were very heavily edited in post-production to make them appear more "cinematic", because digital always looks cheap, like a video you take with your phone camera. 3) J. Phoenix is WAY TOO DAMN OLD to play Napoleon. Even his voice sounds weak and old. Why does he whisper everything, including the famous phrase about the crown (which he, by the way, never said during his coronation)? How are the tens of thousands of people in the cathedral supposed to hear him?! And so on and so forth. As much as I love historical epics, I must say I will skip this one. PS The moment with Josephine telling N. she has something "so special" between her legs that he will forever belong to her after gazing at it, is particularly cringe-worthy. What nonsense!
Hi Jared, I can't believe we've got another historical period piece backed by modern rock music. I hope it's just in the trailer and not in the movie. You might remember I wrote to you after watching Rogue Heroes. At first I detested the use of Acka-Dacka and other modern heavy metal rock music in Rogue Heroes but I grew to accept it because it seemed somehow appropriate for the frenetic action scenes. But I'm not sure modern music will work in Napoleon. I'll go and see it, but there's a fair chance I'll be looking for the antidote (Waterloo - the 1970 classic with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer) when I get home.
This really should be a mini series rather than a movie. The timing might be really compressed, or it is looooong movie. But the Black Sabbath is a good touch.
@@middler5 The studios for sure asked him to cut it down. Meanwhile, Scorsese has carte blanche to make KotFM 3.5 hrs. For sure Ridley will release a director's cut as he did for Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, but I wish he wasn't being held back for the theatrical release.
Watched the movie on Thursday night, and Ridley spent a lot of money making an average movie and turning one of the greatest leaders in history into a simpleton.
Other historians who specialise in the napoleonic wars have noted from this second trailer there were scenes that were myth , the scene for instance when he orders the canon fire on enemy troops on the ice was a myth , and in egypt that scene with napolean and the sarcophagus and the mummy within it may not have been true . Other scenes appeared historically accurate. So speculation this movie may be from.the point of view of napolean himself
You’re right about everything except the part about him firing on the ice. It did happen in the final stages of the Battle of Austerlitz, where the surrounded Austrians had no choice but to retreat through a frozen pond. Napoleon ordered cannons to be fired at them and only a few soldiers and a bunch of horses drowned, but certainly not the many thousands of Napoleon’s propaganda.
@@theironmarshal4225 nobody is talking about the propaganda. Everyone is referring to the trailer. It is a very good depiction of what really happened. Yet everyone is making it seem like its wrong.
@@MeditativeMoments1 I was responding to the original comment who stated that the firing on the ice was a myth. And I don’t think everyone ever said the depictions in the trailer was wrong. Perhaps some but certainly not everyone. We can nitpick about many of the inaccuracies in the trailer but many people, for the most part, are excited for it.
given the director I am not holding my breath on historical accuracy but I am expecting some exiting action sequences. Hope to keep up with the channel as the movie comes out and additional content.
I all ready saw it, I’m not going to spoil it… I’m only going to say you something, waiting for your opinion when you see it! When I saw the actor and the “story” I just said as Vito Corleone “ what they did to my boy?”
This is going to be laughably inaccurate, but it will look very good on screen. Considering how few Napoleonic era films we ever get, it’s kinda ‘what can you do?’
Braveheart got me to read a lot about Scottish history to see what had actually happened. Hopefully this movie will inspire people to look into this period. I don't understand Hollywood's penchant for changing things. So often when I look up the real lives the truth was more incredible and awesome than the movie.
You guys should seriously stop crying over the potential many “historical inaccuracies” of the movie - it’s a movie made for the general public, the average person doesn't care whether this or that event actually happened as shown in the film or not. If you want to know how things really were in real life, watch a documentary.
@@tammy_288Lol. Every non-American historical figure seems to have an American accent, my favourite being Jesus, whose accent would have been the furthest thing from American.
I was really looking forward to this film and sceptical of the French critics. However, I walked away disappointed on many levels. Joaquim never convinced me that he was Napoleon; Josephine was a much more complex character than portrayed; no artifice was used to reveal to the audience Napoleon's tactical brilliance (such as a made-up pre battle planning session); the relationship between Napoleon and his soldiers was never developed and only revealed in ine scene. I think Ridley Scott put most of his effort in recreating epic battle scenes. For me, they alone don't make a movie about Napoleon.
He mentioned the jumpstart of the study of Egyptology. During the war, the french found the Rosetta stone which came from the time of Alexander the Great. While the French tried to send the stone back to France to be studied, the ship that was carrying it was stopped by British Warships and confiscated being taken to England to be studied by their own scholars. Jean-François Champollion, was one of the French scholars that actually did major work on deciphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs while the English were also trying to decipher the language.
The irony is that if Rosetta Stone stayed in Egypt there is a great probability that we wouldn't learned ancient Egyptian language. The statement by author that artifacts were stolen and still are kept in European museums is so ridiculous and rotten woke, it makes me think what kind of history he is teaching.
Why does everyone attack the ice scene? Its not like they are showing thousands dying. It is a real scene in which about a dozen died, with some guns fallen. Nothing wrong with it.
The scene looks like it is implying he won the battle of Austerlitz by tricking the Austrians into marching onto ice and then shooting the ice, which isn’t what happened at all
@@jamesm3142 well if you are reading it like that. But I have not seen one person or historian take issue with what it seems to indicate as a major tactic for the battle. Nobody who is familiar with austerlitz has ever indicated that this scene won the battle. Its just a scene. And it is accurately portrayed. Instead everyone should be saying "he really did that". For me personally, it only seems like an opening scene of the battle as Napoleon is "discovered", and does not come off as a final victory. The trailer literally shows us this scene as an opening to a battle, not an end.
Just saw it today. Really liked it and found myself rooting for Napoleon. Pretty intense with quite a bit more humor than I expected but it worked well for me and the audience. Looking forward to Reel History’s analysis.
I hope this movie includes Joseph Fouche. I find him fascinating. Many people believe he is the one who kept Napoleon in power. He was a man to fear. Even Robespierre was appalled by his atrocities. That's saying a lot!
Robespierre was not afraid of Fouche. It was the other way around. Robespierre fired him from the Jacobin club and from all his offices. Fouche killed thousands of civilians when he was as a representative in Lyon. Fouche had to beg for forgiveness to Robespierre.
@antoinemozart243 Yes, that's true! I wrote that even Robespierre was appalled by his atrocities, but my previous sentence could be misleading. Though, really, he should have feared Fouche because the man was plotting his downfall while hiding in Paris. Robespierre was already going down anyway, but Fouche survived the final purges. In my eyes, both were evil men, but Fouche was a surviver. I'm happy you mentioned Robespierre firing him. I had forgotten that fact.
@@michaeldoucette943 If you're interested in historical research, I recommend you have a look at JEAN-CLÉMENT MARTIN's "Robespierre. La fabrication d’un monstre (the making of a monster)" that summarize multiple historical research since 2012 that shed a new light on the character and question the ominous villain image that was brought to us from XIXth century commentators and actors that had escaped the post terror purge. He certainly comes out as a ruthless revolutionary but his supposed hold on the Comité de Salut Public is way less important than was previously reported. Thesis is, he definitely was ready to make heads roll but he was later scapegoated as a dictator by lesser known actors who had as much hand in the actual Terror as him and who transited seamlessly in the new power structure established in the post french revolution era. Much like some active Vichy collaborators that rejoined the Gaullist Administration after WWII and were only prosecuted in the 1980's when their actions were finally brought to light (Maurice Papon or Paul Touvier for ex). You can get a Google translation from the fench review of the book on cairn dot info that nicely summarize the book and the state of historical research on that matter.
Archaeologists have dredged that bodies of water involved in the story of the artillery causing the drowning of a large number of men, but nothing was found.
For a poignant & more relatable viewpoint on Napoleon give a listen to Mark Knopfler’s song ‘Done with Bonaparte’. Inspired lyrics & music from a master songwriter as always.
I think it’s ok if the filmmakers bring the legend of napoleon to life instead of just being a historical documentary. Napoleon’s memories make for a better movie than being completely accurate
I don't understand what you said about the Parlement of Paris, which was the supreme court of the old regime and was abolished in 1789. Marie Antoinette was tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal.
I think that shot of Napoleon and the mummy was to compare himself to the pharaohs who ruled over Egypt. Probably also why he uses a ladder to step up to the same height to be face to face so that it's not to portray him as less of a ruler if he was looking up at it.
The movie's name should have been changed to "NAPOLEON: The Conqueror of Nations and Women." If he was alive today, his ego would say, "Yes, that is a better name."
If indeed that is supposed to be a representation of Marie Antoinette on her was to the guillotine. It's so terribly off mark considering the coronation painting by David was used as reference, when David also famously sketched MA on her way to the scaffold. Her hair was haphazardly cut short at the prison. She wore a white dress instead of her black one for fear of arousing sympathy as she was a widow. And she rode backwards in the cart. Some interesting details are Josephine with chopped hair and wearing a red ribbon tightly around her neck. Guillotine fashion.
The black or reck neck ribbon chocker became a fashion to the upperclass British women at that time. Yes, as a symbolic fraternity to those who lost their lives upon the Guillotine.
Well to be fair it's a movie and although it's based on historical events and people, it is not a documentary. Also to be fair, no historian or anyone else alive today where there. We we know of the events from this time and the places depicted are from the books, and letters and battlefield archeology written and discovered since. I don't imagine every foot step, every shot, every movement of a horse or cannon was documented, but we know those actions did happen. Go enjoy the movie, I'm sure it will be good just like black hawk down and gladiator. If you want know about a more in depth historical context of these events go to the library, and check out a history book. The rest of use will get some popcorn and a coke and enjoy the show.
Some small but vital facts were missing.Napoleon was left handed for one, yet the film had him signing documents with his right hand, yes he should have been portrayed as a younger man in the first part of the film. Joaquin is an amazing actor well known for absorbing himself in his roles.Why then did he not speak with a French accent (well within his acting capabilities) and not an American accent. Over all though it was an amazing film and I really enjoyed it. I particularly liked that it showed Napoleon’s venerable side and the portrayal of Josephine by Vanessa Kirby was spot on.
The movie only revolves about his romance. It was missing something. Not what I expected. It also seems like the movie depicts him as a man with no dignity when it comes to woman. Also there were key conversations with Talleyrand and Fouche that I wish would have been included.
What really happened: When the battle was already decided, a small portion of the austro-russian troops tried t flee via a dyke between two ponds. In the ensuing chaos, it may have happend that a handful of soldiers left the dyke and tried to escape via the frozen ponds und maybe drowned. Well, historians are not even sure whether it actually happenend, but if it happened, it wasn't more than maybe a dozen men. Scott turns something that was an irrelevant episode of the battle, when everything was already decided, into the major event of the battle. That's just plain ridiculous and historically completely inaccurate.
I went to the movies earlier this evening and saw this Napoleon movie. Pretty good movie. The battle scenes were quite brutal. I have no idea how historically accurate the movie is though. I enjoyed it for what it was.
Historically accurate? They lied about: How he meets Josephine Egypt The coup wasn’t accurate The personality of Napoleon Napoleon’s lovers Maria Letizia’s personality His relationship with other characters Even how Napoleon made love based in the writing of his lovers! In my opinion this movie was an insult to the giant of Corcega!!!
Thank you. As an artist, I would like to encourage you to emphasize and focus on artistic achievements of this film, which are very impressive. As a creator of my own symbolic paintings, who allows herself some freedom of interpretation, stylization and surrealism, I ask you to appreciate that every real artist gives his own uniqueness to a PIECE OF ART. I was born in Moscow and know a little bit about Napoleon. There were two bronze statues of Napoleon on the both sides of my grandfather's desk and I still have one. I noticed some historical inaccuracies in this film, but it did not take my enjoyment away. I watched it twice and will go again.
Napoleon's coronation oath on taxes was a reference to the 1799 constitution and the Napoleonic legislature, which was mostly a rubber stamp but still had the power to approve taxes and the annual budget.
They seem to be pushing the idea that Josephine was behind Napoleon’s greatness, can anyone confirm if she really had a part in it? I’m no historian, but I think he was already his own man by the time he met her.
She was older than him and had connections Napoleon needed so she certainly helped in his rise to power, they for sure had a toxic relationship and not a loving one using each other for their own needs When she was of no need to him and couldn't give the emperor a child, Napoleon decided to divorce her
@@georgecoventry8441 I realize that loss of hearing is a great concern in this day and age, but I rather doubt you have any evidence to support your claim for the period in question. Worrying about noise is one thing when your enemy is thousands of meters over the next hill, but the situation is somewhat different when you enemy is in the midst of running at you with a rifle and bayonet.
what cavalry charge is he "leading"??? That "can't" be Waterloo...he was dealing with his hemmoroids when it started...I rememember every reading of his leading a cavalry charge...(though, I could be wrong..."I wasn't there..." like Ridley said)
Yes! The Music played at Napoleon's Farewell to the Old Guard was Note for Note from the Original Sheet Music! As was the Drum and Flute March on the Battlefield!
I take umbrage with Ridley Scotts movie showing Napoleon leading a cavalry charge. I don't think it ever happened. He was a artillery officer and also his dependence on all the armes(infantry, cavalry, artillery) working together lead to other great leaders being minted and earning his respect, such as Joachim Murat, who did lead cavalry charges.
How do we know that's actually a calvary charge? Could be maneuvers or a dream or something. Context is key. This is a trailer to get butts in seats. I'd say wait to see before judgment
It was indeed Joachim Murat who led some of the greatest cavalry charges of all time. Napoleon did not. What he was far more inclined toward was managing the artillery and handling the overall command from the rear, although he did personally lead some very brave infantry charges in his youth. And then there was Ney, "the bravest of the brave", leading the great cavalry charge on the British squares at Waterloo. The story of Napoleon is also the story of his generals and marshals, among whom were many truly great commanders. Only a lengthy series of many chapters could possibly do it full justice. There's simply too much material there to cram into one movie. But to see a grand historical movie at all these days is still a treat.
Additionally it’s a “Hollywood charge”. Very romantic. And not accurate at all. A cavalry charge was much slower, so that all riders could arrive together on the enemy line.
This will be probably like 300. The movie was not faithful to the true story but nonetheless caught our attention and because of the movie the people were curious to know what really happened and from where the movie 300 really comes from.
Hey Jered, I was just thinkibg about a good movie you might enjoy reviewing, but it isnt military. "Ghost in the Darkness". Its about the Man eaters of Tsavo.
It's a movie, it's primary goal is to sell tickets and popcorn. and entertain. That said, Ridley couldn't get Joaquim to fake a half assed French accent? I'll wager he still gets and Oscar nomination. After all Ridley put a lot of people to work in the industry and they vote on this stuff. Nice to hear he didn't have his artillery shoot the Sphinx. I was not clear on that.
For the love of god don't start criticising Ridley Scott for slight changes to make the movie more enjoyable, just praise lord he is a powerful enough director who could fight off the wolk brigade and we did not end up with a Napoleon who was a black transsexual who identified as a cat.
In no way I’m excited for this movie. Im kinda stick of late 18th century and early 19th century movies about the French Revolution, and Napoleon’s love interests.
I find it strange people debating accuracy of a movie from hollywood, which forever has taken a smidge of facts and added drama in each show for views, argue on about hollywood your wasting your time. Now if its called a documentary fire away but not at clothing as others in hollywood decide not the writer; from an author bewildered by people.
Yeah but they're pathetic. The whole point of costume films is to put contemporary ways of acting, speaking, thinking into the past because the masses don't want to see anything genuine, have no genuine curiosity. Joaquin Phoenix looks like an old man throughout the whole film.
Fair assessment. But Joaquin is a complete turn off for me. I suffered the "violin off" in the "Chevalier" film because he's a favorite from that time...but 2+ hours of Joaquin mumbling...I don't think I can.
Check out the obelisks in Rome and Istanbul, Obviously ok to loot back then, now we get squishy about it. Napoleons biggest crime against art and history is the one no one seems to know about. He demanded gold from Venice - and melted down their Byzantine plunder from the 4th crusade. STill the Venetians had their plunder, the Turks scoured the city in 1453, and consumed thiers, but we do not like to point fingers at non euros..
As a historian- you should recognise that the appearance of popularised trash like this, only a few short decades after making true masterpieces on the same subject … are clear markers that our civilisation has peaked, and we are descending into a cultural dark age once again.
Films on Napoleon always focus on the wars and conquests but what makes Napoleon a key figure was his creativity and foresight in shaping the French state and ultimately modern democracy in France. Napoleon created the codification of laws that resulted in the civil, penal and commercial code. This legal system often referred to as Civil law (vs common law countries like UK, US) was broadly adopted by a number of other countries throughout Europe and the World. Napoleon also brought in the Conseil d'Etat which is a jurisdiction before which people can legally challenge state decisions and executive orders. He also created high school in France, reformed university and created both ENA and the Engineering school Ecole Polytechnique which are leading instituions in training France's elite. Effectively, Napoleon shaped modern France and his influence is still very present 200 years later. He was a flawed man but also a truly remarkable man.
At the end of the day it's only a film when Napoleon deserves a whole series to show all his life, there is a time limitation and what is the most outstanding about Napoleon is that he is most likely one of the best if not the best General / military leader in history
He is truly unappreciated
Napolean stopped the French from killing each other by leading them to kill foreigners instead!
Louisiana state law is Napoleanic code.
@@blitzhill9533 He abandoned one army in Egypt, another in Russia. Was beaten in Spain, sold off France's interests in America to finance his obsession with beating the British. And then got what was left of France's military slaughtered at Waterloo. The guy was a psychopath and a loser. He did to France what the equally psychopathic Austrian painter did to Germany.
1. Correction: The ice didn't break beneath the Allies' feet, it broke beneath the Coalition's feet. Those aligned AGAINST Napoleon were called the Coalition, those allied WITH him were called the Allies. As you note few were actually killed on the ponds and it was at the end of the battle as they were retreating. Napoleon actually sent his men down to the ponds to help the enemy troops out of the water.
2. Napoleon didn't see Marie Antoinette beheaded, he was in Toulon fighting the British. And yes Napoleon believed her murder was wrong.
3. Napoleon in most of those scenes was in his early to mid 20s but Phoenix looks WAY too old. In fact he is way too old for the role.
4. The quote of Napoleon about the crown of France may be real but of course he didn't say it at his coronation, it was a private comment. At the coronation he took the oath of office to the republic and the French people.
Also looks weird to see an old Napoleon with a Josephine that is younger than him when it was the other way around in reality
Yes the Coronation was a very tense affair for all involved.
Yet reality is, nobody knows for sure what happened with anything. People can say they do but they don’t. It’s all assumed. Also age doesn’t mean shit you want the best actor for the role so they got one of the best ever.
@@LUCCI_25 If that's the case why bother with anything? Why bother making a movie, or writing a book or commenting? How do you know he's the best actor? You're just assuming he is. It's all pointless.
Actually that is incorrect. The French et al were referred to as Imperials
When I was a kid like 35 years ago my mother and i got into the emperor’s personal office. I got to spin his globe. It was beyond cool. .
@maryjohnson6796 How did this happen to come about?
Good to see you made it home safely. I hope you enjoyed all your recent travels.
Thanks for the video.
In fact, there are several errors in the first trailers:
- As you said: The bombing of the pyramids when the battle took place a few kilometers away;
- The colonel's epaulettes during the sequence at the fort of Toulon, which are different from the real ones;
- But the fort was not like Yorktown. They were built in the 17th century and are made of stone;
- When Marie-Antoinette died, he was already at Toulon;
- Napoleon's charge on horseback...he never charged;
- The French flags, which were not identical to those used in the movie.
But as a Frenchman, I can't wait to see the movie, because it gives the impression that the Emperor is looking at his own legend, his own history.
I can't imagine Napoleon played by someone who is almost 50 years old. His face looks like Mt. Rushmore, grim, set in stone. Napoleon was half his age at the Battle of Toulon--a young, ambitious 24-year-old bundle of energy who at twenty had written a romance novel. The worldly Josephine was six years older than Napoleon, had been married and had had affairs. He was smitten. I fear this film will be the fairy tale version of Napoleon himself, but maybe the battle scenes will save it.
Yeah, a lot of the ages are way off. Rupert Everett who's playing Wellington is over 60, but he was only about 45 at Waterloo.
People need to stop being weird about ages and Appearances. If anyone is capable of bringing Napoleon to life it's Joaquin Phoenix. He will 100% do it justice. Story and acting are way more important than age differences.
Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor, but from what I've seen in the two trailers, he's playing a different character than Napoleon. More of a fictional character created by Ridley Scott. But I'm sure the film will have a lot else to offer.@@wizarddragon
Let's not forget that a 25 year old back then wouldn't look like a 24 year old now. Lives were way harder and shorter back then. I bet the average 24 year old looks closer to a 40 year old today
Saying this is like saying “why isnt the movie in french” type vibe.
Waterloo is a masterpiece in the filmology of history and the depiction of Napoleon is masterfully rendered.
The film Waterloo was a brilliant, No CGl just thousands of real soldiers dressed in uniforms of the time...
@@brianperry 17.000! That's indeed how epic movies are made.
As a kid, I saw 'Waterloo' (1970) with Rod Stieger and Christopher Plummer when it first came out. These two great actors went head to head and were magnificent. It was the greatest game of chess I'd ever seen. In that panoramic extravaganza of a film, the overly vibrant colour palette of red white and blue was that of an old painting brought to life. For a kid it was a especially a very very long film. In this film 'Napoleon' a patient audience were sent into the old 1790 painting and other original paintings along that time line. The experience remained dull, sad and cold. Consequently, the horrors of the revolution and subsequent battles and life of Napoleon were more easily absorbed. Despite snippets of genius from Joaquin, I began to see references to 'Joker' coming out in his performance. I personally would have cast Christoph Waltz as Napoleon who was born for this role. He can speak French. I think Joaquin was brilliant as Commodus in Gladiator. In conclusion this film was like a long depressing emotional yet strangely alluring song with no significant intro, chorus, guitar break or outro, so-to-speak, that we didn't already know about. Even though it was 30% historically correct the incorporated new invented stuff was not doing it for me. It just extended the story. The many tough hard faced characters generally cast were gritty enchanting and captivating. Josephine was perfectly cast. I think the film should have been centred more around her not Naploeon. Vanessa Kirby was brilliant. A new star is born. I judge a film on how many times I wanna watch it again. I'd like to watch this film from home. Maybe I'll see it in a better light. How many times would I want to watch it again? For now, one more time at least.
He is a GREAT actor, he would have been a GREAT older Napoleon. I have studied Napoleon for years. There is NOT a chance they could have done a single movie about Napoleon. It would have been a LOTR type 3 part movie!
yea they could make a movie about nearly every major campaign
It should have been a 5 season series...not a movie
napolean died at age 51 or 50??
@edwardwigglesworth-iu7rx Most of his early victories were in his 30's and early 40's.
didn,t know Napoleon had an american accent tho
I don't see how you can do Napoleon's life justice with just one movie.
It's great to see Ridley Scott returning to his cinemagraphic beginnings, I'm going to review "The Duelists" his first movie, also set in this historical time frame before seeing this. Let's be sensible, we are historians, few that we are. and already know the subject matter intimately. The masses will arrive, expecting a spectable: que sera,sera.
The Duelists is one of my favorite movies - fires on all cylinders!
1) The trailer alone contains numerous historical inaccuracies, obvious to anyone, who knows at least a little about Napoleon. One can only imagine the mistakes and anachronisms awaiting us in the film itself.
2) Gladiator also contains multiple historical errors, but, in defense of Gladiator I will say that: a) Gladiator is more a fantasy than historical fiction; b) artistic liberties are almost always more permissible in a work of fiction about antiquity, as opposed to more recent history; 3) Gladiator is undoubtedly a great cinematic achievement and a masterpiece. It is truly an epic and tragic tale that has become classic. Unfortunately, judging by the Napoleon trailer, I can't say it looks like a great work of cinematography. Everything was obviously shot digitally, the perspective in many shots looks odd, and most scenes were very heavily edited in post-production to make them appear more "cinematic", because digital always looks cheap, like a video you take with your phone camera.
3) J. Phoenix is WAY TOO DAMN OLD to play Napoleon. Even his voice sounds weak and old. Why does he whisper everything, including the famous phrase about the crown (which he, by the way, never said during his coronation)? How are the tens of thousands of people in the cathedral supposed to hear him?!
And so on and so forth. As much as I love historical epics, I must say I will skip this one.
PS The moment with Josephine telling N. she has something "so special" between her legs that he will forever belong to her after gazing at it, is particularly cringe-worthy. What nonsense!
Napoleon wrote some steamy love letters to Josephine.
Hi Jared,
I can't believe we've got another historical period piece backed by modern rock music. I hope it's just in the trailer and not in the movie.
You might remember I wrote to you after watching Rogue Heroes. At first I detested the use of Acka-Dacka and other modern heavy metal rock music in Rogue Heroes but I grew to accept it because it seemed somehow appropriate for the frenetic action scenes.
But I'm not sure modern music will work in Napoleon. I'll go and see it, but there's a fair chance I'll be looking for the antidote (Waterloo - the 1970 classic with Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer) when I get home.
They drained the lake... That '1000' of soldiers drowned in.... They only found 4 skeletons, a few horses and wagons.
This really should be a mini series rather than a movie. The timing might be really compressed, or it is looooong movie. But the Black Sabbath is a good touch.
2 and a half hours. Going to be pretty quick.
@@middler5 The studios for sure asked him to cut it down. Meanwhile, Scorsese has carte blanche to make KotFM 3.5 hrs. For sure Ridley will release a director's cut as he did for Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven, but I wish he wasn't being held back for the theatrical release.
Ridley Scott says he has a 4 hour directors cut he plans to release on Apple TV+
How is Black Sabbath a good touch? 😅
God please no, do people not care about going to the cinema?
Watched the movie on Thursday night, and Ridley spent a lot of money making an average movie and turning one of the greatest leaders in history into a simpleton.
Other historians who specialise in the napoleonic wars have noted from this second trailer there were scenes that were myth , the scene for instance when he orders the canon fire on enemy troops on the ice was a myth , and in egypt that scene with napolean and the sarcophagus and the mummy within it may not have been true . Other scenes appeared historically accurate. So speculation this movie may be from.the point of view of napolean himself
Remember, Napoleon himself exaggerated his accomplishments all the time in most of his letters. Perhaps this is told from Napoleon's point-of-view
No historians say that! They certainly are not real historians if they do. They all say that it occured.
You’re right about everything except the part about him firing on the ice. It did happen in the final stages of the Battle of Austerlitz, where the surrounded Austrians had no choice but to retreat through a frozen pond. Napoleon ordered cannons to be fired at them and only a few soldiers and a bunch of horses drowned, but certainly not the many thousands of Napoleon’s propaganda.
@@theironmarshal4225 nobody is talking about the propaganda. Everyone is referring to the trailer. It is a very good depiction of what really happened. Yet everyone is making it seem like its wrong.
@@MeditativeMoments1 I was responding to the original comment who stated that the firing on the ice was a myth.
And I don’t think everyone ever said the depictions in the trailer was wrong. Perhaps some but certainly not everyone. We can nitpick about many of the inaccuracies in the trailer but many people, for the most part, are excited for it.
Before I watch this video I must say, I don’t care if this movie is accurate it looks so bad ass
It rlly does
I agree
Same here!
Excited by the amount of practical fx too as apposed to cg. It looks so much more real
given the director I am not holding my breath on historical accuracy but I am expecting some exiting action sequences. Hope to keep up with the channel as the movie comes out and additional content.
I all ready saw it, I’m not going to spoil it… I’m only going to say you something, waiting for your opinion when you see it!
When I saw the actor and the “story” I just said as Vito Corleone “ what they did to my boy?”
Long time ago I saw the Abel Gance 'Napoleon' at the BFI.
I doubt this can top that!
This is going to be laughably inaccurate, but it will look very good on screen. Considering how few Napoleonic era films we ever get, it’s kinda ‘what can you do?’
Off topic- Exactly how I felt when the first X-Men and Spiderman movies came out
Braveheart got me to read a lot about Scottish history to see what had actually happened. Hopefully this movie will inspire people to look into this period. I don't understand Hollywood's penchant for changing things. So often when I look up the real lives the truth was more incredible and awesome than the movie.
Waterloo is the only napolean film U care about
You guys should seriously stop crying over the potential many “historical inaccuracies” of the movie - it’s a movie made for the general public, the average person doesn't care whether this or that event actually happened as shown in the film or not. If you want to know how things really were in real life, watch a documentary.
My toughts exactly.
Napoleon didn't lead a cavalry charge, but he DID know how to lead from the front. It was one of the ways he gained extreme loyalty from his men.
Have a historian or several to keep Ridley on a leash and this could be a masterpiece.
And a dialect coach. Pretty sure Napoleon didn’t have an America accent.
@@tammy_288Lol. Every non-American historical figure seems to have an American accent, my favourite being Jesus, whose accent would have been the furthest thing from American.
The " Code Napoleon" is still used throughout Europe
I was really looking forward to this film and sceptical of the French critics. However, I walked away disappointed on many levels. Joaquim never convinced me that he was Napoleon; Josephine was a much more complex character than portrayed; no artifice was used to reveal to the audience Napoleon's tactical brilliance (such as a made-up pre battle planning session); the relationship between Napoleon and his soldiers was never developed and only revealed in ine scene. I think Ridley Scott put most of his effort in recreating epic battle scenes. For me, they alone don't make a movie about Napoleon.
He mentioned the jumpstart of the study of Egyptology. During the war, the french found the Rosetta stone which came from the time of Alexander the Great. While the French tried to send the stone back to France to be studied, the ship that was carrying it was stopped by British Warships and confiscated being taken to England to be studied by their own scholars. Jean-François Champollion, was one of the French scholars that actually did major work on deciphering the Egyptian hieroglyphs while the English were also trying to decipher the language.
This is incorrect. The Rosetta stone was handed over to the British in the framework of the capitulation of Alexandria
The irony is that if Rosetta Stone stayed in Egypt there is a great probability that we wouldn't learned ancient Egyptian language. The statement by author that artifacts were stolen and still are kept in European museums is so ridiculous and rotten woke, it makes me think what kind of history he is teaching.
Why does everyone attack the ice scene? Its not like they are showing thousands dying. It is a real scene in which about a dozen died, with some guns fallen. Nothing wrong with it.
He didn't attack it. Just mentioning how it is usally talked about. Not a cmment on the clip itself.
Calm down.
The scene looks like it is implying he won the battle of Austerlitz by tricking the Austrians into marching onto ice and then shooting the ice, which isn’t what happened at all
@@jamesm3142 well if you are reading it like that. But I have not seen one person or historian take issue with what it seems to indicate as a major tactic for the battle. Nobody who is familiar with austerlitz has ever indicated that this scene won the battle. Its just a scene. And it is accurately portrayed. Instead everyone should be saying "he really did that". For me personally, it only seems like an opening scene of the battle as Napoleon is "discovered", and does not come off as a final victory. The trailer literally shows us this scene as an opening to a battle, not an end.
Scott had WW2 style landing craft in the film Robin Hood, so I'm kind of hoping he equips Napoleon with tanks 😄
😂😂
LMaO I forgot about the french d-day in Robin Hood. Those LCVPs had oars hahahahaha
Just saw it today. Really liked it and found myself rooting for Napoleon. Pretty intense with quite a bit more humor than I expected but it worked well for me and the audience. Looking forward to Reel History’s analysis.
I always remember what my grandma said , " I don't care what they tell you in school, Napolean was black "
Will Smith as Napoleon showed much emotion as a fragile unsecure man. Oprah as Josephine was top notch!
The dna says he was yemeni jew
@@teevee2145 Will Smith was a Yemeni jew?
@@Dieter-Doeddel Napoleon was
😂😂😂😂
When the Legend becomes fact. Print the Legend.
The Man who Shot Liberty Valance
A legendary John Ford movie. To me better than The Searchers.
I hope this movie includes Joseph Fouche. I find him fascinating. Many people believe he is the one who kept Napoleon in power. He was a man to fear. Even Robespierre was appalled by his atrocities. That's saying a lot!
Robespierre was not afraid of Fouche. It was the other way around. Robespierre fired him from the Jacobin club and from all his offices. Fouche killed thousands of civilians when he was as a representative in Lyon. Fouche had to beg for forgiveness to Robespierre.
@antoinemozart243 Yes, that's true! I wrote that even Robespierre was appalled by his atrocities, but my previous sentence could be misleading. Though, really, he should have feared Fouche because the man was plotting his downfall while hiding in Paris. Robespierre was already going down anyway, but Fouche survived the final purges. In my eyes, both were evil men, but Fouche was a surviver.
I'm happy you mentioned Robespierre firing him. I had forgotten that fact.
Fascinating Stuff!! Robespierre,that pock-marked monstrosity, had no equal. Or so I thought😮 I must 🤔 research Fouche😮.
@@michaeldoucette943 He is definitely a ruthless character.
@@michaeldoucette943 If you're interested in historical research, I recommend you have a look at JEAN-CLÉMENT MARTIN's "Robespierre. La fabrication d’un monstre (the making of a monster)" that summarize multiple historical research since 2012 that shed a new light on the character and question the ominous villain image that was brought to us from XIXth century commentators and actors that had escaped the post terror purge. He certainly comes out as a ruthless revolutionary but his supposed hold on the Comité de Salut Public is way less important than was previously reported. Thesis is, he definitely was ready to make heads roll but he was later scapegoated as a dictator by lesser known actors who had as much hand in the actual Terror as him and who transited seamlessly in the new power structure established in the post french revolution era. Much like some active Vichy collaborators that rejoined the Gaullist Administration after WWII and were only prosecuted in the 1980's when their actions were finally brought to light (Maurice Papon or Paul Touvier for ex). You can get a Google translation from the fench review of the book on cairn dot info that nicely summarize the book and the state of historical research on that matter.
Archaeologists have dredged that bodies of water involved in the story of the artillery causing the drowning of a large number of men, but nothing was found.
Well, that's because it didn't happen...
Black Sabbath was a cool band during Napoleon's era
Obelix destroyed the Sfinx nose, it's described in the Asterix & Cleopatra album.
FACTS!
For a poignant & more relatable viewpoint on Napoleon give a listen to Mark Knopfler’s song ‘Done with Bonaparte’. Inspired lyrics & music from a master songwriter as always.
I think it’s ok if the filmmakers bring the legend of napoleon to life instead of just being a historical documentary. Napoleon’s memories make for a better movie than being completely accurate
I can't WAIT to see your review of the actual movie! My assessment? Oh dear. Just - oh dear.
This is fantastic. Thank you for your good work.
I don't understand what you said about the Parlement of Paris, which was the supreme court of the old regime and was abolished in 1789. Marie Antoinette was tried by the Revolutionary Tribunal.
I think that shot of Napoleon and the mummy was to compare himself to the pharaohs who ruled over Egypt. Probably also why he uses a ladder to step up to the same height to be face to face so that it's not to portray him as less of a ruler if he was looking up at it.
In this scene they just depict one of the historic pictures, unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the artist.
Ideas so excited BEFORE I saw it. So DEFEATED after I saw it.
The movie's name should have been changed to "NAPOLEON: The Conqueror of Nations and Women." If he was alive today, his ego would say, "Yes, that is a better name."
If indeed that is supposed to be a representation of Marie Antoinette on her was to the guillotine. It's so terribly off mark considering the coronation painting by David was used as reference, when David also famously sketched MA on her way to the scaffold. Her hair was haphazardly cut short at the prison. She wore a white dress instead of her black one for fear of arousing sympathy as she was a widow. And she rode backwards in the cart. Some interesting details are Josephine with chopped hair and wearing a red ribbon tightly around her neck. Guillotine fashion.
Women after the Revolution started to wear short hair and red ribbons around the neck and went to the Victim balls.
The black or reck neck ribbon chocker became a fashion to the upperclass British women at that time. Yes, as a symbolic fraternity to those who lost their lives upon the Guillotine.
Cool review, now really interested in seeing the movies 👍
Well to be fair it's a movie and although it's based on historical events and people, it is not a documentary. Also to be fair, no historian or anyone else alive today where there. We we know of the events from this time and the places depicted are from the books, and letters and battlefield archeology written and discovered since. I don't imagine every foot step, every shot, every movement of a horse or cannon was documented, but we know those actions did happen. Go enjoy the movie, I'm sure it will be good just like black hawk down and gladiator. If you want know about a more in depth historical context of these events go to the library, and check out a history book. The rest of use will get some popcorn and a coke and enjoy the show.
Totally correct about history being an agreed upon lie. We can’t even figure out what is really happening today.
dont worry, professors teach history from a politically correct alternatve universe now.. be grateful the lead wasnt gender or race swapped
“Generals gathered in their masses….” That’s awesome!
The first positive review of this film I've come across so far...
AND the first one made by someone BEFORE having seen it!
Makes me wonder.....
Thank the French expeditionary forces to Egypt for saving so many documents and historical artifacts.
It would be great if you could do a video on the accuracy of Laurence of Arabia.
History Buffs already did that. As well as Tora Tora Tora, and many many other movies. He is going to rip this movie to shreds.
It's amazing how many battle scene cliches the hack Ridley managed to pack into this relatively short clip.
I didn't think it was possible for anyone to butcher the battle of Austerlitz!
Some small but vital facts were missing.Napoleon was left handed for one, yet the film had him signing documents with his right hand, yes he should have been portrayed as a younger man in the first part of the film. Joaquin is an amazing actor well known for absorbing himself in his roles.Why then did he not speak with a French accent (well within his acting capabilities) and not an American accent. Over all though it was an amazing film and I really enjoyed it. I particularly liked that it showed Napoleon’s venerable side and the portrayal of Josephine by Vanessa Kirby was spot on.
The battle on snowy river is Eylau in my opinion, not Austerlitz.
Cool video! I’m looking forward to this film.
The movie only revolves about his romance. It was missing something. Not what I expected. It also seems like the movie depicts him as a man with no dignity when it comes to woman.
Also there were key conversations with Talleyrand and Fouche that I wish would have been included.
War Pigs would have been more effective if they had someone sing it in French.
What really happened: When the battle was already decided, a small portion of the austro-russian troops tried t flee via a dyke between two ponds. In the ensuing chaos, it may have happend that a handful of soldiers left the dyke and tried to escape via the frozen ponds und maybe drowned.
Well, historians are not even sure whether it actually happenend, but if it happened, it wasn't more than maybe a dozen men. Scott turns something that was an irrelevant episode of the battle, when everything was already decided, into the major event of the battle. That's just plain ridiculous and historically completely inaccurate.
And Napoleon had his men help the retreating soldiers out. It's more likely they fell into the icy water due to the weight of them.
I went to the movies earlier this evening and saw this Napoleon movie. Pretty good movie. The battle scenes were quite brutal. I have no idea how historically accurate the movie is though. I enjoyed it for what it was.
Historically accurate?
They lied about:
How he meets Josephine
Egypt
The coup wasn’t accurate
The personality of Napoleon
Napoleon’s lovers
Maria Letizia’s personality
His relationship with other characters
Even how Napoleon made love based in the writing of his lovers!
In my opinion this movie was an insult to the giant of Corcega!!!
Looks like Ridley Scott's own Pearl Harbor. I wonder if Ben Affleck will have a cameo..?
I'd hope not! "Hammer down" in a spitfire,! How dare you sir!
Thank you. As an artist, I would like to encourage you to emphasize and focus on artistic achievements of this film, which are very impressive. As a creator of my own symbolic paintings, who allows herself some freedom of interpretation, stylization and surrealism, I ask you to appreciate that every real artist gives his own uniqueness to a PIECE OF ART. I was born in Moscow and know a little bit about Napoleon. There were two bronze statues of Napoleon on the both sides of my grandfather's desk and I still have one.
I noticed some historical inaccuracies in this film, but it did not take my enjoyment away. I watched it twice and will go again.
I enjoyed many of the aesthetics. Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
Sire Ridley scott likes to have a great and big productions ,like this.I think this is the best Napoleonic movie ive ever seen.❤❤
Fascinating, thank you for your insight
Napoleon's coronation oath on taxes was a reference to the 1799 constitution and the Napoleonic legislature, which was mostly a rubber stamp but still had the power to approve taxes and the annual budget.
What does that mean?
They seem to be pushing the idea that Josephine was behind Napoleon’s greatness, can anyone confirm if she really had a part in it? I’m no historian, but I think he was already his own man by the time he met her.
She was older than him and had connections Napoleon needed so she certainly helped in his rise to power, they for sure had a toxic relationship and not a loving one using each other for their own needs
When she was of no need to him and couldn't give the emperor a child, Napoleon decided to divorce her
@@blitzhill9533 thank you!
Thank god the relics were “stolen” better than lost forever
You do have a point.
I do like seeing the Old Guard standing behind him though...
My professors just called him an 19th-century Hitler with a slightly hotter wife.
I watched the trailer thinking, i was sure he was french and not american. You live and learn
😂 😂
Something I can't imagine is Napoleon putting his fingers in his ears when cannon fire.
It was what the gun crews themselves did. A good idea if you didn't want to go deaf while you were still young.
@@georgecoventry8441 I realize that loss of hearing is a great concern in this day and age, but I rather doubt you have any evidence to support your claim for the period in question. Worrying about noise is one thing when your enemy is thousands of meters over the next hill, but the situation is somewhat different when you enemy is in the midst of running at you with a rifle and bayonet.
Next, I want Ridley Scott to take on Maximilian of Austria and Mexico. Talk about a weirdly epic life!
Muchas gracias.
How exciting! 😁
what cavalry charge is he "leading"??? That "can't" be Waterloo...he was dealing with his hemmoroids when it started...I rememember every reading of his leading a cavalry charge...(though, I could be wrong..."I wasn't there..." like Ridley said)
Would it kill them to use period appropriate music? Look at Waterloo!
yes i hate the music in the trailer.
Yes! The Music played at Napoleon's Farewell to the Old Guard was Note for Note from the Original Sheet Music! As was the Drum and Flute March on the Battlefield!
Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter. Long live Toussaint Louverture!
"Getting groovy after Halloween,I was born on Christmas Day."
In ANY movie with historical interest is the fact that it is a movie and NOT a documentary
I take umbrage with Ridley Scotts movie showing Napoleon leading a cavalry charge. I don't think it ever happened. He was a artillery officer and also his dependence on all the armes(infantry, cavalry, artillery) working together lead to other great leaders being minted and earning his respect, such as Joachim Murat, who did lead cavalry charges.
How do we know that's actually a calvary charge? Could be maneuvers or a dream or something. Context is key. This is a trailer to get butts in seats. I'd say wait to see before judgment
he did lead a charge at Toulon, though it was on foot
It was indeed Joachim Murat who led some of the greatest cavalry charges of all time. Napoleon did not. What he was far more inclined toward was managing the artillery and handling the overall command from the rear, although he did personally lead some very brave infantry charges in his youth. And then there was Ney, "the bravest of the brave", leading the great cavalry charge on the British squares at Waterloo. The story of Napoleon is also the story of his generals and marshals, among whom were many truly great commanders. Only a lengthy series of many chapters could possibly do it full justice. There's simply too much material there to cram into one movie. But to see a grand historical movie at all these days is still a treat.
No way Napoleon led a cavalry charge. He was an artillery officer.
Yep!
Additionally it’s a “Hollywood charge”. Very romantic. And not accurate at all. A cavalry charge was much slower, so that all riders could arrive together on the enemy line.
I think Oppenheimer may have some competition for best biopic this year.
His is accent in the trailer is American and exaggerated everything. This nothing compared to Oppenheimer
This will be probably like 300. The movie was not faithful to the true story but nonetheless caught our attention and because of the movie the people were curious to know what really happened and from where the movie 300 really comes from.
Huh, the ice breaking during the hasty _retreat_ is such a foot note, somehow it's a famous moment?
Was Hans Zimmer unavailable to create new film score?
If this came out of Hollywood, I’m surprised they didn’t cast Napoleon as a black guy fighting against racism. Well, what do you know.
I`m pretty sure than when disguised as a sheppard he was spying over the English that had taken the forts around Toulon.
I would like to see the movie “Killers of the Flower Moon” fact checked.
Hey Jered, I was just thinkibg about a good movie you might enjoy reviewing, but it isnt military. "Ghost in the Darkness". Its about the Man eaters of Tsavo.
Oh yes, that's a great movie. Great soundtrack too.
I’m surprised they didn’t pick Denzel Washington to play Napoleon!
It's a movie, it's primary goal is to sell tickets and popcorn. and entertain. That said, Ridley couldn't get Joaquim to fake a half assed French accent? I'll wager he still gets and Oscar nomination. After all Ridley put a lot of people to work in the industry and they vote on this stuff. Nice to hear he didn't have his artillery shoot the Sphinx. I was not clear on that.
1:29 the corpse of Alexander the great is in Egypt
For the love of god don't start criticising Ridley Scott for slight changes to make the movie more enjoyable, just praise lord he is a powerful enough director who could fight off the wolk brigade and we did not end up with a Napoleon who was a black transsexual who identified as a cat.
😂
In no way I’m excited for this movie. Im kinda stick of late 18th century and early 19th century movies about the French Revolution, and Napoleon’s love interests.
Indeed we shall.
I find it strange people debating accuracy of a movie from hollywood, which forever has taken a smidge of facts and added drama in each show for views, argue on about hollywood your wasting your time. Now if its called a documentary fire away but not at clothing as others in hollywood decide not the writer; from an author bewildered by people.
Yeah but they're pathetic. The whole point of costume films is to put contemporary ways of acting, speaking, thinking into the past because the masses don't want to see anything genuine, have no genuine curiosity. Joaquin Phoenix looks like an old man throughout the whole film.
Fair assessment. But Joaquin is a complete turn off for me. I suffered the "violin off" in the "Chevalier" film because he's a favorite from that time...but 2+ hours of Joaquin mumbling...I don't think I can.
There's plenty of looted artefacts from Egypt and other civilisations in American museums as well as in European ones
Check out the obelisks in Rome and Istanbul, Obviously ok to loot back then, now we get squishy about it. Napoleons biggest crime against art and history is the one no one seems to know about. He demanded gold from Venice - and melted down their Byzantine plunder from the 4th crusade. STill the Venetians had their plunder, the Turks scoured the city in 1453, and consumed thiers, but we do not like to point fingers at non euros..
Good!
Yeah there is no way a European army would not know there were crossing a very large snow covered frozen lake. id love to see the real topography.
As a historian- you should recognise that the appearance of popularised trash like this, only a few short decades after making true masterpieces on the same subject … are clear markers that our civilisation has peaked, and we are descending into a cultural dark age once again.
Hey, it's Sir Ridley Scott's Epic, it wont be historically accurate, but it will fun. Black Sabbath's War Pigs fits nicely.