Napoleon needs an entire miniseries, like John Adams did. He had an entire era named after him, you need to narrow your focus signifocantly. Waterloo alone had an entire film devoted to it.
We should give the promotional team for this movie a lot of props for managing to make a trailer that makes the footage from a poorly written character drama about Napoleon’s relationship with his wife look like a historical epic about Napoleon Bonaparte.
Trailer makers certainly have a lot of practice with that by now! Like for the Kenobi show, when the trailer focused on young Luke. It turned out they'd used his entire appearance in the show until the last ep, lol. Weird how the studios apparently know exactly what audiences want but give them something completely different, hunh.
Yes.. CD got this review spot on.. The movie should have been a drama - Josphine and Napoleon. He was a great military strategic and tactical commander, with many of those practiced in military docture today.. But this shows a weak man in a drama
I think its not a fully good analogy, as a movie about the Beatles would be about four different individuals, whereas Napoleon is about just the man. I think it'd be better to say "a movie about John Lennon, but 90% is about him and Yoko."
I get why they included his relationship to humanize him, but if you're going to have only a 3 hour film you have to cut that out. There's no way to include an interesting romance and 30 years of world history.
The French historian who is widely recognised as the best specialist of Napoleon I, the lovely Jean Tulard, who also happens to be a self-professed Ridley Scott fan, hated this film; he jokingly suggested Scott must be getting on a bit, at his age (Tulard himself is 89 old) but he was also very serious about his reasons to dislike Scott's latest work. Tulard pointed out to the fact that from a historical perspective, Napoléon Bonaparte has to be separated into two distinct entities: the young, hungry, ambitious consul Buonaparte ('Boney', as the English infamously nicknamed him), and the Emperor-what power made of him. Both are fascinating men in their own right, but they would require two very different movies. Not to mention, these are very complex moments in French history we're dealing with and the details are so potently interesting that one wonders how Scott managed to miss all of them out in favour of a much more ordinary story. As for Napoléon's great love for his first wife Joséphine, which was elected as the focus point of the film... The idea that Boney's passion for her, although undeniable and well documented (seriously. Their correspondence is abundant and _raunchy_), somehow hindered his formidable tactical spirits is laughable, at best. Bonaparte was a political beast, a master of military strategy, and quite the ruthless, driven creature. His love also waned as he came to realise that his wife could not give him an heir, and he repudiated her remorselessly enough. By the way, Ridley Scott cast Joséphine as an actress FIFTEEN YEARS YOUNGER than lead Joaquin Phoenix, which is rather frustrating for the historian considering the real Joséphine de Beauharnais was SIX YEARS OLDER than her brand new husband-whom she married out of marital strategy and ended up loving in time (their affections mirrored, since she grew fonder of him as his own passion dwindled)-who had been with only one woman beforehand, a prostitute; whereas Joséphine was the widow to one of France's most raging libertines, the marquis Alexandre de Beauharnais, who died under the guillotine, a man said to have inspired Laclos the character of Valmont in _The Dangerous Liaisons...!_ (And the puzzling choice to have Joaquin Phoenix play with this stony, witless face all along when Bonaparte was renown by all to be an extremely animated, passionate, charismatic man... I don't know if it's French bashing but it certainly beats history to a pulp.)
Brilliant observation. You should have your own channel focused on all these "historical" movies because the sheep actually do believe they are learning history from the movies like this.
When I saw the cannons firing on the pyramids I knew the movie wasn't worth seeing. It never happened. Ridley Scott should have just called it "Napolean Dynamite II".
Where in the movie did you find them suggesting Josephine was "hindering Napoleon's formidable tactical spirits"? The only moment that even touched on that was when he heard of Josephine cheating. Even then it clearly wasn't suggested that she is holding him back in any way it was simply rushed to move on from the Egypt invasion and get Bonaparte back in France to keep the plot going. Do not mistake me i think you make some great points and i do think the movie is highly flawed. It suffers from being rushed and especially lacking when it comes to how it builds the story because the passing of time is horrendous. Considering how little effort they put into showing Napoleons or any other characters age or development mixed with the movie just making sudden cuts that could go from just weeks later or to years later it was hard to keep track. Especially for my friend i watched it with who was no already familiar with Napoleons history. I could at least guess pretty quickly where we jumped to based on the events.
Imagine a 4 season Napoleon show on HBO shot over 8 years. Cast a guy in his early 30s and make him look slightly younger at the beginning, and by the end make him look slightly older and he can very easily portray Napoleon's aging process
Naaaah that would actually make HBO earn money and more customers, that's not what they do! Napoleon should be black and the series should discuss the ethical dilemma of Napoli being black back then!
@@Mizra-dq3ljFINALLY someone understands. We need a 400 pound black female Napoleon series that follows napoleon’s story as she along with her team of culturally diverse 500 pound strong independent people fight off Britain… lol
"Napolean is more of a victim of its own ambitions, weighed down by the sheer scale of what it was trying to accomplish" The duality of this sentence is quite lovely.
@@singular9the others were you he same, do you think that Alexander or emperor Francis care about their people? At least his armies brought reforms where they conquered and forced their feudal enemies to reform.
I think Rod Steiger will always have the best one in 1970's "Waterloo". Despite it being over 50 years old, the damn near perfect historical accuracy and practical effects, including copious use of live extras, just makes the film.
I've never been much of a fan of Steiger, but he certainly was Tour de Force in Waterloo. Christopher Plummer was also excellent as Wellington...Damn, now i must see that movie again and maybe even Sharpe's Waterloo as a bonus.
Just saw the movie and I didn't see Napoleon on the screen, I just saw Joaquin Phoenix. It's not just because he was too old and didn't look like him. Ciarán Hinds didn't look like Caesar in HBO Rome, but I still saw Caesar because he did such a fantastic job in his performance.
Phoenix isn’t an actor anymore, he plays “mopey, depressed, loner” in all his movies now to the point that it’s clear he’s doing The Rock’s routine of appearing in movies rather than playing characters in them.
The ENTIER Italian campaign is not even mentionned ONCE in this movie. The most important event in Napoleon's life after the Russian campaign and Waterloo, and it is not ever even IMPLIED that Napoleon went to Italy. In fact the Italian campaign is probably the most formative years of his life, that basically shaped all of his skills and life view and brought him to the international spotlight. NOT a single word.
@@asharcher7792 they literally narrated 'no conflict in Italy', me and some people all in a history major watching this laughed out loud. Utterly ridiculous. Perhaps u can argue it was sarchastic but considering the rest of the screenplay it seems like they were just lazy, even when Napoleon's career in Italy was far more well-known and iconic than Egypt for many people
Ridley Scott should've cast a young actor and made a movie to pick up where Abel Gance's Napoleon (1927) stops, picking up the Italian and Egyptian campaigns and ending with the Consulate. To take up the gauntlet where Gance dropped it almost a hundred years ago would have been a noble ambition, and would have allowed an intricate and inspiring epic--if he had really wanted to make one (and had someone to write it for him).
This was the first time in my dads 52 years of life that he walked out of a movie halfway through. He has a history degree and he essentially called it a mockery of napoleons life and French History. He even tried to give it another chance but then the food fight scene between napoleon and Josephine came on and he couldn’t take it.
So you're on a public forum exposing your dad can't control his tender feelings during a Hollywood movie? It's not a documentary professor. Pathetic people 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🫛🧠🤡
@@robertstevens3522on a sidenote; Hollywood was the most proeficient propaganda tool during WW2. So it’s not far fetch to call this movie propaganda (i don’t believe it to be the case for this one, but the anglo-saxon point of view, really seems to shine through this depiction of the character; and it is inappropriate and displeasing) But no, nobody watches these movies to learn about history. However there should be a threshold to respect when you are making a movie about such an important historical figure (and a recent one at that; it’s not like making a movie about Julius Caesar, where some liberties could be taken on some obscure aspect of the character). And even tho it shouldn’t be a documentary (recreating battles exactly like they unfolded: formations, time frames etc); you can’t just butcher the historic facts, especially if it’s not even really needed for the sake of your movie, like here)
I have studied Napoleon for decades and assumed this would be a trilogy at the least. You could easily make 10 films on each stage of Napoleon. The Man changed the world forever...Twice and that's not even delving into his personal life. You could make 3 films on his military strategies alone, which are still used today with modern militaries.
He alone was said to be worth 50000 men on the battlefield (according to his enemy). Historically this movie is an abomination, and not just about Napoleon's personality (which they completely misrepresented), just look at the battles : Mel Gibson's "Patriot" almost looks like a documentary compared to this garbage 😁 But even history aside, it's a bad, illogical, boring movie with terrible pace, questionable cinematography, and even acting is mediocre.
Can I ask in a purely curious spirit, what makes you say that Napoleon changed the world twice? Not gonna pretend that I am an expert, but would like to know a bit more.
As someone who's studied Napoleon for so long, can you reccomend any books about him as a starting point? I'd love to learn more and there's a lot of options out there 😅
Ridley Scott admitted that he refused historians advice on the project, thinking he could capture the scale of Napoleons historic significance himself by looking at a Wikipedia page. But like all men filled with hubris, he failed.
And we all know that one of the major reasons for Napoleon's downfall was his own hubris and overconfidence. 🤔 As Alliance Morissette would say: Isn't it ironic?🫠
I can probably imagine what this movie would look like. Almost 40 minutes of World War I, followed by 50 minutes of the Roaring Twenties (with 10 minutes being about the invention of talking pictures and all the movie musicals that came out at the end of the decade and the begining of the next one), followed by an hour of the stock market crash and the Great Depression, followed by almost 40 minutes of World War II, and then more than half an hour of the 1950's. Maybe the movie would use hundreds of songs from each time period too. The movie wouldn't be about just one person, because then it'll be a movie about the life of someone during this period of time, which would probably make people enjoy it. The movie would most likely be about multible people and events of the early 20th century, so it would look like if multible movies and shows that take place in these decades were put together and then crushed into a single movie where every scene is much shorter than it should be, but too long for the young people who are addicted to those sideways-filmed short videos.
I think my brother put it pretty well when he said: “This feels like a parody of Napoleon” It’s hard to argue with that idea considering that some parts of the movie felt as if they were mocking Napoleon
Napoleon was such an interesting microcosm in history. A person who shouldn't have been able to make a mark on history, according to the rules of society. Yet he defines an entire era of Europe.
Quite . The "Great Man" theory of history is very unfashionable these days, but Napoleon is the kind of figure that makes it really hard to argue that sometimes one individual really does shape their whole era.
@@incurableromantic4006History is full of Great Men defining eras. Napoleon. Caesar. Alexander. Nobunaga. Sargon. Genghis Khan. Cyrus. The list goes on and on.
So here's the problem with still thinking this is Great Man history. Yes, Napoleon was amazing. BUT, a very big REASON Napoleon was amazing was because his society went from being a stuffy, absolute monarchist, classist, aristocracy to a raucous revolutionary republic positively BURSTING with new ideas and new ways of thinking. The French Republic basically leapt forward an entire era in their Social tech-tree. Le Grande Armee was an entire generation of modern, professional, *ambitious* young men who for the first time in their entire family's history were given an opportunity to be more.
Why couldn't he make a mark on history? France was a mess after the French Revolution and there was a huge power vacuum after Louis XV's execution (may God rest his soul)
I really like how he shot a cannon at the Pyramids at Gisa and knocked the nose off the sphinx! That is the most historical history to ever be told! Oh! Wait... That is actually in the movie! _Awkward_
Oppenheimer proved you could make a dense, dialogue heavy, epic, historically accurate movie entertaining and commercially successful. Scott's lack of care and attention and inability to listen to reason (like the historians pointing out inaccuracies) means he does an injustice not just to the character but also his own reputation as a filmmaker.
@robbo_96 napoleon will be successful commercially I'm sure. Oppenheimer was pretty bad TBH and not very entertaining. it isn't really talked about in a way that good movies are. it came and went and drew most of its popularity from barbenheimer. the dense, dialogue heavy, accurate oppenheimer sucked tbh. would've been way cooler if they went more into the science of it, even if they portrayed it with a sense of mysticism. I haven't seen napoleon and now I'm dreading doing so, however.
@@SamHell-wr8bi Really? I always thought the directors cut was way better than the original. Those awful Harrison Ford voiceovers were much better off being axed for starters.
My biggest issue is how wrong they got most of the history in the film. His argument always is "how do you know you wernt there" But these events are soooo well documented that everything that is wrong is too easy to call out especially waterloo at the end of the film. Not to mention after that the writing itself
That's because his comment is fully from arrogance and hubris; a director who thinks he knows everything he needs to know, that his shit can't stink, and does not tolerate criticism. I'm thinking this portrayal of Napoleon was Ridley Scott projecting...
its the same line afrocentrists like those who made cleopatra would use. "how do you know you werent there" well we know from archaeology and historiography.
@@lawrencee1113 That's the fascinating thing about the historians' job: To analyze the sources and their times and creators in order to know. Yes, there are limits to that, but the more parallel sources you have, the better you can do that. Which also means the closer a time period is to our own time, the less freedom you have in historical fiction. Napoleon certainly isn't the best suited topic for a "who knows, really" attitude IMHO. Sadly, it's a rare art to explore the gaps and current academic disputes and fill in your interpretation there while staying true to what is currently regarded as established. Whoever doesn't even try this isn't creating high-standard historical fiction in my personal opinion but some sort of parallel reality fantasy - and should call it by that name, then it could actually be appealing. Otherwise, it's just an utter lack of care and effort and sheer laziness, which destroys all respect. If someone can't be bothered to dive deep into historical research to mold it into an appealing piece of historical fiction, they should just stick with contemporary stuff or transfer the historical topics, themes and events they like to a proper fantasy setup (which isn't a bad thing IMO, good, verisimilar fantasy is great). Just my two cents.
yea, i had my doubts; but i was still hopeful, because i wanted this to be SO good. if they'd done this the way they done the remake of "war and peace" it'd been much better. 2 hours just isn't enough for this man.
When my Dad and I walked out of the theater, he said "I think it would've been more accurate if they had instead called it 'Napoleon & Josephine'. Would've saved me the money I spent on our tickets"
I’ll say what I said to my girl when we were leaving the movie theater. Some historical figures you could make a short film about and cover everything important in it. For someone like Napoleon, who had such an eventful life, you would need at least something like a show that lasted at least 5 or 6 full seasons. To someone like me, who loves history and is fascinated by Napoleon’s story, anything less would feel silly. He just had too many interesting things happen to him to leave them out. I promise, you may not even like history, but you could love a 5 or 6 season Napoleon show. His life was just that incredible.
But be honest: would you have liked 5-6 seasons of this kind of nonsense? 5-6 seasons of vulgar s3x scenes, and Napoleon whining his way through a bleak, nihilistic world with absolutely no purpose and message other than how terrible and tragic life is? Hollywood would make a 10 season show about things and they'd still be bad. They haven't just lost the art of story telling, they've lost the ability to say anything meaningful at all. They wouldn't even give us a proper romance. Not even a single scene that was inspiring or uplifting or hard hitting. Not a single scene where characters share a moment of genuine emotional connection. It's like the p3dos in Hollywood don't even know how to represent intimacy or even friendship anymore.
I really didn't get that scene. Why is Napoleon, a smart and compossed military and political genius suddenly acting like a petulent child in front of an ambassador.
@@wjzav1971the only time i remember that was close to childish attitude is when he threw his hat after meeting metternich. Even so, that rage was understandable than that one line.
In 2002, the French made a 4-part 6-hours long TV miniseries about Napoleon's life. It's truly worth checking out. Much better than Ridley Scott's failed movie attempt.
@@gauthierlagrange490 THIS IS TRUE! YOU CAUGHT ME! Alternatively, there's the portrayal of Napoleon in the Bill and Ted movie. Eating all the ice cream and loving the water slides.
I just watched it at the cinema tonight. Took a bit of a nap when all the Josephine divorce plot was unfolding. Bit later on a French character asked Napoleon if "this was a joke?" and I literally stuck my hand out into the air to gesture to all around if the entire movie was a joke? nice of them to give von Blücher a shout out during the Waterloo Battle scene wasn't it? Visuals were very good though.
Napoleon led one of the biggest lives ever. You could probably do a feature-length movie on every year of his life from the time he got sent to boarding school. Imagine a 3-hour movie focusing entirely on that time he quit the army and became a romance novel writer. Or another movie focusing entirely on his governing of Elba during his first exile. Or another movie where he sits in Moscow waiting for the Russians to send somebody over to surrender. Or nothing but one single major battle.
You are so right, even the last days on Elba would be a movie I would watch. Yeah, a series over several seasons would maybe do that historic figure justice.
Which is something like what Abel Gance wanted to do but his first film which covered up the late 1970's flopped and he never got to make the rest which is a shame as what we have is one of the great masterpieces of the Silent Era.
There are two fundamental problems with this movie. The first is that it's not the movie we - or History Buffs to be specific- wanted it to be. We wanted to see the young, ambitious, cunning, intelligent, brilliant Corsican officer rise to become Emperor using his wits and talents. We wanted to see his genius in planning battles and why his men followed him to the bitter end. We wanted to see the political climber who used lies and manipulation to claw his way to the top and stay there. We even wanted to see the Liberal reformer who made many compromises in realising his agenda for France. However, Scott wasn't interested in any of that. He wanted to tell a much more personal tale of Napoleon and Josephine, showing the world through their eyes and romance. An interesting angle but ok. That then brings us into the second problem with the movie as it fails spectacularly at that too. Who is Napoleon? Who is Josephine? Why do they love each other? Why does she cheat on him and why can't he let her go? Why are they so obsessed with each other and what draws them to each other? I sure as hell can't tell you based on the text of the film. We're never given any of the details to help us understand who they are, why they're drawn together and why it's tragic when circumstances force them apart. We just don't understand or care about them as we're never given the time to as so much attention is spent on battles and the political moves of Napoleon which, again, also aren't very well developed so rather than being a deep dive into Napoleon is instead a jumbled, confused, unfocused mess. And what's so frustrating is that all of the pieces are there! Phoenix and Kirby could have been great, the set pieces are spectacular, the movie in general looks gorgeous and with more time or a better script, could have been great. Really, I think Josephine should have been the main character. Call it "The Emperor's Wife" or something and frame it through her eyes, so no battles or politics, just show how she viewed him on her own. That's the only way it could have worked. Cos trying to do ALL this, and for a theatrical cut? It was as doomed for failure as invading Russia.
That’s actually such a genius idea. Seeing this story purely from Josephine’s perspective would have been much more focused and would have still succeeded in delivering an interesting portrayal of a part of Napoleon’s life that most people are less familiar with. What a missed opportunity.
"interesting" not really. This is yet another attempt at pandering to the female audience (which does not give a flying about historical movies) and accomplishes meh
@@marcogenovesi8570 FR. Sorry to burst the bubble, but Josephine had zip to do with Napoleons reign. I didn’t even know her name until I read this post. F*** off film.
And that’s pretty much why Stanley Kubrick never made his Napoleon film. He spent years collecting information and trying to distill this man’s life into a workable script, but could never get it how he wanted it. There’s just too much there. Like you said, it would make a better mini series, like The Crown, with different actors playing the various stages of his life. Now that would be epic.
Napoleon and his marshals were very interesting individuals (that are very well documented), so its bizarre that they needed to fabricate events to make the film 'interesting'.
Reality is and will always be far more interesting than any fictional story because it's reality. There are plenty of fictional movies, series and books I absolutely love but they'll never be as interesting as studying history or science.
@@Dickie2shoes Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler, With Eagles to Glory: Napoleon and his German Allies in the 1809 Campaign by John Gill, and one of my faves- Private Memoirs of the Court of Napoleon by Louis Basset-Roquefort. YMMV, as a female it’s rare to have such an intrinsic connection to battles and the mindset behind warfare but I found all 3 to be immensely fascinating. Honorable mention to The Spanish Ulcer: A History of the Peninsula War by David Gates.
@@AYFKMRN Thank you, much appreciated, I will check them out. Maybe in a past life you were an involved in these battles and that's why you have such a connection to them, who knows ? Once again many thanks for your response.
@@Dickie2shoes perhaps? I’ve really found a love for biographies as I’ve grown older, and some of my favorites have been of great military leaders. The Art of War, His Excellency (George Washington), John Adams are others I’ve read a few times, and have recently found a particular interest in The Iliad.
Spot on review. Totally agree, Napoleon is well made movie that didn't know what it wanted to be. I personally wish Riddley Dcott had ditched the love story and focused on Napoleon's military career
My dad and I were massively excited for this film (we are history buffs) and the first thing both of us said to each other as the credits rolled was: "Disappointing"
This is why generally, I think historical films should be centred around single events, not entire lives or careers. I remember the Alexander the Great film having many of the same problems.
The movie was centered on “France, the army, head of the army, Joséphine” , his last words and the balance or lack of it between these in Napoleon's life.
People may knock the movie Braveheart, but it's a good example of cutting out of the timeline what isn't deemed necessary to tell the story, and to incorporate narrative compression to condense a large passage of time into a relatively brief moment on screen.
This film could have been Napoleon and Josephine with battle montage, or Napoleon fighting wars with Josephine and/or politics montage. You can't really have both story lines detailed in one movie.
My only concern is, how the hell do you capture a career like Napoleon's in one movie? Over a period of 25 years, he literally led one of the most interesting lives in history, during one of the most interesting times in history. Countless movies and miniseries have focussed on just a few aspects of his life, and the French Revolution that precipitated his rise to power. More books have been written about him than about anyone else, ever.
There is a deeper line of themes and messages in Napoleon's life. His life events can be used to explore those messages, and needn't go through a lot of the details. But this movie fails particularly bcs it doesn't achieve what it intended in the first place. Napoleon's actions throughout needed to be shown motivated by his ambitions, his military genius, his ego and his love for Josephine. Ridley failed in all except the Josephine part, and even made that into portaying him as a bumbling, horny fool. The action scenes were just, look-cool-battles, no showcasing of his genius. Also, they state that he returns from Elba bcs of love for Both Josephine and France. Ridley showed nothing of his love of France at all. I am looking forward to the 4+ hour cut though.
Alternating between the musical voice of the USSR and facing the gulag depending on what he writes, sneaking stuff past Stalin's untrained ear, not to mention his personal life.... Chris Greenhalgh, director of Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky, would also be a good choice.
As someone who grew up watching 1970’s Waterloo by Sergei Bondarchuk, I knew this movie would never live up to the expectations set by it. The sheer scale of the battle sequences in Waterloo were truly a spectacle to behold. Actual tactics and troop maneuvers were used while staying extremely historically accurate. Ridley Scott meanwhile shows the Napoleonic wars to be “Hollywood medieval” in nature and just have a bunch of men smashing into each other
War and Peace by Sergei Bondarchuk is even more massive and one of the greatest epics ever filmed. 15000 extras, largest battle ever filmed. Also it’s 7 hours but it’s well worth it. glad they split it into 4 parts. It’s on RUclips for free. It’s far superior to waterloo.
I agree, however Ridley’s battle scenes were hardly Medieval in nature; they were purely Hollywood fiction. Like with Napoleonic warfare, Medieval battlefronts had infantry lines to defend, cavalry brigades (archers in place of rifles), like a big chess table. Not dissimilar to the overhead shots in Waterloo 1970, the Battle of Agincourt is a good example. I’m not trying to pull an “um actually…” I just thought I’d throw in my two cents ;)
@@michaelmurley487 yeah I love how Hollywood thinks medieval battles are just a free for all. They had brains and tactics. That’s why not many died in medieval battles once you lose a good portion you surrender
@underdoge8338 lesbian is the same as "asexual" except an ego bigger than double F's and little reason to be worthwhile in an economic depression. So basically worse.
@@glorbog Frankly, a film that consists of large portions of gory battle scenes will not grab a female audience, with or without a romantic subplot. It will grab people, male and female interested in history and otherwise mostly a male audience. Just as you will not grab a male audience if you add some car chase scenes in a romantic comedy. Where is the problem in movies that cater more to one the tastes of gender than the other.
I'm surprised The Drinker didn't mention the weird tone the movie has of trying to knock Napoleon down, any time he achieves anything it was immediately undone with some form of humiliation in the next scene. Like the mummy somehow shifting to avoid his touch, acting like a fool in diplomatic situations, falling asleep randomly, slapping himself in front of Tsar Alexander, or how he's literally made fun of and belittled by little girls. Not to mention the movie spends next to no time on Napoleon crowning himself Emperor or the consequences of such a thing. I really wanted them to show how that event would have had consequences. But no one even mentions anything. The Pope doesn't even question it.
This is what I don't understand also. The movie is a mockery of the man effectively. I'm not sure whether because it isn't 'woke' that this was glossed over.
@@RedDevilStudio It's not necessarily woke, no. But even then I just can't see Napoleon telling Josephine that he was nothing without her while staring at the ground. Josephine's voice over about them doing it all over again "next time" and her being the emperor and him being her plaything was an extremely bizarre choice. Ending with his kill count at the end was the final jab.
@@HRZN_YTIt's as if the spirit of every rosbeef through history manifested into the script in order to humiliate their nemesis. I mean seriously, the Soviets of all people were infinitely more impartial to the man when making a movie about him, and gave it their all in faithfully recreating History, how is that even possible?
@@RedDevilStudio Not really, the Duke would have wanted napoleon and his military genius to be depicted accurately so that his victory over him at waterloo is all the more impressive. Defeating Ridley Scott's fake, weak, bumbling incel version of Napoleon doesn't really seem like much of an accomplishment.
Ahhhh thank you, well put man. I was hoping you covered there not being any French accents or French speaking people throughout the film. Or maybe I'm uneducated and Napoleon was from LA and his brother from England loool
@@Toledotourbillion You said this: "No mate, cause fire noodles make you tear up and feel intense emotions when you put it in your mouth. Where are you from?" Why did you change your words?
For me, the bar was set far too high by the powerhouse performance of Terry Camilleri in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Thats a portrayal that'll never be beaten.
"Napoleon is more of a victim of its own ambitions; weighed down by the sheer scale of what it was trying to accomplish." Coincidently that's a fitting description of Napoleon the man.
Eehhh…not so much. Strategically napoleon had to do something about britain’s naval and economics power. His continental system was the best in think anyone could have done in that situation. Napoleon correctly assessed that england’s most strategic asset was its economy. He tried to attack that and remove its ability to maintain such a large navy….it was a great idea. But it wasnt napoleon being overly ambitious. He was just trying to deal with britains strategic advantages.
I remember an interview with Peter Jackson shortly after the release of the LOTR. PJ emphasized that what ended up on the cutting room floor was dictated by one rule--Does the scene advance the plot toward the end of the story or not? That was the vision that he and his writing team kept in mind throughout the filming and writing. Keep the main thing the main thing.
Vlad, I am a Tolkien purist. Read the books at 14 for the first time (I'm 60 now) and waited for the Jackson trilogy with anticipation and angst. I had seen so many failed attempts to bring Middle Earth to the screen that I wasn't sure it could be done. When the Jackson movies hit, I loved them. Own the original release DVD, the extended editions, and the Blu-Ray. There were things about the movies that disappointed me. In the end, I asked myself, considering the size and scope of the IP, could I ask, realistically, for a better adaptation? The answer is unequivocally NO! Were there certain scenes I wish were done differently? Yeah (Tom B wasn't one of them btw), but the final product is what counts. As for those whiners, they would only have been happy if they were Peter Jackson! The movies would have been five hours a piece.@@vladimirofsvalbard9477
This is why the "redux" version of Apocalypse Now I thought was terrible - those scenes were cut for good reason, they not only added nothing, but detracted from the final story.
It was foreseeable! For Example Waterloo from 1970 is a masterpiece and today's "filmmakers" will never be able to capture that feeling, the acting performance and the authenticity of such an movie epos.
Let's be honest. Whilst Scott has directed some all-time great movies, the past two decades have been filled with more misses than hits. Black Hawk Down in 2001 is the last really fantastic movie he made, but every project he comes out with is surrounded by this buzz of "remember how great Ridley Scott was? This next thing is going to be his return to form!"
@@Manchevo Technically, The Last Duel bombed at the box office. The Martian was great. Black Hawk Down was also great. But like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
I keep saying this. When I watched his series Raised By Wolfes (or whatever it was called) it struck me how he's repeating himself and how he has been trying to get his sci-fi mojo back, but really Scott is more of a production man. He always boast about how many commercials he made before making movies for some reason. And in a round table he denies any hardship or any type of issue on any movie he ever made. Telling other directors at the table "I know exactly what I want".. "I'm always on time and under budget" "blah blah..." ALways underscoring the production side of things - how effective he is - never the creativity, story or his thought process. A 'get the project done' man than a story teller. The behind the scenes documentary for Raised By Wolves is very revealing. You can see how he operates. Like a King he simply vets every aspect of the production as staff bring him ideas and concepts he just scribbles some changes. Never really coming up with anything himself but never really accepting anything anyone gives him unaltered. It all looks very lazy, boring and matter fact way of making a movie. There is a sterility to the whole ordeal and you can see he surrounds himself with yes-people.
I’m sure his soldiers hardly ever talked about it the rest of their lives, and if they did, probably very little. Some things that happen in life are almost impossible to talk about because you’ll burst out in tears uncontrollably. That’s how powerful war is.
The real shame is that a veteran director couldn't prove everyone wrong. Everyone said that it was too ambitious and it'd either miss a lot out or be too quick to really understand. I hoped Scott would prove us all wrong but it turned out exactly how everyone expected
Exactly. It's so frustrating. If anyone could do it, it was Scott. Since he failed, I've lost all hope in ever seeing Napoleon's whole story accurately depicted in live action cinema.
Damn I would have loved to have seen Kubrick's version of Napoleon supposedly it was based around his early years and rise to power and would have had a young Jack Nicholson in the role. But cause Rod Steiger's Waterloo flopped (a great film too) Warner Bros wouldn't fund it. Knowing how Kubrick was about detail and getting things, and if you saw Barry Lydon. It would have been someting else.
Napoleon is not just a man, but a entire era. Modern Europe is the result of this singular man. His battles are still studied with Austerlitz, his greatest triumph, treated as a masterclass in warfare. Waterloo as a movie worked because it focused just on the battle and the men involved. This movie can’t cope with a historical figure that stands as a giant even now.
"Modern Europe is the result of this singular man" I'm not sure if you should put in it in such grand phrases. The whole Napoleonic era is full of impactful and interesting characters. You could say Napoleon is the key to all of the giant transformations between 1789 and 1815, but not the single cause of modern Europe.
For those disappointed with the latest Napoleon movie, might I suggest people give the Russian four-part adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's War & Peace by Sergei Bundarchuk a chance. If you truly want to see the scale and scope of 1800's battlefields brought to life then these films are a must watch.
That or Austerlitz, from what I recall that was a pretty darn good movie, or the 2002 Napoleon, which is an actual mini series, the least this character deserve. Covers his life from 1795 to 1821, 360minutes of goodness. Also it pissed off the Italians so it must be good XD
In Austria, 1805 Napoleon was preparing to lead his French Imperial Forces into battle. This event was witnessed by the Wyld Stallyns; Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Theodore "Ted" Logan.
I think the problems at this movie's core are perfectly exemplified in how they simplify the geopolitics underpinning the Coalition Wars. The film never really addresses WHY Europe was so determined to pacify post-revolution France in general and Napoleon specifically. The aim was always to reinstate the Bourbon monarchy and thereby regain a much more coalition/establishment-friendly kingdom in the heart of Europe, but the movie makes it seem like Napoleon was just throwing his weight around and was always the aggressor. Now, that doesn't make him a radical freedom fighter sticking it to the status quo; he was still a dictator and an autocrat in many areas, but it does speak to the complexity of the period that Napoleon the film barely hints at.
Just a movie made by an english dude from english pov for english dudes (bonus for the US, if you mock french history figure as famous as Napoléon you know it's gonna work). And from the history pov that english dudes have been saying about Napoléon since he fought them.
@@strangerlucky5753 So the 'English POV' is lame woke nonsense centred around a 'strong independent sassy woman' what planet are you on? English viewers will be just as disappointed as everyone else to see this nonsense, especially those of us who know our history and know what an amazing fighting force 'Le Grande Army' was
Dude, it's a 2 and half hour movie. He should've made it 4 hours with an intermission and charged $40. People still went to see Lawrence of Arabia, still do, as many movies with intermissions, but he decided to chop it down to a short film knowing people don't have the patience and that cinemas need to make money by cramming more shows in per day. Even Oppenheimer was 3 hours plus and people sat through that, so I don't get why he just didn't expand it and put it all in
Napoleon's life needs to be told in at least 3 movies. He literally fought all of the Europe 5 times and won. The only way to beat him was to keep running away until his army got beat by the elements and lack of supplies. This movie couldn't be made today because it would show a masculine charismatic leader and thats not allowed in todays media.
@@leedaniels1468 Something. And the 200,000 Austrians waiting and the 200 Russians waiting after that if he beat Wellington. 1815 was a forlorn hope, somebody was going to take him out. Nappy had taught the other nations of Europe how to match his army and the leadership.
I agree but not only forces of nature. Napoleon's ego got the better of him. The Russian command wanted him to drag himself into Russia. It was a slow ticking bomb that he did not foresee despite his commanding genius. The whole affair was a genius trap that Napoleon fell into. Everyone talks about Napoleon's genius, but no one really talks about the genius way his 500,000 Grande armee was reduced to almost nothing.
You nailed it Drinker!! My wife and I saw the movie and we both agreed that the movie needed to cut out a lot of the love story and focus more on his political and military history. As a whole, we felt the movie missed a huge opportunity to become something bigger
Rod Steiger's performance as Napoleon is incredible. Waterloo should have been what Ridley used as source material. Narrow scope, great dialogue, historical accuracy.
Yes it is - from the opening scene when his generals come to see him at Fountainbleu and he’s just standing there by the palace window - that stance , his whole manner 👌
Because Napoleon’s reviews were so abysmal, I ended up watching “The Holdovers” with my friend instead thinking nothing of it. In my eyes, it was one of the most emotionally intimate and clever movies I’ve seen in a while. (I do have a few minor criticisms here and there, but by in large, the movie was a masterpiece.)
I very much want to watch The Holdovers before the Oscars but because of geographical restrictions on prime video, have been forced to *cough* sail some high seas. F*** you, Amazon. Really.
My favorite shot in the movie was the cannon ball shot straight into The Great Pyramid of Giza. A total F-You to the historical accuracy of Napolean's history. Pretty much summed up the regard Scott had for the source material.
@@gunsalmighty3099 to be fair, Kingdom os Heaven wasn't very accurate either. But it was a GOOD movie. like Braveheart or Last Samurai, people can love your movie while still knowing it's inaccurate. The problem is, napoleon is an awful movie, right down to the philosophical core of nihilism and hopelessness.
@@luxinvictus9018 The difference is the records of the Crusades are far fewer than those of the 18th/19th centuries. Kingdom of Heaven, which I consider a masterpiece, although flawed, could take some creative liberties and still retain a level of authenticity. Napoleon's life and times on the other hand are so well recorded, it would take an entire board of historians to work as advisers to any director so every detail of daily life could be recreated. All in all, Ridley Scott ate more than he could chew and most importantly, didn't give a shit. Considering that he's 86, I can only assume his Napoleon was made for his own sense of vain glory more than anything else.
I agree and I thought Joaquim Phoenix was all wrong. I am not a big fan of his but the man can act. I didn't like this movie that was missing direction I think. I was not really entertained with this one...@@luxinvictus9018
dude, they ignore EVERYTHING...I mean...everything..there is not even a incling of his military genius...he almost literally fought effectively 6 world wars, and won all but the last, even at the end, after his retreat from moscow, he reformed an army and STILL Beat the coallition and they sued for a ceasefire for a period of time then attacked him. They were so incapable of beating him that they split into about 5 much larger armies than he had with instructions to reat from any force led by Napoleon himself to race to Paris where his generals forced him to abdicate. They simply could not touch him on the battle field...ironically the smaller his army was, the more terrifyingly effeciently he beat them.
Or, you know, Egyptian conquest? Like, how tf do you even remotely expect to be taken seriously if you insist on turning Napoleon into a whining simp because Josephine? FFS anyhow with these narcissistic nutjobs and their ‘vision’ that I’m sure Hollywood will trip over themselves in congratulatory flatulence.
If anyone is wondering, there is an EXCELLENT mini series called Napoleon from 2002. It stars Christian Clavier, John Malkovich, and Gérard Depardieu. I first saw it in school YEARS ago, but I loved it so much that I picked up the DVD set. Worth the watch if you have the time!
The fact that Marshal Ney's brave stand against the Russian ambush while the 40,000 man French Army was evacuating Russia where Ney ordered his surviving men under his command to cross the bridge before him wasn't featured in the film should tell you a lot about the vision of the project; or lack thereof. Ney risked his life to and put his men's lives above his as the Russian horde picked apart a fleeting French force who was literally fleeing the battle before it even began. Marshal Ney is one of the most interesting officers under Napoleon's command and should be a key character in any film or series about Napoleon. As should many of the other officers and soldiers. It's weird and sad that a competent director like Scott, known for epics like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven wanted so badly to tell a cringy love story about one of the greatest military commanders in human history. Like why? Who asked for that? Show me his campaign to Moscow. Show me the entirety of Austerlitz. Show me the entirety of fucking Waterloo at least!
"Russian horde" 😂😆 Your "brave" Frenchmen were at that point worse than horde, a mob of desperate beasts fighting over piece of bread and running over each other. Ney did not save anything, he simply fled faster than others not so fortunate to have fresh horses.
@@aleksazunjic9672 That is true. There were many essentially decimated French units in the retreat that formed a disorderly unitless group in the crossing of the Berezina River. However, what is always neglected is that more of Napoleon's army died in the summer they were marching into Russia (heat stroke, dysentery, Cossack raids, etc.) than in the entirety of the winter retreat.
@@magistrate3343 I do agree, but there is one more "mechanism of death" which is rarely mentioned. Being WIA in those days was often death sentence, as the wounds would get infected, hygiene was poorly understood, and hospitals were generally crowded especially for enlisted men. Thus, many soldiers on both sides died after Smolensk and especially Borodino. Btw, main French army that went towards Moscow with Napoleon was around 300 000, rest went North and South. In fact, these auxiliary troops made a bulk of French forces at Berezina.
Napoleon ordering his army to fire cannons at the Pyramids would be like Bob Ross starting forest fires. Napoleon was engrossed by Ancient Egypt, his Grand Army discovered the Rosetta stone and gave birth to Egyptology.
Think of it, soldiers; from the summit of these pyramids, forty centuries look down upon you. It [the Channel] is a mere ditch, and will be crossed as soon as someone has the courage to attempt it.
Scott sort of tried to bring across Napoleon's interest in Ancient Egypt with the mummy scene, but it came off more as comedy - perhaps because Phoenix didn't know what to do with it.
@@parkmallbaby the sphinx was mutilated by radical early christians who ravaged the pagan monuments and statues of the ancient world in large violent mobs.
My biggest pet peeve with this movie is his wife Josephine is supposed to be 10 years older than him but instead, they got an old actor to play Napoleon while his wife is 10 years younger who is 20 years younger then the actual Josephine is supposed to be.
I went to see it on the premier day BY MYSELF cause I was so convinced it was going to be the historical epic of the decade. What I got was a rom-com that had like 20 mins of politics/warfare. It wasnt a bad movie but it’s definitely more similar to stuff like Bridgerton/Downton than a typical biopic
Same. I love history, and I was expecting to see how Napoleon had shaped the world. About halfway though I notice the direction the movie was taking, and I wanted to just leave.
Thanks TCD, again you've saved me 40 bux and 158mins of my life sitting through this one. As always, your observations and detailed analysis were well worth the listen, great work!
I read and liked "With Napoleon in Russia", the memoir of General Armand de Caulaincourt. It seems like that could make a solid film/miniseries as well.
It seems like Ridley really hates Napoleon tbh, the film glosses over many of his achievements while simultaneously embellishming or completely fabricating some bad stuff, ie Napoleon didn't marry a 15 year old and the Mob of civilians he fired into in the movie was aactually a partially armed militia where Napoleon got his horse shot out from under him in an hour long fire fight
I got that impression when Napoleon yells at the British Ambassador like a petulent little child about how the British are arrogant just because they have boats and the ambassador just smirks and comments on how Napoleon has no manners. Also, see how Arthur Wellesley is portrayed as a much cooler general at the battle of Waterloo at the end. I dunno, maybe I am reading to much into it and I never noticed Ridley Scott to be particularly patriotic but its almost as if he wanted to crap on Napoleon and show how much more awesome the British were.
@@Friendo1231 in the movie if your really paying attention you can decern it was Marie Louis he married the 18 year old he impregnated, but the way they cut the film was very deceptive and intended to trick the audience into thinking he married tsar Alexanders 15 year old sister.
@@Friendo1231 my bad on the girl he impregnated not being marie, but that tent scene had Napoleon saying the age was just a detail and Alexander not pressing the issue and then embracing with the very next scene Napoleon gets married to a woman he comments on how petit she is I think Ridley was trying to make it seem like that was the 15 year old sister of the tsar to paint Napoleon in as horrible a light as he could without outright lieing. My friend who watched the film with me took away that he married the 15 year old.
@@thesportsman3190 There was a scene in between where the French Minister is talking to the Austrian Ambassador and tells him that Napoleon wants to marry the Austrian Emperor daughter. Its when they speak German for two lines and the Ambassador asks "Are you fucking kidding me?"
@@wjzav1971 yes i think if your really paying attention and have a decent grasp on the true history then u would know it's not Alexanders sister, but I don't think the majority of the audience took it that way and I do believe it was intentional.
As a massive history buff, I was always very skeptical of this movie, I saw the runtime and was worried about Scott being able to cover his life in 2 and half hours, then I realized that Riddley Scott also directed 1492 conquest of paradise, it's about cristopher Columbus, the middle school version of him.
I find fact being FAR more interesting than fiction at times. The fact the director failed to understand that when it comes to Napoleon’s history is really sad.
It would have been better if they had ended the film at his crowning in 1804. No matter what they did, the film was sort of doomed by its scope. The compression of so much history into that little film means you have to abandon the history in favor of a simplified narrative.
@@Jim-Tuner- that’s just an excuse. Other historical epics have managed to cram a shit load more than this into 2.5 hours. Heck Kubrick crammed the Dawn and evolution of mankind into 2 hours. Fact is, it’s Ridley Scott and his inability to tell a coherent story. Unless he has very good script is put in front of him, he cannot handle it.
History is always far more interresting than any wet dream of some director. Not only that but Scott also made this movie basically on a note of his hate for French which can't really create anything good. I don't think Joaquin Phoenix was to blame for his weird performance. I believe that the material he had to work with was so confusing because Scott himself didn't really knew if he wants to mock France's biggest historical character or make epic movie.
Lol, I guess I too am disappointed that the movie has cast Napolean in such a manner. If the duke of Wellington or Churchill were dealt the same cards in a movie, many people would be saddened that these great characters were dumbed down and weirded out so much. I think Ridley Scott should try to stick to the truth when dealing with Icons of the past.
It's absolutely crazy that the same man who made The Duelists made this Napoleon movie. The Duelists had such an eye for accuracy, and Napoleon, well......not so much.
i have a feeling because its done intentionally the movie tried to do the woke deconstruction thing without caring about accuracy because napolian is a white man in a position of power make no mistake this was not accidental same is focusing on the biased accounts of his wife
It's a great movie. Scott is so frustrating. For instance, watch his interviews when he did ALIEN...he lambasts lazy Hollywood tropes and productions...and then goes on to do that in his own ALIEN franchise 30+ years later. It's like watching him critique himself...
Read a profile of Ridley Scott that talked about how he cut his teeth making commercials, where he developed a reputation as a genius. He didn't start making feature films until he was 40. I think this really explains why all his films, from great to okay to bad, are beautiful to look at and listen to. He knows how to create memorable moments: the scene where Napoleon has to stand on a box to look the mummy in the eye is better than the whole movie. But yeah, this was a miss for me too. Sir Ridley seemed more interested in the battle sequences than the story and characters, but without story and characters, spectacle gets boring fast.
Thank you for your refreshingly honest and accurate review. When I think of historical figures like Napolean, Mozart, I think of Polanski as a winning cinematic candidate. I admit in advance that Roman Polanski may be a touch too old to underake such an epic film as Napoleon. Moreover, his latest film, The Palace, was a monumental disappointment. However, if we put that aside, and if we can focus on filmmaking and not his personal foibles, I believe there is something meticulous and assured in Roman's direction that prompts me to think he would have been ideal making an epic film of this kind- in French, and with more depth and cinematic aplomb. Think of Polanski's Macbeth, The Pianist, An Officer and a Spy, Chinatown. Kubrick regarded him as an exemplary technician, which he was. Again, he is possibly too old to undertake such a lofty and ambitious film, but Roman's craftsmanship and Swiss-watch-like obsession with nuance and detail would have served this material well. Just an observation based on style and previous works.
I can only imagine how good this would have been as a HBO style series. Played correctly it could have well challenged game of thrones in sheer awesomeness!
You introduced me to Arcane, and are now my favourite reviewer. You consistently give me a good idea of what I am likely to enjoy or dislike, and are much more reliable than the more established reviewers. Thank you very much. Napoleon was one I was really looking forward to, and I will probably still see it, but I won’t get my hopes up too much. I miss historical epics.
I’ve been digesting an ongoing podcast; The Age of Napoleon for the last 5 years. 1 hour episodes are released monthly and Its epic, well researched and entertaining. A one and done movie on this man and time period is an impossibility with expected results.
I’ve always been of the opinion that Napoleon’s story should have been a tv series. It’s an incredibly fascinating life and downfall that has its many ups and its many downs. You can’t tell that in three hours. You need like ten, twelve or even more than that.
2:21 - *laughs in 1970 Waterloo* which recreated battlefield in modern day Ukraine and put some 20+ thousand troops of Red Army through 8 months of training. Recreated paintings ( Scott's Grays charge) and dialogues were based on historical references and personalities as possible. And that's why this movie looks like discount GoT and Waterloo looks like professionally executed and filmed reconstruction.
@@lukeskywalker6809 Agreed if I had made as many great films as Ridley Scott I'd be terrified of embarrassing myself and making people think I lost my touch
I was a SA in this (extra if you will) playing one of the many French soldiers. Quite an experience, 2 months of 3am starts and late finishes. But I have to say Ridley's approach to filming battles really was something to behold. 7 cameras, some handheld, some on cranes, drones, some mounted on cars. The battles really came out amazing in my opinion and I'm glad I was a part of of it (just wish the food was a bit better, but OK) ;)
The battle scenes were spectacular and my favourite parts of the film. As for the food was it not Napoleon himself who said an army marches on it's belly?
@@jeremysmith7175Not sure who said it, but Napoleon usually won by not marching with the army's rations. He instead made his men scavenge food nearby. This way he moved much faster than his enemies and managed to suprise them again and again.
1977 Ridley Scott's feature film directorial debut, The Duellists is a Napoleonic era film that's very entertaining and best watched with a bottle of Cognac, and fine cigars.
Napoleon needs an entire miniseries, like John Adams did. He had an entire era named after him, you need to narrow your focus signifocantly. Waterloo alone had an entire film devoted to it.
Since you mentioned it, the John Adams miniseries was very good.
Did you know that Spielberg is currently adapting Kubrick's Napoleon script into a miniseries? Hopefully that should be better.
An almost three hour, historically accurate movie of awesomeness. Starring Sheriff Gillespie. 😊
THE JOHN ADAMS MINISERIES WAS SO GOOD OMG!
I would have much rather had a miniseries on Napoleon rather than this bloated mess.
The problem is you kind of require a miniseries of the French revolution to enjoy the insanity of napoleonic politics
We should give the promotional team for this movie a lot of props for managing to make a trailer that makes the footage from a poorly written character drama about Napoleon’s relationship with his wife look like a historical epic about Napoleon Bonaparte.
Hollywood should really have a bait & switch award category...Or even a whole show where they can pat each other on the rump for it.
I'm pretty sure the era inappropriate music they played in those trailer should have clued a lot of people in for what was coming.
Trailer makers certainly have a lot of practice with that by now! Like for the Kenobi show, when the trailer focused on young Luke. It turned out they'd used his entire appearance in the show until the last ep, lol. Weird how the studios apparently know exactly what audiences want but give them something completely different, hunh.
Between this and Barbie, we really did get hoodwinked by trailers this year.
Yes.. CD got this review spot on.. The movie should have been a drama - Josphine and Napoleon. He was a great military strategic and tactical commander, with many of those practiced in military docture today.. But this shows a weak man in a drama
The best analogy I heard about this movie: "It's like if they said they made a Beatles movie, but you find out 90% is about Lennon and Yoko."
Except John Lennon is only 25% of The Beatles while Napoleon is 100% of Napoleon Bonaparte
@@iangooda4634 more like 60% Napoleon and 40% Josephine
@@iangooda4634 Not really. Napoleon was not the only brillant general of the French Revolution. But try to know about them through Scott's movie...
@@mecha-sheep7674 he pretty much was. The italian campaign most likely would've failed miserably if he hadn't taken over.
I think its not a fully good analogy, as a movie about the Beatles would be about four different individuals, whereas Napoleon is about just the man. I think it'd be better to say "a movie about John Lennon, but 90% is about him and Yoko."
Napoleon rolled Europe for 20 years. There's no way you can put his entire life in a two hour movie. Especially somebody so complex as Napoleon.
Especially when half the film is featuring his irrelevant squeeze.
I get why they included his relationship to humanize him, but if you're going to have only a 3 hour film you have to cut that out. There's no way to include an interesting romance and 30 years of world history.
The events leading up to Waterloo and the battle itself could be an epic TV miniseries.
Unless you make it a trilogy or more there’s no way you can cram all that into a 3 hour movie
Rolled.
Scott telling historians to "get a life" is self explanatory.
Maybe he watched Rachel Zegler's Snow White interview and thought "That's so cool!"
Napoleon is NOT a documentary, but a FICTION film inspired by real events. So yes, all those crybabies need to get a life.
@@SteveVdwIt's marketed and presented as a biography.
@@SteveVdw Unfortunately real people watch these movies and think it's NON-FICTION and so he has a real effect on the world.
@@SteveVdwtherein lies it's problem.
The French historian who is widely recognised as the best specialist of Napoleon I, the lovely Jean Tulard, who also happens to be a self-professed Ridley Scott fan, hated this film; he jokingly suggested Scott must be getting on a bit, at his age (Tulard himself is 89 old) but he was also very serious about his reasons to dislike Scott's latest work.
Tulard pointed out to the fact that from a historical perspective, Napoléon Bonaparte has to be separated into two distinct entities: the young, hungry, ambitious consul Buonaparte ('Boney', as the English infamously nicknamed him), and the Emperor-what power made of him. Both are fascinating men in their own right, but they would require two very different movies. Not to mention, these are very complex moments in French history we're dealing with and the details are so potently interesting that one wonders how Scott managed to miss all of them out in favour of a much more ordinary story.
As for Napoléon's great love for his first wife Joséphine, which was elected as the focus point of the film... The idea that Boney's passion for her, although undeniable and well documented (seriously. Their correspondence is abundant and _raunchy_), somehow hindered his formidable tactical spirits is laughable, at best. Bonaparte was a political beast, a master of military strategy, and quite the ruthless, driven creature. His love also waned as he came to realise that his wife could not give him an heir, and he repudiated her remorselessly enough.
By the way, Ridley Scott cast Joséphine as an actress FIFTEEN YEARS YOUNGER than lead Joaquin Phoenix, which is rather frustrating for the historian considering the real Joséphine de Beauharnais was SIX YEARS OLDER than her brand new husband-whom she married out of marital strategy and ended up loving in time (their affections mirrored, since she grew fonder of him as his own passion dwindled)-who had been with only one woman beforehand, a prostitute; whereas Joséphine was the widow to one of France's most raging libertines, the marquis Alexandre de Beauharnais, who died under the guillotine, a man said to have inspired Laclos the character of Valmont in _The Dangerous Liaisons...!_
(And the puzzling choice to have Joaquin Phoenix play with this stony, witless face all along when Bonaparte was renown by all to be an extremely animated, passionate, charismatic man... I don't know if it's French bashing but it certainly beats history to a pulp.)
Brilliant observation. You should have your own channel focused on all these "historical" movies because the sheep actually do believe they are learning history from the movies like this.
Excellent points!
When I saw the cannons firing on the pyramids I knew the movie wasn't worth seeing.
It never happened.
Ridley Scott should have just called it "Napolean Dynamite II".
If he cast some old hag, the movie would lose its last shred of allure.
Where in the movie did you find them suggesting Josephine was "hindering Napoleon's formidable tactical spirits"? The only moment that even touched on that was when he heard of Josephine cheating. Even then it clearly wasn't suggested that she is holding him back in any way it was simply rushed to move on from the Egypt invasion and get Bonaparte back in France to keep the plot going. Do not mistake me i think you make some great points and i do think the movie is highly flawed. It suffers from being rushed and especially lacking when it comes to how it builds the story because the passing of time is horrendous. Considering how little effort they put into showing Napoleons or any other characters age or development mixed with the movie just making sudden cuts that could go from just weeks later or to years later it was hard to keep track. Especially for my friend i watched it with who was no already familiar with Napoleons history. I could at least guess pretty quickly where we jumped to based on the events.
Imagine a 4 season Napoleon show on HBO shot over 8 years. Cast a guy in his early 30s and make him look slightly younger at the beginning, and by the end make him look slightly older and he can very easily portray Napoleon's aging process
Naaaah that would actually make HBO earn money and more customers, that's not what they do!
Napoleon should be black and the series should discuss the ethical dilemma of Napoli being black back then!
@@Mizra-dq3lj dude you've struck a goldmine there! then they could do a crossover with the african queens of egypt from netflix
sign me up.
In the style of HBO's Rome but with actual battle scenes rather than the cuts that series had to make. That show would make so much money
@@Mizra-dq3ljFINALLY someone understands. We need a 400 pound black female Napoleon series that follows napoleon’s story as she along with her team of culturally diverse 500 pound strong independent people fight off Britain…
lol
"Napolean is more of a victim of its own ambitions, weighed down by the sheer scale of what it was trying to accomplish"
The duality of this sentence is quite lovely.
Yet it did a great job of showing us who he was, a psychopath that cost millions of people their lives.
Clever, I wonder if that was intended by the narrator
@@singular9the others were you he same, do you think that Alexander or emperor Francis care about their people? At least his armies brought reforms where they conquered and forced their feudal enemies to reform.
@@singular9 While doing a horrible a job as to the reasons why he did it. Which is perfectly highlighted by your comment.
I'll take a movie that bites off more than it can chew over a safe film any day of the week, even if the movie is ultimately a failure.
I think Rod Steiger will always have the best one in 1970's "Waterloo". Despite it being over 50 years old, the damn near perfect historical accuracy and practical effects, including copious use of live extras, just makes the film.
You should've seen the one in War & Peace.
@@ilyasharin1976 plan too
I've never been much of a fan of Steiger, but he certainly was Tour de Force in Waterloo. Christopher Plummer was also excellent as Wellington...Damn, now i must see that movie again and maybe even Sharpe's Waterloo as a bonus.
@@seandeville6994 "Don't hurry yourself, Pic. My lads will hold them, aye, 'til you come." 😉
The production was so epic it could never be redone today.
Just saw the movie and I didn't see Napoleon on the screen, I just saw Joaquin Phoenix. It's not just because he was too old and didn't look like him. Ciarán Hinds didn't look like Caesar in HBO Rome, but I still saw Caesar because he did such a fantastic job in his performance.
Phoenix isn’t an actor anymore, he plays “mopey, depressed, loner” in all his movies now to the point that it’s clear he’s doing The Rock’s routine of appearing in movies rather than playing characters in them.
@@Longshanks1690exactly, I think the same can be also said about Johnny Depp since the Pirates
He basically plays himself in every movie. That worked in joker, not in Napoleon.
Hinds is a cracking actor.
@@wienczysawwiaderko6204 Nah, he's playing Keith Richards. Which is fine, but yes he's playing the same persona, over and over again.
The ENTIER Italian campaign is not even mentionned ONCE in this movie. The most important event in Napoleon's life after the Russian campaign and Waterloo, and it is not ever even IMPLIED that Napoleon went to Italy. In fact the Italian campaign is probably the most formative years of his life, that basically shaped all of his skills and life view and brought him to the international spotlight. NOT a single word.
You might have missed it but he did briefly mention he conquered Italy and brushed it off as a practical surrender from them lol
@@asharcher7792Which It wasn't, so the joke's on him.
@@asharcher7792 they literally narrated 'no conflict in Italy', me and some people all in a history major watching this laughed out loud. Utterly ridiculous. Perhaps u can argue it was sarchastic but considering the rest of the screenplay it seems like they were just lazy, even when Napoleon's career in Italy was far more well-known and iconic than Egypt for many people
Ridley Scott should've cast a young actor and made a movie to pick up where Abel Gance's Napoleon (1927) stops, picking up the Italian and Egyptian campaigns and ending with the Consulate. To take up the gauntlet where Gance dropped it almost a hundred years ago would have been a noble ambition, and would have allowed an intricate and inspiring epic--if he had really wanted to make one (and had someone to write it for him).
They needed more time for the goat like sex scenes
This was the first time in my dads 52 years of life that he walked out of a movie halfway through. He has a history degree and he essentially called it a mockery of napoleons life and French History. He even tried to give it another chance but then the food fight scene between napoleon and Josephine came on and he couldn’t take it.
So you're on a public forum exposing your dad can't control his tender feelings during a Hollywood movie? It's not a documentary professor. Pathetic people
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🫛🧠🤡
How dare you! Destiny has brought him that lamb chop.
Uk propaganda viewpoint, thats why it was so incorrect. Love or hate him, the man was genius. This movie was basically a cup of pamflet tea.
@@axelhens7831 propaganda? It's a Hollywood movie. Do you use Hollywood movies as learning tools?
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@robertstevens3522on a sidenote; Hollywood was the most proeficient propaganda tool during WW2. So it’s not far fetch to call this movie propaganda (i don’t believe it to be the case for this one, but the anglo-saxon point of view, really seems to shine through this depiction of the character; and it is inappropriate and displeasing)
But no, nobody watches these movies to learn about history. However there should be a threshold to respect when you are making a movie about such an important historical figure (and a recent one at that; it’s not like making a movie about Julius Caesar, where some liberties could be taken on some obscure aspect of the character). And even tho it shouldn’t be a documentary (recreating battles exactly like they unfolded: formations, time frames etc); you can’t just butcher the historic facts, especially if it’s not even really needed for the sake of your movie, like here)
I have studied Napoleon for decades and assumed this would be a trilogy at the least. You could easily make 10 films on each stage of Napoleon. The Man changed the world forever...Twice and that's not even delving into his personal life. You could make 3 films on his military strategies alone, which are still used today with modern militaries.
He alone was said to be worth 50000 men on the battlefield (according to his enemy).
Historically this movie is an abomination, and not just about Napoleon's personality (which they completely misrepresented), just look at the battles : Mel Gibson's "Patriot" almost looks like a documentary compared to this garbage 😁
But even history aside, it's a bad, illogical, boring movie with terrible pace, questionable cinematography, and even acting is mediocre.
Can I ask in a purely curious spirit, what makes you say that Napoleon changed the world twice? Not gonna pretend that I am an expert, but would like to know a bit more.
As someone who's studied Napoleon for so long, can you reccomend any books about him as a starting point? I'd love to learn more and there's a lot of options out there 😅
My first reaction was similar. So, the Hobbit gets 3 full movies...?
Try 'Napoleon The Great'.....a superb well written and honest biography.@@jenaquinthejester4156
Ridley Scott admitted that he refused historians advice on the project, thinking he could capture the scale of Napoleons historic significance himself by looking at a Wikipedia page. But like all men filled with hubris, he failed.
Where’d you hear that?
@@historicalairsofter1226 The Times article: "Ridley Scott: I didn’t need historians to make my Napoleon epic"
And we all know that one of the major reasons for Napoleon's downfall was his own hubris and overconfidence. 🤔 As Alliance Morissette would say: Isn't it ironic?🫠
@@NastyCupidWhen does he mention Wikipedia?
@@Iobsterpeterson He doesn't, but when you've watched the movie, the historical part of the movie feels like a Wikipedia summary
Imagine making one movie about the two world wars and everything in between. You would get something like this.
Saving Private Ryan was about D-day and one mission of one squad. Band of Brothers was 10 episodes about one company.
Its more akin to Pearl Harbor
@@Labyrinth6000I like pearl harbor but I just don't look at it as a historical piece
I can probably imagine what this movie would look like. Almost 40 minutes of World War I, followed by 50 minutes of the Roaring Twenties (with 10 minutes being about the invention of talking pictures and all the movie musicals that came out at the end of the decade and the begining of the next one), followed by an hour of the stock market crash and the Great Depression, followed by almost 40 minutes of World War II, and then more than half an hour of the 1950's. Maybe the movie would use hundreds of songs from each time period too. The movie wouldn't be about just one person, because then it'll be a movie about the life of someone during this period of time, which would probably make people enjoy it. The movie would most likely be about multible people and events of the early 20th century, so it would look like if multible movies and shows that take place in these decades were put together and then crushed into a single movie where every scene is much shorter than it should be, but too long for the young people who are addicted to those sideways-filmed short videos.
A movie about the entire political career of Mussolini would cover that exact time span.
I think my brother put it pretty well when he said: “This feels like a parody of Napoleon”
It’s hard to argue with that idea considering that some parts of the movie felt as if they were mocking Napoleon
Without knowing what piece of shit created the movie, while watching it I just knew it was made by a British person that hates napoleon. I was spot on
Yes I thought that at times, it reminded me of 'The Time Bandits' with Ian Holm doing an awful Italian accent saying "I like, liddlee peeeple".
Agree totally
A British director making a film about a famed French warlord that had both countries hate each other for centuries seems odd tbh.
You can’t condense Napoleon’s life into 3 hours. He need a TV show that’s 10 seasons long
Henri Guillemin did a good job in 6 hours
There's a VERY GOOD french mini-series from the early 2000s
@@Enriqueguiones whats the name and is it on youtube ?
Especially when your josephine fan fiction film is trying to denigrate Napoleon to make Josephine look like a girlboss.
Well, director's cut will be 4 hours.
Napoleon was such an interesting microcosm in history. A person who shouldn't have been able to make a mark on history, according to the rules of society. Yet he defines an entire era of Europe.
Quite . The "Great Man" theory of history is very unfashionable these days, but Napoleon is the kind of figure that makes it really hard to argue that sometimes one individual really does shape their whole era.
And changed the world
@@incurableromantic4006History is full of Great Men defining eras. Napoleon. Caesar. Alexander. Nobunaga. Sargon. Genghis Khan. Cyrus. The list goes on and on.
So here's the problem with still thinking this is Great Man history. Yes, Napoleon was amazing.
BUT, a very big REASON Napoleon was amazing was because his society went from being a stuffy, absolute monarchist, classist, aristocracy to a raucous revolutionary republic positively BURSTING with new ideas and new ways of thinking. The French Republic basically leapt forward an entire era in their Social tech-tree.
Le Grande Armee was an entire generation of modern, professional, *ambitious* young men who for the first time in their entire family's history were given an opportunity to be more.
Why couldn't he make a mark on history? France was a mess after the French Revolution and there was a huge power vacuum after Louis XV's execution (may God rest his soul)
The scene where he said "I am the Senate", did a flip and threw Mace Windu out of the windows of Versailles was true cinema.
I love how Napoleon went crazy in Russia and tried murdering Josephine with an axe while chasing her around the Overlook Hotel. Here's Corsica!!!!!!!
And when he rode to the front of the formation, drew his Saber, and charged the enemy, shouting, "IT'S MORBIN TIME!!!"
Lol beautiful. I can't wait to see more from this section.
I really like how he shot a cannon at the Pyramids at Gisa and knocked the nose off the sphinx! That is the most historical history to ever be told!
Oh! Wait...
That is actually in the movie!
_Awkward_
I thought it was pretty bigoted to have Napoleon played by anyone but an asian quadraplegic
When Ridley Scott makes a film, God flips a coin.
Not this time, he just took a crap on the film industry.
and for the last 20 years at least, it's always come up tails.
😂
Oppenheimer proved you could make a dense, dialogue heavy, epic, historically accurate movie entertaining and commercially successful. Scott's lack of care and attention and inability to listen to reason (like the historians pointing out inaccuracies) means he does an injustice not just to the character but also his own reputation as a filmmaker.
@robbo_96 napoleon will be successful commercially I'm sure. Oppenheimer was pretty bad TBH and not very entertaining. it isn't really talked about in a way that good movies are. it came and went and drew most of its popularity from barbenheimer. the dense, dialogue heavy, accurate oppenheimer sucked tbh.
would've been way cooler if they went more into the science of it, even if they portrayed it with a sense of mysticism.
I haven't seen napoleon and now I'm dreading doing so, however.
He ruined his reputation with Prometheus. Actually, long before that, with his nonsensical Blade Runner director's cut. Gladiator was amazing, though.
Fairly or not, I gave up on Ridley after Prometheus. QT was tight, Tony is the better director.
@@SamHell-wr8bi Really? I always thought the directors cut was way better than the original. Those awful Harrison Ford voiceovers were much better off being axed for starters.
Have you seen Prometheus & Alien Covenant? Without a solid script, Scott is lost.
My biggest issue is how wrong they got most of the history in the film.
His argument always is "how do you know you wernt there"
But these events are soooo well documented that everything that is wrong is too easy to call out especially waterloo at the end of the film.
Not to mention after that the writing itself
That's because his comment is fully from arrogance and hubris; a director who thinks he knows everything he needs to know, that his shit can't stink, and does not tolerate criticism. I'm thinking this portrayal of Napoleon was Ridley Scott projecting...
@lamploughd Austerlitz is also completely opposite of what happened ;-)
@@lawrencee1113 a platitude is not a substitute for fact.
its the same line afrocentrists like those who made cleopatra would use. "how do you know you werent there" well we know from archaeology and historiography.
@@lawrencee1113 That's the fascinating thing about the historians' job: To analyze the sources and their times and creators in order to know. Yes, there are limits to that, but the more parallel sources you have, the better you can do that. Which also means the closer a time period is to our own time, the less freedom you have in historical fiction. Napoleon certainly isn't the best suited topic for a "who knows, really" attitude IMHO. Sadly, it's a rare art to explore the gaps and current academic disputes and fill in your interpretation there while staying true to what is currently regarded as established. Whoever doesn't even try this isn't creating high-standard historical fiction in my personal opinion but some sort of parallel reality fantasy - and should call it by that name, then it could actually be appealing. Otherwise, it's just an utter lack of care and effort and sheer laziness, which destroys all respect. If someone can't be bothered to dive deep into historical research to mold it into an appealing piece of historical fiction, they should just stick with contemporary stuff or transfer the historical topics, themes and events they like to a proper fantasy setup (which isn't a bad thing IMO, good, verisimilar fantasy is great). Just my two cents.
The mere idea of condensing the whole adult life of Napoleon in 160 minutes was in and of itself insane.
you might say this is Ridley's Waterloo.
maybe.
@@plumbthumbs9584 Ridley Scott's films have been on a decline for years anyway.
yea, i had my doubts; but i was still hopeful, because i wanted this to be SO good. if they'd done this the way they done the remake of "war and peace" it'd been much better. 2 hours just isn't enough for this man.
There's a 4 hour cut
MAN HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS.
Napoleon one of the most badass Generals to grace the Earth in the last 500 years deserves FAR MORE respect, in portraying him on film.
Yea, sure, ask the millions who died if he deserves respect
@@uthredragnarson7863they don't mind, child
@@uthredragnarson7863 they are dead who cares
500yrs? He was the best since at least Julius Ceasar
It’s Hollywood. (((They))) will never make a great European leader look strong.
When my Dad and I walked out of the theater, he said "I think it would've been more accurate if they had instead called it 'Napoleon & Josephine'. Would've saved me the money I spent on our tickets"
There was already a TV miniseries called *Napoleon and Josephine* in the 1980s.
Damn he's funny and have good tastes in movies i think.
(The french version years ago is better, but less budget obviously and less BS)
100%. I thought it was a going to be a historical epic. Not a historical fiction psychotic romance
Yes and the relation isnt accurate Napoléon dont give à fuck about this woman.
We didn't even finish it, walked out after an hour with the EXACT same sentiment ☹️
I’ll say what I said to my girl when we were leaving the movie theater. Some historical figures you could make a short film about and cover everything important in it. For someone like Napoleon, who had such an eventful life, you would need at least something like a show that lasted at least 5 or 6 full seasons. To someone like me, who loves history and is fascinated by Napoleon’s story, anything less would feel silly. He just had too many interesting things happen to him to leave them out. I promise, you may not even like history, but you could love a 5 or 6 season Napoleon show. His life was just that incredible.
But be honest: would you have liked 5-6 seasons of this kind of nonsense?
5-6 seasons of vulgar s3x scenes, and Napoleon whining his way through a bleak, nihilistic world with absolutely no purpose and message other than how terrible and tragic life is?
Hollywood would make a 10 season show about things and they'd still be bad. They haven't just lost the art of story telling, they've lost the ability to say anything meaningful at all.
They wouldn't even give us a proper romance. Not even a single scene that was inspiring or uplifting or hard hitting. Not a single scene where characters share a moment of genuine emotional connection. It's like the p3dos in Hollywood don't even know how to represent intimacy or even friendship anymore.
Sounds like you mansplained her. Please check yourself into your nearest reeducation camp.
@@luxinvictus9018
*"or even friendship"*
Description unclear, inserted gay romance instead.
@@luxinvictus9018 Very good point.
"Said to my girl..." - sure buddy. It's time to take some pills.
“They think they are great because they have boats”. Terrific writing. ✍️
I really didn't get that scene. Why is Napoleon, a smart and compossed military and political genius suddenly acting like a petulent child in front of an ambassador.
@@wjzav1971the only time i remember that was close to childish attitude is when he threw his hat after meeting metternich.
Even so, that rage was understandable than that one line.
It really wasn't. That was one of the many cringe moments in this film.
@@Cerbera82I think you missed the sarcasm.
@@wjzav1971 No-body knows.
Master and Commander remains my favourite military history film to date
Excellent movie, although I also have quite a few other favourites.
It's one of my favourites as well.
In 2002, the French made a 4-part 6-hours long TV miniseries about Napoleon's life. It's truly worth checking out. Much better than Ridley Scott's failed movie attempt.
What's the name?
Name please.
It’s called “Napoleon.” Try searching for it with using the main actors name, Christian Clavier.
It’s good but it suffers from a very low budget
@@SaintJust1214 Low compared to Ridley Scott’s film. It’s budget was $46m and it was the most expensive European miniseries to date at that time.
Imagine living a life so bold, diverse, and dynamic that it can't be captured in even a 3-hour mega-budget film.
Disney would've hired Samuel L. Jackson to play the part.
@@raypurchase801 dude you keep commenting this on every comments, calm down.
@@gauthierlagrange490 THIS IS TRUE! YOU CAUGHT ME!
Alternatively, there's the portrayal of Napoleon in the Bill and Ted movie.
Eating all the ice cream and loving the water slides.
@@raypurchase801Could I please have a ticket for Samuel L Jackson's Napoleon...? Er, asking for a friend.
@@todaythebirds Haha!
Cant lie, Ridley Scott has whiffed a lot since the mid 2000's
Why would you lie?
@@lonepoorboymusic4365He can’t
@@lonepoorboymusic4365he has a history of it.
THANK YOU. All these weenies up in here.... FML, dude hasn't made a good film in decades.
@@stillcantbesilencedevennowalthough I agree, he still made Martian, Matchstick Men, Black Hawk Down and American Gangster
I just watched it at the cinema tonight. Took a bit of a nap when all the Josephine divorce plot was unfolding. Bit later on a French character asked Napoleon if "this was a joke?" and I literally stuck my hand out into the air to gesture to all around if the entire movie was a joke? nice of them to give von Blücher a shout out during the Waterloo Battle scene wasn't it? Visuals were very good though.
Napoleon led one of the biggest lives ever. You could probably do a feature-length movie on every year of his life from the time he got sent to boarding school. Imagine a 3-hour movie focusing entirely on that time he quit the army and became a romance novel writer. Or another movie focusing entirely on his governing of Elba during his first exile. Or another movie where he sits in Moscow waiting for the Russians to send somebody over to surrender. Or nothing but one single major battle.
" Imagine a 3-hour movie focusing entirely on that time he quit the army and became a romance novel writer."
wait what?
@@georgetazberik6834tis true
@@georgetazberik6834That is just how eventful his life was
You are so right, even the last days on Elba would be a movie I would watch. Yeah, a series over several seasons would maybe do that historic figure justice.
Which is something like what Abel Gance wanted to do but his first film which covered up the late 1970's flopped and he never got to make the rest which is a shame as what we have is one of the great masterpieces of the Silent Era.
There are two fundamental problems with this movie.
The first is that it's not the movie we - or History Buffs to be specific- wanted it to be. We wanted to see the young, ambitious, cunning, intelligent, brilliant Corsican officer rise to become Emperor using his wits and talents.
We wanted to see his genius in planning battles and why his men followed him to the bitter end. We wanted to see the political climber who used lies and manipulation to claw his way to the top and stay there. We even wanted to see the Liberal reformer who made many compromises in realising his agenda for France. However, Scott wasn't interested in any of that. He wanted to tell a much more personal tale of Napoleon and Josephine, showing the world through their eyes and romance. An interesting angle but ok.
That then brings us into the second problem with the movie as it fails spectacularly at that too. Who is Napoleon? Who is Josephine? Why do they love each other? Why does she cheat on him and why can't he let her go? Why are they so obsessed with each other and what draws them to each other? I sure as hell can't tell you based on the text of the film. We're never given any of the details to help us understand who they are, why they're drawn together and why it's tragic when circumstances force them apart. We just don't understand or care about them as we're never given the time to as so much attention is spent on battles and the political moves of Napoleon which, again, also aren't very well developed so rather than being a deep dive into Napoleon is instead a jumbled, confused, unfocused mess.
And what's so frustrating is that all of the pieces are there! Phoenix and Kirby could have been great, the set pieces are spectacular, the movie in general looks gorgeous and with more time or a better script, could have been great.
Really, I think Josephine should have been the main character. Call it "The Emperor's Wife" or something and frame it through her eyes, so no battles or politics, just show how she viewed him on her own. That's the only way it could have worked.
Cos trying to do ALL this, and for a theatrical cut? It was as doomed for failure as invading Russia.
That’s actually such a genius idea. Seeing this story purely from Josephine’s perspective would have been much more focused and would have still succeeded in delivering an interesting portrayal of a part of Napoleon’s life that most people are less familiar with. What a missed opportunity.
Isn't there going to be a 5h directors cut later on? 🤞 Hopefully it fixes some of that
"interesting" not really. This is yet another attempt at pandering to the female audience (which does not give a flying about historical movies) and accomplishes meh
How do you make a movie about one of history's greatest generals and turn it this boring.. Ridley Scott seems to have lost his touch somewhat.
@@marcogenovesi8570 FR. Sorry to burst the bubble, but Josephine had zip to do with Napoleons reign. I didn’t even know her name until I read this post. F*** off film.
And that’s pretty much why Stanley Kubrick never made his Napoleon film. He spent years collecting information and trying to distill this man’s life into a workable script, but could never get it how he wanted it. There’s just too much there. Like you said, it would make a better mini series, like The Crown, with different actors playing the various stages of his life. Now that would be epic.
He was too busy helping the government fake the moon landing.
Can we all just agree that the greatest and most accurate Napoleon portrayal was in Bill and Ted?
Or Time Bandits
Or Blackadder
"Ziggy...Piggy....Ziggy...Piggy!"
Or Assassin's Creed lol
Indeed that portrayal was most excellent
Honestly, I trust the drinker more than every major critic and news outlet. Glad to have him cover this one.
I don’t. He’s very clearly conservatively biased and doesn’t appreciate low concept art. For pop culture flicks, maybe.
@@kman9884Yet your still here watching
@@kman9884👎👎👎👎. Hes awesome and his content is amazing
@@kman9884 low concept art is what Hollywood has been giving us for the past 20 years.
Drinker truly nailed the description of the movie perfectly. Couldn’t count the number of solid one liners he leaves in this review.
Napoleon and his marshals were very interesting individuals (that are very well documented), so its bizarre that they needed to fabricate events to make the film 'interesting'.
They just can't stop themselves for trying to improve upon reality. SMH
Reality is and will always be far more interesting than any fictional story because it's reality.
There are plenty of fictional movies, series and books I absolutely love but they'll never be as interesting as studying history or science.
And Napoleon's famous Rivalry With Thomas Alexandre Dumas.
Speaking as a lifelong Napoleon geek, you've turned in what is by far the best review of this film.
And with a nod to ABBA- I mean, how can you not love Drinker?
Could you recommend what you would consider the best book on Napoleon ?
@@Dickie2shoes Campaigns of Napoleon by David Chandler, With Eagles to Glory: Napoleon and his German Allies in the 1809 Campaign by John Gill, and one of my faves- Private Memoirs of the Court of Napoleon by Louis Basset-Roquefort.
YMMV, as a female it’s rare to have such an intrinsic connection to battles and the mindset behind warfare but I found all 3 to be immensely fascinating.
Honorable mention to The Spanish Ulcer: A History of the Peninsula War by David Gates.
@@AYFKMRN Thank you, much appreciated, I will check them out. Maybe in a past life you were an involved in these battles and that's why you have such a connection to them, who knows ? Once again many thanks for your response.
@@Dickie2shoes perhaps? I’ve really found a love for biographies as I’ve grown older, and some of my favorites have been of great military leaders. The Art of War, His Excellency (George Washington), John Adams are others I’ve read a few times, and have recently found a particular interest in The Iliad.
Spot on review. Totally agree, Napoleon is well made movie that didn't know what it wanted to be. I personally wish Riddley Dcott had ditched the love story and focused on Napoleon's military career
My dad and I were massively excited for this film (we are history buffs) and the first thing both of us said to each other as the credits rolled was: "Disappointing"
This is why generally, I think historical films should be centred around single events, not entire lives or careers. I remember the Alexander the Great film having many of the same problems.
The movie was centered on “France, the army, head of the army, Joséphine” , his last words and the balance or lack of it between these in Napoleon's life.
People may knock the movie Braveheart, but it's a good example of cutting out of the timeline what isn't deemed necessary to tell the story, and to incorporate narrative compression to condense a large passage of time into a relatively brief moment on screen.
This film could have been Napoleon and Josephine with battle montage, or Napoleon fighting wars with Josephine and/or politics montage. You can't really have both story lines detailed in one movie.
Yeah it should’ve just focused on Waterloo and the events surrounding it
My only concern is, how the hell do you capture a career like Napoleon's in one movie? Over a period of 25 years, he literally led one of the most interesting lives in history, during one of the most interesting times in history.
Countless movies and miniseries have focussed on just a few aspects of his life, and the French Revolution that precipitated his rise to power. More books have been written about him than about anyone else, ever.
They should’ve just made an epic about both sides of the battle of Waterloo or made a part one about the conquest and retreat from Russia.
There is a deeper line of themes and messages in Napoleon's life. His life events can be used to explore those messages, and needn't go through a lot of the details.
But this movie fails particularly bcs it doesn't achieve what it intended in the first place. Napoleon's actions throughout needed to be shown motivated by his ambitions, his military genius, his ego and his love for Josephine. Ridley failed in all except the Josephine part, and even made that into portaying him as a bumbling, horny fool. The action scenes were just, look-cool-battles, no showcasing of his genius. Also, they state that he returns from Elba bcs of love for Both Josephine and France. Ridley showed nothing of his love of France at all.
I am looking forward to the 4+ hour cut though.
Yeah it was so weird with all the time skips and glossing over key details of his life, felt like a Nolan movie.
tolkien wrote character tree for like 2000 years
There's a VERY GOOD french mini-series from the early 2000s
Someone like Christopher Nolan has to make a Shostakovich film. Great composer with a tragic life that would fit a movie setting very well.
Alternating between the musical voice of the USSR and facing the gulag depending on what he writes, sneaking stuff past Stalin's untrained ear, not to mention his personal life....
Chris Greenhalgh, director of Coco Chanel and Igor Stravinsky, would also be a good choice.
Dunkirk was trash. I don't like his historical tries. He's like a younger Scott.
That’s a great idea.
@@sug365What about Oppenheimer?
@@ShaunakDesaiPianocrap
As someone who grew up watching 1970’s Waterloo by Sergei Bondarchuk, I knew this movie would never live up to the expectations set by it. The sheer scale of the battle sequences in Waterloo were truly a spectacle to behold. Actual tactics and troop maneuvers were used while staying extremely historically accurate. Ridley Scott meanwhile shows the Napoleonic wars to be “Hollywood medieval” in nature and just have a bunch of men smashing into each other
War and Peace by Sergei Bondarchuk is even more massive and one of the greatest epics ever filmed. 15000 extras, largest battle ever filmed. Also it’s 7 hours but it’s well worth it. glad they split it into 4 parts. It’s on RUclips for free. It’s far superior to waterloo.
@@nightking0130 Bondarchuk directed both Waterloo and War and Peace.
I agree, however Ridley’s battle scenes were hardly Medieval in nature; they were purely Hollywood fiction. Like with Napoleonic warfare, Medieval battlefronts had infantry lines to defend, cavalry brigades (archers in place of rifles), like a big chess table. Not dissimilar to the overhead shots in Waterloo 1970, the Battle of Agincourt is a good example.
I’m not trying to pull an “um actually…” I just thought I’d throw in my two cents ;)
@@GoblinGirl I know and war and war and peace is miles better.
@@michaelmurley487 yeah I love how Hollywood thinks medieval battles are just a free for all. They had brains and tactics. That’s why not many died in medieval battles once you lose a good portion you surrender
Hollywood needs to know that romance isn't needed in everything. It shouldn't be forced to stop the plot.
But then how will the grab the female population to go see their films.
When the character is female though she is either asexual or a lesbian now, not sure which is worse.
@underdoge8338 lesbian is the same as "asexual" except an ego bigger than double F's and little reason to be worthwhile in an economic depression.
So basically worse.
B-But... I identify as Napoleon and I need to know if I can fall in love too... 😭
@@glorbog Frankly, a film that consists of large portions of gory battle scenes will not grab a female audience, with or without a romantic subplot. It will grab people, male and female interested in history and otherwise mostly a male audience. Just as you will not grab a male audience if you add some car chase scenes in a romantic comedy. Where is the problem in movies that cater more to one the tastes of gender than the other.
I'm surprised The Drinker didn't mention the weird tone the movie has of trying to knock Napoleon down, any time he achieves anything it was immediately undone with some form of humiliation in the next scene. Like the mummy somehow shifting to avoid his touch, acting like a fool in diplomatic situations, falling asleep randomly, slapping himself in front of Tsar Alexander, or how he's literally made fun of and belittled by little girls.
Not to mention the movie spends next to no time on Napoleon crowning himself Emperor or the consequences of such a thing. I really wanted them to show how that event would have had consequences. But no one even mentions anything. The Pope doesn't even question it.
This is what I don't understand also. The movie is a mockery of the man effectively. I'm not sure whether because it isn't 'woke' that this was glossed over.
@@RedDevilStudio It's not necessarily woke, no. But even then I just can't see Napoleon telling Josephine that he was nothing without her while staring at the ground.
Josephine's voice over about them doing it all over again "next time" and her being the emperor and him being her plaything was an extremely bizarre choice.
Ending with his kill count at the end was the final jab.
@@HRZN_YTIt's as if the spirit of every rosbeef through history manifested into the script in order to humiliate their nemesis.
I mean seriously, the Soviets of all people were infinitely more impartial to the man when making a movie about him, and gave it their all in faithfully recreating History, how is that even possible?
@@HRZN_YT It's the sort of movie the Duke of Wellington would be proud off.
@@RedDevilStudio Not really, the Duke would have wanted napoleon and his military genius to be depicted accurately so that his victory over him at waterloo is all the more impressive. Defeating Ridley Scott's fake, weak, bumbling incel version of Napoleon doesn't really seem like much of an accomplishment.
Ahhhh thank you, well put man. I was hoping you covered there not being any French accents or French speaking people throughout the film. Or maybe I'm uneducated and Napoleon was from LA and his brother from England loool
That was so jarring to me! Phoenix, as the only actor, speaking in a thick American accent was so odd.
Phoenix has no fire in his belly when he delivers stirring speeches or lines. He's like a can of good cold coffee instead of a bowl of fire noodles.
I get it: because noodles end up in your belly.
@salazam Yep, giving you energy like a rousing speech would, aside from the intense burning mouth but sure.
@@Toledotourbillion You said this: "No mate, cause fire noodles make you tear up and feel intense emotions when you put it in your mouth. Where are you from?"
Why did you change your words?
@salazam I was rethinking your words & it fits.
Have you seen him in Gladiator?
For me, the bar was set far too high by the powerhouse performance of Terry Camilleri in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Thats a portrayal that'll never be beaten.
"NO WAAAY!"
You were a ZIGGY PIGGY…ZIGGY PIGGY…
@@Ashworth6 Le glace?
nah Ian Holm in Time Bandits
"Napoleon is more of a victim of its own ambitions; weighed down by the sheer scale of what it was trying to accomplish."
Coincidently that's a fitting description of Napoleon the man.
Dynamite!
You don't say?
Napoleon was successful at that though (the man)
Nicely put 😂
Eehhh…not so much.
Strategically napoleon had to do something about britain’s naval and economics power. His continental system was the best in think anyone could have done in that situation. Napoleon correctly assessed that england’s most strategic asset was its economy. He tried to attack that and remove its ability to maintain such a large navy….it was a great idea. But it wasnt napoleon being overly ambitious. He was just trying to deal with britains strategic advantages.
I remember an interview with Peter Jackson shortly after the release of the LOTR. PJ emphasized that what ended up on the cutting room floor was dictated by one rule--Does the scene advance the plot toward the end of the story or not? That was the vision that he and his writing team kept in mind throughout the filming and writing. Keep the main thing the main thing.
Tell that to all the whiners that complain about Tom Bombadil not being in the film lol
Vlad, I am a Tolkien purist. Read the books at 14 for the first time (I'm 60 now) and waited for the Jackson trilogy with anticipation and angst. I had seen so many failed attempts to bring Middle Earth to the screen that I wasn't sure it could be done. When the Jackson movies hit, I loved them. Own the original release DVD, the extended editions, and the Blu-Ray. There were things about the movies that disappointed me. In the end, I asked myself, considering the size and scope of the IP, could I ask, realistically, for a better adaptation? The answer is unequivocally NO! Were there certain scenes I wish were done differently? Yeah (Tom B wasn't one of them btw), but the final product is what counts.
As for those whiners, they would only have been happy if they were Peter Jackson! The movies would have been five hours a piece.@@vladimirofsvalbard9477
He's like the girl with the curl in the middle of her forehead. When she's good, she's good. When she's bad, she's awful.@YouCantUnwatchIt
This is why the "redux" version of Apocalypse Now I thought was terrible - those scenes were cut for good reason, they not only added nothing, but detracted from the final story.
Does Napoleon fighting with his wife for the fifth time Anand the plot at all?
Absolutely not, just like the first 4 times
It was foreseeable! For Example Waterloo from 1970 is a masterpiece and today's "filmmakers" will never be able to capture that feeling, the acting performance and the authenticity of such an movie epos.
Hollywoke today can't make a half decent movie... or any movie except comic book superhero cr4p.
That “filmmaker” is Ridley fucking Scott.
The minute you see the director screaming about how he doesn't need historians you can feed the entire thing to the wood chipper.
Let's be honest. Whilst Scott has directed some all-time great movies, the past two decades have been filled with more misses than hits. Black Hawk Down in 2001 is the last really fantastic movie he made, but every project he comes out with is surrounded by this buzz of "remember how great Ridley Scott was? This next thing is going to be his return to form!"
The Martian and The Last Duel were pretty good tho. Napoleon was a mess.
@@Manchevo Technically, The Last Duel bombed at the box office. The Martian was great. Black Hawk Down was also great. But like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
Its frustrating because we know how great Ridley Scott can be with his movies. But he rarely achieves it and never does now.
I have a feeling Dr. Evil stole his Mojo from the past and his future self just could never find it again.
I keep saying this. When I watched his series Raised By Wolfes (or whatever it was called) it struck me how he's repeating himself and how he has been trying to get his sci-fi mojo back, but really Scott is more of a production man. He always boast about how many commercials he made before making movies for some reason. And in a round table he denies any hardship or any type of issue on any movie he ever made. Telling other directors at the table "I know exactly what I want".. "I'm always on time and under budget" "blah blah..." ALways underscoring the production side of things - how effective he is - never the creativity, story or his thought process. A 'get the project done' man than a story teller. The behind the scenes documentary for Raised By Wolves is very revealing. You can see how he operates. Like a King he simply vets every aspect of the production as staff bring him ideas and concepts he just scribbles some changes. Never really coming up with anything himself but never really accepting anything anyone gives him unaltered. It all looks very lazy, boring and matter fact way of making a movie. There is a sterility to the whole ordeal and you can see he surrounds himself with yes-people.
I’m sure his soldiers hardly ever talked about it the rest of their lives, and if they did, probably very little. Some things that happen in life are almost impossible to talk about because you’ll burst out in tears uncontrollably. That’s how powerful war is.
The real shame is that a veteran director couldn't prove everyone wrong. Everyone said that it was too ambitious and it'd either miss a lot out or be too quick to really understand. I hoped Scott would prove us all wrong but it turned out exactly how everyone expected
Exactly. It's so frustrating. If anyone could do it, it was Scott. Since he failed, I've lost all hope in ever seeing Napoleon's whole story accurately depicted in live action cinema.
He himself said he didn't consult any historian.
Damn I would have loved to have seen Kubrick's version of Napoleon supposedly it was based around his early years and rise to power and would have had a young Jack Nicholson in the role. But cause Rod Steiger's Waterloo flopped (a great film too) Warner Bros wouldn't fund it. Knowing how Kubrick was about detail and getting things, and if you saw Barry Lydon. It would have been someting else.
Oversimplified did it pretty well, but even so Napoleon’s life was too extraordinary for it to be so simply presented
oversimplified hasnt posted anything lately 😢
@@dhffhgd3That's ok, we just have to wait until 2035 🙏
@@worthywizard agreed
Oversimplified does a great job with his videos. I hate that he only posts once a year now. If that
@@joshcevera170 he posts once per year ?
Napoleon is not just a man, but a entire era. Modern Europe is the result of this singular man. His battles are still studied with Austerlitz, his greatest triumph, treated as a masterclass in warfare. Waterloo as a movie worked because it focused just on the battle and the men involved. This movie can’t cope with a historical figure that stands as a giant even now.
"Modern Europe is the result of this singular man" I'm not sure if you should put in it in such grand phrases. The whole Napoleonic era is full of impactful and interesting characters. You could say Napoleon is the key to all of the giant transformations between 1789 and 1815, but not the single cause of modern Europe.
Napoleon is just as much a product of his era as other people living in it. Don't unnecessarily exaggerate.
The Drinker has been hanging on to that Waterloo joke for _years_
.....
And DELIVERED
For those disappointed with the latest Napoleon movie, might I suggest people give the Russian four-part adaptation of Leo Tolstoy's War & Peace by Sergei Bundarchuk a chance. If you truly want to see the scale and scope of 1800's battlefields brought to life then these films are a must watch.
That adaptation is a cheap shit on a stick. A soviet stick.
Exactly. And as far as I know, that film cost about 500 million dollars, and now even more so if adjusted for inflation.
That or Austerlitz, from what I recall that was a pretty darn good movie, or the 2002 Napoleon, which is an actual mini series, the least this character deserve. Covers his life from 1795 to 1821, 360minutes of goodness.
Also it pissed off the Italians so it must be good XD
Another film to watch instead of Napoleon, is "Waterloo".
Thank you for this …
In Austria, 1805 Napoleon was preparing to lead his French Imperial Forces into battle. This event was witnessed by the Wyld Stallyns; Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Theodore "Ted" Logan.
I think the problems at this movie's core are perfectly exemplified in how they simplify the geopolitics underpinning the Coalition Wars. The film never really addresses WHY Europe was so determined to pacify post-revolution France in general and Napoleon specifically. The aim was always to reinstate the Bourbon monarchy and thereby regain a much more coalition/establishment-friendly kingdom in the heart of Europe, but the movie makes it seem like Napoleon was just throwing his weight around and was always the aggressor. Now, that doesn't make him a radical freedom fighter sticking it to the status quo; he was still a dictator and an autocrat in many areas, but it does speak to the complexity of the period that Napoleon the film barely hints at.
Bourbon is awesome. I'm drinking some right now.
Just a movie made by an english dude from english pov for english dudes (bonus for the US, if you mock french history figure as famous as Napoléon you know it's gonna work).
And from the history pov that english dudes have been saying about Napoléon since he fought them.
@@strangerlucky5753 SACRE BLU!
@@strangerlucky5753 So the 'English POV' is lame woke nonsense centred around a 'strong independent sassy woman' what planet are you on? English viewers will be just as disappointed as everyone else to see this nonsense, especially those of us who know our history and know what an amazing fighting force 'Le Grande Army' was
Dude, it's a 2 and half hour movie. He should've made it 4 hours with an intermission and charged $40. People still went to see Lawrence of Arabia, still do, as many movies with intermissions, but he decided to chop it down to a short film knowing people don't have the patience and that cinemas need to make money by cramming more shows in per day. Even Oppenheimer was 3 hours plus and people sat through that, so I don't get why he just didn't expand it and put it all in
As always, a very thoughtful and well put together analysis.
Napoleon's life needs to be told in at least 3 movies. He literally fought all of the Europe 5 times and won. The only way to beat him was to keep running away until his army got beat by the elements and lack of supplies. This movie couldn't be made today because it would show a masculine charismatic leader and thats not allowed in todays media.
Okay sure bud 🙄
I'm pretty sure my Great Great Great Great Grandfather the Duke Of Wellington had something to do with his defeat at Waterloo.
@@leedaniels1468You mean after like the 8th coalition against him?
@@leedaniels1468 Something. And the 200,000 Austrians waiting and the 200 Russians waiting after that if he beat Wellington. 1815 was a forlorn hope, somebody was going to take him out. Nappy had taught the other nations of Europe how to match his army and the leadership.
I agree but not only forces of nature. Napoleon's ego got the better of him. The Russian command wanted him to drag himself into Russia. It was a slow ticking bomb that he did not foresee despite his commanding genius. The whole affair was a genius trap that Napoleon fell into. Everyone talks about Napoleon's genius, but no one really talks about the genius way his 500,000 Grande armee was reduced to almost nothing.
You nailed it Drinker!! My wife and I saw the movie and we both agreed that the movie needed to cut out a lot of the love story and focus more on his political and military history. As a whole, we felt the movie missed a huge opportunity to become something bigger
Same my parents and I wish they focus more on the battles. Then they did the love story. Besides, the battles were much more interesting.
Rod Steiger's performance as Napoleon is incredible. Waterloo should have been what Ridley used as source material. Narrow scope, great dialogue, historical accuracy.
There's a fan edit somewhere on RUclips that fills in the gaps
Absolutely, well said.
Yes it is - from the opening scene when his generals come to see him at Fountainbleu and he’s just standing there by the palace window - that stance , his whole manner 👌
Because Napoleon’s reviews were so abysmal, I ended up watching “The Holdovers” with my friend instead thinking nothing of it.
In my eyes, it was one of the most emotionally intimate and clever movies I’ve seen in a while. (I do have a few minor criticisms here and there, but by in large, the movie was a masterpiece.)
Saw the trailers and it looks promising
I very much want to watch The Holdovers before the Oscars but because of geographical restrictions on prime video, have been forced to *cough* sail some high seas. F*** you, Amazon. Really.
My favorite shot in the movie was the cannon ball shot straight into The Great Pyramid of Giza. A total F-You to the historical accuracy of Napolean's history. Pretty much summed up the regard Scott had for the source material.
His response to historical critics - basically calling them dorks for caring about accuracy was another ill-thought out response as well.
@@gunsalmighty3099 to be fair, Kingdom os Heaven wasn't very accurate either. But it was a GOOD movie.
like Braveheart or Last Samurai, people can love your movie while still knowing it's inaccurate. The problem is, napoleon is an awful movie, right down to the philosophical core of nihilism and hopelessness.
@@luxinvictus9018 The difference is the records of the Crusades are far fewer than those of the 18th/19th centuries. Kingdom of Heaven, which I consider a masterpiece, although flawed, could take some creative liberties and still retain a level of authenticity. Napoleon's life and times on the other hand are so well recorded, it would take an entire board of historians to work as advisers to any director so every detail of daily life could be recreated. All in all, Ridley Scott ate more than he could chew and most importantly, didn't give a shit. Considering that he's 86, I can only assume his Napoleon was made for his own sense of vain glory more than anything else.
True, as the real Napolean brought along French scientists to study Egypt's ancient history as I recall.
I agree and I thought Joaquim Phoenix was all wrong. I am not a big fan of his but the man can act. I didn't like this movie that was missing direction I think. I was not really entertained with this one...@@luxinvictus9018
The way they completely ignore Spain's role in the napoleonic wars is mindblowing.
dude, they ignore EVERYTHING...I mean...everything..there is not even a incling of his military genius...he almost literally fought effectively 6 world wars, and won all but the last, even at the end, after his retreat from moscow, he reformed an army and STILL Beat the coallition and they sued for a ceasefire for a period of time then attacked him. They were so incapable of beating him that they split into about 5 much larger armies than he had with instructions to reat from any force led by Napoleon himself to race to Paris where his generals forced him to abdicate. They simply could not touch him on the battle field...ironically the smaller his army was, the more terrifyingly effeciently he beat them.
Or, you know, Egyptian conquest? Like, how tf do you even remotely expect to be taken seriously if you insist on turning Napoleon into a whining simp because Josephine? FFS anyhow with these narcissistic nutjobs and their ‘vision’ that I’m sure Hollywood will trip over themselves in congratulatory flatulence.
@@sterger7 So they beat him the end then.
Tbh they also missed one of his exiles, like he got exiled once gathered troops and left exile. Then he lost and got exiled again
And Italy, in his rise.
If anyone is wondering, there is an EXCELLENT mini series called Napoleon from 2002. It stars Christian Clavier, John Malkovich, and Gérard Depardieu. I first saw it in school YEARS ago, but I loved it so much that I picked up the DVD set. Worth the watch if you have the time!
I remember the backlash regarding the casting of Clavier, a comedic actor, as Napoleon. Fun times.
The series is alright, its not perfect by any means but its definitely better than the movie.
The fact that Marshal Ney's brave stand against the Russian ambush while the 40,000 man French Army was evacuating Russia where Ney ordered his surviving men under his command to cross the bridge before him wasn't featured in the film should tell you a lot about the vision of the project; or lack thereof. Ney risked his life to and put his men's lives above his as the Russian horde picked apart a fleeting French force who was literally fleeing the battle before it even began. Marshal Ney is one of the most interesting officers under Napoleon's command and should be a key character in any film or series about Napoleon. As should many of the other officers and soldiers. It's weird and sad that a competent director like Scott, known for epics like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven wanted so badly to tell a cringy love story about one of the greatest military commanders in human history. Like why? Who asked for that? Show me his campaign to Moscow. Show me the entirety of Austerlitz. Show me the entirety of fucking Waterloo at least!
Kingdom of Heaven is an historical travesty, too.
"Russian horde" 😂😆 Your "brave" Frenchmen were at that point worse than horde, a mob of desperate beasts fighting over piece of bread and running over each other. Ney did not save anything, he simply fled faster than others not so fortunate to have fresh horses.
Well said. All true.
@@aleksazunjic9672 That is true. There were many essentially decimated French units in the retreat that formed a disorderly unitless group in the crossing of the Berezina River. However, what is always neglected is that more of Napoleon's army died in the summer they were marching into Russia (heat stroke, dysentery, Cossack raids, etc.) than in the entirety of the winter retreat.
@@magistrate3343 I do agree, but there is one more "mechanism of death" which is rarely mentioned. Being WIA in those days was often death sentence, as the wounds would get infected, hygiene was poorly understood, and hospitals were generally crowded especially for enlisted men. Thus, many soldiers on both sides died after Smolensk and especially Borodino. Btw, main French army that went towards Moscow with Napoleon was around 300 000, rest went North and South. In fact, these auxiliary troops made a bulk of French forces at Berezina.
Napoleon ordering his army to fire cannons at the Pyramids would be like Bob Ross starting forest fires. Napoleon was engrossed by Ancient Egypt, his Grand Army discovered the Rosetta stone and gave birth to Egyptology.
Think of it, soldiers; from the summit of these pyramids, forty centuries look down upon you. It [the Channel] is a mere ditch, and will be crossed as soon as someone has the courage to attempt it.
The whole film is a bunch of cringe English propaganda trying to dishonor the most brilliant commander in history.
Scott sort of tried to bring across Napoleon's interest in Ancient Egypt with the mummy scene, but it came off more as comedy - perhaps because Phoenix didn't know what to do with it.
@@Judge_Magister I think this movie played with the rumor the Sphinx lost its nose because Napoleon's soldiers used it as target practice. 😔
@@parkmallbaby the sphinx was mutilated by radical early christians who ravaged the pagan monuments and statues of the ancient world in large violent mobs.
My biggest pet peeve with this movie is his wife Josephine is supposed to be 10 years older than him but instead, they got an old actor to play Napoleon while his wife is 10 years younger who is 20 years younger then the actual Josephine is supposed to be.
He was also obsessed with her in the beginning, but his feeling did cool towards her as the relationship continued.
How is that even remotely your "biggest pet peeve"? this movie has far bigger problems than that.
Really ! That’s your beef with the movie ? Lol. Pretty minor.
@@winstonsmith8482 It was the very first thing in the trailer and as a person who kinda likes the complexity of the real world one It just made me mad
@@winstonsmith8482 That's what a pet peeve is. It doesn't have to be the biggest problem, just the one that matters to them most.
I went to see it on the premier day BY MYSELF cause I was so convinced it was going to be the historical epic of the decade. What I got was a rom-com that had like 20 mins of politics/warfare. It wasnt a bad movie but it’s definitely more similar to stuff like Bridgerton/Downton than a typical biopic
Same. I love history, and I was expecting to see how Napoleon had shaped the world. About halfway though I notice the direction the movie was taking, and I wanted to just leave.
@@Mctwist42 You're allowed to leave. You can even ask for your money back.
Thanks TCD, again you've saved me 40 bux and 158mins of my life sitting through this one. As always, your observations and detailed analysis were well worth the listen, great work!
You can't fit Napoleon into one film! He had 26 Marshalls that each deserve their own Hr long episode!
To put it one way, Abel Gance's Napoleon biopic was 330 minutes long.
No thanks
Except Bernadotte. 😈
I read and liked "With Napoleon in Russia", the memoir of General Armand de Caulaincourt. It seems like that could make a solid film/miniseries as well.
Just the withdrawal from Russia! Is a film in it's own right!
To me, it is kind of crazy how refreshing it is to hear an honest breakdown of a flawed movie that isn't the same old "flawed in wokeness".
If this was a Disney movie, Idris Elba or Samuel L. Jackson would've played Napoleon.
Yeah. True. That is a silver lining in this. Get tired of just having to point out wokeness in things
Woke outrage sells man
the movie is flawed in modern political nonsense. plagued with feminism and modern liberal sensibilities.
It is flawed in wokeness, though.
It seems like Ridley really hates Napoleon tbh, the film glosses over many of his achievements while simultaneously embellishming or completely fabricating some bad stuff, ie Napoleon didn't marry a 15 year old and the Mob of civilians he fired into in the movie was aactually a partially armed militia where Napoleon got his horse shot out from under him in an hour long fire fight
I got that impression when Napoleon yells at the British Ambassador like a petulent little child about how the British are arrogant just because they have boats and the ambassador just smirks and comments on how Napoleon has no manners. Also, see how Arthur Wellesley is portrayed as a much cooler general at the battle of Waterloo at the end.
I dunno, maybe I am reading to much into it and I never noticed Ridley Scott to be particularly patriotic but its almost as if he wanted to crap on Napoleon and show how much more awesome the British were.
@@Friendo1231 in the movie if your really paying attention you can decern it was Marie Louis he married the 18 year old he impregnated, but the way they cut the film was very deceptive and intended to trick the audience into thinking he married tsar Alexanders 15 year old sister.
@@Friendo1231 my bad on the girl he impregnated not being marie, but that tent scene had Napoleon saying the age was just a detail and Alexander not pressing the issue and then embracing with the very next scene Napoleon gets married to a woman he comments on how petit she is I think Ridley was trying to make it seem like that was the 15 year old sister of the tsar to paint Napoleon in as horrible a light as he could without outright lieing. My friend who watched the film with me took away that he married the 15 year old.
@@thesportsman3190 There was a scene in between where the French Minister is talking to the Austrian Ambassador and tells him that Napoleon wants to marry the Austrian Emperor daughter. Its when they speak German for two lines and the Ambassador asks "Are you fucking kidding me?"
@@wjzav1971 yes i think if your really paying attention and have a decent grasp on the true history then u would know it's not Alexanders sister, but I don't think the majority of the audience took it that way and I do believe it was intentional.
Just found your channel. 3 weeks ago. And I'm catching up. I'm from Kenya Africa. Love your commentary
As a massive history buff, I was always very skeptical of this movie, I saw the runtime and was worried about Scott being able to cover his life in 2 and half hours, then I realized that Riddley Scott also directed 1492 conquest of paradise, it's about cristopher Columbus, the middle school version of him.
I find fact being FAR more interesting than fiction at times. The fact the director failed to understand that when it comes to Napoleon’s history is really sad.
It would have been better if they had ended the film at his crowning in 1804. No matter what they did, the film was sort of doomed by its scope. The compression of so much history into that little film means you have to abandon the history in favor of a simplified narrative.
@@Jim-Tuner- that’s just an excuse. Other historical epics have managed to cram a shit load more than this into 2.5 hours. Heck Kubrick crammed the Dawn and evolution of mankind into 2 hours.
Fact is, it’s Ridley Scott and his inability to tell a coherent story. Unless he has very good script is put in front of him, he cannot handle it.
History is always far more interresting than any wet dream of some director. Not only that but Scott also made this movie basically on a note of his hate for French which can't really create anything good. I don't think Joaquin Phoenix was to blame for his weird performance. I believe that the material he had to work with was so confusing because Scott himself didn't really knew if he wants to mock France's biggest historical character or make epic movie.
"...this movie made Braveheart look like a Master and Commander..."God bless you Critical drinker!
I love that you mentioned master and commander. Epic!
My father really likes Napoleon. When he and my mother came back from the movie theater, she told me he was absolutely outraged.
Too bad your dad was so pissed off... Specially with a character so dear to him.
I speak for the Internet when I say, we feel his pain.
Lol, I guess I too am disappointed that the movie has cast Napolean in such a manner. If the duke of Wellington or Churchill were dealt the same cards in a movie, many people would be saddened that these great characters were dumbed down and weirded out so much. I think Ridley Scott should try to stick to the truth when dealing with Icons of the past.
It's absolutely crazy that the same man who made The Duelists made this Napoleon movie.
The Duelists had such an eye for accuracy, and Napoleon, well......not so much.
That is one of my favorite movies of all time.
Duelists is one of my all time favs. Just reading your comparison makes me want to watch it right now.
i have a feeling because its done intentionally the movie tried to do the woke deconstruction thing without caring about accuracy
because napolian is a white man in a position of power make no mistake this was not accidental
same is focusing on the biased accounts of his wife
The Duelists, Barry Lyndon and Amadeus. I recommend all of them
It's a great movie. Scott is so frustrating. For instance, watch his interviews when he did ALIEN...he lambasts lazy Hollywood tropes and productions...and then goes on to do that in his own ALIEN franchise 30+ years later. It's like watching him critique himself...
Read a profile of Ridley Scott that talked about how he cut his teeth making commercials, where he developed a reputation as a genius. He didn't start making feature films until he was 40. I think this really explains why all his films, from great to okay to bad, are beautiful to look at and listen to. He knows how to create memorable moments: the scene where Napoleon has to stand on a box to look the mummy in the eye is better than the whole movie. But yeah, this was a miss for me too. Sir Ridley seemed more interested in the battle sequences than the story and characters, but without story and characters, spectacle gets boring fast.
That scene was dumb
Ridley Scott is similar to Oliver Stone. When they have a hit, they knock it out of the park. When they miss, they _really_ miss.
Still made gladiator
Thank you for your refreshingly honest and accurate review. When I think of historical figures like Napolean, Mozart, I think of Polanski as a winning cinematic candidate. I admit in advance that Roman Polanski may be a touch too old to underake such an epic film as Napoleon. Moreover, his latest film, The Palace, was a monumental disappointment. However, if we put that aside, and if we can focus on filmmaking and not his personal foibles, I believe there is something meticulous and assured in Roman's direction that prompts me to think he would have been ideal making an epic film of this kind- in French, and with more depth and cinematic aplomb. Think of Polanski's Macbeth, The Pianist, An Officer and a Spy, Chinatown. Kubrick regarded him as an exemplary technician, which he was. Again, he is possibly too old to undertake such a lofty and ambitious film, but Roman's craftsmanship and Swiss-watch-like obsession with nuance and detail would have served this material well. Just an observation based on style and previous works.
Saw this last night and agree 1000%. Was expecting so much more from Phoenix and Scott. Great review, as always.
I can only imagine how good this would have been as a HBO style series. Played correctly it could have well challenged game of thrones in sheer awesomeness!
They'd get away with the gratuitous exhibition of tiddies too, since that's what everyone expects with the French anyway
Yeah right. They would have made Napoleon black and gay.
@@salazam
Put a chick in it and make her gay
They would have represented the way he was supposed to be represented. As a proud woman of colour.
You introduced me to Arcane, and are now my favourite reviewer. You consistently give me a good idea of what I am likely to enjoy or dislike, and are much more reliable than the more established reviewers. Thank you very much. Napoleon was one I was really looking forward to, and I will probably still see it, but I won’t get my hopes up too much. I miss historical epics.
Do not waste your time. It is a truly dismal movie.
@@jraelien5798 Yeah its dreadful
I’ve been digesting an ongoing podcast; The Age of Napoleon for the last 5 years. 1 hour episodes are released monthly and Its epic, well researched and entertaining. A one and done movie on this man and time period is an impossibility with expected results.
I’ve always been of the opinion that Napoleon’s story should have been a tv series. It’s an incredibly fascinating life and downfall that has its many ups and its many downs. You can’t tell that in three hours. You need like ten, twelve or even more than that.
If it's a tv series he'll have a historically inaccurate black lieutenant and a secret gay lover. Especially if it's on Netflix.
@@kinfeofspaghetti There was already a black French officer in this Napoleon film.
2:21 - *laughs in 1970 Waterloo* which recreated battlefield in modern day Ukraine and put some 20+ thousand troops of Red Army through 8 months of training. Recreated paintings ( Scott's Grays charge) and dialogues were based on historical references and personalities as possible. And that's why this movie looks like discount GoT and Waterloo looks like professionally executed and filmed reconstruction.
Spot on. Watched half of it yesterday and feel like asking for my money back!
To be fair, when it comes to older filmmakers such as Ridley Scott, the only thing they lose with age is a fear of failure.
On the contrary. They gain the fear of failure.
@@lukeskywalker6809 Agreed if I had made as many great films as Ridley Scott I'd be terrified of embarrassing myself and making people think I lost my touch
This comment has been made on almost every Napoleon review video. Do better, AI.
That would explain why they're so arrogant and unable to be more discriminating in the editing room.
Not again pls
Ridley Scott doing his thing: choosing not so good scripts and filming from it gorgeous visuals.
I was a SA in this (extra if you will) playing one of the many French soldiers. Quite an experience, 2 months of 3am starts and late finishes. But I have to say Ridley's approach to filming battles really was something to behold. 7 cameras, some handheld, some on cranes, drones, some mounted on cars. The battles really came out amazing in my opinion and I'm glad I was a part of of it (just wish the food was a bit better, but OK) ;)
very interesting. It looks great.
The battle scenes were spectacular and my favourite parts of the film. As for the food was it not Napoleon himself who said an army marches on it's belly?
@@jeremysmith7175Not sure who said it, but Napoleon usually won by not marching with the army's rations. He instead made his men scavenge food nearby. This way he moved much faster than his enemies and managed to suprise them again and again.
@@jeremysmith7175 He did say, "The first virtue in a soldier is endurance of fatigue; courage is only the second virtue."
@@jeremysmith7175 I guess they had to keep us looking haggard, especially during the Russian campaign;)
I enjoyed your take and on it. The movie was exactly what I expected. I like Joaquin for the most part so I liked the movie. Subbed
1977 Ridley Scott's feature film directorial debut, The Duellists is a Napoleonic era film that's very entertaining and best watched with a bottle of Cognac, and fine cigars.
And Harvey Keitel in his best role.
Nice tip, thanks!