Napoleon - Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 лис 2023
- Joaquin Phoenix and Ridley Scott take on one of the most famous historic figures of all time.
Give your business the gift of Stamps.com this holiday season. Sign up with promo code MURRELL at stamps.com for a special offer that includes a 4-week trial, plus free postage, and a digital scale.
BOOK ME ON CAMEO: www.cameo.com/danmurrell
JOIN ME ON PATREON: / danmurrell
FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM: / murrelldan
YOU CAN GET ALL MY SHOWS ON AUDIO NOW!
APPLE: tinyurl.com/t736rphc
SPOTIFY: tinyurl.com/u7p5pfk
AUDIBLE: tinyurl.com/yrffy95s
AMAZON MUSIC: tinyurl.com/9a278znb
STITCHER: tinyurl.com/4yzrntjs - Розваги
Never interrupt your enemies when they're making a mistake-- well, nobody bothered to interrupt Ridley Scott
Nobody interrupted your comment
Great comment
Drat I was looking forward to this, cant depend apon anything these days, everything turns to sht
Hahaha 😂 yep they interrupted Stanley Kubrick from making this movie in the 1970s with Jack Nicholson as Napoleon now that would have been a masterpiece
@@Son0fFalse "HERE'S NAPPY!!!"😁
Even the Battle scenes are a mess. No tactics. No strategy. No formations. No showing why Napoleon was brilliant. No weight to them. Just guys running at each other. Plus the historical inaccuracies in them are horrible. WTF did Scott do to the battle of Waterloo!!??
Strategy is boring to Scott, all his movies have pretty inaccurate battles, but that's true for almost all movie battles, it would be pretty boring to show it how it actually happens : people being scared to die, taking ages to advance and fire, most of the combat happening from far, and barely any hand to hand. But Hollywood doesn't find this cinematographic, so they just make it into a big melee fight.
Yeah I burst out laughing at several points in the battle scenes they were so badly done…and fancy the historians missing the cavalry charges that Napolean apparently led. I mean the whole thing was pants.
@@richardmathews6236 the battles were beautifully filmed but were all wrong. No formations. They just went all Braveheart on each other.
@@dannyhernandez1212 yes very pretty but factually quite ugly.
@@richardmathews6236 yeah...Ridley Scott knows nothing about Napoleonic warfare.
It is satirical in the way that we don't actually get in the mind of Napoleon's genius on the battlefield but we get to see him being constantly in need of Josephine in the film making him a husk of a man and the lack of the grandiose 18th century values that are totally absent trying to fit in the 21st century. I feel that this is a very British interpretation of a French general
The casting is strange. Historically, Josephine was six years older than Napoleon, but in the movie, he seems twice her age.
Ridley Scott is just carrying on the British character assassination of Napoleon that has been ongoing, with notable exceptions like David Chandler, for that last 200 years.
Rod Steiger playing Napoleon was epic in the movie Waterloo. Ridley made a stink bomb.
Seems to me that Scott wanted to turn the movie into a chickflick... this modern feminism movement is compromising everything.
I await the critical drinkers review
Steiger was terrific in the role, possessing all the charisma Phoenix lacked. @@theend9494
i don't i dislike this guy the critical drinkers is not avery good critic when he need to lie about glass onion to make his point @@theend9494
I saw this last night. I expected, for once, a movie that showed a different Napoleon to the one commonly protrayed. Which would have meant that his mathematical and strategic brilliance, introduction of the Napoleonic code and universal mandatory education, meritocratic policies, religious freedom policies and advancement of Science and the Arts would have been covered. There was none of that. It was the same old grumpy, disfunctional with women, murderous warmongerer all over again, this time delivered by a Joachim Phoenix who endeavoured to strip him of his majesty and charisma. It was risible, and on the way home I had to explain to the friends who went with me exactly why he was fighting the Austrians, why he decided to become Emperor - in fact, I had to explain almost everything, because the film didn't.
so much of acting is casting. An actor has to be the type that would get an army to follow him. Phoenix is an emotional guy. great actor but he would never project the bad ass credentials napoleon must've had. Those days were tougher than ours so he would've been nothing like people of today. his strength isn't that. Who? I don't know. Kubrick was going to use Jack Nicolson. A young Robert Deniro would've been fine I think.
Maybe some MMA guy would be interesting.. more interesting than Phoenix.
I loved him in Beau is afraid.
he's good at playing people that are afraid.
Nah, much more interesting to just say, "for FRANCE!!!"
Si whyyy did he decided to become emperor? 👀
You summed it up almost completely. This film is trash.
@@jonatikaWwe Because in 19th century Europe in order to legitimise a dynasty it had to be a monarchy. But he couldnt be a 'King' because there already was one in exile. Theres more to it than that - but why not read up on it like I did?
Imagine being the director, seeing all the historical records us historians love. Then saying yehhhh nahhh let’s improvise and then you see one of the greatest conquerors making baby noises for sex?
Mamamamamamama "stomps feet"
Oh god the baby noises. That part was so weird. Even if it's true he did that, which I doubt, why would they include that in the movie?
@@jacobj3491 I agree brother, wth were they thinking??
It's 2023, what do you expect from a big Hollywood production? We can't have male leaders depicted as strong and dominant now can we.
Even though that was weird women did describe him as weird and they had to portray it somehow
From the most awaited movie of the year to some of the worst experiences in theatre. First half is unwatchable. So disappointed.
This movie was really bad. The more I think about it the less I like it. It’s just pieced together incoherently. No real background provided by many characters, some characters appear and disappear all willy nilly. Even Phoenix’s acting is really average. I’m done with his maniacal laughter, he has been doing for a number of pictures. I don’t remember when it was the last time he was not in some aspect, wacky.
Napoleon is charismatic. This was JP doing a batman version of Napoleon. Count of Monte Cristo 2001 has a great interpretation of NB.
I was telling a friend after watching Napoleon that Monte Cristo's version of Bonaparte had more gravitas, and he only had 5 minutes of screentime. Phoenix's interpretation was a sullen brat in comparison.
Watching Joaquin attempt to be charismatic is like watching a bridge rust.
No, what they were trying to do was mock the 'Great Man' theory using an incel depiction but it doesnt fit the history and the overall plot and writing failed to deliver it. Its a classic of example of trying to shoehorn in a message where it doesn't fit. Making it fit would have required phenomenal execution that they did not have.
2002 not 2001
@@ronin7997Man, I always remember that bit of NB and how well it drives so much of the rest of the movie
Imagine a Napoleon movie of this size written and directed by Christopher Nolan! What a masterpiece for the ages would that be!
100% would need subtitles
@@yondie491😂😂
Agree
@@yondie491it’s so funny how it’s like this with every one of his films. He must have a sound/audio team that he really likes, but whoever does the vocal mixing/compression just just consistently fucks up😂
@@jayfron6012 Oh no, that's exactly how Nolan wants it. There are plenty of interviews where Nolan is complaining about people whining about audio in his movies. I don't know if he's got hearing issues or comprehension issues or if his head is just *THAT FAR* up his ass (I say that as a huge fan of MOST of his work) but... that's how he wants it.
That's why this is so beautiful
ua-cam.com/video/vhqbILnmJ-Q/v-deo.html
I just don't see the point of making a historical biopic that's neither historically accurate nor true to character. And why does it like like he filmed it on the Prometheus planet?
Never before have I actually felt insulted by how European history and culture is portrayed, and most of us don't even like the French!
We left after the first hour. No character development, no historical context, a crashing bore!
"History Channel at double speed"--oh, so there's aliens in the movie...
Joaquin Phoenix portrayal of Napoleon made no sense to me. Dudnt capture the essence of Napoleon.
I’m going to New Zealand in March. Thank you for reviewing this.
Would love to see some kind of reconstruction and interpretation of Kubrick's unmade Napoleon.
I honestly couldn’t give an opinion on the historical accuracy aspect so I’m trying to look at this as a narrative in a vacuum. That said I could not wait for this to end. My issue is that you have to give your villain protagonist something to make you look past how horrible they are and this movie just didn’t for some reason. He’s not presented as charming or charismatic in the slightest so it made absolutely no sense to me why Josephine wouldn’t have just told this guy to go away.
I heard this thing is getting a four hour director’s cut and I can’t even picture that fixing it.
I can see it. Felt like either constant title cards were missing or huge amounts of context were cut. So disjointed
And, most importantly, Napoleon was not simply a villain. He came to power after the French Revolution, and he stabilized a chaotic situation. If the European kingdoms had not forged multiple alliances to fight him (as he was a scion of the Revolution that had executed an anointed king), maybe, just maybe, he would have been contented with rule France and not much more.
@@emaarredondo-librarianWell like I said I tried to take the movie as a dramatic narrative because I’m certainly not incredibly knowledgeable on that part of the world’s history, I wanted Ridley Scott to play Devil’s advocate for at least one scene just to make us think “oh so THAT’S why people followed this guy.” but the movie never does. I know we don’t have recordings of this guy, but I’m having a difficult time believing he was this much of a terrible orator like the movie presented him as (especially for a guy who escaped exile and actually had a significant number of people ready to help him take back control of France)
It would’ve been a lot more interesting if the movie did that (and scarier if he wants to make a movie about someone who was a dictator/despot/whatever)
Hope you guys have enjoyed New Zealand so far! Great to have you here. If you are still in Queenstown area, there is a beautiful little movie theatre in Arrowtown which is not very far from Queenstown at all. Highly recommend 🙌
I thought this movie completely missed the mark, no narrative here. It wasn’t cohesive & it felt like bullet points in some of Napoleon’s most controversial moments of his life.
I love your comment about taking a big swing with Joaquin, as it was the big twist in his role in Signs, "swing away".
The film you saw is just an extended trailer for the real 4hr plus version which will stream on Apple tv.
I actually got bored in some places: oh, another battle, ok, next ....unlike the 3.5 hour 'Flowers of the Flower Moon' where I was captivated throughout (and there also, the relationship between husband and wife was the heart of the movie). I wonder what Kubrick would've thought of this version. Vanessa Kirby is beguiling but Joaquin Phoenix seemed bored at times, too!! 4/10 for me.
You would Joaquin Phoenix would have more emotion given he was a veteran actor.
I think it just lacks action for me. It just doesn't satisfy me. The battle scenes were okay but too short. I also HATED that they made Napoleon look like a child.
Boring 6/10 I watched it on a screen X and I wasn’t impressed by the screen or the movie.
It was meant to be a black comedy 😂 that's what Ridley Scott said and he's right as I couldn't stop laughing 😂 the scenes I just can't take seriously
Moon. 😮I fell asleep.
Thank you so much for your review. Also I hope you are enjoying Queenstown. I spent all of 2020 in New Zealand and it was amazing. Hope you are enjoying it as much as I did. It’s a beautiful country.
You articulated my reactions immaculately!
Ata marie Dan!!! Welcome to New Zealand. I hope you love it. Also hope you got yourself a Fergberger.
As a tiny country we always get a kick out of our favourite youtubers being in NZ
Thanks for the video Dan!
The focus on Josephine was the wrong through line for the movie. I feel a more compelling narrative would have been focusing on Britain vs France, particularly Wellington and his rise through the ranks as these 2 men become destined to face off at Waterloo.
The story of Napoleon is the common man vs the elites. Although Napoleon's parents were nobles, they were nobles from Corsica, so the French looked down on them.
He wanted to make it salacious, apparently.
It should have been called Napoleon and Josephine, or Napoleon, Actually then I would have known to skip it
I watched it and I wasn’t in love with it. I thought there was too much of a focus between napoleon and his wife and i didn’t like Joaquin phoenixs performance. Vanessa Kirby was good. I felt he was miscast as napoleon. Action scences were decent, but the time lapse and the focus of thier relationship brought the film down for me. 6\10 for me. The characterisation of napoleon was laughable , he came across as a simp. It didn’t also help that I sat next to an asshole who was screaming fuck the French every 15 minutes. Bizarre movie experience.
Another perceptive, well expressed review, Dan!
Critically, I believe that the movie was pretty good. As a historian though, the movie really did not do it justice I think. I really felt like if you did not know about Napoleon beforehand, you’re going to be lost here and there. They really did not focus on his manipulative nature as an admiral. I think they rushed the final years of his life which are some of the most important parts of history. They rarely showed his expedition of expanding the French empire and they made him too much of a brat and child. But the battle scenes were so well done especially the one above the ice lake, beautifully shot. But as a historic event, it falls short.
Yeah it did horrible job showing why he gained power so fast. Just like that 1st scene
@@captaintoyota3171
2002 TV Series:
Outstanding
Epic History TV:
Perfection
R Scott:
A colossal middle finger to those who know Napoleon's history and satisfy his Hollywood ego.
I was saying something similar on another video, saying that artistic license in a biopic is fine, like showing Napoleon at Antoinette's execution. He wasnt there for her execution, but showing him there gives the audience a glimpse of his reaction to an event that was central to his early rise. Totally fine imo. I then said that small changes are fine to tell the story, but complete fabrications (like the long debunked 'French soldiers were firing cannons at the pyramids and sphinx') are going to get some backlash. In other words it is a film, a work of art, but it also is implied that it's at least about the actual Napoleon, and not a fantasy. I was then told I was no different than a nazi trying to destroy art. Other people agreed. So now I'm a Nazi for expecting some actual history in a historic biopic about an actual person. That's where we are in 2023
@SolidAvenger1290
Yeah clearly 🙄 😒 Ridley Scott can't write or know how to direct good movies anymore.
“As a historian”
Man, get over yourself.
I always wanted a Napoleon movie with american actor, in plain american english with an american accent.
Yet still need subtitles because of his mumbling...
I can tell the gist of the review from the thumbnail itself😂😂. I love watching your videos for the great insights you provide, it always helps me understand the movie better. Great work as always Dan👍
Hi Dan! I watched Thanksgiving on Thanksgiving, it was great! Will be a yearly November watch from now on. Hope to see your thoughts on it. Congrats to you and Mara!
I also watched Thanksgiving just a couple of days ago and loved it. Super gory and darkly funny!
I cracked up when I saw your "mixed feelings face and/or confuse and/or not convinced".
Between, congratulations on your marriage. Wish you a long happy life together with lots of good cinema! :)
This movie is an utter disaster it fails on every level. Bad script , bad history, bad story telling. Nothing but garbage.
Oh cool, youre down here with us! Hope you had fun! Shame you didnt come to Bay of Islands, you could have said hi! ;) Maybe next time!
I appreciate you considering the technical aspects of this film. There’s a lot of filmworkers toiling away behind the scenes that have no control over how the film turns out in terms of story or acting.
Dan! I’m dying to hear your thoughts on the holdovers!
I still wish we could have seen Stanley Kubricks Napoleon!
I want to see a whole film of Terry Gilliam's Napoleon.
@@pattheplanter I’m not familiar with Terry Gilliam
@@-AtomsPhere- Time Bandits, Brazil, Twelve Monkeys, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? One of our finest British directors, since he renounced America and all its works.
@@pattheplanter oh wow, pretty iconic stuff, I should have known his name, my bad! Haha
@@-AtomsPhere- His work speaks for him. He is a very humble, shy creator. 👍
Are y’all doing the Lord of the rings tour? Awesome, thanks for your always unbiased honest review Dan!
Don't worry Dan; Bill and Ted will show up later in the sequel
“History channel at double speed" is a spot on description of this film.
Haere mai welcome to NZ and congrats on the honeymoon! Long time subscriber. Hope you’ve enjoyed our little country. 🇳🇿
Interesting that you enjoyed the Josephine scenes, I wanted to watch a movie about Napoleon, I felt Josephine was on screen a good 60% of the film....I also think the battle scenes were a wasted opportunity for a grand scale we havn't really seen before. Last great napoleon movie had a literal army of extras, no CGI.
Yea I didn't sign up for a romance movie but that's what I got. And it wasn't even a good romance
Damn it, was looking forward to this.
Disappointed that there’s an increasing number of these big directors care so little about historical accuracy. It’s a creative choice, I know, but it’s still disappointing. You can still make a great, accurate film that doesn’t veer into hagiography
Hollywood has always been dodgy with history. At least he doesn't have the Americans coming in to save the day at Waterloo. (Edited to add: he might have, I am just guessing, I am not watching this film).
So this release of the film is just an extended trailer?😂
Should've been named "Ridley Scott's Waterloo."
Shoulda been given the Elba.
It's fine -- I am not a fan of the desaturated color in the film. Also, for me, It always takes a little extra time to get into a movie about France when all the accents are English .. and then you have Joaquin Phoenix not attempting an accent. Phoenix performance reminds me of Kevin Costner in Robin Hood in that regard.
If they were speaking English then Phoenix should have been doing a Cornish accent.
History is being shit on and I am tired of it, its this subliminal "we live in a golden age, all other ages were the darkness and dullness of the ignorant" postmodernism or whatever you call it. The only person I like to do history is Baz Luhrmann he really allows his subjects to shine brightly!
Yeah i was bored, definetly doesnt tell his story well, kinda is more b.s. conversations. Few good scenes but does nothing to show WHY he got to power so fast. Yeah not what i expected and i love the 17/1800s history. 5/10 i.m.o. looks great, watchable, but ppl where laughing out loud at serious scenes.....
As of the begining of filming, Phoenix was the same age as Napoléon when he was in his second exile... he may have been a good choice to play Napoléon but 20 years ago... not now. Plus with first Jodie Cormer and then Vanessa Kirby, both younger than Phoenix, for the rôle of Josephine, Scott is really saying that he doesn't care about her. So many other stuff is historically inaccurate but, for me, those are the most annoying ones
I saw it today, and I was shocked at how bad it was.
I got to say that I never got the hype of Ridley Scott. Most of his recent movies weren’t that good and story of his movies tend to be generally flawed (such as the last duel) so it doesn’t come as a surprise that Napoleon movie wasn’t great
Welcome to our fair country, from a Christchurch, New Zealand 🇳🇿 fan here!!
This review hits the nail on the head for me where my uncertainty about this movie was. Having no context for why the battles were important, felt like I needed to read about France and Napoleon before I saw the movie to really understand what exactly was happening. And why Napoleon was such a great tactician.
From the reviews I've seen you need to know the historic period to understand everything that's going on but at the same time the more you know, the more you'll dislike the movie.
Thank you for your review, Dan. I really wish we got to see the director's cut in the theaters. It looks like the only reason why I'm seeing this film is for the battle scenes alone. I've been wanting to see an epic big film lately on the big screen. Sort of like when you get to see Jaws or The Thing with Kurt Russell on the big screen. It makes a difference. It's too bad that the movie Napoleon isn't as good as it should be. I shouldn't be surprised after watching Raised by Wolves, which if you haven't seen it yet, please don't waste your time like my family & I did. Read the Wikipedia entry instead.
There's a certain Old World pompousness I felt was missing from Joaquin's portrayal even when watching the trailers. A figure like Napoleon should have a really grandiose air to the way he carries himself, even when he's being a buffoon, especially when he's that way (think Silvio Berlusconi). Instead of that, we get something more aloof and petulant, which seems like an odd characterization for such a larger-than-life figure who also acted like he was God's gift to France.
I agree 100%. For a dictator they portrayed him as having a stunning lack of charisma. I get the point was to make him look like a complete loser, but it doesn’t exactly make for an interesting lead character who’s supposed to be driving a story forward.
If you read his letters he sort of comes across as an whinny brat at times - particularly when ti comes to Josephine’s he was apparently well known for being awkward in person. He had a habit of interrogating people even when he was hooking up. It’s sort of hilarious.
Definitely needed a longer cut. This 'cut' was so choppy, left so many holes and it was jarring at times. One second we're in a room and a couple lines are said, then cut to him out on in the street squashing a rebellion for about a minute or two, then we're suddenly in another room with a couple people talking for a couple minutes, then its into his bedroom for sex..lol. I found myself more than a few times being like "ok, wtf is going on? Where are we? Who is this? What happened to the other part?"..lol. It felt very much like there were missing pieces, and Phoenix barely says a word or two for like the first 30mins that i found myself grasping at who the character was. Didnt have much to go on. So im fairly certain a longer cut will likely fill in alot of holes and make for a more cohesive film.
Yup the format is wrong, I guess it would be best if it was a miniseries like BOB
Agree. I think it was too much time to cover in one film. One section more thoroughly detailed would have been better.
I could barely wait to leave by the end and that's before a longer cut
lol, that insurrection scene was completely ridiculous.
“There’s an insurrection brewing”
“Ok put me in charge”
Cut directly to scene of cannons firing at the crowd
End scene. All within 2 minutes. Completely bizarre storytelling
@@eggshapedisraelioperative6317 Lol!..exactly, I was like ...what the...?
Just watched a Borodino documentary where one of his marshals had an argue with Napoleon why he is so far behind the lines. In this movie he is charging a cavalry attack at the same battle. Most things in this movie are happening without reason and contrary to history. Made by Ridley Prig, the technically brilliant junk film director.
The Hovis advert was the peak of his career.
Love ya Dan 🤙
Queenstown might be the most beautiful place on Earth, bud! Congrats on the wedding and kudos for a dynamite honeymoon choice!
Ah, I loved Queenstown when I visited NZ. Such a stunningly beautiful place (much like all of NZ!). Did you go bungee jumping?!
I don't remember Napoleon battling xenomorph aliens fortified in the pryamids, or the battle of Grey Poupon as shown in the movie.
Is there at least a scene of him enjoying some water slides?
Good review. I really liked the movie but I can definitely agree on the pacing and lack of emphasis on the events and some of the characters (there were characters were it seemed like there was dialogue/context cut out) Hopefully the longer cut helps with that. The battle scenes were phenomenal, wish there was more of a focus on that.
The Napoleon movie was such a disappointment. Phoenix was not credible as Napoleon. Also the movie shouldn't have as much of a focus on Josephine and Napoleon love story especially when it did such a poor job depicting said love story.
I am always a bit nervous when seeing movies about historical figures or events since I tend to remember the movie as "fact". I have no issue with stories being loosely based on real events but largely fictional as long as the names are changed. I am also fine with a film being a "what if" or "in a different universe" multiverse treatment as long as it states that up front and is advertised as such. Otherwise, I think of it more as historical clickbait. Even though it may be done by a famous director such as Ridley Scott, it is still a cynical cash grab that uses a recognizable name to get people into the seats.
Same. I actually prefer them more when they're further removed from history. As in making Lincoln hunt vampires or going the "Bridgerton" alternate timeline route. Otherwise I tend to just sit and nitpick.
@@CharleyGurl Good point. I remember laughing when I saw the title "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter".
ps. Some movie titles become much funnier if you read the " : " out loud as "colon".
I wouldn't mind it so much if the main character at least have some resemblance to Napoleon. I just don't know what this movie is even trying to be about. He should have picked a Russian tragedy to adapt instead.
Maybe a video from the places you visited there, suscribers would like, I guess
Thanks for posting on your honeymoon Dan! Don't forget to replenish your electrolytes 😜
We really are entering the MCUization era of historical drama. Awkward humor and stilted themes
No, not everything is about the MCU. Bad movies existed before Marvel.
@@richardlinares6314the MCU gave it a certain style of bad
This was going to be the first Phoenix film that I wanted to see. My dad and brother went to go see it. I feel so sorry for them.
Happy Friday everyone!
should really put the stamps ad in the middle of the video because then im far more likely to watch it and sit through it and maybe even consider using their service
I think you sold me on this. I am itching to see a movie that has epic battles. I can do with a middling story if its technically good. Gladiator was that way too.
As a film, it’s great. Just don’t think of it in historical context, like Braveheart.
Braveheart was super inaccurate on everything.
@@dangeroushandles exactly, but it’s one of my favorite films. Just like the Godfather is great, it’s not a biography. Just a great film about something inspired by true events. The point of cinema is to be entertained. It’s not a history lecture.
And just don't think about the terrible casting of Joachin.... And just don't think about the boring pacing... And just don't think about the muddled narrative.... And just don't.... etc. etc.
@greggibson33 Phoenix was terrible. Joaquin "what's my motivation?" Ridley "pop another Xanax and read the line"
@@debbiesroommate He can only play psychotic weirdos. There's so many great actors with actual range. WTF was Scott thinking?
On top of all the irresponsible - and arrogant - ahistoricity in the film's writing, I'm just done with historical dramas dialing down saturation to a tad over grayscale. "Sophisticated art", my ass.
The one thing we can be sure about Napoleon, he loved bright colours.
I largely disagree on the battle scenes. Waterloo in particular was dreadful, even down to Napoleon picking the ground when Wellington picked it YEARS before the battle & that being a deciding factor in the outcome. Likewise most of the other battles show none of Napoleon's tactics nor generalship. Austerlitz is the only good battle scene in the movie IMO.
I think 1970 had a MUCH better show of Napoleon age battles, his tactics and a study of the character of Napoleon than this (even though that film is very bias towards Napoleon).
Ridley Scott already confirmed this movie is getting a 4-hour long extended cut.
Youu're in NZ? Yeeeaaaaaa!
There is a new "show" on Hulu called Faraway Downs. I thought it was a sequel series to the Nicole Kidman movie Australia. But it is actually the movie repackaged as a six part miniseries. Do you think this will be a new trend? Do studios think they can fool the streaming audience by taking a long movie and chopping it up? In the past splitting up book adaptations into two movies affected the overall flow of the story, will this be the same for a long movie that is already complete? Are there past examples of this method working?
I hope you guys are having an amazing honeymoon! 💚
“Destiny has brought me this lamb chop.”
I look forward to seeing this; but I still think it should have a French cast speaking in French.
From 2002: a mini-series - ua-cam.com/video/Fk-VkmhniM0/v-deo.html
Ah oui, vraiment. Et la voix de Piaf sur une scène de 1789...? Ça m'a agacé.
I've been waiting for this review - so the movies plays out as confusing as the previews seemed. LOL! I love Joaquin Phoenix so I might give this a try anyway.
This is totally unrelated but are we seeing a honeymoon vlog on the channel anytime soon, Dan? 😁
Napoleon is just a man looking for his mummy.
i’ve loved napoleon’s mind for 40+ years. i’ll no doubt be disappointed with any effort to encapsulate him into a movie but grateful for the opportunity to see Scott’s attempt.
Among the issues that Dan raised the other issue I had was casting. I really like Vanessa Kirby, but she was completely wrong for this role. I know they weren't going for complete historical accuracy, but Josephine was 6 years older than Napoleon which actually was important to their story. Vanessa Kirby is 14 years younger than Joaquin Phoenix. That's a 20 year swing in the wrong direction.
They were clearly desperate to cast Joaquin, it's a shame that it was 20 years too late.
They could have kept Kirby and got a younger actor to play Napoleon. Changing their ages messes up a lot of stuff with the couple themselves, it just seems an unnecessary change, and does a disservice to the actual historical figures.
@@Taralovescoloring Agree. That would have been my preference as well, but if they were stuck on using Joaquin I just wish they would have went for someone either older than him or at least closer in age.
Cinematography: A+. Costume Design: A+. Battle scenes and highlighting his military career and accomplishments: Quite solid. That said, I was enormously disappointed that there was no mention or reference whatsoever to the other, at least half of his story. Nothing on the MANY cultural and social reforms that wouldn't have happened without his presence. No Napoleonic Code. No mention of the sale of Louisiana to the Americans, the creation of first national bank of France and more. If one didn't know better one would think he was just a great military leader who won and lost some pretty epic battles. And while I like Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby a lot (love her work in The Crown), Phoenix's Napoleon feels very flat to me. This was a man who commanded enormous respect. He had to have been charismatic and magnetic possessed of qualities that inspired loyalty and awe. I'm sorry, but I don't read Phoenix as that Napoleon at all. I could be wrong, but I just wasn't convinced and I'm still not sure what to make of the dynamic between he and Kirby. Was Josephine THAT commanding? Would a woman, even of the aristocracy had the presence, savvy, and wherewithal portrayed in this film? Perhaps, but I'm skeptical. Thoughts?
This is pretty much as Napoleon was represented in British schools during Scott's youth.
@pattheplanter
Britain 🇬🇧 does not have best love for Napoleon given well history.
Awful script laughed out loud (i was not alone at the imax) at the 'your only proud because u have boats ' line .. who wrote this crap?
all the battles were rubbish no idea who some of the people in this were and ive read a LOT of book on boney it, the worst was waterloo what were trenches doing there its not ww1 could nt ever the prussians coming on from the east just pathetic in every way want to see a great napoleon in agreat movie Waterloo 1970 rod steiger and christopher plummer not this faeces
@@itsblitz4437 We Brits loved Napoleon so much we gave him a lovely seaside home twice.
I noticed another review and it said Joaquin was playing a 'small man' in stature. Maybe it was intentional... if you know the truth on him Napoleon Complex can also mean someone driven by his small height (hes not really short for this era) but someone who seeks to be great surpassing all that.
It was confusing with all the English home counties' accents. It seemed Napoleon's mum was from Oxford. There were scenes with only 2 English people talking and I was surprised to find out in the end, they were actually French.
I agree that the battle scenes are superbly shot, however there were just too many errors - French infantry not shown in column, Austerlitz becomes a fantasy battle and does not do justice to how Napoleon actually obtained a victory, in fact it panders to Napoleon's own skewed version of the battle which we know to be false. Prussians arriving on the British right flank at Waterloo - really?!!! Considering the cost of the film (only taking 62 says to shoot it) I left thinking a massive opportunity had been lost. Nothing on the Code Napoleon in a film supposedly about Napoleon??
I also think some important figures are missing - Ney for example. But perhaps the biggest error is Napoleon riding in the front line and into battle at Waterloo - dare I say a schoolboy error! Think the movie should have been called Josephine.
Napoleon charging at the end at Waterloo with his "escort" was reminiscent of the end of Spartacus.
We need a true great Napoleon movie
maybe a limited tv series woudl be better.
@@arturcirilo7601it was way better than the movie I think except for the cinematic shots in the movie is better than the series
Waterloo 1970
@@arturcirilo7601Spielberg is working with HBO to bring Kubrick's dream Napoleon epic to life.
Waterloo 1970❤
history fans will not only be disappointed by the depiction of napoleon in general but by the battle scenes in particular.
Not historic.
Not epic.
Not Napoleon.
People really watched House of Gucci and the Last Duel and thought Napoleon wouldn't be silly.
It’s weird because I actually don’t think it’s silly enough? Sure the humor is clearly trying but it never felt as outrageous to me as it clearly wanted to. It just felt like the same joke of “oh he’s a SIMP lol” over and over again.
I sort of felt in a similar way towards House of Gucci but at least the seemingly bad on purpose Italian accents kept it somewhat entertaining for me. And even though Jared Leto is terrible he’s still impossible to not watch because I have no idea what he’s even trying to do in that movie
And as for The Last Duel, there’s also no Ben Affleck type performance that made me go “OK at least this guy is an interesting character” to keep me watching in Napoleon either. So I actually think those two are better movies.
Dan.. have you seen some of these trailers for the upcoming year?.. almost wishes for more Marvel movies 😂😂😂 (not looking good)
Hope you enjoy Queenstown it is a lovely place I live only a couple of hours away.
Dan: "Everybody makes mistakes!"
Me: "Everybody has those days!"
Ridley Scott should be banned from making historical movies
The performance and direction of Napoleon (off the battlefield at least) really took me out of the movie if I'm honest and completely broke any suspension of disbelief that I may have had, at no point did it feel like I was watching Napoleon in France.
I'd also been onboard HMS Victory (where they filmed the final scene) the week before seeing the movie which I found a tad amusing, especially when I noticed the fire supression system not edited out in the film.