Napoleon Movie Was Doomed From The Start
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 сер 2024
- Hollywood Strikes Again... as they demolish the almost mythical figure of Napoleon. Apart from multiple historical inaccuracies, the story itself is not even interesting, and the time jumps ruin everything.
Support HistoryLegends
► Patreon ✔ / thehistorylegends
► PayPal ✔ www.paypal.me/...
► Book ✔ www.thehistory...
► INSTAGRAM: / historylegends2
► TWITTER: / historylegends_
► TIKTOK: www.tiktok.com...
#historylegends
Napoleon deserves a HBO series on the same level as Game of Thrones.
💯
And then he gets a secret black advisor and a female lesbian adversary who is much smarter then him …
@@Phexyn😂😂😂
There are plenty of past tv series on Napoleon...
There's no superheroes or strong independent women. So no way they think it's worth making
My main issue is that they didn't show Napoleon's tactical brilliance and pure genius. If you watched the movie without ever hearing anything about Napoleon, you wouldn't conclude or figure out from watching it that he was a great general, let alone one of the greatest of all time. Instead you would just think that he was an emotional and pathetic lunatic.
Watching those battles is like in total war games where you select all your troops and click to charge on the enemy.
Because Hollywood will never make a white man look good in any way. Show me a movie in the last 5 years that refutes this?
_"you would just think that he was an emotional and pathetic lunatic."_
- Well... he was French.
No not really, the movie shows multiple times how clever and strategic he is in the battlefield, especially with the battle in russia. I think people are just shitting on this movie, because this new generation is a bunch of adhd goblins who cant sit down for more than 20 minutes, and watch a movie with an actual story and enormous effort put into it. No you'd rather watch a CGI fuckfest about women with superpowers.
Yes they did. They showed his genius in austerlitz
To think the Brits were actually terrified and in awe of Napoleon, with even Wellington marvelling at the opportunity to fight him. The British historians later turned Napoleon into a short, romantic fool.
And like you said, there is a reason why millions of French and others would readily march into certain death under his command - Napoleon was charismatic beyond belief. There is a reason every dictator on earth since has wanted to be seen in the image of a Napoleon.
This movie looks like an incel Joker decided to wear a Napoleon costume.
The british historians always do the same with historical figures that defied them
We're still in awe of him...which is why this film was so disappointing. It was like watching JP not Napoleon. Napoleon is just as much a mythic like character here as in France. He was our greatest historical rival. No chance in hell he would've lost it in front of Brits screaming about 'Boats'. Just silly
@@lluisgalvanlluch1808I agree, but they can't do that with George Washington. He's there daddy
Scott is clowning the French. This is hot garbage of a movie.
The brits...beggers of history, but writing it as they rulled the world, while half of the globe still suffering because of their decision. History is writen by winers but most of times they are yhe weiners
The moment I saw the trailer of this movie, I knew that I wanted to watch it with my father. He is a huge history buff, and loves historical dramas. Decided to surprise him and took him to the movies... never felt so disappointed by a movie before. My dad was happy for the surprise and the opportunity to spend time with his son, but the same disappointment could be read in his eyes as well... what a shame.
Take him to a documentary film then?
@@HitchcockBrunette 🤦
@@HitchcockBrunette Only a person who likes pigs would say that... but what to expect from modern generation...
@@petarkraev3896lmaooo
@@HitchcockBrunetteAre you trying to ask a question?
I feel bad for my boss. He rarely goes to movies, and as a Napoleonic War fan he was so looking forward to seeing this. He avoids social media, so I think his disappointment will be great.
Tell him
Emotional Damage, man.
Tell him before this jeopardizes your salary increase.
WARN HIM DUDE
His day will be ruined
You mean to tell me hollywood touched something and it turned to shit? I am soooooooooo shocked.
Ridley scott was awesome though back in the 00’s
Gladiator is one of the best movies ever made
@@honingpot4577 He's begun crashing and burning in the '10s. I will never forgive Alien: Covenant. It was literally to Alien what Other M was to Metroid.
@@honingpot4577 As good as Gladiator is I have to give the top credit to Master and Commander. Captain Aubrey is such a great character and you see where his faults start to unravel the entire mission and nearly gets his entire crew killed for his pride.
Reverse Midas' touch
To me leaving Spain out of the movie entirely was also horrific. It completely ignored the hundreds of thousands who died (250k French troops alone were casualties in Spain), and was one of the biggest strategic reasons Napoleon ended up being defeated. The Spanish and Portuguese were not given their due justice.
Makes you really appreciate how the movie “Waterloo” got things so right by contrast. Not to mention the sheer scale of putting together literal armies of extras in a practical effects only industry.
napoleon was a tyrant like lincoln; stalin and hitler
Waterloo was a masterpiece in comparison to this.
I've heard that the French themselves consider Rod Steiger's magnificent performance as Napoleon to be definitive. I own the DVD and have watched it many times. Recently the film was viewable on YT in an excellent format for free. I have read dozens of books on Napoleon and his era and I agree that Steiger's performance reflects the man at that time.
@@freddiefreihofer7716 UA-cam even has a longer cut of the film, I think it was put together by the fans of the original film.
@@Other8arry Yes, I believe you mean the superb full theater format one on Marlbrouk's channel.
I wish movies would show Napoleon’s Bavarian , Italian , Polish and Mameluke soldiers . He had soldiers from Western Europe , North Africa and Eastern Europe who were loyal to him .
no duke Józef Poniatowski or madame Walewska
@@Warszawski_ModernizmHeh-heh. THAT sort of "diversity" goes against today's Woke narratives. And don't forget whom Prussians called the "Black Devil," Thomas-Alexandre Dumas. Born in what's now Haiti of mixed-race parentage, he rose to the rank of General under Napoleon, who believed in "careers open to all talents."
Love those Mamelukes, scimitars, turbans and all!
Are those the same troops he abandoned in Egypt and then in Russia ?
@@jonshive5482 same thing with the Germans in World War 2. The SS had foreign divisions from all over the world. Muslim division black soldiers asians South Americans. Not to mention from all over Europe. For a large portion of the war 52% of the SS we’re not German. And we’re extremely loyal.
I don't understand why this keeps happening. Why do people make historical movies, games and other media if they're just going to do it poorly. I can understand a few inaccuracies here and there, but people have just gotten lazy now.
People go to the theatres to be entertained, not to be educated. There's no incentive for movie producers and directors to make historically accurate movies because the audiences themselves don't care.
Because if you buy a bad pair of trousers you can return and refund, you can't unsee a movie :)
@@robto Apparently, it's not even entertaining.
The guy who made gladiator made a historically inaccurate movie, say it ain’t so
@@tibsky1396 Well, the movie is doing good so far at the box office. Nonetheless, it's too early to tell. Let's see how it goes.
200 years later, the English still hate Napoleon - and never miss a chance to trash him. This is just the most recent, most expensive example of that hatred.
Note: I've been to Les Invalides - and to Montreal, Canada - where they have one of his boots on display in a museum.
Best wishes from Vermont 🍁
Andrew Roberts and Vincent Cronin have some of the most favourable biographies on Napoleon. Robert’s has a book called Napoleon the Great. Cronin was British and Roberts is British.
wow boots from which battle?
If you want to see Napoleonic battles done right, look up War and Peace, the Soviet film.
I think many of the extras were actual soldiers that the Soviet government called out to film the battles.
A quality film well worth watching.
I liked when Napoleon said "it's Napoleonin' time" and then he Napoleoned all over the place
That's one of my favorite quotes of his.
I love how this meme can apply to absolutely everything
I liked when Hitler Napoleoned his way through the Soviet Union.
😆😆
The ultimate irony there was that Hitler was opposed to concentrating on Moscow and that was one of the reasons he sacked Halder@@ShadowReaper-pu2hx
I think the movie was a failure because they didn't have Josephine on the battlefield at the front leading the soldiers like the strong powerful independent woman she is.
A gay Josephine.
@@postmodernminingA lame and gay Josephine
A black, lame and gay Josephine. Running with a palestine coloured flag and a blue and yellow uniform
A Joseph who became Josephine.
Charging from the front while yelling, “You’re nothing without me! Say it!!”
In Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo, he created good cannon recoils when they were shown firing. When Marshal Ney led the ill timed cavalry charge on the British, formation of squares by the British and Artillery men running into the squares for safety, were realistic. Napoleon the movie is not even a shadow of Waterloo.
That’s because the USSR helped create the film and had the red army dress up and be soldier extras. For them it was like a real training exercise.
One of the movies I saw that absolutely blew me away was "Waterloo". Those battle scenes is just so impressive.
"Never let the brits cover French history. NO!"
Very well said.
The English narrative on the Napoleonic wars is completely self-serving.
Cap
British people are high on the idea their empire was super powerful. It's not difficult empire building to conquer tribes in foreign lands. However in Europe they believe they were still strong when in fact all modern European battles they pride themselves on were fought by nations with importance such as France Germany and Rossia
@@daseapickleofjustice7231 True. Most of "British conquests" were against people with butter knives and woodsticks.
But against serious rival nations, the score was way more evenly-matched.
Ah les Angais.. love 'em or hate'em..
We I mean we did win.
Therin is the point. The other nations couldn't get 5 metres offshore without the Royal Navy stopping them. That's true power.@@daseapickleofjustice7231
I hated how they make him look like a freaking coward at the beginning, they never even showed his courageous characteristics, or his ability to lead men by example. They made him look like a wuss and a sex addict.
Yes the entire film was him stumbling around trying to get pussy in between battle scenes. It was kind of shit.
You are not allowed to show great men in Hollywood anymore because "toxic masculinity" and "patriarchy"
We're in a period of demoralization. Positive masculine traits and heroic feats are forbidden to be portrayed.
That's what some Americans think of us French we wouldn't want to break the stereotypes wouldn't we 😂
It's all intentional.
This movie is a parody of Napoleon.
Ironically, Ridley Scott nowdays is a parody of Ridley Scott from 30+ years ago...
yep his movie the Duellists from 1977s? is 10x better with 100x less budget
Just got home from the theater and I am throughly disappointed. Like you said with that budget so much more could have been done. I think for me the worst part was that time skip after the burning of Moscow, so much got left out. We didnt even really get to see the retreat out of Russia. But honestly looking back thats the least of the problems this film had, so much was messed up or just plain left out.
And it was still damn good
I took my partner to see it at IMAX for her first ever IMAX experience. I was so disappointed
@@wyattcole5452you lack any taste
@@MaticTheProto any taste? Whatever you call taste is just the broom sticking up the back of your throat, it got shoved a little too deep I think. I’m glad I lack that taste
@@wyattcole5452 no matter what metric, the movie was shit. If you just want to see fancy looking shit then go to a museum and look at paintings
I had goosebumps when Napoleon said "say hello to my little friend" and all the cannons started firing
They should have done it in French for authenticity
I had goosebumps when Napoleon said to Josephine "I’m funny how, I mean funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? Waddya mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?"
I liked when Josephine said she'd been boned before, but sex with Napoleon was a bone apart!
@@MoeHamHead-bx7og 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 bro you made me laugh
@@scockery😂😂😂 I saw what you did there!!!
As with all modern historical movies, they take great pains to make life look awful in the past. They forget that chandeliers existed back then. Everything is dark and drudgy and only a couple candles are in a room. And they made Napoleon a weird animal with no genius and never hinted at the idea that he had conquered Europe.
It's a similar tactic to the victorians. Exaggerate how bad the past was.
It feels like a lot of left on the editing room floor.
@@11235but average life expectancy in 1800 was was somewhere between 30 - 40 years and making it through childhood was a challenge. 25% infant mortality rate. Aspirations? Really, how about your life is horrible and you live it every day, need to put food on the table, watch every fourth child die and hope a plague isnt around the corner. What a silly comment you made!
Sounds like it was way worse back then. Back then it was much worse than now. Worse in the past, better now. Past bad, present better... what you're saying is exactly the propaganda he's referring to. It's always better now, and the past society/political system/government is always worse than what you have now.@@bb-qk8mp
This movies seems to have nothing to do with Napoleon or the time period it's set in.
The sad thing is , its not like they had no time in the movie to cover all the skipped historical events. They just decided to waste that time on sex scenes and Napoleon simping for Josephine.
The best comment here.
My father is a huge fan of Napoleon, as a kid I remember him going to the local tabac shop not for cigs nor for milk, but for war magazines series that would talk about N.B’s life and all, like: “Ça Histoire” “Napoléon 1er” “L’Histoire” and so on. Not even stating the books..
Well, I saw him practicing noose knot after the movie, with an empty bottle of whiskey.
My biggest disappointment with the movie is as you pointed out the portrayal of his character. There's a reason why Napoleon had such a big impact on history and it's not because he's secretly a little cry baby behind closed doors. Scott basically raped the legacy of one of the greatest strategists, tacticians, and politicians the European continent has ever known. I also hated that his campaign in Itality, which was instrumental in his rise to greatness and showed his superb understanding of warfare, was completely left out. I agree that it's hard to capture such a long period in two hours of film. But it would have been much better to do the Italian campaign properly and end the movie with him becoming the emperor of France.
He lost his Italian army in Egypt, his perfect understanding was that it didn't matter, just a little propaganda would make Paris jump for more
I don't mind seeing him cry cos I'm sure the real one did but that shouldn't take away from everything else that's known about him.
It doesn't help that Ridley Scott turned into a self hating white liberal.
He's a good politician but not a good diplomat. That's Talleyrand the archweasel job.
It's a MOVIE. Not a book. Not a documentary. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO LAUGH FOLKS. Every frame of this film looks like a neo classical painting. Thoroughly entertaining, visually spectacular, and hilariously dark. Yes, it wasn't historically accurate and the script lacked a bit, but psychologically, it wins all around. Brilliant entertainment. The violence was awesome. 4/5 stars
I am 75 years old. I read so many books on Napoleon when I was young. The education system in America is no longer what it used to be. Most people under the age of 50 in this country would look at this movie and wonder why anyone would consider Napoleon important. I was actually bored and couldn’t wait for it to get over with and then wondered why I sat through the whole darn thing.
Not sure what you mean by the American education system. The American education system has always been trash.
Is sad to be honest. I know from the beginning that It was going to be historically incorrect, but I at least hoped to see the most "romanticized" version of his history... I feel bad for all the people who went to see it.
okay, boomer. thanks for destroying the education system for everyone that comes after you.
It's a psyops. It's a mental warfare against the people to make them have no heroes. To become relativists and nihilists
I wish I would have walked out.
Thanks for the review ! Based on comments and reviews, I came to the conclusion that the 1970 film Waterloo revealed the character of Napoleon better than the 2023 film. One gets the feeling that the 1970 film would have grossed more than the 2023 film.
Thank you (so much!) for your analysis of the movie. I am impressed with your analysis of the filming of the battle scenes. Your historical knowledge of the strategy, the actual placement, is laudable. I have sent the link to this to a bunch of my friends.
Hollywood doesnt care about history or facts, ideologies come first and foremost. I knew this movie was going to be about how napoleon needed a strong diverse woman to actually show him the way. How off am i?
I'm only surprised that Josephine wasn't portrayed by an Afro-Carribean beauty or that Napoléon was played by Wakim Phoenix instead of that bloke who won all the female swimming competitions. 🤨
I'm surprised they didn't portray her as a Transvestite and Napoleon having boys as his body servants.
Cringe
Youse got that right
Так и есть. Блядство преподносят в массы.
Napoleon already had a built In character to use. He was a military genius that realized conventional tactics were flawed. He destroyed armies by ignoring the “rules” and being VERY unconventional. The arc is when the rest of the countries learned from their past failures and adapted until it was finally a level playing field. Accurate history would’ve made this movie much much much better. And you had phoenix!
I read that he was essentially brought down by bankers offering cheap loans to his opponents.
Phoenix was a very bad fit for napoleon from the start. There have been articles saying that Phoenix didn't know what he was doing on set and was scared shitless to portray him wrongly.
@maragossep3492 sure, British bankers, and they weren't just some local countries banks.
I haven't seen the movie but when the guy in the video said Phoenix played him as bored, emotional/emo and borderline unstable... I can totally picture it. That really seems to be Phoenix' default mode.
ARTILLERY!! It was rather new, and wasn't seen as a manly sort of choice, especially for a royal, which Napoleon WAS, even if a poor one. Now in WWII artillery is what killed more soldiers than anything else. Not guns. Napoleon had to disperse the crowds that were rioting, he did so very quickly with canon, and not covering that is crazy. He did ignore the rules, and much like battles where those with arrows and not armor made the difference, artillery was given it's due by Napoleon.
I don’t think Joaquin Phoenix bought into this either given the dull acting performance. Such a shame. He’s a brilliant actor. And Ridley Scott making comments like ‘where they (historians) there’ when responding to reports of inaccuracy is stupid. He shouldn’t pretend he’s some sort of historical documentarian. He makes entertainment for the big screen with big budgets.
One of the main events in the Napoleonanic Wars that is usually glossed over in the history books, is the Retreat from Moscow. Napoleon's Army did not retreat in one beaten mass, as usually portrayed, but a withdrawal with different units protecting the flanks. A lot of the soldiers that died on the retreat from Moscow died facing the enemy on battlefields distant from the main column.
A lose is a lose, there is nothing you can do...
I was literally laughing out loud the whole movie. The scene where Josephine spreads her legs and goes "Surprise", how am I supposed to take that seriously? My brother had to keep hitting me because I couldn't stop laughing. It legit succeeded in being unintentionally funny. It failed to tell a coherent story and was a complete character assassination of the man but it was good for some laughs. Not something I ever thought I'd say about a Napoleon Bonaparte movie.
The sex scenes was so porn and silly! Napoleon take Josephine like a horse so fast and he so freaking that I was believe in a short moment that the director make a 20 image/second film!
those scenes were supposed to be funny. surprise!
@@windmill-ze8rj pretty lame humor
@@windmill-ze8rjgotta admit i smiled, then i remenbered that I had spent money on this shit and the smile vanished.
The movie is probably shit, i'm not interest anyway HOWEVER
Movies DONT have to be historically accurate, it's not in anyway a requirement, unless the author claims to be historically accurate.
If you want to watch a great movie about Napoleon, go watch the soviet/italian movie Waterloo from 1970, it's a masterpiece.
I loved it when Napoleon said "you were the chosen one, you were meant to destroy the Coalition, not charge without infantry support!" To Ney, so sad 😢
"You underestimated my Cuirassiers!"
😂
I loved when he asked his mother for another glass of wine.
that was the closest the movie came to the inner emotions of Napoleon at all. For the rest he was pretty flat and cardboard.
"Somehow Napoleon returned"
The complete glossing over of the battle of Borodino in less than a minute was mind boggling.
And where Kutuzov.
Someone once told me that it wasnt the accuracy that matters, it's the vibe. The truth in history is already the greatest vibe. History isn't just a bland list of stats and events, it's already a story. It has characters, settings, and motivations. You just have to film it as it happened and you have story telling gold..
Actually, the facts matter. Oh, and the "vibe" here sucked-
@@franjaime200 Ah... yes. I don't think you understood me.
Stanley Kubrick would definitely have made the best Napoleon film. Unfortunately, it wasn't to be.
There’s nothing we can do..
@@dastemplar9681 Yes, it's a shame. The man had some good projects planned.
Steven Spielberg is already working on this version for a 7 episode HBO tv series btw
@@MR-DURO Hopefully this won't be a soap opera
@@MR-DURO I hope he doesn't let us down. Still he would have to work hard to make something as bad as this.
I hate that we got 80% just the relationship of Josephine and Napoleon. We wanted to learn about the man, his politics, law changes and mainly what he experted in... Warfare. Like BRUH
yeah but WAMEN MU VAGINA MUH
@@purplekalmar2897 lol
And the tactics he inployed, its really is a dissapoinentment
Well It could be just a Josephime film too, considering she is also an interesting woman in History
@@nicmagtaan1132not really
People were complaining about a mermaid being black, but don't complain about a French General not speaking french and disrespect Thomas Dumas and under play his role.
A mini series would be far better than this.
Thanks Alex, you saved me 2.5 hours of my life and your video is more interesting than the movie lol
Then you'll miss out on the 2.5 minutes that are actually good.
Oh I'll be certain to watch the movie. When it gets streamed on a platform for free that I have subbed.
Sadly we are in that era of movies, best to have someone you respeckt watch and listen to their opinions.
watched it, the pacing was awful and it felt like a romance drama, not an epic historical movie
it's not that bad 6.5/10 visually looked nice visually but does suffer pacing problems but well acted
It’s just impossible for a 2.5 hours movie to cover all the events of Napoleon’s life with accuracy and good pacing. It should have been a series.
The issue is money but why the French don't sponsor and make series about him! Also he wasn't a legend, he was imperialist bloodthirst thug dreaming to rule the world by wars and bloods .....
Good thing he’s releasing a 4.5 hr cut on streaming. This is Ridley Scott we’re talking about Kindgom of Heaven was trash in theaters, but once the Directors Cut came out it was 100% a masterpiece.
@@NeoFreshair Well yeah he kinda was , i am not a fan of his either. But his era is really interesting. Who wouldnt love a well made , high budget series.
@@sethhauck1283 True but i dont really see how the directors cut can save this one. The important battles were just beyond terrible. There are so many inaccuracies throughout the movie that you would have an easier time trying to find what they got right😅. They didnt even try. Also come on . Kingdom of Heaven was never trash. Even the theater version . We dont get movies like that anymore sadly.
No, sorry, the issue isn’t that 2.5 hours isn’t enough. So much of that time was spent showing napoleon or Josephine just staring blankly. Complete misuse of time.
Napoleon actor was like a psycho on Valium... pathetic
Glad you showed footage from the great Russian War and Peace (1967), the standard by which all battle movies should be judged.
I legitimately thought they'd cover the first half of Napoleon's career and leave the other half for a sequel, I agree and it seems insane to cram it all into one film
Though I never seen the film yet, I legitimately thought the film was about Napaleon and Josephine, not about his entire life.
Napoleon rise to power..the french revolution..the start of revolutions all across Europe inspired by his following military victories agaist the coalitions funded by the british. The second coalition battles where he spanked the whole of europe..his weird friendship with the tsar of russia which have led to his unlogical decision to throw his armies to die in winters burned lands..his downfall.. his first exiles..his comeback to france..his second exile..not counting all his wild love stories.. and the way he ended his life exiled on an island surrounded by three fully geared british warship. A 6 seasons series with a 3 billions budget wouldve been more like it x)
@@hound3000its not even about thay, from the half to the end she dissapears
@@spinosaurusstriker she doesn't disappear at all, she literally dies towards the end.
@@hound3000. This movie is monumental and yes 2 and a half hours are not enough, that's why they will release a 4 hour 10 minutes cut on streaming. I'll suggest you go watch it in a theatre while you still can, was worth every single cent.
Barry Lyndon was an incredibly good movie, even using proper candle lighting to try and depict proper interior nighttime scenes
Agree!
It's a shame Kubrick never did a Napoleon film, if anyone could do it justice...
@@day0walker totally, my wife didn't like Kubrick until she saw Barry Lyndon, as she's a Thackeray fan, but it changed her opinion of him at once. We both said he'd do Napoleon justice, especially now in the world of enormous budgets and CGI.
Heck, Scott's The Duellists was a small masterpiece and had its own Napoleonic moment at the end .. but this, I wasn't even planning to watch
@@williet.3058 ahhhh that's a great film the smaller scale just right for the cinema format
The reason movies were better seventy years ago was because dircetors as well as producers used to care. (if not on accuracy, then at least on style).
In the Sharpe series, one of the coolest scenes is when Sharpe is extremely happy just to have been able to see Napoleon for a brief moment. This small scene shows how great Napoleon's reputation was even in defeat.
being happy about seeing the enemy emperor on the battlefield; now that's soldiering!
And there you see the stark difference between the director/writer.
Bernard Cornwell has a complete appreciation for the history.
Ridley Scott just wanted to be dramatic and loosely use historical names to sell tickets.
he created the modern europe. half of the constitutions currently in use in europe based his ideas and rulership in some way or other. attacking him is literally attacking what makes europe europe, and that clearly no groups goal, since that would be a conspiracy theory and we all know those are bad and never turn out to be true.
Beating your enemy with a tig welder , now that's soldering
Great books turned into a great series that seemed to be true to the books. Bean is Sharpe & it cause me to read Game Of Thrones & watch the series.
Been studying Napoleon for 50 years and traveled from Moscow to Waterloo. This review is 100% spot on. When they jumped from Russia to abdication, I was done with this movie. Many historians think his defense of France in 1814 was one of N's greatest battlefield efforts - although a losing one. Phoenix was horrible - too old and pudgy to play the young Bonaparte. You do not ever really see the decisive and dynamic leader.
The last nail in the coffin is the Huckleberry. Your comment is the last nail.
I am not interested in revisionist tripe. Appreciate your input. You are Scott's Huckleberry.
Its a real shame. In the movie napoleon spent more time in bed than on the battlefield. Also the Scots Grey Charge was apparently led by the French
I have a ticket for that movie..When I watched the trailer I thought Phoenix might be a good actor for the role, but had concerns with the time line for a movie.
All the comments in here really saddened me before the movie even starts... I had these fears :(
Go and try to watch without bias. I can only hope that it might spark some interest in this man and his times. The 1970 movie Waterloo did that for me. I am now wondering if all those who say this is demonstrating British anti-Bony bias, may have a point.@@steadyimprovement156
@@steadyimprovement156that is what you get, should have went in blind and had no doubts.
Makes you wonder how much better Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon film would've been, considering Ridley Scott himself said he was going to avoid drawing from Kubrick's script
I loved the part where napoleon shouted "Wakanda forever" then opened fire on the pyramids, it was truly badass
The old Napoleon film made by using Soviet soldiers entirely was so cool
18000 soviet soldiers yeah. Impossible to do in our times.
Waterloo (1970) if anybody is interested. Phenomenal film.
@@liammckeon5340haha yes I watched it back in 2019, was actually a free version uploaded on youtube at the time, might still be there. Movie showed both Napoleon and Wellington in a respectful manner. Was very epic. No caricatures no silly bs, just a solid antique historical film. Have yet to see this new Napoleon.
@@liammckeon5340 A TRULY phenominal film-I couldn't agree more. It shows Ridley Scott's effort to be the failure that it is. The cavalry charges in "Waterloo" are terrifying!!!!! The whole film (Waterloo) is accurate, educational and riveting.
Waterloo is a masterpiece of a movie. The scene of Napoleon's speech to the Old Guard after his abdication is freaking amazing.
Glad you showed the 1970 Waterloo aerial scenes that show what thousands of real extras can do in contrast to CGI. Movies of that era were more focused on the history rather than Hollywood storylines. Tora Tora Tora is another such fine example. Today's filmaking is sad...Fury a case in point.
100% agree, especially about Fury.
The difference is "ness", these are not historic movies but "historicness" movies. They are not art by themselves but they have some "artness" in them. Sorry for making up terms for explaining this trend. I am no philosopher god forbids :) Still, I think this makes easier to undertand the statement here. Nobody nowadays give a sh*t to the actual history. They are after "trendyness" for their products. Thus "epicness" is enough for any battle scenes, not the real tactics, breaking up the causality that made history real and important.
Natural realism is much less enjoyable, it is like a nice stake that you have to eat slowly since there are rough textures, bones and what not. Yet with hundreds of millions of dollars they are not after making a good meal but making a 1.5$ worth hamburger with souces and a sugary coke, tasty, easy to chew. You remember the bunker last tactics scene from The Downfall where Hitler on battlemaps cursed his senior officers while the crew of the bunker listened to his angry screams motionlessly? That is natural realism, for sure it is not much appealing to the eye, wokeism is not ther, the esthetics are not remarkable. Yet it feels "real" thus works much better to my taste. Remember Alexander movie from early 2000's? The battlefield tactics were all there, also the extreme clsoe up shots. Worked perfectly for me. But money and trendyness are not after those kind of movies anymore. until oneday one director returns with a new trendsetter.
thats not Waterloo, its a Soviet film ''War and Peace'' reenacting battle of Borodino and a bit of Austerlitz, but still directed by the same person who directed Waterloo, Sergei Bondarchuk
it was 20000 extras from Soviet army lol
@otgunz Historical accuracy is tedious for the average movie attendee. They are there to be entertained.
Sergei Bondarchuk's movie is battlefield movie with some character nuance. I think the movie Waterloo captured the essence of the battle. Accounts may vary.
It is definitely worth a look.
Waterloo from 1970 has the greatest battle reanactment in history. 10000 soviet troops were all taught napoleonic drill for it
I will never understand why people are expecting Ridley Scott to make anything accurate. He literally never has and has said himself he never will, he tells stories with great cinematography…….. that’s it.
They made it seem like he was the villain in his own movie. They didn’t show most of his genius tactics, also putting death counts over battles like Toulon and austerlitz makes it seems like he wanted those wars and didn’t care about deaths.
brilliant comment, "villain in his own movie". I understand making Napoleon the villain of a British or Russian story like the Sharpe novels or War and Peace, but the villain in his own movie? Everybody sees themselves as the protagonist of their own story, that's why we justify the things we do. once you begin to see a person's life through their own eyes you begin to sympathize, you begin to appreciate them as protagonist.
unfortunately small souled people like ridley scott who think with their bellies and willies can't understand the greatness of a man like Napoleon. people who think with their willy see the world through their willy and think everyone else thinks with their willy. ridley scott thinking with his belly finds war and death to be uncomfortable and bad and so Napoleon the god of war was the devil himself. ridley scott thinking with his willy sees Napoleon as a man who also thought with his willy and so presented him as such.
@@noble3784 Fact of the matter most histories of Napoleon (and all history, too) are residuals of propaganda, both for and against him. What you consider as "thinking with his belly" is perhaps more telling of what kind of hopeless romantic of "great men" you are. You don't know Napoleon, you don't know how much and what was propaganda, but any half-decent student of history is well-versed in the fallacy of men, how small or petty how ambitions and illusions of grandeur can be. It is absolutely right by anyone who does not romanticize war to think that Napoleon is a vainglorious man willing to sacrifice anything for personal glory. Anyone who thinks he was more than that is religiously in denial of the nature of man. The man was more interested in the historical legacy of himself than the prosperity and freedom of his people. I think these kinds of movies are great in offering contrasting perspectives to ahistorical figures alot of people like to idealize arbitrarily, especially these days. People seem very keen on romanticizing the past, especially figures like Napoleon, Hitler, Mousselini, or anyone who was audacious enough to cut the Gordian knot (destroying all political opposition) at any cost.
Dude, HE WAS THE VILLAIN. He murdered civilians. He massacred tribesmen. He allowed his troops to rape and murder at will in Moscow, resulting in (aside from all those pesky dead civilians) the loss of over 75% of his army during the Russian winter. He was a scumbag. His wars were all about self-aggrandizement. Trying to defend him is literally like trying to defend the Third Reich.
maybe was that way Napoleon wanted to conquer europe hewanted war and didn´t care about deaths otherwise it would be very hipocrite he was a genocidal like stalin
Its unbelievable that they didn’t show or even mention at least ONCE the war in Spain which was the beginning of the end of Napoleon's invencibility.
I think they just kept all the bits that could be tied to Josephine. Italy is skipped, but its in Egypt where he gets worried about the affair. Why even have so many battles when they don't add to the romance drama? The movie didn't know what to focus on
Hey they might have want to make the french look bad, but not at the cost of making Spain look good! Lol 😂
@@Pangora2your comment is almost verbatim what I said to my wife after walking out of the theatre after the movie ended. No focus. Did the studio step in after the first 1/3rd and mess things up? Did R. Scott just lose interest as filming went on?
Probably just poorly planned from the start, and obviously poorly executed.
There is to much to say about him… we need at least 3 movies or a serie to cover this part in spain
Forget spain, they didnt even show his Italian campaign that showed his brilliance
Honestly Ridley Scott's saying "get a life" is the main reason why I avoided this film, because it shows that Ridley does not give a shit about history despite making a historical film. And I see people making the argument that movies are not supposed to be accurate but to entertain the audience, which is a bullshit excuse in this day and age. I mean compare Napoleon with Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolan had made an entertaining film while trying to be as historical as possible.
It's crazy how 2023 we had biographical films such as Oppenheimer which might win an oscar while some have been saying Napoleon was so bad that a razzie award might be awarded.
I heard the rumor that the film was supposed to be about the rise of Napoleon ending at Austerlitz. So that is what I initially concentrated on in watching docs in preparation for the movie. Thanks for the detailed analysis of the battle scenes. I think Scott would have been better off just concentrating on the period up to Austerlitz and showing something of the Italian campaigns of 1796-98. I expect that I'll find this a poor second to the 2002 European miniseries with Clavier, Rosselini, Depardieu, and Malkovich. All of whom are better actors than Phoenix.
All I ever wanted was to see Napoleon crossing the alps. Out of everything he did, one of the most legendary events was him crossing the alps. And yeah the fact that Josephine was portrayed as being his reason for a lot of battles and events made me realy peeved as well. Also if I recall didn’t the British at least respect Napoleon In The end which is one of the reasons why he was exiled and not killed
DNA analysis of his hair revealed he was poisoned.
@@ntvansWhich is a waste of poison if you asked me. He was old, sick, and very far away from any civilization. He simply wasn't a threat anymore at that point.
@@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863 But it says just how much they feared and, in a way, respected him that, even though he was no threat anymore, someone still made sure he was eliminated.
@@panzerschliffehohenzollern4863 He was 51.
Of course he was a threat! They left him elba, they got waterloo in exchange. He was the most dangerous man...to the english.
They wanted him dead, while looking humanitarian. So, slow poison so he seems to die strangely and undramatically, so the ignorant masses won't question it, as they don't question anything.
Well, they are woke, they had to try and make Josiphine the hero.
I think so much though goes into avoiding the minefield of potential "offenses" while writing a script these days that by the time they get to the actual historical research they're exhausted. I mean, it must be tiring to sit there and have to try to pretend to be watching a movie yet to be made so that you can put yourself into the perceptive of the audience and predict what made offend them. The script has to get the green light from the studio so if you don't avoid these things then they'll never approve funding for the film out of fear of potential backlash.
I'm just surprised they didn't make Napoleon black..
Actually, Napoleon charged with a french flag ahead of its troops through a bridge at the battle of Arcole and was saved by his "aide de camp" wich saved Napoleon's life making his body as a shield when Austrians troops fired at him. He did never forget that brave. Napoleon wasn't ever a coward or a joker, he was a fighter, a commander, a man of state and a lover (and btw, he had many mistress during his life, yet Jospehine remains in his heart forever, ladies were never his first problem and source of inspiration).
Wasn't shielded, multiple aides tackled him into a ditch, and one aide then went on down the bridge with the flag and died with all the men who followed him. If they didn't tackle him and drag him away he wouldve died right there. It was quite the struggle according to many accounts as he was so pissed at his men hiding there and multiple officers dying trying to charge the bridge with french flags and men not following.
False
But if you look at the description of battles since the 18th century, it was almost normal for the commanders to risk their asses. Somehow most of them seem to have been raised to this kind of chivalry. My favorite example is Field Marshal Schwerin in the Battle of Prague in 1757, who, at the age of over 70, stood in front of his troops to encourage them during a difficult phase of the battle. Then the bullet hit him. Or one that I like is from the father of the famous German poet Kleist, who had his arm shot to mud by a cannonball in the Battle of Kunersdorf, but still stormed on and took his saber in his other hand, and stormed on.
But not on horseback.
@basiledex2164 Tell Muiron Who gave his life for him.
Napoleon was an artillery sergeant. He graduated from a prestigious artillery school. He was a genius at cannon placement and sequencing with cavalry charges that decimated anything thrown against him. What made him win over and over is the fact that he promoted his generals according to personal bravery and loyalty. He despised the aristocratic military order based on birth right nobility. He made blacksmiths sons millionaires at 20 years old. All his marechals would have followed him in hell. While he re created a political system based on privilege, he never applied it i his military. He was the first one to democratize the French army after the revolution. This is what the movie should be about. During his exile in St Helena he wrote his memoirs smuggled to Britain where it became an instant best seller. I am French and was educated in a military school he created for cavalry officers. My name is listed on the registry of the school with some of his best officers. This is where I learned how to ride a horse. at 12 years old. I will not bother to go see the movie.
Military Innovations: Napoleon was indeed known for his innovative military tactics. He utilized concepts like the division of armies into self-sufficient "corps d'armée," which allowed for more flexible and rapid maneuvers. His approach to using infantry and concentrating firepower were significant departures from the traditional methods of warfare in his time. He also understood the importance of logistics, like living off the land ("le pays"), which reduced the need for long and vulnerable supply lines.
Propaganda and Control: Napoleon was skilled in using propaganda to bolster the morale of his troops and support among the populace. His ability to prevent major rebellions in France during his reign (excluding earlier uprisings like in Vendée) speaks to his political acumen in maintaining control and public order.
Population and Military Strength: The claim that France's dominance during the Napoleonic era was solely due to its population size is an oversimplification. While France's population provided a large pool for conscription, Napoleon's leadership, strategic innovations, and the restructuring of the French military played crucial roles in their victories.
Campaigns and Victories: Napoleon's ability to defeat larger and often combined forces of different nations is well-documented. His campaigns against Austria and Russia, such as the decisive victories at Austerlitz in 1805 and Friedland in 1807, demonstrated his tactical prowess, even when outnumbered.
Political Mistakes and Overreach: Despite his military genius, Napoleon's political decisions were not always successful. His failure to establish a stable and cooperative relationship with Spain led to the costly Peninsular War, and the invasion of Russia in 1812 was a disastrous overreach, resulting in a significant loss of men and resources. These mistakes contributed to the eventual downfall of his empire.
maybe u shud try making a compelling and engaging movie that makes millions of dollars then
"...What made him win over and over..." was the fact that he was a competent, experienced soldier. What everyone ignores is the simple fact that the majority of the English, and European, military was commanded by aristocratic second-sons with purchased commissions. It wasn't that he was a military "genius" as much as that his opponents were incompetent amateur's....
I never saw an actual good movie about him. He is one of the most documented character in history and not even the french can do good portrait of him.
Vive La France
“Napoleon movie? Throw it in the trash” - Oversimplified, probably
I knew it was doomed when I saw Ridley Scott was involved. Dude has been shitting out stinkers for awhile now
I knew 0 about Napoleon going into this movie and this analysis was spot on. I kept telling my husband it seemed like JP was almost annoyed to be part off this movie. I was surprised on his performance. It was like the only time he came alive was when there were opportunities for him to make fun of the production. I picked up on that. It was like everyone else was at least trying to act and he was just…. There. Not a great movie. Waaaaayy too much time to be covered over a very long 2.5 hours. Very little context. I’m tired of Hollywood feminizing everything to fit a narrative. You could tell they had a large budget just from the costumes (which were awesome) but that’s where the brain power stopped with this film
Hollywood DESPISES strong, hetero white men.
He spent multiple days with Ridley Scott before production began determining how he should play the character. He was an enormous part of the movie being what it is.
@@Josh-hn5rc And yet, he sucked at playing Napoleon.
Average actor at best, he (Joaquin) would not have the career he has today if it weren't for (the early death of) his late brother (River). And R. Scott is visual over substance, as always. Napoleon is not a subject that either of them is capable of. All the CGI and Hollywood costumes in the world are not going to fill in the void.
When you wrote "JP" I thought you meant Jordan Peterson. That was hard for my imagination to fit him into film.
Maybe as Napoleon's desperate Theralist going : "nooo, nooo"
As Russian born that admires history, I think that it really sucks that the Borodino battle did not get much emphasis (if you know you know )
Funny life story when I was 10 or so, I and my best friend after listening about this battle in our history class lesson we got our rack sacks ready to go to the place of the battle. we were so sure that we were going to find some musket balls and cannons etc. But of course the plan was foiled by our parents. I think about that time with a smile on my face
As an American that loves War and Peace as a novel, they just...dash by it where Napoleon just mentions it in his diary after it happens. However Moscow truly looked like an abandoned Third Rome. I liked the visuals after.
As the soviet song goes "The sacred words "Moscow's behind us!"
We remember from the times of Borodino" "
Лучше пусть Березину показывают.
The single bloodiest day of the Napoleonic Wars.
And also Napoleon Bonaparte I's final opportunity to achieve a definitive final victory over the Imperial Russian Army. The very moment where his invasion of the Russian Empire not only failed, but was also doomed to devolve into both a total catastrophe and an absolutely horrific nightmare in which the Grand Armee, so many hundreds of thousands of young men and God only knows how many horses, lost their lives from starvation, disease, the intense summer heat, the bitter cold of the infamous Russian winter, constant raids from the legendary Imperial Russian Cossacks and some of the biggest and most viciously brutal battles of the time period, as well.
Such a pity that you weren't able to go on your educational expedition.
@@Pangora2 The film showed the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in the background. Behind Napoleon's back. when he was driving in Moscow.The funny thing is that the Russians built this temple in honor of the victory over Napoleon)))))
Ridley Scott is a Cinematographer more than a director. He needs a good story for his films to be good.
I saw "Gladiator". I already know how Piddly Scott makes a ridiculous travesty of historical battles.
Thank you for mentioning Barry Lyndon (1975) A film that could of been made yesterday but still holds true to it's era. A real masterpiece and I can't recommend watching it enough.
Barry Lyndon was gorgeous but pretty slow!! I could watch Marisa Berenson do ANYTHING!
Barry Lyndon is one of the greatest films ever made and if you have never seen it I envy you.
When I think of Napoleon I think of someone who is capable of separating his emotions from his objectives. I think of someone who is grounded in reality, dedicated to his work, uninterested in flummery, and has the common touch. I'm reminded actually of behind the scenes footage of Stanley Kubrick, where you get this sense of someone who is masterminding a huge plan, and who keeps his own counsel, but is capable of balancing that with the hardwork and sometimes unfeeling discipline of making his plans a reality.
Joaquin Phoenix is good at playing criminals and psychopaths. If you want to portray Napoleon as an emotionally unhinged bandit, then Joaquin Phoenix was the best pick. I don't know what happened to Ridley Scott. No more glad confident morning perhaps. The industry got to him 🤷
Mickey Mouse movie made by those who have no idea about history for those who have no idea about history... and even history aside, the movie is bad and boring.
Ну не знаю. Наполеон как раз очень сильно поддавался эмоциям. А если смотреть его военные компании, то просто ввязывался в бой, забывая про логистику. Тактик хороший, а вот стратег так себе.
he was a complete narcissist with megalomania. which means he has his ups and downs with an sensitive emotional side sometimes. like hitler just with melancholic blabla instead of aggressive outbursts. i havent seen the movie yet but napoleon isnt like a roman general or some richard lionheart type. he is the melancholic and calculated weasel type. and the more power he gets the more crazyness comes. the "macbeth scenario"..they lose their mind..for napolein a joaquin phoenix might work (but yea maybe scott overdoes it on the melancholic shit with the woman and some over emotional relationship-drama in the middle of war...plz no)
its always the same with the big invaders.
same puppets funded by banks. they even invade the same stuff every time. caesar too. he was the greatest general on the field by far. napoleon knew his logistics and stats better but not the battle like caesar
@@thomashauer6804 He was depicted as an impudent child who somehow won battles became the emperor without displaying any of the characteristics that made him do so in real life. I don't know if Joaquin Phoenix depicted him this way because he was told, but his talent was wasted in what could've been a multilayered and complex character he instead delivered a character similar to the Joker except without the aspects nor circumstance that made that character interesting. He also looked way too old for most of the movie until the end, when Napoleon's age finally caught up with Joaquin Phoenix's actual age, which made the discombobulated time jumps even worse. I don't know if it was either bad directing/writing or if Joaquin Phoenix can literally only play one character.
@@yourdreams2440 yea i think joaquins brain is fried and he just can play one character....but still i can see it working if he is a disturbed impudent man..i think you mean the "heroic epic" factor is missing like in gladiator or braveheart
the underdog and forsaken who went to become the godslayer
but idk if napoleon was heroic. he had a machine behind him the machine of the french revolution against 1000 year old reigning aristocrats...thats a lot of energy and the revolution in itself is epic..but napoleon wasnt the revolution he was the product with a lot of money and power with it
his main goal were the papal states and malta;) that was his purpose. he was the executor but not the boss
he was just a puppet like hitler probably..a manchurian general. with a lot of good strategy behind him and a lot of talent for tactics in battle..but he may as well be a very disturbed one dimensional man carried by a machine..just like hitler
Honestly.This felt like a 3 hour adaptation of when Joker when went sat inside the fridge as far as Jaoqin's portrayal.
I saw Napoleon with my oldest son on Sunday. The first thing I said to my son is to compare Napoleon to the movie Master and Commander. Napoleon completely lacked any emotional feeling that the troops had for Napoleon unlike the crews love for the Captain in Master and Commander. Napoleon felt flat and without any feeling for what was happening or for any character at all. I found myself bored in what should have been a great movie. I like what you said about the smaller scenes being better like on the ship in Master and Commander.
"Napoleon felt flat and without any feeling for what was happening or for any character at all. "" because that's actually how he felt on the inside. He was a fragile narcissist. That's sort of the point of the movie. You're seeing his internal existence.
What about Leipzig, the Battle of Nations? I can't believe they overlooked it! Well done, great analysis!
Half a million men in one battle, and not worth mentioning?
@@davidwhite8220 Wouldn't have enough people for it
The British didn't participate, are you surprised?
@@Rumpelstyltskinooh and there we have our explanation!
I think these days we don't really need people ...@@chewtoffee5912
You did great justice to the unique military genious of Napoleon unlike Ridley Scott. Its seems we are in the era of narratives and rewriting of history. I think general Wellington would have been more fair had he directed this movie...
What is history other than narratives and rewriting history? Not that I don’t agree with the jist of this video, but you have to see that history is written, not discovered
Wellington admired Napoleon, if I am not mistaken. It was also in his self interest to be seen as a man who defeated a geniuos
HOLYWOOD rewriting of history to fit their AGENDA.
@@bigman9854 you are wrong...HISTORY cant be rewritien...thats the problem with AMERICANS...they keep lying until they get the history they want...
AND its not NARRATIVES...and history was WRITTEN not being written like you said...
Ridley Scott has jumped the shark as a director lol
Kinda lost interest in his new stuff after he completely messed up the Alien franchise with that ridiculous Prometheus and Alien Covenant movies.
At least we still have all Ridley Scott's older body of work - that was exceptional.
We shouldn't be too hard on Ridley though, the marching of time will eventually blunt us all lol
Ridley isnt the first to rewrite history. He did it with Gladiator right at the start. Any Roman historian probably walked out. Commodus did NOT kill his father! Aurelius was practically a saint. I dont get why screen writers twist the history when there is no reason for it.
What are you talking about? This movie was the most historically accurate ever. The way Napoleon mumbled and whined for 2 1/2 hours? Perfection. After seeing this, I would have followed Napoleon to hell…well maybe not hell, I’d follow him…to the store? No. Not even that. I’d follow him out of my house as I was leaving for work.
See? Perfect. It was the perfect movie to assassinate someone’s legacy
I had to lean in to my girlfriend and give constant clarifications, and made sure afterwards that she knew that Napoleon was so much more than what they showed in the movie. She agreed with me that something seemed off, and said that since she doesn't know much, and if I wasn't there to clarify, she would wonder why anyone thinks Napoleon is important or impressive. Not only because the movie completely fails to show in any way his military genius or policy successes (In fact, the Russians came off as more impressive by burning done Moscow than the French), but it also portrays him as an incel that's constantly mad at women and insecure with himself.
Yo nice pfp
ridley scott the british propaganda spreader fails. respect for trying though
" she would wonder why anyone thinks Napoleon is important or impressive"" Because of bullshit propaganda? He's impressive because he was greedy and ruthless. He was not a person that would ever succeed in any normal country. He got to where he got because revolutionary france was a total basketcase.
Lol you love the fantasy not the reality. Napoleon was a turd, his own letters give it away. A fragile narcissist who literally cucked himself. @@bearsuitClan
What always troubles me is some young person will see this movie, or the other garbage Hollywood makes, and think it's accurate or insightful. Maybe the movies have become like "fake news".
Maybe like The King (100 years war movie), which is conveniently based not on historical facts but on Shakespeare's play, but never clearly mentions it. Movie was marketed as historical so that's what people who know nothing of the 100 years war will think it is. A humanistic English king (not saying he was cruel, but he definitely had the standard cruelty of the time) and a gay'ish arrogant but stupid French "dauphin" who dies (there is not a single thing correct about this character, first thing being he was not part of the real events depicted in the play/movie and did not die there).
Dunkirk managed to make a whole movie in France, about a massive battle/escape where half the men there were actually French, but there is only one single scene involving French soldiers. It's not even a fight scene, or a dialogue scene, just an envious and hateful glance some French soldiers (forced to hold the line) give at the Englishmen moving to the port to flee. And also this French character who's a deserter trying to flee with the English.
Hollywood gives zero shits about the French lol (I don't ask for admiration, just acknowledgement that we kinda exist when it's blatantly due). In fact it's a common theme in Anglosphere to shit on the French in ways they would never dare to do with Black Americans or Latinos. Since we are "white" and we don't have any significant community in the US like the Italians or Irish do, it's basically one of the last free for all authorized racism. Imagine reading "French are fag cowards and not humans" on a regular basis, but replace "French" by "black" or "jew" or something.
@mythicdawn9574 maybe the hate directed toward French is because they are white, male, and formerly Christians. Then it makes more sense, right?
The movie is probably shit, i'm not interest anyway HOWEVER
Movies DONT have to be historically accurate, it's not in anyway a requirement, unless the author claims to be historically accurate.
If you want to watch a great movie about Napoleon, go watch the soviet/italian movie Waterloo from 1970, it's a masterpiece.
@@partizanSquad yours is probably a healthy assessment. Maybe we should all view it that way.
@@ws1435 Yes, people obsessed about historical accuracy just don't undestand the art of cinema.
It's like people wanting realism in video games when the point of video games is (most of the times) to be fun.
If I were a movie director, I would have to look back at historical records to get things the way they're supposed to be. Especially the historical accuracy of the people, their ages, the weapons, the dates, the weather, the clothes and uniforms, other countries, battles, and everything based on historical fact.
Love the discussion around the challenges and successes in depicting battle in cinema over the years. I'm personally a big fan of the startling creativity that Peter Watkins used for "Culloden" in 1964, which is on UA-cam in its entirety.
What's yeh movie at 15:11. He said it was a soviet movie but had a poster for an american movie. I want to see that soviet movie with h cast of thousands.
@@MicahMicahelI believe that is the 1970 film 'waterloo' which had the assistance of the soviet red army as extras for the battle scenes. The film covers the events surrounding napoleon final battle and is avaliable here on UA-cam last I checked.
yeah, I checked. It's there. Also War and Peace. There are some other soviet era movies also like VIY and Solaris@@campbellfranklyn7192 Funny how propaganda movies made by hollywood now (like the Marvels or almost any movie now) are so phoney But some soviet movies were really good, way better than anything in hollywood today.
I feel that Rod Steiger's portrayal of Napoleon is the best out there. He nailed it!
Not only did he resemble napoleon from 1815 but his acting was just awesome
Waterloo is one of my favorite movies. Christopher Plumber is great as Wellington.
That film was a miracle, and sadly very underrated. Both Steiger and Plummer were magnificent.
Phoenix was terrible. Joaquin " what's my motivation?" Ridley "pop another Xanax and read the line" I'm sure Napoleon was a morose, sullen, low energy Individual
Did he LITERALLY nail it? If he "literally" nailed it, he'd actually use a hammer and nail. You mean the exact opposite, he nailed it as a figure of speech.
I wonder what that fool of a director was thinking by doing such a terrible movie,that turns everything upside down.And then has the cheek to tell historians " Were YOU there "....and neglects any advice by them.
Looks like HE has the " Napoleonic complex " that he implies Napoleon had,although that is
another one of the lies that have been spread about Napoleon.😢
Never let your enemy write your history. This is a British movie trying to depict British exceptionalism.
Written by an American
@@christiandaugherty6339
America is part of the Anglo sphere. Basically English speaking nations
@@rhysnichols8608wow I had to switch from my other language to read this in English cause America has a different language than England
@@christiandaugherty6339 Is a British national what are you talking about
@@thesaul9484 No
Yes, my fears from the trailer came true. JP walking through this role and Scott portraying that Napoleon did it all from Josephine (you are nothing with out me... vomit). Scott has gone woke and the Alien films show his obsession of poor casting and poor story. So sad. The Duelists was a great film!
Its a MOVIE. Not a book. Not a documentary. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO LAUGH FOLKS.
Every frame of that film looks like a neo classical painting. Thoroughly entertaining, visually spectacular, and hilariously dark. Yes, it wasn't historically accurate and the script lacked a bit, but psychologically it wins all around - these were Scott's intentions I'm sure. Brilliant entertainment. The violence was awesome. 4/5 stars.
@@christomorpho Yeah well, it's fodder for the masses.
"Yeah well, it's fodder for the masses."@@pauldarrigo4395 Lol as if you have some high taste in art. "that Napoleon did it all from Josephine" guy married a girl 6 years his senior, this guy had mommy issues. In current times, that's like the guy winning the superbowl at 30 and marrying a 50 year old. Her teeth were literally rotten by 35, guy really really made odd choices and it's quite clear he had some sort of complex. Guy was in all probability a fragile narcissist with some very blatant fragilities on display 24/7.
" and the Alien films show his obsession of poor casting and poor story"" poor casting what are you getting on with? The alien franchise is woman led that's its thing. The lead male is literally a blue eyed blond german-irsh. How on earth are you getting woke casting out of that? "The Duelists was a great film!"" the majority of his films had warts when they were released. Blade Runner is not a conventionally good movie. Kingdom of Haven was worst than this etc. You're in it for the history and have no idea how in tune this is with the rest of his work.
how the fuck is this "woke"
Many years later Wellington was asked who was the greatest military commander of his age. He replied “ Of this age , of a past age ., of any age … Napoleon “
It's should've been three movies, each 3+ hours long. His rise to power, ending with his crowning. His campaigns throughout Europe for the second movie. His fall in the third, starting with his campaign into Russia and ending with his final exile.
Scott has admitted he does not read much. He knew very little about Napoleon and made no effort to learn other than looking at paintings.
Well apparently he didn’t pay any attention to paintings either………considering the Battle of the Pyramids painting is pretty famous………. So not only doesn’t he read much but also apparently can’t see too well either……..
You better be joking. That sounds like a horrible approach to doing a complex historical figure.
a senile old man in his 80s shouldnt be making movies, slandering and misrepresenting historical characters imo. @@vlada
I saw him say it in an interview on UA-cam. Freely admitted. Described as if his genius was inspired visually and reading first hand accounts was for stodgy narrow thinking intellectuals. I was flabergasted. @@vlada
Scott should have read Marshal May's book le Grand Amaee it about his men and marshals. Napoleon's presence is always there in thebook.And that's what made him great.
Napoleon 2023 felt like a romance fan-fiction Scott wrote between Napoleon and Josephine where he also decided to add some battles and stuff on the side cause it looked cool. I remember sitting in the cinema dumbfounded at how much time they're wasting on "recreating" meaningless arguments between him and Josephine instead of even bothering to explain any of the reasoning or backstory behind Napoleon's battles. It was just: battle scene, Josephine, battle scene, Josephine. Why is he in Russia now? Why is he negotiating a treaty? Who cares, instead watch Napoleon act like a manchild while his missus calms him down. There was no way in hell this movie could be taken seriously.
Personally, I believe that they could have improved the sometimes too slow pace of this film by introducing a few Kung-fu scenes. For example, a Kung-fu scene between Napoleon and Wellington could have determined the winner of Waterloo. Or a Tarantino-style Japanese sword fight between Josephine and Marie Antoinette to determine which one would be guillotined.
It is still disappointing to see to what extent certain directors forget the pleasure of cinema lovers. Besides, if Ridley reads my comment, don't hesitate to ask me for some suggestions for your next film.
I was basically laughing my ass off most of the film, the food fight scene especially. Screw the rest of the film, that scene was the best
Thank you. You put my thoughts into words.
Napoleon is a very stupid time in French history. Napoleon completely negated the point of the French Revolution. Sadly, the Napoleonic Era was the last time the Frenchmen had any testosterone.
There is this trend now to use CGI and everything has to be dark. Star trek has done this, everything is always dark, grey, dark blue etc. It's as if they are afraid of daytime or decently lighted sets. No colors, everything muted. Like you said all battle scenes are just a bunch of guys smashing into each other with close up violent deaths, no perspective at all. It looks like Ridley scott just got lazy in his old age. Oh if Kubrick were still alive!
Knowing what Ridley Scott said about historians and their criticism in advance this isn't a surprise :/
Thank you for the heads up about this movie. Napoleon was a massive figure in the history and one of the top three generals ever. Such a shame for Ridley Scott.
@lilrawri8446 I imagine the OP would say Alexander and Julius Caesar.
@@Hilaire_Balrog I'd put Khalid Ibn waleed on the number 1 spot. He fought the superpowers of his time and has lost 0 battles. he has participated in more than 100 battles and many outnumbered. One of his first achievements were when he was transferred to a losing battlefield, he divided all his men and ordered them to go around in circles to make it look like they were receiving big reinforcements. This made the enemy instead retreat and allowing his men to safely retreat aswell without any casualty.
Hannibal was better than Caesar, much younger and conquered Hispania & then brought his army across the alps & nearly took Rome & Italy with much less. Cannae is the greatest military victory in history
It may have concentrated on the Battle of Waterloo but Sergei Bondarchuk movie with its 15,000 soldiers of the Red Army as a supporting cast is at least epic to watch. Hearing the different opinions of that movie from historians is interesting as you have as many differing opinions of it's accuracy as there are 'experts' to give it whereas most so far are not to complementary of Ridley Scott's Napoleon. An opportunity missed me thinks.
Historical movies about well-known subjects are difficult. No one seems to address the genius of Napoleon, and the major fact, that many battles were helped or hurt by his martials. Waterloo was badly hurt by Marshall Ney being less than what was needed.
It wasn't a movie, it was a hit piece
Yeah... Typical Hollywood, let's have some intense action, some boring drama, blotch some sex scenes here and there and let's push this out and get paid...
@@stonefox9124don’t blame Hollywood, just this year we had Oppenheimer and Killers of the Flower Moon, which were quite faithful to their respective time period, characters and history.
Absolutely holly
Agreed. that's the words i have been searching for. thank you.
Ridley Scott hates Napoleon. End of story. The entire film is simply character assassination of a man who was greater than 1,000 hack directors.
Stanley Kubrick always wanted to make a Napoleon film, and was said to have put in many hours, perhaps years worth, of obsessive study and research on the man. It never got made of course, but if it had, I wonder how it would have compared.
He wrote the screenplay for it so someone could make it into a movie still.
@@youngThrashbargWhy didn't a director use Kubrick's screenplay as a template.
@@LordMalice6d9 That is the dream , spielberg is making a mini series , apparently no one was worthy until Ridley Scott
@@sanskarvsahu1375 Ridley Scott is a has been director. He hasn't made a really good movie since Kingdom of Heaven the Director's cut.
Apparently Kubrick was a big Napoleon fanboy. Kubrick had an oversized green notebook of all things Napoleon and wouldn’t stop talking about him. When I picture this notebook all I think about is a giant sized version of Chandler’s The Campaigns of Napoleon. Like others have said Spielberg is supposed to to be doing the mini series for HBO
You said it brother, of all it's flaws the most standout disappointment about this movie is that it didn't show Napoleon's military genius.
Napoleon was charismatic. The pyramids were a distant view and the battle that made him is Austerlitz. It was his use of the Pratzen heights and hiding a didvision beneath them in the early morningf fog that won him the battle.