PBS created a superb 4-part biography (in the style of their brilliant Ken Burns' "Civil War") that you can watch on UA-cam. It was so compelling I watched all four parts in one evening. I cannot stress enough how entertaining and informative it is. It is actually far more entertaining than Ridley Scott's movie. Here are some reasons why. 1. It is colorful and uses the fantastic music of the era (Beethoven's 3rd Concerto wiritten and dedicated for Napoleon). For instance, at Napoleon's coronation there were 4,000 musicians and singers. The movie does not capture this but PBS did. 2. It uses the splendid artwork of the era to portray the battles and victories. That alone is a feast for the eyes 3. As with the Ken Burns' documentaries, it uses expert commentary from a wide array of scholars. 4. You actually come to understand the true dynamics of Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. You get to see how the dynamics flipped from when she was a "cougar" and he a naive young soldier and then when he was a powerful, urbane emperor and she an aging woman. 5. Perhaps most importantly, you come to realize the immensity of his military genius. This is something the movie does NOT do. Additionally, you see how he was a powerful and inspiring leader with nearly limitless self-confidence. Do yourself a favor, watch the PBS documentary.
Your comparing a Documentary to a Movie? There are very good Documentaries about Napoleon also . A civil war movie is "Gone With The Wind" or "Glory" if your comparing movies vs movies.
It was Beethoven's Symphony no. 3 in E-flat major (the "Eroica") that was initially dedicated to Napoleon - and Beethoven crossed out the dedication after Napoleon made himself Emperor. Beethoven's Piano Concerto no. 3 in C minor was dedicated to Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, a pupil and friend of Beethoven's who was himself an excellent composer and pianist (Prince Louis Ferdinand was killed in the Battle of Saalfeld, during the War of the Fourth Coalition).
The real problems are the things in his relationship with Josephine that don't ring true for the period. I find it difficult to believe that this rich and powerful man, in a period when rich and powerful men behaved even worse than they do today, was so besotted with this woman so much older than him, rather than because she was politically powerful. His love letters seem to be taken at face value rather than manipulative. It just all seems too fantastic, like a 70's B sexploitation movie, where the blonde bimbo is infatuated and sexually obsessed, with the penniless plain guy. We didn't think this was good cinema back then, when it was aimed at men, why lie about it when it is aimed at women?
@@BamberdittoPingpong If you live in Russia, Hitler is a second coming of Napoleon, one lasting more than a season. And maybe France too, they first loose soldiers then the Prussians run the place for a few years.
Remember Netflix's Cleopatra? That came out months ago to negative reviews and people have already forgotten it. This is going to be the same fate for Ridley Scott's Napoleon.
The missing Marshalls really disappointed me. Napoleon's Marshalls from what I understand were a bit of a rogues gallery. They would have made such interesting characters.
It is interesting that Josephine had 2 children with her first husband and then no more. Did she really have an affair? Was she using some kind of secret contraceptive? Or spermicude? Napolean had many affairs and many children to show for it. Alledgedly. Where's the proof those kids were his? Or that his 2nd wife didn't have an affair.
I never believed it would succed or atleast make it past mediocre. Simply because Napoleon Bonaparte lived a life unlike any other man, 80 battles fought only 11 lost. His rise to the throne, the involvements of the French revolution, his extraordinary campaigns, his ravlries and enemies across Europe. Motherfucker did more in a month than most successful men of today's standard do in a lifetime. I think a TV-show would do Napoleon Justice in portraying his genius, greed, lovelife, struggles and so forth. Man is a real life animie protagonist. His story would only feel cramped otherwise.
He won 6 wars before he ever lost a battle. Ask any Englishman and they'll tell you he was a cuck who couldn't make up his mind about anything and had really bad hemorrhoids.
@@AnotherCrazyClown Absolutely, some people can't grasp that certain historical figures and actions can't be formated into a movie because of it's scale. They did a Genghis Khan type Show on Netflix: Marco polo. But it followed a grandchild and only spun for two seasons. It was good since the director understood that he couldn't cover a century old empire with dozens of perpetrators and battles within a movie. It's the same with WWII. Everyone knows of it since multiple movies and individual stories have been produced. But imagine making a 3-hour movie about the conflict for someone that's never heard of it. It would be broad and it would only glance over all the amazing and horrible aspects of the war, like concentration camps, the multiple fronts, the race on war machines, ideologies, Hitler himself and so forth. Napoleon was almost on the same scale of WW2 for Europe. He completely shook the continent.
@@vresnuil Why would they wait 24 years to make Gladiator 2? Is it going to be set in a Roman Assisted Living Facility? Is Russell Crowe going to play 'Maximus Hospice?'
Ridley Scott has shown us he can't evolve as a director, this whole film feels like something out of the 2000's. Audiences prefer more detail and nuance when it comes to modern historical films. This feels like a history film made by someone who doesn't like history.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
100% agree! Film is an epic fail and disaster! A character assignation of the great man Napoleon! Geez … feel bad the for French .. optics don’t look good for for British
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@contexthistorychannel His being British probably has very little to do with anything. No one in Britain cares about Napoleon -- there is no national animosity to the man at all. Meanwhile, movies like the Patriot and Braveheart depict every last Englishman as a sniveling, arrogant or emotionless villain. Its just a bad movie.
She was the brains of the operation. Nobody gives her credit because of sexism but she actually dressed like a man and whispered every order into Napoleons ear and the only reason he lost was because he stopped listening to her genius advice.
These days a "very important woman" needs to be shoehorned into the main story and highlighted, even when making a biopic of a male military leader. That's just how things now are 🤷
You forgot to say woke Then I could've berated you for being braindead but instead I can just say this movie was a failure for a lot of reasons not just because they focused on Napoleon's wife
No this movie very obvoiusly tried to be a biopic of Josephine and Napoleon, thats a completley fine premise to have and its not some weird modern wokeism to make her the other leading role in the film. The film was bad and had many historical errors but this has nothing to do with it focusing on Napoleon's and Josephine's relationship.
Ironic how someone can start his career with the best napoleon movie where Napoleon looms over the movie without appearing a single second in it and ends it with Napoleon in every scene and fuck it up.
Scott is a Director-for-hire, not an auteur. He's a commercial film Director (who became incredibly successful - and independently wealthy - directing commercials long before he began making movies). This needs to be understood. He's made a few great movies, and quite a few poor movies. It's a shame about Napoleon, but Scott did what he was hired to do, with a script that was presumably signed-off by those who also signed the cheques. In that sense, it's a job well done. And he'll move on to the next job he's hired for in much the same vein.
Why do they keep hiring him if he is delivering financial and artistic flops over and over and over again when it comes to large scale epics? Napoleon - Flop The Last Duel (decent movie but financially disastrous) - Flop Alien Covenant - Flop Exodus Gods and Kings - Flop If I were a studio head and someone came to me and said I have this big historical epic and presented Ridley as the director, I'd think he is clueless.
@@lastword8783 - Scott's a pro. He gets stuff done, especially on a big-budget scale. He'd be the first to describe his directorial style as a 'benevolent dictatorship'. Financeers putting up hundreds of $millions need to know there's that one guy who is absolutely in charge, who will meet deadlines, preferably on-budget. Scott's that guy, in a very high-stakes business. As for commercial success - that's the tricky part. Who knew a relatively low-budget (ostensibly) 'B-movie' sci-fi horror flick ('Alien' was a flop on its initial release) would go on to define an entire genre and create a significant visual/cinematic style? I'll bet Scott didn't know, but it's a funny business, and it's funny how things sometimes turn out. TLDR: They hire him because he gets the job done; he's highly experienced, and a control-freak (because he needs to be), and he respects the bottom line.
Well I for one was shocked at how badly made this film was from a historical perspective, and as I said in another comment that this will likely be the last hollywood film I ever see at a theater. I have had enough of their garbage to last me a lifetime.
This movie is nothing like Scott's predecessors e.g. Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator it plain sucked and the movie was tragic it felt like a sitcom of Napoleon and not a historic epic
Ridley Scott and David Scarpa just destroyed any chance for a future director to tell Napoleons true story. In my opinion it was an historical hit piece.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
When I watched the film, I was confused, because I remembered for sure that the divorce of Napoleon and Josephine occurred after Tilsit. It was already beginning to seem to me that I was just crazy, because if they were just transported back to the time of Tilsit, then why did Napoleon say that he wanted to marry Alexander's sister, although I remembered exactly that it was in 1809. It turns out they just moved the events to other dates. WHY
When Apple Stream replays the movie with the missing 1 hour that was edited out of the movie that may help things . Many Director's Cut movies are much improved by just adding a missing 10-15 minutes of a movie .
It should have been called "Letters to Josephine" or "Napoleon and Josephine." I think Scott didn't want to make a Napoleon biopic, rather he wanted to make a film that looks at the erratic, crude, and often bipolar Napoleon we get through his letters to Josephine, the ones where he insuates oral sex, talks about wanting Josephine to perform" the zig zags" on him, while ocassionally scolding her as an awful person and terrible wife. I think if Scott made clear this wasn't a sprawling Napoleon biopic, it wouldn't be receiving as much negative attention. It feels like a let down when you go in expecting the biopic, and instead get a rather limited look at Napoleon and his career at the expense of seeing him solely through his letters to Jospehine.
And we heard it was Joaquin Phoenix convinced rifley Scott to not focus on Josephine so much, so i can only imagine what a fucking joke the first scripts would've been
Thank you for this. Nice one, Cheers. Seriously, I had no desire to see this film. I saw the plot and that Ridley was going to be the director, and thought; "Oh dear, No thanks". I have been playing Napoleonic Table Top Wargames since I was an infant. My Masters is on Napoleon. My Doctorate is on Napoleonic Warfare. There is no way I could sit through this hot garbage without being ejected from the cinema for hurling abuse at the nonsense on screen.
Gee it's almost like The Emperor was studied by many people from different time periods. Funny how bad movies stop being relevant with a little bit of education.
I’m so happy that I found someone who agrees with me!! My friends love this movie and I was fighting to stay awake while watching it. Also I found the battle scenes so boring while everyone else has been saying it’s some of the best battle scenes they’ve seen. So thank you for being normal
It definitely had its issues but starting the movie with the siege of Toulon and you see all the people actually moving in the cover of darkness and shit got me hyped I can’t lie
@@Walker-ow7vj If you want an ACTUAL good, entertaining, and fairly accurate depiction/adaptation of the siege of Toulon. Find a way to watch / download : BBC's "Napoleon - Heroes and Villains" from around 2007 or 2009. It's kind of a masterpiece for being a relatively low budget BBC thing. Probably because it uses it's budget well and focuses solely on young napoleon's rise to fame/generalship at Toulon.
The Yoko analogy is actually perfect though. If you make a documentary about The Beatles you probably need to include her, but she's not why ANYONE is there
It's still possible to portray history accurately AND be entertaining. Look at Zulu, Gettysburg, Band of Brothers and Midway to name a few! All it takes is genuine love and care for the subject matter, respect for the subject matter and putting your ego aside. To which this movie had absolutely none of. Ridley took one of the most intellectual, powerful and loved man in history and turned him into a babbling, idiotic simp. An embarrassment and a step closer to the death of historically accurate movies. The Braveheart of this generation.
Oh my god the fact they never go into his generals killed me. He was both a battlefield genius as well as high level tactic genius. However, his generals were also amazing and key to success of his conquests. The siege of mantua alone how his armies get sent back and forth as they fight then run them fight as they try to keep siege pressure against overwhelming Prussian assault by numbers but Napoleon never let them bear their full force with genius tactics despite failures of rest of France.
@@contexthistorychannelyou can exaggerate sadness for views or whatever but the consensus from actual film buffs is that it's another visually stunning Scott Period piece. For every "it sucks" vid there are a dozen "it's fantastic" vids. Also, I hope you aren't really sad about your subjective opinion of a film...:that's kinda snowflake like
If you’re going to do a soap opera do something like The Lion in Winter. Lock all your protagonists in a palace somewhere, and have them confront each other over a limited period of time. The recriminations, backbiting, affections and alliances can all be demonstrated through good writing.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@freeedward8 so a propaganda movie made to get us to stick together for the next round of fights with Napoleon then ? The consuming angry petulant baby was great as a foil for the hero in dune, but even if you are make a Trump reference, doesn’t make sense as the stand alone protagonist who overthrows the old order. Without showing why he and by extension Trump was loved and adored the overthrow is not explicable.
Napoleon was 24 years of age when he displayed his genius as a young artillery officer by taking command and control of the French Artillery Regiment/Brigade and successfully expelling the English Fleet from Toulon Harbour, this engagement is known as ‘the siege of Toulon’(1793) in recognition of his extraordinary leadership and bravery throughout that battle (wounded in the thigh on the 16th of December) just 6 days later on the 22 of December 1793 he is promoted to the new rank of ‘Brigadier General’, some say that at that time he was the youngest General ever appointed in French History, Napoleon goes on to Nice to take control of all artillery regiments in the ‘Army of Italy’ and unbelievably two years later on the 11th of March 1796 Napoleon at 27 years of age is given command of ‘The Army of Italy’, fast forward to the 13th of December 1799 when he becomes ‘First Consul of The French Republic’ age 30 years of age and fast forward now to the 18th of May 1804 aged 34 when Napoleon appoints himself ‘ The Emperor of France’. My question (I wish no disrespect towards Joachim Phoenix) is to Ridley Scott, how can this film have any significant authenticity with your audiences when Joachim is 49 years of age during filming?, it should be noted that Napoleon had a ‘boyish’ look throughout most of his military career, in fact on his arrival in Nice when he first joined ‘The Army of Italy’ senior officers were shocked by his youthful appearance and where extremely judgmental and critical of his appointment, Napoleon changed their minds with multiple victories throughout 1796-1797 his triumph at Rivoli set the stage for his future extraordinary military triumphs and his beloved ‘La Grande Armee’.
The movie frankly didn't do the work on Napoleon/Josephine so when Napoleon comes home from Egypt, he's initially angry and as the fight continues at one point Josephine makes him say, "You're nothing without me" and I was thinking, "How exactly?" and ultimately Phoenix' portrayal of Napoleon felt like a middle aged Commodus.
Napoleon got shipped off to an all boys only boarding school at age 9 (while not speaking French), got bullied badly, went immediately to military school, then artillery school. In artillery school he's purely focused on graduating quickly so he could deal with his financial problems. He barely talked to basically 0 women outside his family before age 16. Dude was just awkward, he proposed to 6 women by age 26 (including a rich 40 year old), only 1 said yes and that was Désirée Clary, not Josephine.
That's ridiculous. Plenty of awkward guys walking around these days that have had many interactions with females since pre school and still can't hold a conversation with one. Napoleon was a gentleman and the only reason those 5 others didn't accept was because they were snobby and didn't appreciate Napoleon for who he was. He's lucky they turned him down.
I couldn't finish the movie. I got up halfway through and left. They turned the man into some kind of wimp, no charisma.. The plot was confused, It also lacked historical veracity.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
watched it last night on a date, thought it was solid but slow at times, and she definitely was falling asleep. i did think the dynamic between him and his first wife was pretty inconsistent, and the time frame skips were definitely janked
My girlfriend started interested but by like 30 minute mark she was ready to fall asleep haha I feel like they had elements of a good movie they just structured it so poorly it hurt the overall experience
I think a historical movie has a certain duty to portray history somewhat accurately and yes, even have an educational quality to it, although in entertaining form. Accuracy and entertainment don't have to be mutually exclusive, despite what excuses hollywood hacks try to come up with. There are movie's like "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" and it's fine to have those movies too, at least they do not pretend to be anything other than fantasy. If historical fantasy was Ridley Scott's declared goal from the beginning, I think no one would be upset, though I'm not sure why he couldn't just make up a fictional Napoleon-like character instead. But, no he deliberately wanted to make a film about Napoleon and like how he sees him, not the vast historical records and key consensus points of experts studying the life of this fascinating figure. Instead he decided to double down on his willful ignorance of actual history and the arrogance of which he treated said material and public backlash. I'm a fan of some of his older movies and I won't deny his craftsmanship, but sadly that is all he has now and he deserves every ounce of ridicule coming his way for his conduct surrounding the controversy around this movie.
@@rickymartin4457yea but u werent thete were you? So according to ridley scot if u werent therr u should stfu. Napoleon had uniciron horns and he was the antichrist.
Skipping the Battle of Leipzig where the freaking Monument of Nations stands today IS INSANE. The 4 hour version will bridge the gaps between scenes but it won't add new battles. But this trimmed down version is a heavy pass.
@@nellgwennIf you're gonna Anglofy Queen Vicky's greatest foe go all the way. If he were younger this movie would be perfect for Mel Brooks' final bow
There are "historical" movies that get little to nothing right in terms of historical accuracy but are darn entertaining to the wider audience. Mel Gibson's movies come to mind. There are historical movies that amazingly get a very high percentage right but are pretty boring to the wider audience but may be entertaining to the hardcore buffs that actually prefer to watch a more documentary style of movie. 'Alexander' comes to mind for example (although it at times is pretty OUT THERE tbh). There are historical movies that not only get pretty much everything right in terms of historical accuracy BUT also are darn entertaining. Movies like 'Waterloo' and 'Master and Commander - On the far side of the world'. And then there are movies like 'Napoleon' that manage to to neither.
Don't tell me that Scott decided that Napoleon would never be where he was WITHOUT his "strong female character" wife Josephine?? Is that why she was in it so often? A woman leading a man, as per usual in the Woke World?
Napoleon's last words were France, the Army, the head of the Army, Josephine and not Josephine, France, the Army, The... well the movie forgot about his generals 😅
The fact that over half this movie was about Napoleons wife shows just how stupid this movie is, the movie even showed how dumb it was at the end when it said 61 battles and we only see a flash of 3 battles in the movie.
The anglocentrism is almost comical at this point. Rushing to Waterloo because of Wellington, and omitting the Battle of Leipzig, also called the "Battle of the Nations", the biggest and arguably most important battle of the entire Napoleonic wars?? Huh? It’s like you said, the actual war feels like a backdrop, maybe Hollywood just doesn’t know how to make war movies anymore from the perspective of leaders? Instead it seems like they can only make movies that show harrowing experiences of warfare on the front, like in All Quiet on the Western Front. However, here it’s not some random soldier, the main character is LITERALLY THE EMPEROR-GENERAL OF THE BIGGEST ARMY IN HISTORY AT THE TIME, yet they portray the world as just automatically happening around him, like "yeah then he just got to Egypt, then to Russia" as if a higher power is pushing him, but he isn’t some traumatized kid that was drafted into WW1, he was Napoleon himself ffs, you can’t just make the setting in a similar way
Napoleon was bankrolled by the Apple Corporation. Now you know why Josephine had to be such a huge part of it. Honestly, this whole dumpster fire reeks of corporate meddling, so I don't completely blame Ridley Scott. I think he wanted to make a movie with cool battle scenes and got pulled in all sorts of different directions. He's too good of a director to make that bad of a movie. I don't think you'll see many more superhero films though. Disney lost its ass on the last 7 superhero movies so I think we're done for a while. They're still killing it in the streaming market though, which is what appears to be sustaining the god awful crap they keep pumping out - like all streaming platforms nowadays.
I thought the movie was going to be very mid based on the first trailer, then I learned it's being made by ridley Scott and was confused as I thought he could do better, then he told people complaining about accuracy to pound dust which convince me that this films faults can be attributed to him since he can't seem to rationalize criticism to his film.
I looked up a review of this film after I saw it myself to see if critics were as disappointed as I was, now I get one video about it recommended every day. The film makes him seem like some kind of semi-labile human being which in my opinion doesn't do him justice. Your LeBron James comparison was spot on!
Havent seen it but I saw the clip of her calling him a short little brute who would be nowhere without her. How is that possible exactly? I imagine the film has some clips of her telling him "oh you should go fight them" or such nonsense but does he take her onto the battlefield with him? How can she claim credit for a battle she isnt even present for? This is more woke nonsense of garbage female characters patting women on the back. Its like retelling the life of Jesus and saying actually it was all this girl we never saw she was like "psst wouldnt it be cool if it was wine".
Yes, it would be like a movie about the life of Jesus Christ, but it‘s really a girl boss flick about Mary Magdalene constantly browbeating Jesus over his „toxic masculinity.“ 😅
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
You are wrong. It has nothing to do with "wokeness", and everything to do with British tabloid propaganda of the day. That's exactly how Napoleon and Josephine were portrayed in the British print media.
I am always hyped up about Ridley Scott movies and Napoleon sounds like it could be great . However I am alarmed that Joaquin didn’t try anything to get his voice to be commanding …, no accent , no change in inflections
What disappointed me most was the portrayal of Nap’s character. One of the most capable, talented and charismatic figures in history was portrayed as a very ordinary, uncharismatic, gloomy bafoon. This version of Napoleon, who was far too old by the way, would never have won over the French people, or any people, like the real Napoleon did.
Oppenheimer was every bit of the historical drama that this movie wasn’t. And Christopher Nolan spanned nearly the same period of time that Ridley Scott did
I actually wanted my money back after watching this. I kept wondering when they were going to stop focusing on Josephine an they never did, I realized Ridley Scott may have simple read the letters between napoleon and her, then ignored everything else. I thought it was going to be the culmination of his directing career when it turned out to be one of his worst blunders.
The actual history wasn't "covered" at all, it was "BUTCHERED", this bears almost zero resemblance to the actual complicated relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. This was just a nonsense Josephine fan-fiction film.
I've seen so many videos and reviews that rate this movie poorly, and I've yet to see even one that praised it as a good film. I was going to go see this, but now I probably won't.
Yeah if you’re very curious I’d wait until it comes out on streaming then watch, unless you can find a theater with cheap tickets that’s only way I’d say go
You were so close to saying the my line I tell people, "if you went into this movie knowing nothing about Napoleon, you left still knowing nothing about Napoleon."
The Movie is from a mini series by Apple Stream . When Apple Stream replays the mini series version with the missing 1 hour that was edited out for the movie that may help things . Many Director's Cut movies are much improved by just adding a missing 10-15 minutes of a movie let alone 1hr !
Agreed on all your points. I'd love a Chernobyl-style miniseries based around Napoleons rise and fall, going into much more detail on his life and genius. Would be awesome.
@epicchocolate1866 no. The monarchs attacked HIM. Then he would kick their asses, they would apologize and say sorry my bad and ally with him and then backstab him a few years later. Rinse and repeat. BRUTAL DICTATOR?! are you kidding me? I think you are confusing him with Robiespierre. The general public loved him. He was a skilled governor and established a system where you get promoted based on merit, not nepotism. He would overthrow monarchies and establish republics. He reestablished Poland as a nation after it had been partitioned between Prussia, Austria, and Russia a few decades earlier. So you support kings over republics? Is that why you hate one of the most brilliant military tacticians in all of history? Or are you just British?
A really good assertion of the movie. You hit the nail on the head! I was also very displeased on watching it and left before the Waterloo battle b/c I had enough. Good job and kudos to you!!
Uhh what? If they wanted to make an entertaining movie... they probably should have just told the story of NAPOLEON.... instead of making whatever boring, cringe, garbage this was. Napoleon's actual life was far more entertaining than this nonsense. This movie was a deliberate hit piece / character assassination, Ridley Scott clearly has a hate-b0n3r for Napoleon.
I think I will save a few bucks and watch Waterloo with Harvey stiger again. Thanks for the warnings, I am still considering to see this just for the big screen
Another small detail: I really disliked how Scott made the Duke of Wellington a one-dimensional, pompous, British general who seemed more in line with an aristocratic 007 movie villain than a battle-hardened military man who came from nothing and rose through the ranks based on merit. If you know anything about the real Sir Arthur Wellesley, you’d find this portrayal to be grossly lacking.
I agree 99% with you. My only disagreement is that Napoleon's Marshalls were that good. With rare exceptions like Davout, who was near invincible, the rest of them were needed but not for their tactics. Murat was brave and charismatic. Ney also brave but foolhardy and when Napoleon wasn't on the field or at least directing their maneuvers they usually performed badly. They were essential in their ability to follow Napoleon's orders but when commanding an army independently they were usually just wasting men and horses.
Watching the movie felt like listening to a Greatest Hits album that was made by a bad tribute band. The most interesting thing about Napoleon, beyond his military exploits, is the question at the heart of his legacy: was he a savior restoring order and prosperity to a land in ruin, or was he a megalomaniacal tyrant who destroyed the progress of the revolution? This movie doesn't even hint at this conflict. Scott could easily have made a trilogy based off Napoleon depicting Napoleon the Rise, Napoleon the King, and Napoleon the Fall. But instead we got this...
BASICALLY THIS MOVIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TRILOGY 1ST MOVIE HIS RISE TO RANKS 2ND MOVIE HIS RISE TO POWER 3RD MOVIE HIS FALL FROM POWER AMD EACH MOVIE WOULD HAVE DIFFERRENT ACTORS PLAYING NAPOLEON YOUNG NAPOLEON OLDER NAPOLEON AND LASTLY A MUCH OLDER NAPOLEON DURING HIS FALL
This film was beautiful! The source material was neo classical art from that era (I suggest you study the many portraits and paintings of Napoleon). Brilliant, thoroughly entertaining, gorgeous and hilarious. Awesome movie.
you say " battle scenes are why people go to movies like this" i agree, i thought it would be a historic cool walk through his battles and history. But the reason for this isnt because its just titled Napoleon, its because the TRAILER sells this movie as an action packed war fighting movie.. honestly this movie ruined my day after watching it.
I don't worry too much about historical inaccuracy in events, scenes, clothing and such in movies, because I have no issue with artistic license in telling a story, and I've never been stupid enough to think that a movie is history. But... I am already worried about seeing this movie just by watching Joachin Phoenix play one of the most dynamic and charismatic men in history in such a passive, bored manner. I'll probably still watch it, but I am confident that it will not measure up to Day-Lewis's take on Abraham Lincoln or Oldman's take on Churchill.
PBS created a superb 4-part biography (in the style of their brilliant Ken Burns' "Civil War") that you can watch on UA-cam. It was so compelling I watched all four parts in one evening. I cannot stress enough how entertaining and informative it is. It is actually far more entertaining than Ridley Scott's movie. Here are some reasons why.
1. It is colorful and uses the fantastic music of the era (Beethoven's 3rd Concerto wiritten and dedicated for Napoleon). For instance, at Napoleon's coronation there were 4,000 musicians and singers. The movie does not capture this but PBS did.
2. It uses the splendid artwork of the era to portray the battles and victories. That alone is a feast for the eyes
3. As with the Ken Burns' documentaries, it uses expert commentary from a wide array of scholars.
4. You actually come to understand the true dynamics of Napoleon's relationship with Josephine. You get to see how the dynamics flipped from when she was a "cougar" and he a naive young soldier and then when he was a powerful, urbane emperor and she an aging woman.
5. Perhaps most importantly, you come to realize the immensity of his military genius. This is something the movie does NOT do. Additionally, you see how he was a powerful and inspiring leader with nearly limitless self-confidence.
Do yourself a favor, watch the PBS documentary.
Wait Beethoven and Napoleon were contemporaries?
Your comparing a Documentary to a Movie?
There are very good Documentaries about Napoleon also .
A civil war movie is "Gone With The Wind" or "Glory" if your comparing movies vs movies.
I’ll have to check it out!!! Thanks!
It was Beethoven's Symphony no. 3 in E-flat major (the "Eroica") that was initially dedicated to Napoleon - and Beethoven crossed out the dedication after Napoleon made himself Emperor. Beethoven's Piano Concerto no. 3 in C minor was dedicated to Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, a pupil and friend of Beethoven's who was himself an excellent composer and pianist (Prince Louis Ferdinand was killed in the Battle of Saalfeld, during the War of the Fourth Coalition).
The real problems are the things in his relationship with Josephine that don't ring true for the period. I find it difficult to believe that this rich and powerful man, in a period when rich and powerful men behaved even worse than they do today, was so besotted with this woman so much older than him, rather than because she was politically powerful. His love letters seem to be taken at face value rather than manipulative. It just all seems too fantastic, like a 70's B sexploitation movie, where the blonde bimbo is infatuated and sexually obsessed, with the penniless plain guy.
We didn't think this was good cinema back then, when it was aimed at men, why lie about it when it is aimed at women?
I don’t think Scott “wasted good source material”. I think he didn’t even look at it.
he should have named it Napoleon and Josephine so somebody could make a real movie about him and him only
@@azDanqsAre you 12? Do you really think this is the only movie made about Napoleon in the past 200 years?
@@falconeshield well the name "Napoleon" was taken by this shitty movie so it wont be the original
ru 15 minutes old btw
Agreed haha
@@azDanqswhat an imbecilic comment. I hope you are just young and not that dense!!
Ridley Scott is an old, angry, bitter Brit, who should be exiled to the island of St. Helena.
😂
Brits...as always ruining everything they touch
Not to mention he was born in 1937. He would go to school in England as a kid being taught that Hitler was the second coming of Napoleon
@@BamberdittoPingpong If you live in Russia, Hitler is a second coming of Napoleon, one lasting more than a season. And maybe France too, they first loose soldiers then the Prussians run the place for a few years.
you joke but after this travesty UK should exile this clown. his good movie making skills expired 15 years ago.
"Like a movie about the Beatles that barely mentions the music and instead focuses on Yoko." Great analogy
Thanks haha that one felt good 😂
The sooner this woefully misbegotten travesty is forgotten about the better.
Agreed
Remember Netflix's Cleopatra? That came out months ago to negative reviews and people have already forgotten it. This is going to be the same fate for Ridley Scott's Napoleon.
hopefully the 4 hour cut fixes these issues
@@brodowksi2819 nope
@@brodowksi2819 He's lost the plot just like the rest of them, he has no business making films.
The missing Marshalls really disappointed me. Napoleon's Marshalls from what I understand were a bit of a rogues gallery. They would have made such interesting characters.
They were! It would have provided so much good storytelling
keep your eyes out for Spielberg's upcoming Napoleon series for HBO. 8 episodes that promise to highlight the Marshalls
That and two of them become rulers of their own as well. One for Sweden and the other for Naples.
This movie should be called “the adulterous wife of napoleon”
We all know Josephine was a bit freaky and Napoleon sucked in bed. We didn't need to see that on film.
You know he cheated on his wife too right?
@@TheLittleMJPuppetyes but after she cheated on him first
He's French, of course he did @@TheLittleMJPuppet
It is interesting that Josephine had 2 children with her first husband and then no more. Did she really have an affair? Was she using some kind of secret contraceptive? Or spermicude? Napolean had many affairs and many children to show for it. Alledgedly. Where's the proof those kids were his? Or that his 2nd wife didn't have an affair.
"Here I am. Kill your Emperor. If you wish" replaced by "I want to come home". DISGUSTING!
"Do you think I'm handsome?" "Yes. Do you think I'm pretty?"
"Yes. Do you want to see the bedroom?" "Napoleon, here's your son!"
Waaaa waaa. I miss my wife. Waaaa.
"Soldiers of France. I want you...to want me."
@@jgirlLVR Mommies alright. Daddies alright. They just seem a little weird.
that sounds so progressive and Gay! impressive.
I don’t know what else you expected. It’s a Napoleon movie made by a British guy.
A knighted Englishman at that.
Lots of British historians have written glowing biographies of Napoleon over the years, so a nationalist bias shouldn't necessarily be presumed.
The best movie about Napoleon, "Waterloo" from 1970, was made by a Russian.
Ignorant comment
oppenheimer was made by a british guy. your comment make no sense.
I never believed it would succed or atleast make it past mediocre. Simply because Napoleon Bonaparte lived a life unlike any other man, 80 battles fought only 11 lost. His rise to the throne, the involvements of the French revolution, his extraordinary campaigns, his ravlries and enemies across Europe. Motherfucker did more in a month than most successful men of today's standard do in a lifetime.
I think a TV-show would do Napoleon Justice in portraying his genius, greed, lovelife, struggles and so forth. Man is a real life animie protagonist. His story would only feel cramped otherwise.
He won 6 wars before he ever lost a battle. Ask any Englishman and they'll tell you he was a cuck who couldn't make up his mind about anything and had really bad hemorrhoids.
I don't wanna know his love life I only wanna know his Genius,his secrets that made him who he was
I just wanna add, the same could be said about Genghis Khan.
@@AnotherCrazyClown Absolutely, some people can't grasp that certain historical figures and actions can't be formated into a movie because of it's scale. They did a Genghis Khan type Show on Netflix: Marco polo. But it followed a grandchild and only spun for two seasons. It was good since the director understood that he couldn't cover a century old empire with dozens of perpetrators and battles within a movie.
It's the same with WWII. Everyone knows of it since multiple movies and individual stories have been produced. But imagine making a 3-hour movie about the conflict for someone that's never heard of it. It would be broad and it would only glance over all the amazing and horrible aspects of the war, like concentration camps, the multiple fronts, the race on war machines, ideologies, Hitler himself and so forth. Napoleon was almost on the same scale of WW2 for Europe. He completely shook the continent.
Spielberg is supposedly making a show
Napoleon himself could’ve played his role but with that writers even he couldn’t have been a good Napoleon.
And this writer is writing Gladiator 2…
@@vresnuilI heard Ridley want to bring back Russell Crowe wtf
God that movie is going to suck ass
@@vresnuilRidley’s good at completely making things up, like he did with gladiatorS
@@vresnuil Why would they wait 24 years to make Gladiator 2? Is it going to be set in a Roman Assisted Living Facility? Is Russell Crowe going to play 'Maximus Hospice?'
Ridley Scott has shown us he can't evolve as a director, this whole film feels like something out of the 2000's. Audiences prefer more detail and nuance when it comes to modern historical films. This feels like a history film made by someone who doesn't like history.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@freeedward8being willfully ignorant about history is not something praiseworthy.
Yeah, if there's one thing zoomers are known for is the high standards of their movie tastes...
LMAO
@@freeedward8 And this comment is a cut and past from another review. Do you get paid to plant this gibberish?
@@freeedward8So....ignoring the history books is now an achievement. I hate boomers.
A quarter into the movie my wife leans over and whispers to me, "I hope you know you signed up for a love story". I was utterly distraught
😂
smart woman. W wife, LMAOOOO
It’s not even a love story it’s like watching a horny Xbox gamer trying to get laid. Bizarre
100% agree! Film is an epic fail and disaster! A character assignation of the great man Napoleon! Geez … feel bad the for French .. optics don’t look good for for British
Definitely weird to have a British filmmaker create a Napoleon movie haha this is what we end up with 🤦♂️
Movie felt more like a hit piece on Napoleon.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@contexthistorychannel His being British probably has very little to do with anything. No one in Britain cares about Napoleon -- there is no national animosity to the man at all. Meanwhile, movies like the Patriot and Braveheart depict every last Englishman as a sniveling, arrogant or emotionless villain. Its just a bad movie.
@@freeedward8 Lol you've reposted this garbage quote about 20 times and I have yet to see you get even 1 upvote.... no one agrees with you. Go away.
Was planning on watching the movie until I learned that the movie was more about his wife and how inaccurate the movie is.
She was the brains of the operation. Nobody gives her credit because of sexism but she actually dressed like a man and whispered every order into Napoleons ear and the only reason he lost was because he stopped listening to her genius advice.
These days a "very important woman" needs to be shoehorned into the main story and highlighted, even when making a biopic of a male military leader. That's just how things now are 🤷
You forgot to say woke
Then I could've berated you for being braindead but instead I can just say this movie was a failure for a lot of reasons not just because they focused on Napoleon's wife
Don’t think it’s about that bc she was impactful to his rise. Shit movie for sure but it’s not shoehorning her in tho
@@EvolvementErassje was impactful to his ballsack, thats about it.
No need to go down that route. This movie didn't fail because of wokery. It's just bad.
No this movie very obvoiusly tried to be a biopic of Josephine and Napoleon, thats a completley fine premise to have and its not some weird modern wokeism to make her the other leading role in the film. The film was bad and had many historical errors but this has nothing to do with it focusing on Napoleon's and Josephine's relationship.
Ironic how someone can start his career with the best napoleon movie where Napoleon looms over the movie without appearing a single second in it and ends it with Napoleon in every scene and fuck it up.
Kubrick's Napoleon biopic would have been everything this film wasn't had he actually been able to make it.
Scott is a Director-for-hire, not an auteur. He's a commercial film Director (who became incredibly successful - and independently wealthy - directing commercials long before he began making movies). This needs to be understood. He's made a few great movies, and quite a few poor movies. It's a shame about Napoleon, but Scott did what he was hired to do, with a script that was presumably signed-off by those who also signed the cheques. In that sense, it's a job well done. And he'll move on to the next job he's hired for in much the same vein.
He's past his prime. Doubt we'll ever see anything of quality from him here on out
Why do they keep hiring him if he is delivering financial and artistic flops over and over and over again when it comes to large scale epics?
Napoleon - Flop
The Last Duel (decent movie but financially disastrous) - Flop
Alien Covenant - Flop
Exodus Gods and Kings - Flop
If I were a studio head and someone came to me and said I have this big historical epic and presented Ridley as the director, I'd think he is clueless.
@@lastword8783 - Scott's a pro. He gets stuff done, especially on a big-budget scale. He'd be the first to describe his directorial style as a 'benevolent dictatorship'. Financeers putting up hundreds of $millions need to know there's that one guy who is absolutely in charge, who will meet deadlines, preferably on-budget. Scott's that guy, in a very high-stakes business.
As for commercial success - that's the tricky part. Who knew a relatively low-budget (ostensibly) 'B-movie' sci-fi horror flick ('Alien' was a flop on its initial release) would go on to define an entire genre and create a significant visual/cinematic style? I'll bet Scott didn't know, but it's a funny business, and it's funny how things sometimes turn out.
TLDR: They hire him because he gets the job done; he's highly experienced, and a control-freak (because he needs to be), and he respects the bottom line.
Well I for one was shocked at how badly made this film was from a historical perspective, and as I said in another comment that this will likely be the last hollywood film I ever see at a theater. I have had enough of their garbage to last me a lifetime.
This movie is nothing like Scott's predecessors e.g. Kingdom of Heaven and Gladiator it plain sucked and the movie was tragic it felt like a sitcom of Napoleon and not a historic epic
Ridley Scott and David Scarpa just destroyed any chance for a future director to tell Napoleons true story. In my opinion it was an historical hit piece.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@freeedward8 I disagree. To many historical inaccuracies. This is revisionist garbage at its worse.
Steven Spielberg has all the research that Kubrick had on Napoleon. He's doing a series which will be coming out on HBO Max.
You can just ignore them and do your own thing. That's the beauty of history.
@@nellgwennMan Kubrick must be spinning in his grave rn
When I watched the film, I was confused, because I remembered for sure that the divorce of Napoleon and Josephine occurred after Tilsit. It was already beginning to seem to me that I was just crazy, because if they were just transported back to the time of Tilsit, then why did Napoleon say that he wanted to marry Alexander's sister, although I remembered exactly that it was in 1809. It turns out they just moved the events to other dates. WHY
Because Scott somehow thought Napoleon was King Arthur, a French myth.
When Apple Stream replays the movie with the missing 1 hour that was edited out of the movie that may help things .
Many Director's Cut movies are much improved by just adding a missing 10-15 minutes of a movie .
@@Crashed131963good point
@Crashed131963 but we shouldn't need a directors cut for the film to make sense/ finally be good.
Congratulations, I subbed when your were at 999 subscribers. Which makes me your 1000th subscriber! Congrats! 🎉
It should have been called "Letters to Josephine" or "Napoleon and Josephine." I think Scott didn't want to make a Napoleon biopic, rather he wanted to make a film that looks at the erratic, crude, and often bipolar Napoleon we get through his letters to Josephine, the ones where he insuates oral sex, talks about wanting Josephine to perform" the zig zags" on him, while ocassionally scolding her as an awful person and terrible wife.
I think if Scott made clear this wasn't a sprawling Napoleon biopic, it wouldn't be receiving as much negative attention. It feels like a let down when you go in expecting the biopic, and instead get a rather limited look at Napoleon and his career at the expense of seeing him solely through his letters to Jospehine.
It's like going to a movie about Elvis and seeing a biopic about a South African conman played by Tom Hanks.
Exactly! I was thinking the same thing!
Several times during the movie I was like "wtf am I watching?"
Propaganda porn done wrong
Unlike Kingdom of Heaven
Same haha
You were watching a garbage Josephine fan-fiction film.
@@winstonsmith8482 that's the best description I heard so far.
Mixture of Joker & Commodus 😂 exactly. I heard Joaquin told Ridley Scott that he had no idea what to do 10 days before the shooting.
And we heard it was Joaquin Phoenix convinced rifley Scott to not focus on Josephine so much, so i can only imagine what a fucking joke the first scripts would've been
Thank you for this. Nice one, Cheers. Seriously, I had no desire to see this film. I saw the plot and that Ridley was going to be the director, and thought; "Oh dear, No thanks". I have been playing Napoleonic Table Top Wargames since I was an infant. My Masters is on Napoleon. My Doctorate is on Napoleonic Warfare. There is no way I could sit through this hot garbage without being ejected from the cinema for hurling abuse at the nonsense on screen.
Gee it's almost like The Emperor was studied by many people from different time periods. Funny how bad movies stop being relevant with a little bit of education.
Oh yeah haha you definitely shouldn’t go see it you’ll be losing your mind watching it
@@RoberttAvro Thank you for your sage advice. Much appreciated. Cheers.
I’m so happy that I found someone who agrees with me!! My friends love this movie and I was fighting to stay awake while watching it. Also I found the battle scenes so boring while everyone else has been saying it’s some of the best battle scenes they’ve seen. So thank you for being normal
I think you need new friends hahaha but seriously thanks for watching! Happy to see other people feel my same thoughts
Disown your friends immediately lol (kidding), but this movie WAS terrible.
It definitely had its issues but starting the movie with the siege of Toulon and you see all the people actually moving in the cover of darkness and shit got me hyped I can’t lie
@@Walker-ow7vj If you want an ACTUAL good, entertaining, and fairly accurate depiction/adaptation of the siege of Toulon.
Find a way to watch / download : BBC's "Napoleon - Heroes and Villains" from around 2007 or 2009. It's kind of a masterpiece for being a relatively low budget BBC thing. Probably because it uses it's budget well and focuses solely on young napoleon's rise to fame/generalship at Toulon.
The Yoko analogy is actually perfect though. If you make a documentary about The Beatles you probably need to include her, but she's not why ANYONE is there
It's still possible to portray history accurately AND be entertaining. Look at Zulu, Gettysburg, Band of Brothers and Midway to name a few! All it takes is genuine love and care for the subject matter, respect for the subject matter and putting your ego aside. To which this movie had absolutely none of. Ridley took one of the most intellectual, powerful and loved man in history and turned him into a babbling, idiotic simp. An embarrassment and a step closer to the death of historically accurate movies. The Braveheart of this generation.
Oh my god the fact they never go into his generals killed me. He was both a battlefield genius as well as high level tactic genius.
However, his generals were also amazing and key to success of his conquests. The siege of mantua alone how his armies get sent back and forth as they fight then run them fight as they try to keep siege pressure against overwhelming Prussian assault by numbers but Napoleon never let them bear their full force with genius tactics despite failures of rest of France.
It is a shame as we could really use some well done historical movies and this is a great period for that.
That’s why I’m sad
@@contexthistorychannelyou can exaggerate sadness for views or whatever but the consensus from actual film buffs is that it's another visually stunning Scott Period piece. For every "it sucks" vid there are a dozen "it's fantastic" vids.
Also, I hope you aren't really sad about your subjective opinion of a film...:that's kinda snowflake like
go watch carry on jack about same period 😅
LeBron's wife (her name escapes me) is actually the reason why Lebron dunks so ferociously on other people
If you’re going to do a soap opera do something like The Lion in Winter. Lock all your protagonists in a palace somewhere, and have them confront each other over a limited period of time. The recriminations, backbiting, affections and alliances can all be demonstrated through good writing.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
As a viewing bonus it also has a rare sighted young Tony Hopkins
@@freeedward8 So an inaccurate depiction amounting to character assassination is a huge achievement?
@@freeedward8 so a propaganda movie made to get us to stick together for the next round of fights with Napoleon then ? The consuming angry petulant baby was great as a foil for the hero in dune, but even if you are make a Trump reference, doesn’t make sense as the stand alone protagonist who overthrows the old order. Without showing why he and by extension Trump was loved and adored the overthrow is not explicable.
I mean, wasn't Marlin Brando's 'Desiree" enough torture??!
Napoleon was 24 years of age when he displayed his genius as a young artillery officer by taking command and control of the French Artillery Regiment/Brigade and successfully expelling the English Fleet from Toulon Harbour, this engagement is known as ‘the siege of Toulon’(1793) in recognition of his extraordinary leadership and bravery throughout that battle (wounded in the thigh on the 16th of December) just 6 days later on the 22 of December 1793 he is promoted to the new rank of ‘Brigadier General’, some say that at that time he was the youngest General ever appointed in French History, Napoleon goes on to Nice to take control of all artillery regiments in the ‘Army of Italy’ and unbelievably two years later on the 11th of March 1796 Napoleon at 27 years of age is given command of ‘The Army of Italy’, fast forward to the 13th of December 1799 when he becomes ‘First Consul of The French Republic’ age 30 years of age and fast forward now to the 18th of May 1804 aged 34 when Napoleon appoints himself ‘ The Emperor of France’.
My question (I wish no disrespect towards Joachim Phoenix) is to Ridley Scott, how can this film have any significant authenticity with your audiences when Joachim is 49 years of age during filming?, it should be noted that Napoleon had a ‘boyish’ look throughout most of his military career, in fact on his arrival in Nice when he first joined ‘The Army of Italy’ senior officers were shocked by his youthful appearance and where extremely judgmental and critical of his appointment, Napoleon changed their minds with multiple victories throughout 1796-1797 his triumph at Rivoli set the stage for his future extraordinary military triumphs and his beloved ‘La Grande Armee’.
Totally agree. That annoys me too. Joaquin is two years away from how old Napoleon was when he died. They should have cast a younger man.
The movie frankly didn't do the work on Napoleon/Josephine so when Napoleon comes home from Egypt, he's initially angry and as the fight continues at one point Josephine makes him say, "You're nothing without me" and I was thinking, "How exactly?" and ultimately Phoenix' portrayal of Napoleon felt like a middle aged Commodus.
Napoleon got shipped off to an all boys only boarding school at age 9 (while not speaking French), got bullied badly, went immediately to military school, then artillery school. In artillery school he's purely focused on graduating quickly so he could deal with his financial problems. He barely talked to basically 0 women outside his family before age 16. Dude was just awkward, he proposed to 6 women by age 26 (including a rich 40 year old), only 1 said yes and that was Désirée Clary, not Josephine.
That's ridiculous. Plenty of awkward guys walking around these days that have had many interactions with females since pre school and still can't hold a conversation with one.
Napoleon was a gentleman and the only reason those 5 others didn't accept was because they were snobby and didn't appreciate Napoleon for who he was. He's lucky they turned him down.
I couldn't finish the movie. I got up halfway through and left. They turned the man into some kind of wimp, no charisma.. The plot was confused, It also lacked historical veracity.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
Bit dramatic
watched it last night on a date, thought it was solid but slow at times, and she definitely was falling asleep. i did think the dynamic between him and his first wife was pretty inconsistent, and the time frame skips were definitely janked
My girlfriend started interested but by like 30 minute mark she was ready to fall asleep haha I feel like they had elements of a good movie they just structured it so poorly it hurt the overall experience
@@contexthistorychannel yeah i agree
The girlfriend disapproves, therfore the movie suuucks.
I think a historical movie has a certain duty to portray history somewhat accurately and yes, even have an educational quality to it, although in entertaining form. Accuracy and entertainment don't have to be mutually exclusive, despite what excuses hollywood hacks try to come up with.
There are movie's like "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" and it's fine to have those movies too, at least they do not pretend to be anything other than fantasy.
If historical fantasy was Ridley Scott's declared goal from the beginning, I think no one would be upset, though I'm not sure why he couldn't just make up a fictional Napoleon-like character instead.
But, no he deliberately wanted to make a film about Napoleon and like how he sees him, not the vast historical records and key consensus points of experts studying the life of this fascinating figure. Instead he decided to double down on his willful ignorance of actual history and the arrogance of which he treated said material and public backlash.
I'm a fan of some of his older movies and I won't deny his craftsmanship, but sadly that is all he has now and he deserves every ounce of ridicule coming his way for his conduct surrounding the controversy around this movie.
I have loved pretty much every Ridley Scott movie made so I was so confident in this one only to be crushed
@@contexthistorychannel Yeah tbh I was negatively surprised too.
@@rickymartin4457yea but u werent thete were you?
So according to ridley scot if u werent therr u should stfu.
Napoleon had uniciron horns and he was the antichrist.
Fully agree with you sir.
Skipping the Battle of Leipzig where the freaking Monument of Nations stands today IS INSANE. The 4 hour version will bridge the gaps between scenes but it won't add new battles. But this trimmed down version is a heavy pass.
They should have cast Danny Devito in the role and made it a comedy.
Danny Devito is too short.
@@nellgwennIf you're gonna Anglofy Queen Vicky's greatest foe go all the way. If he were younger this movie would be perfect for Mel Brooks' final bow
There's no such thing as too short for Napoleon @@nellgwenn
At least they showed his obession with kerchiefs and his ability to sleep standing up or on horseback...
Took the words out of my mouth, waited YEARS for this since first leak, I will never rewatch it :,(
There are "historical" movies that get little to nothing right in terms of historical accuracy but are darn entertaining to the wider audience. Mel Gibson's movies come to mind.
There are historical movies that amazingly get a very high percentage right but are pretty boring to the wider audience but may be entertaining to the hardcore buffs that actually prefer to watch a more documentary style of movie. 'Alexander' comes to mind for example (although it at times is pretty OUT THERE tbh).
There are historical movies that not only get pretty much everything right in terms of historical accuracy BUT also are darn entertaining. Movies like 'Waterloo' and 'Master and Commander - On the far side of the world'.
And then there are movies like 'Napoleon' that manage to to neither.
The trailers made me wary - sad that my fears weren’t unfounded.
Don't tell me that Scott decided that Napoleon would never be where he was WITHOUT his "strong female character" wife Josephine?? Is that why she was in it so often? A woman leading a man, as per usual in the Woke World?
lolol you got triggered!! lolol
@earnthis1 are you ok?
Napoleon's last words were France, the Army, the head of the Army, Josephine and not Josephine, France, the Army, The... well the movie forgot about his generals 😅
The fact that over half this movie was about Napoleons wife shows just how stupid this movie is, the movie even showed how dumb it was at the end when it said 61 battles and we only see a flash of 3 battles in the movie.
Thanks for this man, now I know to not watch the movie
The anglocentrism is almost comical at this point. Rushing to Waterloo because of Wellington, and omitting the Battle of Leipzig, also called the "Battle of the Nations", the biggest and arguably most important battle of the entire Napoleonic wars?? Huh?
It’s like you said, the actual war feels like a backdrop, maybe Hollywood just doesn’t know how to make war movies anymore from the perspective of leaders? Instead it seems like they can only make movies that show harrowing experiences of warfare on the front, like in All Quiet on the Western Front.
However, here it’s not some random soldier, the main character is LITERALLY THE EMPEROR-GENERAL OF THE BIGGEST ARMY IN HISTORY AT THE TIME, yet they portray the world as just automatically happening around him, like "yeah then he just got to Egypt, then to Russia" as if a higher power is pushing him, but he isn’t some traumatized kid that was drafted into WW1, he was Napoleon himself ffs, you can’t just make the setting in a similar way
Napoleon was bankrolled by the Apple Corporation. Now you know why Josephine had to be such a huge part of it. Honestly, this whole dumpster fire reeks of corporate meddling, so I don't completely blame Ridley Scott. I think he wanted to make a movie with cool battle scenes and got pulled in all sorts of different directions. He's too good of a director to make that bad of a movie.
I don't think you'll see many more superhero films though. Disney lost its ass on the last 7 superhero movies so I think we're done for a while. They're still killing it in the streaming market though, which is what appears to be sustaining the god awful crap they keep pumping out - like all streaming platforms nowadays.
I thought the movie was going to be very mid based on the first trailer, then I learned it's being made by ridley Scott and was confused as I thought he could do better, then he told people complaining about accuracy to pound dust which convince me that this films faults can be attributed to him since he can't seem to rationalize criticism to his film.
It’s a biopic about Napoleon and his relationship with Josephine, that’s literally in the title.
@@epicchocolate1866 What are you talking about? The title is Napoleon. That's literally the title. It literally doesn't say anything about Josephine.
The costumes are beautiful
Agreed! The costume designs are A+ I could have mentioned that but didn’t want say anything nice haha
The closing credits made it abundantly clear what Scott’s intentions with this movie were. He hates Napoleon, and wants you to hate Napoleon too.
The Patriot is Shakespeare compared to this waste of time
A 2 hr film on NB is just absurd to begin with...😂
Unless it just focused on one battle or something, that could work, like the 1970 movie waterloo.
@@winstonsmith8482 Yes!
Sounds like everyone should just go watch Waterloo again.
Yep pretty much haha
Damn, this looked so good in trailers , cant believe Ridley Scott making a bad movie?
I’m sticking with the older 70s version, which didn’t ignore history AND was entertaining.
Couldn’t agree more with the last thought. Was also hoping for a return to historical epics. Instead we’ll get the Avengers 482
A movie about the life of Napoleon? That would take seven films. Scott should have focused on the Revolution to his coronation.
Agreed! Keep the movie more focused and the storytelling would have flowed much better
@@contexthistorychannel Yes, and then if the movie was a huge hit, pick up the sequels.
I looked up a review of this film after I saw it myself to see if critics were as disappointed as I was, now I get one video about it recommended every day. The film makes him seem like some kind of semi-labile human being which in my opinion doesn't do him justice. Your LeBron James comparison was spot on!
Thanks! That comparison felt good when i wrote it haha
Havent seen it but I saw the clip of her calling him a short little brute who would be nowhere without her. How is that possible exactly? I imagine the film has some clips of her telling him "oh you should go fight them" or such nonsense but does he take her onto the battlefield with him? How can she claim credit for a battle she isnt even present for? This is more woke nonsense of garbage female characters patting women on the back. Its like retelling the life of Jesus and saying actually it was all this girl we never saw she was like "psst wouldnt it be cool if it was wine".
Yes, it would be like a movie about the life of Jesus Christ, but it‘s really a girl boss flick about Mary Magdalene constantly browbeating Jesus over his „toxic masculinity.“ 😅
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
You are wrong. It has nothing to do with "wokeness", and everything to do with British tabloid propaganda of the day. That's exactly how Napoleon and Josephine were portrayed in the British print media.
I am always hyped up about Ridley Scott movies and Napoleon sounds like it could be great . However I am alarmed that Joaquin didn’t try anything to get his voice to be commanding …, no accent , no change in inflections
What disappointed me most was the portrayal of Nap’s character. One of the most capable, talented and charismatic figures in history was portrayed as a very ordinary, uncharismatic, gloomy bafoon. This version of Napoleon, who was far too old by the way, would never have won over the French people, or any people, like the real Napoleon did.
Oppenheimer was every bit of the historical drama that this movie wasn’t. And Christopher Nolan spanned nearly the same period of time that Ridley Scott did
Focus on the portrayal of history can be just as important as the discussion i feel.
Agree!
I do appreciate you commenting on every video I make 😊
a good critique includes both the art form's successes and failures, and sometimes it's a dud. Fine work
I actually wanted my money back after watching this. I kept wondering when they were going to stop focusing on Josephine an they never did, I realized Ridley Scott may have simple read the letters between napoleon and her, then ignored everything else. I thought it was going to be the culmination of his directing career when it turned out to be one of his worst blunders.
An English man telling Napolean's life?!
You gotta respect the british for continuing to ruin his reputation centuries after his death. What a dedication.
An American playing napoleon?
@@fidalf99It's not the British it's one Britain.
@@fidalf99For illiterates who need movies to tell them about history sure.
@@eon14873They didn't even bring Lafayette up. OR NELSON!!
I knew the Josephine love story was going to be a significant part of the movie, but it still surprised me just how much of it was covered.
Same
The actual history wasn't "covered" at all, it was "BUTCHERED", this bears almost zero resemblance to the actual complicated relationship between Napoleon and Josephine. This was just a nonsense Josephine fan-fiction film.
I am French and did not like this movie. But according to Scott I am incapable of loving myself 😂
😂 quel mauvais perdant ce Scott
HBO should make a limited series on Napoleons life
The thing I bitch about is Joaquin Phoenix, he is miscasted as Napoleon. He ain't Napoleon by any stretch of the imagination. The movie is garbage.
He’s literally the joker and commodos in this it’s painful
I was expecting this, Ridley Scott is washed up for decades now
I've seen so many videos and reviews that rate this movie poorly, and I've yet to see even one that praised it as a good film. I was going to go see this, but now I probably won't.
Yeah if you’re very curious I’d wait until it comes out on streaming then watch, unless you can find a theater with cheap tickets that’s only way I’d say go
wise
You were so close to saying the my line I tell people, "if you went into this movie knowing nothing about Napoleon, you left still knowing nothing about Napoleon."
I had great expectations but by Waterloo i had fallen asleep at the cinema..a waste of time and money.. terrible movie, great nap
Feel that!
I knew this Movie was going to be a Bomb.
Nobody in this Country knows or Cares about Napoleon.
It feels like this movie needed the length of a mini series.
You cant do a 2 and a half film around one the most impressive men in history. A series or a series of films would have been better.
The Movie is from a mini series by Apple Stream .
When Apple Stream replays the mini series version with the missing 1 hour that was edited out for the movie that may help things .
Many Director's Cut movies are much improved by just adding a missing 10-15 minutes of a movie let alone 1hr !
@@Crashed131963 "This isn't a directors cut because the cut that people see is the directors cut" R Scott
Agreed on all your points. I'd love a Chernobyl-style miniseries based around Napoleons rise and fall, going into much more detail on his life and genius. Would be awesome.
Exactly mini series could really get into the full story of Napoleon much better
The film was just anti-Napoleon propaganda
Big time
Well he was a brutal dictator who started wars that killed 20 million people
@epicchocolate1866 no. The monarchs attacked HIM. Then he would kick their asses, they would apologize and say sorry my bad and ally with him and then backstab him a few years later. Rinse and repeat.
BRUTAL DICTATOR?! are you kidding me? I think you are confusing him with Robiespierre. The general public loved him. He was a skilled governor and established a system where you get promoted based on merit, not nepotism. He would overthrow monarchies and establish republics. He reestablished Poland as a nation after it had been partitioned between Prussia, Austria, and Russia a few decades earlier.
So you support kings over republics? Is that why you hate one of the most brilliant military tacticians in all of history? Or are you just British?
This movie made me appreciate Mosfilm's "War and Peace". Absolutely epic series.
He could be accurate and entertaining the Napoleonic wars were very dynamic and challenging
The source material was so deep to make a good movie! I don’t know how he could mess it up
@@contexthistorychannel I very much agree
A really good assertion of the movie. You hit the nail on the head! I was also very displeased on watching it and left before the Waterloo battle b/c I had enough. Good job and kudos to you!!
Thanks! Appreciate you watching!
Its almost as if they wanted to make an entertaining movie, its fucking mindblowing
Uhh what? If they wanted to make an entertaining movie... they probably should have just told the story of NAPOLEON.... instead of making whatever boring, cringe, garbage this was. Napoleon's actual life was far more entertaining than this nonsense. This movie was a deliberate hit piece / character assassination, Ridley Scott clearly has a hate-b0n3r for Napoleon.
And they still failed to do that
My wife commented afterwards 'I don't know anything more about Napoleon now. I know he loved Josephine and fighting battles and that's it.'
My girlfriend felt same way lol
It was propaganda
Definitely felt like they created a Napoleon based solely on British propaganda
haven't watched the movie but if this is true how short is he@@contexthistorychannel
Feminist propaganda.
@@sabrinafair35 It's pretty obvious, when Josephine said the line "you're nothing without me"
I think I will save a few bucks and watch Waterloo with Harvey stiger again. Thanks for the warnings, I am still considering to see this just for the big screen
Another small detail: I really disliked how Scott made the Duke of Wellington a one-dimensional, pompous, British general who seemed more in line with an aristocratic 007 movie villain than a battle-hardened military man who came from nothing and rose through the ranks based on merit. If you know anything about the real Sir Arthur Wellesley, you’d find this portrayal to be grossly lacking.
I agree 99% with you. My only disagreement is that Napoleon's Marshalls were that good. With rare exceptions like Davout, who was near invincible, the rest of them were needed but not for their tactics. Murat was brave and charismatic. Ney also brave but foolhardy and when Napoleon wasn't on the field or at least directing their maneuvers they usually performed badly. They were essential in their ability to follow Napoleon's orders but when commanding an army independently they were usually just wasting men and horses.
Is Apple still doing a 4hr runtime? Hopefully it will flow better if they stream it
Watching the movie felt like listening to a Greatest Hits album that was made by a bad tribute band.
The most interesting thing about Napoleon, beyond his military exploits, is the question at the heart of his legacy: was he a savior restoring order and prosperity to a land in ruin, or was he a megalomaniacal tyrant who destroyed the progress of the revolution? This movie doesn't even hint at this conflict.
Scott could easily have made a trilogy based off Napoleon depicting Napoleon the Rise, Napoleon the King, and Napoleon the Fall. But instead we got this...
BASICALLY THIS MOVIE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A TRILOGY
1ST MOVIE HIS RISE TO RANKS
2ND MOVIE HIS RISE TO POWER
3RD MOVIE HIS FALL FROM POWER
AMD EACH MOVIE WOULD HAVE DIFFERRENT ACTORS PLAYING NAPOLEON
YOUNG NAPOLEON
OLDER NAPOLEON AND LASTLY
A MUCH OLDER NAPOLEON DURING HIS FALL
Oooo I like the trilogy idea A LOT!
This film was beautiful! The source material was neo classical art from that era (I suggest you study the many portraits and paintings of Napoleon). Brilliant, thoroughly entertaining, gorgeous and hilarious. Awesome movie.
what about luck of soundtrack and the awful dim coloring mmmmm film 2 bob imo
Sigur ca filmul e extraordinar ,da cine crede altfel sa facă mai bine si sa nu manince la rahat .Asta pentru că mincători de rahat sunt cît duce trenu
You sir just earned a sub for your spot on analogies.
Haha I knew someone would appreciate those analogies
you say " battle scenes are why people go to movies like this" i agree, i thought it would be a historic cool walk through his battles and history. But the reason for this isnt because its just titled Napoleon, its because the TRAILER sells this movie as an action packed war fighting movie.. honestly this movie ruined my day after watching it.
That lebron example was so spot on.
Haha thanks that one felt good
I don't worry too much about historical inaccuracy in events, scenes, clothing and such in movies, because I have no issue with artistic license in telling a story, and I've never been stupid enough to think that a movie is history.
But...
I am already worried about seeing this movie just by watching Joachin Phoenix play one of the most dynamic and charismatic men in history in such a passive, bored manner. I'll probably still watch it, but I am confident that it will not measure up to Day-Lewis's take on Abraham Lincoln or Oldman's take on Churchill.
Ohhhh yeah it does not measure up to the historic character, nothing like Lincoln or Churchill movies