I just saw NAPOLEON - My review & a breakdown of what's in the film
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лис 2023
- Support VTH on patreon: / vth
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - profile.php?...
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2lMCaIT...
Apple - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
#history #review
What I’m getting from all these reviews is that these guys had an opportunity to make a movie about one of the most important people to ever exist and they dropped the ball
Just saw it and I can confidently say, 100% yes they dropped the ball horribly
I hope the Director's cut will flesh out the story
@@moose4377 I Agree
Are we suprised that the people who think Hannibal Barca is black cant make a white histroical figure accurate lol. it goes against everything America stands for. White men are not meant to be shown in good light, if there werent any paintings of Napoleon hed of been black for sure.
Well, at least there is Spielberg mini series
In a world filled with unnecessary trilogies, they decided to tell the story of one of the most influential people of the last 200 years in one movie.
True, but I think that Ridley did it like this because of his age, I think that the upcoming Director's cut will be much better, although I did enjoy the film. But it has to be said that it had the potential to be a truly legendary trilogy.
I would say this movie did not need to exist either. Like, who is it for? People who know little about Napoleon won't learn anything from it. People who already know a lot will be pissed because of all the skipped moments. People who love drama may enjoy the weird love story a bit, but there are better love stories to tell throughout history. So I assumed this was just made to entertain and show epic Napoleonic era battles, but since those are short and poorly done, then what is left there?
That’s a good shout. I just read brothers in arms by James Holland and it made me think of the billions wasted on junk series.
I thought that it would be a trilogy because the trailers went up to Austerlitz, but after the critic embargo I tempered my expectations. Nobody knew whoever the gladiator from gladiator was meant to be, and nobody still cares. Balian of Ibelin was a bastard blacksmith, but no one cares. Napoleon is obviously different, but after I knew what I was going in for, I enjoyed the movie. Kingdom of Heaven 2.0, and I'm very happy with that. A solid 8.
He fought 81 battles. It's near impossible to truncate his career into a 2.5- 3 hour movie so I really appreciate Scott's attempt considering this production was only about 2-3 years.
Spielberg is taking his sweet time getting Kubrick's Napoleon script into even preproduction.
I will NEVER understand how you can mess up something like this. Napoleons life is already like a novel, nothing needs to be added, you just need to show his life!
Maybe the problem is you'd need 100 hours of film to present it!
Phoenix. Worst performance since Keanu in Dracula
@@debbiesroommateagreed
5 out of 5 stars imo. Nothing messy about it.
@@debbiesroommate Nah, he did better than I expected, actually.
Ah yes, what history buffs truly want to see: a dramatization of Napoleon's love life.
Lol I swear that's literally what a good portion of movies on the lives of fascinating men throughout history.
Watched a series on prime ministers of the UK and most of the episodes focusing on one prime minister in particular was like 70% of their love life and 30% politics.
It's cute I am being honest but still
No one said it was made for history buffs, if you think ridley Scott was going to make a historically accurate Napoleon then bro have you seen gladiator? That shit is roman fanfic
Even the 'love life' felt so awkward. There was no charm or seduction he was just staring and forcing himself on her. Really wished there was more build up or chemistry if the focus was on their marriage.
It was an important part of his life and informed a lot of his decisions. Without Josephine a lot of things would have been very different
napoleon's love life is extremely interesting and deep.
but this movie didnt even get that right.
For a movie about Napoleon to skip Italy is unbelievable. That's like a movie about the life and times of George Washington that doesnt mention the Revolutionary War.
Yes, it is appalling. The Italian campaign is what made Napoleon stick out. Toulon was his first blood, Egypt was just a failure. Yet to skip on Italy where he had is claim to fame, unbelievable!
At least they mentioned it, but they didn't say a single line of dialogue about the the war in the Iberian peninsula or all the battles after after the retreat from Russia.
@@1996koke Very British view of Napoleon: Brits don't even know that the largest battle in history before 1904 was fought between Napoleon returning from Russia and Waterloo.
Exactly what I felt during the movie… what? They skipped Italy??? And that was just one of a string of disappointments.
Maybe the French & Indian war is a better comparison for George Washington… both were early on in their career and eclipsed by later events. However, you have to be aware of that war (both ones) to know that each man rose to a challenge at a young age and gained rank and reputation quickly.
Even Hamilton made a passing reference to it when Washington spoke (sang) of an early failure and important lessons.
I had to laugh when Napoleon told his wife "I am a brute and nothing without you" Like no way his ego ever let him say that.
That line alone makes me not want to watch this movie insulting one of the greatest men that ever dared to live.
@@conservativepar it's insulting to tell your wife that? How many great men do you think had hundreds of soft moments like that caring for someone isn't exactly weak bruh
ofcourse hollywood had to make a napoleon who is portrayed as a wimp and grovels before his cheating wife LOL
In real history, he probably wrote the 213 article of the Napoleon code because of her cheat. This article litteraly say women are considered like children, and are in custody of their husband. And he often reminded her this point of view during their marital live.
Napoleon constantly expressed how Josephine's love ruled over him in the many letters he wrote to her. He was history's biggest simp.
I feel this should be a 10 part mini series
Spielberg is working on an HBO Napoleon mini series
@josecambronero9419 seriously?
@@christianrowbotham7386 Yeah. Apparently it is also based (at least in part) on Stanley Kubrick’s unmade film/obsession.
Good, some of Marshals deserve an episode of their own, like some of the men in band of brothers.
Like honestly! Making a movie that cover a 30 year span is already hard when there isn't much happening, but we're talking of one of the most eventful periods of history lol we really need screen time to portrait at least some of the political machinations and I would genuinely love a whole episode about the Congress of Vienna with House of Cards style intrigue.
I would love to see a John Adams style miniseries on the life of Napoleon. Thats really the only way to do it justice.
have you seen the 4 part 2002 miniseries on Napoleon?
Heard Stephen Spielberg is trying to make one with HBO based off of the Kubrick script.
I have been lecturing on Napoleon for over 20 years. He has one of the most dramatic life stories. There is no reason to embellish anything to make a great movie about him. I made a 10 video minute overview on his life before the movie came out. I have not seen it yet.
Napoleon is alot like Teddy Roosevelt
a BioPic would have to be nearly dumbed-down and underexaggerated in order for moviegoers to like it because if you told the truth nobody would actually believe it
@@jabber1990 seriously!
@@jabber1990 I've personally hate this sentiment. Too many directors expect the audience to not believe what they are seeing on screen at a movie. It is disingenuous to the audiences intelligence. Trying to use practical effects without using cgi is a horrible decision if you cant match the scale. I was honestly expecting him to show the immense scale but he copped out with the "dumb it down" for moviegoers sentiment.
I just want to know the real dynamic between napoleon and Josephine. I feel like there’s no way it was like what they did in the movie.
I’ll check it out thanks!
What made me cringe so much is Hollywood "alterations" all over it. They somehow managed to make the main drive of Napoleon's ambition his relationship with Josaphine instead of any innate drive.
Forget the drive, the cause of so many of his early and middle battles was sheer need to act in Frances's interest! It's a 'white men in power bad' movie
I don’t think Napoleon was portrayed as bad in the movie. A bratty man child at times for sure but such men can have that duality. His men loved him and boys were captivated by him. The movie isn’t great but I don’t think that was the fault of some woke political statement Ridley Scott was trying to make. It was told through the perspective of his letters.
did those letters say he slept with Josephine like a dog for 10s disregarding her pleasure while her lover was all about her? Because that's your agenda proof right there, @@eja9539
Josephine is the real leader in this dystopic Hollywood historical universe 😂
Did you know the 100 days happen only because he thought Josephine was sleeping with Tsar Alexander? News to me /s
the ultimate takeaway: if you appreciate the history and significance of Napoleon don't get your hopes up. If you like good cinematography and awkward romance you'll love it
Accurate.
I feel like his life was so full and had so many important moments, that this could have been turned into multiple films
Trilogy with each movie being 3-4h
It was a Miniseries in France. It was great. This film was boring.
@@silasbishop3055does mini series have more content
When you said that the scenes of Napoleon charging on horseback were from Borodino, my jaw literally dropped. The idea of Napoleon leading a cavalry charge is laughable in and of itself (he was never much of a horseman at all, preferring to travel via carriage), but to hear that it's supposedly at BORODINO?! That is just absurd. I saw a comment somewhere here that suggests that those scenes were meant to show his campaigns in Italy given the uniform he wears in said scenes and I really hope that's the case. I know it seems silly to get caught up on but the notion of Napoleon personally leading a cavalry charge at the Battle of Borodino of all places is about as ridiculous as the thought of Marshal Murat NOT leading a cavalry charge.
Hard to have Murat lead a charge when he's not a character in the movie. The army got no shine. Berthier wasn't even in it.
@@toochangz berthier was in it but barely, i don't think he even spoke
@@toochangz Right ?! And the only marshall that has somewhat some lines was Ney out of ALL of them ?! (Didn't even looked like him) Who was the fatty wearing glasses meant to be ? All the Marshalls were old decrepit man or severely overweight when a majority of them were like antique heroes in real life.
@olivierpujol8772 I was wondering who the glasses guy was as well. They had Junot as his aide de camp basically the entire movie. Didn't realize that was supposed to be Ney until Waterloo scene.
@@olivierpujol8772It was meant to be Davout. Why didn't he do more in the movie? You'd think that Napoleon's best Marshal would have a bigger part in the story, wouldn't he?
When it comes to Egypt im actually very disappointed they didn't even touch just how many scholars he took with him and how engaged he was with the scholars and learning about ancient Egypt
The fact that Scott attempts to portray Napoleon's reverence for the Ancient Egyptians by showing him convening with the supposed mummy of a Pharaoh, only to have him in the very next shot firing cannons at the Pyramids was both bizarre and insulting.
The worst part was that they showed him leaving Egypt because of Josephine and didn't even mention the British and the battle of the pyramids was a complete joke
@@1996koke Yeah.... There was Nelson huge fleet blocking the sea, why not showing a huge sea battle ?!
To tell a story about Napoleon without going into politics, his marshals or any of the military campaigns is so crazy to me, what’s even the point without those things?
Yeah..
Nothing about Marechal Ney..
Davout...
Not a word about LA GRANDE ARMEE
@@ElliottPianonot even murat smh
just because it's not the movie you were expecting doesn't mean it's bad.
@@killbot_factorywell it is kinda bad though
How they didn't put Murat in is beyond me.. Guy was such an interesting character. No Lannes who was Napoleons best friend and Marshall either.
Just watched the actual movie. If he wanted to do a movie on arguably the greatest conqueror there was. Then display his planning, cunning and execution. Show the strengthening bonds with him and his men. Show the risks of battle paying off. Show his inspiring speech to his men. This man earned his place in history. But rather… the movie was dominated by Josephine, he was belittled and shown to be weak. You never met his generals. You never felt excitement. You only saw what you’d think was a spoilt boy born into kingship. He was never portrayed as charismatic, he was never portrayed as successful. Napoleon was seen as a figure disconnected from reality that held a negative attitude rather than a beaming positive attitude of what he could accomplish. This director took on a film on Napoleon then ignored his history…why do I care about him whining to Josephine for more than half the movie? He won over 50 battles, would you like to delve into some and I’ll watch a romcom for a two hour love story? The pacing of the film is so bad you’ll end up confused as to what’s actually happening with the flashes through time. The explanations are horrid, they should’ve Atleast had a narrator so the butchery wasn’t so bad. To put it plainly friends I feel like a Prussian after the battle of austrilitz after watching that horrid, horrid movie. Please keep Hollywood away from all historical figures.
How dare you defy the age of the strong female character!
I think I agree but why not use smaller paragraphs?
@@rookendgame I don't think there was nothing wrong with Josephine or their portrayal of her. Seemed very fitting. Just could've done with more of good Napoleon moments lol
I just got home from seeing the movie and then watched this. I felt like the film did not really portray Josephine as loving Napoleon until after their divorce. I agree that many of the scenes between them were uncomfortable. I was disappointed by the film. I walked out feeling “meh” and had hoped it was going to blow me away.
My impression of Josephine from history is that she never really loved him, at least not untill he really made a name for himself. I always figured she got with him for the status.
Same
@@lesterandsarge That's my take on it as well. She lost a lot (in terms of social status) by not being his wife anymore. I doubt she loved him, she loved the status.
@@lesterandsarge She loved what he could give her. Not him.
She never really loved him. The film is too kind to her. She was an expensive, inconsiderate, and ungrateful snob
The segment on the battle of Waterloo left me wanting to some extent. The 1970 version of Waterloo with Rod Steiger as Napoleon was a much more accurate depiction of what really happened at the battle of Waterloo. If Ridley Scott had used that as his blueprint for his depiction of the battle of Waterloo it would have worked a lot better to me. But as it was it left me wanting. It would have been a true master stroke of genius had Ridley Scott had pretty much used the 1970 battle of Waterloo as his cookie cutter or blueprint of how to put the battle on screen it would have made for a terrifically mesmerizing sequence of events. I mean in Ridley Scott's version of the battle of Waterloo we don't even get to see the charge of the Scott's Greys or the counter charge by Napoleon's lancers or the death of British general Picton. The Waterloo sequence in Ridley Scott's version just was not that historically accurate not even close to what the Rod Steiger 1970 version was. So it was kind of a disappointment to me in a lot of ways.
Waterloo is goated.
Waterloo was pretty much the best part of the movie which I saw as a shame because of how much content (like that 1970 movie) there already is. It should have been shorter to make space for another, equally important but underrated battle getting its time in the sun. Compared to the rest of the movie, at least Waterloo looked like a battle lol, and got more than 5 minutes.
It was trash. Everything about Scott's Waterloo was trash. The only thing accurate about it was it had the French fighting the British.
In fairness that’s on purpose. Ridley Scott wanted to make his own movie (for better or for worse) instead of reshooting the 1970s movie.
To be fair, Waterloo just covered safter his exile to Elba. Riddley was after the Queens execution.
What an unbelievable missed opportunity to portray Marie Antoinette's execution instead of Josephine's husband's execution. It would have made Josephine's harrowing brush with death even more poignant. But producers felt they had to have Marie Antoinette in the movie because they figure it's one name the ignorant rubes know. I wish producers of historic epics would give audiences way more credit.
Scott's NAPOLEON is a great masterpiece. I agree with the NEW YORK 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 MUST SEE MOTION PICTURE!
@@freeedward8bot
@@freeedward8bot
Just saw it. It just kept glossing over the geopolitics of the time and excluded so much context. The acting was ok, the uniforms were amazing, the battle visuals were great. It was a CRIME not to feature the heroism of Ney at Krasnoi during the retreat from Russia, the flamboyance of Murat and the genius of Davout. Please make video on that EpicHistoryTV Napoleons marshals. I was hoping they would show why he was a great military campaigner and that it took so many coalitions to finally defeat him. Also, they didn’t really make clear why he was so resolutely opposed by Britain and misleadingly showed excessive disdain from the Duke of Wellington toward Napoleon. Wellington was quoted as saying Napoleon was the greatest tactician that ever lived or would live. Also the Tsar Alexander dynamic was handled so poorly, his character was so hollow where in reality he was one of the most fascinating players in the Congress of Vienna. It was a little painful to watch as a Napoleonic history enthusiast.
I saw the movie today and it’s probably the biggest disappointment I’ve ever had in a film and I have no idea how the directors cut is gonna make it any better (I do think that visually and the costume design is great)
Since Ridley Scott basically tossed into a dumpster fire any aspirations to make the film as close to somewhat historically accurate as you can expect from a Hollywood screenwriter, Ridley Scott could have given us French a little gratification in the form of a scene where Napoleon burns down the HMS Victory while shouting, "Montjoie Saint Denis!" It wouldn't stray too far from the accuracy of the rest of the film.
Scott's NAPOLEON is a great masterpiece. I agree with the NEW YORK 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 MUST SEE MOTION PICTURE!
Scott isn't a writer, he's a director. He hired some no-name hack with no success anywhere ever to write it, for some reason. And he's writing his next film as well. Scott is past it. Mel Gibson would have made this film great.
Napoleon total war did that it's intro, burning hms Victory.
Just got back from seeing it myself, I share the same sentiments. If you didntt know much about Napoleon going in, you dont really get any sense of how great he was or the scope of his accomplishments. I understand what Scott was trying to do with the Josephine story line and i did enjoy it, but its just not what you wanted from a Napoleon movie.
Joaquin and Vanessa Kirby were very good in their roles though, especially Kirby I thought.
Just here to say, I’m really in awe of how excited you are by history. I really love it. Stay that way, good sir.
I just got out of the movie a couple hours ago and my initial thoughts are very similar to yours. I went in expecting a biographic/war drama, with 90% of the movie being Napoleon's ingenious battle field tactics and political maneuvering. The other 10% being his relations with Josephine/family, we know he was close with his family. Instead we got maybe 40% of battle scenes and barely anything showing his political spin doctoring. The majority of screen time seemed to be devoted to Napoleon and Josephine's relationship (particularly the latter half). The movie should be called A Marriage Story 2: Napoleon and Josephine. Anyway the acting/score and overall look of the movie was great. I just don't understand why they dedicated so much screen time in a Napoleon "war drama" to the Napoleon/Josephine element of his story.
Well the movie was advertised as a look into napoleon’s life and the napoleonic wars through the lens of his relationship with Josephine, although if that was a good choice is another matter
@@rainbowapplesliceyeah the movie was originally called "Kitbag" and it was about Napoleon and Josephine specifically
@@carlosantoniolabate1644 wow really? I didn’t know that
because Hollywood makes money off general public. General public (women included) dont want to watch 3 hours of Politics, battle tactics/strategy they want to see stuff they can compare with which is silly relationships. That way the females can go tell their friends to go watch the movie and sell more tickets. Simple psychology.
a french newspaper litterally dubbed this film: ''Barbie and Ken, under the empire''. i'm honestly struggling to find a better title for this movie
Chris, you should do more movie reviews Ike this. You just gave a good in-depth movie review. No spoilers since we all know kinda what’s gonna happen. At least Waterloo is awesome……
I had a feeling Sir Ridley Scott would make Waterloo the best scene. For some reason a Knighted director gave me that feeling lol.
3 main battles I would’ve shown that to me show 3 things about his wars/ him
Austerlitz, Borodino, and Waterloo. His greatness, the cost, and his downfall.
Imagine Ridley Scott doing 20 minutes on Borodino….. making Austerlitz look more like it should.
Glad you gave us your overall thoughts, overall impressions, and overall thoughts not a limited impression but instead a step by step breakdown of your overall thoughts
My odd little theory is that they mashed footage from what would have been Marengo (which was also the working title of the film) into Borodino. Given the attention to the costumes, it seems so odd to have Nap in his Republican uniform and the old style heavy cavalry (sans the cuirass) charging what appeared to be white-coated grenadiers. I feel like I keep hoping the director's cut will have more answers than it probably will...
Yes, I was wondering why Napoleon had his general outfit in Borodino instead of his usual emperor uniform. Maybe in the directors cut, we’ll get full sequences of Marengo and Borodino, or at least one of them hopefully.
Working title of the film was "Kitbag" not Marengo.
@@toochangz Correspondence was distributed in Lincolnshire and Blewbury to residents and establishments and the working title was Marengo on the letterhead, so I would respectfully disagree. I was under the impression Kitbag was more so the 'original' title that was changed, not necessarily it's 'working title'
Would also explain why marengo was mentioned at the end on the movie
but napoleon also didnt charge at marengo. its a shit scene either way
I feel with someone like Napoleon you need a full series to do him justice
Scott made at least 3 big mistakes:
- trying to embrass all of Napoleon's career rather than focusing on a prominent event or period of his life
- casting Phoenix as the main character (quite the opposite as a person to who Napoleon was)
- depicting highly historically inaccurate battles (Napoleon charging with a saber, cannons shelling the Pyramids in Egypt, ridiculously small infrantry squares in Waterloo, "Braveheart" style cavalery charges, etc.
What a missed opportunity for the man who did such a fantastic job in The Duellists.
I agree with all of what you're saying aside from Phoenix as Napoleon. I thought he did an amazing job and really elevated the film for me. I don't think I would've liked the film as much as I did with a different actor as Napoleon
@@sorendaniels754I couldn't get past his age. Some of the allure of Napoleon was his genius taking over an army in his twenties and leading it to humble the Austrians. Viewers who don't know the history have no way of knowing this if the actor is in his 50s. It's also hard to see Napoleon as cowed by Josephine's sexual prowess if he meets her as an older man. If he's in his 20s and she in her 30s, it makes a lot more sense.
A low budget version of Napoleon movie could probably get away with covering his personal life and politics of the time spaced out with some traditional map overlays with tactics explanations by letter and a few battle scenes and reactions from the other side and other characters to give an illusion of the passage of time.
You can't fit 50 battles in a single movie or over 20 years of geopolitical complexities. But you might be able to at least cover more interpersonal drama with more people including his army with it as a backdrop and focusing on how the people a d relationships changed in a way that is less jarring.
Excited to be here this early. As a history buff, I like the opportunity to "experience" or be pulled into what I've only read or watched documentaries on despite knowing there will be historical inaccuracies. Can't wait to see this movie regardless
I agree - I liked it, not loved it, and really wanted it to be good. The more I think about it, the more I realize Napoleon's life is too many stories for one movie, and they might have been better off to make one movie about specific themes or specific moments (career as a general, complex love story, the revolution, the coalition, Napoleon vs. Alexander). So what winds up happening in these cases is that focus and tone are all over the place. Still glad I saw it though, and well worth watching.
A big piece missing were Napoleon's marshals. And I agree with you, the movie could have been more about his brilliance in the battlefield
Thanks for going and doing all the work to give us this review. Hope you get to see it again and just purely watch it for yourself!
No one in their right sober mind would watch that crap a second time ever in their lifetimes.
I went and watched with my dad, after the movie he said he was getting lost in the story because he doesnt know the history. Im a huge buff of the Napoleonic wars and i was left confused with the simplification of history and removing of important details. The way the movie is paced only history buffs will know why things are happening, but because history buffs know the history the details leave out for simplification only complicate the story and bridge a gap between the normal viewers.
I had the exact same experience when I went to see the movie with the old man
With a lot of historical movies, they are more like a collection of scenes rather than a coherent narrative. I noticed this recently when I saw The Longest Day. It doesn't bother me that much because I generally know the history before I see movies like that, but for someone who doesn't, it's going to affect their opinion of the film.
It's VERY difficult, IMO, to tell the entire story of someone/something like Napoleon while keeping the length of the film reasonable. If you look at the movie Lincoln with Daniel Day Lewis, that movie only covered the 13th Amendment, as opposed to Lincoln's entire life. If they had tried the latter, it would have been a very different movie.
Totally agree. I do think that it is possible to make an entire Napoleon story coherent within a single movie. The reason why it felt so checklisty though is because it was paced chronologically. It makes the movie just feel like a college class and not entertainment. Scott should have done what Nolan did with Oppenheimer. Move the timeline around a bit. Makes everything way more interesting and keeps the viewer invested.
@baronpen I love The Longest Day. It was styled to look like a documentary instead of a feature film, so I think that's why it comes off as a collection of scenes instead of one cohesive narrative.
I appreciate your honest review of the film. I saw it yesterday and got the same take as you; with an overview of his life and not the Napoleonic wars. I didn't hear anything about the Spanish Ulcer...maybe in the extended cut. Again, good overview.
Apparently Steven Spielberg is working on a Napoleon HBO miniseries based on an old script for a Napoleon movie Stanley Kubrick wrote.
I've heard that, and I hope it's true.
@@VloggingThroughHistory honestly I think a tv series works better. the story of Napoleon Bonaparte is almost impossible to tell in a 2-3 hour movie.
Hopefully that comes out, might be the greatest thing ever
Really? I hope that is true.
@@vbboyd he announced the project in an interview back in February.
Definitely agree with your synopsis. What I did love about it was the actors` portrayal of Napoleon and Josephine in the sense that he was known to be VERY ackward around women and that Josephine was at least at first, looking to get married for mostly for stability but had that permiscuous reputation.
I agree with most of what you said, I just leaned pretty negative. I found myself walking away saying "why would you take one of the most interesting actors, an interesting director, and an interesting life and make a conventional story?"
The other part I would add: the score is incredible, and I think is my 2nd favourite of the year. "Austerlitz Kyrie" is the highlight for me.
I think the movie would have been better if 1) it trimmed the story down to a few key events, ala the Fassbender Steve Jobs, or 2) the movie was about Josephine instead of Napoleon.
I saw the movie tonight with my son and brother-in-law. We were all disappointed. They were very confused as to what was happening due to the way the movie jumps between events, sometimes several years apart. I told them the movie should have been called Vignettes from the Life of Napoleon.
I hope this is another "Kingdom of Heaven" situation. I thought the theatrical cut of that movie was really underwhelming, but the directors cut is one of my favourites (despite the many historical inaccuracies).
It's funny, because for me the theatrical cut is better, somebody in the editing room did a very good job on that film.
@@ktom5262that’s a minority opinion I’d say. The directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven is as perfect a version as they could have made. The theatrical version was butchered to the point of being nearly another film entirely.
Probably. The Apple TV version apparently will be four hours long.
@@animesoapninja I don't know. The scenes with the young son of the main female character are completely unnecessary, and the amazing fight in the forest is longer but much worse in the director's cut.
I don't know about that. Ridley Scott said the 4 hour cut fleshes out Josephine story more. But isn't the theatrical version already about her?
I just got back from seeing the film and I see this video. Great timing thanks for getting this out so fast.
It really should have focused on one particular period of Napoleon’s life. For example, in “Lincoln” Spielberg focused on the passage of the thirteenth amendment, and it turned out to really give the movie a great a focus.
From what I'm seeing is that they didn't drop the ball on this. The issue with Napoleon, or most historical figures, is that their story unfolds over TIME, not in 1 moment. I was worried that this would seem like a highlights cut of Napoleon and it is tough to condense 10+ years into 3 even 4 hours.
The movie Waterloo is a cult favorite because we get a great character examination without all the confusion to average viewer of all of career.
Haven't seen the movie, but so far everything I've heard about it has just made me think "...why? Why did they even decide to make this movie?"
Hollywood is incapable of respecting the source material (in this case real life.) They think having big names and encouraging controversy will bring in money. Sadly, they are correct.
Woah, haven’t watched in like two weeks and the camera quality got way better lol. Love seeing how much this channel has grown bro, preciate you!
My reaction videos are done with a webcam. Videos like this use a different camera, which I've had for a while now and use for my historic site videos.
Great review, I just watched Napoleon yesterday and I thought it was great, the acting, action, and cast were all top tier, with my problems coming from a story that seems to skip and rush sometimes.
I guess Scott messed with our expectations. You expect a certain type of story with a film named Napoleon and instead, this is a film about one powerful relationship. It just has a few battles thrown in as well as you really have to it is Napoleon after all and you can't ignore that aspect entirely.
The film review channel I consistently follow said "good not great", as well. They are looking forward to the 4 hour extended cut on apple tv+. It seems that Napolean fans and admirers are going to enjoy the movie slightly more than people who only know he was a military guy who tried to conquer Europe, if they even know that much. Most movies like this try to appease newcomers and more knowledgeable folks but end up making both groups want more, yet for different reasons.
That’s what I think. I think maybe the way they cut the movie down would make a huge impact. I’m more interested in the directors cut rather than what’s in theaters
Apparently the director's cut is going to focus more on Josephine, so it's just more of the same love drama
Thanks for the review !
When I heard you say at the end "Waterloo is the best scene in the movie. It's the only real extended battle scene we get." I was kicking and screaming like a toddler in my room and shouting 'Of course it is, Of course it is'. Having a British director make a movie about a French icon and great historical figures might not have wisest decision when it comes to properly allocating time and effort to specific moments of his life.
I am now left dreaming of a big budget Napoleon trilogy that would be directed by Denis Villeneuve with more of an emphasis on other historical figures of the time (William Pitt, Talleyrand, Emperor of Austria, The Marshalls, maybe mention Francisco Goya and his depictions of Imperial France in Spain) and also like you said, it would be nice for audiences to understand the brilliant military mind of this man.
Warning. If you know anything about the battle, it will piss you off.
@@dannyhernandez1212It will piss you off less than any other part of the movie will, therefore being the best part of the movie. Do you know anything about Austerlitz? At least Waterloo on some level resembles warfare of the era.
I'm not sure if it's a British bias as after all it was an Allied victory. Rather it is seen as the battle that was Napoleons' last flip of the coin and one he couldn't fail to win if he wanted to survive and get some sort of political settlement.
@russellkid117 some. Unfortunately it couldn't even get the formations right except for the British squares.
Nice review! As someone who went in expecting historical inaccuracies and a mostly unfaithful portrayal of Napoleon (which it was), I enjoyed the movie as a movie. The cinematography, music and sheer scale of it are an achievement and often beautiful. Sticking to mostly practical effects with hundreds of extras, explosions, and horses charging is also appreciated. My two largest issues were firstly that we don't see the charisma and cult of personality that Napoleon possesses, both things that can be shown without lionizing a complicated figure. And second, the story is far too big for a three-hour (or even four-hour) format. Give me a miniseries, with separate episodes dedicated to the French Revolution, Egypt, Austerlitz, Russia, Exile, etc.
Apparently Austerlitz was a battle where Napoleon hid in the woods and when the Austrians saw him and attacked him in a giant running mob formation, he attacked back and blew holes in a frozen lake to win the battle. No mention of the Pratzen Heights, any Marshall (throughout the hole movie) or that the frozen lake was at the end of the battle - already won- when the Russian left wing was retreating. It was an absurd depiction of battle. There wasn’t a column formation in the whole movie. Troops attack in line and then run at the enemy while cavalry charges through the infantry in a giant mob. Nice
Yeah, currently I'm reading War and Peace, where Austerlitz is depicted from multiple POVs over several chapters. I was disappointed from the trailer already, as it makes the downplaying of everything about this battle in the movie quite clear.
@@KitteridgeStudios Even recent War and Peace drama is not accurate but at least depicted critical moment of battle looks great. (French appearing from the fog with sun of Pratzen hill. Shit movie
I really recommend the 1960 Austerlitz movie. It's a magnificent representation of Napoleon's personality and his relationships.
I really enjoyed your review, and I would say my feelings are comparable to "liked it, didn't love it."
It feels like the final verdict on this film will depend heavily on the 4 hour extended cut and how well it manages to flesh out the existing scenes and the connective tissue between the snapshots of Napoleon's life that we do see on screen.
I feel somewhat similar to "Napoleon" as I do to "Alexander" where they are both gorgeous films with breathtaking visuals from a technical perspective that suffer from occasionally awkward acting and trying to condense the lives of some of the most famous people in history into a 2.5 hour theatrical experience.
I was looking forward to watching this but I'm in no rush now haha. Thank you for taking some of the excitement for me. I mean that genuinely, it would have been inconvenient for me to try and go to the theater haha. I'll just wait till I can see it somewhere else.
This movie to me was everything I was worried about. It just glosses over all his accomplishments for his relationship with Josephine a lot.
This felt like Apple originally greenlit a mini-series or even a show about Napoleon and the script was written to be for that format. Then, at some point, Apple got cold feet and weren't sure it would perform so instead decided to go the route of a feature film as an epic and chose one of the best modern "epic" directors still in the business.
This had all the makings of great SHOW...but as a movie, the pacing felt weird and there were too many time jumps for a 2.5 hour movie. I feel like this is going to be Kingdom of Heaven all over again for Ridley Scott. The studio wanted to cut down what he made for theaters and it left people leaving the theater going, "Meh, that was alright". Then, as it's going to DVD, they have him release a directors cut and the same people were left going, "Wow...that was the same movie? This was WAY better".
I'm very interested to see the 4 hour directors cut that I think will fill in a lot of the gaps and provide more context to some scenes that felt out of place
Such a great break down. We can only hope the directors cut with 2 extra hours adds in battle footage.
Been waiting for this review.
Thanks for letting me know I can safely save my money and pirate the film in a few weeks. Was honestly hoping for a great Napoleon film when the first reports of Scott and Phoenix working together surfaced. The first leaked images from set comforted me. But the couple of trailers released made me lose hope. Honestly Chris, thank you for this review, because without it I would probably have wasted money to see it at the cinema. I'm currently unemployed with no savings and will not start my new job till the last week of January. Till then I'm living off welfare, with what little I get, despite paying sky high taxes for 8 years. I will feel no guilt pirating this so-called 'experience'. Thank God I saw your review before paying extortionate fares to see it in person.
If any of you want to watch a Napoleonic film it seems that Waterloo (1970) is still the unrivalled champion. It certainly seems to retain its crown as the greatest Napoleonic film - and is in my top 10 films of all time. And it's especially worth watching if you found the Waterloo scene in this new film worth watching.
Things will get better my friend. I have been there. Do not lose hope. Great to hear you have a job coming down the pike. Good luck.
Thanks mate@@javiermori1710
Just saw "Napoleon." My reaction is fairly similar: it was good, but not great. So much potential for an epic film, but many opportunities were missed. I think they should have portrayed his military genius more prominently on screen. The audience should have a good sense why it took these huge coalitions to counter Napoleon. Knowing that the French won the first five "War of the X Coalition" should be in the audience's mind for the Battle of Waterloo (War of the Seventh Coalition).
I'm just pleased that I remembered as much as I did from AP European History which I took more than 35 years ago.
*seventh coalition
@@dubya85, corrected. Thanks.
I wouldn't even say it was good. It is like a bad assay/story written by an intern that doesn't know the Napoleonic story very well or didn't try, just to merely complete an assignment. Sorry, but this movie scores a 4/10 for covering Napoleon life story.
Thanks Chris for an honest review.
👍
Love your videos, keep it going!
I wrote a paper on Moe Berg, the baseball catcher/spy. I was super familiar with his story and they made a movie about him called 'the catcher was a spy' which was a horrible experience. The movie they could have made about him.. really dropped the ball. Sounds similar to your experience with napoleon.
A little disappointed to hear it’s a lot of quick flashes but still excited to go and see it. Thanks for the review!
Voting in for more drawn of history reactions, for fun and learning some more details
I hope to see this today. I don't see how they can fit the story in under 8 hours. I am curious to see what stuff they chose to be shown.
Ironic that the first movie that put Ridley Scott on the movie map so to speak was a 1978 Napoleonic period piece about two long dueling Napoleonic French officers called "The Duelists" . So maybe that was the inspiration for him to make a movie about Napoleon.
Out of all things they mainly decided to focus on Napoleon and Josephines relationship? What a terrible choice lol!
In the scene where he meets Wellington, the ship is called the HMS Bellerophon. In Greek myth, Bellerophon was the hero, gifted with the winged horse Pegasus. After having lost much of his glory, he tried to fly up to Mount Olympus and was struck by Zeus’ lightning. Also, the modern dish known as beef Wellington was so named to commemorate Wellington’s victory at Waterloo.
That was indeed the ship Napoleon surrendered to the British on in 1815, so they at least got that part of history right, even if he never met Wellington on board.
I really wonder then if that ship was chosen specifically by the British to send a message. A man falls from grace and tries to reach the gods, only to fail and be ruined.
From what im hearing its going to be a bumb for history buffers, as u say everyone its a background (i havent seen it and i know theres a 4 hour directors cut) but i think that Ney, Murat, Davot and the bois are not going to be there as really important characters, may be more like agripa in hbo romes, still really hyped for it, love napoleonic wars and i know its ridly scott haha so i guess its for the fun and i also think this is going be a new doorway for more history buff or wake the interest in history again so win win in my opinion
Thank you, good overview. Movie seems a little disappointing. Much like Alexander a few years ago. Both these figures led such remarkable lives, they really don’t need any embellishment - just a director / writer that can stay true to the story!
Alexander came out the year I was born lol
At least Alexander has the battle of Gaugamela which is the greatest depiction of a historical battle sequence especially when it come to staying close to the sources, and actually depicting the battle tactics on screen. Costumes and soundtrack are perfect too.
Despite flaws Alexander was done LEAGUES better than this disappointment.
I agree with your review. Rarely do I see a movie I was looking forward to and enjoyed, but also seemed too long. I want to see director's cut, but will probably have to break it up.
Movie was very beautifully shot, but seems like Scott missed an opportunity for a Titanic type response, but just an ok from me.
Your review is the closest to my views about the movie than any of the others reviews i've seen. Thanks
As excited as I was for this movie, I think it’s probably best if I wait for that director’s cut. I know they can’t show EVERYTHING but they just don’t show or give attention to some of Napoleon’s greatest achievements and stories.
If the best part was the Battle of Waterloo scene I probably won’t watch it. The best Waterloo movie was made in the 70s so there’s no point in downgrading
Napoleonic Code not being included in the film was mind boggling
I'm going to see it soon.
It seems like the 2002 Napoleon miniseries with Christian Clavier, Isabella Rossellini, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu is a much better version of Napoleon's life. Very epic for a TV show. It's over 7 hours long so it spends more time on important events.
I hope we can see more in the director cut, and hope you can do a reaction or review on it!
I just saw it last night, I agreed with you when you said it might be hard to follow for people that don’t know his story, I think this is because they are trying to cover too much in one movie 1789-1826 that’s a lot to cram in, at one point it felt like his highlight reel, another thing is although the effects in the battle scene are great there where some inaccuracies particularly Waterloo, for some reason blucher falls on Napoleons left flank and not his right, the rifle asking to try a shot on Napoleon with a baker rifle on the other side of the battlefield which is laughable in Waterloo it was a cannon that was proposed to the fired at him, and at the end he takes part in a cavalry charge at which he was in no condition to do in real life, those are just a few inaccuracies I can think of there are more but am glad I saw it and did enjoy don’t think it’s a bad film but like you said might be hard for casual history enthusiasts to follow.
Great review man going to go see it some point next week. Would you say the movie is more historically accurate than the damning verdict of some reviewers or is it largely that inaccurate after all?
I just watched it in theaters on AMC and it was so intriguing!
I saw the movie today. I would give it a 6. It was worth seeing in the theaters but it has a LOT of flaws. It ended up being a Napoleon highlight film. The last media on Napoleon was a mini-series and they did a good job. The problem with doing a movie is it HAS TO BE targeted. Dino Delaurantis 1970 Waterloo is the gold standard. Pre-CGI, 15,000 extras, solid attention to the history and Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington is exceptional.
Everything in this movie was highlights and what I thought they would get wrong they did a good job on and everything I thought they would get right they screwed up to the point I had to ask if it was alternate history.
Example of what they did a good job on: The relationship between Josephine and Napoleon they did an very good job on. They mentioned but didn't get too into why he called her Rose.
Example of what they screwed up badly: The Battle of Waterloo seemed like someone took a version of a Total War Napoleon they played and presented it as history. I was so WTF that I walked out of the theater to go to the bathroom because it was so historically inaccurate.
Yeah, 6 is fair
I’m glad I waited and watched the movie and then your review. I will admit I feel much the same way, but I realize that the studio that backed it may be to blame. It seems they wanted a romance movie sold as a historical war movie. It was good but I’d rather have had the battles.
You got a new camera and mic recently. Looks and sounds good.
There’s going to be a 4 hour cut of the movie. So it’ll be interesting to get your thoughts on that
I don't think I would rewatch it, let alone hope that it's better
By the end of the movie, they SOMEHOW left me feeling like nothing happened.
That's the best possible summary for this piece of crap.
@@luc.espargita thanks
I watched the movie tonight. Overall, I recommend it. My one warning is that this isn't a military history movie. If you're a hardcore military history guy who is looking to focus on the battles and the politics, that's not what the movie is about. The battle scenes are excellently put together with Russia and Waterloo being highlights, and you get glimpses of all the major history. But the military career of Napoleon isn't the heart of the movie. Instead, the movie is more focused on trying to paint the portrait of the man behind the history. Think Citizen Kane, that's what the movie is going for.
I just saw the movie and you are spot on. Great review
Huge ridley Scott fan. He has a tendency to release sub quality theatrical films and when people don't like it he releases his "true vision" which is 6 hours long and much better. No idea what his deal is but hopefully we'll get a 6 hour napoleon movie that is very good.
What a tragic waste. Scott has lost his magic touch. A lot of his films just don’t hit as well anymore.
Makes me greatful for the film Waterloo. A classic epic.
You exactly nailed my own thoughts and feelings about the film after seeing it. There is so little connective tissue to make a fluid narrative. (I'm a fan who bought Chandler's "Campaigns of Napoleon" way back in the '70s so I'm immersed in the topic in a nonprofessional way.)
I just saw the movie and I enjoyed it. I was happy that the battle scenes took the back seat and as far as I am concerned they could have halved Waterloo and award a little more time to Borodino, or show something of the crossing of the Berezina. To me Waterloo felt like something the movie felt it had to deliver for US and UK audiences. I didn't mind the 'jump' between the retreat from Russia and the abdication, although I can see how it is utterly confusing for those who don't know the timeline (or for those who had been looking for ward to Leipzig). The same thing is true for the jump from Tilsit to June 1812 ... makes no sense if you don't know the story already. I do think the movie did show some of the special relationship between Napoleon and his troops, even when it is only piecemeal. I liked the 100-days scene on this, but the moment I perhaps liked best was on the march in Russia where Napoleon sees a soldier passing him and recognizes him as having been with him in Austerlitz. I thought it came across quite well how accessible he was, especially when contrasted with Wellington. I thought the (fictitious) meeting with Wellington made that same point quite well. I quite enjoyed the end-montage of St Helena.
The movie definitely was rushed, more a 'slide show' than a traditional movie, but it worked for me. Not a master piece, but definitely an interesting depiction of Napoleon. I did regret not seeing anything from the Italian Campaigns, nor anything involving his Marshals ... I especially would have enjoyed a Murat charge or Ney at the Berezina.
I really wish they had included the Battle of Leipzig. I didn't have any high-hopes as that battle is always forgotten in the anglosphere outside of actual historiographic works - yet I still wished that the movie would include that largest battle of the wars (and the largest in world history until 1905).
Ridley Scott has had problems with getting cohesive stories out of his movies for a while. Both Last Duel and House of Gucci suffer badly from jumping around the times lines without it being clear what's going. Sounds like that's what's happening again here, though at least this is something his visual acumen can enhance easier as imagery has always been his strong suit.
Thanks for the review, I'm still planning on seeing it myself but I might hold out until the 4 hour director's cut is released. At least I still hope that they are releasing a 4-Hour directors cut.
The version at the cinema is the director's cut. There is an extended version (not the director's cut) coming to Apple TV shortly.
We need to see that 4 hour cut
just saw it too, and I really liked it. The battle sequences were well done. I liked joaquin’s performance too, but there were a few goofy likes in the film that were made possible by the fact that Joaquin is just as big as a character as Napoleon himself: “destiny has brought me this lamb chop” or “you think you’re so great because you have boats!” I also thought it was confusing that everyone had pretty much the same accents: French, English, Russian, Austrian, etc. they all spoke in British accents which made it confusing to tell who is on the opposing side or on the side of the allies. I was also a bit thrown off by joaquin’s lack of an accent for Napoleon, and there was a point where I thought because he had no accent, the story seemed a tad Americanized. Also, I was disappointed with the ending shot of the film. Napoleon is sitting at his desk on St. Helena writing and he heard josephine’s voice and he falls sideways off his chair. I was expecting them to recreate the famous painting of Napoleon looking out into the sea, watching the last ship sail away from St. Helena. That would’ve been a haunting image to leave the audience with and it also would’ve gone with Josephine’s narration of her being afraid to leave Napoleon alone. Other than those things, I really liked it. I saw it in iMax and it was exciting during the battle sequences since I could feel all the vibrations from the cannons. I waited for at least 4 months to see the film and I’d probably watch again. Maybe even the directors cut, although I’m not sure when that will be released.