I agree Mr Ridley loves showing the chest hair lol. And I think he steps up & delivers a film with a bit of historical accuracy from top books & a directors take is sensed in this film as well, his sense of style, one scene shows this & within a split second it takes you off guard like wow lol, While some directors use script, story line, special effects others keep you guessing, entertained & some take you off guard, like pow, ie suspense, action, drama, romance. JP did great in this film & it’s one of his better films, he seems to be growing in his acting skill sets & giving his imprint on it. And I believe Mr Ridley delivered a good film, it’s entertaining & its up there with gladiator & blade runner, simply put, go see it. 😊
the film will flop.We saw it today.Omissions galore- though we still liked it.They’ll never get their investment back as young people won’t see it and i’ve already told three people to wait for it to come out on apple play.
@@Pedroism wait for the directors cut, so you get the true vision. The way it was always intended before the studio execs came in a chopped it to pieces to satisfy those who have mesmerizingly flawed bladders.
Ridley Scott's projects has won 9 Academy Awards and 16 Emmy Awards. Ridley Scott has won 2 Emmy Awards for Outstanding Made for Television Movie - The Gathering Storm and Outstanding Nonfiction Special - Gettysburg.
I am a history professor and just saw the movie. I made a review on it as well if people want to know what was historically accurate in it and what was fiction. I know for some people they don't really care what was right and wrong, and for others they are curious.
I have just listened to Andrew Roberts, a British historian who has studied Napoleon at great lengths and claims that the movie has only 38 mins of historical accuracy!
First - make an entertaining movie. Gladiator wasn’t that accurate as far as the history of Rome goes, but who cares? If anything, some controversy may cause people to research the facts and do some reading. Buy a couple of books if you become interested or at least check Wikipedia. What I object to more are movies that try to change the political climate of today with inaccuracies or actual lies.
Syd Meade's designs were never fully realized because of budget and time constraints but the look of his renderings are visible in a lot of the sets in the movie.
We don't know what you haven't seen. One might say 2001 has the best. Or a film that Tony Masters worked on. The film Sunrise has astonishing production design. Might be a silent film. Can't remember. Pretty early. Jacque Tati's Playtime has amazing production work. Famous for it.
You guys do know that that third photo with the miniature isn’t of Ridley Scott, right? That’s the late visual effects master Douglas Trumbull, whom Scott worked with on Blade Runner. Also, I hope I’m loving what I do for work when I’m 85, if I make it that long.
I got to meet Doug in San Francisco at our Kabucki cinema. He had a show worked out that could be bent a bit for a new topic. His was the future of cinema. I laid on him my idea.. a big Taschen book of the artwork of his, Scott's, and James Cameron, who is an amazingly good visual artist. His illustrations for The Terminator were done maybe 20 years before he made the film, and they aren't just storyboards. They're badass. Then I got Doug's business card...
This movie was a hit piece on Napoleon. Complete and utter trash. The movie makes Napoleon out to be a pathetic manchild. There is zero chance anyone followed the guy portrayed in this movie. The movie didn’t even go into any of Napoleon’s combat tactics. The battle scenes were just a mush of guys running around and cannons shooting. This movie felt like it was twice the length of Killers Of The Flower Moon, when in reality it’s a whole hour shorter.
That's all modern cinema, unfortunately. Men are cucks and women are elevated. But also, that's what Phoenix plays. A great actor but a terrible cast for Napoleon. Napoleon was a charismatic leader, Phoenix isn't, he specialises in playing weirdos and losers.
@@TheAOTSdude Because it is an historical movie, based on the life of one of the most documented guys in history, who happened to be one of the most influential guys in history. He himself considered that his best work had been the Civil Code. Which in turn was adapted by a bunch of countries - or adopted. Those are the things you'll need to see to understand why there are so many people studying his life and work until today. He was way more than a military leader.
I do honestly wish that such films leaned in more to historical accuracy than they commonly do. The general public miss the artistic aspects over the misinformation, leading to a lot of effort to correct the record by historians in the media when people cite the movie as a basis for their "knowledge" of the historical figure/event. We're STILL correcting the record for "blockbuster" flicks of the 50s and 60s that are terrific art films but lousy historical representation. If people like Mr. Scott want to toss historical accuracy and create a story that suits their desire for a film, let them make one up out of whole cloth. He's done very well with other stories that didn't need to rely upon historical record... Perhaps he would do better to stay with that.
@@scoon2117 Agreed, I bet at least another movie or two worth of material were left on the cutting room floor. Hopefully we get one hell of a director's cut on dvd!
@@scoon2117 That's what I was thinking. I think the Director had to take that approach just for practical concerns. Also, actors might not want to commit to such a behemoth.
From what I understand Hitchcock was obsessive about the storyboard as well, to the point of having virtually every single shot of the movie drawn out. I think he had other people do the artwork, but everything was planned out to the last detail when it came time to start filming.
He drawed the position of the cameras and their movement from the top, it's a bit different and less easy to understand for others but it's true, he considered filming a relief, the hard part was already done
He did the initial sketches himself and then worked on them quite a while, sometimes with different storyboard artists and shot every single storyboard. He was also a brilliant editor and knew when to stop a shot or how long to dwell on one. Ridley does that as well but he also allows a lot freedom in camera moves like handheld shots.
It's the only version I'm going to see. I have learned the hard way. There are those that just refuse to sit in a cinema for 3+ hours. Not me. I want to see exactly what the director intended me to see. I have seen reruns of the movie Das Boot in it's original format in the cinema, and i loved it to bits. That movie is 4 hours and 50 minutes long. Going to the movies should be an experience, therefor I'm a big believer in seeing the directors true vision. There is a 4 hour cut of Dune, that will never see light of day.. It's sad, it's what it is. 😫
Well, Ridley is destroying historical events and giving wrong information about religious events with his lame stories that lack knowledge based upon these times, so he obviously doesn't care.
@@dawsynasay4841 Then they shouldn't have named it Napoleon. They could have made a movie about a soldier during the French revolution and during that time period instead of this. Not to mention that Phoenix at 49 is playing Napoleon from the transition of a teenager and onto his 20s. And it's annoying at this point with the lack of historical knowledge considering that it shouldn't happen in 2023 when it's much easier seeking historical references and facts. Ridley was born in 1937 and should understand this more than anyone else. And there's much more to Napoleon's life and legacy than some love letters and his relationships with woman, which is the only thing that fascinates the filmmakers for some reason... I think that the movie would have worked much better if they had edited out all the battle scenes and instead focused on his personal life or edited out his love life and concentrated on his military career along with the battle scenes because it all happened too fast the way this movie was presented in this shorter version.
I wonder if Scott considered Andrew Roberts’ biography of Napoleon one of the “best of the best” books. I enjoyed it thoroughly and look forward to seeing the movie.
This movie is hella controversial but i really liked it tbh. The thing that bothers me is the historical inaccuracy but from what I've read seems like he captured the spiritual truth and mostly just moved around event dates. Idk maybe I'm biased but I've never seen a Ridley Scott movie i didn't enjoy even when people have been critical of them.
What "spiritual truth"? Scott's Napoleon had nothing in common with the historical person, neither had his Josephine, and nobody else really plaed a role. So what is the "spiritual truth" of the story when both of its characters are lies?
I've never understood going to all the trouble of making a movie about real events and people, only to completely, and willfully fabricate things about them. I'll pass.
The "Academy" has not given him an award, but audiences given him an ovation every night; in the theaters, at their homes, travelling on planes, cruise ships and trains. When he dies, the Academy and all the other notable film institutes will lay at his feet flowers and countless awards.
I mean to be fair to the interviewer, if my job was to be an interviewer I'd maybe also think everybody hates their jobs and just does it so that somebody goes "Good job!" one day
Napoleon had all of Ridley Scott's hallmarks of visual grandeur and stunning setpieces, but I really thought the screenplay was terrible and can't believe he and Joaquin didn't demand a polish on it.
I don't go to theaters anymore . I can't go to Blockbuster anymore . I will make an effort to buy this movie on DVD or Blu-ray when it comes out even though its been trashed by critics and historians . Why ? I KNOW it will be a beautiful movie to watch .
He's been nominated 4 times though. It's not like he hasn't been really close. he should have won it for gladiator, without any doubt. Soderbergh won for Traffic..... It's just mind boggling.
I saw Napoleon today, and as a historian, one time reenactor, etc. I don't go in to movies like this trying to pick apart every little detail. Yes, not all of it is historically accurate, but that's the problem when you're trying to condense a life and all the battles portrayed into a movie that's less than 3 hours long. One, I love the fact that Ridley Scott used so much live action and actual people and not just a bunch of CGI battles. The cinematography is amazing, especially the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon was a flawed individual, that's known. On the battlefield, he was a genius but his own ego and drive were his undoing in the end. Go and see the movie for what it is, a great piece film making in a time when it's sorely lacking.
Well JP did great, he always delivers & the thing is, is that I wished it showed napoleons back story like growing up. At the age of 9 was enrolled into a catholic academy in Autun within a year he was immediately transferred under a scholarship to the military academy Brienne le chateau, he completed the 2 year program with in one year & he was routinely bullied by his peers for his accent, birthplace, short stature, mannerisms & inability to speak French quickly, this hardened him & taught him how to perform under pressure in life &.among peers. An examiner or professor which we will get to later, had examined Napoleon at the military academy & observed that Napoleon in his early teenage years distinguished his application in mathematics so much so that he was fairly well acquainted with history & geography ... This boy would make an excellent sailor" said the examiner. The college professor or examiner was none other than the famed mathematician & scientist Pierre Simmon LaPlace. Some of societies, math, science, engineering & physics with geometrical study & calculus. In other words, a genius discovered another genius, war broke out & he was forced to enlist into the military as a artillery gunnery sergeant fighting in the French Revolution, his army was made up of volunteers, hyoid & I lol. Napoleon was able to use math, science & physics into all of his battles.
Walked out first night after half an hour. An Englishman using Napoleon as a tool to get to English glory at Waterloo, because nobody would finance a film about Wellington. The idea that anyone would follow this old and depressed Corsican is a joke.
@01:35 lol. no no no no let’s not discuss how little I actually researched this or know about this subject.. Wow.. then he says the more info we have the less we know? What nonsense.
@@TheAOTSdude Pot shots at the Pyramids, the ice at Austerlitz, that area has been excavated, at Toulon he was 24 not 49, Josephine was older, it goes on and on. I think there are 200 books in English about Napoleon and I have certainly not read all of them, the research here seems to rely on the Wikipedia entry. The one thing there is not a shortage of is experts in this era. Whatever you think of him he was not a one dimensional cuck.
Feel free to make a great film about the post French revolutionary/ Napoleonic era. Write it. Produce it. Get funding. Direct it. Hire actors. Create sets and costumes. You know all the work required.
@@yvonneplant9434 My favourite Napoleonic film is Master and Commander, this is nowhere near the same level. To be fair he said that he was not bothered about the historical aspect. Opportunity missed.
Isnt there an irony here; Napoleon, the flawed but brilliant general and 'Napoleon', the flawed but spectacular film. Hell, even Scott is in the same category.
Loved Aliens but there’s on thing everyone should know about Ridley Scott is that he just doesn’t make historically accurate historic films. If you’re going into a Ridley Scott history film, you should expect two things: it’s all about character projection and cinematic weight
I haven’t heard anyone say they loved it yet unfortunately. I have to admit the trailer didn’t feel like a deep character study. Even when Joaquin orders the canons with the wave of his hand it just doesn’t feel alive.
Saw the movie last weekened, absoultley abysmal. Ridley Scott took one of the most charismatic and ruthless military leaders and turned him into a stiff, awkward, manlet.
Time to be that guy: You're better off watching Rod Steiger's take on Napoleon! Yup, he actually portrayed him in the film WATERLOO back in 1970. Hollywood film as well. But, given Steiger's propensity for hamming it up, might be the better Napoleon film to watch...😂❤
I wonder how many things in this movie will be contrary to what actually happened in reality. The Rod Steiger movie, Waterloo, was mostly correct although it did have some errors... And God, will the love story take up a half hour? Watching these types of films at home is always best for me since I can edit out the love stories with the I Movie app...
History prof here. So many of the "inaccuracies" in this movie, which made no promises to be a documentary, are completely understandable from a narrative standpoint. And since most of them weren't arbitrary, they really didn't bother me- in fact they made me admire Scott as a storyteller even more. **Spoilers ahead** There are so many examples, but I especially admired the fact that he seemed to get through all the noise and at the true drama of each of the battles. At Austerlitz it is abundantly clear that he found the incident on the ice (his fictionalized version of it) most compelling- and it is! At that point in the film, an hour and 45 in, an exhausting examination of the actual tactics of the battle would've been a freaking nightmare. A lot of people were upset at the brevity of the Borodino sequence, but for Scott, the battle was obviously just an especially violent continuation of the ongoing attrition experienced by Napoleon's forces- and he has a point there! At Waterloo, the drama resulted from the time crunch between the rain letting up and the Prussian reinforcements- and even though this involved bending the truth of the battle, I think his instincts were totally right. The edge-lords on the internet had me dreading going into this movie. And yes, there are a few passing moments that had me rolling my eyes. If you're looking for a play-by-play of your favorite moments of Napoleonic history recreated reverently (and in my opinion tediously), prepare to be super disappointed. But if viewed as pop history and as a retelling the "legend" of the man rather than as a documentary, this movie was just excellent. I loved it.
This is disingenuous. No one expects a documentary. People DO expect a faithful portrayal of napoleons character and ambitions, not a fantasy. The 2002 series did this
Well… for me it sucks not to get a movie that is historically accurate. Hopefully , people will do their research and get the facts . Don’t think I will pay to see it . I’ll just wait until it hit Prime Time or Netflix .
Napolean was awful and stunk up the whole theater. I love Scott, but maybe letting a Brit tell the story of England's greatest enemy wasn't a good idea.
lol what? How are you NOT, his films are phenomenally iconic and some of the best in the filming industry as Ridley Scott is easily one of the greatest directors of our time!
Just watched the film and absolutely loved it. Great film, Joaquin and Vanessa are fantastic, and it taught me a lot about Napoleon the man. It made me like him.
Ruleof2Review Taught you about the man napoleon? The movie wasn’t accurate at all lol what you were taught probably 90% of it is false haha. Vanessa Kirby? They didnt have that relationship in real life. Scott made it seem like she controlled him and that he was fighting the war for her lol no no. Also she was a an older widowed woman with children by the time she even met napoleon…yes she was older than him. They did a good job making you believe she was older than him in the movies lol. Movie was awful
I left the theater in the middle of the battle of Austerlitz, movie IS SH IT, TOTAL DUMPSTER FIRE. Napoleon saying "mamamamamama" and stomping his feet to have sex, being ordered to say he's nothing without his mother. Wtfffff Austerlitz, his masterpiece, ruined! I couldn't watch it to the end. F U RIDLEY SCOTT, FOR RUINING THE CHANCE OF A GREAT NAPOLEON MOVIE.
You can tell Ridley Scotts age is really affecting his movie directing I mean look at this movie. 38 minutes of the movie is historical very few people enjoyed it.
I love how they’ll censor Ridley’s swearing, but show the chest-burster scene in all its gory glory. Ridiculous lol
The American sense of propriety is quite twisted. 😂
That’s America!
2:13
I agree Mr Ridley loves showing the chest hair lol.
And I think he steps up & delivers a film with a bit of historical accuracy from top books & a directors take is sensed in this film as well, his sense of style, one scene shows this & within a split second it takes you off guard like wow lol,
While some directors use script, story line, special effects others keep you guessing, entertained & some take you off guard, like pow, ie suspense, action, drama, romance.
JP did great in this film & it’s one of his better films, he seems to be growing in his acting skill sets & giving his imprint on it.
And I believe Mr Ridley delivered a good film, it’s entertaining & its up there with gladiator & blade runner, simply put, go see it. 😊
the film will flop.We saw it today.Omissions galore- though we still liked it.They’ll never get their investment back as young people won’t see it and i’ve already told three people to wait for it to come out on apple play.
Ridley looks damn good for 85
@@Twister1980 Your jealousy is palpable.
@@gasaholic47 lol
Being rich helps but also working keeps young.
The movie didn't show a man who is charismatic and brave. Rather, it felt like a british propaganda during the war times or a high budget romance.
it didnt even explain why the wars were fought
It was one of the worst movies I've ever seen and that's saying a lot.
Very disappointing movie!! One of the worst I've seen in years
Should I go or wait for the 4hr
@@Pedroism wait for the directors cut, so you get the true vision. The way it was always intended before the studio execs came in a chopped it to pieces to satisfy those who have mesmerizingly flawed bladders.
Ridley Scott's projects has won 9 Academy Awards and 16 Emmy Awards. Ridley Scott has won 2 Emmy Awards for Outstanding Made for Television Movie - The Gathering Storm and Outstanding Nonfiction Special - Gettysburg.
"...sorry, BEEP!" I love Scott.
You “love” weird things.
I am a history professor and just saw the movie. I made a review on it as well if people want to know what was historically accurate in it and what was fiction. I know for some people they don't really care what was right and wrong, and for others they are curious.
Tell us here what was fiction. I studied more about British history than French history. So I'm more than a little interested.
@@yvonneplant9434he made a vid on his channel
I have just listened to Andrew Roberts, a British historian who has studied Napoleon at great lengths and claims that the movie has only 38 mins of historical accuracy!
To quote Napoleon “History is a set of lies agreed upon.”
First - make an entertaining movie. Gladiator wasn’t that accurate as far as the history of Rome goes, but who cares? If anything, some controversy may cause people to research the facts and do some reading. Buy a couple of books if you become interested or at least check Wikipedia. What I object to more are movies that try to change the political climate of today with inaccuracies or actual lies.
I just wish there was more accuracy to the battle scenes instead of thin lines of infantry running at each other
Blade Runner has some of the greatest production design ever. It honestly might be the best ever.
Syd Meade's designs were never fully realized because of budget and time constraints but the look of his renderings
are visible in a lot of the sets in the movie.
We don't know what you haven't seen. One might say 2001 has the best. Or a film that Tony Masters worked on. The film Sunrise has astonishing production design. Might be a silent film. Can't remember. Pretty early. Jacque Tati's Playtime has amazing production work. Famous for it.
I'd rather watch Bladerunner than Smurfs in space AVATAR any day . Still the best sci-fi movie ever .
Blade Runner's theatrical version looks better than the final version, but I understand there are mistakes.
You guys do know that that third photo with the miniature isn’t of Ridley Scott, right? That’s the late visual effects master Douglas Trumbull, whom Scott worked with on Blade Runner.
Also, I hope I’m loving what I do for work when I’m 85, if I make it that long.
I got to meet Doug in San Francisco at our Kabucki cinema. He had a show worked out that could be bent a bit for a new topic. His was the future of cinema. I laid on him my idea.. a big Taschen book of the artwork of his, Scott's, and James Cameron, who is an amazingly good visual artist. His illustrations for The Terminator were done maybe 20 years before he made the film, and they aren't just storyboards. They're badass. Then I got Doug's business card...
7:02
I love the answer of Sir Ridley Scott, he's really into Cinema❣️
This movie was a hit piece on Napoleon. Complete and utter trash. The movie makes Napoleon out to be a pathetic manchild. There is zero chance anyone followed the guy portrayed in this movie. The movie didn’t even go into any of Napoleon’s combat tactics. The battle scenes were just a mush of guys running around and cannons shooting. This movie felt like it was twice the length of Killers Of The Flower Moon, when in reality it’s a whole hour shorter.
It's just a shame Chadwick Aaron Boseman isn't alive today to cast him as Napoleon.
That's all modern cinema, unfortunately. Men are cucks and women are elevated. But also, that's what Phoenix plays. A great actor but a terrible cast for Napoleon. Napoleon was a charismatic leader, Phoenix isn't, he specialises in playing weirdos and losers.
The man did go into Russia for some reason.
I agree. Disappointed
My thoughts exactly.
Ask him to name one of the books he read on history and he'd probably say he read so many it would be impossible to name just one..
and that is problem why
@@TheAOTSdude Because it is an historical movie, based on the life of one of the most documented guys in history, who happened to be one of the most influential guys in history. He himself considered that his best work had been the Civil Code. Which in turn was adapted by a bunch of countries - or adopted. Those are the things you'll need to see to understand why there are so many people studying his life and work until today. He was way more than a military leader.
I do honestly wish that such films leaned in more to historical accuracy than they commonly do. The general public miss the artistic aspects over the misinformation, leading to a lot of effort to correct the record by historians in the media when people cite the movie as a basis for their "knowledge" of the historical figure/event. We're STILL correcting the record for "blockbuster" flicks of the 50s and 60s that are terrific art films but lousy historical representation. If people like Mr. Scott want to toss historical accuracy and create a story that suits their desire for a film, let them make one up out of whole cloth. He's done very well with other stories that didn't need to rely upon historical record... Perhaps he would do better to stay with that.
Should've been a series
@@scoon2117 Agreed, I bet at least another movie or two worth of material were left on the cutting room floor. Hopefully we get one hell of a director's cut on dvd!
@@scoon2117 That's what I was thinking. I think the Director had to take that approach just for practical concerns. Also, actors might not want to commit to such a behemoth.
@cadecannon159 yeah phoenix wouldn't have been, he was the wrong choice anyway.
He is simply brilliant
he is amazing director mainly for the period films which inspired me..kingdom of heaven and gladiator ...
There's a channel called History Buffs where there are historical analysis of historical movies. You may want to take a look at it. ✌
Looking forward to this one
From what I understand Hitchcock was obsessive about the storyboard as well, to the point of having virtually every single shot of the movie drawn out. I think he had other people do the artwork, but everything was planned out to the last detail when it came time to start filming.
Yes, that is correct about Hitchcock
He drawed the position of the cameras and their movement from the top, it's a bit different and less easy to understand for others but it's true, he considered filming a relief, the hard part was already done
He did the initial sketches himself and then worked on them quite a while, sometimes with different storyboard artists and shot every single storyboard. He was also a brilliant editor and knew when to stop a shot or how long to dwell on one. Ridley does that as well but he also allows a lot freedom in camera moves like handheld shots.
0:18 Thats Douglas Trumbull on the Tyrell Pyramide from Blade Runner not Ridley haha
Congratulations Ridley Scott on making 'Josephine!'
Lol! Exactly. It was yet another modern movie driving home an agenda at the expense of a classic male hero. Shocker. 🙄
I think the Director's cut of Napoleon will be popular
It's the only version I'm going to see. I have learned the hard way. There are those that just refuse to sit in a cinema for 3+ hours. Not me. I want to see exactly what the director intended me to see. I have seen reruns of the movie Das Boot in it's original format in the cinema, and i loved it to bits. That movie is 4 hours and 50 minutes long. Going to the movies should be an experience, therefor I'm a big believer in seeing the directors true vision. There is a 4 hour cut of Dune, that will never see light of day.. It's sad, it's what it is. 😫
Happy to hear Ridley Scott not caring about receiving an Oscar.
Making movies is better than getting awards.
Did he ever get any BAFTAs?
It’s something that Ridley Scott is still going strong in his 80s and still making movies
Well, Ridley is destroying historical events and giving wrong information about religious events with his lame stories that lack knowledge based upon these times, so he obviously doesn't care.
@@alcottdevalte7440They’re called movies, not documentaries.
@@dawsynasay4841 Then they shouldn't have named it Napoleon. They could have made a movie about a soldier during the French revolution and during that time period instead of this. Not to mention that Phoenix at 49 is playing Napoleon from the transition of a teenager and onto his 20s. And it's annoying at this point with the lack of historical knowledge considering that it shouldn't happen in 2023 when it's much easier seeking historical references and facts. Ridley was born in 1937 and should understand this more than anyone else. And there's much more to Napoleon's life and legacy than some love letters and his relationships with woman, which is the only thing that fascinates the filmmakers for some reason... I think that the movie would have worked much better if they had edited out all the battle scenes and instead focused on his personal life or edited out his love life and concentrated on his military career along with the battle scenes because it all happened too fast the way this movie was presented in this shorter version.
This film has bombed at the box office.
I wonder if Scott considered Andrew Roberts’ biography of Napoleon one of the “best of the best” books. I enjoyed it thoroughly and look forward to seeing the movie.
Don’t watch it man. I was furious after watching and went and bought Andrew’s book to feel better
@@AN-wp6fn Interesting. What provoked your reaction?
One of the most dangerously epic movie ever made
The film is WORTHLESS but luckily most people realise it....!!
@@AN-wp6fnjust a movie. It didnt matter in the first place, touch some grass
Ridley Scott has a funny sense of humor, quick wit. 😊
It’s too bad they couldn’t have gotten a more educated interviewer for such an artist.
This movie is hella controversial but i really liked it tbh. The thing that bothers me is the historical inaccuracy but from what I've read seems like he captured the spiritual truth and mostly just moved around event dates. Idk maybe I'm biased but I've never seen a Ridley Scott movie i didn't enjoy even when people have been critical of them.
What "spiritual truth"? Scott's Napoleon had nothing in common with the historical person, neither had his Josephine, and nobody else really plaed a role. So what is the "spiritual truth" of the story when both of its characters are lies?
Great. We definitely need more Historical Movies than those Super-Hero Movie Craps.
Can’t wait to see
I've never understood going to all the trouble of making a movie about real events and people, only to completely, and willfully fabricate things about them. I'll pass.
Should've read a history book
The "Academy" has not given him an award, but audiences given him an ovation every night; in the theaters, at their homes, travelling on planes, cruise ships and trains.
When he dies, the Academy and all the other notable film institutes will lay at his feet flowers and countless awards.
Not for this shambolic film.
I swear to god I hope I'm as half as sharp as Ridley is at his age
Please Ridley, finish Alien covenant / prometheus series😢
Magnificent Ridley Scott.
I mean to be fair to the interviewer, if my job was to be an interviewer I'd maybe also think everybody hates their jobs and just does it so that somebody goes "Good job!" one day
That man is 86 years old WTF He looks sooo much younger
Napoleon (1927)
Austerlitz (1960)
Waterloo (1970)
Are superior films
Thank god we have “Waterloo” greatest war film ever made.
I would add The Duellists - by Ridley Scott, but based on the story by Joseph Conrad. Fiction in the Napoleonic period, that works very well.
Anyone know what kind of watch Ridley Scott is wearing?
An expensive one of course
Yep, it’s a Breitling Watch Professional Endurance Pro Orange. Trust me.
Napoleon had all of Ridley Scott's hallmarks of visual grandeur and stunning setpieces, but I really thought the screenplay was terrible and can't believe he and Joaquin didn't demand a polish on it.
What an incredible man
I’m still wondering.. where that ‘character study’ was, he’s talking about
Napoleon seems like a fascinating person. It should be a great movie.
I saw it on Friday, it was okay, I recommend it.
They made the movie character pretty opposite of the real person.
It should have made for an amazing film, But Ridley Scott decided to make a hit piece against napoleon instead. The movie is nonsense.
He's my favourite, and his swearing is pure perfection.
a true gentleman.
@@sheanroche2548 Gentleman swear to drive home a point.
@@anydaynow01 well then bring it home, man!
That he’s not been awarded an Oscar is astonishing!
Give this man one stat!! ☝️
I don't go to theaters anymore . I can't go to Blockbuster anymore . I will make an effort to buy this movie on DVD or Blu-ray when it comes out even though its been trashed by critics and historians . Why ? I KNOW it will be a beautiful movie to watch .
Not a single Oscar? That's weird.
He's been nominated 4 times though. It's not like he hasn't been really close. he should have won it for gladiator, without any doubt. Soderbergh won for Traffic..... It's just mind boggling.
Ridlley Scott makes greats science fiction films, Aliens, Blade runner etc, now he can add "Napoleon" to the list!
I usually don’t read or care about reviews for movies but when critics and audiences are all saying the same thing I guess I’ll skip this one
J'ai trouvé la couronne de France dans chatte de Joséphine, j'ai essuyé la boue qui la couvrait, je l'ai mise sur ma tête.
Bet you Doonesbury could have fun with this movie.
It’s a good day when Ridders throws out a “dude” in interviews
Big Ridley fan, big miss with Napoleon. Walked out first night; an old Englishman made the movie to glorify England’s triumph.
I hate when the interviewer said that Ridley never won an Oscar.
If you wanna know what I THINK..
When the film is dubbed in French with English subtitles, I think it will be a better experience. For me.
I saw Napoleon today, and as a historian, one time reenactor, etc. I don't go in to movies like this trying to pick apart every little detail. Yes, not all of it is historically accurate, but that's the problem when you're trying to condense a life and all the battles portrayed into a movie that's less than 3 hours long. One, I love the fact that Ridley Scott used so much live action and actual people and not just a bunch of CGI battles. The cinematography is amazing, especially the Battle of Waterloo. Napoleon was a flawed individual, that's known. On the battlefield, he was a genius but his own ego and drive were his undoing in the end. Go and see the movie for what it is, a great piece film making in a time when it's sorely lacking.
Well JP did great, he always delivers & the thing is, is that I wished it showed napoleons back story like growing up.
At the age of 9 was enrolled into a catholic academy in Autun within a year he was immediately transferred under a scholarship to the military academy Brienne le chateau, he completed the 2 year program with in one year & he was routinely bullied by his peers for his accent, birthplace, short stature, mannerisms & inability to speak French quickly, this hardened him & taught him how to perform under pressure in life &.among peers.
An examiner or professor which we will get to later, had examined Napoleon at the military academy & observed that Napoleon in his early teenage years distinguished his application in mathematics so much so that he was fairly well acquainted with history & geography ... This boy would make an excellent sailor" said the examiner.
The college professor or examiner was none other than the famed mathematician & scientist Pierre Simmon LaPlace. Some of societies, math, science, engineering & physics with geometrical study & calculus.
In other words, a genius discovered another genius, war broke out & he was forced to enlist into the military as a artillery gunnery sergeant fighting in the French Revolution, his army was made up of volunteers, hyoid & I lol.
Napoleon was able to use math, science & physics into all of his battles.
It's not an Ken Burns documentary, so I dont expect accuracy just good entertainment .
This film is okay to watch, I'd recommend it.
Thank you. My feelings exactly
Walked out first night after half an hour. An Englishman using Napoleon as a tool to get to English glory at Waterloo, because nobody would finance a film about Wellington. The idea that anyone would follow this old and depressed Corsican is a joke.
Director Ridley Scott said in the movie, “I am a new person.”
It seems like the internet is suddenly full of Napoleon-era historians claiming to know absolute truth
@01:35
lol. no no no no let’s not discuss how little I actually researched this or know about this subject..
Wow.. then he says the more info we have the less we know? What nonsense.
I saw Napoleon yesterday. Flawed but great at the same time.
In what way was it great?
Master of Cinema✨
What a disappointment, there is so much information out there about Napoleon why ignore it?
ahhh okay the "expert" information
@@TheAOTSdude Pot shots at the Pyramids, the ice at Austerlitz, that area has been excavated, at Toulon he was 24 not 49, Josephine was older, it goes on and on. I think there are 200 books in English about Napoleon and I have certainly not read all of them, the research here seems to rely on the Wikipedia entry. The one thing there is not a shortage of is experts in this era. Whatever you think of him he was not a one dimensional cuck.
Feel free to make a great film about the post French revolutionary/ Napoleonic era.
Write it. Produce it. Get funding. Direct it. Hire actors. Create sets and costumes. You know all the work required.
@@yvonneplant9434 My favourite Napoleonic film is Master and Commander, this is nowhere near the same level. To be fair he said that he was not bothered about the historical aspect. Opportunity missed.
@@yvonneplant9434 The 2002 series. An actual faithful portrayal. Not whatever fantasy this was, tarnishing Napoleon
Whats the watch he's wearing?
it’s a Breitling Watch Professional Endurance Pro Orange.
They give him November, not the summer
Isnt there an irony here; Napoleon, the flawed but brilliant general and 'Napoleon', the flawed but spectacular film. Hell, even Scott is in the same category.
Shame the film was garbage, was really hyped for it as well.
SIR Ridley Scott is usually referred to as “Daddy” by James Cameron and Chuck Norris.
Loved Aliens but there’s on thing everyone should know about Ridley Scott is that he just doesn’t make historically accurate historic films. If you’re going into a Ridley Scott history film, you should expect two things: it’s all about character projection and cinematic weight
I haven’t heard anyone say they loved it yet unfortunately. I have to admit the trailer didn’t feel like a deep character study. Even when Joaquin orders the canons with the wave of his hand it just doesn’t feel alive.
Saw the movie last weekened, absoultley abysmal. Ridley Scott took one of the most charismatic and ruthless military leaders and turned him into a stiff, awkward, manlet.
I agree. Disappointed
Time to be that guy:
You're better off watching Rod Steiger's take on Napoleon! Yup, he actually portrayed him in the film WATERLOO back in 1970. Hollywood film as well. But, given Steiger's propensity for hamming it up, might be the better Napoleon film to watch...😂❤
Dude that's tony scott ridley's brother not ridley ridley is not dead.
Imagine what you could have done with 200.000.000$ ?
I don't care about historical accuracy when it comes to talent like Scott and Phoenix. The word itself is an oxymoron.
I wonder how many things in this movie will be contrary to what actually happened in reality. The Rod Steiger movie, Waterloo, was mostly correct although it did have some errors... And God, will the love story take up a half hour? Watching these types of films at home is always best for me since I can edit out the love stories with the I Movie app...
History prof here. So many of the "inaccuracies" in this movie, which made no promises to be a documentary, are completely understandable from a narrative standpoint. And since most of them weren't arbitrary, they really didn't bother me- in fact they made me admire Scott as a storyteller even more.
**Spoilers ahead**
There are so many examples, but I especially admired the fact that he seemed to get through all the noise and at the true drama of each of the battles. At Austerlitz it is abundantly clear that he found the incident on the ice (his fictionalized version of it) most compelling- and it is! At that point in the film, an hour and 45 in, an exhausting examination of the actual tactics of the battle would've been a freaking nightmare. A lot of people were upset at the brevity of the Borodino sequence, but for Scott, the battle was obviously just an especially violent continuation of the ongoing attrition experienced by Napoleon's forces- and he has a point there! At Waterloo, the drama resulted from the time crunch between the rain letting up and the Prussian reinforcements- and even though this involved bending the truth of the battle, I think his instincts were totally right.
The edge-lords on the internet had me dreading going into this movie. And yes, there are a few passing moments that had me rolling my eyes. If you're looking for a play-by-play of your favorite moments of Napoleonic history recreated reverently (and in my opinion tediously), prepare to be super disappointed. But if viewed as pop history and as a retelling the "legend" of the man rather than as a documentary, this movie was just excellent. I loved it.
This is disingenuous. No one expects a documentary. People DO expect a faithful portrayal of napoleons character and ambitions, not a fantasy. The 2002 series did this
Sir, we'll forgive you because of The Duellists
“What do you have left to prove”? Such a predictable, silly question. It is about the love of the craft. Having to “prove” something is irrelevant.
Mr. Scott should do a film biography on Vinnie Vincent. 2023.
I rarely see Napoleon in Joaquin Phoenix.
This movie is an abortion. Mel Gibson should make his version, I bet it would be a block buster hit.
Mel Gibson will never made a serious movie again.
Sad, really,v because he proved to be a very gifted film maker.
Mel Gibson? Always seems balls before brains..
best actor for this
Well… for me it sucks not to get a movie that is historically accurate. Hopefully , people will do their research and get the facts . Don’t think I will pay to see it . I’ll just wait until it hit Prime Time or Netflix .
Napolean was awful and stunk up the whole theater. I love Scott, but maybe letting a Brit tell the story of England's greatest enemy wasn't a good idea.
I think a lot of his recent movies has been meh, but I do respect his passion for filmmaking.
Arrogant beyond words
Napoleon is a big fat bomb. The man isw missing from the film, but his costumes show up well.
Not a fan of his films, but I give him major props for climbing that mountain every time he makes these big budget films, amazing.
Don't be envious if you can do better let's see 😊
And his story boards! I was impressed. Hitchcock did the same thing.
lol what? How are you NOT, his films are phenomenally iconic and some of the best in the filming industry as Ridley Scott is easily one of the greatest directors of our time!
@@Gadget-Walkmen Wow, go get a brain!
@@marytheresejacksonlutz2533 He's no Hitchcock, please, far from it. Hitchcock would never make trash like House of Gucci.
Why did he ruins Napoleons legacy tho xD What sources did he use?
Napoleon is getting scathing reviews. It shouldn’t get Best Pitcure nor should it get Best Director nominations.
Probably because it’s the same people who don’t like seeing male leads in movies.
It can't anyway as it doesn't meet the "diversity" requirements, being all white and majority male. Unless they count being a cuck as a disability.
Just watched the film and absolutely loved it. Great film, Joaquin and Vanessa are fantastic, and it taught me a lot about Napoleon the man. It made me like him.
how much did they pay you to say this?
Ruleof2Review Taught you about the man napoleon? The movie wasn’t accurate at all lol what you were taught probably 90% of it is false haha. Vanessa Kirby? They didnt have that relationship in real life. Scott made it seem like she controlled him and that he was fighting the war for her lol no no. Also she was a an older widowed woman with children by the time she even met napoleon…yes she was older than him. They did a good job making you believe she was older than him in the movies lol. Movie was awful
Just saw Napoleon movie, finally, sooo good. Great story of a part of Napoleon I only vaguely knew, hidden away by all his glorious military victories
Great film I wanna see the director s cut. Ridley Scott release that 5 hour cut bro!!
I left the theater in the middle of the battle of Austerlitz, movie IS SH IT, TOTAL DUMPSTER FIRE.
Napoleon saying "mamamamamama" and stomping his feet to have sex, being ordered to say he's nothing without his mother. Wtfffff
Austerlitz, his masterpiece, ruined! I couldn't watch it to the end.
F U RIDLEY SCOTT, FOR RUINING THE CHANCE OF A GREAT NAPOLEON MOVIE.
You can tell Ridley Scotts age is really affecting his movie directing I mean look at this movie. 38 minutes of the movie is historical very few people enjoyed it.
Long way to fall for Ridley...such a shame...
My all time fav director but this movie was a miss..
Napoleon wasn’t actually short
Why didi you cast Mr. Phoenix as the lead?
Let's be honest. This movie was a disappointment
Scott did great with this movie