I saw this last night. I expected, for once, a movie that showed a different Napoleon to the one commonly protrayed. Which would have meant that his mathematical and strategic brilliance, introduction of the Napoleonic code and universal mandatory education, meritocratic policies, religious freedom policies and advancement of Science and the Arts would have been covered. There was none of that. It was the same old grumpy, disfunctional with women, murderous warmongerer all over again, this time delivered by a Joachim Phoenix who endeavoured to strip him of his majesty and charisma. It was risible, and on the way home I had to explain to the friends who went with me exactly why he was fighting the Austrians, why he decided to become Emperor - in fact, I had to explain almost everything, because the film didn't.
It's like a Ridley Scott did a The Last Jedi on Napoleon Bonaparte. They made a great man old, bitter, indecisive, forlorn, lonely, and weak. And then he drops dead.
They also tried to call him "The Little Corporal" as an insult without seeming to realize that the French troops called him that because they felt he looked after them like an NCO.
The battle scenes reminded me of a Monty Python sketch of a ladies historical reenactment society presenting their version of the Battle of Pearl Harbor. The battle scenes in this were on par with that. He never led a cavalry charge (certainly not at Borodino or Waterloo), trench warfare was not a feature of Napoleonic battles, the ‘ice’ thing at Austerlitz was not a clever and cunning plan, he noticed soldiers fleeing the field across a frozen Marsh and ordered the artillery to stop them, Wellington did refuse permission to try a shot at Napoleon, but that was to his Commander of Horse Artillery, not a private from the rifle brigade with a telescope strapped to his rifled musket, both Wellington and Napoleon had taken farmhouses as their accommodation and Headquarters at Waterloo, they weren’t in tents a couple of hundred yards apart, it actually stopped raining about 4am on 18 June 1815, the battle didn’t start until 11.35 because the French were waiting for the ground to dry, Waterloo was a 3 square mile battlefield with 140,000 men, 30,000 horses and 400 cannon on it, it wasn’t a theme park with a couple of hundred men and 500 flags planted round the perimeter Napoleon did not make eye contact with Wellington and ‘salute’ him at the end of the battle, he was hightailing it back to Paris and trying to organize a rearguard and, Napoleon and Wellington never met, Wellington point blank refused. Napoleon died in bed either from stomach cancer or arsenic poisoning g,the death scene in this farce looks like a cardboard cut our being tipped over In case you haven’t guessed, not a great fan of this movie.
This movie was such a disservice to historical moviemaking. Phoenix could not be further from portraying the Napoleon from first hand accounts. The movie straight up lies at certain points about actual historical facts and figures. ontop of all that being poorly paced and directed. It almost felt like a British propaganda piece from the time.
Yeah, it was pretty disappointing. The battle scenes are great, even though not very accurate. Great cinematography. However, there are huge editing flaws throughout. One minute he's making a deal with the Russians, the next scene he's going to war with Russia. This kind of thing happens throughout the film. To synopsize, lots of muscle, no connective tissue. It's very obvious that they were working hard to get women to see this film by making Josephine seem more important that she actually was. Women arent seeing this movie unless they are dragged to it by their husband/boyfriend no matter how many 'You are nothing without me" clips they add to the trailer. There is a pretty solid mini-series from the late 80s called Napoleon and Josephine. It's a little dated but it focuses almost entirely on his and her relationship. I watched it, I enjoyed it, it's still worth a watch. In other words, that story has already been told well. Cant we make a movie about one of the most powerful/terrible/influential people in history without devoting half the movie to a love story? Do the studios really think women will go out in droves to watch this movie? Can we, for once, just make a movie about a powerful man without having romance in it? Not a man out there going into this movie who is thinking "yeah, he fought some battles and stuff, but I'm really curious about the dynamic between him and his wife"? For once can we not? Perspective: If they made a movie about Oprah, I would go see it for sure. Very powerful and influential woman who built an empire from the ground up. The last thing I want in that movie is for half of it to be about Stedman. Also, stop perpetuating debunked myths, like the French soldiers were shooting cannons at sphinxes and pyramids. Never happened, been LONG debunked. A movie like this should help destroy false myths, not perpetuate them. Again, great cinematography, sweeping epic scenes. Poorly focused movie.
@@Heathcoatman battle scenes were not great. There was no stakes. There was no tension. And they had no idea how Napoleonic battles actually were fought. It's a disservice to history to portray these Real events in untruthful light
@@Aszod96 I really just meant they were cool to look at. Pretty clear that I thought the movie was a disservice to the story in my post. Seems today the thing to do is to take a movie that a specific audience is really interested in and try to make it for everyone, with the end result being they dont bring in the casual fans like they wanted, and just scare off the people who are actually really interested in the story.
I understand that, I feel like this is more about Ridley Scott's take on the Napoleon story more than an actual depiction of the historical events so that might upset some people and it won't be unanimous. That being said I really loved it personally.
@@matthieucote2272why not just invent a fictional name, if the story is going to be so different from everything we know as historical fact about a real person and real events? The creator can still say the character was inspired by the life of Napoleon. A take is a grounded interpretation. This isn't a take, a deconstruction, or a reinterpretation. It's just fiction. But because it has a real person's name, people think it's basically true, more or less.
It was an interesting take on Napoleon! Of course not a documentary, but still so great to bring some battle scenes to people's minds, reminding people that its not all about oily 6 pack ab men or normandy ;o
I was a little let down in that it was not as serious as the trailers led to believe. It is not a 10 outside of the visuals, but neither is it a 5. As far as throwing down money for 2.5 hour movie more a 7.5 overall. It is not historical but has made me curious enough to read more about his life, the battles. Not boring, but not as epic as it was hoped to be. I am hoping the directors cut will be a little better as the film was rushing thru time ... a bit disjointed.
I find his vision very old in contrary to you It’s the same old British anti French and Napoleon vision The French historians say this movie is humiliating… and they were looking forward to it
The movie sucked, completley historically inaccurate and more about Napoleons sex life than what he is famous for, the fame and glory he won on the battlefield
Some people are pissed off about historical inaccuracies... I just enjoyed seeing Ridley's point-of-view on the tale of Napoleon, it's a wild spectacle.
I saw this last night. I expected, for once, a movie that showed a different Napoleon to the one commonly protrayed. Which would have meant that his mathematical and strategic brilliance, introduction of the Napoleonic code and universal mandatory education, meritocratic policies, religious freedom policies and advancement of Science and the Arts would have been covered. There was none of that. It was the same old grumpy, disfunctional with women, murderous warmongerer all over again, this time delivered by a Joachim Phoenix who endeavoured to strip him of his majesty and charisma. It was risible, and on the way home I had to explain to the friends who went with me exactly why he was fighting the Austrians, why he decided to become Emperor - in fact, I had to explain almost everything, because the film didn't.
Ridley Scott thinks you don't need to know that😅
It's like a Ridley Scott did a The Last Jedi on Napoleon Bonaparte. They made a great man old, bitter, indecisive, forlorn, lonely, and weak. And then he drops dead.
He wasn't short, this is british propaganda. He was average for the time.
They also tried to call him "The Little Corporal" as an insult without seeming to realize that the French troops called him that because they felt he looked after them like an NCO.
The battle scenes reminded me of a Monty Python sketch of a ladies historical reenactment society presenting their version of the Battle of Pearl Harbor. The battle scenes in this were on par with that.
He never led a cavalry charge (certainly not at Borodino or Waterloo),
trench warfare was not a feature of Napoleonic battles,
the ‘ice’ thing at Austerlitz was not a clever and cunning plan, he noticed soldiers fleeing the field across a frozen Marsh and ordered the artillery to stop them,
Wellington did refuse permission to try a shot at Napoleon, but that was to his Commander of Horse Artillery, not a private from the rifle brigade with a telescope strapped to his rifled musket,
both Wellington and Napoleon had taken farmhouses as their accommodation and Headquarters at Waterloo, they weren’t in tents a couple of hundred yards apart,
it actually stopped raining about 4am on 18 June 1815, the battle didn’t start until 11.35 because the French were waiting for the ground to dry,
Waterloo was a 3 square mile battlefield with 140,000 men, 30,000 horses and 400 cannon on it, it wasn’t a theme park with a couple of hundred men and 500 flags planted round the perimeter
Napoleon did not make eye contact with Wellington and ‘salute’ him at the end of the battle, he was hightailing it back to Paris and trying to organize a rearguard and,
Napoleon and Wellington never met, Wellington point blank refused.
Napoleon died in bed either from stomach cancer or arsenic poisoning g,the death scene in this farce looks like a cardboard cut our being tipped over
In case you haven’t guessed, not a great fan of this movie.
This movie was such a disservice to historical moviemaking. Phoenix could not be further from portraying the Napoleon from first hand accounts. The movie straight up lies at certain points about actual historical facts and figures. ontop of all that being poorly paced and directed. It almost felt like a British propaganda piece from the time.
Yeah, it was pretty disappointing. The battle scenes are great, even though not very accurate. Great cinematography. However, there are huge editing flaws throughout. One minute he's making a deal with the Russians, the next scene he's going to war with Russia. This kind of thing happens throughout the film. To synopsize, lots of muscle, no connective tissue. It's very obvious that they were working hard to get women to see this film by making Josephine seem more important that she actually was. Women arent seeing this movie unless they are dragged to it by their husband/boyfriend no matter how many 'You are nothing without me" clips they add to the trailer. There is a pretty solid mini-series from the late 80s called Napoleon and Josephine. It's a little dated but it focuses almost entirely on his and her relationship. I watched it, I enjoyed it, it's still worth a watch. In other words, that story has already been told well. Cant we make a movie about one of the most powerful/terrible/influential people in history without devoting half the movie to a love story? Do the studios really think women will go out in droves to watch this movie? Can we, for once, just make a movie about a powerful man without having romance in it? Not a man out there going into this movie who is thinking "yeah, he fought some battles and stuff, but I'm really curious about the dynamic between him and his wife"? For once can we not? Perspective: If they made a movie about Oprah, I would go see it for sure. Very powerful and influential woman who built an empire from the ground up. The last thing I want in that movie is for half of it to be about Stedman. Also, stop perpetuating debunked myths, like the French soldiers were shooting cannons at sphinxes and pyramids. Never happened, been LONG debunked. A movie like this should help destroy false myths, not perpetuate them. Again, great cinematography, sweeping epic scenes. Poorly focused movie.
@@Heathcoatman battle scenes were not great. There was no stakes. There was no tension. And they had no idea how Napoleonic battles actually were fought. It's a disservice to history to portray these Real events in untruthful light
@@Aszod96 I really just meant they were cool to look at. Pretty clear that I thought the movie was a disservice to the story in my post. Seems today the thing to do is to take a movie that a specific audience is really interested in and try to make it for everyone, with the end result being they dont bring in the casual fans like they wanted, and just scare off the people who are actually really interested in the story.
I was there guys and I knew Napoleon personnally. I can say with certainty that he was really, really short.
Napoleon was not particularly short however he did choose his biggest and best soldiers for the imperial guard
I understand that, I feel like this is more about Ridley Scott's take on the Napoleon story more than an actual depiction of the historical events so that might upset some people and it won't be unanimous. That being said I really loved it personally.
It was literally british propaganda movie lol. MORE - it was not even good movie. What a mess.@@matthieucote2272
@@matthieucote2272why not just invent a fictional name, if the story is going to be so different from everything we know as historical fact about a real person and real events? The creator can still say the character was inspired by the life of Napoleon.
A take is a grounded interpretation. This isn't a take, a deconstruction, or a reinterpretation. It's just fiction. But because it has a real person's name, people think it's basically true, more or less.
I always forget to say the thing but don't forget to LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE!
It was an interesting take on Napoleon! Of course not a documentary, but still so great to bring some battle scenes to people's minds, reminding people that its not all about oily 6 pack ab men or normandy ;o
Watching it in IMAX was an overwhelming experience, especially the battle of Austerlitz. That was absolutely jaw dropping.
I was a little let down in that it was not as serious as the trailers led to believe. It is not a 10 outside of the visuals, but neither is it a 5. As far as throwing down money for 2.5 hour movie more a 7.5 overall. It is not historical but has made me curious enough to read more about his life, the battles. Not boring, but not as epic as it was hoped to be. I am hoping the directors cut will be a little better as the film was rushing thru time ... a bit disjointed.
The movie is good if you have no taste, know sht about history and love boring movies.
Hard to see how anyone but the most deluded Scott fanboy could defend this horribly misconceived abomination.
I find his vision very old in contrary to you
It’s the same old British anti French and Napoleon vision
The French historians say this movie is humiliating… and they were looking forward to it
The movie sucked, completley historically inaccurate and more about Napoleons sex life than what he is famous for, the fame and glory he won on the battlefield
Rotten Tomatoes dropped the ball.
Should've given it 55%.
How does RS do it at 85? Have you seen his wife? Serious blood flow...
Im glad someone enjoyed it. Better than most porn flicks anyways.
Damn Ridley knows how to make epic historic movies
Some people are pissed off about historical inaccuracies... I just enjoyed seeing Ridley's point-of-view on the tale of Napoleon, it's a wild spectacle.
I just hope that one day someone makes a film about Scott, showing him as a closet Trump supporter.