Napoleon - Movie Review
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 лис 2024
- Thanks to Factor for sponsoring. Use code JAHNS50 to get 50% off your first Factor box at bit.ly/3VX3hlg !
Ridley Scott brings us another historical epic, this time it's the life & career of Napoleon Bonaparte starring Joaquin Phoenix. Here's my review of NAPOLEON!
#Napoleon
Love the Napoleon series.
My favourite was Napoleon 3: Revenge of the French
NAPOLEON WILL RETURN
Napoleon 4: return of napoleon😂
Napoleon Endgame.
😂
Napoleon 1 still the best
My only concern is, how the hell do you capture a career like Napoleon's in one movie? Over a period of 25 years, he literally led one of the most interesting lives in history, during one of the most interesting times in history.
Countless movies and miniseries have focussed on just a few aspects of his life, and the French Revolution that precipitated his rise to power. More books have been written about him than about anyone else, ever.
Apperantly theres a 4 hour cut that will be on Apple+
The movie is mostly fiction. Multiple historians brought up inaccuracies by Ridley Scott said he didn't give a fuck.
Mister Scott's answer is: you don't. You more or less have a feeling of anecdotes, you put them in your movie as you please, and you call it a day. Anybody seeing this movie and thinking they know more about the historical Napoleon are very very badly mistaken.
If Christopher Nolan can condense the outline of Oppenheimers life into 3hrs I don’t see the issue
You could make an entire trilogy on Napoleon
You were very kind about this movie. In real life Napoleon was dashing and charismatic which was partly how he could get people to follow him. Phoenix looked worn out and tired, like he needed a bath half the time and delivered his lines like he was reading the news. The battle scenes were not epic, they were awful. Musket era armies did not rush headlong at each other like vikings. They moved and counter moved against each other so their line infantry and artillery could deliver the most damaging volleys, whilst using cavalry to cover their flanks and neutralise enemy artillery. This is what Napoleon was best at, and we saw none of it. Aside from Toulon battles were not fought at night or dusk. There was no trench warfare, and riflemen did not have telescopic sights. The whole thing was lazy and it wouldn't surprise me if Ridley Scott had just read a Wikipedia article and decided to do a 'Napoleons greatest hits' movie.
I literally could not fathom how the Cossack scouts reported the positions and yet still the Austro-Hungarian/Russian army barreled through the valley over a frozen lake in a one dimensional frontal assault and then were completely unaware of the fact that the French army artillery was amassed on the hill overlooking…literally 200 yards away?!?!?! Not sure if that was totally historically accurate but if it is, either the scouts completely sucked at their job or the Austro-Hungarian/Russian military leaders were downright idiots
@@devenmacintosh4124it wasn’t accurate
@@devenmacintosh4124 the battle of Austerlitz that was portrayed in the movie was horrendous, everything about it was completely wrong, irl the battle wasn't even an ambush lol. Napoleon baited the Kutuzov's army into moving off the Pretzen heights, you can read about it or watch some videos, its really interesting and much more complicated than it's movie counterpart, I don't really understand how they wanted to show napoleons military genius while simplifying his greatest battles that much
@@devenmacintosh4124 It wasn't at all accurate, the only time they crossed frozen ponds was during the retreat and only a very small number of people went into the ice.
dashing and charimatic.......Are you joking? He was a stout little man ..hell bent on power and accumulation of personal wealth....and considering most of France were on the brink of death by starvation at this point; he became obese with thinning hair ... I apologise if that causes offence... but then he was not a nice man
Napolian was 5'6". The myth became more muddled in 1793, when Napoleon was promoted to brigadier general at the young age of 24 and began leading French troops to victory. Because of his youth, his soldiers affectionately called him le petit caporal, or the little corporal. But it had nothing to do with his stature.
Admiral Nelson was shorter than Napoleon.
But of course the british and their usual character assassination of Napoleon wouldn't mention that.
Excellent battle sequences (the few there are) and set design and costumes. Unfortunately, 60% of the movie is about Josephine and Napoleon's relationship and their inability to have a child. You do not leave the theater with a sense of why he is considered a military genius or even why the battles featured were important. The personal storylines are chaotic and somewhat unresolved. All the time spent on his heir, yet no mention of what became of him. After Napoleon retreats from Russia and is exiled, Alexander I suddenly shows up to visit Josephine with no explanation as to how this was even possible. Napoleon's return from exile is also short-changed, it appears as if he just decides to return arbitrarily.
yeah I feel that it was a mistake focusing so much on his relationship with josephine and have those battle scenes. Because if the movie was almost entirely about his relationship or about his career then I think it would have felt more natural, instead it feels forced into these vignettes of him doing stuff in between the big battles which are paced way better
The battle sequences are shit though.... Like they're so small despite the overabundance of CGI and technology available for his budgets.
There is no scale, nothing shown properly and the tactics employed are completely wrong.
Well said. I feel this is a good movie that could have been great. I suspect a directors cut would solve a lot of the issues you raised.
Unfortunately???? The dynamic between napoleon and Josephine was brilliant.
Leave the battle strategies and details to history channel. Movies are about human experiences.
Napoleon was such an interesting microcosm in history. A person who shouldn't have been able to make a mark on history, according to the rules of society. Yet he defines an entire era of Europe.
An era of the world, a lot of his actions influenced human history. Especially given how dominant Europe was and would continue to be from that point on.
Napoleon was a descendent of "Holy Roman Emperor" Charlemagne (First Reich), as was Emperor Wilhelm I (Second Reich).
Fun Facts: Queen Elizabeth was, and King Charles is, also descended from Charlemagne. Not only that, but every single "elected" US President has been descended from King John of England, who was (himself) a descendent of Charlemagne. The only President who was not related to King John and Charlemagne was Gerald Ford, Nixon's VP who replaced him when he left the Oval Office. Yup, even Obama and Trump (who will be returning to the White House to "Make America Great Again") are descended from those two men.
One day, and probably within the next decade, people are going to realize that the Vatican/Roman Catholic Church, has chosen who will "lead" rebellions and nations.
You should read Revelation 17-18 sometime, it's about the empire of the Roman Catholic Church in the last days.
Here are some things to help you interpret those two chapters:
1. The Beast= A world empire that includes the former Babylonian, Greek and Mede-Persian empires. (Europe, North Africa, Middle East/Asia Minor).
2. Mystery, Babylon the Great= The Vatican/Roman Catholic Church empire that "sits" on the Beast empire directing it where it should go.
3. Sorceries= Pharmakeia: The use of drugs or medicine (ie A "pandemic" with a 99.98% survival rate that ruined the economy while making the rich richer.)
Shouldn't have been why?
He was not even French to begin with... Huge family, not much of a noble one either. He was treated like filth by others in his young age. In the world which rarely gave chance to people like him, he became god.@@chrisjfox8715
@chrisjfox8715 The Bonaparte family were poor nobility from a backwater of France. By the "normal rules" of European politics at the time, he would never have risen nearly as far as he did, but the French Revolution and the resulting instability opened doors for him at just the right moment for him to succeed at such a spectacular level.
That end credits scene where Louis XVIII puts on the cheesefinity guantlet and says 'fine I'll do it myself' was fire. Truly a movie in history.
This is such a played out schtick.
Louis XVIII is in the movie actually
He's told of Napoleon's return to France following the escape from Elba, and then never seen again.
@@obadiahplainman8897it was shit and cringe when they started doing it. Now, it’s just sad.
@@BerylLx
I think he's present at the council with Wellington later on.
But he's shown for like two seconds there
Do you think in the next film Einstein and Oppenheimer will travel back in time to fight him?
Napoleon 1 for life
Napoleon 2 for life
For anyone confused by this. The title said Napoleon 1 before it was changed to Napoleon - Movie Review
Ziggy Piggy.
There's an Elbe joke in there somewhere
The real ones know the OG title to this review
The Directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven was superb. The theatrical release was confused and left out important sequences that meant certain storylines did not make sense.
Absolutely.
I get the sense that the Apple+ version is supposed to be the "real" version, and I'm not about to buy a subscription to see it.
Another Ridley dumpster fire.
Nothing can save this mess.
Nothing can save this mess.
I’ve gotta say, I did not anticipate this grim tone from a prequel to Napoleon Dynamite.
Can’t wait for Napoleon 2 the end credit sequence sets it up pretty well
I can't wait to see the Joker 2.
😂
When Nick Fury shows up and tells Napoleon about the Illuminati initiative, I cried
@@LuisSierra42did he show up to recruit Napoleon and ask him "What are you prepared to do?"😂
@@LuisSierra42 😂 lol
Ridley Scott is pretty impressive in the directing arena. He's 85 and just put out Napoleon and still has a bunch of unrealized projects. He's a real example of making movies until his body gives out. He's filming Gladiator 2 right now even.
"I think Ridley Scott's gonna sue somebody." *- Piccolo*
Alien Covenant sucked ⚽️ 🏀 🏈
Bro is gonna die on one of his movie sets
Gladiator 2??? Whats it even gonna be about???
@@clarencegboddicker8144compared to Alien and Aliens it did, compared to Prometheus it was okay in parts. The scene where the devout pentecostal captain stares into a facehugger egg for no reason was surreal and transcended cinema
Loved Napoleon 1, can't wait for Napoleon 2: Electric Waterloo!
(context: when the vid first went up Jeremy had it titled Napoleon 1)
Miss you Tony.
Sure, you can win this round of the internet.
Hahahahaha
This is the best comment on this video. All are fantastic though
XD
I’m not a historian … but I’m pretty sure that Napoleon didn’t have the personality type that is labeled as a “Napoleon complex.” It sounds like this movie tries to take a really complex person and turn him into a stooge.
Yeah, unfortunately he seemed more like a wet blanket and a sex crazed opportunist than a charmed ruler. I'm not a Napoleonic history buff, but surely the real Napoleon had some magnetism.
I thought the same thing, but then I realised that even today some very influential people act like this. Maybe the past and today or not so different as we might think. But in the end I can't know for sure. I was never there.
It is the usual Hollywood disregard of History. As an entertaining film it does well for the most part, as a historical drama it is pure fantasy.
@@qcumber6652 Sure, but there's a reason people still love them. Where's the charisma? The charm?
"Oppenheimer" was the rare movie that, despite it's run time, basically sank its teeth into the back of your neck and said, "Go on. Get up and go use the rest room. I dare you." Even really good two-and-a-half-hour plus movies are generally going to have some moments that drag, and I suspect historical biopics are more prone to that than most.
Oppenheimer sucked
Its great for the first 2 hours then it kinda slowed down and drags on with limited knowledge to the viewer unless they know about american history of that time period.
The last "politics" ACT made me want to walk out of the cinema. It was done really badly compared to the rest of the movie.
i couldn't wait for oppenheimer to end.
@@Adam-xg1chsame. Very boring movie.
Shout out to all The Count of Montecristo fans, whom understood the "guy who screwed over Edmond Dantes" reference, no doubt one of the greatest books of all time, and my personal favorite
I read an abridged version in high school and right now I'm reading the unabridged Robin Buss translation. Amazing book. I also enjoyed the movie with Jim Caviezel.
@@sorenpx But the movie with Jim Caviezel has barely anything to do with the book.
@@DoloresLehmann On the contrary, I would say they did a pretty good job of condensing a 1200-page book into a two-hour movie. If you wanted a beat-by-beat adaptation of the book--or even something close to that--you'd probably need a 10-hour mini-series.
@@DoloresLehmannIt does, the only difference is the relationship with Mercedes, he stays with her in the movie, and in the book he fell in love again with a slave he bought, Haydee, i would love to see a more faithful adaptation in the future
@@norm-bb3bbThere more differences then that. Like how get revenge on some people are very different. Like the the whole plot with Vil forts (the magistrate whose dad was a Napoleon support) is very different.
Napoleon 1 has to be the most epic title to a movie review ever
😂
He changed it, (un)fortunately
To be fair, when it comes to older filmmakers such as Ridley Scott, the only thing they lose with age is a fear of failure.
No one can compare to Ridley Scott.
I have seen this exact same comment somewhere else
@@SpammytheHedgehog your mom's ahh is quite comparable to him, don't you think?
I wish he feared fucking up the Alien franchise..
Nice copy and paste comment seen this same comment on at least 3 vids
Just came back watching this movie in theaters. Taking into account that i'm belgian and i've been to the museum at Waterloo. I must say these are my pos/neg feeling about it.
+
soldiers costumes were pretty good, the museum features a lot of them and its well documenten, so the accuracy is great!
The three battles you see are cinematicly speaking a nice spectacle.
-
Timing is a problem. Not superbad, but its just one scène ends. New scène with new Date. Bam we're there he's matching to prussia 3y later.
Although the battles are nice to look at. His brilliance was in his tactics. The battle in the snow vs austria showed showed it best, however the build up to it, does not make you feel that you care.
The battle at Waterloo was horrible. Again, nice cinematics but as you see it, its team A vs Team B (which is waiting for team C to help.
Napoleon (A) wants to attack before C gets to B. But due to rain he can't. The rain stops. He attacks but its too late. Team C gets there in time. The battle is lost. Thats basicly how this movie showed the defeat of a tactical genius.
There are certain key points in the battle that we're fought for.
Those buildings we're not seen at all. Its an open field battle.
I'm not a historian, just a guy visiting a museum out of interest. And even to me this movie lacked tactical detail. And i think people will go see a movie like this exactly for that.
Those who say: "the movie is about the person, not his achievements" i ask you. Than what is the target audience? His battles and vicories are what made his name set in the history books. + if you watch it and think about what you've seen. You'll notice that you actually don't know much about the guy. He loved his wife. They both had some relationship issues. They could not get kids. Divorced for the better of france and stayed BFF's. Thats about it. Hell, the guy tried to commit suicide and failed. Nothing of that to be seen or mentioned.
Conclusion.
Glad i've seen it with a free ticket. Would not recomend paying for theater. Its a good saturday night watch at home. 6/10. Compared to ridley scots gladiator this just lacks small things on many points which makes me just leaving unsatisfied.
Yeah, I have to agree, and I have a degree in history. This is a "modern," simplistic, highly unbalanced, and imo improperly focused view of Napoleon's life. I left feeling unsatisfied but not surprised, given the modern era of Hollywood film making.
“Every time an old man starts talking about Napoleon, you know they’re gonna die.”
RIP Bert Cooper. Stay with us Mr. Scott
Ugh still one of the best shows ever for sure
The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is pretty fantastic. Underrated imo.
I wish the movie wasn't, basically, anti-Christian and pro-Muslim propaganda.
@@sorenpxhow so? And I'm asking as someone who hasn't seen it
@@chrisjfox8715it’s not, I don’t know what that guy is talking about. You can just research the topic yourself and learn about it, there are several videos on UA-cam that discuss it in great detail
@@chrisjfox8715 If you watch the movie the Christians are shown essentially to be these maniacal barbarians, while the Muslims are portrayed as a regal and civilized people.
I rewatched it recently after having not seen it since its release and was shocked at how anti-Christian it came across as. I picked up on a lot of details that I was too young to detect when I was a teenager.
@@MM-jc7uv are you talking about researching the movie or the historical topic in general? I don't care about the movie enough to look up videos and articles about it haha...that's why I'm asking here
Fun fact: the first film based off Napoleon from 1927 is over 5 hours. It’ll be interesting to compare the two.
Did it even have sound? lol
I read ppl have been working on a new release of this movie for 14 years, maybe it will be released again soon !
I reviewed it in a university cinema 🎥 class. Abel Gance's Napoleon.
It's a silent film but worth watching.
@@F4R4D4Y I've never been able to locate a copy...love to watch it!
Regarding Red October, they did something I think was the most amazing way to depict the fact that the actors are not russian. At the start of the movie, they are all speaking russian with subtitles, then in the middle of a phrase, they swich to english and the subtitles disapear. I thought that was brilliant.
I mean it’s no difference than how Tom Cruise sounded like Tom Cruise as he played Colonel Klaus von Stauffenberg in the WWII thriller Valkyrie. I doubt Phoenix would’ve been able to carry a authentic Corsican accent without being stereotypical.
I really enjoyed how they did something similar in The 13th Warrior with Antonio Banderas' character.
Americans are weird. Just speak english ffs. There is nothing authentic about americans speaking english with french accent!!!! Its actually just weird for the rest of the world.
Mel Brooks did something similar at the beginning of "To be or not to be": The opening scene plays in a theater, the curtain falls, everyone speaking in Polish. Then there's an announcement over the speakers that the rest of the movie will be in English, everyone sighs in relief and goes on talking in English.
13th Warrior is hidden gem. Needs lots of polishing, but it is there. I love that movie.@@sonichog
Ridley Scott’s movies have these very particular hallmarks with bizarre dark lighting, anachronistic, awkward dialogue, actors giving weird, sometimes embarrassing performances, and VERY misplaced quippy humor that makes you scratch your head. If you’re watching a movie he’s made, you always know it’s him.
Misplaced quippy humor? When?
@@akosleoszilagyi2529 when Napoleon said he's right behind me isn't it? and that's gonna leave a mark
@@metelineblue294 haven't seen Napoleon yet
@@akosleoszilagyi2529There’s a part where Napoleon is going off at an emissary of the Austrian emperor, basically telling him that since Austria has refused to consider France’s offer of peace, Napoleon is going to ensure that they live in fear because of their rejection of his offer.
Then at the end he just yells out “You think you’re so great JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOATS!” And quickly turns around and stomps away like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum. Then the Austrian diplomat makes fun of him to the others gathered in the room. It felt like something from Step Brothers for a second there.
The last duel had this but it all worked so well.
The first problem of many with this film is that it should never have been a movie in the first place. I'm sure other people have already said this, but if you want to do Napoleon justice, a miniseries, or at least breaking his life up into two films, is the way to go.
And, you know, it helps to have a director that doesn't hate the central character of his production.
Most people are saying it's so historically innacurate Napoleon may as well be riding a Harley around the battlefield wielding an uzi and a lightsabre.
His life was genuinely fascinating. One of my favourite proven things he did on one of his escapes from Elba and marching towards Paris he sent a letter to King Louis mugging him off saying "Don't send anymore men, I have all the ones I need" as everyone sent against him, joined him. To "jazz it up" with hollywood bullshit is entirely unnecessary and only detracts from the quality of the film.
None of ridley scoot movie are accurate to history. They changed it into hollywood narrative.
In gladiator, the emporer actually never want to give power to the people, thats when hollywood try to portray rome as good.
In Black hawk down, the movie create a fake history where US army saving their own but the truth is Malaysian army Who saving them but never appeared in entire movie.
In the Last kingdom, he still want saladdin to kill jerusalem ambasaddor on their camp meanwhile the truth is saladdin never kill ambassor.
In the last duel, the movie ended with husband are winning but the truth never known while in real history the husband actually hates his wife and never live in the same place
@@boboboy8189 Well the difference is that with these stories hardly anyone knows the real story that inspired it while a lot of people know the story of Napoleon. So there's a lot more expectation of it not being fiction.
Edit: And they weren't marketed as a biography of course
I've been thirsting for this movie without even knowing it. I wish for more massive scale historical epics. Each generation should have a Napoleonic movie, this story is so enormous you could tell it a hundred different times and it would still be mind boggling.
It's also emphasised because every country in Europe, and many others worldwide, have their own Napoleon narrative. Was he enemy, or friend? Genius, or psychopath? Liberator, or oppressor? Such was the life of one of history's most notable figures.
better than The Passion of the Christ that's for sure with more lasting impact
@@TheRealSpeedWolflol not.
@@jonatikaWwe it was meant as a joke as I haven't seen the movie
Dang you copied a comment and added into it
When Ben Franklin walked out of the shadows to discuss the Nation-Builders Initiative, I knew the sequel to Napolean 1 was going to be awesome... just hope they don't rush this cinematic universe.
I loved when Ben said "It's nation-building time" and nation-built all over the place!
The last dual is so underrated. Another great movie by Ridley Scott
Yes, great movie.
The movie sucked.
@@Kededianwhich part?
It provides a personal perspective of all 3 characters. Just like in real life there are as many perspectives as there are people on every option and point of view. That is the beauty of the movie.
@@Kededianno it didn’t clown
Problem is Napoleon was never this "flawed man" they showed. He had flaws, just not these ones.
Can't wait for Napoleon 2. Cliffhanger ending was wild
I want to see it, too. And Joker 2.
Does it really end in a cliffhanger?
@elmerromero6694 Nope. When Jeremy originally uploaded the review. It was titled "Napoleon 1"
Now that the title has been corrected, the joke doesn't work anymore 😅
God Jeremy the fact that you referenced Edmond Dantes just made my heart warm!🫶🏻 love you so much!
Count of Monte Cristo
It's strange to say, but most novels and movies that feature Napoleon actually undersell his unique talent for command. He was nothing less than the most effective military leader of all human history, anywhere in the world.
In the end the prussians kicked his ass. Prussians liked kicking napoleonic asses during history :)
@@Peter-vf3dlyou mean like when he fought and won against all of Europe almost 7 times💀
@@Peter-vf3dlwehraboo cope
Most effective military leader? You never heard sun tzu? He can beat napoleon with chinese ancient weapon
If he was 6'4 they would all be gushing over him.
Haven’t seen a movie review in probably 7 or 8 years but when I wanted to see a review for this movie I had a faint memory of your videos and I’m so glad you’re still making movie reviews. I’m 25 and being able to see my favorite childhood movie critic was awesome
I thought this guy recently started to doing this
Jeremy, I definitely enjoyed this review, but I just wanted to say that I'm so glad you bring up Oppenheimer so often because it has become one of my top three favorite movies of all time
Completely agree. It's one of the best movies of all time. It's going to be studied in schools/universities as well. My cousin is in high school and her history teacher showed the movie to her class and they all had a discussion about it afterwards. Just shows the impact of the film already and how important it is.
Napoleon 1 shouldn't be changed, it's the title forever ❤
My favorite historical epic is probably Patton; but Napoleon Dynamite is pretty damn good as well.
Patton and Napoleon were very similar.
My favorite historical epic is Paddington.
Cant wait for the sequel jeremy.
When watching this movie with the years displayed as important historical events occurred kept reminding me through all this that the Revolutionary War in the United States happened, ended, and then the war of 1812 started all while these events occurred in Europe. Truly amazing that so much happened, and it really shows how thin the militaries of France and the UK were layed out in this time, where one strategic mistake or victory often turned the tides of war massively.
The ironic thing is that it is Louis XV1th and Marie Antoinette who in The Revolutionary War declared war on the side of The Americans, and their French officers devised the plan that enabled victory for The Americans at Yorktown.
Nobody involved gives their best work here aside from Vanessa Kirby who’s character, Joséphine, seems to be the only narrative focus with any spark. Good movie I expected to be great. Still very enjoyable at points, just don’t get caught up in the “is this movie about Joaquin Phoenix’s character or Napoleon’s” bc this is certainly not about a young conqueror, just about a lucky weirdo. I think Ridley’s opinions of Napoleon’s actions are just so negative that he neglects to revel in their importance on a continental scale. The film depicts a lover’s obsession not an emperor’s. But damn, Ridley sure knows how to shoot a movie, visuals never disappoint.
Can’t wait for Napoleon 2🤩🤩🤩
Napoleon: A Life by Andrew Roberts is an excellent read. Great biography on one of the most interesting people in history.
While it does try to view Napoleon more positively and overlook his controversies, I do agree, it’s an excellent read.
@@dastemplar9681 I can see that. I’m actually looking forward to the Scott film because (accurately or inaccurately) it’s going to portray him in a more critical light. I mean you can’t become “Emperor of the French” and subjugate huge swaths of Europe by force without being somewhat tyrannical.
@@seanbinkley7363Same! So tired of this almost divine person people usually make him to be 🙈
"Sword Of France" by Hilary Conde Mark.
Martin Scorsese(80), Ridley Scott(86) and Steven Spielberg(76) literally donning the industry right now.
Edit- Ridley Scott turned a year older today.
That says a lot about the state of the said industry...
@thefrenchspacer - there’s plenty of “newer” directors doing well rn. You can’t just watch mainstream blockbusters / event films then complain everything is shit.
What is Spielberg doing? Other than continuing to sell out?
@@firstlast9846a lot of mainsteam blockbusters used to be very good, today they are just shit. Just look at the MCU before End game : moslly good, post end game : mostly shit
White people are awesome.
"YoU tHinK you'RE sO gREat beCAuSe yOu HaVE BOATS!!!!"
Fun fact, Napoleon did actually screw over the "real" Count of Monte Cristo, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas. The father of the author of the novel, check him out, hes a legend!
That’s another good movie, with Jim Cavizel and Guy Pearce.
@@popeye5274 Henry Cavill as well!
If you want to see more. There is a 4 part Napoleon miniseries, 90 minute each made about 20 years ago. That was pretty good, has more time to build up things. I think you can even find it all on youtube.
"My enemies are many. My equals are none.
In the shade of olive trees, they said Italy could never be conquered.
In the land of pharaohs and kings, they said Egypt could never be humbled.
In the realm of forest and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed.
Now they say nothing.
They fear me, like a force of nature - a dealer in thunder and death!
I say: I am Napoleon. I am EMPEROR!"
Napoleon Total War! Great game
Napoleon Total War 😁😁😁😁
“Guy who screwed over Edmund Dontez” what an incredible reference to the Count of Monte Cristo.
Definitely want to see this. Kingdom of Heaven is the Ridley Scott unrecognised masterpiece - be interesting to see how this compares
Do u think kingdom is his best . Haven’t watched it yet
@@dillybilly2611 the Directors Cut version yeah but not the theatrical one
@@DillsyYourDaddy67 hardly any historical epics are, it’s not there to be a documentary
@@ChappySinclair the directors cut is an epic film and it’s about the struggle of morality inside the religious war, that and finding acceptance of different faiths. Quite apt in todays world with Israel etc. it’s not trying to be a document to that slice of history, history is a backdrop to the story…
@@ChappySinclair the Counsellor is one film I’m yet to see, still really like films like All the Money in the World, A good Year etc
"If there is ever a movie made on my life in the far future, Joaquin Phoenix shall play my role." ━ Napoleon Bonaparte
It's a bit sad that mister Phoenix has the age Napoleon had at Saint Helena and was about to die, though.
I remember in the old writings of Marie Antoinette, she wrote that "In the future, a fair lady by the name of Kirsten Dunst shall play me in a theatrical movie!"
"be excellent to each other... AND PARTY ON DUDES!!" - Abraham Lincoln
He did a terrible job at it
Phoenix portrayed him in the most disgusting way imaginable. The movie is British propaganda. Napoleon would have been fuming lol
I feel like they missed a huge opportunity. In real life Napoleon was only in his 20s when he rose to prominence. As great as he may be as an actor Joaquin by virtue of his age could never do the real history Justice
Kingdom of Heaven - Director's Cut is pure cinematic Gold. The music, the story and setup it is all just out of this world.
If you love historical revisionism in favor is Islam
@@JackAubreyy The movie wasn't a historical documentary anyhow. It was a fictional film that used historical events.
@@JackAubreyy I'm a muslim and I know that movie wasnt accurate. I dont watch that movie with the notion that its true to history. But the movie making aspects are what attaract me to the movie. Like cinematogrophy, story, OST etc. Just my opinion.
@@JackAubreyyas Muslim, we knew hollywood did changed that history for example saladdin never told his soldier to kill jerusalem ambasaddor but this movie still want to portray Muslim is bad
@@mainstreetsaint36 it’s beyond obvious that the movie is pushing an anti western anti Christian message
I loved when Napoleon went so Sith that he became the Emperor himself.
I feel like we lost something that maybe in the 4 hour version there. One minute they are discussing him becoming King, then suddenly he becomes Emperor. Surely that need to be addressed in some way?
Real talk: the theatrical cut of a movie should be the definitive version of said film. If I walk out of a screening feeling unfulfilled, I very rarely think the solution is an extended director’s cut of the movie.
Can’t wait for Napoleon 2
The Ridley scott of this decade is a hit and miss kind of director, but he is still a man passionate about cinema.
Cinema can only take you far, and once you disrespect the topic/story/era, you are talking/visualizing about, it hurts the long-term impact of that work.
Even after 2 days since release, the ratings of this movie barely go beyond 6 out of 10. Rotten Tomatoes Audience score aligns with experts at 60%.
This movie is almost comparable to the 2003 movie Gods & Generals except they respected the story of both sides and yet like Napoleon with Scott tried to cramp everything into a 4 hour film which greatly destroyed the writing & pacing of highlighting the reasons or broad intentions of Napoleon before each cinematic battle or the true character development between Bonaparte and his wife Josephine.
In the end, Scott's ego got the best of him, and this was more of a money grab & historical revision by Hollywood. Had Scott bashed Epic History TV's take of his work, I think the internet would start their own French Revolution against Scott.
He didn't make a half decent movie in decades...
@@bdleo300Prometheus, All The Money in the world, the martian, even The Last Duel will definitely disagree with you.
To further your argument about pacing, whenever I show The Godfather to someone new, I never tell them how long it is. When it's done, I tell them "that was 3 hours." Without fail, people are shocked because it feels like a 2 hour movie. It's probably the best paced movie I've ever seen.
My direct ancestor (7 Gs removed) Joachim Murat, the guy who rounded up the cannons at 13 Vendémiaire (1795) which was THE one instrumental action that got Napoleon out of the Royalist uprising.
Murat was the one riding into battle with his saber raised in the frontline….just setting that record straight.
Ridley Scott has always taken the "fuck it" approach when it comes to accents in his historical movies. His very first movie, The Duellists (which funnily enough focused on a rivalry between two generals in Napolean's army), had a mostly British cast and two American leads and nobody had a French accent!
I'm glad it looked good though, because I will never experience a first viewing of a movie like i did with Alien. And considering I had a good heads up after aliens had premiered on terrestrial I was still blown away.
Which makes his films less.
"It is executed in a much more human way."
I love when films have good use of wit and deadpan humor, which CAN'T be forced. This happened a lot in _Oppenheimer;_ such as when Oppenheimer and Groves are having this back and forth, it should feel so forced, and yet it doesn’t. The situation is grim yet here these two men are going back and forth about credentials they could and are getting from this project. Then of course there's the "what do you want from theory alone?" Scene too. Older MCU films had a ton of really natural wit mostly thanks to RDJ.
Imagine Joaquin Phoenix’s Napoleon having a sword fight with Alain Chabat’s Napoleon from Night At The Museum 2, that would be so hilariously epic 🤣
And eating ice cream with the Napoleon from Bill & Ted
@@mrscoolwhipp YES 😂👍🏻
Looking at Jeremy’s review, this should’ve been a AppleTV exclusive series. My brother thought that it was, because in the trailer it shows so many events which is hard to cover in one single movie
I’d love to see a movie about Hannibal Barka. Can you imagine seeing the battle of Cannae on screen? That would be epic. The battles of Lake Trasemine, Trebia and Zama would be cool too. But Cannae is the big one. It’s known as Romes worst defeat and one of history’s greatest tactical Masterpieces. The battle of Cannae is when Hannibal solidified himself as one of the greatest generals in military history. I’d love to see the Battle of Cannae on screen.
Think it's been confirmed Denzel Washington is playing him, the director is the guy made 'fury'
@@joeodonnell921 Nope. The director is Antoine Fuqua, not Fury's director. So you will have once again a completely black washed well known historical figure, Hannibal ( who was white) in a movie directed by a very woke Black director. I feel disappointed , I used to like Denzel Washington. I am from Spain which was an essential part of Carthaginian empire and scene of many of his battles with Rome. I hate the woke bs. North Africans(they are closer to Italians or Greeks or Spaniards than to blacks) don't like this bs either and they are in part descendent from Phoenicians and Carthaginians , NOTHING to do with blacks.
@@petrolillosWas Hannibal white? Wouldn’t he be very brown since he’s from North Africa?
@@supakoen2892 North Africans aren't "brown". They have olive skin, more or less tan. Do you think Middle Easters are brown? Arabs invaded North Africa longtime ago, Berbers are white.
@@supakoen2892 "Very brown"? Uh, no. Carthage was a colony founded by the Phoenicians, who were Canaanites.
When I saw the trailer first thing I noticed was that Joaquin doesn’t suit napoleon. Like he’s not someone I’d think
Napoleon 1 was a masterclass in cinema. Can't wait for the second part!
well there is 4 hour version
@@kyotheman695 hour
Napoleon II would be a rather short film, seeing how he died at the age of twenty-one. Napoleon III had a good start, until France ran afoul of the Prussians (AGAIN). After Napoleon IV died in Zululand fighting alongside the British, they threw in the towel.
Terrible Mickey Mouse movie made by those who have no idea about history for those who have no idea about history...
and even history aside, the movie is boring af
What a great title
Damn, didn't know a sequel was in the works lol
"Mr Bonaparte, you've become part of a bigger universe. You just don't know it yet..."
@@somerandolad Now I'm imagining a dictator team up.
If you liked that, you should check out Sergey Bondarchuk’s War and Peace. Seven hours of epic storytelling about the French Revolution split into four chapters. And the director later made a movie about Napoleon called Waterloo, about the infamous battle starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon, but I haven’t seen it yet.
Any way, I hope to check out Napoleon with my dad, probably the day after Thanksgiving.
"Waterloo" is a good movie. Christopher Plummer plays the Duke of Wellington.
@@PCGamer77 I watched it over the weekend. Absolutely epic and historically accurate to boot!
I agree it would've been dope to have more battles scenes, but they ones we get are great. I like the brutal display of them and not a tone down PG fight
Seeing it Thanksgiving morning. Ridley Scott has more energy and exuberance at 85 than most filmmakers in their 20s and 30s, so I'm very excited for this historical epic!
Most film makers in the 20s and 30s are living off like 15 dollars a day
Favourite historical epic? Probably tied between Master and Commander and Greyhound.
I quite like historical epics in general, and I’m looking forward to this one!
I’m pretty damn excited to see this film in theaters. I’m most likely going the week after Thanksgiving though. Lol
to be fair, Napoleon wasn't French. He didn't learn French until he was nearly 10 years old and he always spoke French with an accent (he was Corsican)
*MORON*
*IGNORAMUS*
*NAPOLEON WAS OBVIOUSLY FRENCH, CRETINOUS DUNCE*
⚠🤡 *CLOWN ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* 🤡⚠
*DOLT*
Looking forward to seeing this, got my ticket for Saturday! My all-time favorite historically based epic has probably always been Braveheart, but I like & appreciate many of them!
We rarely ever get historical epics these days. However, I don’t watch movies to be educated, I watch them to be entertained.
Then why do you care if they're "historical epics"? Just watch Marvel.
@@Yusuf1187 Modern Marvel?
No thanks
Well… historical epics are educational so..
You do not speak for me. More history please
That’s why I’m so happy this movie even exists. Every historical epic these days is either set in WW1 or 2, this is such a breathe of fresh air just by the setting alone.
"Guy who screwed over Edmond Dantes"
😂😂😂 As someone who loves the Count of Monte Christo... THANK YOU! 💙
My favorite historical epic is braveheart…
Hehe, seriously though, mine is between gods and generals or Gettysburg. Both about 4 hours long and both epic in scope. I think they still hold up to this day! Second favorite is 2004’s The Alamo. Super underrated
Honestly, my favorite historical epic is probably The Ten Commandments...and I'm an atheist 🤣. There is something about that film that just screams 'Old Hollywood.' It's very well made. I love the spectacle and all of the shots and the sets. Honestly, even the parting of the Red Sea special effects are extremely impressive for the 1950s.
If we are counting all war films as 'historical epics' though, I'd have to go with Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai.
you might love Ben Hur too. That's one of the great biblical epics.
I thought it was a little grey and dull. I saw it in XD. At times it feels like a tv show. Which I guess it was. It also sometimes paint napoleon as more lucky than good.
A lot of people mistakenly think Napoleon is quite short, but it's actually average length.
That’s what my ex gf told me too…
Exactly what a short person would say (I’m 5ft 5 and get tucked in at night)
@@firstlast9846short king stand up
@ac2244 - i am standing.. it just **sniffle** doesn’t look like it.
British propganda at works to make small the biggest man of its time
As a huge fan of the Napoleonic wars. I really hope the movie explains why after each military victory. Napoleon gets ever more confident in his abilities
The movie makes Napoleon out to be an incompotent and impotent man-boy
@@samuelrichards5521 well he kinda was like that. Though maybe a litgle exaggarated obv
@@0912sooliThat's literally just British propaganda who wanted to paint him in a bad light. Fake history.
@@samuelrichards5521that isn’t true at all
@@rudolphschmidt313as is the glorified version of him the french try to sell everyone 🤷♀️
Who thought it would be a good idea to make a Napoleon biopic where everyone has a French accent except Napoleon? 😂
Well be was born and raised on an Italian island with Italians so yeah
Napoleon had actually a distinctive Corsican accent throughout his whole life
He didnt speak Parisian or "French" French
He doesn't have your French accent. He was Corsican numbnut.
@@odin1185He was educated in France, received his privileged military training/education by the French, & lead French armies in the French Revolution.
He was dead in exile by 51, to claim he was raised in Italy is misleading. His parents descended from Italy. U r confusing ancestry with nationality.
If someone wants to demand a Frenchman speaking with a Corsican accent, ok.
But he was certainly more French than Italian when considering nationality.
To say otherwise is to say Americans or even American soldiers who have ancestors from Italy or Germany or Ireland, etc, r not American.
i feel like jeremy's hair is slowly graduating to becoming Doc's hair from back to the future.
My favorite movie is Gladiator. Napoleon captures the same feel, drama, and action as that fictional period film.
It's historical fiction that's over the top. That's what makes these kinds of movies memorable and fun to see.
Also, I love to see Joaquin Phoenix as a leader. He has a coldness and passion that charismatic leaders possess.
Phoenix was not charismatic at all in this movie, have we seen the same movie ? Historical fiction ? This is not historical fiction especially when you use so many real characters unlike the Gladiator.
Super hyped for Napoleon 2
National Napolean's Bogus Journey
Something I’ve always wanted to see is a story about Napoleon’s invasion of Russia that focuses on the troops involved. Knowing that only 1 out of 6 soldiers survived the campaign, it would be awesome to see a movie showing how the forces dwindle over time, with an ensemble cast that gets picked off one by one as the opposing force and elements slowly sap their strength
there were stories that in Moscow they were eating the dried paint of the walls. I would liked to see more of that in the movie.
My date immediately said “they’re not wearing gloves??” During that March to Moscow scene 😂
My favorite historical epic is Danton. The movie 🎬 is in French. Subtitles are available in English. It stars Gérard Depidieu.
That being said, I did not like Oppenheimer.
I have the Criterion version of War and Peace, but it is like 8 hours long and in Russian with English subtitles.
I prefer Darkest Hour, which really was superbly done after Danton, which is still my first choice.
I will see if Napoleon rises to the occasion tomorrow.
Danton is pretty good.
Fun fact about Ripley, he never makes his actors change accents in his movies. His first movie was about two rivals during Napoleons reign and both had American accents.
Scott is pretty fit too. Can break 100 with ease! Fun fact the oldest director to finish a project was 101 and I think Swedish. Scott to break that record!
What he's saying about length is exactly how I felt about the Lord of the Rings movies. The 3 hour versions felt longer because you could tell there was supposed to be more. But then the extended editions feel FAR shorter because they connect everything nicely.
Definitely yes! One can feel the cutted scenes tbh haha
The more I see these reviews the less I wanna see the movie. I wanted a new Gladiator or Black Hawk Down level of quality since this man certainly deserves it but it seems my early suspicions were warranted considering Ridley is English. They still can't get over the fear of the Emperor and it seems that this movie is more about Josephine than the man itself. How very disappointing yet expected.
I sure hope we get a Napoleon cinematic universe (I'm being sarcastic Hollywood. Don't you dare. 🙄)
I’m surprised Napoleon was played by a straight white dude, instead of updating for modern audiences.
@@CorePathway
Honestly Im relieved , I really thought they would use kevin hart . But I guess they couldn't portray the sworn enemy of the british as Black .
Could you imagine Disney handling something like this? Omg.
BEST ad intro EVER!!! You're great Jeremy!!!
The audience in my theatre was absolutely silent the whole way through, and I heard many say the same thing about this movie: Pretty, but drawn out at the melodramatic parts.
I don't have a problem with the battles themselves, just that some were rushed. I expected to see more of Napoleon's strategizing off- and on the battlefield. I was surprised to see that it heavily focused on him as a person, his strange relationship and how his story came to be, rather than his tactical genius put on full display the whole way through instead of some snippets here and there.
This movie is not what I expected what it was going to be. Maybe this would've worked better (for me, and many others) as a series Apple TV instead? That way, we maybe could've spent more time with his character and see more of his battles been given the attention they deserve with episodes dedicated to the entire thing.
Thank you for your refreshingly honest review. I'm not convinced Ridley came remotely close to making a classic, at least for this "cut". When I think of historical figures like Napolean, Mozart, I think of Polanski as a winning cinematic candidate. I admit in advance that Roman Polanski may be a touch too old to underake such an epic film as Napoleon. And if we can focus on filmmaking and not his personal foibles, I believe there is something meticulous and assured in Roman's direction that prompts me to think he would have been ideal making an epic film of this kind- in French, and with more depth and cinematic aplomb. Think of Polanski's Macbeth, The Pianist, An Officer and a Spy, Chinatown. Kubrick regarded him as an exemplary technician, which he was. Again, he is possibly too old to undertake such a lofty and ambitious film, but Roman's craftsmanship and Swiss-watch-like obsession with nuance and detail would have served this material well. Just an observation based on style and previous works.
Can we just appreciate the energy Ridley Scott put into this project at 85 years old.
Ridley Scott, Martin Scorcese, Hayao Miyazaki, Clint Eastwood etc.
@@everythingisawesome2903isn’t Martin retired
Probably going to see this at some point, thanks for the review! It's funny, Oppenheimer felt really long to me and had huge pacing and storytelling issues to me, and even more so a bit too superficial. It felt like a 3 hour montage where every character was left more like an archetype to fit that constant montage pace (the music really emphasised this) rather than any of the characters really feeling like real people. And at the same time it felt like two films were forced into one, the film and storytelling not really knowing what to focus on. Anyway, this certainly seems interesting and it's been a while since I've seen a Ridley Scott movie!
Oh and I definitely think not doing accents is the right way to go. The only better option would have been to make the film fully in French, which perhaps it should have done, but then it certainly wouldn't appeal to as wide an audience unfortunately.
Don't bother. This movie is bad.
Thank you for the review! I hope it is a good movie!! For anyone who wants some basic history on him before you see the movie I am a history professor and just released a 10-minute summary of Napoleon!! He has one of the most amazing life stories of any person in history!!!
I think I’m gonna wait for the 4hr version. Hopefully this is as good as The Duelists was.
I just watched the Director's Cut. Curious to hear your updated review.