When Napoleon used cannons on the streets of Paris it was considered extreme because no one has ever done that before. Cannons were used to bombard cities but never brought into urban street warfare on a large scale like that. For some reason alot of monarchists think that the crowd that was marching on the National Convention was peaceful. They were a violent mob with pitchforks and muskets. They killed several soldiers. Napoleon is a very controversial figure. He was against aristocratic privilege and believed peasants had equal rights to nobles. He believed in some ideas of the French Revolution such as the limit on the aristocracy's power and secularism. Napoleon was no fan of organized religion but he was against democracy. Napoleon is also very popular in Poland my parent's country where he is seen as a liberator because he restored the Polish state. It was a protectorate of France but had much greater freedom then under Russia, Prussia and Austria. Alot of people forget the coutries Napoleon fought were massive imperialists themselves. One of the worst things Napoleon did was bringing back slavery in Haiti after it was banned during the revolution. He did make his brother the King of Spain which was a stupid idea. He should have appointed a Spanish king that was loyal to him. The king being a Bonaparte only caused massive rebellions in Spain.
He was for aristoracy if it meant he and his buddies were at the top. Let's face it, the french army were at that point, a highly organised band of looting and raping thugs not dissimilar to the late republic roman armies.
Napoleons thoughts on rioting? If the first musket volley is fired over the heads of the mob.. The mob will temporary stop and look around. When the mob sees that one has been harmed? The mob will be emboldened to move forward with renewed determination.. And the numerous musket volleys will be needed to fired directly into the mob in order to subdue them. But if your first volley is fired directly into the mob? They will retreat.
@@historylegends Blade Runner is perhaps my favorite movie.... You would be a very good Roy Batty.... Perahaps even better than Rudger Hower. You do some very good writing...
I guess the movie could start in during the Battle of Waterloo, perhaps about the time Napey recovered from his illness and retook command from Ney, with the Prussian army starting to arrive in the battlefield. Facing the abyss, Napoleon started reminiscing about his life and entire career.
I would love a Game of Thrones style HBO series on the events from the French Revolution through Napoleon’s conquest. This period in history, and Napoleon himself, are far too interesting and complex to capture in one 2 hour movie.
I keep saying this aswel, as someone who has some sort of obsession with the French Revolution. The material for a HBO is just so rich. so much intrigue, factions, betrayal, personality's.
If Napoleon's story was going to be told to modern audiences I really wish they would've made it into a series. There is too much to cover and can't be done properly in 2-3 hrs. I've already watched Oversimplified's version.
Just the Egyptian campaign alone could easily fill a 3 hour movie. And the Russian campaign, the Spanish campaign, the first 2 Italian campaigns, etc. And that's without all the politics and diplomacy that accompanied them. Then there's his personal life...
It's a movie that will introduce Napoleon to a wider audience of people. It's not gonna be entirely accurate and complete. That's what movies are for unless they make it a trilogy then that would be silly.
so how explain this. Historians on youtube react very positively ua-cam.com/video/6KHIeSWj1Ng/v-deo.html or this ua-cam.com/video/lqNERwlpdlw/v-deo.html or this ua-cam.com/video/4sEFinMiSco/v-deo.html and they are all real historians so how explain this?
This movie looks incredible. Notice I said movie, not documentary. Bravehart, the Patriot, Gladiator. These are all amazing movies that are very historically inaccurate.
Yes great films that are entertaining and just based on major historical events. Also like Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, We Were Soldiers, American Gangster, The Big Short and hell even The Wolf of Wallstreet.. obviously inaccurate but theyre meant to be entertaining and based on history..
@@CKpremium1992 Exactly, and I think it's okay to point out inaccuracies and educate. My only issue is this guy in this video seems to be saying this movie will suck bcuz it's not accurate historically. But to me that makes no sense, it's a movie, it's goal is to be entertaining first and foremost, not to educate. That's what documentaries are for. If a documentary was historically inaccurate, then okay, say it sucks, I would agree there.
I wish Kubrick had got to make his Napoleon movie. He apparently spent a good chunk of his adult life researching the subject, for a passion project that never happened
Don't worry mate, Spielberg took that script and he's making an HBO series that should come out around the same time as this! It's only like 7 episodes but that's still so much more time to show Napoleon
As history nerd i cant wait for this movie even if it is not too accurate. The Fact that we will have a new historic movie is reason enough to be excited. in fact it will probably the first time in years i will go to a movie theater.
Napoleón had nothing in common with Joaquin Phoenix, his character needs way more energy , if you think you can conquer Europe with that depressive look it means you don’t know jack
@@plantboy6249yeah it kinda completely complicated due to the many cast of charecters, napoleon, ney, the French astoricats (there this one Spanish guy who escape the gallotine three times due to his sheer personality, dated an hooker and escape France thanks to his connections) some of napoleon rival generals who could have become the genral, nelson, commander Wolfe (the man who help to reform the british millitery into an effective force), pip the prime minster who struggle to hang onto power during the war, the Duke of Wellington (who was known to be smart but very brutal commander having a habit of seeing his soldiers as meat to the grinder) honestly the list goes on and on, I know a bit of the war thanks to the book the war of wars which help to describe both of the setting as well what each faction strength and weaknesses.
@@David-gd3qm thank you .. i still do not follow, i know "Joker" and i truly get the cultural relevance of this movie. Still i do now follow, "living in a society" .. is this a quote from that movie?
It is jarring, to say the least, to see 48 year old Phoenix depicting young Napoleon. He looks like a depressed old guy in many of these scenes. Where is our energetic workaholic little corporal? Phoenix looks out of breath, his line delivery straight out of the Joker. Josephine looking 15 years younger than him is not helping either. Wish they could have focused in a specific period of his life, with an appropriate actor.
This is a movie. Appreciate it for what it is. Most people around the world don't know a damn thing about Napoleon. It could drum up some interest in history with people instead of social media threads. Enjoy it as a movie that hits points at least. May inspire people to become interested and less ignorant to history. It's what "The Patriot" and "Braveheart" did for me.
@@lordcarveAppreciate that's its a movie, it's art, it's fun. It's not supposed to teach you if you want accuracy go read a book research don't watch a movie that's only a couple hours long.
It's hard to imagine this film being more historically inaccurate than Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", which is actually a movie that I like by the way- and still watch from time to time. I've learned that a lot of great epics are incredibly historically inaccurate, but can still be highly enjoyable.
Enjoyable yes . He wants to make " War and Peace " but can't escape Hollywood philosophy of movie making which is like a poison to already ill European art that could rich new heights with today technology but can't because it arrested itself. Hollywood history epics are like surgeon watching Hollywood operation scene. It is interesting as long as you don't know how actually deal looks like and false drama don't make you cringe . Or cop watching scene of interrogation and so on. Once you know enough enjoyment drops instead of opposite .
@@Floreal78 A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a really good film. But if Kubrick had Directed it, it would've been excellent. Spielberg has a certain style, and many scenes lost their impact because of the way Spielberg directed them. For that reason I wouldn't watch the series if he was involved.
Guys, it's me or at the start of the movie we can read on the screen that Josephine was born in 1767 and Napoleon in 1768 when she was really born in 1763 and Napoleon on August 15th 1769? Man, if it is the case, you cannot call that a historical movie! Of course I was not there Ridley, when Napoleon was born, but there civil registries by then...
Well in real life Josephine and Napoleon did some switcheroo's with their ages, so that they would appear closer in age. But you are right they did not explain that at all, but i think its pretty each to catch if you know that they did it that way in real life when they tied the knot! :)
That cavalry scene (probably the Eylau battle) with the emperor charging alongside the dragoons already tells me alot about this movie..Murat and Grouchy lead that charge not Napoleon…you cannot tell Napoleon’s story ignoring the great characters he had alongside-the strategic genius of Davout,the bravery of Ney,the organizational mastermind of Berthier,the loyalty and death of Lannes,Murat leading the most epic cavalry charges ever,Soult,Massena ,the Old Guard…
That is the issue with Napoleon legend. People don't want to see that France overall, because of the meritocratic revolution, produced most of what is attributed to a single man. People love the idea of the superhero.
Idk if your talking about the first Calvary charge or the 2nd one. If your talking about the first, that definitely isn’t Eylau. Judging by the uniforms and landscape it’s probably somewhere in Italy. Possibly the battle of Marengo. But of course Napoleon never lead a cavalry charge there. The 2nd charge is most definitely Eylau, however I don’t see Napoleon in any of the Eylau scenes charging with the Calvary. But I could be wrong
@@rmsmajesti7341 I didn’t noticed that those were two different scenes..maybe because I was surprised seeing Napoleon leading a cavalry charge and since the movie is so short I assumed it was the Murat charge at Eylau
So in the Battle of Toulon they actually did storm the wall using ladders. It had been intended as a diversionary tactic but wasn't taken seriously by the defenders. When Napoleon breached the wall there was massive resistance which prevented them from capitalizing on the breach. Because so little effort had been made to prevent the troops from climbing the walls, seen as an out dated and impractical tactic, Napoleons troops managed, to their own surprise, clear the top of the wall and force the defenders to pull troops from their defense of the breach. In the end it was the troops scaling the wall that won the day.
yup... of course Hollywood is going to take some liberties with events, they always do. This guy is kind of an ass, just blasting every little detail to make himself sound smart.... but he misses some points, and refers to video games and google searches... not impressed by this clown....
I love historical movies, because if they have it really historically accurate, it's cool, but when they change shit and try to pass it off as the truth, it turns into a comedy.
"try to pass it off as the truth" Who tries that? 99.99% of people producing historical movies do not in the slightest try to pass them as the truth. And I'm correcting your erroneous take on this, but I'm still disgusted by Netflix and HBO malpractices of blackwashing everything. Although they produce trash, they do not, generally, promote their trash as historically true. There's only a few that does what Cleopatra mockumentary does.
The use of muskets and firearms was prevalent during the Napoleonic Wars. Muskets were the primary weapons of infantry, and soldiers were trained to use them efficiently in both ranged and close-quarter combat. However, during assaults, when climbing walls with ladders, it was common for soldiers to temporarily carry their muskets on their backs to free up their hands for climbing and fighting. Muskets and other firearms were typically carried by soldiers on their backs or slung over their shoulders while they climbed the ladders or engaged in close combat. It is very realistic sir.
For the Battle of Austerlitz the way that soldier screams 'it's a trap' gives me beginning of the battle vibes, like Napoleon planned this as his opening move. But this incident in reality happened at the end of the battle, it wasn't some trap but a consequence of the army routing. So I'm convinced that Ridley will muck up even Austerlitz.
yep 100% agree. its as if ridley didnt do any fooking research on the battle itself its so terrible. even the new war and peace series did a better austerlitz
Just wanna say at 6:13 , while scaling up the wall with ladders was quite suicidal (indeed it was). One time, during the battle of Ratisbon/Regensburg, we have Lannes doing an epic moment of calling for volunteers for a suicidal "scaling of the walls" and that's also where this one memorable quote came from. "All right, gentlemen. I was a grenadier before I was a marshal, and I'm still one!" - He was inspiring everyone since there was no one left volunteering to scale up the walls so he wanted to do it himself. A pretty common occurrence when officers were so inspiring that some would gladly die from them, most of the officers were indeed promoted from the smallest of the ranks so they were able to inspire most of them because they could also do grunt work. Well, back to the battle, Lannes would lead the attack himself and were able to successfully scale the walls. All of that under enemy fire.
Ahem, another, the main reason why we realistically and logically would want and try to scale the walls would only be for time. We want to force an assault to capture an enemy stronghold. It needed to be done quickly and ASAP because Napoleon and the Grandee Armee would usually be chasing down an enemy force that was trying to run away/maneuver.
@@historylegendsSir you are completely wrong when you say he would have introduced himself as “Bonaparte”, not Napoleon. Everyone knows he would have introduced himself as “Mr. Dynamite”. Educate yourself sir.
tbh I'm hoping this movie does well simply because we need more and better historical Epics. unfortunately it feels these days like the entire genre is riding on Ridley Scott, and I'm terrified that it will just cease to exist
Another sad part is that it seems we won’t see too many of his Marshals. Davout, Lannes, Ney, Berthier, Soult, MacDonald, Massena, Bernadotte, Murat will likely be cameos (if they will even get featured at all).
A film about Napoleon, without the Battle of Leipzig, but with Waterloo, that must be some English crap. Where is von Metternich, Alexander I, Francis I, any of their generals or Bernadotte? Where are the men who actually defeated Napoleon?
@@geechyguy3441 I just want to do like the Egyptians did with Cleopatra : Napoleon is France and french people history and culture, stop to do craps with this please
If one wants to see a good Napoleon movie, that is in general very historically acurate, then 'Waterloo' is a great choice. Doesn't overextend itself, only focusing on the later stages of the Napoleonic wars, from Napoleon's invasion of Russia to his second exile. Also the final battle is one of the finest in all of cinema. No CGI, just pure fantastic authentic film making. The battle alone is worth watching this movie, so if you want to experience what Waterloo was actually like (which I think Ridley's Napoleon movie may try to show and most likely fail in that endeavour), then watch 'Waterloo'.
They utilized the Red Army to do the battle, taught them Napoleonic tactics, formations and how to use the weaponry. I think they used 70 000 actual soldiers.
@hamter_mental_counselling i disagree, doesn't look unhinged but calculating, most of his hysterics are around the troops in way of improving moral and his inner dialogues show perfectly his narcissism
@hamter_mental_counsellingSergei Bondarchuk also made another reenacment of Napoleons battle of Borodino in his movie War and Peace, its in even larger scale than Waterloo with a great cinematography
The biggest thing for me is that they chose completely the wrong actor to portray Napoleon. The creepy lethargic Joaquin Phoenix is completely the opposite of the brash, boisterous, and charismatic Napoleon depicted by history.
Yeah I think Jeremy Allen white would’ve done really well, he’s shown he has the charisma and energy of a young napoleon, and he even kind of looks like him
Napoleon was a fucking disappointment. They cucked Napoleon himself, they tried pushing 40 years of history into a 2 hour and 30 minute film, it's disjointed, there are too few battles, and they jump the shark. Especially Waterloo.
YES!!!!! Why people are even discussing this (upcoming) abomination with the classics of Bondarchuk out there for years (maybe that's part of the problem?!?) is a mystery. Steiger vs. Phoenix . . . I mean, Phoenix plays a GREAT psychopath or alcoholic, but NAPOLEON?!?!?
Yeah my biggest concern after seeing the squares is like you said probably being the Battle of Waterloo. Consequently, this movie is really going to condense history, which is bound for numerous historical errors, rushing & intentional ignorance of key events in Napolean's life, and mis-interpretations for the sake of the plot to move along. A better idea would have been for Ridley Scott to do more of TV mini-series or a trilogy of some sorts: 1) Start off with his involvement in the French Revolution and then his first major military experience at Toulon that led to him becoming a general with his sights set on becoming more than that. Follow that with his arrival in Italy and end the first movie with him appointing himself as the First Consul for France. 2) Kickoff the 2nd movie with his defeat of the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo to show French opponents fear him like Caeser gaining too much power and then show either the Dagger Plot or Infernal Machine against him to where Napoleon used these assassination plots to solidify himself as Emperor of France and his coronation scene. You would then end the movie with his greatest military achievement of the Battle of Austerlitz then as well as hinting at his future plans to invade Russia. 3) Start the movie off with Napoleon glossing over his advance in Russia to where we kick things off with the burning of Moscow, his loss in the Battle of the Nations, his abdication and exile, his amazing comeback and arrival to where he once again became the ruler of France, his last significant battle at Waterloo, and end with him in St. Helena in exile where his final words are "To die is nothing, But, to live defeated and without is to die every day."
@@paimonisfood4986 True, but it's a movie people will assume is entirely true about Napoleon and the question is how much of it is going to be accurate because they're going to clearly rush it into one movie.
@@paimonisfood4986 True, you've got to start somewhere to get people intrigued on historical figures and movies are a good way to get younger people to do that.
@@paimonisfood4986ersonally it's not even that I particularly care how accurate a historical film is - it's that the very accurate ones end up being better and more compelling. The politics, intrigue, personalities and strategies of the real world in real history are so much more nuanced and exhilirating than the crap modern Hollywood writers pull out of their asses. So often the choices they make to streamline the storytelling and "movie-fy" historical events betray their own unsophisticated understanding of not just the events they're depicting, but of the human condition more broadly and the way politics and war actually work. Most modern screenwriters don't even seem capable of actually reflecting the real world in their stories What I really like to see are historical films that zoom in really close on a historical event and really flesh it out. The movies that span decades and decades are almost always bad IMO. The dialogue heavy scenes that showcase the characters are too short, there's tons of hamfisted exposition, the characters are always changing and often seem to exist only to service some plot point before being shuffled away, there's no time for nuance or any real intrigue... Furthermore it allows them to really gloss over reality with whatever spin they want to put on the historical events. When the writers fixate on historical accuracy that usually means focusing on a shorter span of time, diving into the details, depicting drawn out interpersonal conflicts, letting the audience get to know specific motivated characters that we can actually keep track of... It just ends up being better. Who these real people were, what they said, how they said it, how they behaved - it's all gonna have more weight and produce more high stakes drama than the contrived phony Hollywood plotlines that we've all seen a million times.
Just don't forget the bridge at a battle called the Battle of Stirling BRIDGE. You could have both the epic "they will never take our FREEEEDOOOOOM!!!" speech AND the tactic that won the battle.
Saw it yesterday. Luxury theatre with beers and pizzas and a sofa sit to enjoy it even more. The romance part with Josephine is the best part of it, the rest is I'm sorry to say utter anti-napoleonic BS. None of the historical scenes are historical, Napoleon was not beaten to a pulp by convention deputies, he was not controlled by his wife and mother, he never charged anybody on horse, he never shot at the pyramids, he was not a weakling full of spite who conquered Europe because of his problems with sex. This movie is the joker wearing Napoleon's uniform, it's a crude and very basic farce on Napoleon -the Monty Pythons or Mel Brooks would have done it better, made by a man who clearly hates the historical character. It will disappear quickly from the mind of people who will go on enjoying Waterloo with Rod Steiger, and another 10 good movies about him. Ridley, you wasted it!
Most common law on the European Continent is based on the Napoleonic code. His influence and impact on Europe was immense. The Anglosphere has spent almost 2 centuries trying to rewrite history to minimise his Greatness.
15:35 they even used the wrong flag for Austria and Prussia. The Austrian flag is the current one today, not the one used in 1815, the Prussian flag is missing a crown above the head of the eagle and the eagle should be holding a sword and a scepter in his claws. I cant believe the sloppyness.
Yes and no for Austria. That flag was in use from 1230-1806. So theoretically it does make sense for it to be there. Waterloo (if that is what is being depicted here) was a handful of years after that yes, however it is likely that remnants from the previous one were still around.
There are will Six Movies: 1) "The Corsican monster has landed in the Bay of Juan." 2) "The cannibal goes to Grasse." 3) "The usurper entered Grenoble." 4) "Bonaparte has occupied Lyon." 5) "Napoleon is approaching Fontainebleau." 6) "His Imperial Majesty is expected today in his faithful Paris."
While it is historically known and accepted that Josephine and Napoleon met during one of Barras' society ball in 1795, I'm pretty certain that the party at 5:43 is not Barras' but a depiction of "Bal des victimes" which were events organized by people who lost family/relatives to the guillotine. Of course, it is incorrect but I think that what Ridley Scott was trying to do. Mainly for 2 reasons -she did lose her former husband, "Alexandre", to the guillotine in 1794 -Josephine "dress" and short hair cut is consistent with how people were dressing for these events. This was supposed to mimic the look of people right before their execution.
I take good note of your objections but this movie does not look "horrific" at all. Scott and Phoenix are among the best Hollywood can choose for a historical movie. I think a Napoléon movie should use at least two actors, a young, skinny, skin-diseased one for the first half and a middle age one for later Napoléon. Also, one movie for all of his life? I thought Hollywood loved to do trilogies for maximum profit (Bilbo should have been one movie). Even 3 hours is not enough for a summary of Napoléon's life.
It's interesting to note, just from the trailer, that the main characters or the crowd has zero diversity, but instead the dancing noble people as background character have diversity. I can't fathom that if they really wanted to push diversity, they would have diversified some of the roles in the main characters instead of pushing diversity in the background characters who only have one shot scenes.
@@TwistedTeaRexI view this as a step in the right direction if this movie is financially successful it could set a good precedent for the rest of Hollywood
I agree I don't recall Napoleon ever leading a cavalry charge, but he was often under fire, most notably at the battle of the bridge at Arcola. I agree about the battle of Austerlitz scene, but at that point in the battle, the Russians were trying to flee across the icy lakes, not attack, as the movie seems to depict. Fun fact: the British general who surrendered to Napoleon at Toulon was General O'Hara, the same general who surrendered at Yorktown in the American Revolution, earning the dubious honor of having surrendered to both Washington and Napoleon.
@@depmodeno Yeah. But he himself not present in the surrendering to george washington. And had his subordinate: brigadier general O'hara to do it. At first he tried to surrender to the french commander: comte de rochambeau. But he refuse and pointed to washington. Which he also refused. And had washington second in command: general benjamin lincoln to accept O'hara surrender.
I am always have a problem these days when Hollywood makes a movie concerning history. They never get it right and insist on inserting modern politics into it.
bro this guy is just nitpicking, the movie bearly has a trailer out and hes saying its completely shit, this isnt a documentary some liberties can be taken
@@loudelk99 Riddley scott made a movie in the 70's set again in napoleonic wars. So i guess he was building up to the trash politically correct movie he has done now to bombard masses with liberal ideology and achieve mind control over the planet
Who thought it was a good idea to make these grand open battle scenes with so many moving parts, and then turn down the color so low you can't see anything?
If my memory is still good, Napoléon charged several times on horse at the head of his troops during the campaign of France in 1814. Some historians and witnesses from this time seems to think it was a suicide trial when everything was lost.
The color pattern is actually a huge factor too, every war movie has bland and grey colors and are oversaturated asf. Napoleons wars are some of the greatest opportunity for diverse color patterns, every army had unique colored uniforms.
I don't know why Ridley depicted Napoleon's troops firing on the pyramids, because the long standing myth is that they shot the nose off the Great Sphinx while using it for target practice.
Scott has a white man's guilt in his historical films. Just how like he portrayed the Templars in KOH he's going to use these Napoleonic urban legends. Other than that I'm still excited for the movie and I hope it turns out better than I would expect it.
I think the pyramid shot was just for fun. I honestly feel that this film is a love letter to Napoleon’s legend. It feels as though Napoleon wrote the script. Anything to make his image better.
@@soro230the pyramids scene in this trailer is literally lifted from Napoleonic propaganda. Him leading the charge at Arcole (also propaganda) probably served as the inspiration for the cavalry charge seen in this trailer. Sounds like you're just not familiar with him. Man was a shrewd propagandist
@@pistolero6468How exactly are YOU familiar with Napoleon? You read history books written by mostly his enemies? That's like reading about Saddam from CNN.
As I already commented on other videos, a British-American movie about French history, especially about Napoleon, I can't see that going well. And knowing Ridley Scott... it will be a good eye-candy movie, but fail pretty much everwhere else, especially in the theatrical version.
It's baffling how they (British American) always portray napoleon as a war hungry maniac. When it's the British that started the wars against France because they were afraid of democracy.
@@lucagerulat307 France under Napoleon wasn't a democracy, and he does seem to have been power hungry, he declared himself Emperor and attacked Spain while they were still allied to France. Austria and Russia are as much to blame as the UK.
@@questionmaker5666the British attacked the democracy before Napoleon was in charge. And continued until the Russians defeated him, then they applied the coup de grace.
@@questionmaker5666 the wars started before napoleon crowned himself emperor. Napoleons rise to power was only possible because France was attacked from all sides.
The movie looks impressive, but I am skeptical with Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon. He is a great actor and all, but he doesnt have the charismatic epic energy Napoleon had.
Not to flex, but..... Josephine had a pug dog named Fortune. When Napoleon and Josephine were in flagrante delicto, the dog would attack Napoleon. He told his friend, the playwright Antoine-Vincent Arnault, that he had scars to prove what he said was true. Fortune came to a bad end when he picked a fight with a mastiff owned by Napoleon's cook. Napoleon did not discipline his cook. As you were.
5:15 It doesn't matter to the basic viewer, but he's wearing Colonel's shoulder pads when he never was. At the siege of Toulon he is Captain, at the end of the siege he is directly promoted to Brigadier General.
My favorite Napoleon movie is the 1970 film "Waterloo" starring Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummber, and Orson Welles(!), directed by the incomparable Sergei Bondarchuk.
A question I would ask is 'Why just one film?' Even two films with the first one ending with the coronation and the 2nd covering the Empire and ending at St Helena would be a 'thin account'
11:11 He did charge the enemy at the battle of Arcole in Italy while trying to rally his troops to cross a bridge the Austrians were holding but he did so on foot. That is the only reference I know of Napoleon charging valiantly and risking his life but that was mainly to inspire his troops as opposed to get into the action.
It was probably something more like how Julius Caesar would, in dire straits, rush out to the front to exhort his men onwards. The trailer makes it look like he made a habit of making suicidal charges on horseback against enemy infantry. Which like you say, he never did.
Napoleon's first battle that pushed the British and Anti-Revolutionary French out of southern France got him bayonetted I believe as he led the assault on a fort overlooking the coast on foot with his men
@@triplehernan5155 I am only implying it would of been far cooler if the movie actually tried to represent Napoleon's actions in Arcole. He was said to have charged with his forces across the bridge, holding the Republic's flag. That would of been a far more accurate depiction of him and equally if not even more epic because it actually happend.
Ridley Scott is one of my all time favorite directors. He was not making a documentary. He was making a movie, like Gladiator. It's entertainment based on historical events. His attention to detail in uniforms and set and costumes is impeccable. I'll forgive him the poetic license.
@@lehelminor8045people don't view movies like that most people don't know basic facts about him and won't read up for most people it will be a history lesson.
@@lehelminor8045 entertain, entertain, entertain...like stupid consoomers. Watch the french movie, stop watching hollywood trash. Stop this hollywood washing of everything.
I went past greenwich naval college a couple of years back on top of a bus and all these people dressed up in french gear were being filmed. It must have been for this.
Seems they miss out the Battle of the Nations / Leipzig. Far more significant one can argue than Waterloo, and a much larger force on both sides. But Waterloo appeals much more to the English speaking audience.
Some things you missed and I wanted to point out. You may notice my English is flawed (it is my third language), and it is a pretty long rant. The only accurate part I've seen so far is that his name was Napoleon, that he was French, that Marie Antoinette died, and the uniforms. The only part I think is really worthy of praise are the uniforms. They look gorgeous and actually have been researched. Everything else, meh at best; oof at worst. The fort seen being captured at night is Fort Mulgrave. This fort did NOT allow the French to fire on the British harbour during the night. The fort Mulgrave was supposed to defend Mont Caire, which led to the actual forts he had to take to fire on the British: Fort L'Eguilette and Fort La Balaquier, which were not taken until noon of the next day, by which time the Allies realised what was going on and fled with the ships. Also, these don't even appear in the movie. The British squares have a flaw that is close to freaking killing me from disgust. The flags. If you look closely, they should have two flags, but not THOSE two flags. Any regiment of any nation ought to have two standards: the regimental standard, and the royal/imperial/republican standard. The Regimental one is like the two the Brits have, while the royal one would be the flag of the UK, of Austria, France, etc. so the flag of their actual nation. That British square has TWO regimental flags. Those 200 men are actually two regiments combined into one that decided to ditch their most important flag. That's the equivalent of a French battalion choosing their regimental standards over their EAGLE STANDARD. That's BS. (And for anyone wondering, those flags pertain to the 33rd regiment of foot in case of the red one, and the 9th in case of the yellow one). Also, their portrayal of Austerlitz is horrible, even in the trailer. Anyone should look at a map. The battle is just: Austrorussians advanced against a town, and ALL are trapped in the ice. Again, BS. The battle happened when Napoleon weakened just his right wing, which was between two frozen ponds. Some 40k Russians and 7k Austrians attacked the villages of Sokolnitz and Telnitz as Legrand, a division commander, held his ground as he received reinforcements from Marshal Davout. The critical part was, the plan for the Coalition was drawn up by monsieur Franz von Weyrother, AN AUSTRIAN. The Allies knew where the fucking ponds were, that was not the trap. The trap was that when the Allies attacked with 47k men out of their 85k, they left just 38k soldiers to face off against 56k out of Napoleon's total of 74k (the rest of the soldiers were engaged near Sokolnitz and Telnitz), allowing Napoleon to destroy the allied center and right before swinging round and surrounding the Allied left, and THAT was when SOME Allied troops, mainly Kienmayer's Austrian Vanguard and Dokhturov's column of Russians tried to flee across the frozen ponds when they were fired upon, end even then, only somewhere from 500 to 1000 Allied troops were killed (some estimates say as few as 300), not the tens of thousands portrayed in the movie, while most troops in the Allied left (Przebyszewsky's Russian column and Langueron's Russian Column) surrendered. The ice part was minimal, just a footnote that was later hyperinflated and publicised by Bonaparte as "thousands upon thousands" having drowned, while very few actually faced that fate, and French troops did help some of the drowning Russians according to some accounts, instead of just firing into a single massed column of panicked soldiers fleeing across a massive ass lake cause they happen to be idiots. This battle does a great job in dumbing down the strategic prowess and genius of a great commander of the likes of Napoleon. And I'm not even biased for him, I am Spanish, my lands were invaded and ravaged by Napoleonic troops. THAT was what made Napoleon such a fearsome commander. His victories were not as complete as others because he faced actually GOOD generals, unlike some like Alexander that faced opponents that were kind of mid at doing war, Napoleon managed to humiliate and disgrace people that, should they have not been facing Bonaparte in particular, would have been regarded as geniuses or at least good commanders of their own (like Wurmser and Alvinczy in Italy 1796, Melas in Italy 1800, Bennigsen, the Duke of Brunswick, Archduke Charles of Austria, Franz von Werneck, etc., if you read about them and how they fought against Bonaparte and their plans, you will realise they were no idiots, but appear as such due to just HOW OUTMATCHED they were by Napoleon) Anyways, if you have taken your time to read this rant, thank you very much and God bless you.
Hard disagree. His historical films are awful. He can't stop himself from inserting his boomer opinions into movies. Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven were both painful. No, Ridley, Rome was not a liberal democracy before the Empire. And Kingdom of Heaven was Enlightenment "Christians bad, Saladin so good" nonsense. The only good historical film he made was his very first, The Duelists.
@@jameswitt108 yeah, but what a true historical film entails is Tora Tora Tora. That shit is incredibly long and tedious. As another example, if Das Boot had been made by the original writer, the movie would’ve been 6.5hrs long with dense submarine engineering. They’re period pieces, not regurgitation from textbooks with a few modern liberties taken.
@@jeffw7382 '"Christians bad, Saladin so good" nonsense.'' That's just not what was shown in the movie at all, the main protagonist Balian was a ''good Christian'', King Baldwin was a ''good Christian'', Tiberius and his knights were ''good Christians''.
I've read a few books on Napolean - excellent take on the trailer,(thanks) but for me, this is the first time in a long, long time - I'm looking forward to seeing a movie.
i think it will be an entertaining movie despite historical inaccuracy. But in order to properly tell napoleons story there should be either multiple movies or a TV series.
I mean the costume design is some of the best I have seen in modern movies. For the rest of the scenes, we will wait for the movie to come out to judge.
History written by the Victor's. Nepolean wasn't the bad guy he's been painted as. Largely he went on the offensive because France was surrounded and being attacked by its enemies.
As a tactician he was OK-to-good; as an operational planner, great. But at strategy he was only fair to middling, and at grand strategy (incld. diplomacy, alliances, and the economy) a disaster. When you make yourself both Emperor and Generalissimo #1 there's nobody else to blame, and you've gotta own the results -- which were the fall and occupation of France after hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in that country alone, and the discrediting of the idea of a Republic for decades. With Washington's example in hand, NB could have spread democracy across Europe, but he could think of nothing better than to make himself an Emperor, and to place his greedy, useless relatives upon their unsteady thrones.
Yet invading Spain and Russia were strategic blunders which can be blamed exclusively on Old Boney. Of course, nobody's perfect... That said, perhaps his most enduring legacy was the Napoleonic Code, much of which is still in use today.
Tipping my hat to you for a humorous presentation. I chuckled throughout. As for Napoleon, I've read tons on the man and his era and find it fascinating, but at this point I just couldn't bear to watch a movie about him. My suspicion is that no one in the film industry could ever quite capture his spirit and properly express his supernatural hold upon others.
@@specificocean588fr I thought I was a history "🤓🥸" worshipper till I saw this comment 😂..I'm in Love with the Roman empire but not to the point were I don't watch any movies about it cause of inaccuracies
Oh boy, I can already imagine Nick Hodges' response on History Buffs when this movie comes out... and I already watched his reviews of Kingdom of Heaven and 1492: Conquest of Paradise. A historically accurate movie directed by Sir Ridley Scott is a rarity, to say the least (Gladiator, for all its various inaccuracies, is a rare exception that still rocks - even Nick loves that one). Something tells me that watching this movie will only make me go back to watching Waterloo to get a somewhat bitter taste out of my mouth.
Also one of the things that they failed to depict is napoleon using his field telescope. It's weird since he might be in trouble observing the progress of the battle without one, instead we see him charging on horseback🤦
Thanks for this video. A suggestion. It would be fun to see you compare this to Ridley Scott's 1977 "The Duellists" Same director, same period. Maybe not accurate either historically, but fencers have praised the accuracy of the fight scenes.
@@archsys307 Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Muhammad, Alexander the Great although that one's debatable, Khalid ibn al-Waleed, Jesus, Moses, Noah, Hitler, ...
I have low expectations for this movie. As long as it's entertaining that's enough for me. What I'm really excited for is the HBO series being developed by Steven Spielberg. It's based on a script by Stanley Kubrick and supposedly Kubrick did a LOT of research when he wrote it. Hopefully that series does Napoleon justice
The host's love of history and the minutae of historical events makes him a champion of entertainment for a certain audience, of which I include myself. The devil is indeed in the details.
i pretty much agree with you 100% and I agree that it will be historically inaccurate, but I think we’re all lying to ourselves if we say this movie is gonna be awesome. I’ve seen so many historically inaccurate movies like Troy and Kingdom of heaven that I absolutely loved
Well Troy wasn't real, based off a war they believed happened. But I think the movie will do fine like most historic movies it'll be carried by a niche crowd.
@@SouthParkCows88 yes I agree. when I say historically accurate regarding troy I just mean in regards to the book, not if it truly happened. the war lasted 10 years and in the movie it was like one week, and most people don’t care because it was just an awesome movie. I hope napoleon can be similar
Feels like Scott just read his wiki page and started writing? Perfect review. I am both angry and worried... They'll never better the Bondarchuk movie 😎
Tout est juste dans ce que tu dit. Après, Napoléon a passé sa vie à faire lui-même sa propre propagande, transformant la réalité de ses exploits (le fameux tableau de David sur le cheval cabré, alors qu'il a passé le col du Grand Saint-Bernard à dos de mulet ; ou bien encore le Pont d'Arcole où il tombe dans le fossé). Bref d'une certaine manière, en le glorifiant de manière épique, et parfois fausse, Scott lui rend hommage et épouse ses méthodes. Napoléon aurait sans doute aimé cette bande-annonce. La seule chose qui m'énerve est le tir sur la pyramide de Khephren qui le fait passer pour un barbare.
C'est juste une question de grand spectacle, dont le public américain est très friand. Apres, est ce que ça gâche les superbes tenues, les nombreuses références à la légende napoléonienne, la reproduction des tableaux mythiques dans des séquences du film,... bien sûr que non ! Je suis ravi de pouvoir bientôt regarder un nouveau film sur Napoléon ! Il y en a trop peu par rapport à l'envergure du personnage ! Il avait un sacré melon ; mais si y'a bien un type à qui on ne pourrait pas le reprocher, c'était bien lui.
Napoléon était un barbare. Il aimait la guerre, conquérir, et mettre l'Europe à feu et à sang. C'est la définition même d'un barbare. Tout comme Jules César et Alexandre était des barbares.
@@heavyhitter3185 good one mate ^^ Bien sûr que non il n'a pas tiré sur les pyramides, c'était d'ailleurs contraire à son premier but dans cette expédition (la propagande) et il n'aurait eu aucun intérêt à le faire. Surtout que son adversaire, les Mameluks Ottomans, ne se revendiquaient pas d'un héritage Egyptien
Your French pronunciation is perfect, I imagine you speak French fluently. Otherwise I share the same concerns about the film, especially the personality of Napoleon who seems a cold depressive psycho, while he was very emotional and close to his men.
I'm a great fan of the channel, specially how you analizes the war in Ukraine. I also like this video, but I'm surprised you conceded the scene of the lake in Austerlitz as historically accurate. As far as I know, modern historiography considers this event as a piece of Napoleon's propaganda and, to say the least, the French greatly exaggerated what happened there
"Napoleon ordered 25 cannons to begin firing at the ice, sending the Russian troops plunging into the freezing waters below (the exact number of Russians who drowned is disputed; Napoleon himself put the number at 2,000, though most modern scholars estimate 200 or less)" Most cannon balls probably bounced off!
what pisses me off the most is the fact that the movie is clearly not shot in France. I work right across the street from the Church of Saint Roch in Paris, where Napoleon dispersed the royalist insurrection with grapeshot. the streets are small, confined, not the big open space of Greenwich University where they shot that scene. What's most shocking to me is the fact that there are movie shoots in the immediate vicinity of the church almost every week, as the streets are well preserved to their XVIIth century appearance. I just don't get how you could make a movie about a French emperor and not shoot it in France. Heck, they went as far as putting a CGI louvre palace in the guillotine scene, when, you know, the real thing is quite accesible to movie and tv shoots...
Scott, like other general release American directors, knows that his audience wants exagerated situations and characters that can be easily understood and digested at video game pacing.
I have not seen enough footage to judge yet. I'm highly anticipating this. I do not see how it could possibly be compressed into a 2 or 3 hour movie though. That just seems impossible to me without some form of trauma being inflicted upon the audience.
He's dead right about the squares at Waterloo. Battalion size so around 500 to 600 men and in a staggered pattern. However, British squares weren't really squares, they were oblongs with two longer sides and two shorter. That whole wild cavalry charge thing too is a mistake that almost all movies make. You'll see groups of infantry in wild straggling charges too when in reality both arms would close with the enemy in close order and in a measured way to deliver the greatest shock.
This era was full of greatly talented figures both on and off the battlefield, Napoleon, Alexander, Arthur Wellesley, and on the political side you had Talleyrand and Metternich employing their various plots and schemes. No matter what you think of Napoleon or any of the other figures they were each in their own way great men of the time period.
I somehow get the feel that everytime they think of invading Russia, they come up with a movie about Napoleon. I wonder if Hitler watched any of those 😂 Video was cut too abruptly ...
When Napoleon used cannons on the streets of Paris it was considered extreme because no one has ever done that before. Cannons were used to bombard cities but never brought into urban street warfare on a large scale like that. For some reason alot of monarchists think that the crowd that was marching on the National Convention was peaceful. They were a violent mob with pitchforks and muskets. They killed several soldiers. Napoleon is a very controversial figure. He was against aristocratic privilege and believed peasants had equal rights to nobles. He believed in some ideas of the French Revolution such as the limit on the aristocracy's power and secularism. Napoleon was no fan of organized religion but he was against democracy. Napoleon is also very popular in Poland my parent's country where he is seen as a liberator because he restored the Polish state. It was a protectorate of France but had much greater freedom then under Russia, Prussia and Austria. Alot of people forget the coutries Napoleon fought were massive imperialists themselves. One of the worst things Napoleon did was bringing back slavery in Haiti after it was banned during the revolution. He did make his brother the King of Spain which was a stupid idea. He should have appointed a Spanish king that was loyal to him. The king being a Bonaparte only caused massive rebellions in Spain.
He was for aristoracy if it meant he and his buddies were at the top. Let's face it, the french army were at that point, a highly organised band of looting and raping thugs not dissimilar to the late republic roman armies.
Good comment.
funny seeing you here
@@marietsukidisagree, the revolution wouldn’t have spread if not more Napoleon. Regardless of the death it bought to Europe
Napoleons thoughts on rioting?
If the first musket volley is fired over the heads of the mob.. The mob will temporary stop and look around. When the mob sees that one has been harmed? The mob will be emboldened to move forward with renewed determination.. And the numerous musket volleys will be needed to fired directly into the mob in order to subdue them.
But if your first volley is fired directly into the mob? They will retreat.
The most worrying part is how much they are stuffing in the runtime. From 1793 to 1815 in around 3 hours, how will that fit ?
That’s my greatest concern…
Same here
@@historylegends Blade Runner is perhaps my favorite movie.... You would be a very good Roy Batty.... Perahaps even better than Rudger Hower.
You do some very good writing...
I guess the movie could start in during the Battle of Waterloo, perhaps about the time Napey recovered from his illness and retook command from Ney, with the Prussian army starting to arrive in the battlefield. Facing the abyss, Napoleon started reminiscing about his life and entire career.
I think movie is 2hr 38 minutes not 3 hour
From a purely aesthetic standpoint, why does it look so grey and desaturated? Seems to be a common problem with Hollywood 'historical' films.
They are hiding shitty CGI effects.
sun wasnt invented into 1965
because it fits the modernist narrative that "past dull and boring, look to the bright (multicolored) future"
Because they suck at making movies.
Pedo's only destroy not build.
I would love a Game of Thrones style HBO series on the events from the French Revolution through Napoleon’s conquest. This period in history, and Napoleon himself, are far too interesting and complex to capture in one 2 hour movie.
I keep saying this aswel, as someone who has some sort of obsession with the French Revolution. The material for a HBO is just so rich. so much intrigue, factions, betrayal, personality's.
They don't have the chops, or, rather, the guts.
HBO's Rome had that once and I'm still waiting for HBO to reignite it cuz GoT owes a lot of what it is to Rome
YES! That's what I'm talking about.
The directors cut of this movie is going to be 4.5 hours long I’m sure you’ll enjoy that more
If Napoleon's story was going to be told to modern audiences I really wish they would've made it into a series. There is too much to cover and can't be done properly in 2-3 hrs. I've already watched Oversimplified's version.
Ridley Scott is 85 so take that into account
Just the Egyptian campaign alone could easily fill a 3 hour movie. And the Russian campaign, the Spanish campaign, the first 2 Italian campaigns, etc. And that's without all the politics and diplomacy that accompanied them. Then there's his personal life...
It's a movie that will introduce Napoleon to a wider audience of people. It's not gonna be entirely accurate and complete. That's what movies are for unless they make it a trilogy then that would be silly.
Steven Spielberg is producing a serie based on Kubrick screenplay
so how explain this. Historians on youtube react very positively ua-cam.com/video/6KHIeSWj1Ng/v-deo.html or this ua-cam.com/video/lqNERwlpdlw/v-deo.html or this ua-cam.com/video/4sEFinMiSco/v-deo.html and they are all real historians so how explain this?
This movie looks incredible. Notice I said movie, not documentary. Bravehart, the Patriot, Gladiator. These are all amazing movies that are very historically inaccurate.
This. Its Interpretation or dramatization lets say.
Agreed. It's kinda like historical fanfiction! :D
Yes great films that are entertaining and just based on major historical events. Also like Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, We Were Soldiers, American Gangster, The Big Short and hell even The Wolf of Wallstreet.. obviously inaccurate but theyre meant to be entertaining and based on history..
@@CKpremium1992 Exactly, and I think it's okay to point out inaccuracies and educate. My only issue is this guy in this video seems to be saying this movie will suck bcuz it's not accurate historically. But to me that makes no sense, it's a movie, it's goal is to be entertaining first and foremost, not to educate. That's what documentaries are for. If a documentary was historically inaccurate, then okay, say it sucks, I would agree there.
@@johnprina3924 I 100% agree with you on all of that.
I wish Kubrick had got to make his Napoleon movie. He apparently spent a good chunk of his adult life researching the subject, for a passion project that never happened
Don't worry mate, Spielberg took that script and he's making an HBO series that should come out around the same time as this! It's only like 7 episodes but that's still so much more time to show Napoleon
@@geechyguy3441Holy shit really? I hope it's good!
@@geechyguy3441 Why would you trust anything Spielberg produces in terms of historical accuracy?
@@colonelsmith7757 Because it won't be his script - Its Kubricks, his late great friend
@@geechyguy3441 Producers have influence over scripts, it's how many shows and movies get influenced and destroyed.
As history nerd i cant wait for this movie even if it is not too accurate. The Fact that we will have a new historic movie is reason enough to be excited. in fact it will probably the first time in years i will go to a movie theater.
Same here only movie on my radar in a while
If you want a really good and kinda accurate historic movie then try Oppenheimer.
Napoleón had nothing in common with Joaquin Phoenix, his character needs way more energy , if you think you can conquer Europe with that depressive look it means you don’t know jack
@@hadriusreznor3247Dude nobody alive today has anything in common with Napoleon lol
@@khanman9146 get back to school, you sound like a teenager or worst
They should have made this a TV show. You can’t capture the whole life of Napoleon in one movie
Elvis movie.
It's literally not meant to "capture the whole life of napoleon."
This is just a piece of entertainment.
@@davemccombs You are too smart for this comment section
@@davemccombs Believe it or not its quite a concern when a 3 hour movie tries to capture 22 years of history.
@@plantboy6249yeah it kinda completely complicated due to the many cast of charecters, napoleon, ney, the French astoricats (there this one Spanish guy who escape the gallotine three times due to his sheer personality, dated an hooker and escape France thanks to his connections) some of napoleon rival generals who could have become the genral, nelson, commander Wolfe (the man who help to reform the british millitery into an effective force), pip the prime minster who struggle to hang onto power during the war, the Duke of Wellington (who was known to be smart but very brutal commander having a habit of seeing his soldiers as meat to the grinder) honestly the list goes on and on, I know a bit of the war thanks to the book the war of wars which help to describe both of the setting as well what each faction strength and weaknesses.
Napoleon is 100% living in a society
ok, i do not get the reference, pls elaborate.
@@mikeschneider1624and juice I say in Catalan
@@mikeschneider1624The Actor of Napoleon is Joaquin Phoenix. The same actor who plays the Joker from the movie Joker from 2019.
@@David-gd3qm thank you .. i still do not follow, i know "Joker" and i truly get the cultural relevance of this movie. Still i do now follow, "living in a society" .. is this a quote from that movie?
@@ВашместныйагентКГБ "juice", "Catalan"?
It is jarring, to say the least, to see 48 year old Phoenix depicting young Napoleon. He looks like a depressed old guy in many of these scenes. Where is our energetic workaholic little corporal? Phoenix looks out of breath, his line delivery straight out of the Joker.
Josephine looking 15 years younger than him is not helping either.
Wish they could have focused in a specific period of his life, with an appropriate actor.
Agreed.
I think he fits the character just not as a young Napoleon. Atleast they could do is using de-aging CGI effects.
@@lilyrose4191🤓
Yeah I want to see young Napoleon and the terror in France.
@@ezekiel440?
This is a movie. Appreciate it for what it is. Most people around the world don't know a damn thing about Napoleon. It could drum up some interest in history with people instead of social media threads. Enjoy it as a movie that hits points at least. May inspire people to become interested and less ignorant to history. It's what "The Patriot" and "Braveheart" did for me.
His descendants weren't roaming in France. They were here in the US. To quote you "Google It".
Appreciate what? It's better to not make a movie at all if it's going to suck and be a bad depiction of history.
@@lordcarveAppreciate that's its a movie, it's art, it's fun. It's not supposed to teach you if you want accuracy go read a book research don't watch a movie that's only a couple hours long.
I agree with u on most of this accept when u said " Most people around the world don't know a damn thing about Napoleon". You are very much mistaken.
@@AnthonyFrye12 trust me, 90% of the people in Asia has zero clue about who Napoleon was.
It's hard to imagine this film being more historically inaccurate than Ridley Scott's "Gladiator", which is actually a movie that I like by the way- and still watch from time to time. I've learned that a lot of great epics are incredibly historically inaccurate, but can still be highly enjoyable.
Since when is a movie, a work of art, supposed to be a documentary? historically inaccurate? obviously because its not scientific nor can it be.
I don't think there was ever a notion that Gladiator was based on true events. It's not Star Wars.
@@lordbendtner7021 And ? It's still based on history.
@@stefaanvanhoutte7339 dont disgrace art hollywood is woke political garbage it aint art
Enjoyable yes . He wants to make " War and Peace " but can't escape Hollywood philosophy of movie making which is like a poison to already ill European art that could rich new heights with today technology but can't because it arrested itself. Hollywood history epics are like surgeon watching Hollywood operation scene. It is interesting as long as you don't know how actually deal looks like and false drama don't make you cringe . Or cop watching scene of interrogation and so on. Once you know enough enjoyment drops instead of opposite .
I’m expecting a modern Napoleon: Conflicted, Emotionally unstable and falling behind the female protagonist
So basically an authentic napoleon
Wouldn't he also be a drag queen?!!
His god-daughter was somehow responsible for Austerlitz
I got the made for the modern audience vibe
@@simonjkk5711the first two yes, him following a female, is bs
Stanley Kubrick spent years preparing a film about Napoleon but stopped after another film was released first.
What a missed opportunity!
Shouldn't of denounced satanist cult in New York.
Rumours that Spielberg is prepearing a Napoleon series for HBO using Kubricks original script.
@@Floreal78 Uh-Oh!!!!!!!!!!! After the 'AI' disaster, I don't think this could be a good thing!!!!!!!!!!!
@@Floreal78 A.I. Artificial Intelligence is a really good film. But if Kubrick had Directed it, it would've been excellent. Spielberg has a certain style, and many scenes lost their impact because of the way Spielberg directed them.
For that reason I wouldn't watch the series if he was involved.
@@Floreal78 If this movie is a success at the box office, you bet hbo is going to do that.
Guys, it's me or at the start of the movie we can read on the screen that Josephine was born in 1767 and Napoleon in 1768 when she was really born in 1763 and Napoleon on August 15th 1769? Man, if it is the case, you cannot call that a historical movie! Of course I was not there Ridley, when Napoleon was born, but there civil registries by then...
Well in real life Josephine and Napoleon did some switcheroo's with their ages, so that they would appear closer in age.
But you are right they did not explain that at all, but i think its pretty each to catch if you know that they did it that way in real life when they tied the knot! :)
That cavalry scene (probably the Eylau battle) with the emperor charging alongside the dragoons already tells me alot about this movie..Murat and Grouchy lead that charge not Napoleon…you cannot tell Napoleon’s story ignoring the great characters he had alongside-the strategic genius of Davout,the bravery of Ney,the organizational mastermind of Berthier,the loyalty and death of Lannes,Murat leading the most epic cavalry charges ever,Soult,Massena ,the Old Guard…
That is the issue with Napoleon legend.
People don't want to see that France overall, because of the meritocratic revolution, produced most of what is attributed to a single man. People love the idea of the superhero.
Idk if your talking about the first Calvary charge or the 2nd one. If your talking about the first, that definitely isn’t Eylau. Judging by the uniforms and landscape it’s probably somewhere in Italy. Possibly the battle of Marengo. But of course Napoleon never lead a cavalry charge there. The 2nd charge is most definitely Eylau, however I don’t see Napoleon in any of the Eylau scenes charging with the Calvary. But I could be wrong
@@rmsmajesti7341 I didn’t noticed that those were two different scenes..maybe because I was surprised seeing Napoleon leading a cavalry charge and since the movie is so short I assumed it was the Murat charge at Eylau
The best calvary charge was in waterloo film of the Scots guards
traitor not emperor
So in the Battle of Toulon they actually did storm the wall using ladders. It had been intended as a diversionary tactic but wasn't taken seriously by the defenders. When Napoleon breached the wall there was massive resistance which prevented them from capitalizing on the breach. Because so little effort had been made to prevent the troops from climbing the walls, seen as an out dated and impractical tactic, Napoleons troops managed, to their own surprise, clear the top of the wall and force the defenders to pull troops from their defense of the breach. In the end it was the troops scaling the wall that won the day.
yup... of course Hollywood is going to take some liberties with events, they always do. This guy is kind of an ass, just blasting every little detail to make himself sound smart.... but he misses some points, and refers to video games and google searches... not impressed by this clown....
I love historical movies, because if they have it really historically accurate, it's cool, but when they change shit and try to pass it off as the truth, it turns into a comedy.
It comes a circus not gonna lie
Evil agenda
its all historical drama somethings have to be fudged to work.
"try to pass it off as the truth"
Who tries that? 99.99% of people producing historical movies do not in the slightest try to pass them as the truth. And I'm correcting your erroneous take on this, but I'm still disgusted by Netflix and HBO malpractices of blackwashing everything. Although they produce trash, they do not, generally, promote their trash as historically true. There's only a few that does what Cleopatra mockumentary does.
not unless its about the USSR. Then every westerner takes it for truth
The use of muskets and firearms was prevalent during the Napoleonic Wars. Muskets were the primary weapons of infantry, and soldiers were trained to use them efficiently in both ranged and close-quarter combat. However, during assaults, when climbing walls with ladders, it was common for soldiers to temporarily carry their muskets on their backs to free up their hands for climbing and fighting. Muskets and other firearms were typically carried by soldiers on their backs or slung over their shoulders while they climbed the ladders or engaged in close combat. It is very realistic sir.
For the Battle of Austerlitz the way that soldier screams 'it's a trap' gives me beginning of the battle vibes, like Napoleon planned this as his opening move. But this incident in reality happened at the end of the battle, it wasn't some trap but a consequence of the army routing. So I'm convinced that Ridley will muck up even Austerlitz.
yep 100% agree. its as if ridley didnt do any fooking research on the battle itself its so terrible. even the new war and peace series did a better austerlitz
They are not just going to show everything from Napoleon's View. People like you need to put your Historical boners away, and just enjoy the movie.
trust me he will lmao
then don't watch LOL its a damn movie XD
@@c.h.n.j.5302« then don’t watch » 💀💀💀💀
Modern made historical film try not to be horrible challenge (impossible)
It's more like be historicly accurate (impossible)
Not 1 of you have even seen it yet LOL
@@2funny269 you don't need to waste your time to know something is mediocre
@@denishrg9843how do you know you haven’t seen it yet?
@@denishrg9843By your logic every historic movied are mediocres
Just wanna say at 6:13 , while scaling up the wall with ladders was quite suicidal (indeed it was). One time, during the battle of Ratisbon/Regensburg, we have Lannes doing an epic moment of calling for volunteers for a suicidal "scaling of the walls" and that's also where this one memorable quote came from. "All right, gentlemen. I was a grenadier before I was a marshal, and I'm still one!" - He was inspiring everyone since there was no one left volunteering to scale up the walls so he wanted to do it himself. A pretty common occurrence when officers were so inspiring that some would gladly die from them, most of the officers were indeed promoted from the smallest of the ranks so they were able to inspire most of them because they could also do grunt work. Well, back to the battle, Lannes would lead the attack himself and were able to successfully scale the walls. All of that under enemy fire.
Very epic, typical Lannes 🫡
Ahem, another, the main reason why we realistically and logically would want and try to scale the walls would only be for time. We want to force an assault to capture an enemy stronghold. It needed to be done quickly and ASAP because Napoleon and the Grandee Armee would usually be chasing down an enemy force that was trying to run away/maneuver.
Actually Lannes success but he was hold off by his adc or an officer, but he did it on the fourth assault
A forlorn hope?
@@historylegendsSir you are completely wrong when you say he would have introduced himself as “Bonaparte”, not Napoleon. Everyone knows he would have introduced himself as “Mr. Dynamite”. Educate yourself sir.
tbh I'm hoping this movie does well simply because we need more and better historical Epics. unfortunately it feels these days like the entire genre is riding on Ridley Scott, and I'm terrified that it will just cease to exist
Save your money. The movie was terrible.
Another sad part is that it seems we won’t see too many of his Marshals. Davout, Lannes, Ney, Berthier, Soult, MacDonald, Massena, Bernadotte, Murat will likely be cameos (if they will even get featured at all).
A film about Napoleon, without the Battle of Leipzig, but with Waterloo, that must be some English crap.
Where is von Metternich, Alexander I, Francis I, any of their generals or Bernadotte?
Where are the men who actually defeated Napoleon?
Don't worry boys, Spielberg is working on a Napoleon series through HBO! Its going off Kubricks script.
@@geechyguy3441FOR REAL????
@@supacoolh Yes for real
@@geechyguy3441 I just want to do like the Egyptians did with Cleopatra : Napoleon is France and french people history and culture, stop to do craps with this please
If one wants to see a good Napoleon movie, that is in general very historically acurate, then 'Waterloo' is a great choice. Doesn't overextend itself, only focusing on the later stages of the Napoleonic wars, from Napoleon's invasion of Russia to his second exile. Also the final battle is one of the finest in all of cinema. No CGI, just pure fantastic authentic film making. The battle alone is worth watching this movie, so if you want to experience what Waterloo was actually like (which I think Ridley's Napoleon movie may try to show and most likely fail in that endeavour), then watch 'Waterloo'.
They utilized the Red Army to do the battle, taught them Napoleonic tactics, formations and how to use the weaponry. I think they used 70 000 actual soldiers.
A very poor film that papers over its many cracks with the distraction of its great army scenery.
@hamter_mental_counselling i disagree, doesn't look unhinged but calculating, most of his hysterics are around the troops in way of improving moral and his inner dialogues show perfectly his narcissism
@hamter_mental_counselling Ah yes, the famous American director Sergej Bondartsjuk.
@hamter_mental_counsellingSergei Bondarchuk also made another reenacment of Napoleons battle of Borodino in his movie War and Peace, its in even larger scale than Waterloo with a great cinematography
The biggest thing for me is that they chose completely the wrong actor to portray Napoleon. The creepy lethargic Joaquin Phoenix is completely the opposite of the brash, boisterous, and charismatic Napoleon depicted by history.
He also seems too old.
Agree.
Timothy Chalomet was busy doing Wonka, but would have been better. Certainly to depict this younger Bonaparte we see in most of the trailer
You overestimate how "charasmatic" he was . Every woman called him a creep
Yeah I think Jeremy Allen white would’ve done really well, he’s shown he has the charisma and energy of a young napoleon, and he even kind of looks like him
Napoleon was a fucking disappointment. They cucked Napoleon himself, they tried pushing 40 years of history into a 2 hour and 30 minute film, it's disjointed, there are too few battles, and they jump the shark. Especially Waterloo.
The 1970 Steiger Plummer Waterloo is as close to perfect as a historical war movie can be.
YES!!!!! Why people are even discussing this (upcoming) abomination with the classics of Bondarchuk out there for years (maybe that's part of the problem?!?) is a mystery. Steiger vs. Phoenix . . . I mean, Phoenix plays a GREAT psychopath or alcoholic, but NAPOLEON?!?!?
Yes but this movie isn't an historical war movie, it's a drama
@@mrtriffidcome on He played a great commodus ,give him a chance but yeah nothing beats Waterloo❤
great movie
@@ni9274it's literally historic
Yeah my biggest concern after seeing the squares is like you said probably being the Battle of Waterloo. Consequently, this movie is really going to condense history, which is bound for numerous historical errors, rushing & intentional ignorance of key events in Napolean's life, and mis-interpretations for the sake of the plot to move along.
A better idea would have been for Ridley Scott to do more of TV mini-series or a trilogy of some sorts:
1) Start off with his involvement in the French Revolution and then his first major military experience at Toulon that led to him becoming a general with his sights set on becoming more than that. Follow that with his arrival in Italy and end the first movie with him appointing himself as the First Consul for France.
2) Kickoff the 2nd movie with his defeat of the Austrians at the Battle of Marengo to show French opponents fear him like Caeser gaining too much power and then show either the Dagger Plot or Infernal Machine against him to where Napoleon used these assassination plots to solidify himself as Emperor of France and his coronation scene. You would then end the movie with his greatest military achievement of the Battle of Austerlitz then as well as hinting at his future plans to invade Russia.
3) Start the movie off with Napoleon glossing over his advance in Russia to where we kick things off with the burning of Moscow, his loss in the Battle of the Nations, his abdication and exile, his amazing comeback and arrival to where he once again became the ruler of France, his last significant battle at Waterloo, and end with him in St. Helena in exile where his final words are "To die is nothing, But, to live defeated and without is to die every day."
Calm down buster, it's a movie not a documentary.
@@paimonisfood4986 True, but it's a movie people will assume is entirely true about Napoleon and the question is how much of it is going to be accurate because they're going to clearly rush it into one movie.
@@mojojojoslyfoxharrisIt's still a movie and people that are truly interested in Napoleon would learn so much more if they tried.
@@paimonisfood4986 True, you've got to start somewhere to get people intrigued on historical figures and movies are a good way to get younger people to do that.
@@paimonisfood4986ersonally it's not even that I particularly care how accurate a historical film is - it's that the very accurate ones end up being better and more compelling. The politics, intrigue, personalities and strategies of the real world in real history are so much more nuanced and exhilirating than the crap modern Hollywood writers pull out of their asses.
So often the choices they make to streamline the storytelling and "movie-fy" historical events betray their own unsophisticated understanding of not just the events they're depicting, but of the human condition more broadly and the way politics and war actually work. Most modern screenwriters don't even seem capable of actually reflecting the real world in their stories
What I really like to see are historical films that zoom in really close on a historical event and really flesh it out. The movies that span decades and decades are almost always bad IMO. The dialogue heavy scenes that showcase the characters are too short, there's tons of hamfisted exposition, the characters are always changing and often seem to exist only to service some plot point before being shuffled away, there's no time for nuance or any real intrigue... Furthermore it allows them to really gloss over reality with whatever spin they want to put on the historical events.
When the writers fixate on historical accuracy that usually means focusing on a shorter span of time, diving into the details, depicting drawn out interpersonal conflicts, letting the audience get to know specific motivated characters that we can actually keep track of... It just ends up being better. Who these real people were, what they said, how they said it, how they behaved - it's all gonna have more weight and produce more high stakes drama than the contrived phony Hollywood plotlines that we've all seen a million times.
It's possible that it's still a great movie while being ridiculously inaccurate. Like Braveheart.
Ummm . . . not sure how how turning historical figures into cartoon characters can make a move great?!?!?
@@mrtriffid Braveheart was great!
Just don't forget the bridge at a battle called the Battle of Stirling BRIDGE.
You could have both the epic "they will never take our FREEEEDOOOOOM!!!" speech AND the tactic that won the battle.
@@hamzahnurreez8420So William Wallace did not exist?
@@Duke_of_Lorraine Fair enough, but I didn’t mind it all the same. It felt historically accurate, even though it was historical fiction really.
Saw it yesterday. Luxury theatre with beers and pizzas and a sofa sit to enjoy it even more. The romance part with Josephine is the best part of it, the rest is I'm sorry to say utter anti-napoleonic BS. None of the historical scenes are historical, Napoleon was not beaten to a pulp by convention deputies, he was not controlled by his wife and mother, he never charged anybody on horse, he never shot at the pyramids, he was not a weakling full of spite who conquered Europe because of his problems with sex. This movie is the joker wearing Napoleon's uniform, it's a crude and very basic farce on Napoleon -the Monty Pythons or Mel Brooks would have done it better, made by a man who clearly hates the historical character. It will disappear quickly from the mind of people who will go on enjoying Waterloo with Rod Steiger, and another 10 good movies about him. Ridley, you wasted it!
Most common law on the European Continent is based on the Napoleonic code. His influence and impact on Europe was immense. The Anglosphere has spent almost 2 centuries trying to rewrite history to minimise his Greatness.
In Sweden we got one of his marshals as king ; Bernadotte
The Anglosphere works overtime to belittle their own greats, no white man is spared.
@@annikamyren3026 could have been a worse one :)
@@annikamyren3026 we lusitans bamboozled the man
@@helsby1797cry harder about Napoleon
15:35 they even used the wrong flag for Austria and Prussia. The Austrian flag is the current one today, not the one used in 1815, the Prussian flag is missing a crown above the head of the eagle and the eagle should be holding a sword and a scepter in his claws.
I cant believe the sloppyness.
Yes and no for Austria. That flag was in use from 1230-1806. So theoretically it does make sense for it to be there. Waterloo (if that is what is being depicted here) was a handful of years after that yes, however it is likely that remnants from the previous one were still around.
@@kerorogunso961 true, but usually the flag used for Austria back then was the one with the black eagle on a yellow background.
There are will Six Movies:
1) "The Corsican monster has landed in the Bay of Juan."
2) "The cannibal goes to Grasse."
3) "The usurper entered Grenoble."
4) "Bonaparte has occupied Lyon."
5) "Napoleon is approaching Fontainebleau."
6) "His Imperial Majesty is expected today in his faithful Paris."
While it is historically known and accepted that Josephine and Napoleon met during one of Barras' society ball in 1795, I'm pretty certain that the party at 5:43 is not Barras' but a depiction of "Bal des victimes" which were events organized by people who lost family/relatives to the guillotine. Of course, it is incorrect but I think that what Ridley Scott was trying to do.
Mainly for 2 reasons
-she did lose her former husband, "Alexandre", to the guillotine in 1794
-Josephine "dress" and short hair cut is consistent with how people were dressing for these events. This was supposed to mimic the look of people right before their execution.
And Napoleon was in his 20s 30s at that time.
I take good note of your objections but this movie does not look "horrific" at all. Scott and Phoenix are among the best Hollywood can choose for a historical movie.
I think a Napoléon movie should use at least two actors, a young, skinny, skin-diseased one for the first half and a middle age one for later Napoléon.
Also, one movie for all of his life? I thought Hollywood loved to do trilogies for maximum profit (Bilbo should have been one movie). Even 3 hours is not enough for a summary of Napoléon's life.
I'm just happy we're finally getting another historical epic with a huge budget, great director and a very solid cast and what doesn't seem too woke
It is such a sad low bar to have high hopes for a movie to simply "not be woke," but I'm right there with you, man.
Don’t be so sure I’m going to be in this movie
It's interesting to note, just from the trailer, that the main characters or the crowd has zero diversity, but instead the dancing noble people as background character have diversity.
I can't fathom that if they really wanted to push diversity, they would have diversified some of the roles in the main characters instead of pushing diversity in the background characters who only have one shot scenes.
@@TwistedTeaRexI view this as a step in the right direction if this movie is financially successful it could set a good precedent for the rest of Hollywood
Its a historical movie starting a pro-revolutionary dictator that's whom against power hungry monarchs
Its already looks woke to me
I agree I don't recall Napoleon ever leading a cavalry charge, but he was often under fire, most notably at the battle of the bridge at Arcola. I agree about the battle of Austerlitz scene, but at that point in the battle, the Russians were trying to flee across the icy lakes, not attack, as the movie seems to depict. Fun fact: the British general who surrendered to Napoleon at Toulon was General O'Hara, the same general who surrendered at Yorktown in the American Revolution, earning the dubious honor of having surrendered to both Washington and Napoleon.
Yeah but thanks to that. We know his name in history books. So he did get some fame for that at least.😂😂
Yeah I don’t understand the calvary charge. If you wanted it for a poster/trailer moment why not just use Arcole which is just as cool.
Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown.
@@depmodeno Yeah. But he himself not present in the surrendering to george washington. And had his subordinate: brigadier general O'hara to do it.
At first he tried to surrender to the french commander: comte de rochambeau. But he refuse and pointed to washington. Which he also refused. And had washington second in command: general benjamin lincoln to accept O'hara surrender.
@@aetius7139 my apologies
I am just so sick of "historical" movies that are not historical at all. Call it fantasy and keep history out of it.
I am always have a problem these days when Hollywood makes a movie concerning history. They never get it right and insist on inserting modern politics into it.
There are literally no "modern politics" in this whatsoever.
bro this guy is just nitpicking, the movie bearly has a trailer out and hes saying its completely shit, this isnt a documentary some liberties can be taken
@@ik3a141 When you make a movie based on historical people and events, its best not to make things up.
@@loudelk99 Riddley scott made a movie in the 70's set again in napoleonic wars. So i guess he was building up to the trash politically correct movie he has done now to bombard masses with liberal ideology and achieve mind control over the planet
spot on. I've read about the great man, extensively, and this confection for an obviously american audience with low attention span is a travesty
Who thought it was a good idea to make these grand open battle scenes with so many moving parts, and then turn down the color so low you can't see anything?
Yes, this is typical these days - and annoying.
If my memory is still good, Napoléon charged several times on horse at the head of his troops during the campaign of France in 1814. Some historians and witnesses from this time seems to think it was a suicide trial when everything was lost.
He personally led the Imperial Guard in the last attempt to win the battle...
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Napoleon try to lead his Imperial Guard at Waterloo but his staff convinced him otherwise last minute?
Thanks for the shoutout at 12:16 dude i appreciate it.
This shows that older films were better in a way. No CGI, felt real, felt lively.
The color pattern is actually a huge factor too, every war movie has bland and grey colors and are oversaturated asf. Napoleons wars are some of the greatest opportunity for diverse color patterns, every army had unique colored uniforms.
Waterloo 1970
Older films were shot on film so..
@@OFAleague Wellington is beaten. He is bled to death. Now, now move the Old Guard forward. Then on to Brussels!
Okay boomer
I don't know why Ridley depicted Napoleon's troops firing on the pyramids, because the long standing myth is that they shot the nose off the Great Sphinx while using it for target practice.
Scott has a white man's guilt in his historical films. Just how like he portrayed the Templars in KOH he's going to use these Napoleonic urban legends. Other than that I'm still excited for the movie and I hope it turns out better than I would expect it.
I think the pyramid shot was just for fun. I honestly feel that this film is a love letter to Napoleon’s legend. It feels as though Napoleon wrote the script. Anything to make his image better.
A "love letter to Napoleon’s legend" . . . written by the village idiot.
Napoleon would never write such dumb stuff about himself
It seems like they’re trying to make him seem like a maniac, rather than write a love letter to him
@@soro230the pyramids scene in this trailer is literally lifted from Napoleonic propaganda. Him leading the charge at Arcole (also propaganda) probably served as the inspiration for the cavalry charge seen in this trailer. Sounds like you're just not familiar with him. Man was a shrewd propagandist
@@pistolero6468How exactly are YOU familiar with Napoleon? You read history books written by mostly his enemies? That's like reading about Saddam from CNN.
Ridley Scott isn't known for making historicly accurate movies like 1492 conquest of paradise or Gladiator but its definetaly entertaining
His Kingdom of Heaven where Balian surrenders Jerusalem to Sultan Saladin was historically accurate
Same Same
As I already commented on other videos, a British-American movie about French history, especially about Napoleon, I can't see that going well.
And knowing Ridley Scott... it will be a good eye-candy movie, but fail pretty much everwhere else, especially in the theatrical version.
You guys are so negative lol. Just wait till you see it, Gladiator was inaccurate yet amazing.
It's baffling how they (British American) always portray napoleon as a war hungry maniac. When it's the British that started the wars against France because they were afraid of democracy.
@@lucagerulat307 France under Napoleon wasn't a democracy, and he does seem to have been power hungry, he declared himself Emperor and attacked Spain while they were still allied to France. Austria and Russia are as much to blame as the UK.
@@questionmaker5666the British attacked the democracy before Napoleon was in charge. And continued until the Russians defeated him, then they applied the coup de grace.
@@questionmaker5666 the wars started before napoleon crowned himself emperor. Napoleons rise to power was only possible because France was attacked from all sides.
The movie looks impressive, but I am skeptical with Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon. He is a great actor and all, but he doesnt have the charismatic epic energy Napoleon had.
He is also way too old and looks even older than he is
My thoughts too. I also agree with JayzsMr - looks too old.
He is giving off a depressed moody vibe and when I think Napoleon I'm thinking big, bravado, full of energy.
Timothy Chalomet would have nailed it but was doing Wonka
@@anthonygonzalez514 he is too wimpy.
Not to flex, but.....
Josephine had a pug dog named Fortune. When Napoleon and Josephine were in flagrante delicto, the dog would attack Napoleon. He told his friend, the playwright Antoine-Vincent Arnault, that he had scars to prove what he said was true.
Fortune came to a bad end when he picked a fight with a mastiff owned by Napoleon's cook. Napoleon did not discipline his cook.
As you were.
thats a cool little fact, thanks!
"as you were" bruh...
5:15 It doesn't matter to the basic viewer, but he's wearing Colonel's shoulder pads when he never was. At the siege of Toulon he is Captain, at the end of the siege he is directly promoted to Brigadier General.
He was a major, a captain couldn’t have been the commandant of the artillery for an entire French army
My favorite Napoleon movie is the 1970 film "Waterloo" starring Rod Steiger, Christopher Plummber, and Orson Welles(!), directed by the incomparable Sergei Bondarchuk.
"War and peace" by Sergei Bondarchuk is excellent too. Chapter 3 shows epic battle of Moskow river / Borodino.
ua-cam.com/video/rxC9DH-3xNk/v-deo.html
The Duellists is a much better film of the age than Waterloo.
The campaing in Russia should be a Horror movie all by it self. I also wish they show his campaing in Spain.
A question I would ask is 'Why just one film?' Even two films with the first one ending with the coronation and the 2nd covering the Empire and ending at St Helena would be a 'thin account'
Takes a lot of money to make movies.
Some people still don't get that a Film is not a Documentary by the look of things...
Napoleon in his twenties played by grandpa Simpson. So amazing, so brave!
11:11 He did charge the enemy at the battle of Arcole in Italy while trying to rally his troops to cross a bridge the Austrians were holding but he did so on foot. That is the only reference I know of Napoleon charging valiantly and risking his life but that was mainly to inspire his troops as opposed to get into the action.
It was probably something more like how Julius Caesar would, in dire straits, rush out to the front to exhort his men onwards. The trailer makes it look like he made a habit of making suicidal charges on horseback against enemy infantry. Which like you say, he never did.
It wasn't with a horse though, correct? He charged on foot I thought
Napoleon's first battle that pushed the British and Anti-Revolutionary French out of southern France got him bayonetted I believe as he led the assault on a fort overlooking the coast on foot with his men
That’s Ney
@@triplehernan5155 I am only implying it would of been far cooler if the movie actually tried to represent Napoleon's actions in Arcole. He was said to have charged with his forces across the bridge, holding the Republic's flag. That would of been a far more accurate depiction of him and equally if not even more epic because it actually happend.
This movie is coming out. There's nothing we can do.
Ridley Scott is one of my all time favorite directors. He was not making a documentary. He was making a movie, like Gladiator. It's entertainment based on historical events. His attention to detail in uniforms and set and costumes is impeccable. I'll forgive him the poetic license.
Exactly, sone people go way to hard into this historical accuracy
Its a movie to entertain and it's two and a half hours condensed from like 15 yrs
@@lehelminor8045people don't view movies like that most people don't know basic facts about him and won't read up for most people it will be a history lesson.
@@WhoDaresWinso7 well it shouldn't be, it'll still be good
@@lehelminor8045 entertain, entertain, entertain...like stupid consoomers.
Watch the french movie, stop watching hollywood trash. Stop this hollywood washing of everything.
After the shitshow called Prometheus...no thanks. No more Ridley for me.
I went past greenwich naval college a couple of years back on top of a bus and all these people dressed up in french gear were being filmed. It must have been for this.
French invasion 🤣🤣🤣
Seems they miss out the Battle of the Nations / Leipzig. Far more significant one can argue than Waterloo, and a much larger force on both sides. But Waterloo appeals much more to the English speaking audience.
Фильм снимают англосаксонцы это надо учитывать 😅
Some things you missed and I wanted to point out. You may notice my English is flawed (it is my third language), and it is a pretty long rant.
The only accurate part I've seen so far is that his name was Napoleon, that he was French, that Marie Antoinette died, and the uniforms. The only part I think is really worthy of praise are the uniforms. They look gorgeous and actually have been researched. Everything else, meh at best; oof at worst.
The fort seen being captured at night is Fort Mulgrave. This fort did NOT allow the French to fire on the British harbour during the night. The fort Mulgrave was supposed to defend Mont Caire, which led to the actual forts he had to take to fire on the British: Fort L'Eguilette and Fort La Balaquier, which were not taken until noon of the next day, by which time the Allies realised what was going on and fled with the ships. Also, these don't even appear in the movie.
The British squares have a flaw that is close to freaking killing me from disgust. The flags. If you look closely, they should have two flags, but not THOSE two flags. Any regiment of any nation ought to have two standards: the regimental standard, and the royal/imperial/republican standard. The Regimental one is like the two the Brits have, while the royal one would be the flag of the UK, of Austria, France, etc. so the flag of their actual nation. That British square has TWO regimental flags. Those 200 men are actually two regiments combined into one that decided to ditch their most important flag. That's the equivalent of a French battalion choosing their regimental standards over their EAGLE STANDARD. That's BS. (And for anyone wondering, those flags pertain to the 33rd regiment of foot in case of the red one, and the 9th in case of the yellow one).
Also, their portrayal of Austerlitz is horrible, even in the trailer. Anyone should look at a map. The battle is just: Austrorussians advanced against a town, and ALL are trapped in the ice. Again, BS.
The battle happened when Napoleon weakened just his right wing, which was between two frozen ponds. Some 40k Russians and 7k Austrians attacked the villages of Sokolnitz and Telnitz as Legrand, a division commander, held his ground as he received reinforcements from Marshal Davout. The critical part was, the plan for the Coalition was drawn up by monsieur Franz von Weyrother, AN AUSTRIAN. The Allies knew where the fucking ponds were, that was not the trap. The trap was that when the Allies attacked with 47k men out of their 85k, they left just 38k soldiers to face off against 56k out of Napoleon's total of 74k (the rest of the soldiers were engaged near Sokolnitz and Telnitz), allowing Napoleon to destroy the allied center and right before swinging round and surrounding the Allied left, and THAT was when SOME Allied troops, mainly Kienmayer's Austrian Vanguard and Dokhturov's column of Russians tried to flee across the frozen ponds when they were fired upon, end even then, only somewhere from 500 to 1000 Allied troops were killed (some estimates say as few as 300), not the tens of thousands portrayed in the movie, while most troops in the Allied left (Przebyszewsky's Russian column and Langueron's Russian Column) surrendered. The ice part was minimal, just a footnote that was later hyperinflated and publicised by Bonaparte as "thousands upon thousands" having drowned, while very few actually faced that fate, and French troops did help some of the drowning Russians according to some accounts, instead of just firing into a single massed column of panicked soldiers fleeing across a massive ass lake cause they happen to be idiots. This battle does a great job in dumbing down the strategic prowess and genius of a great commander of the likes of Napoleon. And I'm not even biased for him, I am Spanish, my lands were invaded and ravaged by Napoleonic troops.
THAT was what made Napoleon such a fearsome commander. His victories were not as complete as others because he faced actually GOOD generals, unlike some like Alexander that faced opponents that were kind of mid at doing war, Napoleon managed to humiliate and disgrace people that, should they have not been facing Bonaparte in particular, would have been regarded as geniuses or at least good commanders of their own (like Wurmser and Alvinczy in Italy 1796, Melas in Italy 1800, Bennigsen, the Duke of Brunswick, Archduke Charles of Austria, Franz von Werneck, etc., if you read about them and how they fought against Bonaparte and their plans, you will realise they were no idiots, but appear as such due to just HOW OUTMATCHED they were by Napoleon)
Anyways, if you have taken your time to read this rant, thank you very much and God bless you.
Ridley Scott usually makes pretty good historical pieces. I think it might be a mess if he’s trying to jam 12 years of history into 2 hours.
Historians said of one of his films that it was ahistorical pandering to osama bin laden, he doesn't make good historical pieces.😂
Hard disagree. His historical films are awful. He can't stop himself from inserting his boomer opinions into movies. Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven were both painful. No, Ridley, Rome was not a liberal democracy before the Empire. And Kingdom of Heaven was Enlightenment "Christians bad, Saladin so good" nonsense. The only good historical film he made was his very first, The Duelists.
@@jameswitt108 yeah, but what a true historical film entails is Tora Tora Tora. That shit is incredibly long and tedious. As another example, if Das Boot had been made by the original writer, the movie would’ve been 6.5hrs long with dense submarine engineering. They’re period pieces, not regurgitation from textbooks with a few modern liberties taken.
@@jeffw7382 '"Christians bad, Saladin so good" nonsense.''
That's just not what was shown in the movie at all, the main protagonist Balian was a ''good Christian'', King Baldwin was a ''good Christian'', Tiberius and his knights were ''good Christians''.
I thought the movie was going to be at least 3 hours long!
Still more accurate than Ridley Scott’s “Black Hawk Down”. At least he had the correct sides fighting each other in this one.
Nobody wants to see big forehead people on screen 😁
I've read a few books on Napolean - excellent take on the trailer,(thanks) but for me, this is the first time in a long, long time - I'm looking forward to seeing a movie.
Here's an up vote for being right!
Ignoring all the mistakes this movie will make, I feel like this event will be too much for a movie
i think it will be an entertaining movie despite historical inaccuracy. But in order to properly tell napoleons story there should be either multiple movies or a TV series.
Finally someone gets it
@@paimonisfood4986there is a 8 part series
If only he was 20 years younger just like he was in gladiator.
Another red flag is Joaquin is too old to be playing Napoleon. The clip where he's with the young soldiers, it looks like he's with his sons.
I mean the costume design is some of the best I have seen in modern movies. For the rest of the scenes, we will wait for the movie to come out to judge.
History written by the Victor's. Nepolean wasn't the bad guy he's been painted as. Largely he went on the offensive because France was surrounded and being attacked by its enemies.
As a tactician he was OK-to-good; as an operational planner, great. But at strategy he was only fair to middling, and at grand strategy (incld. diplomacy, alliances, and the economy) a disaster. When you make yourself both Emperor and Generalissimo #1 there's nobody else to blame, and you've gotta own the results -- which were the fall and occupation of France after hundreds of thousands of needless deaths in that country alone, and the discrediting of the idea of a Republic for decades. With Washington's example in hand, NB could have spread democracy across Europe, but he could think of nothing better than to make himself an Emperor, and to place his greedy, useless relatives upon their unsteady thrones.
France was attacking everyone else
Yet invading Spain and Russia were strategic blunders which can be blamed exclusively on Old Boney. Of course, nobody's perfect...
That said, perhaps his most enduring legacy was the Napoleonic Code, much of which is still in use today.
He's not a good guy either.
It is estimated that Napoleon's wars caused the death of 7 million people.
Tipping my hat to you for a humorous presentation. I chuckled throughout. As for Napoleon, I've read tons on the man and his era and find it fascinating, but at this point I just couldn't bear to watch a movie about him. My suspicion is that no one in the film industry could ever quite capture his spirit and properly express his supernatural hold upon others.
take a shower
@@specificocean588fr I thought I was a history "🤓🥸" worshipper till I saw this comment 😂..I'm in Love with the Roman empire but not to the point were I don't watch any movies about it cause of inaccuracies
Oh boy, I can already imagine Nick Hodges' response on History Buffs when this movie comes out... and I already watched his reviews of Kingdom of Heaven and 1492: Conquest of Paradise. A historically accurate movie directed by Sir Ridley Scott is a rarity, to say the least (Gladiator, for all its various inaccuracies, is a rare exception that still rocks - even Nick loves that one). Something tells me that watching this movie will only make me go back to watching Waterloo to get a somewhat bitter taste out of my mouth.
One small thing. When you bring me out can you introduce me as Napoleon?
that black napoleon caught me off guard, I loled so hard 😂😂😂
Also one of the things that they failed to depict is napoleon using his field telescope. It's weird since he might be in trouble observing the progress of the battle without one, instead we see him charging on horseback🤦
you are right about everything, but consider how rare it is to get movies like this nowdays, I'm happy we're even getting an epic Napoleon movie
As a frenchman, I just want to compliment your french words pronunciation, great job !
he is canadian so i think its normal
He is from Québec.
@@thomaslacornette1282 oh... I would have never guessed, I thought he came from eastern Europe
@@aderz3619 Quand il dit "Beauharnais" ou "Joséphine", on sent que ce n'est pas une prononciation Anglophone, par exemple.
@@tibsky1396 ou encore dans d'autres vidéos où il cite "Le Monde"
Thanks for this video. A suggestion. It would be fun to see you compare this to Ridley Scott's 1977 "The Duellists" Same director, same period. Maybe not accurate either historically, but fencers have praised the accuracy of the fight scenes.
I absolutely agree. I'll be waiting for this analysis.
The 1970 film "Waterloo" is probably the best Napoleon film I've yet seen.
What did you expect? They’re trying to encapsulate one of the most extraordinary lives in human history within the limits of a single movie…
What's a more extraordinary life?
@@archsys307 Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Muhammad, Alexander the Great although that one's debatable, Khalid ibn al-Waleed, Jesus, Moses, Noah, Hitler, ...
Joker playing dressup is a perfect description. 😂
I have low expectations for this movie. As long as it's entertaining that's enough for me.
What I'm really excited for is the HBO series being developed by Steven Spielberg. It's based on a script by Stanley Kubrick and supposedly Kubrick did a LOT of research when he wrote it. Hopefully that series does Napoleon justice
Steven Spielberg is making a Napoléon show?! Can’t wait! I did say that you definitely need a series to do justice to Napoléons full story.
The host's love of history and the minutae of historical events makes him a champion of entertainment for a certain audience, of which I include myself. The devil is indeed in the details.
Noice
Bruh who cares that it's not accurate. It's a MOVIE. Need to have drama, action and enjoyment. Not a documentary.
Movie is gonna be peak.
This movie is not about a ficanal Charakter
@@ghosts14_2 You think that matters?
@@moisuomiYes.
Napoleon: literally me edition
i pretty much agree with you 100% and I agree that it will be historically inaccurate, but I think we’re all lying to ourselves if we say this movie is gonna be awesome. I’ve seen so many historically inaccurate movies like Troy and Kingdom of heaven that I absolutely loved
Watch the french movie, stop watching hollywood trash. Stop this hollywood washing of everything
Well Troy wasn't real, based off a war they believed happened. But I think the movie will do fine like most historic movies it'll be carried by a niche crowd.
@@SouthParkCows88 yes I agree. when I say historically accurate regarding troy I just mean in regards to the book, not if it truly happened. the war lasted 10 years and in the movie it was like one week, and most people don’t care because it was just an awesome movie. I hope napoleon can be similar
@@Chris-jt4pl I agree! As long as the movie is not so horrifically inaccurate I will enjoy it as well.
i think they have to appeal not only to the history nerds but also the general audience who doesn't know a lot
Feels like Scott just read his wiki page and started writing? Perfect review. I am both angry and worried...
They'll never better the Bondarchuk movie 😎
You're right about that!!!! Forget Scott! See Bondarchuk!
@@mrtriffid Exactly, plus Bondarchuk had the BEST Napoleon: Rod frickin' Steiger.
Tout est juste dans ce que tu dit. Après, Napoléon a passé sa vie à faire lui-même sa propre propagande, transformant la réalité de ses exploits (le fameux tableau de David sur le cheval cabré, alors qu'il a passé le col du Grand Saint-Bernard à dos de mulet ; ou bien encore le Pont d'Arcole où il tombe dans le fossé). Bref d'une certaine manière, en le glorifiant de manière épique, et parfois fausse, Scott lui rend hommage et épouse ses méthodes. Napoléon aurait sans doute aimé cette bande-annonce. La seule chose qui m'énerve est le tir sur la pyramide de Khephren qui le fait passer pour un barbare.
C'est juste une question de grand spectacle, dont le public américain est très friand.
Apres, est ce que ça gâche les superbes tenues, les nombreuses références à la légende napoléonienne, la reproduction des tableaux mythiques dans des séquences du film,... bien sûr que non !
Je suis ravi de pouvoir bientôt regarder un nouveau film sur Napoléon ! Il y en a trop peu par rapport à l'envergure du personnage !
Il avait un sacré melon ; mais si y'a bien un type à qui on ne pourrait pas le reprocher, c'était bien lui.
Napoléon était un barbare. Il aimait la guerre, conquérir, et mettre l'Europe à feu et à sang.
C'est la définition même d'un barbare. Tout comme Jules César et Alexandre était des barbares.
He Fired at The Sphynx...HENSE the Reason It's Nose is Missing....
@@heavyhitter3185 good one mate ^^
Bien sûr que non il n'a pas tiré sur les pyramides, c'était d'ailleurs contraire à son premier but dans cette expédition (la propagande) et il n'aurait eu aucun intérêt à le faire. Surtout que son adversaire, les Mameluks Ottomans, ne se revendiquaient pas d'un héritage Egyptien
Your French pronunciation is perfect, I imagine you speak French fluently.
Otherwise I share the same concerns about the film, especially the personality of Napoleon who seems a cold depressive psycho, while he was very emotional and close to his men.
Good comment.
He has covered French history different times so I think that he also has a fascination for France and her history.
Where is he from?
@@vince5127Canadá
@@vince5127 quebec
I'm a great fan of the channel, specially how you analizes the war in Ukraine. I also like this video, but I'm surprised you conceded the scene of the lake in Austerlitz as historically accurate. As far as I know, modern historiography considers this event as a piece of Napoleon's propaganda and, to say the least, the French greatly exaggerated what happened there
"Napoleon ordered 25 cannons to begin firing at the ice, sending the Russian troops plunging into the freezing waters below (the exact number of Russians who drowned is disputed; Napoleon himself put the number at 2,000, though most modern scholars estimate 200 or less)" Most cannon balls probably bounced off!
what pisses me off the most is the fact that the movie is clearly not shot in France. I work right across the street from the Church of Saint Roch in Paris, where Napoleon dispersed the royalist insurrection with grapeshot. the streets are small, confined, not the big open space of Greenwich University where they shot that scene.
What's most shocking to me is the fact that there are movie shoots in the immediate vicinity of the church almost every week, as the streets are well preserved to their XVIIth century appearance. I just don't get how you could make a movie about a French emperor and not shoot it in France. Heck, they went as far as putting a CGI louvre palace in the guillotine scene, when, you know, the real thing is quite accesible to movie and tv shoots...
Remember: Ridley Scott, Hollywood, huge money . . . where's the room for history?!?!?
@@mrtriffid The words of Alex Haley, author of Roots, "I wanted to give my people a mythos to live by" is the gold standard of Hollywood.
And he was right. It was an absolute travesty to those who knows history.
Scott, like other general release American directors, knows that his audience wants exagerated situations and characters that can be easily understood and digested at video game pacing.
I have not seen enough footage to judge yet. I'm highly anticipating this. I do not see how it could possibly be compressed into a 2 or 3 hour movie though. That just seems impossible to me without some form of trauma being inflicted upon the audience.
He's dead right about the squares at Waterloo. Battalion size so around 500 to 600 men and in a staggered pattern. However, British squares weren't really squares, they were oblongs with two longer sides and two shorter. That whole wild cavalry charge thing too is a mistake that almost all movies make. You'll see groups of infantry in wild straggling charges too when in reality both arms would close with the enemy in close order and in a measured way to deliver the greatest shock.
This era was full of greatly talented figures both on and off the battlefield, Napoleon, Alexander, Arthur Wellesley, and on the political side you had Talleyrand and Metternich employing their various plots and schemes.
No matter what you think of Napoleon or any of the other figures they were each in their own way great men of the time period.
Alexander the great?...thats almost 2,400 years ago...
@@jimbobjimjim6500 alexander the 1st of russia
@@jnes624 how was he talented? all i remember him for is burning his own land, villages, and capital and hiding.
I somehow get the feel that everytime they think of invading Russia, they come up with a movie about Napoleon. I wonder if Hitler watched any of those 😂
Video was cut too abruptly ...
🙂