Stop leaving yourself vulnerable to data breaches. Go to my sponsor aura.com/cynicalhistorian to get a 14-day free trial and see if any of your data has been exposed. Click "read more" for further info, corrections, and bibliography Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: cynical-historian-shop.fourthwall.com Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian *Errata* at 30:54 depicts Marshal André Masséna, not Joseph Bonaparte (thx @mosscow6056 ) *Related videos* Nationalism: ua-cam.com/video/UGXffvDj_E8/v-deo.html Limits of film accuracy: ua-cam.com/video/Ek88jgEsXgA/v-deo.html Britain vs France: ua-cam.com/video/2it5h9e41Xo/v-deo.html *Bibliography* David A. Bell, _Napoleon: A Concise Biography_ (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015). amzn.to/44EYOXs Will Durant and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Napoleon: The Story of Civilization,_ Volume XI (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). amzn.to/2NYVuiv J. Christopher Herold, _Napoleon_ (Rockville, MD: New Word City, 2015). amzn.to/44EYEPQ Andrew Roberts, _Napoleon: A Life_ (New York: Penguin Books, 2015). amzn.to/3t1RV4Z
May be farting into the wind here, but concerning solipsism in the scholarship chapter. Scott may just be tapping into popular sentiment. Unknowing solipsism seems to be increasingly popular, or at least an effective way of bypassing or dismissing evidence.
Correct- everytime I read a Napoleonic history I visualise Rod Steiger, even if it is about his early career. Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace also gives a memorable image of the era together with Waterloo.
@@laurentfranco8075 Yeah that’s the one glaring error the film makes. They wouldn’t even have needed to do much to fix it, just add a scene of Dutch soldiers on the morning of the battle.
@@warlordofbritannia Well, they left quite a bit out...particularly the presence of the Prince of Orange but what they put into the film was largely accurate.
Steiger's last great performance, IMHO. He really captures the idea of the rapidly aging Bonaparte who is starting to lose his grip but still capable of genius.
What's sad about this is that Scott made a fantastic Napoleonic era film his first time out of the gate as a director-"The Duellists" (1977) starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel as two French cavalry officers who carry out a series of duels over a trivial point of honor.
Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is a embarrassing failure. If one must make a hit piece on Napoleon make a film covering the Haitian Revolution to show the monster behind the man.
Napoleon would always regret his Haitian policy. Not because it was cynical and cruel but because it was based on ignorance and nonsense fed to him by his grand blanc in-laws. He would have cynically and cruelly played it so much smarter otherwise.
Or how his taking over Spain led to the revolutions in the entirety of the americas, loosing the 90% of the new world and giving rise to Bolivar (who was at his coronation) and was sponsored by Haiti
This film is so anti Napoleon, you probably could convince me it came from the propaganda department of Pitt the Younger. Napoleon himself probably watched it and then just sat there in silence as Mad World played. *all around me are familar faces... worn out places...* PS, the fact Scott wants to do a 4 hour cut is terribly off putting. Increasing the run time I doubt will make it more coherent, and at 4 hours your running up on Gods and Generals. No human should want a film to be compared to Gods and Generals.
Well, that depends on which aspects are being compared. After all, if Gods and Generals is being used in comparison as how to do "Insert Film Thing Here" wrong, then that's a good thing.
@@nicholaswalsh4462 Don't disagree- but I did read that both Maxwell and Turner toned down the violence of the battle sequences to keep the film rating outside of adult only. Not entirely sure about "grinding futility" If we were talking about 1914-18 war I would say yes. The Civil War? Well there is a debate to be had but not on You Tube.
The issue of recreating paintings as scenes is that those painting are themself inaccurate propaganda. Like the coronation painting shows Napoleon's mother in the coronation, but she never attended the coronation, yet Napoleon ordered his painter to insert her there regardless. In Ridley's movie, she is in the coronation because it tries to recreate the painting and nobody in the production staff knew about it.
Considering that film itself is art, there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to recreate paintings in film. The problem comes, as you said, with the incoherent message and tone.
Its kinda sad that as inaccurate as the cate blanchett Elizabeth movies are, they are at least coherent at telling a story and potentially sparking interest in the time period, like how it got me interested in the Elizabethan age. whereas this movie is just a blundered mess that failed to really interest me whatsoever even as someone who loves history.
@@warlordofbritanniaYeah as far as hitting the plot points it was (always feel weird when giving any movie the stamp of “accurate”). The second one was an acknowledged “what if” story. Anyway it’s important for history nerds to remember that _art_ does not require historical accuracy to be good art. There are not one in the same.
Kate Blanchett's Elizabeth movies weren't historical but at least they are spectacular, they are *fun* to watch. But darn, this guy should've retired gracefully.
Well Cate Blanchett movie " Elizabeth " and its sequel " Elizabeth The Golden Age " which were both fictional in nature was directed by Indian director Shekhar Kapoor . While " Napoleon ( 2023 )" was directed by British director Ridley Scott .
"I dropped out of bootcamp" "You're perfect for drilling actors for a Napoleonic manual of arms, fuck reenactors, those guys have no idea what they're talking about"
So many times in historical films, less is more. One of the all-time greatest films depicting Hitler is the movie Downfall (2004). About 75 percent of the movie takes place inside of Hitler's bunker during the last days of the Third Reich. It focuses on that very small time frame, but it does that extemely well. People still talk about that movie 20 years later.
@@jeffreygao3956 Steiner's forces were not ready for attack at the time. Two of his divisions were in defensive posture and couldn't leave for the attack until relieved or the front would have just collapsed elsewhere. Plus many of his troops were practically unarmed. I suppose Steiner could have picked up all his troops, left half his heavy equipment behind and ran them into Soviet artillery to die but that would have accomplished nothing and just ruptured the front in his previous sector.
I really feel like this should have been a movie about Josephine Bonaparte instead of Napoleon. It feels like that is the actual human story that Ridley Scott and David Scarpa (the writer on this) of the movie were interested in telling. Going from the death of her first husband to the death of her second would make for a nice arc.
But they wanted a name to sell that story on, so they went for Napoleon instead. And in the process tarnished both their story and the chances at a good movie about this time period in the coming years.
This is a long comment about my idea for a 10-season long Napoleon TV Series. Napoleon's story is so big that i believe only a big budget tv series can do him justice. Here's my personal idea. Feel free to criticize me. Season 1: Napoleon's Early Life, including him trying to fend off Paoli, until his victory at Toulon. This will be a good season to introduce the audience about the politics and society of the era, along with how its military works from weapons to organizational structures. Season 2: 13 Vendemiaire, Napoleon's marriage to Josephine and his First Italy Campaign as part of the War of the First Coalition, with the finale be the Battle of Arcole, Battle of Rivoli, and the end of Siege of Mantua. A good season to introduce some of the future Marshals Season 3: Egyptian Campaign, 18 Brumaire Coup, and his Second Italian Campaign which was the War of the Second Coalition, with the finale being Battle of Marengo. Thomas-Alexandre Dumas will definitely be one of the focus here. We can also show Napoleon's view towards religion and how he treated Muslims. We can also have Admiral Nelson here along with Battle of Aboukir Season 4: Napoleon's coronation as the Emperor and the War of Third Coalition. This will include battles such as Ulm and Trafalgar, with the finale being the Battle of Austerlitz. Season 5: War of the Fourth Coalition, with the focus on battles such as Jena-Auerstadt, Eylau, with the finale being the Battle of Friedland. We can have Marshals Davout and Bernadotte as some of the main characters here, the creation of Duchy of Warsaw, and the implementation of the Continental System Season 6: The Early Years of Peninsular War, with Napoleon personally involved there right up until the War of the Fifth Coalition. After this, future season will periodically featuring Spain under the leaderships of his brother, Joseph, along with Marshals like Massena, Suchet, and Jourdan Season 7: War of the Fifth Coalition, with the focus on battles such as Aspern-Essling, Raab, and the finale with the battle of Wagram. We can have dashing personalities such as Marshal Lannes, Prince Eugene, and General Lasalle as episodic main characters here. Also, we can include Napoleon's divorcing of Josephine Season 8: The Invasion of Russia, where we can have Battles like Smolensk and Borodino, the burning of Moscow, with the finale being the Battle of Berezina and Europeans saw the myth of Napoleon being shattered Season 9: War of the Sixth Coalition, in which Napoleon struggled to keep his holdings in Germany, the implementation of Trachenberg plan, and the Battle of Leipzig. The finale will be the Campaign in France and Napoleon's Abdication and exile to Elba. This will be the season with most battles in it, to emphasize on how determined The Sixth Coalition was at finally defeating Napoleon Season 10: Hundred Days, from Napoleon's escape from Elba to the War of the Seventh Coalition. The finale will be the Battle of Waterloo, chaotic Post-Napoleonic France featuring the execution of Marshal Ney and Napoleon's second exile to St. Helena
As long as the portrayal of his marriage doesn't try to make you sympathetic to either Napoleon or Josephine. Together, they were probably history's most toxic couple
My big issue with the film is that nothing has any weight to it. Nothing feels important. I particularly felt this during Napoleon's return from exile. With a small band of followers, Napoleon confronted the royal army sent to arrest or kill him. He stepped forward alone, opened his coat to expose his chest, and declared to the soldiers: "If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am." The soldiers, many of whom had previously served under Napoleon and remained loyal to him, chanted "Vive l'Empereur!" and joined Napoleon in his march to Paris. You'd think a scene where an Emperor returns from exile, faces down an army sent to stop him, and convinces them to join his side would be an incredibly powerful and badass cinematic moment. Instead, it feels like just another thing that happens. You don't feel the weight of the moment-it doesn't feel cinematic, and there's no tension. The scene lacks the gravitas that would convey the stakes involved. This is Napoleon reclaiming his power, an event that could determine the fate of France. Yet, the execution makes it feel like just another event in the plot-another item ticked off the checklist, rather than a pivotal moment. The whole film feels like a bullet-point retelling of the key events of Napoleon's life. Any tension, drama, stakes, and emotion from these real-life events are completely absent from the film
I have an ancestor who served under Napoleon but nevertheless did fight him at Waterloo. Napoleon tried to flee to America even before his army was back from Waterloo
The excising of both Lannes and Murat from the film are absolutely inexcusable for anything claiming to be a biopic. Look, it's absolutely necessary to reduce the historical cast of characters for a movie, no doubt. But it's difficult to infer anything other than ignorance to explain the absence of these two figures (perhaps Lannes more so than Murat). Lannes briefly; served Napoleon since 1796 until his death in battle in 1809 at Asspern-Essling, one of the very few who could address Napoleon with 'Tu' rather than the formal 'vous.' Napoleon visited him daily after his wounds for the 9 days prior to his death, there are a couple of famous paintings of him weeping at his bedside. He wrote to his wife thereafter; "The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend." So if you're doing a biopic, would you say it's historically accurate to cut the subject's BEST FRIEND (he himself says it and ffs tells the man's wife that his own loss is as great!) from the picture? Surely not. Murat's absence is equally baffling for he would seem to be a character perfect for grandiose cinema and his being so integral to Napoleon from the 'whiff of grapeshot' to the coup of 18 Brumaire to their falling out and inglorious end, it's just shocking that he's out.
Thats exactly what i thought. when i watched the scene i was a bit dissapointed. In part because he didnt say "if anyone wants to shoot his emperor, here i am". It reminded me of the death of ceasar in the bbc serie rome *spoiler* where ceasar didnt say "e tu brute?" but the difference is, that scene was intense. It was full of emotions and his death hit pretty hard especially because he had such an amazing actor. that aside he said it with his eyes. *spoiler end* but here, there was no tension. nothing. he stood there like he waited to be in line at the supermarket and delivered his first line and the soldiers just joined him. The viewer never had the feeling if they just straight up shoot him. Of course they wouldnt, but if you make a movie with the thought "they all know the story of napoleon i dont need tension, they know he wont be shot here" then why are you making a napoleon movie in the first place? It will take now what? another 50 years until someone will make another napoleon movie and hopefully wont give josephine as much screen time as she got here. Yes the actress was good and the charakter was important for napoleon. But not that important to glance over everything napoleon was just so we could get another sex scene I felt really dissapointed
Nah, the English love Napoleon - no point in flexing your victory over someone if he isn't the best and baddest ever. The problem is that he was painted in a boring light. The french could have made a movie about Napoleon being a weird little freak down bad for his hot slut wife, and you KNOW that movie would be worth watching.
@@JeffDavies-i8q that is because he wrote a tiny book 'Code Napoléon'. It made the european common folks see him as a liberator not just the next one in a line of oppressors. People forget that at the time when Napoléon conquered so much of Europe, the Code Napoléon was giving them CIVIL RIGHTS while from their native ruling aristocracy they got NO RIGHTS AT ALL. So, just imagine yourself being a serf, yes a serf, most of Europe still had serfdom! and some french invader drops by, kicks over your local despot and grants you civil rights. Now your despot force drafts your male family members to fight AGAINST their new benefactor. Who will you side with? In fact, so many German peasantry and smallfolks appreciated the Code Napoléon so very much, they deserted from their own rulers and volunteered to join the french armée. Napoleon had to found a ton of regiments for non french volunteers, teach them to fight and speak french. Did you ever hear of a thing called Légion Étrangère, the French Foreign Legion? That was how and why it was founded.
There's enough content in Napoleon's invasion of Russia for an entire movie, with room for flashbacks and introspection on what Napoleon to that disaster.
Exactly. A Napoleon's Downfall -kinda film that kicks off as Napoleon crosses into Russia and ends with his return to Poland. Then a sequel that covers the rest of his spiraling career. That would have been the way to go.
Such a shame. Too ambitious to just sum up Napoleon’s entire life story and reign/campaigns in a single movie - even with a directors cut. The budget should’ve gone into a damn TV series.
The trouble with this is the fact, that Napoleon and the Napoleonic era spans over a decade, Napoleon fought and won more battles than Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great combined, there is no way to effectively portray this much history in a feature length film, this is why "Chernobyl" was converted into a miniseries, when it was pitched as a film. In addition, it seemed Ridley Scott was more focused on portraying Napoleon, and by extension France as rival and an enemy to Britain, "Robin Hood" did this to an extent, making the French into this cartoony bad guy, and _only_ this English folk hero could inspire England to fight them on the beaches. Scott lives the life of an aristocrat, it's no wonder he would depict a revolutionary like Napoleon as a villain, I'll bet if Scott made a film about George Washington, he would be more willing to depict his revolutionary actions in a more positive light, after all, Washington did serve in the British Army during his career.
At least they hired actual Scotts to play the Scotts, and English to play the English. Unlike this failure, where the French are played by English - wtf Sir Ridley?? Sometimes you cant tell who TF is actually French.
The real strange thing for me is that the movie seemed like a hitpice on Napoleon from a monarchist angle. Like "he is upjumped", not like true royalty. Who asked for this?
@@C-Farsene_5 He did not have much choice in this. When he tried to make peace with the 3rd coalition they refused to talk with a commoner and demanded monarchy (Meaning Louis XVI) to be reinstated. Napoléon spited them by yes, reinstalling monarchy, but not the Bourbon dynasty.
Well, the director, Sir Ridley Scott Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire, who was born to a poor family in in south Tyneside, might have put some personal issues into the movie. Who else can describe the feelings of someone who feels upjumped than him?
I watched this movie with the History club from my university in a private showing at the theater. It was the best way to watch it. The opening title crawl called Marie Antoinette the "Last Queen of France" and one of our professors yelled at the screen "that's your first mistake!"
@@535phobos The Bourbon Monarchy was restored after Napoleon and lasted until 1830, the last Queen of France was therefore Maria Theresa of Savoy, the Wife of Charles the X. A google search does show Marie Antoinette as the last one soooo.............. I guess google doesn't know everything.
Thank you for this! I felt like the odd one out after watching this film, as I thought it was a horrible mess. Scott's whole "you don't understand My Art" was a big eyeroll too. Dude, tell Napoleon's story, or make something else.
Like, yeah, Sir Ridley, I don't understand how you were able to turn the most dramatic and eventful career of the 19th century into a 3-hour snooze fest that felt like it lasted 110 days and made me want to eat grapeshot. Your artistic prowess is beyond my understanding.
@@HDreamer This too! A movie about Josephine with Napoleon as the abusive husband/antagonist could be great drama, it just wouldn't have the space for big battles.
Have you seen Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon? It’s not a historical story but it’s in very historical context and wonder how accurate. The acting, real period clothing & props, and a special camera lens (with help from NASA) to film in only sun & candle light certainly makes it feel historical.
Barry Lyndon was like watching a moving oil painting- incredible colour use and detail. Modern TV monitors are an ideal medium to watch it on. The old cathode ray tubes never did it justice. I wish it was re released into cinemas to get the full experience.
It was the new Kodak high ASA rate color emulsion coupled with fast lenses that made available light filming possible, accounting for the rich color palette. It was the very first major film use to use the Kodak film To fully appreciate the immense difference on had to grow up in that era where the exterior non-studio films were made....washed out color unless extensive exterior light, reflectors etc were used to bright the scenes....same studio equipment brought out doors and very expensive to use.
I was actually kinda excited to see a Napoleon movie starring Joaquin Phoenix... Then it came out and I heard nothing but negative and never actually got around to seeing why... EDIT: Oh...
I knew it was gonna be a trash going in once I read the interview of Scott saying, in response to on set historians who raised concerns about the film’s accuracy, “well were you there?”
or when he derided anyone who would raise any question about it in that vein as being akin to complaining about the number of buttons on the Prussian officers' uniform. I knew it was going to be trash when I saw months before release that no one was cast to play either Marshals Lannes or Murat. hard pass
If he had said that to me, I would have answered yes. And if he then said "no you weren't". I would have then answered "well how do you know were you there"? 😂
IMO, a historically inacurrate movie isn't inherently bad, like changing history to make cool scenes is fine as long as it's fun and good spirited. The way Ridley Scott responded to criticism about this movie was disgusting, egotistical and disappointing,
Of course it isn’t and it’s surprising how many literate, intelligent people seem so literal minded as to think that. I can only assume they don’t engage with much art. I can’t imagine thinking Shakespeare’s histories are bad because of inaccuracies.
@@loadishstone agreed. Sometimes I want a deep dive into an accurate portrayal of a historical character, other times I just want to see full armored knights fighting each other. Napoleon by Ridley Scott fits neither.
I agree - this movie was bad as a movie, not because of historical inaccuracies. When I left the theater I felt like I watched a student assignment on the life of Napoleon. A very mediocre one at that. No story. Just a reel of highlights strung together to check the boxes. I still don't know what he wanted to achieve with this movie. No story, no drama, no message, no thoughts provoked.
I have loved Napoleon as a subject since I was 8-9 years old, when my parents stuck a cassette tape in on one holiday road trip, which was a kids narrated version of his life. I've been to his tomb in Paris and made my suffering wife take my picture next to it. He was a complicated man, a hero to many and a villain to many more. How such a great director managed to make such a boring film is beyond me. I did like the time given to show his difficulty in communicating at a personal level (I feel he was 100% on the spectrum) but with so many key moments in his life and the history of France, given either so little time or just missing, he seemed more like a caricature rather than a leader of such change. The main issue I have, is with so much money being spent of this film, studios will now shy away from it for a long while.
What baffles me is that Joaquin, as an A-list actor, couldn't grasp and insist to Scott scenes that establish Napoleon's charisma and ability to inspire fierce loyalty with his troops. That alone would've made the movie watchable. Instead, the film just looks good visually and that's about it.
@@alanpennie8013 Na it's exactly that : no Brits = no show in Scott's eyes. Vitoria was not directly Napoleon, I guess that's why it didn't make the cut.
I cannot believe Lannes was cut from the film. I knew from that months before it was released that it was a hard pass from me. If they just quoted his deathbed reproach to Napoleon people would have said 'typical hollywood, making things ridiculous" “It is not to concern you of my wife and children that I talk to you thus. In dying for you, I do not need to commend them to you, your glory makes it your duty to protect them, and in addressing you these final criticisms I do not fear that I shall change your disposition towards them. You have just committed a grave error, one which has deprived you of your best friend, but it will not change you. Your insatiable ambition will finish you. You sacrifice, without need, without attention, without regret, the men who serve you best. Your ingratitude pushes away those very people who admire you; those that are left around you are nothing but fawners. I see not one friend who would dare to tell you the truth. You will be betrayed, you will be abandoned. Hasten to bring this war to an end: it is the wish of your generals, and it is the wish of your people. You will never be more powerful, but you can certainly be more loved! Forgive a dying man these truths, for he cherishes you so…” Eh, who needs him? And again, even *after* the above, Napoleon wrote to Lannes' wife: "The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend." You're making a biopic and you necessarily need to cull from the cast, why the actual fuck would you take this out? What the fuck is wrong with you? And Scott's reaction to anyone who griped about the accuracy as being pedants counting the buttons on Prussian uniforms is just fucking enraging. I lost any respect for him. I'll still cherish Blade Runner but yeah, Scott can go to Hell.
They managed to make one of the most interesting and complex men in history, boring and dull. It was clear Ridley Scott just hated Napoleon and wanted to smear him.
Every time Ridley Scott comes out with a mediocre movie it's extra disappointing because everyone knows he's capable of making masterpieces. It's just that sometime's the pieces don't fit right and the man doesn't seem to be in his groove
yeah i remember being incredibly disappointed coming out of the theater for this movie. Also can’t believe how blatantly hatable Scott made himself trying to defend this piece of crap that he doesn’t seem to care about.
And thanks to this fuster cluck of a movie no one will touch Napoleon for years, im just glad there is a mini series in the making and am hoping it makes up for this travesty on one of history's most important individuals.
Such a waste of money and labour this movie is. Every critic has roundly beat on this dead horse movie though, it is very obviously botched. I viewed it and found it grossly annoying. Terrible casting.
Thank you. I saw this with fanboys who loved it. It left me feeling like i had seen a bunch of paintings. The story with Josephine could have been interesting and new, but no, that would have cut down on scenes of brooding and sweeping battles. So it may not have been terribly accurate historically, but it sure was boring.
If it was supposed to recreate paintings, it should at least been shot in color, not with "medieval filter" (gray/blue tint over desaturated foggy dark scenes).
I would have been 100% fine with a Rome style mini series. Take us through season 1, of Napoleon's rise, with it's finale being his crowning. Season 2 being the Coalition Wars, up to when it starts to go bad, with a season 3 being his defeat, with the finale being the 100 Days and Waterloo. Only one Napoleon film I know of captures the period well, and that's "Waterloo". It captured one battle, one period (the Hundred Days), and hit everything perfectly.
I actually think you can easily make a longer much more popular series because of how interesting Napoleon’s life is. Season 1 could be about his early life with his crazy family, his initial rise as an artillery commander, and his invasions of Italy and Egypt. Season 2 could be him becoming console and talk about all the other turmoil in his life ending with the defeat of the 2nd collation and him crossing the alps. Season 3 could be about Napoleon at his peak at Austrelitz and end with the defeat of the 5th coalition and napoleons 2nd marriage Season 4 could show Napoleon’s flaws and the war of the 6th coalition ending with him in Moscow. Season 5 could be about the defeat of Napoleon and exile at Elba. And the 100 days works best as a movie
I rmemebr the worst thing about it was how hard it was to actually see stuff in the theater. Like all the lack of color made everything middle together. And how much things skipped around and god it was so boring.
“Director makes history movie that’s actually a self-insert of his auteur grievances” is the “English professor writes novel about banging hot student muse” of moviemaking. It’s just all over the place and there’s no stopping it.
I do, Joker and Commodus he kind of has that "mad intensity" which I thought could have translated into "genius workaholic intensity" for Napoleon.......... But the whole movie there's no intensity at all, it's like someone deflated him before every scene.
So we get a movie that blitzes through history at a break neck pace, can’t be bothered to vet itself, spends a good part about his love life and a movie that can’t determine what it wants to focus on.
@@ClannCholmain There's absolutely no way the 4 hour directors cut saves the film. He said most of what was cut involved Joséphine, so your not getting Leipzig or anything like that. Also the writing and even acting are insufficient as is and more running time will not help. Being 4 hours may compound pacing issues too.
30:00 I've already found the scene of Robbespieres' arrest laugheable when I watched the movie in cinema since they try to make it seem as if Robbespiere tried to shot himself mid-convent at the first opportunity, which is of course wrong. I read up on it again and apparently Robbespiere and others were to be arristed since he again announced that unnamed element are to be purged from within the government and - not surprising - people had enough of his paranoid shit. He later managed to escape to the Hotel de Vile with several others and since they were to be send to prison, they were declared outlaws and the national guard later stormed the Hotel during the night. His brother tried to jump out the window (either to escape or to kill himself) but only wounded himself and Robbespiere either tried to shot himself or was shot (probally the former) and then was arrested. So yeah, that whole scene in the movie is more like a satire, a caricature of Robbespieres' actual arrest.
I saw this in theaters with my wife and about halfway through my was like this is really bad and asked if we could leave. So Napoleon is one of two movies I've walked out on, like it's not even fun bad like stuff on MST3K it was just bad
13:16 Napoleon I was not the first to create a self-sufficent subdivision of the army. Temujjin Khan (Genghis Khan) did the same thing with the Tumen system before Napoleon which was also very effective in conventional land warfare. However for both Temujin and Napoleon I the respective Tumen and Corpe systems were very lacking in its viability in Guerilla and Amphibious Warfare. This is displayed in Georgia, Vietnam, Japan, Iberia and Haiti respectively.
It seems even more accurate to say that this was not unique even to these two men, but something that has happened many times throughout history. After all the Roman legion system can be thought of in exactly the same way.
He did not invent it, but he perfected the system put in place by the Revolutionary government of the Frist Republic. What was new about this system was the number of branches (including scouts, artillery, cavalry, infantry, logistics etc) all included into a single corps. The notion had been used before, but never on this scale. (oh by the way the spelling is the corps * system )
Hey Cypher! I loved the video, been waiting for you to make one on Ridley Scott's movie for a bit. I just noticed one detail that may be incorrect. If i'm not mistaken, the image at 30:54 depicts Marshal André Masséna, not Joseph Bonaparte. I'm not sure if I'm in fact missing the reasoning for using that painting instead of one showing Joseph. Just thought I'd point it out in case it needs to be corrected. Love the video, much support from me!!
Ridley Scott could never hope to compete with the greatest cinematic portrayal of Napoleon to ever grace the big screen: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
When I saw this in theaters I felt truly disturbed and appalled at what I was witnessing. I thought I would see the story of the master of Europe. The man who made an entire continent cower in fear. Instead I got a movie where he becomes a cuck, is terrible with women (even though he had more affairs then Marshalls), and his wife telling him he is worthless and is nothing without her. I actually cheered much to the dismay of everyone else in the theater when they finally announced Josephine died. My reasoning was that the movie would get back on track and focus more on Napoleon. That didn't even happen. Instead even the ending shot focused on a picture of Josephine. The movie didn't even mention the Marshalls of the Grand Army! Most of the of the people in the background are just there and we don't know why or who they are supposed to represent. This movie was a Farce!
17:16* after finally becoming interested in the "fine arts" last summer, i've become fascinated with Goya in particular. Seeing how the prolonged brutality of the Penninsular War was, in part responsible for his art taking such a nightmarish turn is very interesting to me. People sometimes incorrectly cite the popular story of the supposedly schizophrenic painting creating increasingly strange cat images as an example of seeing an artist descend into madness. I reject that and instead offer the works of Goya as an actual example of the documentation of declining mental health in the visual arts. It's truly sad to see how his increasing isolation and unprocessed trauma hurt him for so long
@@POPE_FRANC1S I think so. Napoleon in the movie looks a lot like the satirical version the British propaganda of Napoleon. Some stereotypes can linger for generations.
The shooting of cannons at the pyramids strikes me as a compromise between wanting to include the famous myth about Napoleon flowing the sphinx's nose off, and acknowledging that didn't happen, so he substitutes in another Egyptian landmark which wouldn't be so obviously defaced if it were hit by a couple 12-pounders.
Thanks for mentioning the Battle of Nations. I think it's unfortunate that Waterloo gets the lion's share of attention. Leipzig, though just as significant perhaps even more, gets forgotten because Britain was the only nation not present.
Every Ridley Scott film these days are almost a coin flip 50/50: Either its lauded as one of the greatest films of the decade/of all time, or its complete dog water being worse than a college freshmans intro to film final.
Rod Steiger rulz in Waterloo... And the Russian 1967 - 1968 Version of War and Peace is also much, much better than this 200 Million $ Graveyard... Good Grief, from "The last Duel" to this pile of...
Unless you are making "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," you gotta be histroically accurate if you are making a movie about a real historical figure, imo.
Honestly thanks man. I don’t know how I came across this video. But I got a history lesson, it kept me interested until the end. I watch a 44:00 video in a whim, I’m glad I saw this first before the movie that I don’t need to watch. I before details, facts and truth as well. Thanks 🙏
Ngl, the weird s*x scenes with Napoleon and Josephine going at it while fully clothed was just stupid and unnecessary. A great metaphor for the entire movie.
Doesn’t the movie suffer from the same issues as “Alexander” (2004)? They tried to cram in as much as possible of the persons life into one movie and it just ends up being a garbled mess without a compelling plot? IMO, making a series, or at the very least, a mini series, should be the way to go. That way you have much more leeway in building a narrative and exploring said person’s pivotal moments.
The movie was such a waste of time. Phoenix didn't appear to know how to approach the character and the plot focused on highlights without context and the relationship with his wife. It only served to make Napoleon seem like an annoying, insecure, troll who only knew how to fight and nothing else. There's so much more they could've done with the material.
Did everyone else see the modern sprinkler system on the ship near the end? In clear view. At the meeting with Wellington that never took place. Not the biggest problem with this disaster but it demonstrates the laziness of everything.
Seems to me if they had named the film Napoleon and Josephine. Got rid of half the battles - or at least just clips of fighting as a montage of him being away on campaign - and focused purely around the years of the couple's romance. It might have been a decent film (oh and got rid of that horrible stupid grey filter they use in historical movies now)
@@baswar plus you got all of Napoleon’s family drama to add too, his mothers and sisters despised Josephine not viewing her as good enough. One of Napoleon’s sisters even introduced him to and urge him to have an affair and all of them were jealous when Napoleon made Josephine the French empress. Meet the Bonapartes would be a great series
Ridley purchased the rights to "the greatest script ever ridden" and decided not to use it at all. He's been making almost exclusively bad movies for the last decade or so
A pyrrhic triumph of style over substance. I do wonder what Kubrick's Napoleon would have been like. Apparently Scott looked at his research materials but then totally ignored them.
In "a ridley scott film," I only noticed Ridley Scott photography in scenes involving horses. Even without historical context, this film is a boring and cringy mess.
I think the best directors could potentially tell the story of Napoleon's times as General and Emperor very well. Problem is Ridley Scott is far past his prime, and has proven this to still be the case.
Scott's desire to take "Napoleon down a peg" while also clearly not giving a damn about the history was his downfall. "You weren't there, lol roflcopter"
When the Napoleon Age of the Lion manga (also known among fans as Napoleon's bizzare adventure) is more historically accurate despite intentionally being over teh top shounen manga
Stop leaving yourself vulnerable to data breaches. Go to my sponsor aura.com/cynicalhistorian to get a 14-day free trial and see if any of your data has been exposed.
Click "read more" for further info, corrections, and bibliography
Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: cynical-historian-shop.fourthwall.com
Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian
*Errata*
at 30:54 depicts Marshal André Masséna, not Joseph Bonaparte (thx @mosscow6056 )
*Related videos*
Nationalism: ua-cam.com/video/UGXffvDj_E8/v-deo.html
Limits of film accuracy: ua-cam.com/video/Ek88jgEsXgA/v-deo.html
Britain vs France: ua-cam.com/video/2it5h9e41Xo/v-deo.html
*Bibliography*
David A. Bell, _Napoleon: A Concise Biography_ (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015). amzn.to/44EYOXs
Will Durant and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Napoleon: The Story of Civilization,_ Volume XI (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). amzn.to/2NYVuiv
J. Christopher Herold, _Napoleon_ (Rockville, MD: New Word City, 2015). amzn.to/44EYEPQ
Andrew Roberts, _Napoleon: A Life_ (New York: Penguin Books, 2015). amzn.to/3t1RV4Z
May be farting into the wind here, but concerning solipsism in the scholarship chapter. Scott may just be tapping into popular sentiment. Unknowing solipsism seems to be increasingly popular, or at least an effective way of bypassing or dismissing evidence.
The
U know why there ain't Neapolitan now? Cause it's prop-angada.
The life of Napoleon in a single movie? 😡👎
The life of Napoleon in a miniseries with a season for every Coalition War? 😃👍
But series are notorious for underwhelming set design, extras, scope e.t.c
@@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506and movies aren't?
@@konradvonschnitzeldorf6506 Band of Brothers and The Pacific would like to have a word with you.
@@strategicperson95Well not everyone has Spielberg and HBO money!
Have you watched the Christian Clavier miniseries from 2002?
55 years and Waterloo with Rod Strieger is still the gold standard of Napoleons.
Correct- everytime I read a Napoleonic history I visualise Rod Steiger, even if it is about his early career. Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace also gives a memorable image of the era together with Waterloo.
@@laurentfranco8075
Yeah that’s the one glaring error the film makes. They wouldn’t even have needed to do much to fix it, just add a scene of Dutch soldiers on the morning of the battle.
@@JeffDavies-i8q
He really captures Napoleon’s consciously bombastic personality without becoming cartoonish.
@@warlordofbritannia Well, they left quite a bit out...particularly the presence of the Prince of Orange but what they put into the film was largely accurate.
Steiger's last great performance, IMHO. He really captures the idea of the rapidly aging Bonaparte who is starting to lose his grip but still capable of genius.
What's sad about this is that Scott made a fantastic Napoleonic era film his first time out of the gate as a director-"The Duellists" (1977) starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel as two French cavalry officers who carry out a series of duels over a trivial point of honor.
Yes, it's a great movie, and a wonderfully directed one.
@@welcometonebalia The man was great once.
Unfortunately, Scott seems to have lost his touch.
@@youngimperialistmkii
Isn’t he like 85 now?
@@warlordofbritannia He's old, yeah.
Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is a embarrassing failure. If one must make a hit piece on Napoleon make a film covering the Haitian Revolution to show the monster behind the man.
Napoleon would always regret his Haitian policy. Not because it was cynical and cruel but because it was based on ignorance and nonsense fed to him by his grand blanc in-laws. He would have cynically and cruelly played it so much smarter otherwise.
Or how his taking over Spain led to the revolutions in the entirety of the americas, loosing the 90% of the new world and giving rise to Bolivar (who was at his coronation) and was sponsored by Haiti
@@johnpoole3871it's true, he also had a letter written congratulating Toussaint on his révolution.
It doesn't excuse it tho
@@johnpoole3871
In other words, he regretted it because it was a huge failure 😂
This film is so anti Napoleon, you probably could convince me it came from the propaganda department of Pitt the Younger. Napoleon himself probably watched it and then just sat there in silence as Mad World played.
*all around me are familar faces... worn out places...*
PS, the fact Scott wants to do a 4 hour cut is terribly off putting. Increasing the run time I doubt will make it more coherent, and at 4 hours your running up on Gods and Generals. No human should want a film to be compared to Gods and Generals.
Well, that depends on which aspects are being compared. After all, if Gods and Generals is being used in comparison as how to do "Insert Film Thing Here" wrong, then that's a good thing.
Gettysburg is also 4 hours, and while not a masterpiece, it is a much better film than Gods and Generals.
Okay but the battle sequences in G&G were good enough- a little light on numbers engaged (like Gettysburg) but still a good impression.
@@JeffDavies-i8q not really. You don't get a sense of horror of those battlefields or the grinding futility of civil war combat.
@@nicholaswalsh4462 Don't disagree- but I did read that both Maxwell and Turner toned down the violence of the battle sequences to keep the film rating outside of adult only. Not entirely sure about "grinding futility" If we were talking about 1914-18 war I would say yes. The Civil War? Well there is a debate to be had but not on You Tube.
The issue of recreating paintings as scenes is that those painting are themself inaccurate propaganda. Like the coronation painting shows Napoleon's mother in the coronation, but she never attended the coronation, yet Napoleon ordered his painter to insert her there regardless. In Ridley's movie, she is in the coronation because it tries to recreate the painting and nobody in the production staff knew about it.
He’s using Bonapartist propaganda which clashes with the literal text of an anti-Napoleon script. Just an another way this film is so incoherent.
Good art doesn’t require accuracy in history y’all. But the second comment is right that the irony undoes itself.
Considering that film itself is art, there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to recreate paintings in film. The problem comes, as you said, with the incoherent message and tone.
@@Zarastro54
Agreed.
You can't criticise a film for preferring art to accuracy.
The entire movie was merely a series of recreating famous paintings. Unimaginative and uncreative, borderline plagiarism.
Its kinda sad that as inaccurate as the cate blanchett Elizabeth movies are, they are at least coherent at telling a story and potentially sparking interest in the time period, like how it got me interested in the Elizabethan age. whereas this movie is just a blundered mess that failed to really interest me whatsoever even as someone who loves history.
If memory serves, the first one was rather accurate, if compressed. Could be wrong on that, and I never saw the second.
@@warlordofbritanniaYeah as far as hitting the plot points it was (always feel weird when giving any movie the stamp of “accurate”). The second one was an acknowledged “what if” story.
Anyway it’s important for history nerds to remember that _art_ does not require historical accuracy to be good art. There are not one in the same.
Kate Blanchett's Elizabeth movies weren't historical but at least they are spectacular, they are *fun* to watch.
But darn, this guy should've retired gracefully.
Well Cate Blanchett movie " Elizabeth " and its sequel " Elizabeth The Golden Age " which were both fictional in nature was directed by Indian director Shekhar Kapoor . While " Napoleon ( 2023 )" was directed by British director Ridley Scott .
Vet:Well I served in an airfoce unit that was mainly...
Ridley Scott:Say no more you're obviously perfect for my biopic about Sargon of Akkad.
The annoying snob British UA-camr?
"I dropped out of bootcamp"
"You're perfect for drilling actors for a Napoleonic manual of arms, fuck reenactors, those guys have no idea what they're talking about"
So many times in historical films, less is more. One of the all-time greatest films depicting Hitler is the movie Downfall (2004). About 75 percent of the movie takes place inside of Hitler's bunker during the last days of the Third Reich. It focuses on that very small time frame, but it does that extemely well. People still talk about that movie 20 years later.
I just watched that movie a week ago and it's really great 👍
So...WAS Hitler right to rant about Steiner's insubordination? Or is it just him losing his grip on reality?
@@jeffreygao3956 Steiner's forces were not ready for attack at the time. Two of his divisions were in defensive posture and couldn't leave for the attack until relieved or the front would have just collapsed elsewhere. Plus many of his troops were practically unarmed.
I suppose Steiner could have picked up all his troops, left half his heavy equipment behind and ran them into Soviet artillery to die but that would have accomplished nothing and just ruptured the front in his previous sector.
@@kallemort Then Hitler was going mad. Enough that he was going to recklessly throw his men’s lives away.
I really feel like this should have been a movie about Josephine Bonaparte instead of Napoleon. It feels like that is the actual human story that Ridley Scott and David Scarpa (the writer on this) of the movie were interested in telling.
Going from the death of her first husband to the death of her second would make for a nice arc.
I pay to see that movie. It would have an actual focus
This movie had a writer?
But they wanted a name to sell that story on, so they went for Napoleon instead. And in the process tarnished both their story and the chances at a good movie about this time period in the coming years.
That sounds like a movie worth watching.
Napoleon looks like the Penguin. not enough people are saying this
Okay Batman you figured it out!
Empoleon the pokemon
Female penguin
Indeed, and Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor but he was way too old for the part
An emperor penguin?
24 year old Bonaparte at Toulon played by Phoenix is hilariously bad alone, they just gave him a wig and said who cares.
This is a long comment about my idea for a 10-season long Napoleon TV Series.
Napoleon's story is so big that i believe only a big budget tv series can do him justice. Here's my personal idea. Feel free to criticize me.
Season 1: Napoleon's Early Life, including him trying to fend off Paoli, until his victory at Toulon. This will be a good season to introduce the audience about the politics and society of the era, along with how its military works from weapons to organizational structures.
Season 2: 13 Vendemiaire, Napoleon's marriage to Josephine and his First Italy Campaign as part of the War of the First Coalition, with the finale be the Battle of Arcole, Battle of Rivoli, and the end of Siege of Mantua. A good season to introduce some of the future Marshals
Season 3: Egyptian Campaign, 18 Brumaire Coup, and his Second Italian Campaign which was the War of the Second Coalition, with the finale being Battle of Marengo. Thomas-Alexandre Dumas will definitely be one of the focus here. We can also show Napoleon's view towards religion and how he treated Muslims. We can also have Admiral Nelson here along with Battle of Aboukir
Season 4: Napoleon's coronation as the Emperor and the War of Third Coalition. This will include battles such as Ulm and Trafalgar, with the finale being the Battle of Austerlitz.
Season 5: War of the Fourth Coalition, with the focus on battles such as Jena-Auerstadt, Eylau, with the finale being the Battle of Friedland. We can have Marshals Davout and Bernadotte as some of the main characters here, the creation of Duchy of Warsaw, and the implementation of the Continental System
Season 6: The Early Years of Peninsular War, with Napoleon personally involved there right up until the War of the Fifth Coalition. After this, future season will periodically featuring Spain under the leaderships of his brother, Joseph, along with Marshals like Massena, Suchet, and Jourdan
Season 7: War of the Fifth Coalition, with the focus on battles such as Aspern-Essling, Raab, and the finale with the battle of Wagram. We can have dashing personalities such as Marshal Lannes, Prince Eugene, and General Lasalle as episodic main characters here. Also, we can include Napoleon's divorcing of Josephine
Season 8: The Invasion of Russia, where we can have Battles like Smolensk and Borodino, the burning of Moscow, with the finale being the Battle of Berezina and Europeans saw the myth of Napoleon being shattered
Season 9: War of the Sixth Coalition, in which Napoleon struggled to keep his holdings in Germany, the implementation of Trachenberg plan, and the Battle of Leipzig. The finale will be the Campaign in France and Napoleon's Abdication and exile to Elba. This will be the season with most battles in it, to emphasize on how determined The Sixth Coalition was at finally defeating Napoleon
Season 10: Hundred Days, from Napoleon's escape from Elba to the War of the Seventh Coalition. The finale will be the Battle of Waterloo, chaotic Post-Napoleonic France featuring the execution of Marshal Ney and Napoleon's second exile to St. Helena
I'd totally watch that!
No in Season 3 is where Napoleon meets Bill and Ted
@@stellviahohenheim Well that just goes without saying.
As long as the portrayal of his marriage doesn't try to make you sympathetic to either Napoleon or Josephine. Together, they were probably history's most toxic couple
@@Zcp105 no embellishment on that part. don't worry
My big issue with the film is that nothing has any weight to it. Nothing feels important. I particularly felt this during Napoleon's return from exile. With a small band of followers, Napoleon confronted the royal army sent to arrest or kill him. He stepped forward alone, opened his coat to expose his chest, and declared to the soldiers: "If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am." The soldiers, many of whom had previously served under Napoleon and remained loyal to him, chanted "Vive l'Empereur!" and joined Napoleon in his march to Paris.
You'd think a scene where an Emperor returns from exile, faces down an army sent to stop him, and convinces them to join his side would be an incredibly powerful and badass cinematic moment. Instead, it feels like just another thing that happens. You don't feel the weight of the moment-it doesn't feel cinematic, and there's no tension. The scene lacks the gravitas that would convey the stakes involved. This is Napoleon reclaiming his power, an event that could determine the fate of France. Yet, the execution makes it feel like just another event in the plot-another item ticked off the checklist, rather than a pivotal moment. The whole film feels like a bullet-point retelling of the key events of Napoleon's life. Any tension, drama, stakes, and emotion from these real-life events are completely absent from the film
I have an ancestor who served under Napoleon but nevertheless did fight him at Waterloo. Napoleon tried to flee to America even before his army was back from Waterloo
The excising of both Lannes and Murat from the film are absolutely inexcusable for anything claiming to be a biopic.
Look, it's absolutely necessary to reduce the historical cast of characters for a movie, no doubt. But it's difficult to infer anything other than ignorance to explain the absence of these two figures (perhaps Lannes more so than Murat).
Lannes briefly; served Napoleon since 1796 until his death in battle in 1809 at Asspern-Essling, one of the very few who could address Napoleon with 'Tu' rather than the formal 'vous.' Napoleon visited him daily after his wounds for the 9 days prior to his death, there are a couple of famous paintings of him weeping at his bedside. He wrote to his wife thereafter;
"The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend."
So if you're doing a biopic, would you say it's historically accurate to cut the subject's BEST FRIEND (he himself says it and ffs tells the man's wife that his own loss is as great!) from the picture? Surely not.
Murat's absence is equally baffling for he would seem to be a character perfect for grandiose cinema and his being so integral to Napoleon from the 'whiff of grapeshot' to the coup of 18 Brumaire to their falling out and inglorious end, it's just shocking that he's out.
Agreed.... I have watched biographical Docu-dramas on TV that were more emotionally compelling
Thats exactly what i thought.
when i watched the scene i was a bit dissapointed. In part because he didnt say "if anyone wants to shoot his emperor, here i am". It reminded me of the death of ceasar in the bbc serie rome
*spoiler*
where ceasar didnt say "e tu brute?" but the difference is, that scene was intense. It was full of emotions and his death hit pretty hard especially because he had such an amazing actor. that aside he said it with his eyes.
*spoiler end*
but here, there was no tension. nothing. he stood there like he waited to be in line at the supermarket and delivered his first line and the soldiers just joined him. The viewer never had the feeling if they just straight up shoot him. Of course they wouldnt, but if you make a movie with the thought "they all know the story of napoleon i dont need tension, they know he wont be shot here" then why are you making a napoleon movie in the first place? It will take now what? another 50 years until someone will make another napoleon movie and hopefully wont give josephine as much screen time as she got here. Yes the actress was good and the charakter was important for napoleon. But not that important to glance over everything napoleon was just so we could get another sex scene
I felt really dissapointed
Something the movie Waterloo did really well
Ridley Scott is a victim of his own success, and Napoleon really shows it. He made some fantastic films in the 70s and 80s, and it went to his head.
Wrong, the movie was spot on!!
@@capoislamort100 Lol, in what way? The Battle of Waterloo scene has about 200 blokes in it, fighting over an area the size a of a school playground.
Ridley Scott IS Napoleon!!??
@@domitiusseverus1
Old Napoleon, if such a thing is conceivable.
@@biggiouschinnus7489 It was spot on as far as Napoleon’s true character; a military genius who also happened to be a weak, insecure individual.
British aristocrat directs a movie that paints Napoleon in a bad light? Who would have known. 😂😂😂
Okay- but Napoleon attracts much more admiration from British/ English historians and wargamers than Wellington/Kutuzov/Blucher.
@@JeffDavies-i8qthat's a good point. Also, lots of interest from common folk.
Nah, the English love Napoleon - no point in flexing your victory over someone if he isn't the best and baddest ever. The problem is that he was painted in a boring light. The french could have made a movie about Napoleon being a weird little freak down bad for his hot slut wife, and you KNOW that movie would be worth watching.
@@JeffDavies-i8q that is because he wrote a tiny book 'Code Napoléon'. It made the european common folks see him as a liberator not just the next one in a line of oppressors. People forget that at the time when Napoléon conquered so much of Europe, the Code Napoléon was giving them CIVIL RIGHTS while from their native ruling aristocracy they got NO RIGHTS AT ALL. So, just imagine yourself being a serf, yes a serf, most of Europe still had serfdom! and some french invader drops by, kicks over your local despot and grants you civil rights. Now your despot force drafts your male family members to fight AGAINST their new benefactor. Who will you side with?
In fact, so many German peasantry and smallfolks appreciated the Code Napoléon so very much, they deserted from their own rulers and volunteered to join the french armée. Napoleon had to found a ton of regiments for non french volunteers, teach them to fight and speak french. Did you ever hear of a thing called Légion Étrangère, the French Foreign Legion? That was how and why it was founded.
Lol, Ridley Scott is the exact opposite of an aristocrat, he's a working class Northerner who did well for himself.
Christopher plumber was the best duke of Wellington in waterloo.
There's enough content in Napoleon's invasion of Russia for an entire movie, with room for flashbacks and introspection on what Napoleon to that disaster.
And that's why Bondarchuk's War and Peace exists.
The guy came pretty close to recapturing the romance of Napoleon's own life.
Exactly. A Napoleon's Downfall -kinda film that kicks off as Napoleon crosses into Russia and ends with his return to Poland. Then a sequel that covers the rest of his spiraling career. That would have been the way to go.
@@Oxtocoatl13
Title,
From The Sublime to The Ridiculous.
Quite true.
The use of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony “Eroica” in the background is an excellent move. Well played, sir.
Beethoven did not like the self-crowned emporer, was dissapointed by the guy.
Kinda sad since Scott also did a story during the Napoleonic wars called the Duelists which was great.
Yes, a classic. He also directed Blade Runner.
Such a shame. Too ambitious to just sum up Napoleon’s entire life story and reign/campaigns in a single movie - even with a directors cut. The budget should’ve gone into a damn TV series.
So what you're saying is Oversimplified made the better and more entertaining Napoleon feature
"I'm average height for the time, you jerk!"
The trouble with this is the fact, that Napoleon and the Napoleonic era spans over a decade, Napoleon fought and won more battles than Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great combined, there is no way to effectively portray this much history in a feature length film, this is why "Chernobyl" was converted into a miniseries, when it was pitched as a film. In addition, it seemed Ridley Scott was more focused on portraying Napoleon, and by extension France as rival and an enemy to Britain, "Robin Hood" did this to an extent, making the French into this cartoony bad guy, and _only_ this English folk hero could inspire England to fight them on the beaches. Scott lives the life of an aristocrat, it's no wonder he would depict a revolutionary like Napoleon as a villain, I'll bet if Scott made a film about George Washington, he would be more willing to depict his revolutionary actions in a more positive light, after all, Washington did serve in the British Army during his career.
At least Braveheart Used myths and bad history to make a genuinely entertaining film, this was a complete failure on every level.
Braveheart=bullshit.
A stupid movie with excellent battles.
@@alanpennie8013 Which film Braveheart or Napoleon? I thought both films were just about Mickey Mouse level irrespective of the action sequences.
Not even just a bad movie in the historical sense, its just a bad film altogether.
At least they hired actual Scotts to play the Scotts, and English to play the English. Unlike this failure, where the French are played by English - wtf Sir Ridley?? Sometimes you cant tell who TF is actually French.
The real strange thing for me is that the movie seemed like a hitpice on Napoleon from a monarchist angle. Like "he is upjumped", not like true royalty. Who asked for this?
Yeah, that's part of what you get when a Brit who is in the OBE to direct a Napoleon movie
scott was monarchistmaxxing
@@Liberater4589 ironic considering Napoleon became an emperor instead of a republican leader
@@C-Farsene_5 He did not have much choice in this. When he tried to make peace with the 3rd coalition they refused to talk with a commoner and demanded monarchy (Meaning Louis XVI) to be reinstated. Napoléon spited them by yes, reinstalling monarchy, but not the Bourbon dynasty.
Well, the director, Sir Ridley Scott Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire, who was born to a poor family in in south Tyneside, might have put some personal issues into the movie. Who else can describe the feelings of someone who feels upjumped than him?
I watched this movie with the History club from my university in a private showing at the theater. It was the best way to watch it. The opening title crawl called Marie Antoinette the "Last Queen of France" and one of our professors yelled at the screen "that's your first mistake!"
So, who was the last Queen of France? I assume Louis XVII was married as well?
@@535phobos The Bourbon Monarchy was restored after Napoleon and lasted until 1830, the last Queen of France was therefore Maria Theresa of Savoy, the Wife of Charles the X. A google search does show Marie Antoinette as the last one soooo.............. I guess google doesn't know everything.
@@535phobos Maria Amalia, princess of Naples and Sicily, the wife of Louis Philippe.
Thank you for this! I felt like the odd one out after watching this film, as I thought it was a horrible mess. Scott's whole "you don't understand My Art" was a big eyeroll too. Dude, tell Napoleon's story, or make something else.
Like, yeah, Sir Ridley, I don't understand how you were able to turn the most dramatic and eventful career of the 19th century into a 3-hour snooze fest that felt like it lasted 110 days and made me want to eat grapeshot. Your artistic prowess is beyond my understanding.
Or, if you want to make it about the relationship with Josephine, the focus on that properly.
@@HDreamer This too! A movie about Josephine with Napoleon as the abusive husband/antagonist could be great drama, it just wouldn't have the space for big battles.
@@HDreamer exactly!
@@Oxtocoatl13perfectly put! I had to force myself to stay awake.
At 30:56 that is actually a portrait of Marshal André Masséna! It is just shown on Joseph Bonaparte's Wikipedia page. :)
I was just about to call that out myself lol
@@SILVERBOLT1985 Yea I was like hey wait a second- 😂😂
Have you seen Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon? It’s not a historical story but it’s in very historical context and wonder how accurate. The acting, real period clothing & props, and a special camera lens (with help from NASA) to film in only sun & candle light certainly makes it feel historical.
Barry Lyndon was like watching a moving oil painting- incredible colour use and detail. Modern TV monitors are an ideal medium to watch it on. The old cathode ray tubes never did it justice. I wish it was re released into cinemas to get the full experience.
@@JeffDavies-i8q I’ve never watched a high definition version! Just my double DVD plastic box set on my old boob tube.
Ridley Scott wishes he had the same talent as Stanley Kubrick.
@@cisco3111 so true. Scott gets a high mark on Bladerunner & Alien but Kubrick only doesn’t get high marks on Eyes wide shut. S
It was the new Kodak high ASA rate color emulsion coupled with fast lenses that made available light filming possible, accounting for the rich color palette. It was the very first major film use to use the Kodak film
To fully appreciate the immense difference on had to grow up in that era where the exterior non-studio films were made....washed out color unless extensive exterior light, reflectors etc were used to bright the scenes....same studio equipment brought out doors and very expensive to use.
I was actually kinda excited to see a Napoleon movie starring Joaquin Phoenix...
Then it came out and I heard nothing but negative and never actually got around to seeing why...
EDIT: Oh...
I knew it was gonna be a trash going in once I read the interview of Scott saying, in response to on set historians who raised concerns about the film’s accuracy, “well were you there?”
or when he derided anyone who would raise any question about it in that vein as being akin to complaining about the number of buttons on the Prussian officers' uniform.
I knew it was going to be trash when I saw months before release that no one was cast to play either Marshals Lannes or Murat.
hard pass
If he had said that to me, I would have answered yes. And if he then said "no you weren't". I would have then answered "well how do you know were you there"? 😂
You could say Ridley Scott had Blownaparte his legacy.
Eh, that’s a bit exaggerative. This is more like ending his career with a Waterloo than a Jena-Auerstadt.
Ha ha! I like puns.
10/10
But wait, says sir Ridley, he's a got a card up his sleeve... Gladiator 2!! Starring... oh crap, nevermind! nothing to see here folks.
IMO, a historically inacurrate movie isn't inherently bad, like changing history to make cool scenes is fine as long as it's fun and good spirited. The way Ridley Scott responded to criticism about this movie was disgusting, egotistical and disappointing,
Of course it isn’t and it’s surprising how many literate, intelligent people seem so literal minded as to think that. I can only assume they don’t engage with much art. I can’t imagine thinking Shakespeare’s histories are bad because of inaccuracies.
@@loadishstone agreed. Sometimes I want a deep dive into an accurate portrayal of a historical character, other times I just want to see full armored knights fighting each other. Napoleon by Ridley Scott fits neither.
I agree - this movie was bad as a movie, not because of historical inaccuracies. When I left the theater I felt like I watched a student assignment on the life of Napoleon. A very mediocre one at that. No story. Just a reel of highlights strung together to check the boxes. I still don't know what he wanted to achieve with this movie. No story, no drama, no message, no thoughts provoked.
Quite true.
When Ridley Scott makes a movie, the gods flip a coin
I have loved Napoleon as a subject since I was 8-9 years old, when my parents stuck a cassette tape in on one holiday road trip, which was a kids narrated version of his life. I've been to his tomb in Paris and made my suffering wife take my picture next to it. He was a complicated man, a hero to many and a villain to many more. How such a great director managed to make such a boring film is beyond me. I did like the time given to show his difficulty in communicating at a personal level (I feel he was 100% on the spectrum) but with so many key moments in his life and the history of France, given either so little time or just missing, he seemed more like a caricature rather than a leader of such change. The main issue I have, is with so much money being spent of this film, studios will now shy away from it for a long while.
Always a win for using Sharpse Rifles footage
Now that's soldiering.
What baffles me is that Joaquin, as an A-list actor, couldn't grasp and insist to Scott scenes that establish Napoleon's charisma and ability to inspire fierce loyalty with his troops. That alone would've made the movie watchable. Instead, the film just looks good visually and that's about it.
Small mistake at 19:50. Battle of Borodino happened after the takeover of Smolensk.
Shut up
Nice touch to play Beethoven's Eroica in the background
The Battle of Leipzig and the whole 1813 and 1814 campaigns are often skipped which infuriates me.
It's odd.
I was gonna say it's down to an absence of Brits, but The Battle of Vitoria was famous at the time through now forgotten.
@@alanpennie8013 Na it's exactly that : no Brits = no show in Scott's eyes. Vitoria was not directly Napoleon, I guess that's why it didn't make the cut.
@@Cancoillotteman
Good point.
Who cares about Joseph I?
Napoleon's lifetime needs a 5 season series at 20 episodes each and even then some stuff would be ommited.
I cannot believe Lannes was cut from the film. I knew from that months before it was released that it was a hard pass from me.
If they just quoted his deathbed reproach to Napoleon people would have said 'typical hollywood, making things ridiculous"
“It is not to concern you of my wife and children that I talk to you thus. In dying for you, I do not need to commend them to you, your glory makes it your duty to protect them, and in addressing you these final criticisms I do not fear that I shall change your disposition towards them. You have just committed a grave error, one which has deprived you of your best friend, but it will not change you. Your insatiable ambition will finish you. You sacrifice, without need, without attention, without regret, the men who serve you best. Your ingratitude pushes away those very people who admire you; those that are left around you are nothing but fawners. I see not one friend who would dare to tell you the truth. You will be betrayed, you will be abandoned. Hasten to bring this war to an end: it is the wish of your generals, and it is the wish of your people. You will never be more powerful, but you can certainly be more loved! Forgive a dying man these truths, for he cherishes you so…”
Eh, who needs him?
And again, even *after* the above, Napoleon wrote to Lannes' wife:
"The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend."
You're making a biopic and you necessarily need to cull from the cast, why the actual fuck would you take this out? What the fuck is wrong with you? And Scott's reaction to anyone who griped about the accuracy as being pedants counting the buttons on Prussian uniforms is just fucking enraging. I lost any respect for him. I'll still cherish Blade Runner but yeah, Scott can go to Hell.
They managed to make one of the most interesting and complex men in history, boring and dull.
It was clear Ridley Scott just hated Napoleon and wanted to smear him.
Every time Ridley Scott comes out with a mediocre movie it's extra disappointing because everyone knows he's capable of making masterpieces. It's just that sometime's the pieces don't fit right and the man doesn't seem to be in his groove
yeah i remember being incredibly disappointed coming out of the theater for this movie. Also can’t believe how blatantly hatable Scott made himself trying to defend this piece of crap that he doesn’t seem to care about.
And thanks to this fuster cluck of a movie no one will touch Napoleon for years, im just glad there is a mini series in the making and am hoping it makes up for this travesty on one of history's most important individuals.
They wouldn't let me make my Napoleon the Werewolf Slayer Movie
Sorry about that- it certainly would have been more entertaining and a rival to Lincoln the Vampire Slayer (absurd but funny)
Such a waste of money and labour this movie is. Every critic has roundly beat on this dead horse movie though, it is very obviously botched. I viewed it and found it grossly annoying. Terrible casting.
Thank you. I saw this with fanboys who loved it. It left me feeling like i had seen a bunch of paintings. The story with Josephine could have been interesting and new, but no, that would have cut down on scenes of brooding and sweeping battles. So it may not have been terribly accurate historically, but it sure was boring.
That's the problem. It was just plain boring.
If it was supposed to recreate paintings, it should at least been shot in color, not with "medieval filter" (gray/blue tint over desaturated foggy dark scenes).
I would have been 100% fine with a Rome style mini series. Take us through season 1, of Napoleon's rise, with it's finale being his crowning. Season 2 being the Coalition Wars, up to when it starts to go bad, with a season 3 being his defeat, with the finale being the 100 Days and Waterloo.
Only one Napoleon film I know of captures the period well, and that's "Waterloo".
It captured one battle, one period (the Hundred Days), and hit everything perfectly.
I actually think you can easily make a longer much more popular series because of how interesting Napoleon’s life is.
Season 1 could be about his early life with his crazy family, his initial rise as an artillery commander, and his invasions of Italy and Egypt.
Season 2 could be him becoming console and talk about all the other turmoil in his life ending with the defeat of the 2nd collation and him crossing the alps.
Season 3 could be about Napoleon at his peak at Austrelitz and end with the defeat of the 5th coalition and napoleons 2nd marriage
Season 4 could show Napoleon’s flaws and the war of the 6th coalition ending with him in Moscow.
Season 5 could be about the defeat of Napoleon and exile at Elba.
And the 100 days works best as a movie
This already exists. There was a fairly accurate 2004 miniseries on Napoleon.
I rmemebr the worst thing about it was how hard it was to actually see stuff in the theater. Like all the lack of color made everything middle together. And how much things skipped around and god it was so boring.
“Director makes history movie that’s actually a self-insert of his auteur grievances” is the “English professor writes novel about banging hot student muse” of moviemaking. It’s just all over the place and there’s no stopping it.
i don't understand the casting of Joaquin phoenix for napoleon
Commodus
Indeed, he is a good actor but entirely wrong for this role and way too old
Yeah Peter Dinklage is better suited for the role
I do, Joker and Commodus he kind of has that "mad intensity" which I thought could have translated into "genius workaholic intensity" for Napoleon.......... But the whole movie there's no intensity at all, it's like someone deflated him before every scene.
They picked him purely to draw audiences, but honestly the direction /writing for his character was bad all around. Nothing much to work with.
So we get a movie that blitzes through history at a break neck pace, can’t be bothered to vet itself, spends a good part about his love life and a movie that can’t determine what it wants to focus on.
He’ll do what he always does, he’ll say wait for the director’s cut.
Like "Kingdom of Heaven" which actually worked better as a directors cut but still Micky Mouse history.
@@ClannCholmain There's absolutely no way the 4 hour directors cut saves the film. He said most of what was cut involved Joséphine, so your not getting Leipzig or anything like that. Also the writing and even acting are insufficient as is and more running time will not help. Being 4 hours may compound pacing issues too.
Snyder pulls the same card.
@@JohanKylander Snyder was always a hack. Scott was great once.
Unless he shot an entirely different film I don't think a director's cut will save this.
30:00 I've already found the scene of Robbespieres' arrest laugheable when I watched the movie in cinema since they try to make it seem as if Robbespiere tried to shot himself mid-convent at the first opportunity, which is of course wrong. I read up on it again and apparently Robbespiere and others were to be arristed since he again announced that unnamed element are to be purged from within the government and - not surprising - people had enough of his paranoid shit.
He later managed to escape to the Hotel de Vile with several others and since they were to be send to prison, they were declared outlaws and the national guard later stormed the Hotel during the night. His brother tried to jump out the window (either to escape or to kill himself) but only wounded himself and Robbespiere either tried to shot himself or was shot (probally the former) and then was arrested.
So yeah, that whole scene in the movie is more like a satire, a caricature of Robbespieres' actual arrest.
26:48 oh my god, Ridley Scott used the creationist argument: "How would you know this, were you there?"
Which is moronic since Napoleon is one of most written about person in history,both in his lifetime and in memoirs written years after
~8:07 I'm pretty sure the pronunciation of Acre is botched so regularly that pronouncing it incorrectly is just how it has to be done.
FINALLY SOMEONE SHOWS HORNBLOWER such an underrated tv mini series !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The brits seem the best w/ these series of history... just like Sharpe ... ok this one is quite fantasy and romance too but still cool :)
I saw this in theaters with my wife and about halfway through my was like this is really bad and asked if we could leave. So Napoleon is one of two movies I've walked out on, like it's not even fun bad like stuff on MST3K it was just bad
I genuinely considered walking out....... I managed to stick it through, but it really was dross.
Napoleon should be a multiple seasons version of Shogun
13:16 Napoleon I was not the first to create a self-sufficent subdivision of the army. Temujjin Khan (Genghis Khan) did the same thing with the Tumen system before Napoleon which was also very effective in conventional land warfare. However for both Temujin and Napoleon I the respective Tumen and Corpe systems were very lacking in its viability in Guerilla and Amphibious Warfare. This is displayed in Georgia, Vietnam, Japan, Iberia and Haiti respectively.
He also wasn’t the originator of the idea in France, though he did take it further and with greater success than the previous reformers.
It seems even more accurate to say that this was not unique even to these two men, but something that has happened many times throughout history. After all the Roman legion system can be thought of in exactly the same way.
He did not invent it, but he perfected the system put in place by the Revolutionary government of the Frist Republic.
What was new about this system was the number of branches (including scouts, artillery, cavalry, infantry, logistics etc) all included into a single corps. The notion had been used before, but never on this scale.
(oh by the way the spelling is the corps * system )
Hey Cypher! I loved the video, been waiting for you to make one on Ridley Scott's movie for a bit.
I just noticed one detail that may be incorrect. If i'm not mistaken, the image at 30:54 depicts Marshal André Masséna, not Joseph Bonaparte. I'm not sure if I'm in fact missing the reasoning for using that painting instead of one showing Joseph. Just thought I'd point it out in case it needs to be corrected. Love the video, much support from me!!
You're correct. I'll mark it down in errata. Thank you
Only if we could’ve gotten Kubricks version :(
Ridley Scott could never hope to compete with the greatest cinematic portrayal of Napoleon to ever grace the big screen: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
When I saw this in theaters I felt truly disturbed and appalled at what I was witnessing. I thought I would see the story of the master of Europe. The man who made an entire continent cower in fear. Instead I got a movie where he becomes a cuck, is terrible with women (even though he had more affairs then Marshalls), and his wife telling him he is worthless and is nothing without her. I actually cheered much to the dismay of everyone else in the theater when they finally announced Josephine died. My reasoning was that the movie would get back on track and focus more on Napoleon. That didn't even happen. Instead even the ending shot focused on a picture of Josephine. The movie didn't even mention the Marshalls of the Grand Army! Most of the of the people in the background are just there and we don't know why or who they are supposed to represent. This movie was a Farce!
LMAO you spoke so long about N's history, when you got back to the movie connection, I had completely forgot that was the whole point of the video. 🤣👍
Having the Eroica Symphony to back this vid is a nice touch
17:16* after finally becoming interested in the "fine arts" last summer, i've become fascinated with Goya in particular.
Seeing how the prolonged brutality of the Penninsular War was, in part responsible for his art taking such a nightmarish turn is very interesting to me.
People sometimes incorrectly cite the popular story of the supposedly schizophrenic painting creating increasingly strange cat images as an example of seeing an artist descend into madness. I reject that and instead offer the works of Goya as an actual example of the documentation of declining mental health in the visual arts.
It's truly sad to see how his increasing isolation and unprocessed trauma hurt him for so long
Obligatory "There´s nothing we can do".
3:49 i wouldn’t say that they spoke italian (like we know it today) in corsica.
Never hire an Englishman to make a movie about the French.
That's not the problem
@@POPE_FRANC1S I think so. Napoleon in the movie looks a lot like the satirical version the British propaganda of Napoleon. Some stereotypes can linger for generations.
And Austrians, Italians, Russians, Prussians, Bavarians,.......
@@spiritualanarchist8162 in the 2016 war and peace bbc series napoleon was portrayed as very intelligent
The shooting of cannons at the pyramids strikes me as a compromise between wanting to include the famous myth about Napoleon flowing the sphinx's nose off, and acknowledging that didn't happen, so he substitutes in another Egyptian landmark which wouldn't be so obviously defaced if it were hit by a couple 12-pounders.
Lol you got the 3rd symphony going in the intro you know your stuff
Thanks for mentioning the Battle of Nations. I think it's unfortunate that Waterloo gets the lion's share of attention. Leipzig, though just as significant perhaps even more, gets forgotten because Britain was the only nation not present.
When I saw the Napoleon movie, it made me nostalgic for the week prior when I said I was going to see the Napoleon movie.
Every Ridley Scott film these days are almost a coin flip 50/50: Either its lauded as one of the greatest films of the decade/of all time, or its complete dog water being worse than a college freshmans intro to film final.
When was Scots last great movie?
Every time Scott makes a movie, the gods flip a coin...
40:44 that is such an AVGN line. i love it.
Love the use of Sharpe clips, takes me back to watching reruns of them in my early teens on itv.
Rod Steiger rulz in Waterloo... And the Russian 1967 - 1968 Version of War and Peace is also much, much better than this 200 Million $ Graveyard... Good Grief, from "The last Duel" to this pile of...
Unless you are making "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter," you gotta be histroically accurate if you are making a movie about a real historical figure, imo.
It took me a minute of watching this video to realise i actually went to the movie theater and watched this film. I forgot
This needed to be a full length mini-series.. Felt way too rushed.
You won't be saying that when the 50 hours long director's cut comes out in 2029!
(I hope I'm wrong. But let's meet back in 5 years and see)
@@timtheskeptic1147 Deal! I'll meet you back here in 5 years :D
Honestly thanks man. I don’t know how I came across this video. But I got a history lesson, it kept me interested until the end. I watch a 44:00 video in a whim, I’m glad I saw this first before the movie that I don’t need to watch. I before details, facts and truth as well.
Thanks
🙏
Ngl, the weird s*x scenes with Napoleon and Josephine going at it while fully clothed was just stupid and unnecessary. A great metaphor for the entire movie.
Doesn’t the movie suffer from the same issues as “Alexander” (2004)? They tried to cram in as much as possible of the persons life into one movie and it just ends up being a garbled mess without a compelling plot? IMO, making a series, or at the very least, a mini series, should be the way to go. That way you have much more leeway in building a narrative and exploring said person’s pivotal moments.
The movie was such a waste of time. Phoenix didn't appear to know how to approach the character and the plot focused on highlights without context and the relationship with his wife. It only served to make Napoleon seem like an annoying, insecure, troll who only knew how to fight and nothing else. There's so much more they could've done with the material.
No guys the new thing/scam is wait for directors cut. .basically making you pay twice.
Did everyone else see the modern sprinkler system on the ship near the end? In clear view. At the meeting with Wellington that never took place. Not the biggest problem with this disaster but it demonstrates the laziness of everything.
Seems to me if they had named the film Napoleon and Josephine. Got rid of half the battles - or at least just clips of fighting as a montage of him being away on campaign - and focused purely around the years of the couple's romance. It might have been a decent film (oh and got rid of that horrible stupid grey filter they use in historical movies now)
Yeah it would be a quintessential toxic relationship
@@sccdddf1595 exactly!
@@baswar plus you got all of Napoleon’s family drama to add too, his mothers and sisters despised Josephine not viewing her as good enough.
One of Napoleon’s sisters even introduced him to and urge him to have an affair and all of them were jealous when Napoleon made Josephine the French empress.
Meet the Bonapartes would be a great series
I hated the movie so much when watching it. My friend somehow didn’t see anything wrong with him (he has no historical knowledge)
I thought this was gonna be a movie about the game
Ridley purchased the rights to "the greatest script ever ridden" and decided not to use it at all. He's been making almost exclusively bad movies for the last decade or so
A pyrrhic triumph of style over substance. I do wonder what Kubrick's Napoleon would have been like. Apparently Scott looked at his research materials but then totally ignored them.
Man they could ve made this a series of movies from cradle to grave so to speak. Sick of hollywood shitting on historical facts.
In "a ridley scott film," I only noticed Ridley Scott photography in scenes involving horses. Even without historical context, this film is a boring and cringy mess.
I think the best directors could potentially tell the story of Napoleon's times as General and Emperor very well. Problem is Ridley Scott is far past his prime, and has proven this to still be the case.
I think Ridley Scott just didn't care about this movie lol
@@totalwar1793he was way too interested in an Oscar than telling a story. Thankfully, the Academy ignored him last year.
Scott's desire to take "Napoleon down a peg" while also clearly not giving a damn about the history was his downfall. "You weren't there, lol roflcopter"
I don’t think you could, actually. Not without restricting the scope like Lincoln, at least.
When the Napoleon Age of the Lion manga (also known among fans as Napoleon's bizzare adventure) is more historically accurate despite intentionally being over teh top shounen manga
I thought this was going to be a video essay about how Napoleon the man historically wasted money
I didn't like the Last duel because he tried to tell a multi-viewpoint film like Rashomon, but all 3 stories were the same