they are scared of the real napoleon {film review}
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- Full Reading List: www.kaalraam.c...
My Community {Only 20 left}: www.kaalraam.c...
My Courses: www.kaalraam.c...
Instagram: / kaalraam.yt
Further Study:
1. Epic History TV's Napoleonic Wars playlist (UA-cam)
2. Napoleon: A Life, Andrew Roberts
3. Movie Recommendation: Waterloo
![Method Writing: The First Four Concepts - Jack Grapes [FULL INTERVIEW]](/img/n.gif)
Reading List: www.kaalraam.com/pages/reading-list
Instagram: instagram.com/kaalraam.yt/
Further Study:
1. Epic History TV's Napoleonic Wars playlist (UA-cam)
2. Napoleon: A Life, Andrew Roberts (book)
3. Movie Recommendation: Waterloo
The 1814 campaign alone could be a movie of its own and it’s completely erased from history in this movie. Napoleon fighting for every inch of France as the allies close in on Paris, outnumbered, fighting two armies at once with an army of recruits, sighting the cannons himself, finally unencumbered by a large army and able to move at lighting speed like the old days in Italy, defeating the enemy in detail and inflicting 20,000 casualties in 6 days, being just a few hours too late to stop the surrender of Paris. Contrast this with Louis XVIII fleeing Paris just because this man was marching toward it, you can see why the soldiers chose him in the end.
Yes yes make that movie!!
In the novel Seven Men of Gascony there is a mention of the 1814 campaign where the French are moving swiftly and ‘bouncing’ enemy columns.Ultimately futile but Napoleon was on his best form.
The 1814 events are always looked over. That was a true show of napoleon’s genius with his only limit being his lack of numbers
Napoleon was an anomaly that occurred in a time period where a man of action should not have existed. Yet, he appeared and left everyone speechless. Napoleon's approach to strategy even led the Prussians to rethink their entire education system to indoctrinate the people, to command in the same manner as he did.
This anomaly is timeless, and Nietzsche speaks of him as embodying the master morality, a place for no unnecessary thoughts, just raw, pure, calculated action and rule.
Although I would argue that the same ego which facilitated his rise also led to his downfall, eventually causing his final decisions to not stem from a place of rationality.
There were others. Hitler, Julius, Octavian (Augustus), Alexander, and many more
haha my comment was just removed because i dared to say something neutral about the austrian painter rather than something ravenously condemning.
Prussians had germanic drill in their sick minds,
it prompted them to go deeper into own insanity... this was partially origin of Nazis, more so than Nietzschean philosophy
eastern Germans being most aggressive savage germanic element, originally selected and moven to east to forcefully convert Slavs plus the converted Slavs for centuries disproving own roots with deep complexes like every insane neophyte on fundamentally foreign land
@@screwstatists7324both Alexander and Napoleon were made by education
Napoleon was reading all latin law books of boredom 😂
that's showing his grandeur itself
very rare thing
another rare thing is to put all this knowledge into work and action
What where his final decisions? I know little about him and have yet to see the movie which doesn't sound good from the comments.
the reason the movie focused on the woman is because of the hollywood diversity rules
Grow up. The movie sucks because Ridley turned Leon into one of you
More like shoving feminism.
@@falconeshield What the hell are you talking about? What did you smoke?
OMG, whiney threatened white men. As a white man, not much is more embarrassing.
Mostly agreed, until you took up the whiney male victim narrative. I guess it goes with the camo jacket.
Of the endless reviews about this Movie on youtube, you have nailed what is wrong with it. Truly could have have been amazing , and Ridley Scotts masterpiece. Instead he chose to turn it into Hollywood mush.
Rumors say Spielberg is working on a 10-episode miniseries on Napoleon. Let's gooo. 🙌
Very good review. Instead of focusing on the mystical aura of the man they made him look like a simp. Makes you even wonder if it wasnt done on purpose
Super interesting listening to you speak passionately about Napoleon, would love to see more history content from you! Possibly could go into depth about what made these men so great and how we can take inspiration from them and improve our lives.
I detail about Napoléon opening fire on his own people. In the movie, they were unarmed. In reality, they were a armed mob and they killed soldiers. Napoleon wasn’t an old wooden person, but a force of nature, with a.magnetic personality. People would die for him, not for the Ridley Scott version. Sadly, Ridley Scott just wants to bring him down. The British hate him and it shows, because he kicked their ass.
The movie was pretty bad in my opinion. It relies on the same old lies such as Napoleon’s height when he went to view the mummy. Also it focused too much on his wife, it doesn’t show the love they have between each other and he’s basically portrayed as a cuck. Napoleon’s voice was monotone and the movie in general was boring.
Usually a movie takes historical liberties to make it more entertaining, this movie does the opposite, on purpose.
Ridley Scott said that the condensed 2hr 30 min version had cut a lot of Josephine scenes.
So don’t expect the 4 hr version to be any better. This is not once upon a time in America (even if it seems Ridley Scott took inspiration from it)
Awesome review. Kaal. Spot on. Makes one wonder if Mr. Scott leaned on Wikipedia for this script instead of consulting David Chandler's great histories or the Memoirs of Napoleon and his Marshalls? What a blown opportunity for a fantastic film concept. Unfortunately we see more garbage from Hollywood than ever.
The movie seems like a purposeful character assassination. I think Ridley Scott must really dislike the French and men!
Your focus on historical and ancient ways really appeals to me. Your the best
Excellent review...top notch! and i'm a French history Buff, studying Napoleon since decades....You perfectly summarized the " Napoleon" 's equation, hihh expectations and charisma.
More than a modern man, Napoleon was a mix with Antique heroe or ruler and a man of the Revolution ( Equality for the people according to the merit )...Napleon redefoned Europe..and all the continental Royalties and State aparatus had to reform themselves, in order to survive, after the Napoleon era...
PS: in my opinion, the movie that embodies the more the carachter and charisma of the the Emperor Napoleon and the huge scales of the battles is " Waterloo", Serguey Bondartchouk...in connection with your comments, the movie have fantastic scenes with Napoleon's Marshall who were as ruthless and ambitious than Bonaparte , and Napoleon...
Probably the best review of Napoleon I’ve seen
Excellent summary and review.
This movie was woke af
Love Pax Tube's doc on Napoleon. Great review!
Thanks for the recommendation, ill check it out
They should have gone with Stanley Kuberk's script. Then made it to about 25 years ago when Joaquin Phoenix was in his middle 20s.
I want to see the napoleon film from the silent era. Super ambitious & several hours long but seems to capture the triumphant spirit of the great man.
As a donkey that is trying to become the greatest version of himself I really appreciate the message your spreading for free it is really helping us donkeys.
THE LIKE IS ALSO FOR THE WARHAMMER 40000 MECHANICUS SOUNDTRACK
To be fair, Ridley said this movie was about Napoleon seen through the prism of his relationship with Josephine--so He should have named it Josephine! Not Napoleon
Anyway, love ur analysis!
Love the Mechanicus soundtrack in the background!
great and objective review mate
I like the mechanicus music at the start :D
this dude sounds exactly like that guy that talks behind your back, but he makes sense. never have i been having flashbacks getting triggered and yet be agreeing with every word.
Awesome to hear the mechanicus OST :D
100% agree with this whole analysis - they did the great man wrong! Feel bad for the French 😢
After seeing this movie, I’m grateful that RS is unlikely to consider making a movie about Nelson and Trafalgar. If he wanted to make a ‘re-imagined’ view of Napoleon then he shouldn’t have marketed it as a historical epic. It was as historically accurate and had as much historical truth as Game of Thrones but it never claimed to be reality. This movie is on a par with the reimagined Cleopatra on Netflix.
GREAT review 👍
Watch KGF 1 and 2. More Testosterone boost and Napoleon like vibe than the entire of Hollywood Today.
I don't think he'll watch it even if he does it too much for any American. Their movies aren't like anime.
He has seen RRR so I think he might see it
Are you sure this is not a Quentin Tarantino version ?
Don't remember Napoleon leading a Calvary charge at Waterloo or ever meeting Wellington .
His death was even more unhistorical and straight out of the Godfather 3 ! LOL
I bet most of us watched *EPIC-HISTORY-TV* napoleon series.
@kaalraam am I allowed to watch movies during the hard reset? I don’t watch movies alone. I ONLY watch them sometimes with my family at Christmas or sth similar. Or when my friends invite me to the cinema. And I almost NEVER play video games, only for like half an hour a month with a friend. Is that allowed during the hard reset protocol?
no
@@kaalraam thank you for your answer, I won't watch movies during that period, but I just wander how you made that video then.
Napoleon wasnt even considered as a true french when he was a nobody .
They just had 2 jobs: make it a trilogy and cut the Josephine scenes to 10% that would have already been epic despite whatever inaccuracies or mess ups they would do
Couldn’t find the 300 movie review.. can someone send me a link?
Its not out yet bro
Eagerly anticipating it!
This was the drunk history version of Napoleon.
What books do you recommend on Napolean?
The Andrew Robert’s Napoleon:A Life is 👍
they didn't mention Walewska, polish mistress of his
changes the story completely 😂
could you make more videos on philosophy, history, these sorts of videos are really good and nice to listen to.
Every society had people who were defined by the culture they grew up in, and later on became embodiments of that culture itself. Like Washington for America, Ashoka for India, Napoleon for France, Bismarck for Germany, but in the case of Mongolia, it seems Genghis Khan defined mongolian culture isntead of it being the other way around
tbh with sir Ridley Scott's approach and replies to criticism of historic inaccuracies "The French don't even like themselves." and "Excuse me, mate, were you there?” and his "artistic liberty" of portraying Napoleon as some weirdo, he could've just made a historic trash comedy. The scene of Napoleon firing in the pyramids was especially dumb and felt like it's something definitely NOT suitable for a film that pretends to be "biographical"
Any recommendations on a Napoleon biography I should read? I don't want to be caught in a situation like with Bismarck, where all of the biographies are attacks, subversion, or slander against the man that are poorly made (this is the issue with this Napoleon movie and most of the readily available Bismarck biographies)
still Bismarck was a dangerous devil
embodying the worst in germanic soul
when reading about him good to remember the polish point of view too
@@szymonbaranowski8184 Thank you for your opinion.
I am so glad to hear you regurgitate the mainstream (false) viewpoint.
What would I ever do without you?
/sarc
Is there any recommendations for a good Bismarck biography? I'd like to look for something that isn't reliant on Polish Gamma males false opinions.
@@szymonbaranowski8184 Bismarck was a great man
The history lessons in this are unfortunately missing very important complexities, however in general I agree with Kaal's sentiment and won't be watching the movie in the cinema as a result
Spot on.
Cometh the hour cometh the man
So it's a 2 & 1/2 hour long sex romp, punctuated by lots of explosions. I can't imagine why people hate it.
Great video, thank you completely agree. Colossal waste of a movie why even spend 200 million dollars if you’re not gonna objectively explore the complexities. Not a single scene showed him in good light
They're trying to change history through these types of movies/shows because I know for a fact that majority of people adopt these false depictions
I agree, a man who's only asperation is 😺 cannot overcome the world
Based review. L Napoleon movie. W real Napoleon
You explained so well what I didn't like about this movie. I expected a good movie but it wasn't it. I also couldn't connect to the character at all.
There is a 4 hour cut of the movie that have more battles and facts about his life
They don't talk about Napoleon's Italian campaign. Lol😂
Right! The young brilliant Napoleon arc is completely missing
It was a good movie. The actor was good but it had an impossible task to begin with trying to tackle a story that can't be told in 6 hours much less 2. I really wanted more context with the coalition wars 1-5. I knew the French were going to hate this movie. But the French hate on everything that is not from France.
Terrible movie. Scott assasinated his character, didn't capture the true essance of a man who was driven by more, far far more, than childish mommy issues and sex. Actually that had nothing to do with mam who burst onto the fields of Europe like a burning star and bestrode the world like a colossus. Nothing in this movie shows how he inspired men to follow him with a sincere devotion. He fought against seven coalitions comprised of all the major powers of Europe arrayed against him, and he only ever declared war twice. The battles have nothing of the scale that was required, the tactical and strategic decisions made. Compare the battles in this movie to Waterloo (1970). What a disappointment. Decent scene work and shots, which is the bare minimum I expect from a good director. Terrible work with the gray tint.
Straight facts
Give "AnimaL" movie review, and share your thoughts on that brother🤝
bro you are awsome
pls read The Assassination of Julius Caesar michael parenti
6:35 🤣
I liked walk the line but other than that cannot stand Joaquin phoenix
Your views are skewed and extremely flawed.
No one great man shapes history: Napoleon was not only a genius, but also a product of the social and physical infrastructures of his time.
He grew up in a functional state (not his doing), went to military school (not his doing), took advantage of social unrest (not his doing), mustered forces of an existing system (not his doing), took power from power from an already centralized system (not his doing), brilliantly used technologies made available to him (not his discoveries), marched with demographics that allowed for it (not his children).
No man can invent, build, and steer a ship. It takes all three. Yet the weaker ones of us focus exclusively on the man at the wheel.
Although the battles were inaccurate beyond belief can we at least admit they looked pretty cool? I too am sad for this flop of a movie but at least enjoyed a few minutes of it.
They were ok. Seen better in a Vikings episode ~. At least they don't use a stupid filter and aren't incoherent.
I watched this movie in theaters and when it was finished I said “This movie fucking sucked” louder than I thought and got a few laughs and even some agreement
If you know about Napoleon you’d agree
Why does your room look empty? Are you going to shift?
Joaquin phoenix is not ugly
300 …is a child’s fantasy…what is wrong with you
jesus christ get the movie industry out of those floury hands
this mans life was like straight outta fantasy novel
you don't even need a good script to make a good movie about this mans life
and yet riddely scott somehow managed to make a worst film about napoleon ever
it's worse than worst becasue this film is nothing more than anti napoleon + historical revisionism propaganda film
Produced by Les Anglaise. What did you expect?
This whole movie seems like a political hit piece from the 1700s.
Although I do agree with you up to the 5:30 minute mark your summation of the battles are TOTALLY wrong, the depiction of these battles in this movie were pathetic, historically inaccurate to a level I cannot begin to explain. They were re-created by modern men who clearly have ZERO understanding of the historical battles themselves, how they were fought, the tactics, and just about anything else. You might need to re-think the exclamation that you liked them and they were cool. I could feel a bit of vomit rise to my mouth when you said that. I have studied the period for well over 43 years now and you clearly have not.
I said they look cool, not that they were accurate. Calm your tits.
Ridley Scott’s movies are like Ubisoft games.
They have a high budget but a considerably low development time resulting in a rushed product.
Ridley Scott has said in interviews that he usually won’t do more than 2 takes for battle scenes. This is how he is able to make 2 “blockbuster” movies a year
Josephine cheated on Napoleon. He ranted about it when he was in Egypt, after getting a dear John letter. He may have been a conqueror, but he was awkward and a fool when it came to the ladies
Total let down. Battles scenes were great.
They were not
the depiction of the battle scenes sucked
Disappointed. Hope the ban it in France ~😡
Can we get a video on how to quit sleeeping on tummy
roll over the other side bud....
Sleep with a neck pillow
U can't be serious
Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar.----NY Times
Lol are they trying to dunk on trump?
One of the greatest figures of history and one of the most influential persons of all time. Not only he but also the people that surrounded him like Ney, Murat, Davout, and many others (I recommend EpicHistoryTv's series on Napoleons marshalls). He and the great people of his time are some of the best role models of history, portraying discipline, courage, and intelligence.
Excellent comment! 100% agree!❤
Skipped Italy. Skipped Leipzig. Skipped the Six Days' Campaign. Shameful
Great review, I’ll definitely be skipping this one. It’s so hard to find solid movies being made these days.
A video that briefly touches on your top ten movies you recommend that people watch would be cool
You will be missing an epic masterpiece. It's for adults with intelligence, and the "critic" in this video is ridiculous.
Ridley Scott is a fool to portray Napoleon the way he did. Just look at the effect Napoleon had on Europe by what it took to defeat him. All nations of Europe absolutely feared him.
France loved him for giving glory to the French people and to this day he is a source of French pride in nationalism much much more than Charles de Gaulle. Describe to me a leader in history where entire nations have to form SEVEN different coalitions to defeat him.
I repeat SEVEN alliances of the monarchies of Europe to overthrow Napoleon.
What eventually happened on the battlefield is that no general dared to fight Napoleon alone, and they would instead retreat and fight rear guard actions against him while going after Napoleon's marshals independently. Then when Napoleon would show up to throw down they'd run again unless they had the assurance of a combined army to face off against him.
THAT ALONE TELLS YOU THE KIND OF MAN YOU"RE DEALING WITH!
Ridley Scott is just an old fart who doesn't give a bleep anymore, and simply just wants to pander to the entertainment elite with no respect to his audience and the history of the Western World he keeps wanting to make films about.
Poles loved him
This was army of two friendly nations
I love the history content bro
This review have every issues I have with the movie, the four hours version won't going to save it when they chose to treat character of the man like this, superb job!
He was potrayed like that cause the director is english😂😂
Excellent review and information. Knew that Scott was going to baffle us with spectacle instead of doing real homework and bite off what he could chew.
Fantastic review. I am not surprised that this movie has turn out to be a Hollywood spoof of Napoleon”s character filled with historical inaccuracies.
Hope they ban it in France ~
On the brighter side, it has still brought a lot people to educate themselves more on Napoleon
Rod Steiger played Napoleon brilliantly in the 1970 Waterloo movie. Joachim Phoenix delivered his lines as if he was reading the news. A truly awful movie. Not even the battles were good. Musket era armies spent half the time manoevring and counter manoevring so as to place their line infantry and artillery in a position where they could deliver the most deadly volleys, supported and screened by cavalry. They did not rush headlong into each other like vikings.
Let's not forget that Ridley is originally a director of TV commercials. This is a propaganda film. in this case, negative propaganda, about an European autocratic leader who was one of the greatest enemies of England.
Of course he was not going to be faithful to history, nor much less favorable to the figure of Napoleon, being English. They have been rewriting history in their favor through movies for decades. This is a character assasination… it’s Commodus acting as Napoleon
While I agree that the movie is really a dud. It is not for all the reasons that you list, but many of them are the same. One key element that all of the panning reviews miss is the importance of Josephine to Napoleon. All of the letters that you hear read in the movie are actual letters that Napoleon wrote to Josephine. Josephine had a control on Napoleon that all of his Marshalls speak about and while Josephine was promiscious, so was Napoleon, and specifically he had two illegitimate children by two different mistresses. My primary areguement is the complete disregard for historicity in what you all claim is not covered enough, and that is the military aspect of the movie. The partisan activity in Russia was totally inaccurate. The assault at Borodino is totally wrong, the French never assaulted in Line of Battle, but in the Attack Column. Austerlitz was butchered and inaccurate. And let's not even talk about the Waterloo scenes which was total butchery. To the point that I almost walked out of the theater.
So while I agree with you that the movie is a complete massacre of Napoleon and that he is probably rolling over in his sarcaphagus at the Les Invalides. True, one cannot talk about Napoleon without his military achievements, or his civil achievements that still influence our legal systems today, but equally one cannot divorce the influence of Josephine on Napoleon that effected Napoleon throughout his life.
After i watched about hundred hours about Napoleon battles and read two books about his life, i was so hyped to this movie. I was looking forward for story of greatest general of human history and i received movie about Josephin and her lackey. Desperate wretch dominated by woman. In the mind of Scott, our loved warlord who conquered Europe was cuckold behaving like angry child.
Agree
Hey, this is the BEST review I have seen of the dreary and dreadful Ridley Scott version of "Napoleon."
Agreed, Napoleon was a "force of nature" with massive magnetism that could motivate tens of thousands of men to do the impossible. The one thing he did not lack was self-confidence. But, the movie portrays him as a neurotic, sexual deviant with a huge case of self-doubt--propped up by Josephine.
The Napoleonic era was full of color and absolutely brilliant art, architecture, and music. Scott sucked all the grandeur out of the Napoleonic era and covered it with a grey darkness. It is depressing rather than thrilling. I believe this is called "Projection.". Scott was projecting the ugly pettiness of our era onto a period of staggering beauty and heroism.
It is as if Scott wanted us to know that one of the greatest figures of Western Civilization was a petty, neurotic loser and--by extension--so is the West as well. In short, Ridley Scott was helping to "Smash the Patriarchy."
good comment
nice review. def be checking out some more of your content.
Good review with historical and contemporary analysis. The movie is pretty in line with all these history demolishing (and ignoring) tendencies. Congratulations, Dirty Ridley.
You are extremely well spoken and articulate. I appreciate your view on this movie, the longer I watched it the more irritated I became. Especially when a movie about an emperor's rise to power becomes nothing short of a glorified sex film.
You guys expected to much. I love Napoleans history, but for you guys to expect everything from a director like this, you guys are nuts
Didn't really enjoy this movie al though you can see it was well filmed and edited. I found it very boring.
The "one man" was Patrick Henry, not George Washington (read the book Lion of Liberty by Harlow Unger). Apparently you know little to nothing about the anti-federalists & the Whiskey Rebellion. Otherwise an interesting talk.