My initial qualm from the first trailer was "Hollywood has fallen for Napoleon's propaganda." Now I realize that they fell even harder for that of the British cartoons.
I would be fine witha romanticized telling of Napoleon, with all the spectacle and sharp cunning I thought this movie would provide. What an eye candy it could have been. I think saying that hollywood "fell for" Napoleons propaganda would have been better stated as sacrificing historical accuracy for spectacle. Which I would totally agree, but also really wanna watch the one with all the spectacle. delightful power fantasy.
Napoleon was actually like this with Josephine in his letters, he was a prolific letter writer there's 1000s of them and some of them are like he wrote them drunk, or he actually was the worlds biggest simp.
I would have gone for “The Emperor’s Wife,” then cut all the battle/politics scenes and just make it entirely from her POV. If we have to go this angle that is, lol
In the 1980s, there was a miniseries called "Napoleon and Josephine" that had the same focus as this movie. As a production, it was longer, and the characters better deveoped.
@@historyofeverythingpodcastyup exactly, the trailer was almost like it was for an entirely different movie. I suspect that in pre release, males in the test audiences did not like it, so they worked to trailer to try and drawn in the male crowd. Disingenuous at best, manipulative at worse.
I want them to make a movie called Josephine that is just military tactics and battle breakdowns in a deadpan voice to settle everyone who went with huge expectations
@@ambds1975But no one else would lol, Hollywood forcing movies about great man to also focus on the random women they decided to sleep with. Literally accomplishes nothing apart from being a powerful man’s wife, it’s like how you women care about athletes gf’s/wives when they literally do nothing 😂🤦♂️
My eye still twitches irritably at the whole 'use of an anachronistic sniper rifle (the idea of scope as we know of it wouldn't actually be properly developed by the Americans until 1835) and trenches'... _AT WATERLOO._
@@1996koke Closest equivalent to a modern sniper rifle was the Deckhard/Pennsylvania/Kentucky Rifle during the French/Indian War, American Revolution, and war of 1812 in terms of accuracy. But that was simply because of their range, not anything to do with sights or anything of the like.
You forgot to talk about the scene where an english soldier is holding a freaking SNIPER RIFLE poiting at napoleon and asking his commander permission to shoot.
@@counterfeit1148Simple: Scott heard the quote thought and thought it would be “cool” if a guy with a sniper rifle said it. This whole movie, Scott seemed to adhere to the “rule of cool.” Problem is, what he thought was “cool,” most other people thought was stupid.
This scene is a combination of two different things. 1) A British rifleman called Plunkett did manage to snipe a French general from at least 400 yards away. Phenomenal for the day. 2) At the beginning of Waterloo it was rumoured Napoleon rode within range of British artillery who promptly lined up shots at him. An artillery officer asked Wellington for permission to fire who refused the request and rebuked him for such a dishonourable course of action.
Strangely, I felt Rod Steiger's performance in the 1970 Waterloo was more convincing as a charismatic and brilliant yet troubled mind. Steiger's performance received a lot of flak - partly deserved - but he conveyed much more umph to the charisma and behaviour that made his almost God like devotion from many troops believable compared to this.
Steiger is definitely one of the best performances of Napoleon, really shows the complexity of his character. You can see why his men loved him so much but also not dare to question him or his authority too much. I’d put it up there with Albert Dieudonné’s performance in Abel Gance’s 1927 Silent Epic of Napoleon.
Waterloo is one of the greatest movies of all time, Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer were phenomenal. The whole time I was watching Phoenix do Phoenix things dressed as Napoleon in the cinema I was wishing I could be at home watching Waterloo instead.
Steiger's performance was great. I love the bursts of energy, piercing through Napoleon's fatigue and depression. And then at the end, when all of Napoleon's energy is spent, and he just falls into the carriage.
It seems like stories like these would benefit from being like mini-tv series rather than one-off films. so they can add more details, interactions, and flesh out relationships, etc
Spielberg did announce he will do an HBO miniseries (7 episodes - 10+ hours runtime) using the materials and research made by Stanley Kubrick when he was planning for his own Napoleonic Epic. I have more faith with this since Spielberg has more respect towards history and does a better job working with it.
Trying to cover 40yrs in a couple hrs is always a bad choice. Very least it should be a trilogy. (Generally: rise, reign, fall) however it could be done in 3hrs with the right cast, script and director.... none of which this movie had
Maybe a series of mostly disconnected vignettes akin to "32 Short Films About Glenn Gould," more aiming for an impressionistic painting of his life than a straightforward recounting of it. It could also really bring out the smaller, quieter moments: the moments that bring out Napoleon Boneparte the human being rather than the Man of Destiny and force of nature he's morphed into.
Leipzig - Let's talk about Leipzig. Leipzig was Napoleons Waterloo. That’s where he truly lost. Leipzig was the biggest battle of the 19th century and almost the biggest battle before the Great War. Bigger and bloodier then Gettysburg and more important then the actual Waterloo.
Why is Leipzig almost forgotten? Well the British despite pumping a lot of money and material into this battle didn't partake in it. It became part of the foundational myth of the 2nd German Empire. But since the Empire lastet only 47 years and was defeated in the Great War much of the West didn't really care for its beginning. Also after WWII the city Leipzig fell under Soviet control and the Soviets didn't care for German history. And once again for the West, why would you promote the history of a beaten enemy who is now controlled by your current enemy? When 1989 came around the Battle of Leipzig was more then 2 "empires" and 2 states past. So yeah the biggest Battle of the 19th century and Napoleons biggest defeat is forgotten in the common memory.
True Napoleon wasn't the kind of guy to admit defeat. And it wasn't Leipzig alone. It was the sum of losses from Borodino all the way through Russia and than Leipzig. Also the Coalition offered Napoleon peace before Leipzig. They said if he retreated to France, gave up all his conquests, they would acknowledge him as Emperor of France and the war would be over. Else they would remove him from power.He threw a tamper tantrum and the rest is history.
@@teekaa2520 well that offer of peace never was acceptable, since the coalition already renegated on several peace treaties in the past, there was no reason they'd do differently once in an (even stronger) position. Same thing goes with Iena - Aurenstedt. It was so convenient for everyone to forget that the entire Prussian military aparatus was destroyed in a single double battle. It wasn't the Russians or the Austrians getting crushed and Napoleon actually made a terrible mistake, prompting even the French to not commemorate this victory too much. Same as Leipzig, its huge consequences are ignored to this day by mainstream story-telling.
@@teekaa2520 How Borodino was a loss? His army inflicted more losses than suffered, and Russians flee the field. He admited that it was one of his bloodiest victory, but victory nevertheless.
It's actually outrageous to the point of laughable the one time nobody would be able to cry about an older woman and younger man dynamic (Because it actually happened), Hollywood still triples down on their obsession with the opposite.
I'm largely ignorant about the life of Napoleon, but even I knew that this movie was doing him dirty. It felt very mean spirited and weird. My biggest issue was that I could not buy that the Napoleon on screen was an influential leader. He had ZERO leadership qualities throughout the film.
@@historyofeverythingpodcast yeah. I think you did really well with explaining it in your video! I learned a bit of history and feel pretty vindicated now that I have heard a history nerd explain some of the problems with the film. Win win! Ps: your videos in general are pretty awesome and entertaining! :D
It wasn't even a good character assassination because it was too brazen. Waterloo's Napoleon hit it right. Napoleon as a genius past his prime, blinded by vanity but no longer able to back it up. They even show him tremble in fear. Not much, but just enough. He comes across as human and flawed, but not in a relatable way. It was the Brits expertly pissing on his grave.
Scott's early movie "The Duelists" is nearly forgotten and sadly so. It is also set in the time of Napoleon, beautifully shot,and has a very compelling story well acted by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It is obviously fiction but based very loosely on a real story
Love that movie. Great military-political drama, the main fights are good at showing the different kinds of duels, and truly wonderful performances in the main roles.
It should be noted that the antagonist of the movie, Feraud, is a Bonapartist and the movie portrays him as an insecure, small bloodthirsty lunatic. So, it is also a grim foreshadowing of Scott's atittude towards Napoleon and why the 2023 movie was doomed to fail, it was a blunder decades in the making.
@@kingkayfabe5358The thing is by itself it’s not serious at all, but with Hollywood their constantly using the agenda of women being victims to men, so of course they had to make her younger and more “innocent”.
@@baxter1252If they're not making a historically accurate movie then that's fine, it's not like he's being played by Corsicans a lot either. If you're not going for historical accuracy then you don't need to worry about that (see The Great for how inaccuracies don't matter in that kind of show). It's when you're purporting to make an accurate film or not explicitly showing or stating that you're doing a different thing that it starts to matter. People aren't going to watch The Great or Cheech and Chong and think that's how history went down but they probably will with Napoleon as many did the The Patriot or Braveheart.
@dimitriosdrossidis9633 yes. It's a near quote from Netfix's Cleopatra "documentary." This channel has a series of videos on everything wrong with that series if you want to know what other idiocy is in it. It's in the "I watched it" playlist.
I never thought of it that way but it's actually crazy ! Why stretch books accross several 3h movies and condense possibly history's "busiest man" into a single 2h flick ??
@@Whystling_Byrd then the discussion is all about adaptation. As books yes the hobbit will always sell more, as movies ? considering the mess done by Jackson I daresay again it's a quite reachable bar
He rebuilt Cairo in a couple months? Jeebus. I think that's an underrated accomplishment. Of the things I've heard/read of him doing, I think that one amazes me the most. Thank you.
I think Ridley Scott wanted to make a political/love drama called Josephine, but knew people probably wouldn't watch it and so through in some war stuff, then like you said sold it as war flick, but just called it Napoleon!
I don't think so otherwise he wouldn't answer to criticism the way he did. Then again it's Ridley Scott he criticized other for doing stuff but when he does the exact same stuff and get criticized he gets butthurt and act like people doesn't understand him. It really shows when it's about Alien: when other directors change things it's "bad" but when he does it's "good" acting like he was the sole creator behind the succes of the movie (Then again O'Bannon, Giger and Moebius are dead so they can't disagree with him).
35:20 The whole battlefield looks like a huge valley somewhere in frozen Siberia. If you look at both historical and current maps, and add historical context, you´d find a a typical central European countryside with smooth low hills (covered with wineyards, not taiga), and small shallow ponds (like for example - 60 meters across, and about meter deep). Those ponds were artificial and were made for fish in order to increase meat production. This was typical for medieval/early modern Bohemia. I have been to the battlefield several times, last time this june, and it looks NOTHING like that what was depicted in the film AT ALL. The only things those places have in common is that they both look like planet Earth, full stop.
@@billjacobs521 Yeah, I got that, but a great part of that battle was literally called "The battle in the old wineyard". Like where the fck is that old wineyard supposed to be? Its not just outrageous, but outright insulting portrait of history. When it comes to the script of that movie, Ridley should print it, roll it up, and shove it up his rear end. Nothing better could have been done in that situation...
For Austerlitz my problem with it isn't the ice it's the unit tactics. Instead of lines engaging or the Russo-Austraian forces using cannon to bash the French camp defenses they just charge in and it becomes a melee. Then when Napoleon springs his trap and the French Infantry leave their trenches instead of forming lines and shooting down at the Russians and Austraians they just charge into the melee. I don't mind condensing battles or changing them to symbolize what happened(or what directors think happened) but if the tactics aren't done in a realistic way and are just a cliche free for all then I'm no longer engaged to what's happening.
that's indeed what annoyed me so much in this scene. The petty scale of the squirmish on the screen compared to the huge battle that happened, the basicness and idiocy of the strategy, and my oh my the complete absence of tactics....
This is why i tell people that this should have been a steaming show with 8 to 10 episodes covering his different campaigns and there effect on europe. The plot with josephine could have been one of the main suplots and potentially used to show us france while Napoleon is campaining something we lacked in the film.
I recommend 1970's Waterloo as a pallet cleanser. It's not perfect, kinda rushed, but it's a good movie. Also as a side note, I find the entire concept of a movie based on Napoleon's love life with Josephine somewhat funny considering that relationship even in a historian's perspective was pretty one sided. Like...it ain't Caesar and Cleopatra, I'll just say that much.
@@chazcmeekins83 Simply put, Napoleon was way more in love with Josephine than she was with him, least that's how I've always understood it. Not to say she didn't like him, more just that she was sort of indifferent.
@@spartanhawk7637She used him alright. He even brought back slavery in France for indigenous Africans to make Josephine happy as she owned a sugar plantation. He reversed one of the few good things Robespierre did only 8 to 9 years prior. Imagine being free for less of a decade.
On Austerlitz: my problem with the focus on the frozen lake propaganda, especially in the way Napoleon was shown to have participated in it, is that it overshadows Napoleon's _actual_ genius move in the battle: he won in spite of the fact that *it was his enemies who had the high ground* (initially). All the massive deception operations Napoleon did had the ultimate aim to draw his enemies off that high ground to attack his supposedly weak right flank (which was at the southernmost point in a north-south line-up). That right flank was in truth well prepared for a standoff and got reinforced by one of the hidden units, while Napoleon himself was on his left flank and stormed the enemy camp, beating the surprised rest of the Austro-Prussian-Russian army into retreat, and then turned south-west to close the trap. Chasing some of the enemies onto the ice happened only after that. As for why the Russian tsar "remembered" the French propaganda, probably because the reality of wasting his positional advantage and falling into a trap that ended up being a simple meat-grinder was just too embarrassing. (The defeated letting the victor's false narrative prevail is not at all uncommon. A more recent example is the role of the nuclear bombs in the Japanese surrender at the end of WWII. In reality, as shown by internal documents, that surrender hinged on two points: one was a sheer delusional hope in making a separate deal with Stalin, which was dashed when the Soviets entered the war against them; the other was to avoid the persecution of the Emperor which would follow from the US demand of unconditional surrender, a Gordian knot US diplomats solved with a deliberately incoherent speech that both reinforced the US demand & granted the Japanese demand. Not something for public consumption, so Hirohito's surrender speech didn't mention any of this, but did mention the bombs.)
I think here's the issue: you cannot cram one of the single most impactful lives in human history into three hours. There's simply too much for one movie to handle, and it really was doomed to be superficial from the outset.
Yeah, you would need at least 3 movies that are 2 and a half to 3 hrs long to tell napoleon's story. The first movie being his young military life. The 2nd being about his rule and wars in Europe. The 3rd being about his defeat and eventual death
There are two fundamental problems with this movie. The first is that it's not the movie we - or History Buffs to be specific- wanted it to be. We wanted to see the young, ambitious, cunning, intelligent, brilliant Corsican officer rise to become Emperor using his wits and talents. We wanted to see his genius in planning battles and why his men followed him to the bitter end. We wanted to see the political climber who used lies and manipulation to claw his way to the top and stay there. We even wanted to see the Liberal reformer who made many compromises in realising his agenda for France. However, Scott wasn't interested in any of that. He wanted to tell a much more personal tale of Napoleon and Josephine, showing the world through their eyes and romance. An interesting angle but ok. That then brings us into the second problem with the movie as it fails spectacularly at that too. Who is Napoleon? Who is Josephine? Why do they love each other? Why does she cheat on him and why can't he let her go? Why are they so obsessed with each other and what draws them to each other? I sure as hell can't tell you based on the text of the film. We're never given any of the details to help us understand who they are, why they're drawn together and why it's tragic when circumstances force them apart. We just don't understand or care about them as we're never given the time to as so much attention is spent on battles and the political moves of Napoleon which, again, also aren't very well developed so rather than being a deep dive into Napoleon is instead a jumbled, confused, unfocused mess. And what's so frustrating is that all of the pieces are there! Phoenix and Kirby could have been great, the set pieces are spectacular, the movie in general looks gorgeous and with more time or a better script, could have been great. Really, I think Josephine should have been the main character. Call it "The Emperor's Wife" or something and frame it through her eyes, so no battles or politics, just show how she viewed him on her own. That's the only way it could have worked. Cos trying to do ALL this, and for a theatrical cut? It was as doomed for failure as invading Russia.
Love it, Stak! I saw it when it came out (with fellow historians)... I was torn about it (my professor friends were NOT, they DESPISED it). I had thought "Sure, I'll watch it again"... but the longer I mull over it... There are SO many egregious inacuracies - not just "oh, Ridley took some license" inaccuracies, these are WHOPPERS. If you only know Napoleon was a guy who ran about with his hand on his solar plexus, you will love this. If you know ANYTHING about Napoleon, you'll be appalled. Like Stak, I genuinely LOVE "Gladiator" and some of his other films, but this... WOW... this... The real story of Napoleon is absolutely fascinating and you could probably do an entire film for each year of his life that would have people on the edge of their seats. And... okay, I gotta: Egypt. He didn't fire at the Pyramids - and even if he HAD... they were 17km away. No artillery of that period could 1) reach that far and 2) have the ability to hit the TOP of them. Can't start or I won't stop. LOVE YOU, STAK! Keep the awesome reviews coming!!!
I had the same issues with The Theory of Everything movie about Stephen Hawking. The movie focuses on his troubled relationship with his wife and practically gives Hawking no credit for being a genius physicist. Given the title of the movie you'd expect to see more science related content, not a romance drama.
@tjenadonn6158 Yeah, I understand that, but the movie was still boring. I can't imagine being one of the smartest people who ever lived, and when they tell your story, they focus on how your disability was tough for your wife to deal with. I'm sure it's tough for anyone in that situation, but it doesn't make the movie more interesting to focus so hard on this and ignore any success he had. If you didn't know who Steven Hawking was, you would walk away from this movie wondering why they made a movie about him.
The movie is based on his wife’s book. And frankly Hollywood biopics about disabled people are really uncomfortable at centring disabled people. They’re way more comfortable with a wife ‘struggling’ to cope. It’s interesting in the documentary Hawking, his wife comes over as an absolute horror.
Hey, Steven, the "ei" in Leipzig is pronounced like the "ie" in lie. And we have a huge monument here that is dedicated to the victory over Napoleon, from which you can overlook the whole city. And paired with our beautiful old city, it's a really good location to visit on a german city trip. :)
It also just feels like impossible to make a single movie that is faithful to napoleon’s entire life in a single movie. A two movie or really even a three movie series could have done it, it’s not like apple didn’t have the money.
I almost feel like the appeoach to take would be a set of individual vignettes taken from his entire life, with no attempt at an arching plot. And keeping the scale of things relatively small: avoid the cliches associated with the mythic figure Napoleon has been built up as in the public imagination and scale back to Napoleon Bonaparte the human being.
It is a mistake to try and do a fullbiopic in a single movie. A movie can trace and tell one aspect of the man's life, not everything. I could actually have been interested in a Napoleon & Josephine story ! Or an invasion of Russia story, or a Disaster of Spain story, or a Birth of Egyptology (following Champollion more than Napoleon) story, or a Triumph of the Army of Italy story, or an "Austerlitz" story, or a Victory over Prussia story, or a Life in Exile story, etc, etc. Heck even Waterloo and its prelude makes an entire long (and highly supperior) movie ! But everything into a single biopic movie ? t's always doomed to fail.
I was excited to see this movie when I first heard of it. The previews made me a little hesitant though and I decided to wait for reviews before I threw down any money on a Hollyweird historically based movie. All the reviews I’ve seen and read have made me glad I listened to that little voice of hesitation.
A large issue I had while watching the movies was they Scott would have Napoleon say some wild out of pocket, out of character shit, and then have him write a letter or say something very level headed that Napoleon actually did do or write. I could tell when he was having Napoleon be an inaccurate man child and then switch to the intelligent leader that he was. It seemed like Scott couldn't decide on if he wanted Napoleon to be a competent leader, or a whiny man child. Another issue was not making it apparent why a lot of things happen, I'm no expert on Napoleon but I know from at least one college class that one of the reasons Moscow's abandonment and burning by the Russians is an issue is because of the supplies they needed and planned on acquiring there, instead Napoleon screams into his hat like a child.
Yeah I watched it when it had come out and it didnt even meet my lowest of expectations. Really shouldve just been a story about Josephine at that point. That being said, if you want to sink you teeth into a decent alt historical movie then I would whole heartedly recommend Godzilla Minus One; One of the best movies I have seen this year. The Japanese really know how to make a good Godzilla film
I would love to see a review of the HBO miniseries about Napoleon starring christian Clavier. And compare the 2 of them. I thought the miniseries was excellent from a depiction and accuracy standpoint
The first movie i saw joaquin Phoenix in was gladiator. I thought he played the crazy king very well. Then the more i watched his movies, i realized he plays every character the same way. He is the rock of crazy weirdos.
As a Brit, all excuses were right for Scott to get to the battle of Waterloo without waiting too much. Half an hour on that battle alone shows how biased he was to begin with.
I think any depiction of Napoleon that fails to incorporate his Marshals also does a major disservice. One of the major reasons for his defeat at Waterloo was that while the rank and file French soldier may have rallied to Napoleon on his return from Elba, much of his remaining general staff did not. It would be like Talking up General Robert E Lee without mentioning Stonewall Jackson. Having competent, loyal subordinates is what allows the general to employ the tactics that they use to win. For both Generals, losing those subordinates led to their most well known defeats, as they didn't adjust their plans accordingly.
If memory serves, most of Napoleon's best marshals were already dead, disgraced or (in Bernadotte's case) against him. I can't think of any major names who stayed loyal to the King and who could've made a difference. It was always a doomed cause regardless. France was in no shape to take on all of Europe in 1815. Even Napoleon couldn't pull off that miracle, even if he did beat the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies.
@@Cailus3542yeah that’s what many people don’t seem to realize. They think that if Napoleon won Waterloo he won the war. Except France just wasn’t ready for another War of the Coalition. Even if Waterloo was a smashing victory for Napoleon, it wouldn’t take any time at all for the Nations to gather and even bigger army and literally crush France from all sides
Yes thats true, his most competent marshals were either dead, missused or not the same as they used to be. Bessiere didnt lead the guard cause hes dead, berthier got thrown out a window and had to be replaced by soult who is one of napoleons best marshal on the field, davout as govenor and instead had grouchy take his place while ney prolly had ptsd from russia Not to mention murat was in naples fighting for his own crown lmao
We saw Napoleon in IMAX on release weekend. There’s nothing good about the movie, maybe the costumes. The Despot of Antrim has a long breakdown of Napoleon. It popped into my feed when it was released today. Worth a watch. It’s a logical analysis.
Biggest issue I had was that their relationship is portrayed as abusive on boney's part. It's well documented that they were a loving couple and uncharacteristically gentle with each other. Napoleon was a violent person, and Josephine had been abusive towards past partners, but with each other they are known to have been only gentle and loving towards each other. Literally the only reason that they divorced was because josephine was barren and he needed an heir. They remained lovers and his future wife he was abusive towards. Josephine was only ever disloyal when napoleon gave her leave, as was he.
The problem with the movie is not only its lack of historical accurancy is the despiction of Napoleon. They took one of the most interesting lives in human history and transformed it in something boring. The script of the movie seems to be prepeared by Chat GPT
"So we're making a movie about Napoleon..." "DOES IT HAVE A ROMANTIC PLOT? AUDIENCES LIKE ROMANTIC PLOTS" "Uh, well there's a woman named Josephine-" "FOCUS ON THAT. NOBODY LIKES WAR MOVIES ANYMORE. CONSUME PRODUCT."
I think the big thing with the movie is that it covers too much. If it focused on one of his campaigns or events it would have been better. The rise of Napoleon as Emperor(ending with him as emperor), the italian campaign, the egyptian campaign, russia, elba, etc. Each of these could have been a great film on its own. Another thing that just bugs me is how desaturated and washed out everything feels. The behind the scenes colors look better than the desaturated grey-blue filter they got on it as if Ridley scott is afraid of color. This drab color scheme just sucks IMO.
Napoleon- A character assassination By Ridiculous Scott. They should have just gone full out and casted Peter Dinklage as Napoleon, have him talk with a high pitch feminine voice. And walk with a squeaky noice coming from his boots with every step. And named it "Napoleon- Horny, angry or Sad"
After the battle of Austerlitz, the french were helping survivors out of the water, even fishing for dead bodies and guns. So after decades its obvious little to no guns would be found in the waters.
I enjoyed the film. There are historical inaccuracies, but they do hit some key historical points in the movie, Napoleon putting the crown on himself, the squares at the Battle of Waterloo, his initial exile only to return to try again. I loved the battle scenes too.
I'm not done watching it all yet and I'm already thinking: You mean like how they butchered the "Das Boot series" that came after "Das boot movie"? Where everyone wanted more crazy uboat shenanigans and instead of that they got like maybe 10% uboat and 90% spy vs spy with a side of post modern love story?
You make one errant point in the video that I have watched so-far. From historical sources, Napoleon had notoriously brutish table manners. His own adjutants and valets frequently remarked how he would eat an entire plate of food in 5-10 minutes, with his hands; often just didn't use utensils at all even if they were present. Fine dining table manners are one thing, but the French custom was often to meal over the course of a couple hours. It is important to note: Napoleon Bonaparte was Corsican. The Corsicans, even if his family were noble, were far hardier and down-to-earth 'salt of the earth' types of shepherds and gritty mountain farmers and fisher-men. Also, he was a soldier, and soldiers often rushed their meals, even in France. Sitting back and enjoying a nice deliberate meal and some wine was a luxury of peace-time or easy postings. Napoleon often didn't have this luxury from his early days in the military up to being emperor of France. He was a busy and ambitious young officer. He would sometimes forget to eat, and become very hungry and then would eat like a wolf. Often they would make his favorite meal, he would go to bed, only to wake after an hour or two and be like 'oh yeah my dinner...' This lead to a hilarious instance where once one of the senior members of his military retinue didn't want the food to go to waste so he ate it after Boney had been in bed for nearly 3 hours. It was Napoleon's favorite dish 'buttered chicken'. Napoleon then remarked for months about how his own general would starve him if given the chance. (jokingly, like soldiers do) 'Tasting History' with Max Miller did an entire video on Napoleon's dining habits with primary sources directly from historical accounts, and secondary sources with an asterisk. Whether it is all 100% true or not is up for debate, but it des make sense that one of the most busy and brilliant military minds to exist on this planet might be a bit board-like when it came to his meals when he remembered to eat them at all. Who cares if he eats with his hands? He's the gosh darn emperor after all?
This is far from Ridley Scott's first rodeo with a historically set movie, but none of them have gotten this flack before because they've also been pretty up front that they were historical fiction, where it's entirely fine to poke and prod things as needed to tell a compelling story. There is no Maximus to be a Gladiatior, Balian was in his 50s when the Kingdom of Heaven events happen, and so on. He's also done historical films, where SOME deviation is okay for a narrative, but there are lines not to cross, as with Black Hawk Down. I think the problem here is that historical fiction was marketed as historical epic (in the probably accurate assessment that more people were interested in a historical epic over a historical romance, which... seems like a problem for the decision to make the movie in the first place?), and no one in marketing or Scott himself seemed aware of the difference.
I can accept some inaccuracies, honestly sometimes they make for better movies. But, this movie had way too many to be acceptable. Austerlitz was rushed but alright Waterloo was just shamefully awful.
Can I please protest in the name of Josephine against what you tell in 22:46 ff? Josephine did not refuse to accompany Bonaparte to Egypt. To the contrary, women were *explicitly forbidden* to join the troops on the ships. (The few who did go went disguised as men.) However, there were plans for her (and her daughter) to follow on another ship later, once Napoleon had established a secure base in Egypt. While waiting, Josephine took a bad fall from a balcony and injured herself to the point of being in recovery for months. In the meantime, Nelson had destroyed the French fleet and communication with the Egyptian army broke off almost completely for a long time, to the point of people believing Napoleon was dead. There simply was no way to join him anymore. That's actually something I dislike about historiography of that era: The "camera", so-to-speak, always follows Napoleon, the focus is always on him, and the story is always seen through his eyes and explained as if events always lead back to that one man. But there was stuff going on elsewhere, totally unrelated to him. As to Josephine's unfaithfulness: She actually gets the same treatment in historiography that Ridley Scott gives Napoleon in this movie. Or that Marie Antoinette got during the French Revolution. The closer you look at the rumours about Josephine's love life, the less substance there is. In fact, there is one - precisely one - case of Josephine being unfaithful during her second marriage, the infamous Hippolyte Charles. The proof of which - the alleged love letters by her to him that of course were never intercepted by the Brits; I mean, how would they even have done that? what they did seize were letters by Bonaparte to his brother Joseph and by Josephine's son Eugène who happened to be an ADC to his stepfather and who had overheard when Napoleon's officers tried to convince their general that his wife was cheating on him - anyway, the proof of which has been seen by one (one!) historian in the 1950s, I think, and today has conveniently disappeared. There are no photographies, no documentation of where these letters went, no nothing. Everything else we have is gossip, the same gossip Eugène overheard in the desert in 1798.
Napoleon as Joaquin phoenix being awkward could’ve worked. But it shouldn’t be what he is when he is talking to his troops. There should be a big disconnect between the napoleon we see in command and the napoleon we see with Josephine.
At the end of the day, I didn’t want to watch a movie about a centuries old dysfunctional marriage There’s nothing wrong with a Napoleon & Josephine movie, I’m fine with that movie, but if you’re selling a biopic/war-drama, I would expect to see one.
Ridley Scott has some schizophrenic love-hate obsession with France. All his historical movies are about France. For an english dude, he really seems to only look for France for inspiration and often butcher the setting/context. The duelists, is about a French officers feud during Napoleonic wars, in kingdom of Heaven all the main cast is composed of French nobles, in Robin Hood the some of the villains are French royalty and do a fake normandy landing. Well, arguably, Richard the Lionheart was king of England in name only dude spent all this time in France or Holy land never learning English. The Last Duel, again, a feud between French Knights. And then Napoleon, all about a Frenchman. Even when the movie has nothing to do with France, such as 1492 Conquest of Paradise Columbus is played by Gérard Depardieu😂. Dude is salty, can't fault him French history is too glorious!
This man got it spot on. When I went in I was so excited for this film and when I left I felt confused and also lied to by all the advertisement for this movie. This movie had a few moments that seemed actually presentable, but for the most part I felt like I was about to sleep through the rest of it because it was so bad.
As i left the theatre, i told my dad, "It's like they couldnt decide if they wanted to make a romance movie or a war movie, so they made neither" I even pointed out (as you do) that the "romance" plot is toxic (and awkward) as hell. I even cited the same scene you do as the worst example of it. I am beyond lost how anyone enjoyed this movie or rates it positively. Where they even watching the same movie?! 58% is way too generous to this 'movie' And then others say they want to see the directors cut to fix all the mistakes...YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM MORE TIME AND MONEY? After he wasted your first gift then told you to "get a life". Nah Ridly failed and we need to let this movie flop hard so he gets the point.
I didn't know about all the stuff he did in Egypt to be honest and it sounds amazing. Like the fact he put so much care into what he did there either trying to preserve Egypts history or rebuilding cirao into a better city just some of the things i love about the guy. Like undoing what the revolution did by crowning himself emperor to reforming Frances legal system to the point the law and other proceedings are used to this day in France and building up the island he was exiled to into something better than it was before just show's how complex and captivating he was and just imagine what history would be like if he never was defeated.
I heard that the movie was always supposed to be about Napoleon and Josephine, but it does suffer from the cut down run time. Apparently Ridley Scott wanted to make two movies but Apple turned him down.
I don’t understand who this movie is for? Napoleon nerds are gonna hate it for the innaccuracies such as napoleon in calvary charges or even him being in command at Waterloo instead of being sick. The people who aren’t familiar with napoleons history are totally lost on what is actually happening. There just isn’t a audience for this movie that makes sense.
@@Cailus3542 I can understand that, but Stak said it right; they mushed two movies together. They should've focused on either their relationship OR his military prowess. I will also acknowledge my bias against Hollywood in that I've seen too many movies that include a romantic interest when there's just no reason for it.
Like how we just had to have two sex scenes in Oppenheimer? Leave it to Hollyweird to make a movie about a nuclear physicist and still try to shoehorn sex into it.
The love story should of been a side note not the focus. Would of been way better. But I feel they wanted a strong female character and thats why they made this terrible choice. Can;t wait for these types of decisions to end.
I had a feeling it was going to be bad by how Ridley Scott was handling the criticism towards the historical inaccuracies in the movie. It just didn’t give me a lot of confidence about the movie.
A brief note, the French calvary didn't use Thoroughbreds, but a variety of different heavy and lighter horse types according to the calvary type. They didn't actually want super fast horses. Charges weren't done at full on speed because that breaks the line and tires the horses out too fast. Thoroughbred crosses sometimes, Arab crosses for sure, but they also imported horses from all over in order to have enough. Also a lot of mules. Artillery horses were draft types and had a life expectancy of 8 months. It was pretty brutal.
You glossed over some of the other things Napoleon got up to in Egypt, like after the siege of Jaffa when thousands were led into the sea and shot by the French army. If Scott wanted to show Napoleon as a brutal conqueror it would have been much better to show the human cost like that rather than firing on the pyramids
Napoleon was the most influential military leader in history, we still use his corps system, France uses many of his laws today. Vive l'empereur Napoléon Bonaparte
I hated the "adult time" scenes. Totally unnecessary and they were awful. The movie was so confusing I was on Google trying to figure it out during the film.
Tired old middle aged man plays a dashing 24 year old who has an affair with an older woman, played by a vivacious much younger actress. Oh, and he conquers and looses Europe in the meantime. I think that might sum up the movie.
I knew who Ridley Scott was. I was not expecting historical accuracy. I wasn’t even expecting him to respect the time period. What I expected was a really good movie and what I got was a pile of garbage. Some of the worst dialogue I’ve ever heard and there were unintentional laughs throughout the movie in the theater.
It's like the writers took the meme of "haha napoleon short, small boy" and decided that meme was an accurate representation of every facet of Napoleon
My initial qualm from the first trailer was "Hollywood has fallen for Napoleon's propaganda." Now I realize that they fell even harder for that of the British cartoons.
I would be fine witha romanticized telling of Napoleon, with all the spectacle and sharp cunning I thought this movie would provide. What an eye candy it could have been. I think saying that hollywood "fell for" Napoleons propaganda would have been better stated as sacrificing historical accuracy for spectacle. Which I would totally agree, but also really wanna watch the one with all the spectacle. delightful power fantasy.
By the sound of it, Ridley Scott should have named his movie 'Gillray'
A British director, directs. What do you expect from a pig, but a grunt...
Of course they did, they’re the ones who peddle it.
they fell for both because an idiot made this movie really.
I was so disappointed that I didn’t get a war drama and then devastated at the brutal character assassination.
Go watch the 1979 version or the War and Peace 1967 made by Russian. You're gonna like it
@@christophermichaelclarence6003oversimplified did way better then this movie, hell he even added a gay scene
@@KOCChristiangross
Napoleon was actually like that, people were strange genius or no
Napoleon was actually like this with Josephine in his letters, he was a prolific letter writer there's 1000s of them and some of them are like he wrote them drunk, or he actually was the worlds biggest simp.
If they had named this thing "Napoleon & Josephine" they'd be getting around 50% less flack than the currently are
That’s what I didn’t understand. Why for the love of god would they market the movie the way they did and then switch the story
Josephine[tm]
(Featuring Joachim Pheonix as Napoleon Bonaparte)
I would have gone for “The Emperor’s Wife,” then cut all the battle/politics scenes and just make it entirely from her POV.
If we have to go this angle that is, lol
In the 1980s, there was a miniseries called "Napoleon and Josephine" that had the same focus as this movie. As a production, it was longer, and the characters better deveoped.
@@historyofeverythingpodcastyup exactly, the trailer was almost like it was for an entirely different movie. I suspect that in pre release, males in the test audiences did not like it, so they worked to trailer to try and drawn in the male crowd. Disingenuous at best, manipulative at worse.
I want them to make a movie called Josephine that is just military tactics and battle breakdowns in a deadpan voice to settle everyone who went with huge expectations
And market it as a romantic tragedy
@@MaticTheProto exactly
I would watch that. Just Josephine in luscious period costumes reading technically detailed letters from the front.
@@ambds1975But no one else would lol, Hollywood forcing movies about great man to also focus on the random women they decided to sleep with. Literally accomplishes nothing apart from being a powerful man’s wife, it’s like how you women care about athletes gf’s/wives when they literally do nothing 😂🤦♂️
I just don't understand how you can make a movie called NAPOLEON AND DON'T FOCUS IT ON NAPOLEON???????????!!!!!!!!
Lack of History facts. That's why.
They could have used CGI on Napoleon to make him younger
That's a pity
Because he isn't a woman.
Cuz he isn't Brit
He has dangly bits you see. Feminist Hollywood is insane.
Do you seriously expect Hollywood to make a movie about a straight white man without focusing on the girl bosses that control his life?
My eye still twitches irritably at the whole 'use of an anachronistic sniper rifle (the idea of scope as we know of it wouldn't actually be properly developed by the Americans until 1835) and trenches'... _AT WATERLOO._
Lol what?! Omg that's horrible 😆🤦♀️
Also doesn't even make sense for the era because of how inacurate weapons were at the time
@@1996koke Closest equivalent to a modern sniper rifle was the Deckhard/Pennsylvania/Kentucky Rifle during the French/Indian War, American Revolution, and war of 1812 in terms of accuracy. But that was simply because of their range, not anything to do with sights or anything of the like.
It was a rifle armed soldier from the 95th, but the scope and stand were pure idiocy.
Rifles scopes were first fitted in the Crimean War. Trenches have been used for thousands of years, though mostly during sieges.
You forgot to talk about the scene where an english soldier is holding a freaking SNIPER RIFLE poiting at napoleon and asking his commander permission to shoot.
🤡🤡🤡
It just doesn't make sense to do that over having some artillery guy ask him
@@counterfeit1148 yeah it makes MUCH more sense considering thats what happened irl
@@counterfeit1148Simple: Scott heard the quote thought and thought it would be “cool” if a guy with a sniper rifle said it. This whole movie, Scott seemed to adhere to the “rule of cool.” Problem is, what he thought was “cool,” most other people thought was stupid.
This scene is a combination of two different things.
1) A British rifleman called Plunkett did manage to snipe a French general from at least 400 yards away. Phenomenal for the day.
2) At the beginning of Waterloo it was rumoured Napoleon rode within range of British artillery who promptly lined up shots at him. An artillery officer asked Wellington for permission to fire who refused the request and rebuked him for such a dishonourable course of action.
Strangely, I felt Rod Steiger's performance in the 1970 Waterloo was more convincing as a charismatic and brilliant yet troubled mind. Steiger's performance received a lot of flak - partly deserved - but he conveyed much more umph to the charisma and behaviour that made his almost God like devotion from many troops believable compared to this.
Steiger is definitely one of the best performances of Napoleon, really shows the complexity of his character. You can see why his men loved him so much but also not dare to question him or his authority too much. I’d put it up there with Albert Dieudonné’s performance in Abel Gance’s 1927 Silent Epic of Napoleon.
Waterloo is one of the greatest movies of all time, Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer were phenomenal. The whole time I was watching Phoenix do Phoenix things dressed as Napoleon in the cinema I was wishing I could be at home watching Waterloo instead.
Steiger's performance was great. I love the bursts of energy, piercing through Napoleon's fatigue and depression. And then at the end, when all of Napoleon's energy is spent, and he just falls into the carriage.
@@philipsalama8083 Its such a layered, nuanced portrayal of a complicated historical figure
That movie just wipes the floor with this one. It's not even a contest.
It seems like stories like these would benefit from being like mini-tv series rather than one-off films. so they can add more details, interactions, and flesh out relationships, etc
Absolutely agreed
Spielberg did announce he will do an HBO miniseries (7 episodes - 10+ hours runtime) using the materials and research made by Stanley Kubrick when he was planning for his own Napoleonic Epic. I have more faith with this since Spielberg has more respect towards history and does a better job working with it.
Trying to cover 40yrs in a couple hrs is always a bad choice. Very least it should be a trilogy. (Generally: rise, reign, fall) however it could be done in 3hrs with the right cast, script and director.... none of which this movie had
Already has been a mini series and it was amazing
Maybe a series of mostly disconnected vignettes akin to "32 Short Films About Glenn Gould," more aiming for an impressionistic painting of his life than a straightforward recounting of it. It could also really bring out the smaller, quieter moments: the moments that bring out Napoleon Boneparte the human being rather than the Man of Destiny and force of nature he's morphed into.
My biggest criticism was that *Napoleon’s pet wombat* never made an appearance (the real Napoleon and Josephine had a pet wombat).
True
@My-cat-is-staring-at-you i think the dude SHAT his pants when that happened
He did?
@@metal_pipe9764 Yes. There's even a book about it called "Napoleon's wombat".
@@emperorofpluto My book club read that. It was fascinating.
Calling that Movie Awful is an Understatement
I left the theater
And I am a huge Napoleon fan
That's a more reason to do so @@JohnFreyholtz
@@JohnFreyholtz So am I.
Vive L'Empereur
I use the word Travesty.
Leipzig - Let's talk about Leipzig.
Leipzig was Napoleons Waterloo. That’s where he truly lost.
Leipzig was the biggest battle of the 19th century and almost the biggest battle before the Great War. Bigger and bloodier then Gettysburg and more important then the actual Waterloo.
Why is Leipzig almost forgotten?
Well the British despite pumping a lot of money and material into this battle didn't partake in it.
It became part of the foundational myth of the 2nd German Empire. But since the Empire lastet only 47 years and was defeated in the Great War much of the West didn't really care for its beginning.
Also after WWII the city Leipzig fell under Soviet control and the Soviets didn't care for German history. And once again for the West, why would you promote the history of a beaten enemy who is now controlled by your current enemy?
When 1989 came around the Battle of Leipzig was more then 2 "empires" and 2 states past. So yeah the biggest Battle of the 19th century and Napoleons biggest defeat is forgotten in the common memory.
It may have been his biggest defeat, but it wasnt his last one.
True Napoleon wasn't the kind of guy to admit defeat. And it wasn't Leipzig alone. It was the sum of losses from Borodino all the way through Russia and than Leipzig.
Also the Coalition offered Napoleon peace before Leipzig. They said if he retreated to France, gave up all his conquests, they would acknowledge him as Emperor of France and the war would be over. Else they would remove him from power.He threw a tamper tantrum and the rest is history.
@@teekaa2520 well that offer of peace never was acceptable, since the coalition already renegated on several peace treaties in the past, there was no reason they'd do differently once in an (even stronger) position.
Same thing goes with Iena - Aurenstedt. It was so convenient for everyone to forget that the entire Prussian military aparatus was destroyed in a single double battle. It wasn't the Russians or the Austrians getting crushed and Napoleon actually made a terrible mistake, prompting even the French to not commemorate this victory too much. Same as Leipzig, its huge consequences are ignored to this day by mainstream story-telling.
@@teekaa2520 How Borodino was a loss? His army inflicted more losses than suffered, and Russians flee the field. He admited that it was one of his bloodiest victory, but victory nevertheless.
It's actually outrageous to the point of laughable the one time nobody would be able to cry about an older woman and younger man dynamic (Because it actually happened), Hollywood still triples down on their obsession with the opposite.
We expected Gladiator and got Bridgerton: Napoleon Edition.
🤣🤣🤣
I'm largely ignorant about the life of Napoleon, but even I knew that this movie was doing him dirty. It felt very mean spirited and weird. My biggest issue was that I could not buy that the Napoleon on screen was an influential leader. He had ZERO leadership qualities throughout the film.
That baffled me the entire time. There was nothing that made me believe this was a leader who could convince his old men to follow him again
@@historyofeverythingpodcast yeah. I think you did really well with explaining it in your video! I learned a bit of history and feel pretty vindicated now that I have heard a history nerd explain some of the problems with the film. Win win!
Ps: your videos in general are pretty awesome and entertaining! :D
It wasn't even a good character assassination because it was too brazen. Waterloo's Napoleon hit it right. Napoleon as a genius past his prime, blinded by vanity but no longer able to back it up. They even show him tremble in fear. Not much, but just enough. He comes across as human and flawed, but not in a relatable way. It was the Brits expertly pissing on his grave.
Scott's early movie "The Duelists" is nearly forgotten and sadly so. It is also set in the time of Napoleon, beautifully shot,and has a very compelling story well acted by Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel. It is obviously fiction but based very loosely on a real story
Love that movie. Great military-political drama, the main fights are good at showing the different kinds of duels, and truly wonderful performances in the main roles.
It should be noted that the antagonist of the movie, Feraud, is a Bonapartist and the movie portrays him as an insecure, small bloodthirsty lunatic. So, it is also a grim foreshadowing of Scott's atittude towards Napoleon and why the 2023 movie was doomed to fail, it was a blunder decades in the making.
Scott is Fing 90 he obviously shouldnt still be making film. I dont care how clear you appear at 70+ YOUR MENTAL STATE IS DIMINISHED period
@@captaintoyota3171 But then there is Scorsese...
Scorsese is Italian, those guys age slower due to being fed copious amount of wine and moma's cooking@@catriona_drummond
I think the most scummy thing was attempting to make Napoleon look older than Josephine despite Josephine being 5 years older than Napoleon.
God forbid a powerful man was in love with an older woman 😂
Scummy? That is a huge exaggeration
@falconeshield what makes is funnier is I'm pretty sure at the time they meet she had the power over him as a higher noble lol
@@kingkayfabe5358The thing is by itself it’s not serious at all, but with Hollywood their constantly using the agenda of women being victims to men, so of course they had to make her younger and more “innocent”.
"My grandmother told me, no matter what the teachers say, Napoleon was black."
Netflix will probably do that in a few more years...
@@baxter1252If they're not making a historically accurate movie then that's fine, it's not like he's being played by Corsicans a lot either. If you're not going for historical accuracy then you don't need to worry about that (see The Great for how inaccuracies don't matter in that kind of show). It's when you're purporting to make an accurate film or not explicitly showing or stating that you're doing a different thing that it starts to matter. People aren't going to watch The Great or Cheech and Chong and think that's how history went down but they probably will with Napoleon as many did the The Patriot or Braveheart.
This feels like a reference I don't get? Is it?
ua-cam.com/video/_Godh2oR4kM/v-deo.html @@dimitriosdrossidis9633
@dimitriosdrossidis9633 yes. It's a near quote from Netfix's Cleopatra "documentary." This channel has a series of videos on everything wrong with that series if you want to know what other idiocy is in it. It's in the "I watched it" playlist.
Man I went to see this movie with my Grandma expecting a good historical piece. Imagine my shock and horror of watching this with my GRANDMA!
you sound like the Barbie boomers
@robert48044 ??? Da heck you mean by this, like boomers actually went and saw the bloody girl movie.
@christianlangdon3766 and used the same complaint but switch grandma with child. If you didn't know what the reviews said that's on you.
*stomp stomp stomp* neggghhhh
*pop pop pop pop* gibe heir * pop poppop pop*
🤔 ya, they made some of interaction between Napoleon and Josephine weird.
If The Hobbit could be stretched over three films (which it couldn't) then the career of Napoleon could as well.
I never thought of it that way but it's actually crazy ! Why stretch books accross several 3h movies and condense possibly history's "busiest man" into a single 2h flick ??
@@CancoillottemanThe Harry Potter series will sell more than The Life and Memoire of Napoleon. Sad sure, but this is our reality.
@@Whystling_Byrd indeed, but the subject discussed was The Hobbit. I think it safe to say it's a reachable bar.
@@Cancoillotteman *my comment -HP +hobbit*
@@Whystling_Byrd then the discussion is all about adaptation. As books yes the hobbit will always sell more, as movies ? considering the mess done by Jackson I daresay again it's a quite reachable bar
I told my wife immediately after it ended “They should have called it Napoleon & Josephine”
I can't believe Napoleon actually made the choice to take care of another man's children though.
? That was his life. So?
He rebuilt Cairo in a couple months? Jeebus. I think that's an underrated accomplishment. Of the things I've heard/read of him doing, I think that one amazes me the most. Thank you.
I think Ridley Scott wanted to make a political/love drama called Josephine, but knew people probably wouldn't watch it and so through in some war stuff, then like you said sold it as war flick, but just called it Napoleon!
I don't think so otherwise he wouldn't answer to criticism the way he did. Then again it's Ridley Scott he criticized other for doing stuff but when he does the exact same stuff and get criticized he gets butthurt and act like people doesn't understand him. It really shows when it's about Alien: when other directors change things it's "bad" but when he does it's "good" acting like he was the sole creator behind the succes of the movie (Then again O'Bannon, Giger and Moebius are dead so they can't disagree with him).
35:20 The whole battlefield looks like a huge valley somewhere in frozen Siberia. If you look at both historical and current maps, and add historical context, you´d find a a typical central European countryside with smooth low hills (covered with wineyards, not taiga), and small shallow ponds (like for example - 60 meters across, and about meter deep). Those ponds were artificial and were made for fish in order to increase meat production. This was typical for medieval/early modern Bohemia.
I have been to the battlefield several times, last time this june, and it looks NOTHING like that what was depicted in the film AT ALL. The only things those places have in common is that they both look like planet Earth, full stop.
Well, the British DO think everything east of Berlin is frozen wasteland until you reach Beijing, so that seems about right.
@@billjacobs521 Yeah, I got that, but a great part of that battle was literally called "The battle in the old wineyard". Like where the fck is that old wineyard supposed to be? Its not just outrageous, but outright insulting portrait of history. When it comes to the script of that movie, Ridley should print it, roll it up, and shove it up his rear end. Nothing better could have been done in that situation...
Stak's dissapointment was so overwhelming I could feel the disappointment coming inside of me
When one looks forward to something, being disappointed hurts all the more
😅 phrasing...
I think he knew exactly how he was phrasing that @@wil1941
For Austerlitz my problem with it isn't the ice it's the unit tactics. Instead of lines engaging or the Russo-Austraian forces using cannon to bash the French camp defenses they just charge in and it becomes a melee. Then when Napoleon springs his trap and the French Infantry leave their trenches instead of forming lines and shooting down at the Russians and Austraians they just charge into the melee.
I don't mind condensing battles or changing them to symbolize what happened(or what directors think happened) but if the tactics aren't done in a realistic way and are just a cliche free for all then I'm no longer engaged to what's happening.
Because that would paint men in a somewhat intelligent fashion and we know that Hollywood is in no way interested in doing that anymore. Truth.
that's indeed what annoyed me so much in this scene. The petty scale of the squirmish on the screen compared to the huge battle that happened, the basicness and idiocy of the strategy, and my oh my the complete absence of tactics....
The concept of charging is hollywoods biggest problem. Prior to WWI it just didn't happen. Except for cavalry charges.
@@mikeh6109Nah, hollywood is just incompetent in portraying pre WWs battle tactics.
This is why i tell people that this should have been a steaming show with 8 to 10 episodes covering his different campaigns and there effect on europe. The plot with josephine could have been one of the main suplots and potentially used to show us france while Napoleon is campaining something we lacked in the film.
@@octomancer really? When? And is it about napoleon?
I recommend 1970's Waterloo as a pallet cleanser. It's not perfect, kinda rushed, but it's a good movie.
Also as a side note, I find the entire concept of a movie based on Napoleon's love life with Josephine somewhat funny considering that relationship even in a historian's perspective was pretty one sided. Like...it ain't Caesar and Cleopatra, I'll just say that much.
Alright........could you explain what this means ...like elaborate maybe?
True, there wasn’t a lot there. He wasn’t around.
@@chazcmeekins83 Simply put, Napoleon was way more in love with Josephine than she was with him, least that's how I've always understood it. Not to say she didn't like him, more just that she was sort of indifferent.
@@spartanhawk7637She used him alright. He even brought back slavery in France for indigenous Africans to make Josephine happy as she owned a sugar plantation. He reversed one of the few good things Robespierre did only 8 to 9 years prior. Imagine being free for less of a decade.
On Austerlitz: my problem with the focus on the frozen lake propaganda, especially in the way Napoleon was shown to have participated in it, is that it overshadows Napoleon's _actual_ genius move in the battle: he won in spite of the fact that *it was his enemies who had the high ground* (initially).
All the massive deception operations Napoleon did had the ultimate aim to draw his enemies off that high ground to attack his supposedly weak right flank (which was at the southernmost point in a north-south line-up). That right flank was in truth well prepared for a standoff and got reinforced by one of the hidden units, while Napoleon himself was on his left flank and stormed the enemy camp, beating the surprised rest of the Austro-Prussian-Russian army into retreat, and then turned south-west to close the trap. Chasing some of the enemies onto the ice happened only after that.
As for why the Russian tsar "remembered" the French propaganda, probably because the reality of wasting his positional advantage and falling into a trap that ended up being a simple meat-grinder was just too embarrassing. (The defeated letting the victor's false narrative prevail is not at all uncommon. A more recent example is the role of the nuclear bombs in the Japanese surrender at the end of WWII. In reality, as shown by internal documents, that surrender hinged on two points: one was a sheer delusional hope in making a separate deal with Stalin, which was dashed when the Soviets entered the war against them; the other was to avoid the persecution of the Emperor which would follow from the US demand of unconditional surrender, a Gordian knot US diplomats solved with a deliberately incoherent speech that both reinforced the US demand & granted the Japanese demand. Not something for public consumption, so Hirohito's surrender speech didn't mention any of this, but did mention the bombs.)
I think here's the issue: you cannot cram one of the single most impactful lives in human history into three hours.
There's simply too much for one movie to handle, and it really was doomed to be superficial from the outset.
Yeah, you would need at least 3 movies that are 2 and a half to 3 hrs long to tell napoleon's story. The first movie being his young military life. The 2nd being about his rule and wars in Europe. The 3rd being about his defeat and eventual death
Odds are the 4 hour full director's cut will mostly be dreams of unicorns and will end with Napoleon realizing he was British all along.
There are two fundamental problems with this movie.
The first is that it's not the movie we - or History Buffs to be specific- wanted it to be. We wanted to see the young, ambitious, cunning, intelligent, brilliant Corsican officer rise to become Emperor using his wits and talents.
We wanted to see his genius in planning battles and why his men followed him to the bitter end. We wanted to see the political climber who used lies and manipulation to claw his way to the top and stay there. We even wanted to see the Liberal reformer who made many compromises in realising his agenda for France. However, Scott wasn't interested in any of that. He wanted to tell a much more personal tale of Napoleon and Josephine, showing the world through their eyes and romance. An interesting angle but ok.
That then brings us into the second problem with the movie as it fails spectacularly at that too. Who is Napoleon? Who is Josephine? Why do they love each other? Why does she cheat on him and why can't he let her go? Why are they so obsessed with each other and what draws them to each other? I sure as hell can't tell you based on the text of the film. We're never given any of the details to help us understand who they are, why they're drawn together and why it's tragic when circumstances force them apart. We just don't understand or care about them as we're never given the time to as so much attention is spent on battles and the political moves of Napoleon which, again, also aren't very well developed so rather than being a deep dive into Napoleon is instead a jumbled, confused, unfocused mess.
And what's so frustrating is that all of the pieces are there! Phoenix and Kirby could have been great, the set pieces are spectacular, the movie in general looks gorgeous and with more time or a better script, could have been great.
Really, I think Josephine should have been the main character. Call it "The Emperor's Wife" or something and frame it through her eyes, so no battles or politics, just show how she viewed him on her own. That's the only way it could have worked.
Cos trying to do ALL this, and for a theatrical cut? It was as doomed for failure as invading Russia.
Love it, Stak! I saw it when it came out (with fellow historians)... I was torn about it (my professor friends were NOT, they DESPISED it). I had thought "Sure, I'll watch it again"... but the longer I mull over it... There are SO many egregious inacuracies - not just "oh, Ridley took some license" inaccuracies, these are WHOPPERS. If you only know Napoleon was a guy who ran about with his hand on his solar plexus, you will love this. If you know ANYTHING about Napoleon, you'll be appalled. Like Stak, I genuinely LOVE "Gladiator" and some of his other films, but this... WOW... this... The real story of Napoleon is absolutely fascinating and you could probably do an entire film for each year of his life that would have people on the edge of their seats. And... okay, I gotta: Egypt. He didn't fire at the Pyramids - and even if he HAD... they were 17km away. No artillery of that period could 1) reach that far and 2) have the ability to hit the TOP of them. Can't start or I won't stop. LOVE YOU, STAK! Keep the awesome reviews coming!!!
I had the same issues with The Theory of Everything movie about Stephen Hawking. The movie focuses on his troubled relationship with his wife and practically gives Hawking no credit for being a genius physicist. Given the title of the movie you'd expect to see more science related content, not a romance drama.
Science doesn't sell tickets. Documentaries don't bust the block.
@tjenadonn6158 Yeah, I understand that, but the movie was still boring. I can't imagine being one of the smartest people who ever lived, and when they tell your story, they focus on how your disability was tough for your wife to deal with. I'm sure it's tough for anyone in that situation, but it doesn't make the movie more interesting to focus so hard on this and ignore any success he had. If you didn't know who Steven Hawking was, you would walk away from this movie wondering why they made a movie about him.
The movie is based on his wife’s book. And frankly Hollywood biopics about disabled people are really uncomfortable at centring disabled people. They’re way more comfortable with a wife ‘struggling’ to cope.
It’s interesting in the documentary Hawking, his wife comes over as an absolute horror.
@@MsJayteeListens There have long been rumors that she WAS an absolute horror.
@@billjacobs521And now the Epstein island rumors...
Man, Napoleon's life was so interesting and full of rich history. Wouldn't it be cool if we got a film made about his life?
Oh... A good film then?
Hey, Steven, the "ei" in Leipzig is pronounced like the "ie" in lie. And we have a huge monument here that is dedicated to the victory over Napoleon, from which you can overlook the whole city. And paired with our beautiful old city, it's a really good location to visit on a german city trip. :)
Well the monument is ugly, but yes the battle was a big deal.
@@teekaa2520 Kind of subjective. It's not bad architecturally, it's very recognizable, what more do you want?
For a moment I thought you wrote Lazer pig
@@TheJonnyjoh just bit of teasing from someone who was born in Dresden.
@@teekaa2520 Goddamn, Dresdners! Go back to your also beautiful old city! xD
It also just feels like impossible to make a single movie that is faithful to napoleon’s entire life in a single movie. A two movie or really even a three movie series could have done it, it’s not like apple didn’t have the money.
I almost feel like the appeoach to take would be a set of individual vignettes taken from his entire life, with no attempt at an arching plot. And keeping the scale of things relatively small: avoid the cliches associated with the mythic figure Napoleon has been built up as in the public imagination and scale back to Napoleon Bonaparte the human being.
Possible titles:
1-The rise of Napoleon
2-The Emperor
3rd-the invasion
4th-waterloo
It is a mistake to try and do a fullbiopic in a single movie. A movie can trace and tell one aspect of the man's life, not everything.
I could actually have been interested in a Napoleon & Josephine story ! Or an invasion of Russia story, or a Disaster of Spain story, or a Birth of Egyptology (following Champollion more than Napoleon) story, or a Triumph of the Army of Italy story, or an "Austerlitz" story, or a Victory over Prussia story, or a Life in Exile story, etc, etc. Heck even Waterloo and its prelude makes an entire long (and highly supperior) movie !
But everything into a single biopic movie ? t's always doomed to fail.
@Cancoillotteman
🤣 unless they made a film that was 24 hours long.
@@drfye Hey actually I'd challenge myself to see this in cinemas, could be a fun bet ^^
It really says something that the Oversimplyfied Channel here in YT does a better job than the movie in depicting Napoleon's life & deeds.
I think my favorite part of the movie was the exaggerated portrayal of the British to have attitudes similar to Roman diplomats.
I was excited to see this movie when I first heard of it. The previews made me a little hesitant though and I decided to wait for reviews before I threw down any money on a Hollyweird historically based movie.
All the reviews I’ve seen and read have made me glad I listened to that little voice of hesitation.
A large issue I had while watching the movies was they Scott would have Napoleon say some wild out of pocket, out of character shit, and then have him write a letter or say something very level headed that Napoleon actually did do or write. I could tell when he was having Napoleon be an inaccurate man child and then switch to the intelligent leader that he was. It seemed like Scott couldn't decide on if he wanted Napoleon to be a competent leader, or a whiny man child. Another issue was not making it apparent why a lot of things happen, I'm no expert on Napoleon but I know from at least one college class that one of the reasons Moscow's abandonment and burning by the Russians is an issue is because of the supplies they needed and planned on acquiring there, instead Napoleon screams into his hat like a child.
His target audience are Andrew Tate fans whose mothers never said no to them their whole lives even though they're 40+
Yeah I watched it when it had come out and it didnt even meet my lowest of expectations. Really shouldve just been a story about Josephine at that point. That being said, if you want to sink you teeth into a decent alt historical movie then I would whole heartedly recommend Godzilla Minus One; One of the best movies I have seen this year. The Japanese really know how to make a good Godzilla film
I would love to see a review of the HBO miniseries about Napoleon starring christian Clavier. And compare the 2 of them. I thought the miniseries was excellent from a depiction and accuracy standpoint
Absolutely not a HBO series, but a series for French TV channel made over 20 years ago.
The first movie i saw joaquin Phoenix in was gladiator. I thought he played the crazy king very well. Then the more i watched his movies, i realized he plays every character the same way. He is the rock of crazy weirdos.
Signs too?
I think hes a pretty capable actor. I would bet a lot of the way he was presented in the movie was due to writers and/or the director
It sounds like the film was made by someone with an axe to grind, rather than someone who wanted to portray an interesting historical figure.
Oh yeah, there's plenty of sharpened axes stacked up in Hollywood.
They grinded the axe so much it’s literally flat
They should have made it into 3-5 movies and created the Napoleonic Cinematic Universe lol
Honestly the trailer made me worried when I thought, “Wait is that Waterloo? How many years are they covering in this single movie?”
As a Brit, all excuses were right for Scott to get to the battle of Waterloo without waiting too much. Half an hour on that battle alone shows how biased he was to begin with.
I think any depiction of Napoleon that fails to incorporate his Marshals also does a major disservice. One of the major reasons for his defeat at Waterloo was that while the rank and file French soldier may have rallied to Napoleon on his return from Elba, much of his remaining general staff did not. It would be like Talking up General Robert E Lee without mentioning Stonewall Jackson. Having competent, loyal subordinates is what allows the general to employ the tactics that they use to win. For both Generals, losing those subordinates led to their most well known defeats, as they didn't adjust their plans accordingly.
If memory serves, most of Napoleon's best marshals were already dead, disgraced or (in Bernadotte's case) against him. I can't think of any major names who stayed loyal to the King and who could've made a difference. It was always a doomed cause regardless. France was in no shape to take on all of Europe in 1815. Even Napoleon couldn't pull off that miracle, even if he did beat the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies.
@@Cailus3542yeah that’s what many people don’t seem to realize. They think that if Napoleon won Waterloo he won the war. Except France just wasn’t ready for another War of the Coalition. Even if Waterloo was a smashing victory for Napoleon, it wouldn’t take any time at all for the Nations to gather and even bigger army and literally crush France from all sides
Yes thats true, his most competent marshals were either dead, missused or not the same as they used to be.
Bessiere didnt lead the guard cause hes dead, berthier got thrown out a window and had to be replaced by soult who is one of napoleons best marshal on the field, davout as govenor and instead had grouchy take his place while ney prolly had ptsd from russia
Not to mention murat was in naples fighting for his own crown lmao
The irony is that Scott had already made a much better depiction of the napoleonic wars in his first movie, "The duellists"
The movie should have been called "Napoleon: from the British Perpsective" with how much he's potrayed like this.
We saw Napoleon in IMAX on release weekend. There’s nothing good about the movie, maybe the costumes.
The Despot of Antrim has a long breakdown of Napoleon. It popped into my feed when it was released today. Worth a watch. It’s a logical analysis.
The Despot’s review is unparalleled
Biggest issue I had was that their relationship is portrayed as abusive on boney's part. It's well documented that they were a loving couple and uncharacteristically gentle with each other. Napoleon was a violent person, and Josephine had been abusive towards past partners, but with each other they are known to have been only gentle and loving towards each other. Literally the only reason that they divorced was because josephine was barren and he needed an heir. They remained lovers and his future wife he was abusive towards. Josephine was only ever disloyal when napoleon gave her leave, as was he.
It's one of those Napoleon movies that's all about Josephine😂😂😂
The problem with the movie is not only its lack of historical accurancy is the despiction of Napoleon. They took one of the most interesting lives in human history and transformed it in something boring. The script of the movie seems to be prepeared by Chat GPT
"So we're making a movie about Napoleon..."
"DOES IT HAVE A ROMANTIC PLOT? AUDIENCES LIKE ROMANTIC PLOTS"
"Uh, well there's a woman named Josephine-"
"FOCUS ON THAT. NOBODY LIKES WAR MOVIES ANYMORE. CONSUME PRODUCT."
I think the big thing with the movie is that it covers too much. If it focused on one of his campaigns or events it would have been better. The rise of Napoleon as Emperor(ending with him as emperor), the italian campaign, the egyptian campaign, russia, elba, etc. Each of these could have been a great film on its own.
Another thing that just bugs me is how desaturated and washed out everything feels. The behind the scenes colors look better than the desaturated grey-blue filter they got on it as if Ridley scott is afraid of color. This drab color scheme just sucks IMO.
Napoleon- A character assassination By Ridiculous Scott. They should have just gone full out and casted Peter Dinklage as Napoleon, have him talk with a high pitch feminine voice. And walk with a squeaky noice coming from his boots with every step. And named it "Napoleon- Horny, angry or Sad"
After the battle of Austerlitz, the french were helping survivors out of the water, even fishing for dead bodies and guns. So after decades its obvious little to no guns would be found in the waters.
I enjoyed the film. There are historical inaccuracies, but they do hit some key historical points in the movie, Napoleon putting the crown on himself, the squares at the Battle of Waterloo, his initial exile only to return to try again. I loved the battle scenes too.
I'm not done watching it all yet and I'm already thinking: You mean like how they butchered the "Das Boot series" that came after "Das boot movie"? Where everyone wanted more crazy uboat shenanigans and instead of that they got like maybe 10% uboat and 90% spy vs spy with a side of post modern love story?
You make one errant point in the video that I have watched so-far. From historical sources, Napoleon had notoriously brutish table manners. His own adjutants and valets frequently remarked how he would eat an entire plate of food in 5-10 minutes, with his hands; often just didn't use utensils at all even if they were present. Fine dining table manners are one thing, but the French custom was often to meal over the course of a couple hours. It is important to note: Napoleon Bonaparte was Corsican. The Corsicans, even if his family were noble, were far hardier and down-to-earth 'salt of the earth' types of shepherds and gritty mountain farmers and fisher-men. Also, he was a soldier, and soldiers often rushed their meals, even in France. Sitting back and enjoying a nice deliberate meal and some wine was a luxury of peace-time or easy postings. Napoleon often didn't have this luxury from his early days in the military up to being emperor of France. He was a busy and ambitious young officer. He would sometimes forget to eat, and become very hungry and then would eat like a wolf. Often they would make his favorite meal, he would go to bed, only to wake after an hour or two and be like 'oh yeah my dinner...' This lead to a hilarious instance where once one of the senior members of his military retinue didn't want the food to go to waste so he ate it after Boney had been in bed for nearly 3 hours. It was Napoleon's favorite dish 'buttered chicken'. Napoleon then remarked for months about how his own general would starve him if given the chance. (jokingly, like soldiers do)
'Tasting History' with Max Miller did an entire video on Napoleon's dining habits with primary sources directly from historical accounts, and secondary sources with an asterisk.
Whether it is all 100% true or not is up for debate, but it des make sense that one of the most busy and brilliant military minds to exist on this planet might be a bit board-like when it came to his meals when he remembered to eat them at all. Who cares if he eats with his hands? He's the gosh darn emperor after all?
To be fair, Joaquin Phoenix has always looked like a 44 year old man. Even when he was 15.
This is far from Ridley Scott's first rodeo with a historically set movie, but none of them have gotten this flack before because they've also been pretty up front that they were historical fiction, where it's entirely fine to poke and prod things as needed to tell a compelling story. There is no Maximus to be a Gladiatior, Balian was in his 50s when the Kingdom of Heaven events happen, and so on. He's also done historical films, where SOME deviation is okay for a narrative, but there are lines not to cross, as with Black Hawk Down. I think the problem here is that historical fiction was marketed as historical epic (in the probably accurate assessment that more people were interested in a historical epic over a historical romance, which... seems like a problem for the decision to make the movie in the first place?), and no one in marketing or Scott himself seemed aware of the difference.
I can accept some inaccuracies, honestly sometimes they make for better movies. But, this movie had way too many to be acceptable.
Austerlitz was rushed but alright
Waterloo was just shamefully awful.
I am still baffled that they made a movie about napoleon without showing the battles of Italy and Leipzig.
The cinematography was impressive, but that's probably it I'd say, I think that Vanessa Kirby was probably the stand-out as Joséphine...
It was exciting to see the Napoleonic era on the big screen, but still...
Can I please protest in the name of Josephine against what you tell in 22:46 ff? Josephine did not refuse to accompany Bonaparte to Egypt. To the contrary, women were *explicitly forbidden* to join the troops on the ships. (The few who did go went disguised as men.) However, there were plans for her (and her daughter) to follow on another ship later, once Napoleon had established a secure base in Egypt. While waiting, Josephine took a bad fall from a balcony and injured herself to the point of being in recovery for months. In the meantime, Nelson had destroyed the French fleet and communication with the Egyptian army broke off almost completely for a long time, to the point of people believing Napoleon was dead. There simply was no way to join him anymore.
That's actually something I dislike about historiography of that era: The "camera", so-to-speak, always follows Napoleon, the focus is always on him, and the story is always seen through his eyes and explained as if events always lead back to that one man. But there was stuff going on elsewhere, totally unrelated to him.
As to Josephine's unfaithfulness: She actually gets the same treatment in historiography that Ridley Scott gives Napoleon in this movie. Or that Marie Antoinette got during the French Revolution. The closer you look at the rumours about Josephine's love life, the less substance there is. In fact, there is one - precisely one - case of Josephine being unfaithful during her second marriage, the infamous Hippolyte Charles. The proof of which - the alleged love letters by her to him that of course were never intercepted by the Brits; I mean, how would they even have done that? what they did seize were letters by Bonaparte to his brother Joseph and by Josephine's son Eugène who happened to be an ADC to his stepfather and who had overheard when Napoleon's officers tried to convince their general that his wife was cheating on him - anyway, the proof of which has been seen by one (one!) historian in the 1950s, I think, and today has conveniently disappeared. There are no photographies, no documentation of where these letters went, no nothing. Everything else we have is gossip, the same gossip Eugène overheard in the desert in 1798.
Ridley Scott has really had some duds recently :Napoleon, The Last Duel, Alien Covenant, and Prometheus
I think he’s too old.
most have been pretty bad then, i've never heard of the last 3 movies, only heard of Napoleon bc of all the attention it got
Napoleon as Joaquin phoenix being awkward could’ve worked. But it shouldn’t be what he is when he is talking to his troops. There should be a big disconnect between the napoleon we see in command and the napoleon we see with Josephine.
At the end of the day, I didn’t want to watch a movie about a centuries old dysfunctional marriage
There’s nothing wrong with a Napoleon & Josephine movie, I’m fine with that movie, but if you’re selling a biopic/war-drama, I would expect to see one.
The two biggest battles Jena/Auerstedt and Leipzig were not even in the movie. Not even in the end credits
As a wise man once said, everyone had kissed Nepoleon's soon to be wife... Except for Nepoleon.
An Oversimplified reference. A man of culture I see
I'm AVERAGE HEIGHT for the time!!😂😂
“What did you just say to me you little punk?”
Ridley Scott has some schizophrenic love-hate obsession with France. All his historical movies are about France. For an english dude, he really seems to only look for France for inspiration and often butcher the setting/context. The duelists, is about a French officers feud during Napoleonic wars, in kingdom of Heaven all the main cast is composed of French nobles, in Robin Hood the some of the villains are French royalty and do a fake normandy landing. Well, arguably, Richard the Lionheart was king of England in name only dude spent all this time in France or Holy land never learning English. The Last Duel, again, a feud between French Knights. And then Napoleon, all about a Frenchman. Even when the movie has nothing to do with France, such as 1492 Conquest of Paradise Columbus is played by Gérard Depardieu😂. Dude is salty, can't fault him French history is too glorious!
Waterloo! Couldn’t escape if I wanted to.
This man got it spot on. When I went in I was so excited for this film and when I left I felt confused and also lied to by all the advertisement for this movie. This movie had a few moments that seemed actually presentable, but for the most part I felt like I was about to sleep through the rest of it because it was so bad.
The movie is a 10/10 when you view it through the lens of a 19th century British political cartoonist......
As i left the theatre, i told my dad, "It's like they couldnt decide if they wanted to make a romance movie or a war movie, so they made neither"
I even pointed out (as you do) that the "romance" plot is toxic (and awkward) as hell. I even cited the same scene you do as the worst example of it.
I am beyond lost how anyone enjoyed this movie or rates it positively. Where they even watching the same movie?! 58% is way too generous to this 'movie'
And then others say they want to see the directors cut to fix all the mistakes...YOU WANT TO GIVE HIM MORE TIME AND MONEY? After he wasted your first gift then told you to "get a life". Nah Ridly failed and we need to let this movie flop hard so he gets the point.
Everyone I've talked too says it covered way too much. 25 years in 2.5 hours is not good for any media to do.
I told my gf that the movie should be named "Josephine & some weirdo who likes cannons"
I didn't know about all the stuff he did in Egypt to be honest and it sounds amazing. Like the fact he put so much care into what he did there either trying to preserve Egypts history or rebuilding cirao into a better city just some of the things i love about the guy. Like undoing what the revolution did by crowning himself emperor to reforming Frances legal system to the point the law and other proceedings are used to this day in France and building up the island he was exiled to into something better than it was before just show's how complex and captivating he was and just imagine what history would be like if he never was defeated.
Napoleon preserved Egyptian history only so France could take it and brutally oppressed Egypt who didn't want the French.
@@questionmaker5666 don't think Egypt wanted anyone at the time to be honest.
@@djcokeisnotreal9810 True
12:40 and an era often even called the "Napelionic Wars" Thats how influencial that period was by this individual!
I heard that the movie was always supposed to be about Napoleon and Josephine, but it does suffer from the cut down run time. Apparently Ridley Scott wanted to make two movies but Apple turned him down.
Nice excuse
I don’t understand who this movie is for? Napoleon nerds are gonna hate it for the innaccuracies such as napoleon in calvary charges or even him being in command at Waterloo instead of being sick. The people who aren’t familiar with napoleons history are totally lost on what is actually happening. There just isn’t a audience for this movie that makes sense.
This sounds to me like a problem of hollywood; they don't believe they can tell a story about someone without having a romance put in
That wasn't the issue. Josephine is an important part of Napoleon's life. She just isn't the only part.
@@Cailus3542 I can understand that, but Stak said it right; they mushed two movies together. They should've focused on either their relationship OR his military prowess. I will also acknowledge my bias against Hollywood in that I've seen too many movies that include a romantic interest when there's just no reason for it.
Like how we just had to have two sex scenes in Oppenheimer? Leave it to Hollyweird to make a movie about a nuclear physicist and still try to shoehorn sex into it.
@@Cailus3542she was important enough in the story of napoleon to be his main love interest, not the damn co-main character.
The biggest WTF moment was that this movie was directed from the same person who made "The Kingdom of Heaven" . This just blows my mind.....
The love story should of been a side note not the focus. Would of been way better. But I feel they wanted a strong female character and thats why they made this terrible choice. Can;t wait for these types of decisions to end.
I can't wait for the sequel: Napoleon II Return of Emperors
where Captain Marvel and Barbie join forces to stop emperors Napoleon and Palpatine!
So apparently the director is also obsessed with Napoleons sex life. Kubrick nearly did the same thing. 💀 It’s just another^ Napoleon movie.
I had a feeling it was going to be bad by how Ridley Scott was handling the criticism towards the historical inaccuracies in the movie. It just didn’t give me a lot of confidence about the movie.
It’s a hit piece made by a British dude
You mean by a Cup of tea guy
British “people”.
@@weskintime4177AHAHAHAHAHA
A brief note, the French calvary didn't use Thoroughbreds, but a variety of different heavy and lighter horse types according to the calvary type. They didn't actually want super fast horses. Charges weren't done at full on speed because that breaks the line and tires the horses out too fast. Thoroughbred crosses sometimes, Arab crosses for sure, but they also imported horses from all over in order to have enough. Also a lot of mules. Artillery horses were draft types and had a life expectancy of 8 months. It was pretty brutal.
So basically, Oversimplified did a better job at depicting Napoleon than apple did...
You glossed over some of the other things Napoleon got up to in Egypt, like after the siege of Jaffa when thousands were led into the sea and shot by the French army. If Scott wanted to show Napoleon as a brutal conqueror it would have been much better to show the human cost like that rather than firing on the pyramids
But this is about the movie, not Napoleon.
Napoleon was the most influential military leader in history, we still use his corps system, France uses many of his laws today. Vive l'empereur Napoléon Bonaparte
I hated the "adult time" scenes. Totally unnecessary and they were awful. The movie was so confusing I was on Google trying to figure it out during the film.
I think Joaquin Phoenix was terribly miscast here.
Tired old middle aged man plays a dashing 24 year old who has an affair with an older woman, played by a vivacious much younger actress. Oh, and he conquers and looses Europe in the meantime. I think that might sum up the movie.
Honestly feel bad for Vanessa Kirby, she acted her ass off in a thankless role
I knew who Ridley Scott was. I was not expecting historical accuracy. I wasn’t even expecting him to respect the time period. What I expected was a really good movie and what I got was a pile of garbage. Some of the worst dialogue I’ve ever heard and there were unintentional laughs throughout the movie in the theater.
It's like the writers took the meme of "haha napoleon short, small boy" and decided that meme was an accurate representation of every facet of Napoleon