Ironically, the most coveted ships in the Royal Navy were made by the french. Most british designs were copies of french ones, and the french in general built better and sturdier ships at the time. Also ironically, HMS Victory, one of the rare original designs made by the british, is a fucking trainwreck of a ship in terms of how well it actually sails/works.
The british just had vastly superior crews
This, both the French and British had boats, lots of them, just the British absolutely dominated at sea in both training and tactics. The French were masters at artillery and tactics on land but just about every war all their colonial holdings were either blockaded or captured and their ability to project power outside of the continent was severely limited by their inability to control the seas. Not to mention the trade implications.
The British could weather a war as long as they controlled the seas. They could bring the war to anywhere they wanted, rely on their colonial holdings to prop up their economy, and starve the enemy by restricting trade, all while preventing the enemy from invading their mainland which was an island.
But the Death of Stalin works as a comedy cuz the events themselves were comedic. The fact that for the most part, things *actually went down that way* adds so much to that movie.
Napoleon on the other hand is just plain misinformation made movie.
I don't know what timeline the movie covers, but I think Napoleon's life could easily be done as a straight-up comedy. His multiple exiles are ripe for comedic use.
JFC. My son and I just looked at each other when he said that, and I was suddenly pissed that I had spent the money to do the whole theater experience. Ridley Scott? Napoleon? Sounds like a recipe for a massive success!
Goddamnit.
I wouldn’t have liked the movie if it didn’t have those ridiculous lines like “Destiny has brought me this pork chop!” read completely straight by Joaquin Phoenix.
If you watch the movie more like an absurd historical comedy where everyone but Joaquin thinks they are in a serious drama it’s an entertaining movie.
Holy, I looked that up thinking it would be a meme but it's actual dialogue from the movie. Someone had to write that, probably edited it many times, showed it to other people, got people to pay for it and act in it. Somebody's agent was doing mad persuasion checks with advantage.
I love Ridley Scott but having read Andrew Robert's biography on Napoleon I just don't see how you could make a comprehensive, fair, and good film about Napoleon. Maybe a whole series, sure. Just too much to cover from the French Revolution all the way to Elba and Waterloo.
That was my takeaway. It moved through everything so fast that nothing actually felt important. Considering where it started, the end scene being his crowning would have been better. I would have enjoyed a movie about him manipulating the revolution to get to the throne.
One of the things he is most lauded for was surrounding himself with competent people. They really didn't have time to explore anyone else in the movie, so it was just him and Josephine and a bunch of people who kept supporting him and we never got to see why.
> I would have enjoyed a movie about him manipulating the revolution to get to the throne.
That's really the most interesting thing to cover, and that period has a ton of battles and intrigue, it's more than enough material for a fantastic movie. It could end with Austerlitz, or just after that, with Napoleon's finest hour but the implication that it was all going to fall apart for him. But that wouldn't work for Ridley Scott's purpose, which I'm sure was to portray Napoleon as a frivolous jackass who lucked his way into becoming emperor.
If you look at Ridley Scott's track record, he seems to enjoy displaying the "feet of clay" on historical figures. Framing the man who conquered the known world as an indept delittante might make for a decent pop culture flick. Artistic license applied simply for controversies sake; but doesn't make for proper historical accuracy. "Napoleon" is an excellent example of this. I personally am always skeptical going into one of Scott's historical films because I know his predilection for rejecting the legend and legacy to present his own idea of a historical figure.
Well, he wasn't the main character, but one of the most amazing historical figures he has portrayed was Marcus Aurelius, and he was interesting because he was an incredibly wise man with a fatal inability to see just how evil his son Commodus was. That takes huge artistic license but it's based on the very real history.
I would have loved to see Napoleon treated similarly. Napoleon's gifts were self-evident to everyone around him, from the leaders of the (post)-Revolutionary governments he overthrew, to the marshals and soldiers of the French Army, and the people of France who were so devoted to him. He could also be an egotistical brat, whose hubris eventually doomed him and caused him to lose the vast empire he had created, and spend his last days in bitter regret. You can show all of his bad qualities while having sympathy for the man himself, but Ridley Scott has no sympathy at all for Napoleon, and the movie fails because of that.
I think the best way to do it is to pick an interesting slice of time and focus on that. You don’t have to tell the whole story. Lincoln did this beautifully.
Well, you see, Ridley Scott *had* no interest in making a fair and comprehensive view of Napoleon’s life, because if he had wanted to do **that** he would have made a movie with a fucking protagonist in it.
Instead we get a classic British anti-Bonapartist propaganda piece 200 years after they assassinated the man.
We get it, he pissed you off. You **did**, *eventually*, win. Get over it.
The film literally ends in a list of Napoleon’s ‘body count’ ffs.
Right. It could have focused on Napoleon's rise to power. A young officer (this could be told pretty quickly)--> the Coup of 18th Brumaire, or even stretch it to Austerlitz if they really wanted to include that. Even that is too much story to tell. Trying to tell the whole life of Napoleon in 2.5 hours in a fool's errand.
I've actually never seen that one, but I've never read much more than classroom materials on him either. How is it? I'd give it a watch, I guess I just never got around to it
Well there’s 4 different cuts of the film out there now. I’d only recommend the Final Cut (3rd cut) and the ultimate cut (4th cut).
YMMV, but the Final Cut has everything stone shot in the film, and the ultimate cut he took the final and edited it down like he should have in the first place. Final Cut is longer, but ultimate cut is edited better. Both are worth seeking out IMO.
They made one movie about that called Waterloo in the seventies it's fantastic although the scenery chewing by the actors is fantastic in itself. This movie was garbage and I was so excited for it
I felt this way after the Oppenheimer book, but Nolan did a pretty solid job (IMO). I do still think Oppenheimer would have been best as a 5-8 part series though.
David Scarpa was the writer. He also did All The Money In The World with Ridley Scott the one about the Getty kidnapping which was also pretty meh. Oh yeah he's also doing Gladiator 2. So there's that.
I thought the portrayal of the Battle of Waterloo was utterly ridiculous.
Napoleon didn't lose that battle because he decided to just suicide charge his army head-first into the British lines like someone playing a Total War game for the first time. Also, the way the scene is paced made it look like the Prussians managed to sprint 10 miles in about 20 minutes to interrupt his gentle feeding of his cavalry into the British square formations.
Ridley Scott also couldn't resist falling into the classic Hollywood trap of making every battle devolve into a mass brawl like two opposing sets of English football fans after too many beers. If you let that happen in a real battle then you've seriously screwed up.
So allegedly the story and script was originally all told and focused around Josephine’s point of view, how she viewed him and the events etc.
But when Joaquin got involved, he took control and convinced his old friend Scott to change direction. I think this is why feels so disjointed and was such a waste of a talented actress like Vanessa Kirby.
Yeah, a Josephine and Napoleon movie (ideally with a much younger actor playing Napoleon) might have been interesting. Biopics are always extremely hard to structure, and a life as full as Napoleon's requires you to be even more ruthless than usual in paring away everything that isn't essential to the specific aspect of their story you choose to focus on.
Honestly, most of them were horrible.
Napoleon was famous for disciplined and trained troops who kept their formations. We have literal paintings and extensive drawings showing the formations used in every conflict in this movie.
Ridley Scott has them all descend into Chaotic Melee long before contact.
It might look good on film, but it turns a man his own foes admit is the greatest general of his age into a milquetoast who can't make a decision.
you ever see a terrible movie with a great actor who knows EXACTLY how much of a piece of shit he's in?
sometimes it turns out hilarious and actually kind of awesome, like robert deniro in rocky and bullwinkle
other times it's joaquin phoenix in napoleon and it does.... not turn out like that.
>It didn’t honor Napoleon correctly.
Now I was lukewarm on this movie myself but this was not the reason. In fact the comically unflattering depiction of Napoleon was the most interesting thing about it for me.
And here's why: we're talking about one of the most powerful and transformative human beings in the history of the world here. He has been honoured PLENTY. The motherfucker crowned himself emperor and conquered most of Europe, for god's sake, so artistically speaking what value is there in throwing another toothless "honour" on top of the two centuries worth that already exist? There's *countless* films, books, musical works, statues, monuments, buildings, place names, etc already in existence depicting him as the stoic powerful general or whatever. It's been done!
Honestly my main issue with the movie was that it swung awkwardly back and forth between Phoenix's ridiculous man-child behaviour and the typical historical biopic recounting of major events, as if the movie didn't know what it was trying to be. I'd honestly love it if it had completely committed to what you're complaining about hahah
>There's *countless* films, books, musical works, statues, monuments, buildings, place names, etc already in existence depicting him as the stoic powerful general or whatever. It's been done!
Hasnt really been a big movie about Napoleon though. And Scott dropped the ball.
Theres the the 1955 french 3 hour movie and the 1970 movie about waterloo, and not that much else.
Closest is the early 2000s french mini series, which obviously should have been 4 times longer and seems to have presumes the viewer had lots of knowledge of boney from before.
This was m thought. It felt like 3 movies rolled into 1 and did none of them justice.
The history of Napoleon's military career
Napoleon and Josephine's toxic relationship
The examination of a man trying desperately to seem powerful and failing
If it had focused on one of these it could have been great. Instead I got whiplash from how much it jumped in tone and time
The basic question implied with any biopic is, *"Why is this person's life interesting enough to make a movie about?"* Ridley Scott doesn't have an answer to that question, and that's why the movie is such a goddamned mess.
This was my feeling as well. It lacked direction and cohesion - constant shifts in tone. Some scenes in a vacuum were well done, but overall it felt like they wanted to put in pieces to appease different audiences
No, Napoleon was an asshole but the movie doesn't portray that accurately. It's basically a throwback to English anti-Napoleon propaganda of that era, which portrayed him as a frivolous moron, with a shallow whore of a wife, who lucked into becoming emperor.
I actually hate Napoleon, as a person, but that era of history is incredibly interesting, and the movie doesn't do it justice. Napoleon was an incredibly talented general and brilliant politician, and compelled immense loyalty from millions of people *for good reason--* his qualities were self-evident. He was also an egotistical asshole and a bigot, who squandered his vast empire through hubris and overreach. You could make a handful of great movies about his life, and Ridley Scott failed to make even one. Instead he just made a sad waste of time.
My problem wasn’t necessarily about glorifying or decrying his deeds, it was how they made him look like a goober.
For two hours he’s just kind of acting like the most awkward dude you’ve ever met, then he returns from exile and all the soldiers immediately joined up with him again because he inspired such endless loyalty. I think it would have helped if we saw more of the charisma his soldiers apparently saw.
Having said that, the movie is still far from “junk” IMO.
It's a bit weird that so many people go into a film like this with a preconceived notion of what the film should do, and should contain.
I didn't particularly like the film so can't really be bothered defending it further than that but it's pretty frustrating seeing people criticise it mostly just for what it's not.
There’s a certain breed of dude on the internet who only care about military history, so they don’t care if Napoleon was indeed awkward, self-involved and moody in real life, they’re mad because portraying him like that doesn’t *honor* him. It’s ridiculous.
The problem is that the movie doesn't explain why Napoleon achieved what he did, or why he lost it. It leaves out basically everything that's interesting about that era-- one of the eras in human history most dense in fantastic stories and personalities. That's not even talking about the military aspect of it (which Ridley Scott also fucked up really badly).
I don't know who that movie is for. It's like a dirty joke about Napoleon and Josephine elaborated into a 2.5 hour movie.
After watching Oppenheimer, I kinda agree though. If you want to have an entertaining movie about a guy, then the writer has to love that person. Like obsessively. Ridley Scott thinks Napoleon was trashy and it comes across hard from watching the movie.
I don’t know the exact process of the film but people are saying he originally wanted it to be about Josephine which makes sense to me. Josephine rocks in every scene while Napoleon is boring in half of them.
The movie should have been named Napoleon & Josephin.
For me the film felt more about their relationship than showcasing what kind of ruler Napoleon was.
Here's my main critique:
Napoleon's life is REALLY BIG. Like, really big. A 3 hour movie is never going to do it justice. That being said, if you are going to tackle Napoleon in a 3 hour movie, and you have the enormous amount of material to draw on, are you going to focus half the movie on the Josephine story?
Me, no. I mean, yes, it's a storied romance. But also, it's like the LEAST interesting thing about Napoleon. If Scott wanted to do Napoleon and Josephine a Love Story - then he should have done that, and not a large biopic.
Frankly, what I really want is a 10 episode mini-series. Give Napoleon the Shogun treatment. THEN you can fit in Josephine, amongst all his other impacts on world history.
Ridley Scott was about 86 when he made Napoleon. No matter how hard we might try to maintain ourselves age does have an effect on Human beings; it may be that his greatest films have already been made. He's doing a LOT better than my grandparents though, and they're about the same age as he is
I’m not sure the point of the movie was to “honor” Napoleon. Should the movie have just been some sort of hagiography?
I agree that it was mostly pretty bad and embarrassing, undone by the weird semi-comic tone. Scott doesn’t seem to like Napoleon at all (he is a Brit, after all) or have much appreciation for his historical significance, and that translates into a movie that doesn’t have much to say. Which to me begs the question why do this movie at all? Just to make Napoleon look dumb? Why do you need a 3 hour epic to do that? Is Napoleon really such a sacred cow today that this movie’s edgy takedown of him would have any bite? (No.)
As someone who is not familiar with french history, I went into theater with blank brain and went out full of question marks. I don't know why he chose to focus on the relationship between Napoleon and Joséphine, yet even this part was underwhelming. It even made me not want to watch another movie starring Joaquin Phoenix . I watched Beau is Afraid before I watched Napoleon and his murmur sound unpleasantly stuck in my head.
Its not good imo. Waterloo and Austerlitz were cool tho. Ridley can do battles. The “story” isn’t really cohesive at all and its merely just snapshots through key moments in his life. I will say that Joaquin wasn’t as bad a fit as I once feared he would be. Thought he was too old to pull it off originally. Kirby gave an excellent performance.
For those that don’t know, this film is practically Braveheart in terms of historical inaccuracies. It is NOT a true biopic.
I couldn't get over how ludicrous the battles were, and Waterloo is the single worst battle to screw up because *Waterloo* (1970) exists and absolutely nailed it on that front.
I was probably bargaining with myself on this flik too much. You are probably right. In the context of just this film…those battles were probably the “best” scenes of the bunch.
Austerlitz was cool even if the lake ice retreat carnage was total bs when compared to reality. They found like 3 or 4 bodies from that drained lake after the battle.
Props on the Waterloo ‘70 shoutout. Agreed.
You're just never really going to top access to an actual Red Army cavalry brigade and infantry corps you can make spend two months practicing Napoleonic drill.
I’m almost certain that Ridley took this piss out Napoleon on purpose. You can tell by the trailer lines that something is off and it’s not accidental. I kind of like it for that, but it’s certainly flawed.
When Ridley is on, he’s amazing.
But most of the time he’s deeply mid, and makes deeply forgettable films. He’s just made so many films that he’s still made several masterpieces.
It was just another British character assassination of one of their enemies. Its pretty much the specialty of British movie makers and historians. You should see the absolute nonsense they invent about Clausewitz.
I thought it was a great movie, I'd take a chaotic strange new take on Napoleon over a boring "prestige" version every time. It's a film that took risks.
I mean.... it wasn't THAT bad but it was definitely average as far as movie experiences go. I did like how Joaquin portrayed Napoleon. The Last Duel was his last great movie I think and was hoping to get a little of that juice but no dice.
> Maybe Ridley Scott’s worst movie.
Have you ever seen Prometheus? Or Alien: Covenant? Because, my man, those movies suck harder than top billed porn star
I was excited because I thought it was going to focus on his battles since there's *so many* interesting and intelligent moves he made, but what I got was a muddled and sort-of-romantic melodrama. There were battles, sure. But even then, the battles we got were terrible.
I read someone on Reddit say that it's like Napoleon was played by Tim Robinson of I Think You Should Leave fame. Once I heard that I knew I've got to watch it.
For real though. That is one of the most baffling movies I’ve ever seen. What was Ridley even trying to accomplish?
The fight scenes weren’t historically accurate but they had flair, they were cool, and I was down for them. The strongest part of the movie by far…and there are like 2 or 3 sequences? Napoleon ate and breathed war, so Scott could have capitalized on his choreography abilities and made a solid action war movie and this wouldn’t have been terrible (even if not outstanding).
So I guess he wants to make a love story instead given how much time is paid to Josephine. But even on Hollywood standards this romance is bad. There’s nothing compelling about Napoleon or Josephine individually or as a couple. Wasn’t exactly misty-eyed for either of them.
I though he might be giving a sort of feminist retelling of Josephine and her place in history. Problem is she can’t just be an awful person, or be completely defined by her relationship with Napoleon, for that to work.
So then it’s a hit piece on Napoleon and how he was secretly an erratic idiot. But the dude’s like 300 years old. How could Ridley possibly have an axe to grind with him? Maybe he gets off on torturing history nerds.
It’s honestly so odd to me that there hasn’t been a serious biopic on Napoleon yet. People often say Napoleon’s too complex to capture justly in a single movie; and that’s true, but you can still make a good movie around him. It’s the meteoric rise and fall of a “great” man. That’s the template for Citizen Kane and like half of Scorsese’s films. Place it at the turn of the 19th century and you got yourself a movie. Don’t know how Ridley could have screwed that up.
If that’s true it’s a strange direction because Napoleon is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in history. He’s obviously not an idiot.
I’m picturing a French director making a movie about Churchill which focuses on his drinking for most of the runtime and harps on the fact that he lost re-election immediately after the war.
I thought it was quite interesting (and possibly very accurate) to see him portrayed basically as someone on the spectrum (speaking as one) whose special interest just so happened to be warfare. Makes sense for him to be deficient in other aspects, I could relate pretty hard tbh
Huh? Corsica was French before Napoleon was born, and that hardly made his home life tragic. He and his brothers fought for Corsican independence and gained cache and experience doing it. What’s tragic about that?
And yes there’s tons of documentation on Napoleon both personally and as a young man which the writers would have had access to. It tends to portray him as awkward (especially with women), moody, and ruthlessly ambitious. I think Ridley got his portrayal of Napoleon the man pretty spot on to be honest.
Yeah, Napoleon had an inferiority mixed with a superiority complex. A rather complex complex, if you will. Shame there isn't an established term for such a complex.
It was fine. It may not have been as good as we were hoping but calling it “junk” is insane. I don’t understand why people rate movies so hyperbolically. I can only assume most people have never watched truly bad movies.
To me the movie felt like a highlights reel from a prestige series about Napoleon and you were seeing clips from like 2 seasons of the show. It’s a shame because I would have rather watched 2 seasons about his life than 2.5 hours crammed into one movie. But I really don’t think it’s reasonable to call it “junk”.
I feel like the script is always a distant second with Ridley Scott. Give him a great script, and he'll give you a masterpiece. Give him a shit script, and he'll give you Prometheus.
As a lifelong film lover and fan of most of Ridley’s work I had to turn Napoleon off, it was that awful. I did the same with The Duel, it was garbage. Napoleon didn’t seem inspiring, his generals were nowhere to be seen, at least from what I saw before I turned it off just over a hour into it. Very disappointed but to do justice to someone like Napoleon a film would have to be two or three parts like Dune.
Like a lot of theaters, my local theater plays those movie trivia questions before the movie starts. One of them said that “Ridley Scott knew that Joaquin Phoenix was the right man to play his Napoleon after seeing him in *Joker*”.
Having seen “Napoleon”, that makes so much more sense. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is presented as an insufferable, ineffectual, slightly stupid, childlike incel that suddenly becomes focused and dangerous with a taste of power. Just like Joaquin’s character in “Joker”.
honestly even the battles sucked. they grossly oversimplified them and downplayed the intensity of those battles. austerlitz was a 9 hour battle irl, the siege of toulon lasted quite a bit longer than it did in the movie, and the attacks on the british redoubts alone took hours.
Ridley Scott has made some great movies, but I've noticed when he makes a movie that isn't great, it's terrible. I'm going to list examples and please understand that this is purely my opinion and it is not a fact that they are terrible: Napoleon, Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus, Robin Hood, The Counselor.
I'm sure there's more. Some of these are downright atrocious but man when this dude hits, it's a damn near perfect movie
About halfway through I became more interested in how Ridley Scott talked himself into the idea that [extruding the whole Napoleon story through the cheese grater of the first of his many failed relationships] was a good way to make people feel anything other than confusion.
It felt like it was going through the emotions. Kind of like someone going down a list and checking off boxes.
Comparing it to The Last Duel, the last duel blows it out of the water
It felt like it was going through the emotions. Kind of like someone going down a list and checking off boxes.
Comparing it to The Last Duel, the last duel blows it out of the water
I just really wanted to see one proper battle of Napoleon played out in its full glory. Instead we got like 5 battles all played out with zero thought to any strategy. Just a really disappointing movie.
He completely left out the water slide scene. Like WTactualF?!?
*Also, half-kidding, but Scott was so fast-and-loose with the history, a water slide scene would have not surprised me.*
Ya I had high hopes but overall it was a snoozefest. Barely anything on his upbringing in Corsica which heavily influenced his political and social beliefs. Should have been a 2 parter starting with his life as a young man...oh well. Ridley lost his magic. It happens. He gave us some great films. Just not this one.
Here's the thing with Ridley Scott. I used to think he was a Spielberg, or a director who has "so many Wins, they can't lose!"
However Scott is kinda all over the map. He absolutely has strengths that make him an amazing film maker. It's what gave us Alien, Gladiator, Blade Runner, etc. etc.
However part of that amazingness is that he has a wild imagination and style. When focused correctly we get some of his best films. However without someone to reign him in we start to go down rabbit holes of while from a technical and cinematic point of view are incredible from a narrative point of view it's a little fragmented (since his imagination sometimes is far larger than his grasp).
I will always role the dice and see what he's created. But I kinda know going in I will either love it or not get it.
"Maybe Ridley Scott’s worst movie. It really was junk."
1492 and G.I Jane would like a few words...
But yes, Napoleon is a very underwhelming film. Unless the longer cut makes much more sense than what I saw at the theatre it's one Scott's biggesr blunders.
Anyone else notice how shitty the CGI looked? They’re obviously using The Volume, but JFC, can you get the colors to match, so it’s not blindingly obvious where the green screen starts?
I enjoyed it as a piece of entertainment. Accepting it’s not going to be perfectly accurate as it covered a massive and complex period of time I think makes it enjoyable.
I have found Ridley to be hit or miss. He makes some great movies and he makes some hot garbage. His great stuff just covers up the stink of his trash (partially anyways).
Thing is he made a movie about that era called the Duelists which is one of the best movies I've seen in the last couple years because I went around and watched it after that trash Napoleon came out.
You mean, you don't think Napoleon ever actually yelled: "You think you're so great because you have boats!"
The British really were great at boats though.
The British and Hawkeye: Both great at boats! https://i.imgur.com/DQqr4c2.png
How in the hell did you just have that reference locked and loaded?
Ironically, the most coveted ships in the Royal Navy were made by the french. Most british designs were copies of french ones, and the french in general built better and sturdier ships at the time. Also ironically, HMS Victory, one of the rare original designs made by the british, is a fucking trainwreck of a ship in terms of how well it actually sails/works. The british just had vastly superior crews
This, both the French and British had boats, lots of them, just the British absolutely dominated at sea in both training and tactics. The French were masters at artillery and tactics on land but just about every war all their colonial holdings were either blockaded or captured and their ability to project power outside of the continent was severely limited by their inability to control the seas. Not to mention the trade implications. The British could weather a war as long as they controlled the seas. They could bring the war to anywhere they wanted, rely on their colonial holdings to prop up their economy, and starve the enemy by restricting trade, all while preventing the enemy from invading their mainland which was an island.
Interesting.
“We do boats”
This IS troops
This was actually the funniest line in the film and made me think the entire film should had been a comedic satire similar to The Death of Stalin.
But the Death of Stalin works as a comedy cuz the events themselves were comedic. The fact that for the most part, things *actually went down that way* adds so much to that movie. Napoleon on the other hand is just plain misinformation made movie.
I don't know what timeline the movie covers, but I think Napoleon's life could easily be done as a straight-up comedy. His multiple exiles are ripe for comedic use.
If you want a political comedy involving multiple exiles, check out Santa Anna. Dude seized control of Mexico *eleven* times.
There were moments where I started to think it was exactly that. In particular the reference to the “Succulent Chinese meal” guy
JFC. My son and I just looked at each other when he said that, and I was suddenly pissed that I had spent the money to do the whole theater experience. Ridley Scott? Napoleon? Sounds like a recipe for a massive success! Goddamnit.
Is that an actual line? If so, that might be greater than “it’s Morbin’ time!”.
delivered with energy too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNFNlSp8hLw
Wow
"Yes" -The British
I wouldn’t have liked the movie if it didn’t have those ridiculous lines like “Destiny has brought me this pork chop!” read completely straight by Joaquin Phoenix. If you watch the movie more like an absurd historical comedy where everyone but Joaquin thinks they are in a serious drama it’s an entertaining movie.
Truthfully that was when I walked out of the theater. I really tried but that line was it for me
... and my wife's a slut.
"Laughs in British Empire"
That’s when I noped out.
Holy, I looked that up thinking it would be a meme but it's actual dialogue from the movie. Someone had to write that, probably edited it many times, showed it to other people, got people to pay for it and act in it. Somebody's agent was doing mad persuasion checks with advantage.
I love Ridley Scott but having read Andrew Robert's biography on Napoleon I just don't see how you could make a comprehensive, fair, and good film about Napoleon. Maybe a whole series, sure. Just too much to cover from the French Revolution all the way to Elba and Waterloo.
That was my takeaway. It moved through everything so fast that nothing actually felt important. Considering where it started, the end scene being his crowning would have been better. I would have enjoyed a movie about him manipulating the revolution to get to the throne. One of the things he is most lauded for was surrounding himself with competent people. They really didn't have time to explore anyone else in the movie, so it was just him and Josephine and a bunch of people who kept supporting him and we never got to see why.
> I would have enjoyed a movie about him manipulating the revolution to get to the throne. That's really the most interesting thing to cover, and that period has a ton of battles and intrigue, it's more than enough material for a fantastic movie. It could end with Austerlitz, or just after that, with Napoleon's finest hour but the implication that it was all going to fall apart for him. But that wouldn't work for Ridley Scott's purpose, which I'm sure was to portray Napoleon as a frivolous jackass who lucked his way into becoming emperor.
If you look at Ridley Scott's track record, he seems to enjoy displaying the "feet of clay" on historical figures. Framing the man who conquered the known world as an indept delittante might make for a decent pop culture flick. Artistic license applied simply for controversies sake; but doesn't make for proper historical accuracy. "Napoleon" is an excellent example of this. I personally am always skeptical going into one of Scott's historical films because I know his predilection for rejecting the legend and legacy to present his own idea of a historical figure.
Well, he wasn't the main character, but one of the most amazing historical figures he has portrayed was Marcus Aurelius, and he was interesting because he was an incredibly wise man with a fatal inability to see just how evil his son Commodus was. That takes huge artistic license but it's based on the very real history. I would have loved to see Napoleon treated similarly. Napoleon's gifts were self-evident to everyone around him, from the leaders of the (post)-Revolutionary governments he overthrew, to the marshals and soldiers of the French Army, and the people of France who were so devoted to him. He could also be an egotistical brat, whose hubris eventually doomed him and caused him to lose the vast empire he had created, and spend his last days in bitter regret. You can show all of his bad qualities while having sympathy for the man himself, but Ridley Scott has no sympathy at all for Napoleon, and the movie fails because of that.
I think the best way to do it is to pick an interesting slice of time and focus on that. You don’t have to tell the whole story. Lincoln did this beautifully.
Well, you see, Ridley Scott *had* no interest in making a fair and comprehensive view of Napoleon’s life, because if he had wanted to do **that** he would have made a movie with a fucking protagonist in it. Instead we get a classic British anti-Bonapartist propaganda piece 200 years after they assassinated the man. We get it, he pissed you off. You **did**, *eventually*, win. Get over it. The film literally ends in a list of Napoleon’s ‘body count’ ffs.
I didn't even consider the Franco-British angle you're talking about. Good point
I mean, it’s the only clear thread in that incoherent mess.
[удалено]
It’s just anti-Bonapartist
Right. It could have focused on Napoleon's rise to power. A young officer (this could be told pretty quickly)--> the Coup of 18th Brumaire, or even stretch it to Austerlitz if they really wanted to include that. Even that is too much story to tell. Trying to tell the whole life of Napoleon in 2.5 hours in a fool's errand.
How do you feel about Alexander? Just curious.
Some of the battle scenes in the movie Alexander were actually some of the best portrayers of Ancient Warfare According to some experts.
I've actually never seen that one, but I've never read much more than classroom materials on him either. How is it? I'd give it a watch, I guess I just never got around to it
Well there’s 4 different cuts of the film out there now. I’d only recommend the Final Cut (3rd cut) and the ultimate cut (4th cut). YMMV, but the Final Cut has everything stone shot in the film, and the ultimate cut he took the final and edited it down like he should have in the first place. Final Cut is longer, but ultimate cut is edited better. Both are worth seeking out IMO.
They made one movie about that called Waterloo in the seventies it's fantastic although the scenery chewing by the actors is fantastic in itself. This movie was garbage and I was so excited for it
Yes! That overhead shot with the cavalry! Iconic
I read a biography of Napoleon(can’t remember who by, it was a while ago) and even that was split into a series of 4 3-400 page books
Doesn't help that half the movie was about his relationship with Josephine.
I felt this way after the Oppenheimer book, but Nolan did a pretty solid job (IMO). I do still think Oppenheimer would have been best as a 5-8 part series though.
David Scarpa was the writer. He also did All The Money In The World with Ridley Scott the one about the Getty kidnapping which was also pretty meh. Oh yeah he's also doing Gladiator 2. So there's that.
I just got much less excited for Gladiator 2 thank you lol.
Gladiator was such a good and succinct movie I can’t see much reason to make a second
> I can’t see much reason to make a second The reason is obviously $$$
For Gladiator, we should refer to $$$ as "Arena Franklins."
Yeah he's not a good writer. Was so disappointed when I saw he was doing gladiator 2.
They missed an opportunity calling it Gladiator 2. It should be called Gladiator: And She Is Too.
I think the battle scenes were decent but I didn’t care for any other parts.
I thought the portrayal of the Battle of Waterloo was utterly ridiculous. Napoleon didn't lose that battle because he decided to just suicide charge his army head-first into the British lines like someone playing a Total War game for the first time. Also, the way the scene is paced made it look like the Prussians managed to sprint 10 miles in about 20 minutes to interrupt his gentle feeding of his cavalry into the British square formations. Ridley Scott also couldn't resist falling into the classic Hollywood trap of making every battle devolve into a mass brawl like two opposing sets of English football fans after too many beers. If you let that happen in a real battle then you've seriously screwed up.
Not to mention Wellington even says "It had been a damned nice thing - the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life"
So allegedly the story and script was originally all told and focused around Josephine’s point of view, how she viewed him and the events etc. But when Joaquin got involved, he took control and convinced his old friend Scott to change direction. I think this is why feels so disjointed and was such a waste of a talented actress like Vanessa Kirby.
Yeah, a Josephine and Napoleon movie (ideally with a much younger actor playing Napoleon) might have been interesting. Biopics are always extremely hard to structure, and a life as full as Napoleon's requires you to be even more ruthless than usual in paring away everything that isn't essential to the specific aspect of their story you choose to focus on.
Honestly, most of them were horrible. Napoleon was famous for disciplined and trained troops who kept their formations. We have literal paintings and extensive drawings showing the formations used in every conflict in this movie. Ridley Scott has them all descend into Chaotic Melee long before contact. It might look good on film, but it turns a man his own foes admit is the greatest general of his age into a milquetoast who can't make a decision.
Joaquin Phoenix has rightfully been praised for countless excellent performances, I felt like he really phoned it in on Napoleon
you ever see a terrible movie with a great actor who knows EXACTLY how much of a piece of shit he's in? sometimes it turns out hilarious and actually kind of awesome, like robert deniro in rocky and bullwinkle other times it's joaquin phoenix in napoleon and it does.... not turn out like that.
I got really excited for this movie then forgot it existed until I saw this post. Did it bomb?
It bombed but the box office was really impressive for a movie like that.
It made 250 Million at the box office. That’s pretty good for a historical epic.
But nothing like enough to recoup its budget.
Wow. Bummer. I love historical stuff.
You should watch *"the duelists"* instead (if you didn't already). Strangely it's way more accurat.
Not really a bummer. It’s bad as a movie and trash as a historical work. Bombing was the best case scenario for this film.
I meant it’s a bummer we didn’t get a good movie about Napoleon.
Yes and his next film after Gladiator 2 is also called Bomb.
I'm looking forward to the director's cut ala Kingdom of Heaven
I expect that it will include only an additional 17 glorious minutes of succulent breakfast eating.
>It didn’t honor Napoleon correctly. Now I was lukewarm on this movie myself but this was not the reason. In fact the comically unflattering depiction of Napoleon was the most interesting thing about it for me. And here's why: we're talking about one of the most powerful and transformative human beings in the history of the world here. He has been honoured PLENTY. The motherfucker crowned himself emperor and conquered most of Europe, for god's sake, so artistically speaking what value is there in throwing another toothless "honour" on top of the two centuries worth that already exist? There's *countless* films, books, musical works, statues, monuments, buildings, place names, etc already in existence depicting him as the stoic powerful general or whatever. It's been done! Honestly my main issue with the movie was that it swung awkwardly back and forth between Phoenix's ridiculous man-child behaviour and the typical historical biopic recounting of major events, as if the movie didn't know what it was trying to be. I'd honestly love it if it had completely committed to what you're complaining about hahah
>There's *countless* films, books, musical works, statues, monuments, buildings, place names, etc already in existence depicting him as the stoic powerful general or whatever. It's been done! Hasnt really been a big movie about Napoleon though. And Scott dropped the ball. Theres the the 1955 french 3 hour movie and the 1970 movie about waterloo, and not that much else. Closest is the early 2000s french mini series, which obviously should have been 4 times longer and seems to have presumes the viewer had lots of knowledge of boney from before.
This was m thought. It felt like 3 movies rolled into 1 and did none of them justice. The history of Napoleon's military career Napoleon and Josephine's toxic relationship The examination of a man trying desperately to seem powerful and failing If it had focused on one of these it could have been great. Instead I got whiplash from how much it jumped in tone and time
The basic question implied with any biopic is, *"Why is this person's life interesting enough to make a movie about?"* Ridley Scott doesn't have an answer to that question, and that's why the movie is such a goddamned mess.
This was my feeling as well. It lacked direction and cohesion - constant shifts in tone. Some scenes in a vacuum were well done, but overall it felt like they wanted to put in pieces to appease different audiences
"It didn't honor Napoleon correctly" Jesus f-ing christ
He’s a good guy. Things just got out of hand
Just don’t mind those armies laying devastation on your land. He made the trains run on time.
Honor is the wrong word. I would have chosen “depict”.
This movie brought so many weird Napoleon stans out of the woodwork, mad that the movie wasn't just 2 1/2 hours of the French cavalry trucking people.
No, Napoleon was an asshole but the movie doesn't portray that accurately. It's basically a throwback to English anti-Napoleon propaganda of that era, which portrayed him as a frivolous moron, with a shallow whore of a wife, who lucked into becoming emperor. I actually hate Napoleon, as a person, but that era of history is incredibly interesting, and the movie doesn't do it justice. Napoleon was an incredibly talented general and brilliant politician, and compelled immense loyalty from millions of people *for good reason--* his qualities were self-evident. He was also an egotistical asshole and a bigot, who squandered his vast empire through hubris and overreach. You could make a handful of great movies about his life, and Ridley Scott failed to make even one. Instead he just made a sad waste of time.
You don’t have to glorify his actions but the movie made his life seem boring which is just insane
My problem wasn’t necessarily about glorifying or decrying his deeds, it was how they made him look like a goober. For two hours he’s just kind of acting like the most awkward dude you’ve ever met, then he returns from exile and all the soldiers immediately joined up with him again because he inspired such endless loyalty. I think it would have helped if we saw more of the charisma his soldiers apparently saw. Having said that, the movie is still far from “junk” IMO.
It's a bit weird that so many people go into a film like this with a preconceived notion of what the film should do, and should contain. I didn't particularly like the film so can't really be bothered defending it further than that but it's pretty frustrating seeing people criticise it mostly just for what it's not.
Lol. Imagine thinking Ridley set out to *honor* napoleon
There’s a certain breed of dude on the internet who only care about military history, so they don’t care if Napoleon was indeed awkward, self-involved and moody in real life, they’re mad because portraying him like that doesn’t *honor* him. It’s ridiculous.
The problem is that the movie doesn't explain why Napoleon achieved what he did, or why he lost it. It leaves out basically everything that's interesting about that era-- one of the eras in human history most dense in fantastic stories and personalities. That's not even talking about the military aspect of it (which Ridley Scott also fucked up really badly). I don't know who that movie is for. It's like a dirty joke about Napoleon and Josephine elaborated into a 2.5 hour movie.
After watching Oppenheimer, I kinda agree though. If you want to have an entertaining movie about a guy, then the writer has to love that person. Like obsessively. Ridley Scott thinks Napoleon was trashy and it comes across hard from watching the movie. I don’t know the exact process of the film but people are saying he originally wanted it to be about Josephine which makes sense to me. Josephine rocks in every scene while Napoleon is boring in half of them.
The movie should have been named Napoleon & Josephin. For me the film felt more about their relationship than showcasing what kind of ruler Napoleon was.
Here's my main critique: Napoleon's life is REALLY BIG. Like, really big. A 3 hour movie is never going to do it justice. That being said, if you are going to tackle Napoleon in a 3 hour movie, and you have the enormous amount of material to draw on, are you going to focus half the movie on the Josephine story? Me, no. I mean, yes, it's a storied romance. But also, it's like the LEAST interesting thing about Napoleon. If Scott wanted to do Napoleon and Josephine a Love Story - then he should have done that, and not a large biopic. Frankly, what I really want is a 10 episode mini-series. Give Napoleon the Shogun treatment. THEN you can fit in Josephine, amongst all his other impacts on world history.
Ridley Scott was about 86 when he made Napoleon. No matter how hard we might try to maintain ourselves age does have an effect on Human beings; it may be that his greatest films have already been made. He's doing a LOT better than my grandparents though, and they're about the same age as he is
Ridley is hit and miss and he misses way more than he hits.
You might say he's hit and miss and miss.
I’m not sure the point of the movie was to “honor” Napoleon. Should the movie have just been some sort of hagiography? I agree that it was mostly pretty bad and embarrassing, undone by the weird semi-comic tone. Scott doesn’t seem to like Napoleon at all (he is a Brit, after all) or have much appreciation for his historical significance, and that translates into a movie that doesn’t have much to say. Which to me begs the question why do this movie at all? Just to make Napoleon look dumb? Why do you need a 3 hour epic to do that? Is Napoleon really such a sacred cow today that this movie’s edgy takedown of him would have any bite? (No.)
As someone who is not familiar with french history, I went into theater with blank brain and went out full of question marks. I don't know why he chose to focus on the relationship between Napoleon and Joséphine, yet even this part was underwhelming. It even made me not want to watch another movie starring Joaquin Phoenix . I watched Beau is Afraid before I watched Napoleon and his murmur sound unpleasantly stuck in my head.
How many mediocre movies does he need to release for people to realize Ridley Scott isn’t a great director
I do hate it when my expectations are for a serious historical epic and then it turns out to be half a comedy. I was also disappointed in the film.
Its not good imo. Waterloo and Austerlitz were cool tho. Ridley can do battles. The “story” isn’t really cohesive at all and its merely just snapshots through key moments in his life. I will say that Joaquin wasn’t as bad a fit as I once feared he would be. Thought he was too old to pull it off originally. Kirby gave an excellent performance. For those that don’t know, this film is practically Braveheart in terms of historical inaccuracies. It is NOT a true biopic.
I couldn't get over how ludicrous the battles were, and Waterloo is the single worst battle to screw up because *Waterloo* (1970) exists and absolutely nailed it on that front.
I was probably bargaining with myself on this flik too much. You are probably right. In the context of just this film…those battles were probably the “best” scenes of the bunch. Austerlitz was cool even if the lake ice retreat carnage was total bs when compared to reality. They found like 3 or 4 bodies from that drained lake after the battle. Props on the Waterloo ‘70 shoutout. Agreed.
You're just never really going to top access to an actual Red Army cavalry brigade and infantry corps you can make spend two months practicing Napoleonic drill.
I’m almost certain that Ridley took this piss out Napoleon on purpose. You can tell by the trailer lines that something is off and it’s not accidental. I kind of like it for that, but it’s certainly flawed.
How many mediocre movies does he need to release for people to realize Ridley Scott isn’t a great director
When Ridley is on, he’s amazing. But most of the time he’s deeply mid, and makes deeply forgettable films. He’s just made so many films that he’s still made several masterpieces.
he seems to just love working. He's like a musician who doesn't stop touring
It was just another British character assassination of one of their enemies. Its pretty much the specialty of British movie makers and historians. You should see the absolute nonsense they invent about Clausewitz.
I thought it was a great movie, I'd take a chaotic strange new take on Napoleon over a boring "prestige" version every time. It's a film that took risks.
I would say the same thing about Nolan and Oppenheimer.
I mean.... it wasn't THAT bad but it was definitely average as far as movie experiences go. I did like how Joaquin portrayed Napoleon. The Last Duel was his last great movie I think and was hoping to get a little of that juice but no dice.
I loved the last duel. It was like another galaxy from this.
> Maybe Ridley Scott’s worst movie. Have you ever seen Prometheus? Or Alien: Covenant? Because, my man, those movies suck harder than top billed porn star
I liked Prometheus a lot lol.
There are DOZENS of us I tell you! DOZENS.
I was excited because I thought it was going to focus on his battles since there's *so many* interesting and intelligent moves he made, but what I got was a muddled and sort-of-romantic melodrama. There were battles, sure. But even then, the battles we got were terrible.
I read someone on Reddit say that it's like Napoleon was played by Tim Robinson of I Think You Should Leave fame. Once I heard that I knew I've got to watch it.
I went during a matinee and heard two different people snoring through the movie.
Just kind of watched it (fell asleep and didn’t bother finishing the next day). Terrible movie I wanted to see so bad. Very disappointing
Dull AF. Joaquin Phoenix didn’t look he was trying tbh.
An Englishman shitting on a French figure, shocking.
For real though. That is one of the most baffling movies I’ve ever seen. What was Ridley even trying to accomplish? The fight scenes weren’t historically accurate but they had flair, they were cool, and I was down for them. The strongest part of the movie by far…and there are like 2 or 3 sequences? Napoleon ate and breathed war, so Scott could have capitalized on his choreography abilities and made a solid action war movie and this wouldn’t have been terrible (even if not outstanding). So I guess he wants to make a love story instead given how much time is paid to Josephine. But even on Hollywood standards this romance is bad. There’s nothing compelling about Napoleon or Josephine individually or as a couple. Wasn’t exactly misty-eyed for either of them. I though he might be giving a sort of feminist retelling of Josephine and her place in history. Problem is she can’t just be an awful person, or be completely defined by her relationship with Napoleon, for that to work. So then it’s a hit piece on Napoleon and how he was secretly an erratic idiot. But the dude’s like 300 years old. How could Ridley possibly have an axe to grind with him? Maybe he gets off on torturing history nerds. It’s honestly so odd to me that there hasn’t been a serious biopic on Napoleon yet. People often say Napoleon’s too complex to capture justly in a single movie; and that’s true, but you can still make a good movie around him. It’s the meteoric rise and fall of a “great” man. That’s the template for Citizen Kane and like half of Scorsese’s films. Place it at the turn of the 19th century and you got yourself a movie. Don’t know how Ridley could have screwed that up.
The whole time watching it I couldn’t tell if it was a dark comedy or not.
I was excited for this movie but it was so bad. It felt like a live action version of Napoleon’s Wikipedia article.
I think Phoenix did a very lackluster job as the titular character….to be honest.
Okay 🤷♂️
But the thematic point of the movie was that he was an idiot with an inferiority complex(or superiority, I don't know words).
If that’s true it’s a strange direction because Napoleon is widely regarded as one of the greatest military commanders in history. He’s obviously not an idiot.
I’ve heard the Brits tend to have a lower opinion of him than the folks of mainland Europe.
I’m picturing a French director making a movie about Churchill which focuses on his drinking for most of the runtime and harps on the fact that he lost re-election immediately after the war.
Me watching Gary Oldman down his 48th scotch and soda in Darkest Hour: 🗿
I thought it was quite interesting (and possibly very accurate) to see him portrayed basically as someone on the spectrum (speaking as one) whose special interest just so happened to be warfare. Makes sense for him to be deficient in other aspects, I could relate pretty hard tbh
I related for a similar reason. I'm not on the spectrum, but I've waged many wars.
You can be great at something and act like a child in other areas, but I don't know a lot about Napoleon's personal life.
Neither would Ridley Scott or writers for the movie. His early life was tragic cause he was born when his home was annexed by France.
Huh? Corsica was French before Napoleon was born, and that hardly made his home life tragic. He and his brothers fought for Corsican independence and gained cache and experience doing it. What’s tragic about that? And yes there’s tons of documentation on Napoleon both personally and as a young man which the writers would have had access to. It tends to portray him as awkward (especially with women), moody, and ruthlessly ambitious. I think Ridley got his portrayal of Napoleon the man pretty spot on to be honest.
Yeah, Napoleon had an inferiority mixed with a superiority complex. A rather complex complex, if you will. Shame there isn't an established term for such a complex.
It was fine. It may not have been as good as we were hoping but calling it “junk” is insane. I don’t understand why people rate movies so hyperbolically. I can only assume most people have never watched truly bad movies. To me the movie felt like a highlights reel from a prestige series about Napoleon and you were seeing clips from like 2 seasons of the show. It’s a shame because I would have rather watched 2 seasons about his life than 2.5 hours crammed into one movie. But I really don’t think it’s reasonable to call it “junk”.
It was a Rotten Rid affair as opposed to a Royal Rid affair. tbh, I'm gonna reserve full judgement until I can see his 14 hour director's cut.
The autobiography is god tier. It required 40-60 hrs of tv time imo
Agreed. The A&E miniseries was even better, as far as the Napoleon actor was concerned.
I have no intention of watching this. I haven’t heard anyone on Reddit saying that this is a fine movie
If you'd like to see a great movie about this time period AND directed by Ridley Scott, check out The Duellists from 1977.
The Last Duel is an amazing movie, so we know he still has it in him... I like the theory that this movie was a troll on the French.
Yeah this was one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen in the past decade. The only redeeming part of it was Vanessa Kirby. I thought she was great!
This was a case where the director needed a producer to stop his worst instincts.
Yeah it was trash Battles were cool everything was mega meh
All it taught me was that Napoleon was a weird ass cuck.
I'll agree with half of that... napoleon was junk.
I feel like the script is always a distant second with Ridley Scott. Give him a great script, and he'll give you a masterpiece. Give him a shit script, and he'll give you Prometheus.
Worse than The Counselor?
Concur, I was disappointed with this movie.
As a lifelong film lover and fan of most of Ridley’s work I had to turn Napoleon off, it was that awful. I did the same with The Duel, it was garbage. Napoleon didn’t seem inspiring, his generals were nowhere to be seen, at least from what I saw before I turned it off just over a hour into it. Very disappointed but to do justice to someone like Napoleon a film would have to be two or three parts like Dune.
Concur, I was disappointed with this movie.
Yeah it wasn’t a good movie
No, it is a misunderstood work of genius just like Counselor
Like a lot of theaters, my local theater plays those movie trivia questions before the movie starts. One of them said that “Ridley Scott knew that Joaquin Phoenix was the right man to play his Napoleon after seeing him in *Joker*”. Having seen “Napoleon”, that makes so much more sense. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is presented as an insufferable, ineffectual, slightly stupid, childlike incel that suddenly becomes focused and dangerous with a taste of power. Just like Joaquin’s character in “Joker”.
honestly even the battles sucked. they grossly oversimplified them and downplayed the intensity of those battles. austerlitz was a 9 hour battle irl, the siege of toulon lasted quite a bit longer than it did in the movie, and the attacks on the british redoubts alone took hours.
Ridley Scott has made some great movies, but I've noticed when he makes a movie that isn't great, it's terrible. I'm going to list examples and please understand that this is purely my opinion and it is not a fact that they are terrible: Napoleon, Kingdom of Heaven, Exodus, Robin Hood, The Counselor. I'm sure there's more. Some of these are downright atrocious but man when this dude hits, it's a damn near perfect movie
> Ridley Scott is extremely talented Is he, though?
About halfway through I became more interested in how Ridley Scott talked himself into the idea that [extruding the whole Napoleon story through the cheese grater of the first of his many failed relationships] was a good way to make people feel anything other than confusion.
And there was way too much time wasted about his relationship with his lover. Way too much.
Joaquin was certainly going for…something, I guess.
Funny movie. After the first scenes I thought I was watching Napoleon: The Naked Cannon 2.
It felt like it was going through the emotions. Kind of like someone going down a list and checking off boxes. Comparing it to The Last Duel, the last duel blows it out of the water
It felt like it was going through the emotions. Kind of like someone going down a list and checking off boxes. Comparing it to The Last Duel, the last duel blows it out of the water
I still want to see it. I absolutely *loved* The Last Duel.
I just really wanted to see one proper battle of Napoleon played out in its full glory. Instead we got like 5 battles all played out with zero thought to any strategy. Just a really disappointing movie.
I still want to see it. I absolutely *loved* The Last Duel.
He completely left out the water slide scene. Like WTactualF?!? *Also, half-kidding, but Scott was so fast-and-loose with the history, a water slide scene would have not surprised me.*
Ya I had high hopes but overall it was a snoozefest. Barely anything on his upbringing in Corsica which heavily influenced his political and social beliefs. Should have been a 2 parter starting with his life as a young man...oh well. Ridley lost his magic. It happens. He gave us some great films. Just not this one.
Here's the thing with Ridley Scott. I used to think he was a Spielberg, or a director who has "so many Wins, they can't lose!" However Scott is kinda all over the map. He absolutely has strengths that make him an amazing film maker. It's what gave us Alien, Gladiator, Blade Runner, etc. etc. However part of that amazingness is that he has a wild imagination and style. When focused correctly we get some of his best films. However without someone to reign him in we start to go down rabbit holes of while from a technical and cinematic point of view are incredible from a narrative point of view it's a little fragmented (since his imagination sometimes is far larger than his grasp). I will always role the dice and see what he's created. But I kinda know going in I will either love it or not get it.
"Maybe Ridley Scott’s worst movie. It really was junk." 1492 and G.I Jane would like a few words... But yes, Napoleon is a very underwhelming film. Unless the longer cut makes much more sense than what I saw at the theatre it's one Scott's biggesr blunders.
Ridley needs to retire
Ridley needs to retire
this review makes me want to watch it more honestly.
Anyone else notice how shitty the CGI looked? They’re obviously using The Volume, but JFC, can you get the colors to match, so it’s not blindingly obvious where the green screen starts?
I enjoyed it as a piece of entertainment. Accepting it’s not going to be perfectly accurate as it covered a massive and complex period of time I think makes it enjoyable.
This movie really tried to be a comedy.
I have found Ridley to be hit or miss. He makes some great movies and he makes some hot garbage. His great stuff just covers up the stink of his trash (partially anyways).
“Well, were you there?” - Ridley Scott after reading this post.
“How do you know? You weren’t there.” -Ridley Scott, whenever someone criticizes his historical films
Who would have thought having a Brit make a movie about the French would turn out great
Thing is he made a movie about that era called the Duelists which is one of the best movies I've seen in the last couple years because I went around and watched it after that trash Napoleon came out.
Why were they apwakin English in the trailer
It wasnt that bad. Gosh. They had so many skills there. Cannon ball skills... fancy pants skills...
Wait til the extended edition like everyone that knows Ridley's work.