“Kill Napoleon Bonaparte!” - Napoleon Clip (2023) 

He’s not a historian . He’s a director that tells stories. I don’t understand why people are upset about a fictional movie .

@@joelogan6286people are upset because it disrespects a well respected and reasonably inspirational historical figure . It’s really stupid how people come to say what you’re saying. It’s obvious. Why is kingdom of heaven (directors cut) not universally hated for the same reason ? Because it captures the spirit and respects the legendary figures in the movie (Baldwin and Saladin). It shows the characters the respect and humanity that they were described with by others. Napoleon does none of this. It is both inaccurate (as was KoH) and disrespectful/reductive (as KoH certainly was not).

@@joelogan6286 the real story is way more interesting than watching an Englishmen shit on the memory of Napoleon

​@@joelogan6286oh amigo o gênero do filme é "histórico" e não "ficção científica". oh friend, the genre of the film is "historical" and not "science fiction".😊

@@Player-unknown93 But how are people supposed to know that? Every person who is not an admirer of history would assume that this is the great Napoleon. It sets a precedent for future films about historical figures and their stories that could shape their place in history because a director decided to get a bit creative

Nice Joker reference 😂

All I have....are negative reviews!

If you view it more as a comedy it’s more watchable

the part when he falls off the stairs reminds me of the Joker perssecution

Nice reference lol. 😂

Leaders who were former military members tent to have a better relationship with Soldiers then leaders who weren't, they know how the average Soldier feels and what problems they face, this movie is still a disgrace to Napoleon thoe.

r u napoleon? @@tiagomonteiro130

​@@tiagomonteiro130this movie portrays Napoleon as an old, cowardly, bitter man when in reality he was charismatic, highly loved, highly intelligent, and a brilliant leader overall. Ridley is just a bitter old Englishman and should have never made this multi million dollar pile of crap!

The French Revolution accomplished nothing and was destructive

@@gusfring6887 Scott made one of the best movies one french napoleonic ages ; the duellists. It was his first film. A pictural movie with painting references inspired by a true history of two french hussards. See this film if you do not know.

Hahahahahahahaha omg

If the French dub says 'oh p*tain* that would be hilarious 😂

I would do same thing so can we blame him ?

I almoast died of laughing! hahahaha

Scene *

@@biggbimpworld1318 sorry this was posted in that 1 am mode of thought, fixed now

Could fit in a Death of Stalin-esque version of the coup

People often mention how evil he was after Russia, but if that were true, why would men follow him after, even willing to help him regain power without a single soldier shooting him after orders from their king? I don’t think an evil man would be alive after all of that, that’s why I respect the absolute fck out of Napoleon

​@@GetoffmearseHitler also had loyal followers after his death. People will follow what/who they think is right.

Actually it wasn't accurate since the UN forces that rescue the US forces were actually Malaysian and not Indian. Furthermore, some Malaysian Peacekeepers died rescuing those US soldiers yet the film omitted their contribution but instead portray the peacekeepers just transporting the injured. Naturally, Malaysian weren't please their soldiers weren't given respect for their help in that movie.

​@@MrTerrorist irl there were both Malaysian and Pakistani troops to rescue them

@@MrTerrorist I haven't watched the movie in a while, but I remember them mentioning Pakistani forces and according to Wikipedia, they also mentioned Malaysian forces, both as part of the UN rescue convoy. Criticism about dismissing the role of the Pakistani/Malaysian forces came from both countries, not just Malaysia. But it isn't surprising that the film focused on Americans, as introducing new factions at the end of the movie would have disrupted the narrative pacing, even if it would have been more accurate. There's also the merging of individuals into single characters, which is often done in films to reduce the narrative noise when there are too many characters/actors involved in the plot. Some relatively small logistical decisions were changed. Besides that the film is a reasonable portrayal of the events, seemingly far better than Napoleon. That being said I wouldn't treat any piece of media as historical fact. I find criticising movie accuracy a bit pointless because it is not advisable (nor possible) for directors to perfectly recreate history or even other works of fiction. Accuracy often gets in the way of an entertaining story, disrupting pace, etc.

@@MrTerrorist I said accurate to the book.

no I am sad that we could have Black Hawk Down in napoleonic era, instead we got a romantic comedy in costumes

Lol😂😂

Ah yes because you were there

​@@Cpt.BEARDless No, but other people where, and they wrote it down.

@@Cpt.BEARDlessWhy is it so hard to assume he watched the movie?

What do you mean “pass over their heads” and “passing him from hand to hand”

@@Ma1q444They lifted him up above their heads and passed him between each other

@@JohnCena-le1jjLike hot potato?

thats probably even more spectacular and hilarious. but nope. history is boring !!

@@delta5-126 they did crowd surfing

"Theyre trying to kill me" "Theyre trying to kill him" *hits someone at the door aggressively* Its like its out of a sitcom

@@rainbowchap6973😭😭

Scott is British, and his British ancestors told him to make Napoleon so shitty 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

@@rainbowchap6973I think it’s meant to be like this? He is being pathetic in this scene. Panicking? I dont see anything bad about this

Its supposed to be funny, its a comedy movie

Nah, better move would be 1799-1804, 1805-1812, then 1812-1815x alternatively. 1799-1804 Rise of Napoleon, 1805-1809 Rise of an Empire, 1809-1814 Fall of an Empire, 1815 Napoleons Return

​@@Deerhunter60641i love how you guys are saying 1799-1804 and all, but he was a well established general in 1796-7 in the war with Italy Started his rise in 1793 and theres honestly alot more to say prior with his corsican indeoandantist ide1 his falling out with Paoli his expedition in Piedmont Sardigna his time out of job for refusing to participate in the Vendée conflict. Theres so much of this not really known

It would have been so much better as a mini series

You shouldn't watch it then

I thought the same thing after Gladiator.

@@Levi-zr4dq I didn't

Why not?

his father was a mudder and his mother was a nutter

Careful, we got someone who was actually there when this happened in that chat.

Worst movie they could ever make on Napoleon

Joaquin had the look for this role but wasn't commanding enough with his persona.

Your idol is a deranged delusional tyrant who seized a powerful military from a lost and confused nation, waging total war ending in total defeat at the cost of millions of lives?! You must also idolize Hitler then.

Phoenix is good, but I would question his breadth. What is Phoenix famous for?? Self abusing and loathing men who have tragic demises often. He played Johnny Cash, Joker, and Emperor Commodus, they're all similar archetypes of self-abusing men who are tragic in some sense. They should not have casted him, he doesn't play the part of a deliberately inspiring and rousing man, in control of his fate. Phoenix is more of the tragic loser who is thrust into path he never asked for.

@@maaz322I think it is more that you haven't seen enough of his work instead of the actor's "breadth". Check out Buffalo Soldiers or We Own the Night as two quick examples - if you want to see him play charismatic characters who aren't "tragic losers". He's really good at those too. The problem is Ridley Scott. The same thing happened when he tried to make Robin Hood. He had some of the very best actors in the business and hundreds of millions - and still churned out mediocrity.

Phoenix as great he may be simply isnt fit to be Napoleon. Napoleon in 1814-5? Yes definitly, but not Napoleon when he was in his twenties and early thirties ffs, he doesnt have the energy of youth unlike Napoleon who historically did, he either seemed stoic half the time when Napoleon wore his emotions on his shoulders. His portrayal as the anglo saxon stereotype of Napoleon doesnt give Napoleon justice. He is not a bad actor, and Scott messed up hard, but he is not the right actor to play Napoleon either

@@erwannthietart3602 Phoenix recently played the Joker, who had enough manic energy to make Napoleon look like he was in a coma. So the actor had plenty of energy for the role. I'm confident the problem was Ridley's direction. He made Russel Crow boring as Robin Hood, Christian Bale boring as Moses, and now Joaquin Phoenix boring as Napoleon. These are all great actors who know how to bring vitality to their roles under the stewardship of a competent director.

Joaquin was a bad casting choice, looks nothing like Napoleon and just uses his regular voice

agree

War and Peace didn't mention the battle of Waterloo, you're referring to the movie of the same name, including the same director as the Soviet film version.

And since the movie is basically a comedy, just play Waterloo by ABBA after it

Not soldiering.

He only saw boney in the show

A man who loses the king’s colours loses the king’s friendship.

@@ConfusedRevolutionary I have a cousin at horse guards and I have friends at court.

I love how the whole damn movie is English lol. They couldn't even use a French accent at least 🙄

@@waynedugger7697 Agreed! I mean, I didn’t expect Joaquin, Phoenix to learn French overnight, but Jesus Christ this movie was lazy!

@@KHoltzie lol I'm such a history buff.. and so disappointed in this

@@waynedugger7697 I know I feel like they could’ve pumped a little more authenticity into it, I think Scott just got lazy

@@waynedugger7697 i’m still going to go see it anyway, I don’t like that word of mouth thing, I have to see it with my own two eyes for a genuine inference

Ridley Scott literally depicts Napoleon as a brave leader who rides headfirst into battle, saber in hand. That is the opposite of portraying as a coward, especially when his enemies in the movie never lead their men in battle.

you dont know what you were talking about an he were tiny

And some people are catching on to what a total loser Napoleon was, despite European narratives of glory and triumph. Nothing more than a deranged delusional demagogue of a tyrant who seized a powerful military from a lost and confused nation, waging total war ending in total defeat at the cost of millions of lives.

He didn’t didn’t lead his men in charges like that, but he was still without doing that@@horsemann7354.

@@horsemann7354 His Napoleon is nothing like the real life man. Where is the charisma, the magnetic attraction? He instead appears more like a military autist, highly gifted for battle, but incapable of charming anyone. And then we have the battles, that happened nowhere near how they are depicted in the film.

Those were stunt stairs. They go through a lot of training.

That's just a video artefact ig

2:06 when he is walking back up and backup has arrived. That’s powerful

As French. This anticipated movie is a huge letdown. Really out of context from the History Facts. I remember when I was in high school. We had a test subject about Napoleon Bonaparte and his conquest. I couldn’t fail it

As French. This anticipated movie is a huge letdown. Really out of context from the History Facts. I remember when I was in high school. We had a test subject about Napoleon Bonaparte and his conquest. I couldn’t fail it

I dont understand what you wanted him to do here.

@@Dukeybookey In this particular scene he’s about to make a "Coup" which means he was planning to overthrow the Republic Constitution. According to History books, he made it but apparently not the case in this scene

Napoleon wasn't actually small. He was actually an imposing figure.

5'6" isn't what i call small.. i was honestly thinking he was shorter than that to be honest.

@@KingsStreamWhat??? You don’t think 5’6 is small???

@@KHoltzietodays standards?? Nope

@@KingsStream We’re not talking about today though we’re talking about back then, at least I am

You mean they should tear into the historians who taught you about Napoleon and his "conquests" and not his total defeat. They taught you wrong, because they did not teach you about all the massive disasters and all the wars that Napoleon lost as enemy troops marching down the streets of Paris, France under military occupation, a once juggernaut French military in shambles, a generation's worth of French boys lying in mass graves, France losing territory, France forced to pay massive war reparations, France forced to accept the hated Bourbon Monarchy, as Napoleon dies a broken defeated man on a forsaken island. Who should get torn a new one?

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators still Ridley. He in fact told historians to "get a life"

@@mahaliadoesitbest2294 Just ignore the pathetic military results and call it a triumph, too cowardly to face an ugly truth.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators yeah....I'll send you the link when History Buffs uploads the recap. Ridley might retire afterwards lol

@@mahaliadoesitbest2294 The self denial is way too personal. I mean are you still grieving that your great great great great great French grandfather got hacked to pieces by Spanish guerrillas or something? Only to have France lose the Peninsular War, and the Napoleonic Wars overall as enemy troops march down the streets of Paris. Is that what you do not have the courage to yet admit, that so many French boys died horrible deaths in total defeat? So why don't you justify all the French death and suffering by telling yourself how Napoleon improved the Civil Code for the world, especially the reinstating slavery and the slave trade in his laws, that was certainly noble and enlightening.

They trying to kill me

Please don't waste your time and money. Worst possible movie made on Napoleon

That too Queens English yikes

@@1hasanraza i’ll take that into consideration, what did this get on rotten tomatoes???

don't mind the stupid negative reviews on social, it's actually a good movie (the best made on Napoleon so far). There are downsides of course (nothing on his immense heritage with regards to culture, politics, law, egyptology etc. nothing on the campaigns of Italy and Spain either, and the portrayal of his relationship with Josephine is a bit awkward), but the 4 battle scenes are great, so are the settings and the costumes) and it depicts a more human Napoleon than any other film. Can't wait for the director's cut version on apple +

@@townsley2 I know, I hear what you’re saying and I totally agree, I’m not really one for that word of mouth shit, I’d rather go see the film myself and draw my own inferences!

It wouldn't have gotten much international attention if it was filmed in French

Few are.

Least corrupt student government:

i enjoyed the movie tbf

same@@mykosumo9478

The clips are fine, but the movie in its whole was just not good

Great. Now we know the scope of Scott's achievement when it's the battle scenes that we care about.

silent Thunder maybe

By losing the best of the French Navy in a meaningless invasion what was the first of multiple military disasters for Napoleon, you forgot to mention that part. Because people like you want to ignore the disaster and try to attribute something positive, like a coward who can't face an ugly truth.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Napoleon was a General and not an Admiral. The loss of the fleet at the battle of the Nile is a Navel loss and is the fault of the Admiral in charge, same as Trafalgar. The same as you can't blame the King or a us president for a loss if the commander on the ground or at sea is the one directing the battle.

@@imperatorsteve Commenter forgot to mention the whole, DISASTER of a DEFEAT part, which is what Egypt was for Napoleon. Napoleon lost the best of the French navy in failed invasion, as Napoleon abandoned his army when things were going terrible, went back to France, pretended that he had conquered Egypt to the French public when Egypt was not subdued, and then manipulatively blamed Kleber for Napoleon's mess and ultimate French defeat in Egypt. Commenter forgot to mention that part, that Napoleon failed to control the area longterm and gave Napoleon enormous undue credit for saving ancient Egyptian history. Because we all know what a great legal scholar and building inspector that Napoleon was, as well as a great Ancient Egyptian Historian.

​@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators you missed the bit that had the French navy been victorious then the French troops could count on resupply in a hostile region while the French pacified the locals. Without the fleet there was no chance of resupply or reinforcement. Yes it became a great propaganda point for Napoleon when he abandoned the dieing army, but it doesn't change the fact that had the fleet admiral done their job and won the battle of the Nile things could have turned out differently

​@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictatorsImagine having such a SAD and BORING life you make an entire burner account to dickride a shitty director for a shitty movie. It's not about whether or not Napoleon was a good person or a good commander it's about HISTORICAL INACCURACIES.

Ridley Scott is just old. Thats all

He got woke and old@@adamszabo2874

Your lonely pal.

As French. Couldn’t agree more. This is so out of context. They screwed it up Now I’m interest on Duke of Wellington journey through Europe

Shut the fuck up its a good movie if your so pissed off how about you watch 1970 waterloo dumb bitch i know half of the movie is napoloen fucking his wife but bro you don't gotta be angry

This movie was supposed to be a nutshell of napoleon. I don't get why people don't understand that.

@@lizardo667 "This movie was supposed to be a nutshell of napoleon." Well, if it was supposed to be that, it failed, even at that very limited objective. Disastrously so. Are you seriously defending this pile of dogshit of a movie?!

@@antred11 Yeah i am, cause its my opinion. I liked the movie. So stop being a whiny putz and allow me to express my opinion of a movie that i liked.

Blud did most likey not even watch the movie anyways shut up

Josephloera, it seems that you didnt watch this shit movie.

It was a great film,people just listen to what the media says without watching the film themselves

Archiburges, this time the Media say the truth. It is a Shit movie. Nearly everything in this film was wrong. Even the Soundtrack was Shit. Ridley Scott didnt give a f... for a good Napoleon movie, He is laughing about positiv comments.

The way it was written an the timeline is utter garbage but it is still nice to look at cinema wise an the battle scenes.

Yes, he was Corsican Italian.

Corsica was a part of France, and even though he was raised as a Corsican, he choose to be French. What you choose to be is worth more than what you were.

Corsica is French, cope​@@sectorgovernor

Napoleon was born in the Island Of Corsica. His ancestry was Italian. Of Italian Nobility. His Parents were born on the Italian Mainland..

How are you offended this is the history of French

@@NoahRodriquez I am not offended. I am just stating Napoleon Bonaparte was Italian.

That makes no sense because the Brits won in the end xD and before you mention it yes i know about the coalition. But it was still Wellington who won waterloo.

@@reposter6434 It was Blucher who won Waterloo, Wellington had already lost. If you don't believe me, just go see for yourself, I'm getting tired of people that say ''ahah france bad, england won''

@@gggo1789 He hadn't already lost what do you mean xD The French couldn't take the farms on the flanks, but after a long battle, they managed to take the centre farm which allowed them to push up their artillery. But by that point, the Prussians managed to flank around the French. In a desperate attempt, Napoleon tried to break through the British lines but miserably failed losing all of his elite units to the British musket fire. Now explain how he already lost? I have done the courtesy of linking a video. Hopefully, this will help you better understand ;) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-nDZGL1xsqzs.html

@@reposter6434 Epic History TV already explained that this is an old and inaccurate video. After the failed (and uncommanded) charge of Marshal Ney, Napoleon was back to the battlefield after suffering a serious stomach ache, witnessing most if not his entire cavalry scattered and wounded, almost completely out of combat. After losing La Haye Sainte to the french, Wellington's army and morale were decreasing and decreasing from the losses (losses that are not mentioned in this video because as the channel said, it's inaccurate). Seeing an opportunity to march in Brussel, Napoleon sent in his Vieille Garde to crush and tear down the rest of the (mostly) routed british infantrymen. By this time, Wellington had written in his Memoirs of the battle that he had considered it a defeat. Fortunately for him, Marshal Blucher's troops arrived at his left flank, by then Napoleon's troops were already sent and he wasn't able to stop them from advancing. The Vieille Garde, not being informed of the prussians' arrival and fearing an encirclement, went in a complete rout and retreated, suffering extremely heavy casualties. You know the rest I believe, btw try not to use the ''xD'' emoji on these types of serious debates, it doesn't really serve any purpose except trigger me.

@@gggo1789 Even if the video is slightly inaccurate without Wellington and his army the Prussians wouldn't of won the battle? So how can you say it was a Prussian victory and not a British victory? If anything they were both victorious as without the two armies Napoleon would have won. My problem isn't the fact the Prussians helped alot, my problem is you trying to give credit to one man that's the problem and trying to justify the involvement of the Prussians as a Prussian only victory. If the "xD" offends you then my apologies. I used it because I think it's funny how you can't accept that it was both a Prussian and British victory. Anyways Wellington held his ground in the hopes that the Prussians would get to flank on time. It wasn't blind luck, it was all planned.

Eat my ass

it is indeed !

Only 2 explanations: You're ironical or you're british

@@theimmortalgrenadier3851 It has nothing to do with identity politics, not everyone is as biased as you are.

@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators Identity politics? Not enough IQ to get my comment. Brits have a huge rivalry against french so if he likes the film it's probably coz it portrayed Napoleon like some lunatic, incompetent, lucky and uncharismatic dwarf. Lol you probably went to watch Barbie and the New peter pan film and consider them to be the greatest films in the last dozen of years. Give me a break No mentally sane person with any common sense and historical knowledge enjoyed this mess of a pathetic film

Nah it's not

@@sleem-pc9kzyes it is