Honestly I don't mind that. I just felt the way it was handled here was lackluster. Intimacy in films when done right has the power to portray deep connection between 2 characters. The way its done between Napoleon and Josephine here honestly does not fit, especially with the connection they portray in their letters.
I agree! If I want to watch a show depicting intimacy then I’ll watch The CW. I’ve never heard anyone complain about there not being enough sex scenes in a movie. They should focus on the shit their audience came to see. I think directors must be a bunch or weirdos who care more about filming a sex scene then creating a story the views wants to be a part of.
Yeah, but you know, emotions and stuff...... 🥱 We are lead to beleive that world leaders are either crazy maniacs or litteral heroes, and that all their actions are motivated by their emotions...
@@AlainBoudard Modernists refuse to believe that some people can have principles. Everything must secretly be fueled by emotions and impulse. Funny Mustache Man was just a tweaker who hated people for no reason.
A film about napoleon that doesn't mention: -> War of the 1st coalition; -> War of the 2nd coalition; -> war of the 4th Coalition; -> Napoleon's *Legendary* crossing of the alps; -> His generals; -> how his tactics were revolutionary; -> Why his troops loved him; -> His victories over austria; -> The dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire; Not to mention... Napoleon never led cavalry charges. That's why he had Murat at his side. He was an Artillery officer... I went to the cinema expecting to see his legendary crossing of the alps, and to see some amazing victories. (I knew nothing about the movie); Ended up seeing a historically incorrect mess that doesn't explain anything about his victories. My girlfriend knew nothing about napoleon, and had I not told her he brought Europe to its knees, she would have been none the wiser. Very disappointing. Should have named it "Josephine". Don't watch it. Don't give this movie any money.
@@matthewmatt5285 True... No mention of the wars in Spain or Portugal, barely mentioned the continental blockade , and no explanation of the invasion of Russia, terrible portrayal of Russian soldiers, no portrayal of the battle of Leipzig....
@@andrecruz1965 I hated even worse they didn't give The Corsican backround of his family and the political environment,and to why he came to France in the first place,.. Not to mention his schooling which was extremely important in him becoming a genius tactician,. Nope.. He just shows up after a false showing of him at Marie Antoinette's guillotining and that's the start of the Movie,.lol Just egregious in soo many ways~
Half of the movie was romance and sex scenes. That one scene when Napoleon started acting like an animal, making lawnmower noises and crawling under the table to get to Josephine had me dead lmao. Man wtf why
What bothered me the most about this portrayal of Napoleon is his relationship with Josephine. They show him as a man who saw her as his personal property, as a sex object, and as someone whose purpose in life was to bear him children. All the while she is an unfortunate, mistreated woman. The historical truth is that Josephine lost her aristocratic position after her husband died, so she spend the rest of her life climbing the social ladder by using her body. She was older than Napoleon, and used his youthful passion and lack of experience to deceive him. She slept with every man she could while she was married. When Napoleon told her that he needed an heir, she lied to him about being able to have children when in she knew that, due to her old age, she could no longer get pregnant. Eventually, Napoleon had to divorce her, however he never stopped being in love with her, writing her letters very often. Also, Napoleon's charisma and larger-than-life personality is never depicted. One Napoleon's soldiers wrote that, in battle, Napoleon had the energy of 40,000 men, but that is never shown.
Everything about this movie is bad. The screenwriter just used the name “Napoleon” to create their own fictional retelling of a character loosely based on Napoleon but bears no resemblance to the real man
Most of the Josephine stuff you describe (her whoring, the letters) is in the movie, tho. Napoleons character is just all over the place, uncharismatic and weird, i agree
Once I started seeing articles on Ridley Scott talking down to historians that point out the historical inaccuracies of this film, I already knew that this film wouldn't be much great, quality wise
@@Paulmatthew22 Right. Taking some liberties on certain historical aspects to better serve the plot or the pace of the movie is understandable. But betraying the essence of Napoleon's character is not.
@@TheRixtah1 There seems to be a time in the life of directors when they start believing that they can do no wrong, which is of course the time when they start actually doing everything wrong. That's how you go from masterpieces like Alien and Blade Runner to flops like Prometheus and this new steaming pile.
I’d give the movie a 3/10. Ignoring all the inaccuracies. They’ve skipped large chunks of Napoleon’s story, because they had to cut down the original 4 hour runtime. The acting of Phoenix and Kirby was great, but that was not Napoleon. Phoenix plays Napoleon like a childish, juvenile, simping, jealous ex-boyfriend who abandons his work to grovel at his Lady’s feet multiple times. To the point his mum has to organise a girl for him to impregnate to test if He or Josephine are incapable of having children. I can understand why people are calling this film Frankophobic.
"To the point his mum has to organise a girl for him to impregnate to test if He or Josephine are incapable of having children." That is literally true though. he also fucked a 15 year old...
I suspect that this movie is horribly inaccurate. Have they shown his terrible African campaign? Have they shown Sir Sidney Smith? How about Napoleon took his anger out on his troops, parading them frequently in women's clothing when they loose a battle where basically he fckd up? He was a pompous ego-maniacal moron to everyone who has read more than what you've been told in school. I hate when people pretend they know something because "its common knowledge" all the while they've never seen or herd of actual books that contains detailed information about the thing they have verbal diarrhea about. If you don't know how he basically lost support of all the african cities because he was a moron, how he got fck by Sidney Smith and how he was hated by a lot of his troops, you haven't learned history. You are just repeating tropes you've been told without questioning them, like a good little monkey...
3:40 I absolutly agree Most of the battles (except in part the one in ice) is just: SHOOT THE CANONS! SHOOT THE CANONS! And not the tactics and strikes he is know for.
For anyone who doesn’t know history of this era I would recommend watching the film Waterloo (1970) with Christopher Plummer & Rod Steiger it’s a good gateway for the history of the napoleonic wars and for me personally has some of the most impressive battle scenes In movie history
Napoleon should have been a TV show rather than a movie. There are so many accomplishments so many people that he loved other than josephine. Josephine was a terrible wife and Napoleon had many lovers. One lover that he loved more than Josephine. He had a son who he loved more than anything which led to part of his reason for accepting his banishment. His son who he loved more than ever. I watch this movie and after a while of sitting back getting away from the theatrics stop thinking about it and think about the story this should have been a TV show this should have been multiple movies at best.
Apparently though, not sure if it means anything but there’s gonna be a directors cut of the film that will be released onto steaming services soon that is alleged to be over 4 hours long, so maybe with that we will be able to see more of Napoleons tactical genius and victories
@@wallacegaming6689 It's gonna be 2 extra hours of Napoleon being a bad lover because Hollywood wants to show White men as incompetent and impotent lovers to turn women away from them so they can hype up men of others races to them. Don't take my word for it. Israel Cohen was the one who wrote this back in 1858. The merchants know what they're doing.
After i watched about hundred hours about Napoleon battles and read two books about his life, i was so hyped to this movie. I was looking forward for story of greatest general of human history and i received movie about Josephin and her lackey. Desperate wretch dominated by woman. In the mind of Scott, our loved warlord who conquered Europe was cuckold behaving like angry child.
From the beginning I knew it wouldn't be possible for them to encapsulate everything that is Napoleon in a 2.5 hr runtime. It was doomed to middling success at best
napoleon's biography from 1789-1815 is french history. trying to cover the entirety of the revolutionary wars, over 25 years, within 2.5 hours, was never going to work without either taking history as inspiration for something presented as new, or compromising the historical narrative and ending up with bad pacing and historical inaccuracies.
Napoleon's performance is this movie feels mote like a recreation of Commodus from Gladiator. The difference is that the petulant child portrayal worked there because Commodus was infamous for righing Gladiator matches in his favor, and still isn't seen as a well respected emperor. Napolean was seen as charismatic with his legacy still being discussed to this day, so they should've given Joaquin more to work with.
I went to see this film today. I wouldn't argue with any of this review and feel it encapsulates it quite well. The whole Josephine thread seemed pointless and was more an irritation than anything else.
as soon as I saw the first trailer I thought something like "they're going to make this all about a man simping and groveling for a strong woman, aren't they." no contemporary film can ever just play it straight, they always have to somehow add at least one strong woman who the men have to submit to or who takes up way too much oxygen for no reason. seems like I was right.
I felt like the dynamic between him and Josephine was supposed to be the story watching the film. It's the only consistent thread throughout. I got the sense it was supposed to be somewhat comedic, but then the story interjected everything possible to make you think otherwise. It's a mess of a film that's very forgettable.
3:48 The frozen lake battle never happened. And more importantly, Jaoquin Phoenix's age is much closer to the age when Napoleon died. Napoleon rose to power and prominence in his twenties.
Not quite true. The incident with the lake happened, but not as depicted. Some soldiers had some serious bad luck when retreating and ended up falling through ice, but it wasn’t something Napoleon did intentionally.
The Problem is Waterloo 1970 is a 10X better film - Even in 1970 the battles were more grand than a film in 2023 . That in itself is a failure along with the Historical inaccuracies Ridley Scott put in this film. Waterloo - NO OLD GUARD . NO LA HAYE SAINT . NO HOUGEMONT. and he CHARGES IN THE FRONT LINES ! what the hell? - He didnt leave Egypt for Josephine either - he left because of Nelson destroying the French fleet !
Waterloo is perfection, My favorite moment in it is “By God, Sir, I’ve lost my leg!” As it was not only accurate according to the sources I can find but also shows how unpredictable the violence of war can be and how it can affect anyone, regardless of background or class!
Yeah, that was pretty bad. Other reviewers on RU-vid criticized Scott for being an Anglophone, who wanted to dis Napoleon and the French, but he sure forgot one of Nelson's greatest feats.
I could never understand why film makers always feel like they have to "Rewrite History" when history is fascinating enough as it is. Ridley Scott has got to be the worst when it come to that.
Why am I not surprised the whole subplot with his wife is shoehorned in? You can’t have a Hollywood movie nowadays without a woman in an important lead role-even if it doesn’t make any sense and hurts the pacing of the story.
Well, Josephine *was* important for him. Just read the letters he wrote to her - he was madly in love - but not as much as to leave any campaign for her. (There's a channel with readings of famous letters by famous actors. There's one crazy love letter by Napoleon, to which great British actress Miriam Margolyes reacts. Hilarious). He also had a decent relationship with Marie Louise of Austria, his second wife, even if their marriage was strictly politics and for an heir, and had a loving relationship with the Polish Countess Marie Walewska (a married woman), who gave him a son and was very loyal to him. Look for pictures of Count Alexandre Walewski - there's no doubt who was his father. Thing is, the way in which the relationship was portrayed, on top of disproportionate, was not as a love story. It was demeaning for both of them. A good movie should, first of all, have a focus (Napoleon? Napoleon and Josephine? Josephine?), and, if it pretends to be a historical movie, *present the history.* Those two had enough passion and drama and tender love as to make a full soap opera just with their relationship. It could have been a great historical movie, just presenting who Napoleon was and what he did when he was not shooting cannons, which is the aspect of him that gets the least representation, and the reason why so many people love the guy nowadays. He was way more than a successful military leader.
I went to go see it, expecting something similar to Gladiator that also did as well as Oppenheimer when it came to describing the historical accounts of Napoleon Bonaparte, arguably one of the better military leaders & strategists of the 19th century... what I got was what felt like the most minimal-effort acting one could get from Joaquin Phoenix, and too much screen time devoted to Josephine. No doubt Josephine had & left a major impact upon Napoleon's life, that much is for certain - but what I wanted to see was a movie that displayed Bonaparte's life with a sense of tempered respect. As one person on Reddit had put it, it's like the director treated his character as nothing more than a man-child, and I can honestly see where he's coming from because that's how it felt at least a couple times in the movie. IGN gave this movie a 7/10... I could argue it down to a 6 or maybe even a 5/10 if given the chance.
She played a role in the beginning of Napoleon's life. But that's it. The movie very overemphasizes her role after this. Napoleon divorced her and moved on (for good reasons).
@Ergeniz Ridley was too damn focused on Josephine's sins and personal background that it greatly blurred/distorted the true image of Napoleon. The movie was more on Josephine then the man himself and many RU-vidrs have already called the movie Josephine & the Cuck. Saw this response coming all the way after more trailers came out in the summer of 2023 and if anyone has watched the 1970s WATERLOO, the 2002 TV series about Napoleon or Epic History TV's videos over the past 6 years, then you would know that this Ridley adaptation was a big flop upon release
ridley scott is not historically accurate, never was kingdom of heaven looks great, but his depiction of all major characters and of europe is utter dogshit
Yeah I'd take this movie any day over wish as well. I thought it was a good price to go see the movie for the 20 dollars I spent, so I'm not upset about it.
I will give it a chance but not holding out much hope. You're right about Napoleon being a military genius. His mere presence on the battlefield was the equivalent of an extra 40,000 men, according to Wellington.
It's ok. It is much better than the slop usually in the cinema these days. However I agree with the criticism in this video. The tactics in the battles do not reflect the technology and fighting of the age, and it doesn't even come in to the revolutionary ideas that Napoleon used using smaller cohesive battlegroups on the battlefield. So from a military history perspective it is also a big failure, and almost every entrenchment is build wrong. The love story in itself is not told very well either, so it is also lacking in that perspective. It is a "turn your brain off" and enjoy the spectacle kind of movie.
@@user-gk4jd1jv4k You are right that Napoleon made sure that his legacy in History would be the one that painted him the best way possible. He checked every writing, every painting and he even wrote himself the war bulletins depicting the battles, all this the way that was the most favorable for himself. HOWEVER, in spite of all the communication and the accounts from the sycophantes who gravitated around him (especially after he became Emperor), he was really someone exceptional. "Exceptional" not in the sense of "wonderful" but in the sense of "one of a kind". Objectively (not considering the propaganda), there are very few examples of human beings that concentrated so much talent in one single person. Yet, of course, he also had his shortcomings. One of them was that everything he did was to serve his ambitions and everything else was secondary, meaning he would despise human lives if it was useful to him.
@@bodawei425Well sir it sounds to me as though you may have drunken the Koolaid with regard to Napoleon & his military campaigns!!!??? I find it fascinating how so many get caught up in the spectacle of these things yet NEVER question the logistics of carrying these things out!!!??? Are we seriously to think that this man & his "army" simply gallivanted throughout Europe & even further by some accounts turning his "opposition" over his knee then spanking them at will!!!??? Do you realize the amount of energy that's required to power armies/move equipment across vast swaths of land/areas???!!! Do you realize how much water ONE HORSE has to drink in a day never mind many horses especially being driven hard, then you have to take the food into consideration!!!??? All these "conqueror" narratives really need to be called into question which I'm sure they have we just don't hear of them!!!???
@@1985rbaekno it isn’t. This movie is slop, fucking garbage, absolute trash, monkey shit, cow fart, dog vomit, raccoon piss, lukewarm tap water of a movie. How do you get 200 million dollars to make a movie about one of the most interesting and documented people in history and make half the movie about his whore wife, who isn’t even that important past the start of napoleons story in real life. 0/10, Ridley Scott once again shows he can’t make decent movies since the 2000’s
I disagree on the combat portions. They felt insanely rushed, and very little to do with the story. It was 99% Napoleon being a simp for 3 hours. Even at Waterloo, they didnt have TREANCHES like it was a WW1 mockery.
well said, one of the most powerful men in Europe being degraded to a cuck that grovels before his wife. Only hollywood has the arrogance to pull this off. I understand why the french authorities are upset.
I remember thinking that Pheonix didn’t seem like a good casting because he hasn’t aged well. Napoleon was a handsome man. Then when I saw how dead he looked in each scene I was even more convinced he was a terrible casting. I know Phoenix is a capable actor but this was just not the part for him.
I think is not about the looks since Phoenix is not a bad looking man, but the lack of energy that really doesn't fit Napoleon. He was described has someone with boyish energy and contagious charisma, something that is completely lacking here.
@@TheStraightestWhitest Thing is Assassin's Creed portrays Napoleon the legend, while the film tried to bring him back to earth a little bit. I like the movie, but they could have made a better job balancing his positives with his negatives. I think Ridley Scott tried to do too much in very few time. Ironic since he criticizes Martin Scorsese for taking too much time to make a film yet this movie felt unpolished and rushed.
Well the character of interpretation is not up to the actor, so I wouldn't blame phoenix at all. It's Scott's fault, he clearly gave phoenix all the directives.
If you listened to or read any of Ridley Scott's interviews then you would've expected. Also his MeToo movie set in medieval times with that Last Duel movie was another example of what to expect from him now.
Just watched it last night, the film itself is shot well technically, but the story did feel a whole lot of list checking. For instance did you know that Napoleon died from stomach cancer? Believe it or not I learned that from an episode of the powerpuff girls, But you probably would not know that from watching this movie. That's how little this film cared about having heart to telling this story.
@@hothotheat3000 Not necessarily if anything the Powerpuffs telling of Napoleon story is pretty much an abridged version of this movie. I was rather saying that this movie was a lot like a whole lot of box ticking, Without much emotion and heart in the story.
The battles are terrible. Only the first one, the Siege of Toulon, had any semblance of an actual event from Napoleon's life, all the other battles were complete and utter bullshit. The whole point you made about how Austerlitz is the only scene where we actually see his military genius falls flat on its face when you actually start thinking about what he did in it - in the scene Napoleon hides half of his troops on a hill, leaves the other half as bait on an icy field, and expects that: 1) the combined Austro-Russian army would actually believe this tiny force he left is his actual army; 2) they won't realise they are attacking on ice; 3) they are so stupid they would fall for such an obvious trap. The entire scene made a mockery of both Napoleon and his enemies. The real battle was much more interesting and actually included some genius moves from the Emperor, but of course Ridley Scott thinks he knows better than every historian on Earth, so he made his own battle.
this actually never happend either, during Austerlitz the Austrians retreated back across the ice and some of them drowned. There was no bait and traps laid on the ice at all. Another misrepresentation of Mr. Ridley Scott at work here.
Should have called the film "Napoleon and Josephine" and advertised it as a nihilistic dark comedy not to be taken seriously. If they did that, I'd still be disappointed, but I would atleast have a higher opinion of the film for being honest and self aware.
I haven’t watched the movie but from what I can see, I can at least applaud them for not shoving in any unnecessary diversity, especially considering the unfortunate state of modern France.
@@dannyknightblade4592 True true. If they do actually preserve the accuracy of a historical figures race, then they will often just find another way to degrade them somehow.
You know what movie I wish youd review? One of my favorite movies with Joachim Phoenix is "You Were Never Really Here," written by Lynne Ramsay. Its a great movie, but no one ever talks about it.
@@TI4438 it is a dreadfully boring movie that tries too hard to be mysterious/dark/kool. I don’t understand what the host commenter sees in it. If you don’t believe me then look at the ratings or watch it yourself. The reason no one talks about it is because it sucks
Why emasculate Napoleon? Why film that he left his army in Egypt because he heard his wife was having an affair? To do that would mean his days a military leader would be over. Imagine abandoning your army for your wife, but still leading the army again in a further 50 battles? It’s just ridiculous. He left Egypt as he saw France being in turmoil back home was it was a chance for him to return and not just be the military leader, but to take over the entire government. It happens again, when on Elba the film shows him reading his of his wife seeing the Tsar, again Napoleon must return to France because of his wife. In reality, his wife had already died. Why do this, and why do this twice?
Because Napoleon is a great white man that changed history forever and Ridley and his woke clowns can't handle that reality,so they make him an emasculated idiot that depends on his strong woman for everything and has no agency by himself which has nothing to do with how things were back then... This movie was made by British and western idiots and they are known for hating the man,so this is what you get...
Napoleon was a Lion! Believing in his "Star" and he knew his destiny. He was a brilliant strategic and tactical leader that motivated his men far above any other leader up to that time. Was he in love with Josphine? Yes.. but that wasnt 1/8 of the man. This movie does not accurately portray him.. Too much of this movie is based on his love life gone wrong. Save the dramas for a mini series.. Make the movie about NAPOLEON
Yea this movie was a "flip flop" hit piece on Napoleon himself. You can make 1000 movies on Napoleon and his life. But this movie gave us nothing of the man or his life. It belongs on the hallmark channel has a B movie too bad@@Juan-zk3dl
Fun fact: the frozen lake is actually a legend that never happened...Napoleon himself ordered the lake to be drained after the battle and they found only one horse...
Sorry dude, those battles were not realistic. The only thing that resembled a "napoleonic" era tactic was forming squares. That was cool, really cool. BUT the rest of the battles were just typical mobs of soldiers charging into eachother like Braveheart and that's completely wrong for any time period. It was even wrong for Braveheart but damn it looks good on the big screen... that's why they do it. Now, granted there was more hand to hand combat in the Napoleonic era than in the later years of the 19th century because people still viewed the musket as a way to get in close and the bayonet and sword was the real weapon of choice. But that was changing during the Napoleonic war era and Napoleon was the one who changed it, and it wasn't showcased at all. Certainly Napoleon and Welsley knew that an army in a good defensive position sould NEVER leave it to meet a charge on level ground. Yet they always yell charge and rush into the oncoming enemy. This movie was nothing of what it should have been. Even the French Revolution years could have been done better, and god help me the filter Ridley used was terrible. I thought the Theater had screwed up the lighting or something. It wasn't until I got home after and started reading reviews that I found out I wasn't the only one.
Hi I am from France and I enjoy a lot your videos because it helps me practicing my English, the way you write your dialogues is very smart ! I also love your sense of humour and your accent ! You truly deserve more subscribers.
I don't think I've ever heard you being so respectful of the director and giving them some leeway. Interesting to hear your viewpoint as ever my friend. Thanks for the video.
That's how Scott rolls now. He's still excellent at presenting visuals. But his ability to direct and tell a cohesive story has really decline over the years.
I was so excited for this movie. I went to see it and I was so fucking bored. They focused way too much in Napoleon's love life. As you explained, they hardly showed Napoleon's skills as a military strategist.
This actually gave me so much relief. I saw that it wasn’t doing that well in the box office which upset me because I assumed it would be a great movie. I’m just glad this wasn’t a case of a well-written, brilliantly executed movie failing at the box office. Because that would’ve made me feel like sh*t because I love film and hate when great films fail. It kinda sounds like a bland film failed which I’m fine with.
The reality about napoleons story is he was a bad horse rider. Also he didn't bring his artillery to destroy the Egyptians artifacts at that time when napoleon was in the Egyptian campaign in the siege of toulon he was 9 miles away from the pyramids. This movie is deep shit
Agree.. Napoleon did not fire into the pyramids. And notice all the flags? Every thrid person was a color guard! A simple military historian could have told him it wasnt accurate
i have a feeling they just added firing on the pyramides in there to show how evil and savage whitey was for destroying great egyptian culture. @@scottcook9823
The movie doesn't know what it wants to be...on one hand it glorifies Napoleon through his depictions on the battlefield. Then it spends 40 mins belittling him. It needed to pick one angle or the other to provide a coherent story. Instead it tries to do both (though mostly negative toward Napoleon) and we're left with this mess. Very disappointing indeed
I very much agree. I am incredibly disappointed. Particularly, I think Napoleon comes off as a bit of a chump and I really think they should have done more to make it seem like the great man he really was. It makes me think that the movie is based on a British perspective on who he was.
One of my favourite historical movies of all time is Waterloo (1970), and Rod Steiger's portrayal of Napoleon is phenomenal. If anyone here is interested I highly recommend that movie, the music is beautiful, the acting is phenomenal and every scene is like looking at a classical painting.
The waterloo battle at the end is definitely NOT a good portrayal of Napoleonic Era warfare. The whole movie fails at it, they portray the combat as quasi medieval mobs brawls with the occasional volley fire and horse slogging. It also fails to capture the scale of these battles making them seem like minor Skirmishes
You know it's a good day when Reaper and Despot of Antrim post on the same day. Great review. Now I don't have to see the movie. I wasn't particularly hyped anyway, even though Napoleon himself is very interesting to learn about. I was also a bit baffled at how the movie focuses more on Napoleon's relationship with Josephine, as I also agree that it's the least important aspect of his life. You could literally choose any battle, or even focus on his invasion of Russia. That itself could be a movie of truly epic proportions.
Sounds like it would have made a better mini series. Like John Adams done by HBO years back. Been hearing about cramming of events being an issue with the movie. Think ill wait till its out of the theaters.
There will be a directors cut over 4h long......hopefully it will not include Josephine in the extra 2h. Napoleons briliance as a military man can not be overlook like this
This was an absolutely horrible movie. NOTHING about it was good. The acting was terrible - Phoenix looked like he had been drugged through most of it. People keep saying how awesome Kirby was as Josephine. Really? The "romance" between Napoleon and Josephine was weird, uncomfortable, and boring. The battle scenes were horribly inaccurate. Napoleon, leading a charge on horseback at Waterloo? WTH? The saddest thing about this movie - other than how horrible it is - is that people who know little about Napoleon will now think that they've seen an accurate portrayal of at least some parts of his story. No, he didn't win at Austerlitz by tricking the Russians into going out on a lake and then breaking the ice with his artillery.
I always imagines Napoleon as charismatic, everyone loved him and this depiction of him os everything but. He was so much more than what the movie makes him out to be, reducing him to a few emotions that the director thinks are enough... Such shame, I was actually looking forward to it... No recommendation!!!
You get the feeling (if not accurate) the Josephine subplot was there (again) to serve the diversity quota that f....plagues modern cinema/tv....in fact we had it before wirh Michael Collins (1996) these films feel like committee's make them rather than filmmakers (although RS greatest work is well behind him now)
That’s unfortunate to hear, Reaper. I had high hopes for Napoleon. I’ll still see it though because it does look beautiful and Phoenix is a great actor.
Napoleon was charismatic, inspiring, competent, mathematical, ambitious, open-minded and petulant. What he wasn't was a depressive disturbing suicidal man who would give up and try to hang himself. Something Joaquin Phoenix does. He is an old man who Scott brought to play a dynamic and greatest European.
2:00 yea ok but that’s how Phoenix does his acting. He does it spontaneously. He always says he doesn’t know how he will be when acting. That’s not on him, that’s on the casting crew
I agree that the force and power of Napoleon's charisma is completely lost in this movie. Additionally, his great genius at managing a giant army for stunning victories is also lost. Just the fact that he turned France around after the devastation brought on by Robespierre's "Reign of Terror" was an achievement for the ages. My pet peeve is that the new fashion is to make all the scenes dark and dingy. Come on, directors!! The uniforms of the Napoleonic wars were exceptionally bright and colorful--on purpose! When the Scottish Highlanders appeared in their bright patterns, drums and bagpipes blowing, it was intended to terrorize the enemy. The battlefield regalia (including battle flags, uniforms, hats, and standards) was a sight to behold. In this movie, you are lucky to see anything through the dense, overcast darkness.
Great review. While I miss the laughs I usually get with your negative reviews, this one highlights that there has always been serious thought, insight and analysis underlining them.
Agreed that when biographical movies try to cram the entire life of a person it gets really bogged down, maybe a few exceptions to this but overall the formula doesn't work so well. The best films about a historical figure center around one event or moment in that person's life, like Selma or Lincoln.
Should have made it a 3 part series. I mean his life up to 1800 is packed with alot of exciting things as well as 1800-1809 then 1809-1821. I know a 3 part movies series is a big thing but with Napoleons life it can be done
My greatest issue was their characterization of Napoleon as this man child who was uncomfortably silent and “stoic” to the point of being a whiny little kid.
historylegends also did a good break down of this movie and he also compared it to many other works of Napoleon's life to see how battle scenes and the like stacked up.
