NAPOLEON | Film Threat Reviews

[@VanceHelw]

I wouldn't show this to kids, they would have a wrong idea about one of the greatest tactician in history, they wouldn't understand why this old, pathetic man who constantly kissed his wife's ass suddenly become the emperor and how he managed to win battles as well as the heart of his soldiers, or how his generals are also brilliant men of history. They would think the French are just unhinged idiots for blindly follow this old man to their death.

[@thomaslee8088]

You are so right, this introreview of Napoleon was not good.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

We just cannot have a strong white male in a lead any more. He must be subservient to a woman or be a miserable incel.

[@careyfreeman5056]

Show him Waterloo instead.

[@darkhighwayman1757]

​@@careyfreeman5056facts...Waterloo is amazing

[@dimirockeropoulos6104]

This is the type of movie you do not show history students.

[@RollTide1987]

I am by no means an expert on Napoleon but I know enough to say confidentially that I would not show this film to high school students. Despite what Alan says, this film does NOT give an accurate picture of the man or the time period. It's a biopic in name only.

[@joe_higachi]

When I was in high school, we watched the last of the Mohicans, I wonder if that one is accurate?

[@RollTide1987]

@@joe_higachi As the story is a fictional romance based on a novel set during the French and Indian War, I’m going to guess not. Great movie though.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

Ng the Merciless and Frank the Tank know their movies, but I suspect they got most of their historic 'education' from the films they watch.

[@joe_higachi]

@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623 old school was hilarious

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

@@joe_higachi That's my boy, Blue! I love that movie too.

[@RickBerman-iv2il]

Hopelessly inaccurate - everything from the battles, to the wife’s age to how Napoleon acted, it’s laughable. Napoleon achieved all this because he was charismatic. Phoenix gave such a flat performance. I thought this was weak, even by modern Ridley Scott standards.

[@darkhighwayman1757]

Its like the Duke of Wellington time travelled and made a movie

[@bsaneil]

Agreed.Phoenix looked worn out and bored, and delivered his awful lines like he was reading the news.

[@leedobson]

Impossible to do justice to his life in one film, I hear from military history experts this is choc full of misinformation, never learn history from films

[@dragonknightleader1]

The battle scenes alone are like that. As insane as Napoleonic battles seem to us, they did fight in brightly colored uniformed and marched in parade format. Why? Because firearms weren't quite accurate or fast enough to negate formations or repel cavalry charges. Ridley Scott basically did what he did for the Robin Hood movie: slap a desaturated color temperature and made everyone cynical losers, which sucked out the romanticism of those stories out.

[@petrairene]

That's the reason why I won't watch it. Needed to be a three parter. Why was Hobbit bloated to a three movie series and this material, that would also work for a ten part TV drama is squeezed into one film.

[@HansKlopek]

This single most important message. So many people watch Hollywood propaganda and think they know history.

[@Blisterdude123]

@@HansKlopek Some of the comments I've had shouting me down, proudly declaring they know what really happened in certain events or battles while being entirely wrong have been hog wild.

[@Blisterdude123]

This is what I was saying from the moment the first trailer appeared. Napoleon was a busy guy, insanely busy from a historical standpoint. There was no way Scott was going to be able to condense his life into one film in any kind of meaningful sense. It would either be a cluttered mess, woefully shallow and pointless, or some combination of both.

[@guidedmeditation2396]

I think the biggest problem with the Napoleon movie is they need to update it to suit present day tastes. They should have cast Napoleon as a proud black gay woman.

[@SirBlaze75]

I watched the trailer to this and was put off as Josaphine claims napoleon wouldn't be where he is today without her, and yet he was already on his rise to fame becoming a General from a Corperal in 1793, 2 years before they met. Additionally they pretty much Cucked each other as Napleon was a famous womaniser as well so it wasn't just 1 sided, though through the letters it does seem that they also loved each other.

[@vogless]

Well, they fooled me. Thought I was going to see a movie about one of the great generals in history and got another emasculation of a male lead. Guess I’ll go back to books.

[@seanm8169]

I recommend the 1970 movie 'Waterloo' with Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as the Duke of Wellington. It is dramatic and suspenseful with great character development. It humanizes both sides of the conflict and has great, accurate battle scenes. I thought the Waterloo scene in Napoleon was rushed and left out too many important events. There is another foreign film calle Austerlitz which is subtitled but also a great depiction of that battle. A proper depiction of Napoleon's life should be a trilogy or mini series. The Battle of Trafalgar or the Louisiana Purchase were not even mentioned.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

`Waterloo` Great movie.

[@joesmutz9287]

This isn't a biopic, this is an adaptation of the British propaganda And it's because of the directing Not a single character had their motivation established, and a man who was legendarily charismatic, played by an actor with actual charisma, was coming devoid of any charisma whatsoever Even coming at it just as a movie and not a biopic, it fails miserably Once you factor in the character assassination and hopeless failures in portraying history, this becomes an insult

[@JoJoJoker]

The battle scenes were also on a tiny scale. I read comments by someone who acted as a soldier in this movie. On the same day he was playing soldiers in different armies. They are great at wasting money in modern Hollywood.

[@erroneous6947]

I agree. Horrible movie. They made Napoleon look like a beta male cuckhold.

[@LordsofMedia]

There were no bare female breasts either. Even as a Frenchie love story this fails. No antagonist. No suspense.

[@wolvmarine313]

I just say question everything in the 1800's since that time period is full of questionable historical accounts.

[@ComeAlongKay]

@@wolvmarine313yeah but the British did and do spread false info that seeped into people’s ideas, and they still do that about themselves as this mostly falsehood concept of them as they incredible conquerors when they msotly conquered dramatically less advanced societies and the second they went up against other western powers like America or France they started getting wrecked. They were also the ones who said napoleon was short when he was about exactly average height while the British commander then was the one who was extremely short. If it’s a British person covering it they’re going to elevate themselves and lower and denigrate anyone else I’ve seen an enough documentaries to notice that.

[@thevoxdeus]

Ridley Scott knows how to deliver spectacle. It sounds like the movie is a lot of bad history and even some character assassination.

[@edzus100]

Checkout 1970s "Waterloo"

[@harbl99]

Classic epic cinema. The march of the Imperial Guard must have looked amazing on the big screen. "Yes, we used 20,000 extras for this film. And here they are."

[@Malinski66]

Sergei Bodnarchuk's 1960s SovFilm version of War and Peace - yes it is told from the Russian nobility perspective, yet the time era was fantastic. Bodnarchuk had access to the Soviet Red Army to do the battle scenes and they are amazing - he did one shot that used one camera shooting from close up to panorama in a single move.

[@RenlangRen]

Waterloo was a fantastic film that people should still watch.

[@careyfreeman5056]

Same with Waterloo. Something like 20,000 men and several thousand horses too.

[@careyfreeman5056]

@@RenlangRen Steiger's portrayal feels much more like what I pictured him being like.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

Steiger is SOOOO Charismatic!@@careyfreeman5056

[@Gorslax]

I felt like the weird sex scenes with Josephine should’ve been cut to one for the whole movie cuz I did not need to see that multiple times. I also agree more battle scenes and interplay with political stuff would’ve been better than the stuff with Josephine to keep you entertained

[@JoJoJoker]

The side character of Alexander was more interesting than the main character of Napoleon. Showing this to high school students? NO! Show them Waterloo. The students will come away believing nothing but lies.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

Using this movie to teach students about history is like letting them watch Braveheart, Gladiator or Bohemian Rapsody for historic education. Nice, but you're basically getting a TikThot level of education that is mostly false. This movie is a feminist take on Napoleon, because no white man can be a strong lead anymore. This is the guy that managed to get half of Europe to fight for him and whose presence on the battlefield was like a +5 in overall performance to the French Army. He should be highly charismatic. Ridley Scott cannot direct a good movie any more if his life depended on it.

[@ironyage]

It wasn't what I was expecting. From the trailers, I really thought that Joachim Phoenix was miscast since he's a naturalistic actor and it's such a grandiose part. But in the movie he really doesn't come off as ambitious or grand--he's just a basically competent guy, doing his job and trying to get back to his wife in the middle of a series of chaotic events.

[@TheSniperGTO]

Hi Alan. Actually historian here, and spent 25 years in the US Marines. This movie is very non-historical. It makes Braveheart look like a BBC documentary.

[@robmac527]

Why would you show this to high school students? It is so factually incorrect, no school student would learn anything. He fought in over 60 major battles. The battles were poorly shown - just charge straight ahead and fire cannons. That's like Medieval battle tactics, nothing like the movement, feints, outflanking manoeuvres and sizes of Napoleonic armies. He also rewrote the governmental system, laws, legal code and education system of France. No mention of any of this. There is nothing to learn from this film.

[@harbl99]

The only reason I knew it was supposed to be Waterloo, and not some random skirmish in a field, was because Ridley had done the cliche "We will fight them, here" shot right before.

[@joesmutz9287]

Don't forget being heavily responsible for France's industralization, and pushing several scientific and historical breakthroughs

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

Not even medieval battle tactics where just blindly charging at each other. Almost every medieval battle seems maneuvering, feints and misdirection too. William the Conqueror tried to get the Anglosaxons to break formation because he could not defeat their shield wall, so he feigned retreat and got them to break their formation. But yeah, Napoleon was one of the most influential men in history, who many French still worth the name still revere to this day. Just knowing he was there with them on the battlefield got French soldiers to fight more fierce and intimidated his opponents. But lets make him a bitter incel, cause 2023.

[@MBeeching]

Ridley Scott's next film project should be Neapolitan (obviously make it a trilogy).

[@toweypat]

Haha ;)

[@donkeysaurusrex7881]

He’d probably be like “chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry are boring! This movie will be about other flavors!”

[@matweb8195]

Hmm...I'd rather read a book on Napoleon, use my imagination and avoid 'probable' disappointment.

[@DominicZelenak]

You're totally right. the movie does not spend nearly as much time on the military as it does on Josephine. Who gives a shit about Josephine?

[@Foxboy50]

It sounds to me like the funll story of Napoleon would make a great HBO series It has enough bloody action and behind the scenes Political Skullduggery to be almost like a real life historical ‘Game of Thrones.’

[@DJhSnn]

Obviously these guys doesn’t know anything about Napoleon the historical figure. This is a propaganda film which is a character assassination/deconstruction; It’s doing to History the same that Disney did to Marvel or to Star Wars. Keep talking about superheroes folks.

[@samj3147]

My thoughts exactly. Title this film Napoleon: A Star Wars Story or something and we'd get a rant on woke characterizations.

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

💯

[@ab-gail]

Yeah they’re not historians.

[@SolracNexus]

"The movie feels like a fanfiction from wattpad with too much focus on romance"

[@RenlangRen]

The issue with the new film is it is not as good as the 50 year old film “Waterloo”.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

`Waterloo` is in a different class!

[@kurtisrobertson2151]

Ridley scot should have gone down the realistic take with french actors subtitles, military accuracy tactical representation

[@alantrevor3658]

Wait, did that guy just say the movie is "historical"??? To quote from another ABSOLUTELY HISTORICAL (I promise...) movie: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[@johngolden3714]

The Napster is too epic a historical figure to just cram everything into a couple hours on screen. You could do a 2.5 to 4 hour movie just on Waterloo. Or any of his major battles for that matter. It is likely that this movie will inspire people to go and read up on him on their own. Which is a good thing in my opinion. I read about his Egyptian campaign, man, that would make one hell of a historical series.

[@Whookieee]

"The Napster" killed me! 😂😂😂

[@samj3147]

Show this to high school students? Oh... oh no... As many have mentioned its not historically accurate whatsoever. Which is expected in film, but the changes they made ruin the actual narrative. I.e. Napoleon did not run back to France because of Josephine. He told his brother Joseph to draft divorce papers and had grabbed another mistress. (I bring this up because had this been Luke Skywalker or Thor or whatever this would have driven all of you insane.) Assassin's Creed has a more accurate Napoleon portrayal and he is basically a treasure hunter in that game.

[@deceneu21]

No Italian campaign, nothing about Spain, Trafalgar is also missing, Waterloo is wrong on so many levels (for God sake Napoleon charges with the cavalry :))))) the generals are barely mentioned... there are better videos out there describing the historical problems This movie only works if you have a limited understanding/knowledge of history "american edumacation system"

[@Blisterdude123]

Napoleon was literally busy on the Waterloo during the battle, the man's arse would not be on a saddle.

[@joesmutz9287]

No mention of Haiti and Louisiana either

[@Blisterdude123]

@@joesmutz9287 Scott likes to ignore inconvenient bits of history, like Napoleon reinstating the slave trade. Because he can do 'better'.

[@WinstonSmithGPT]

@@Blisterdude123😂😂😂 Read more.

[@Blisterdude123]

@@WinstonSmithGPT I do, that's kinda the problem.

[@DominicZelenak]

The best i can say is thay its just OK. The battle scenes were good but comprise only of a small part of tbe movie. Most of the movie is about his dysfunctional relationship with Josephine. They made Napoleon look weak compared to her. They never discussed anything that made him such a military genius or how he recolutionized war. This movie was an incredible miss from what it could have been. If you want to learn about one of the greatest generals of all time and his wars, read some books.

[@IronPsyde]

Cannons do not create gigantic explosions, the cannon balls bounce. They did not engage in battle like shown in the film, the battle scenes were crap

[@jda4887]

Anyone showing this movie to students should pause and reconsider their choices in life, this movie doesn't depict any historical facts...please show the 1970 one.

[@MartyMcK]

It was Britain he fought at Waterloo not England. The United Kingdom had been formed by this point so there were Scots, Welsh and Irish involved. As the Irish were yet to break away.

[@robinross6701]

Well evidently Alan doesn't actually know jack shit about history

[@MrHorsesongs05]

Regardless of what you think of Napoleon as a person, he was one of the greatest leaders in history and a charismatic man. You wouldn't know any of that from this film. You'd just think he's a simp who didn't open his mouth when he spoke. I love Scott but this is easily his worst film and Phoenix's worst performance.

[@Acme633]

I don't think the movie succeeded even as a Cliff Notes version of the history of Napoleon. Cliff Notes history might be short and a bit superficial, but the description is concise, readily comprehensible, to the point and still fairly accurate. What was in the movie was an undecipherable mess. You won't understand anything shown unless you are already reasonably well-read on the subject and are able to fill in the gaps. You know the film was in trouble when you see next to Phoenix, the second lead was the actress that played Josephine, and in fact in the movie, everything was about her. Napoleon left Egypt when he heard she was having an affair?! Why was he in Egypt in the first place? Too many important battles and campaigns had been left out, and no Cliff Notes description would have done that. Napoleon left Russia and in the next scene, he was sent to Elba and so what happened in-between? In terms of history, it was a failure and seemed just like a collection of disjointed scenes.

[@joesmutz9287]

The Battle scenes were Hollywiod garbage. There are sequences where people are running past people actively shooting at them and completely ignoring them. There are many many scenes with extras standing around doing nothing And thats not even counting its just the usual boring Hollywood mosh pit, with no care for actual tactics and strategy Waterloo is especially annoying because the battle there lost thanks to literally everything going wrong, not because of some tickint clock being reached after a failure to get a higher body count

[@evalramman7502]

History professor I liked was always dubious, to riot in understatement, about journalists penning histories and moviemakers and their creative interpretations and dumbing down of history.

[@hatuletoh]

No. No we should not show this film to high school kids to give them an idea of Napolean's life. From just what I've heard about this film, it sounds like it shows all the care and attention Ridley Scott showed for actual history in "Gladiator" and "Kingdom of Heaven." And Allen saying that Napolean's forces are the "small army" who defeats a larger one David and Goliath style is one more point to add to the list of historical liberties taken for dramatic effect. That can and should be done in film, but there has to be a balance, and the Grand Armee that marched into Russia was a quarter million strong

[@richardgarcia1184]

I like the way Chernobyl just let the actors speak in their normal accent. Don’t have your actors do a fake accent because it’s not consistent and distracting.

[@ViperChief117]

I’m possibly seeing this film this evening with my Dad who showed me Gladiator and Black Hawk Down as a kid. I hope it’s close to being as good as those movies.

[@thomassmyth65]

First time seeing black hawk down, I wish movies were that exciting these days, edge of the seat excitement and fear, awesome movie

[@bandit6272]

Story about a man during a time a warfare, so naturally it centers around his ex-wife. Lol, at least they're consistent

[@Madstsone]

"It's like Napoleon. When he was the king, you know, people were just constantly trying to conquer him."

[@peterfmodel]

If they has selected a part of napoleons career, perhaps his early Italian campaign would be an ideal area to cover as he displayed great genius. There was be some politics, but not much love story. His Egyptian campaign was interesting, but not his greatest moment. As for the ice, one of the french generals fired their guns to break the ice to block the austrian and russian retreat after they had been surrounded and pinned again a frozen lake. Napoleon was several km away.

[@AJ-HawksToxicFinger]

I love that you guys drop content for all of us late nighters! I have to say the reviews I got back were not impressed with this other than the look of the battles.

[@Blisterdude123]

And even then the battles were poorly represented and if anything, less impressive than they were historically. The thing that annoyed me the most was how Scott made Napoleon's staggering achievements look so small, by comparison.

[@AJ-HawksToxicFinger]

@@Blisterdude123appreciate the details, I will be waiting for free streaming for this one, cheers!

[@RMartian76]

The movie's been mocked for its historical inaccuracy and Alan wants to show it to kids. Education in America, folks. XD

[@c.w.johnsonjr6374]

The battle scenes were worth the ticket price. It might be flushed out in the four hour version, but the theatrical version failed to explain how Napoleon inspired the loyalty and confidence of his soldiers. Why after he led them to disaster in Russia and was openly mocked because of Josephine's unfaithfulness did the soldiers not arrest him when he returned to France and follow him into battle at Waterloo? I would have perfected to see more scenes like the one of him handing out bread to the soldiers as they marched into Russia because it would have led up to and added more weight to the scene towards the end where he convinces the soldiers not to arrest him and follow him once again to their possible deaths in battle.

[@brianm2850]

Spoiler alert. The Beyonce movie is also gonna have an exploding horse. 💥🐎😲

[@Alois_from_Vienna_in_Austria]

This movie is not for high school students because it only takes some names, places and events but almost none of the details is historically true. For example the real Josephine was 6 years older than Napoleon and married with 2 children before meeting Napoleon. Of course the french also never shot with canons at the pyramides. Almost no detail in this movie is accurate. This is a great and competendly made movie loosely connected to historic events.

[@leonardryan2038]

'Waterloo!" The 1970's movie is an epic classic "Christopher Plummer" as Wellington ...the battle scenes are incredible.. i wasn't a fan of this version

[@johngibson8636]

This is the Wikipedia version of the cliffs notes. I’d say it’s a 4 out of 10. If you want to adjust for current day maybe a 6.

[@gundamzing]

Napoleon is a spectacle movie, probably moreso than a historical movie.

[@Blisterdude123]

I have to say I have gotten so tired of the 'it's not a documentary, it's a movie' argument. Yes, we know, we know it's a movie. But if you've chosen to BASE it on history, then what's the f ucking point of the whole exercise if you're just going to wave your hands and ignore most of...the actual history. Just make up something. Take Master and Commander. It's based on a series of historical-fiction novels, but it still manages to be one of the most historically 'authentic' films of all time. Not accurate, because the characters and events are fictional, but authentic, yes, because it is painstakingly crafted to evoke the historical period in which it is set.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

You are so right!@@Blisterdude123

[@JasonJones-zn2os]

See Lindybeige Napoleon's Greatest Foe. The greatest Napoleon story ever told.

[@RagnarLothbrok-wg5yd]

Napolean did indeed fight in the revolutionary wars as a lieutenant in the artillery brigade, and notably winning the siege of Toulon, where he was promoted to Brigadier General. He fought in over 60 battles. Interesting that you say he didn’t like fighting, but he loved France more. He was a Corsican nationalist for many years as a young adult and actually hated France. it wasn’t until later, that he seemed to come to love France. Napoleon did many great things for his country aside from fighting against the powers that be in the French revolutionary wars. He built up Paris, and among other things enacted the Napoleonic code which is still in use today in France. The movie sucked aside from the cool battle scenes. Napoleon was in his early 20s when he fought in the French revolutionary wars. Joaquin Phoenix was badly cast. Way too old and not resembling Napoleon at all. I think Ridley Scott being an Englishman made this movie to smear Napoleon.

[@catcherinthesky]

You guys are obviously not history buffs. But i am still chocked that you liked this movie as much as you did. It's utterly incoherent and Phoenix has no idea what to do with his portrayal. What a disappointment! And..for the love of god - don't recommend this movie as education for kids!

[@erikdolnack2737]

Kubrick halted work on his Napoleon because Dino De Laurentiis' "Waterloo" came out around that time, and Kubrick didn't want to compete with that film.

[@raymathews1474]

Napoleon has provided us with centuries of humor.

[@21palica]

Thank you Chris and Alan, for this review. I was thinking of going to see Napoleon in the theater, but now (because Chris said it felt like it was missing a part), I think I'll rather choose the director's cut. Since it is a Ridley Scott movie, I usually prefer to watch his cuts of his films, if I can, anyway. Hopefully, that 6.5 score (or 3 hour run time) doesn't drive people away from seeing it, because I feel even more intrigued now, and I'd love to hear what other viewers have to say about it.

[@brianjamesesq747]

It’s a good movie. It’s not as bad as they make it out to be.

[@21palica]

@@brianjamesesq747 Thank you!

[@brianjamesesq747]

@@21palica you’re welcome. I saw it on opening day with my dad. We both enjoyed it a lot. Granted it’s not perfect, but it captures the spectacle of the times.

[@johndurham6172]

So close to that KZbin plaque. Will you share it or does Chris get it.

[@gregorygregson3238]

Yours is the second commentary criticizing the accents in the movie. Accents are an interest of mine so I thought I'd comment. Personally, I get annoyed when native English speakers (British, American, etc,) assume faux French, German, Russian or other language accents to indicate that they are speaking that language. I think it's contrived and silly. Surely we are sophisticated enough by now to understand that, say, French people do not speak English with French accents to each other, they speak fluent French. It doesn't seem that difficult a leap to accept that when a native English speaking cast is in a movie portraying French people, that fluent English stands in for French. Also, there are different accents within most (perhaps all) languages. Napoleon was born in Corsica, and spoke Corsican and Italian until he learned French at the age of ten. So he had a distinct Corsican accent, which I'm sure, a lot of French people made fun of behind his back. Perhaps, if Ridley Scott had wanted to point this out he could have done it in a humorous way, and we would have understand that Joaquin Phoenix's American accent stood in for Napoleon's Corsican accent. I think the most effective language transition I've seen was in one of the Russian submarine moves with an English speaking cast, either K-19: The Widow Maker with Harrison Ford, or The Hunt For Red October, with Sean Connery. As I recall, an early scene has the officers of the submarine sitting around a table, discussing the plans for their cruise or whatever. They are all speaking (no doubt terrible) Russian. As the camera pans it's obstructed for a moment by a stanchion. As the camera comes from behind the obstruction, the officers are now speaking unaccented fluent English. So no faux Russian accents, and we understand that yes, Russian officers and sailors in a Russian submarine would be speaking Russian to each other, but we understand that English is standing in for that.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

You raised some excellent points.

[@VincentPalodichuk]

This movie is NOT a historically accurate portrayal of Napoleon! Learn your history fellas!

[@donkeysaurusrex7881]

The problem was people wanted a relatively historical accurate movie about Napoleon rise to power, reign, and fall, and the director wanted something that was not that.

[@jeffreyhill4705]

The US never knew how to address Napoleon, reformer or tyrant or both. The history is really bad in this movie, not cliff notes, but wrong cliff notes. Napoleon, would not have had a French accent, his native language was Italian. Josephine was access to French society, he used her. Napoleon, ran back to France from Egypt, because the British just sank the French fleet supporting the invasion. The war crimes in the levent and Spain are ignored

[@jeffreyhill4705]

The way Wellington was betrayed was criminal. He was a master at using the land to mask his troop deployments. The three farm house strongholds used to bleed the French blood were ignored, if the French attached the would be hit from two to three directions. A large French cavalry charge ended up behind the hill, and trapped by squares not in front of the hill, point blank range for the canon.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

The Americans, as in Hollywood, has taken most of its cues about Napoleon from the British. As in portraying him as a tyrant and the British as fighting on the side of good. Whereas the defeat of Napoleon put Europe back half a century on its path to democracy, as it reinstated the old monarchs and aristocracy who tried to turn the clock back. Which is ironic because the US declared war on the UK and fought on the side of Napoleon. Somewhere over time the narrative switched.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

Excellent point.@@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623

[@JonasGrumby-OO]

Films are made for entertainment, not education. To learn about Napoleon, read a book. This movie is loaded with inaccuracies

[@billwhite364]

Books by Bernard Cornwell and Griff Hosker go in dpeth in volumes of historical fiction o Napoleon. This movie has got to be the world's most unsexy love story. Waterloo scenes were awesome but abbreviated.

[@DrakeTimbershaft]

I think the reason why Phoenix’s Napoleon accent was “American” was to show his unrefined, provincial background from Corsica, while the French elite had English accents. True, his brother had an English accent, but that was probably due to working closer with the elite. The “Corsican” accent was bred out of him. That’s my take anyway.

[@LordsofMedia]

I guarantee you that you put more thought into it than the casting director.

[@josephholleman9846]

The movie is wildly inaccurate as far as its actual history is concerned, so I would definitely caution high school history teachers from using this as a springboard into Napoleon’s and Revolutionary/post-Revolutionary France’s background. But this brings up an interesting topic that ought to be discussed here. What, for lack of a better word, responsibility do filmmakers and production studios have to factual accuracy regarding either selling their products as historical reflections of actual events or conveying to the general audience that there is a clearly significant degree of creative licensing being used (e.g., a “disclaimer” saying that this movie is not leveraging accuracy or, produce a movie that is so over-the-top [a la Inglorious Bastards] that it’s obvious that historical accuracy is not an objective).

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

You raise an excellent point, it seems the further removed we are from history the more inaccuracies are allowed to come into play. When a generation who lived in a given time have passed away there remain no witnesses, Historians then become the gatekeepers of the past. Sadly I would imagine far more people will see this film than read a biography of Napoleon, in this respect I feel the filmmakers are under an obligation to remain within a factual framework. This film is a historical travesty.

[@tkxbetrayer2405]

I think the question we really should be asking is Which is more entertaining? Napoleon, or Chris's farts?

[@MrJellyton]

To Chris's point on language, for me, it goes a long way for the actors to actually speak in the language of the region and period or at least try since I'm no linguist and won't know how accurate it is. If you're gonna have it in English, at least have everyone speak in a similar accent so my immersion is not broken as much.

[@IronPsyde]

High schoolers should watch this? Allen… it is historically inaccurate. The battle scenes are not even remotely historically accurate. The cannonballs don’t even bounce.

[@Mark_R_]

Saw it yesterday. To see the 1812 campaign reduced to about 5min was poor, you got very little idea about the 7 enormous coalitions and waaaaaay to much Josephine action. The Austerlitz scenes however, were magnificent.

[@Siegbert85]

Why would they have foreign accents? They're supposed to speak in their native language so to deliver that point they let them speak like they normally would.

[@mesicek7]

12:30 You're so off the mark with this one.

[@brianjamesesq747]

I really liked Napoleon. Saw it with my dad.

[@romibengali]

11:11 Gary hates drama for all the right reasons.

[@robwalsh9843]

It should have been a series. If you're going to make a Napoleon film that's over 2 hours, find some specific stories to focus on. If you centered it around Napoleon's invasion of Russia, you would have had a good backdrop for dramatic storytelling. Jumping around from battle to battle during the man's lifetime is only going to become tiring to watch after a while.

[@changer_of_ways_999]

There's a mini series from 2002 that does a much better job with actually about the same overall runtime of about three hours total. They used French actors and shot it in both French and English. The only thing was the toned down battles obviously for budget reasons. The actor that plays napoleon nails it.

[@mechajay3358]

I wish Stanley Kubrick made his version of Napoleon, would've been more interesting than Scott's version.

[@TheColonelKlink]

"Epic" fiction. Cinematic twaddle.

[@romibengali]

Gladiator (2000) is still the best Ridley Scott History flick.

[@willythepeachfacelovebird]

What do you peeps expect from Scott nowadays.

[@WallyWakeUp]

have to agree with others here. This is not your best, guys. The "history" is sorely lacking. The battles are filmed terribly - they miss all the strategy and dynamics that Napoleon is particularly famous for. Disappointing.

[@erikdolnack2737]

Joaquin Phoenix was miscast in the title role. Joaquin Phoenix plays an awkward, soft-spoken, pensive Napoleon, which contrasts with the bold and wildly ambitious inspirational leader that he was in reality.

[@romibengali]

I agree.

[@patriciafenwick5846]

I recommend it 7/10 for me. Some inaccuracies, such as Napoleon did not attend Marie-Antionette's execution, he was busy at Toulon. Some of the scenes with Josephine could have been shorter, still conveying how much he loved her. I agree about the accent. Since almost every character had an English, except for the Prussian leader and Alexander of Russia, Joaquin Phoenix could have put on an English accent to keep things coherent. After all, he did it in Gladiator. I found his dialogue delivery a bit slurry at times. I wonder if it was done to emphasise the difference between Napoleon's social status and the others. He was nicknamed the Little Corporal, therefore beneath everyone else, and I don't think he managed to completely shake off that persona. Also he was not as tall as some others, although he was not a midget by any means (look up his portraits), he was not as imposing and regal as a leader should be perhaps. BTW, he was never King, he was Emperor. I think one of his brothers became king of Spain. As for the battles, very well done, but they missed out Fridland, Iena, Eylau, Marengo, to name but a few. Even if they weren't shot, they could have been mentioned. Overall pretty good and accurate enough to pique someone's interest to do more research into this man, who, BTW, set up the Legion d'Honneur (highest military award), the penal code, some of which is still used in France, and the Baccalaureat school exam, used to allow students to get into universities, still in existence. Not only a brilliant strategist, but had good innovative ideas about making France great, after the debacle of the French Revolution.

[@oscarpinillacastro5893]

The key question to ask is: IS THERE A COLORED GAY WOMAN WHO PUTS NAPOLEON IN HIS PLACE? we need this!

[@gamermilk6399]

So wait for the rental, so you can fast forward to the battles.

[@Goit_Goit]

Horrific choice of historic representation... anyone who has a clue about what really happened will be put off.

[@99IronDuke]

The film is totally historically inaccurate The military history is really awful and again almost all total BS. It should have been called Josephine. Really, really, bad film.

[@denroy3]

This video...I will never watch another by this site again.

[@ab-gail]

Because of one video? They review movies. They aren’t historians.

[@ScipioAfricanusI]

You lost credability when you said this film is historical. No it was not. Napoleon was a great military leader and orgainzed the modern, secular nation in Europe. The movie was a no for me.

[@thedevastator1984]

As a history afficionado this movie is a disgrace and highly inaccurate. You would be better off to watch one of the many documentaries here on YT.

[@TheAutistWhisperer]

It was mid at best.

[@chasehedges6775]

I just hope Jaoquin Phoenix delivers a good/decent performance

[@dragonknightleader1]

@@chasehedges6775 He's also mid here.

[@walkerzupp8393]

Thought it was too short

[@p.brendan6794]

Cry baby napoleon with historical inaccuracies I'll pass.

[@roarbertbearatheon8565]

Shoehorned strong woman character for no reason. Not interesting, ridley

[@p.brendan6794]

Yeah ridley has lost his touch.

[@BS-hammer]

This is Alexander all over again.

[@frankb821]

Had a chance to see this last week but skipped it when I found out it was almost 3 hours long. If you can't tell your story in 2 hours, you're not going to.

[@KeithAllan-lz6kx]

desaturation is the reason I will forgo going to the movie.

[@TheDuke013]

I thought he was supposed to be short, Phoenix is not short.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

He was average. The myth that he was short was created by the British. Just like they created the myth that Hitler was sexually inadequate. Creating myths about the leader of a rival country seems to be an Anglosaxon thing. The US government does it all the time. That's why every average run of the mill dictator is the crazy reincarnation of THE BAD MAN FROM GERMANY.

[@bazejlib1625]

He was of average height. That thing about him of being short was part of a smear campaign by british media. Quite amazing that two hundred years later this "fact" still remains in public consciousness.

[@Whiskey0880]

He was average height for the time he lived in.

[@manicpixiefangirl4189]

I’ve never been impressed with Ridley Scott so no surprise for me.

[@fishjones4618]

If your problem with this film is historical accuracy, then you should have a problem with EVERY biopic because of so many unreliable witnesses and narrative. Hitchcock said it best about movies being life with the boring bits taken out. And there’s A LOT of boring bits in history. You want accuracy, watch one of those documentaries that has interviews with eggheads and narration by Paul, McGann or Peter Coyote or whichever character actor of your choice.

[@PeterSmith-go9ef]

A typical Straw Man argument, and by the way this film was fucking BOOOOORING!