Napoleon | Movie Review

[@Highice007]

There is an epic movie made in the Soviet Union about the battle of Waterloo that came out in the 70's called, "Waterloo". It had a cast of thousands, and stared brilliant Canadian 🇨🇦 actor Christopher Plummer.

[@biffstrong1079]

Love Waterloo, very historically tight. Follows the days leading up to and the battle itself almost beat by beat.

[@Alachia]

I will check this out

[@benjaminshabu4406]

Rod Stieger's portrayal of Napoleon was also fantastic. I loved the energy the two leading men brought to the film.

[@Tonywkim]

Waterloo is 100x better film than this one. Duellists also 100x better than this!

[@jarodmontoya3102]

@@AlachiaIt’s so much better

[@billyo54]

Two hundred years and Napoleon hasn't faded into obscurity. As Lady Caroline Lamb said to Wellington, 'you will always be remembered as the man who defeated Napoleon, but Napoleon will always be remembered simply for being Napoleon '.

[@Alachia]

ah.. with this was true. I don't know anyone who knows anything about Napoleon besides that he was French and short (which he wasn't).

[@keithwallace1665]

He wasn't short for the time average heights was 5;4 he was 5:7

[@eddyedwards6273]

Macron, Sarkozy, shortish megalomaniac..is there a cultural pattern?

[@Cancoillotteman]

@@eddyedwards6273 neither Macron or Sarkozy have a tenth of Napoleon's intelligence and vision. And honestly megalomaniac leaders are kinda all over the place. If you want taller ones just look at Clémenceau, Charles de Gaulle or Louis Napoleon Bonaparte; and that is for France only.

[@ArariaKAgelessTraveller]

Napoleon were often surrounded by his very tall bodyguards, which is why the painters drawn them in such a way that makes Napoleon shorter by comparison

[@lraoux]

As a French, I felt disappointed that this movie failed to explain all the reasons why Napoleon is a hero to me. It does way too little to capture Napoleon’s awe-inspiring ascension to power and sheer ambition. Too often, it makes it seem like he was just “there.” There’s really nothing about him spreading Enlightenment ideals from the French Revolution to other countries, the implementation of his Napoleonic Code, or his unprecedented military genius. This is a man who was consistently defeating 3 or more armies at the same time. He did not merely trick the Austrians at Austerlitz simply by leading them into a battle over a frozen lake. It’s fine if you want to make a movie about Napoleon’s love life, but put next to his military conquests, it just felt really disproportionate.

[@user-vl4uo3iq7h]

Прошло двести лет, а наполеон все еще огромная заноза в английских задницах.

[@Alachia]

It made it seem like all of his successes were due to luck and his brother's influence. It gave no credit to the man at all. I've said this in other comments but he's literally asleep in a lot of the scenes. Why do a film about Napoleon if you don't care about him at all..one way or the other?

[@carthkaras6449]

Napoléon, celui qui a décimé une génération entière de jeunes hommes français (qu'il avait dit mépriser), qui n'a pas hésité à abandonner à leur sort, sans ravitaillement les troupes en Egypte, qui ont finalement été décimées par la faim et les ennemis, pour vite revenir s'auréoler de gloire en France. Campagne qui au final quand on ne se réfère pas à la propagande, s'est avérée désastreuse. Napoléon qui avait pour lui la puissance de la Grande Armée, cette armée française qui sous le commandement de Richelieu, de Louis XIV était capable de tenir en respect des coalitions de toute l'Europe contre elle. Napoléon qui a eu pour lui la puissance de la France mais qui n'a pas penser à consolider son emprise à l'intérieur de ses frontières naturelles jusqu'au Rhin, non il n'y a pas pensé, car la France ne l'intéressait pas, juste sa propre gloire et installer sa famille de mafieux à la tête des autres pays.

[@carthkaras6449]

Sans Napoléon, la France dominerait aujourd'hui l'Europe car elle n'aurait pas subit cette malédiction de 200 ans, tous les jeunes hommes qui devaient procréer ne l'ont pas fait. La chine de l'Europe est tombée dans le déclin démographique.

[@olivierpujol8772]

​​@@carthkaras6449Napoleon détestait les français ? Alors pourquoi n'a t il pas voulue embarqué la population française dans la dernière guerres de la coalition anglaise comme l'on fait la Russie et l'Espagne ? Parce qu'il ne voulait pas que le peuple Français souffre. Les guerres napoléoniennes était bien plus grande que celle de Louis XIV. La guerre de neuf ans a durée que 9 ans comme son som l'indique, les campagne de Napoleon et de la France revolutionaire ont durée 25 ans à une dimensions bien plus grande. La grande armée de la campagne de Russie était déjà à elle seule plus grandes que toutes les forces réunis de la guerre de 9 ans. Les conscriptions européenne était non stop et les population appelé à brûler leur terres, villes et combattre en guerilla. Ridicule comme commentaire. Si l'Angleterre aurait pu fermer sa gueule est arrêté de financer les familles royales européenne des millions de français n'auraient pas connu la guerre.

[@doublep1980]

The scene with Napoleon firing his cannons at the Pyramids and his line about the British ''having boats'', are so cringe. Specially if you consider that: a). Napoleon, like many of his contemporaries in Europe, were admirers of ancient cultures and studied the history of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylonia, Persia etc. and b). Napoleon knew how important it is to have a strong navy, because that's how you control the seas and the trade routes. He actually spend huge resources in order to build a massive flee, so he could counter the British Royal Navy, but unfortunately for him, Admiral Nelson destroyed it at Trafalgar. It is said, that he was furious at his admirals, when he got the news that the French fleet was destroyed and all his efforts to take control of the seas from the British were basically foiled.

[@bradsmovies]

After deconstructing fictional heroes like Marvel and Star Wars it's now time for Hollywood to go after actual historical figures.

[@tiago5001]

Ah yes my favourite fictional hero “star wars” not to forget his trusty sidekick “mavel”

[@tiago5001]

Btw im taking the piss I agree with ur point entirely

[@Yusuf1187]

If it's misrepresenting the reality of a person, their character, their motives, their abilities, how they accomplished what they did etc, then it's not doing anything useful. It's just more misinformation and teaching wrong lessons to a gullible and impressionable society.

[@AndrewLewer90]

Only if they're European/Caucasian. PoC, Native Americans, etc. will get buffed into Deities.

[@shawklan27]

Ridley Scott litteraly stated to not give a flying fuck about accuracy when making the film when criticised by historians. That alone says all that you need to know about what to expect when you're going to watch this movie

[@korbell1089]

When Ridley Scott asked Historians how they knew if something happened or not, I KNEW that movie was going to be a glorified mess!

[@steveblundell7766]

lol, did Scott really ask that? Maybe he should take a short course on primary and secondary sources

[@ronin1648]

@Tracchofyre I'm constantly surprised by how ignorant most actors, directors and script writers are.

[@themagnus2919]

Makes Ridley seem like a moron.

[@mayang_mayang]

Accurate review

[@michaeldunne338]

A very defensive reply of his (Ridley). What is strange is that his 1977 movie, "The Duellists," really captured the feel of the Napoleonic era (kind of a nice follow on to Barry Lyndon and the era of the Seven Years War and Britain during the American Revolution).

[@Yusuf1187]

This is the most direct and brutal review I've seen so far haha. I appreciate you not holding back.

[@AlanSimspon]

Yeah but unlike the film its not very good! :)

[@eldorados_lost_searcher]

Laughing Cavalier was more brutal and shorter. But Alachia actually explained why, which I appreciate.

[@FelixDaleth]

Thanks, Alachia. Ridley Scott drives me mad. He crafts movies with such care and attention to the way the way they look, he can create eye candy on a budget, and yet he can't write a cohesive story even if his life depended on it. I feel it's one of those cases where no one can tell him no during production and it's to the detriment of the whole affair.

[@alexritchie4586]

Exactly! I've never really been able to put my finger on it, but you're exactly correct. Much like Brooks, Scott knows how to throw out a lot of narrative threads but then has no idea how to tie them back together at the end. Like at the end of 'Bladerunner 2049' when the antagonist who was built up the whole way through the movie as some clever, conniving, fey, paranoid genius is defeated in a car crash fist fight on a pitch black beach. Or when it's revealed Stelline is Deckard's daughter. How exactly did the Wallace Corporation, possibly the most data rich organisation known to man, not know or find out who she was? At least Brooks would tie up his loose ends with something whacky like a musical number, or a pie fight. Scott just seems to sulk away from his tangled pile of narrative threads saying 'All the pieces are there, somebody make something of it.'

[@johncarroll5178]

​@@alexritchie4586 Ridley Scott didn't direct Bladerunner 2049. That was Denis Villeneuve.

[@gothxm]

bladerunner 2049 was a good movie.@@alexritchie4586

[@Mike-mm4mx]

think you are right, because he has climbed to the top of the tree, he cannot brook any criticism or probably take any advice. He is not in the same league as Steven Spielberg.

[@johncarroll5178]

I think Scott is well known for not worrying too much about historical facts, but it's much harder to justify this in something like Gladiator, than in a film like this. He is often quite inconsistent in the quality of his films. I understand what you are saying about incoherence and I'm sure it's true. But I think I'll reserve final judgement to see if there's a director's cut on Apple. Kingdom of heaven was slammed on release but the longer director's cut was a massive improvement. Scott says he can't talk about that for the moment, poss8bly for contractual reasons, but here's hoping things will be fleshed out a bit more in a future cut.

[@20thCenturyFav]

So it looks like Napoleon's depiction in Bill & Ted will remain the most important depiction of him in film.

[@Alachia]

sadly so.

[@sysadmin9396]

I just got out of the theaters. I really really wanted to like this, and I told my self people were just hating. Everybody was right lol.. it’s mind boggling how we only really got to see one big victory from a man who was hailed to be one of the best military minds in history. It’s almost as if making him look bad and incapable was done on purpose. Really weird.

[@sevenseas2673]

I'm pretty sur it was on purpose yeah, while there's a pettiness on both sides between French and British I've always felt like the British take it way more seriously, the insular mindset I guess, and the movie really feels like a British French bashing outlet.

[@Tonywkim]

Totally spot on review! Scarpa and Scott butchered Napoleon, a complete hatchet job

[@albertbresca8904]

i think she was being nice to the film... nicer than it deserves...lol

[@ronin1648]

I wondered at times if the film was not a parody of sorts.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

One salient feature of Napoleon's army was the excellence of his Marshalls and how good Napoleon was at picking subordinates who could get difficult jobs done well. You can't do this if (1) your troops are crap and (2) if you're not a good judge of character and ability.

[@ArkhonXIX]

And the movie doesn’t mention a single fucking one. Not one Marshall had a role. Incredibly disappointed about that let alone it was a terrible movie

[@DarkTider]

THIS ALSO! Napoleons army was much more of a meritocracy, as opposed to an army like the british, where officer positions were mostly bought. A single scene would be enough to explain this.

[@laurentfournier561]

Don't forget the military genius of the era. Renewed Organisation and training, excellent tactics and communication system and the dedication of the soldiers who understood that the French nobility had betrayed the French people, plotting with ennemies to overthrow the Revolution and its political gains for main street.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

@@DarkTider Marmont and Davout were sons of officers, Lannes' dad was a merchant, Bernadotte's dad was a tailor, Murat's dad ran an Inn, Massena a shopkeeper's boy.

[@DBCuzitis]

Make a movie of Napoleon portraying him as charismatic, energetic, dynamic, and possessing a brilliant mind. I’d believe that. He rose from obscurity. He seized opportunity. He won the devotion and loyalty of his men and generals. Wow! That would be a Napoleon I could believe in and watch. Focusing on his failings and relationship troubles or “humanizing” him as Hollywood likes to do with big figures just washes out everything interesting about him. Ugh! Give the giant from history first and then the man too to flesh him out and make him real. Was Einstein a genius who changed science and the world? Or was he a patent clerk who got lucky and stumbled on some curious new things. Crazy (bad) way to make a bio pic.

[@krzysztofgretka8614]

Megalomaniac british filmmaker.... that's all

[@industrialman8296]

Lucky? Stumbled on some curious new things? Do you even algebra or calculus? You don’t stumble on anything in the world of mathematical theory. Every step of the way can only be achieved through blood, sweat and tears after having solved the previous step. It is like saying someone who conquered Everest got lucky and happened to stumble on its peak. No. You get to the peak because you earned every step of the way up to the last millimetre of the peak.

[@DBCuzitis]

@@industrialman8296 I am sorry I accidentally rubbed you the wrong way. I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Of course Einstein is a giant in the history of science and was a genius. I was being sarcastic when I asked if Einstein just got "lucky". No, I would not say he did.

[@industrialman8296]

@@DBCuzitis I am fine. I have just misunderstood your comment.

[@Rowlph8888]

Yawn! Just watch 1 of the previous movies then, if yyou want an unrealistic depiction of him as the strategic Master, which he wasn't.He was a tactical master, but leaving France in its weakest position since its inception, having had plenty of opportunity to develop a treaty with continental powers in France's favour and marginalising the Brits of having any chance to damage the union, that's a loser and ultimately there's no other way of looking at it. Britain and France would be Equal world powers right now, along with USA, there would be no atomic weapons and "Unified" Germany would not exist if not for Napoleon's calamitous final years

[@Gabthar]

Anybody who has seen "Gladiator" or "Kingdom of Heaven" already knew that Ridley Scott doesn't exactly have a great track record of maintaining historical accuracy. "Gladiator" is basically alternative history and "Kingdom of Heaven" was basically a very elaborate rendition of a middle school lesson on the crusades

[@MythwrightWorkshop]

Scott is the Emperor Napoleon himself of historic revisionism.

[@darthgamer6239]

At least gladiator was interesting he couldn't even give Napoleon that making him a whiney little sex obsessed goblin

[@daedalron]

At least Gladiator doesn't even try to pass itself as a history biopic. We know from the start the main character is an invented one, and that the whole thing is alternative history. So that is fine. But when you make a movie with the main character being a real person, that's different, you need historical accuracy.

[@genx7006]

Gladiator doesn't need a sequel! It has one of the most memorable endings in film history. I can't believe it. 🤣

[@musicaleuphoria8699]

My thoughts exactly.

[@vashtibandy1614]

Yes! WTF! I LOVED Gladiator, and we DO NOT need a sequel.

[@MrKrtek00]

It is ironic how this movie really about the Britts’ Napoleons complex, not about Napoleons Napoleon complex

[@The_Captain40k]

As a Brit I don’t know what you mean by Napoleon complex?

[@vikramgupta2326]

They are obviously referring to the British historical tendency to disparage Napoleon perhaps due to insecurity of his success on the Continent and the real threat he posed to Britain.​@The_Captain40k

[@Silverfish-qv8ig]

@@vikramgupta2326 All Coalition countries represented NB in that way at the time. He was the enemy of Europe. The Brits do not have a Napoleon complex, and I'm a little sad to see some closeted racism on here. Napoleon was an odd man. Many geniuses are and what were you expecting? Every war biopic in the last ten years has detracted from the glory of battle and emphasised inadequacies within the individual.

[@Chewychaca]

​@@Silverfish-qv8ig Noice

[@renansilva3879]

"France? History? Who cares!" - Riddley Scott making this movie.

[@steveblundell7766]

Or more importantly: "France? History? *Audience?* Who cares!"

[@eXCess9]

Thanx Alachia. I was looping forward to an epic historical movie about one of our greatest figure... You're not the only one (french critics included) to take down the movie in multiple ways. I'll save myself 10-15 bucks by not going. As a frenchman, I do appreciate how you cared about our history. Thank you. Love from France Xavier

[@rickjones257]

@eXCess9 Je suis Français aussi mais j’ai beaucoup aimé le Film. Même s’il y a quelques inexactitudes historiques, les Scènes de Bataille sont absolument Sublimes. Le Film n’est pas du tout anti-français.

[@albertbresca8904]

@@rickjones257 that is good to hear but hear, the film was just a let down as i was so looking forward to it

[@eXCess9]

@@rickjones257 j'ai pas dit qu'il était anti-français, j'ai dit qu'il était bourré d'inexactitudes (non je ne cherche pas un documentaire) historiques, au niveau des batailles, de la personnalité de Napoléon (et là c'est gênant), de l'influence de Joséphine. Après, je doute pas que ce soit beau, c'est du Ridley Scott. Mais le problème de Scott c'est que formellement c'est toujours superbe, par contre il passe quasi-systematiquement à côté de son sujet. Et moi je paye pas 15 balles pour juste voir de belles images et m'en contenter. Le trailer m'a hypé, j'attendais un vrai bon film, 100% des critiques m'en ont découragé, et j'irai pas voir un truc juste parce que c'est mieux fait que 99,9% de ce qui sort au ciné depuis 15 piges. Je vais le faire The Killer, probablement en regrettant que ça ne soit pas sur grand écran, à la place, et je suis presque sûr de pas me gourrer, parce que Fincher sait faire un film avec du fond. Ridley... Il sait pas faire.

[@rickjones257]

@@eXCess9 moi, perso, j’ai beaucoup aimé. Il est vrai qu’il y a des inexactitudes historiques, mais il s’agit surtout d’un grand spectacle basé sur un personnage historique. J’ai surtout aimé le coté provocateur du film. Cela change des classique napoléoniens. Maintenant, si on veut voir un détaillé noir sur blanc sur la vie de l’Empereur, pour cela, il y a des documentaires. De tout de manière, je respecte votre avis, mais je vous garantis que le film en vaut vraiment la peine.

[@rickjones257]

@@albertbresca8904 Not my opinion. It is true that there are some historical inaccuracies but the Battle Scenes are absolutely Awesome. Personally, I really enjoyed that movie. I Loved the provocative side of it.

[@biffstrong1079]

Waterloo was such a close run thing. If the Old Guard had broken the British before Blucher arrived the Duke of Wellington would hardly ever be mentioned again. Yes someone below recommends watching the 1970's movie Waterloo. Way more historically useful.

[@nellgwenn]

If it hadn't rained he could have broken through the British line.

[@imperialbriton3160]

Also you can actually see things properly… What is it with dull, desaturated film making. These battles had men wearing brightly coloured uniforms for a reason.

[@biffstrong1079]

@@imperialbriton3160 They hit many of the heights, as known, of the battle. There is so much material to draw on for this kind of movie. Why not use just a little to inform your story.

[@daedalron]

@@nellgwenn Yeah, that battle was way too close for comfort for the brits. As usual, Napoleon was totally outnumbered, but still almost managed to defeat his opponents. If Blucher had been even just a little slower to come back, all of Europe history would have been changed...

[@RussianEagles]

Blucher "saved" Wellington "sooo much" that Arthur didn't even use his reserve of prince Frederick. Wellington was confronting a superior in quality Napoleon's army for most of the day and did it well. For most of the day Napoleon couldn't break positions of the Brits. I don't mean Wellington would have won Waterloo without Blucher. No one knows. But Wellington's position was not disastrous one.

[@googleaccount718]

I would suggest the American moviegoers to visit Paris and see the influence of Napoléon. Another element which Ridley Scott got very wrong: Napoleon was six years younger than Josephine - so why are they played by Joaquin Phoenix, 49, and Vanessa Kirby, 35?

[@Highice007]

Napoleon was a double-edged sword. He created more rights for the French people in general but repealed women's rights. He outlawed anti Semititism in France, but tried to bring back slavery. He freed Poland from Russia, creating the Dutchy of Warsaw, and at Waterloo there were some Polish soldiers with him, including the famous Polish lancers. (He is mentioned in the Polish national anthem, and bust of him can be found throughout the country) He also had a history of stabbing his allies in the back. He was with his men in many battles, loading and fireing the guns himself, but abandoned his men in Egypt. To some, he was a hero, to some a villan, but perhaps he was to complicated to be called either.

[@Alachia]

aye. he did so much (even if you loved or hated it) and accomplished a lot. This film just shows him as sleepy and morose. Literally, he's sleeping in almost every scene.

[@olivierpujol8772]

What a terrible uninform comment that is. Nobody wanted women voting because they weren't being drafted into wars. It was a man world. Slavery never stop because the brittish took control of the islands because the settlers gave them the keys. Napoleon just gave the right to the settlers back to at least get the taxes to fund the defence of france. He freed the slaves in Egypt and freed the serfs in Europe. He didn't flee from Egypt he was called back to France to deal with the second coalition, giving command to a subordinate general. He didn't outlaw anti-semitism he just gave the right to the Jews to practice their religion in France because the french revolution brought laicité and freedom of belief.

[@Brusselpicker]

The best bit about showing him sleeping all the time is according to his contemporaries, Napoleon often only slept for three or four hours a night, his senior generals and Marshalls comment on it in their memoirs.

[@MN-vz8qm]

Being french I am a complete fan of Napoleon (which contrary to populat belief is not a given among french people). The criticisms usually are about him being overly agressive (which I would disagree with, France was fighting mostly defensive wars), or regressive (in this case I would agree, but the fact that he chose to do some rollbacks of the revolution in order to bring back peace in France). Europe would have been much better off had Napoleon won, instead of a return of the absolute monarchies.

[@captainpawpawchannel]

​@@MN-vz8qmwell, Napoleon was a kind of monarch and he wanted his son to succeed

[@VercumPraeses]

An epic film about Napoleon was a passion project of Stanley Kubrick’s. It was never made but the screenplay is available. Now I’ve seen that Steven Spielberg is producing the Kubrick project as a miniseries for HBO. I think this would be the way to see a story about Napoleon.

[@Alachia]

Is the screenplay floating around the Internet? I would love to read it

[@VercumPraeses]

@@Alachia yes, it is

[@VercumPraeses]

Apparently he never made it because there was already a movie about Napoleon at the time called “Waterloo” which flopped. He opted to make “Barry Lyndon” instead.

[@troyriser8074]

I'm a military history buff and can state both Napoleon's contemporaries and later historians rate him as one of the most capable generals of all time. Aside from his personal charisma, Napoleon had a specific tactical and strategic gift as a military thinker on the battlefield shared by only a tiny handful of military leaders throughout history: he could conceptualize the battlefield in real-time in much the same way a good quarterback reads the field (although in Napoleon's case obviously on a much greater scale). Napoleon's uncanny grasp of ground and movement enabled him to concentrate his forces at just the right moment at the right place to shatter his opponents. It's been remarked by historians that US Grant had this gift, as did Erwin Rommel and other great generals, but few or none on the level of Napoleon. Based on your review (I haven't yet seen the movie), the audience never gets to see this side of the man, the part of him that was brilliant and unique.

[@Alachia]

I'd be interested in what you think of the film. I thought the military prowess of Napoleon was severely lacking in this film.

[@michaelhawkins7389]

@@Alachia A lot of people like Napoleon Bonaparte , that is why so many people have written books on him.. You're an American, in Europe Napoleon is very well liked and loved.

[@quebecforce111]

he was ranked number one in all rankings of the best generals of all time

[@Sindrewino]

Yes, and number two on these lists isn't even close in most of these rankings. Which makes it even more insane@@quebecforce111

[@RB-xj9kr]

Rommel? Who lost the battle at Alamein?

[@TR-mg1eq]

Following his coronation, thousands of daily diaries from hundreds of sources report Napoleon's movements on a DAILY basis. So yes Mr. Scott, we do know. Also, Napoleon was no coward (reports from officers).

[@laurentfournier561]

and soldiers alike! Yes, even soldiers wrote their memoirs on all sides.

[@americafirst3562]

This entire movie written by the British telling French history was a hit piece on the man

[@miguelpereira9859]

Ridley Scott wasted $200M of Apple's money to piss off the french the absolute madlad

[@christhemountain]

But we British don't want to see a hit piece on Napoleon. Even the conservative British historian Andrew Roberts wrote a very sympathetic biography of him in 2014. If you want a cross-channel hit piece you should look at the French-made Assassin's Creed games where the British are the villains in multiple games, even in 'Valhalla', where the raping, pillaging, murdering, burning Vikings are the good guys!

[@MissAtSHy]

@@miguelpereira9859 Dude managed to piss off BOTH the French and the British. The French because duh, the British because by making Napoleon look incompetent it makes the Brits look EVEN MORE incompetent since, yknow it took them 20 years and 6 international coalitions to bring that "incompetent" leader to heel.

[@Silverfish-qv8ig]

Pal, you need to learn that not all people are as petty as the Americans...

[@mlansky7302]

I would recommend on all levels Ridley Scotts first movie "The Duelists" done on a shoestring budget back in 1977. Encompasses the same period actually and captures character, visuals and music soundtrack wonderfully. It really is essential when doing period pieces or almost any movie actually to cast actors with unique and strong and compelling faces. I sense that Phoenix was miscast though I have not seen the movie. He is revered in Hollywood as an eccentric and an iconoclast but is he really interesting enough to watch for 2 1/2 hrs in an epic piece? Sorry to say he works best as either a supporting villain or a clown. I miss Brando. He is the rare breed who could alone transform a period drama into something with weight, meaning and substance and drive the girls crazy while he was doing it.

[@miguelpereira9859]

I saw the film in the theayer and your fesrs regarding Phoenix are 100% justified. I love him but he doesn't have that larger than life acting in him. He worked extremely well as Commudus because he serves as a contrast to the heroic and charismatic Maximus

[@troyriser8074]

'The Duelists' is one of my favorite period films. Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel were superb.

[@parhhesia]

Yes, The Duellists is superb. This movie was just... weak.

[@rebeccag8589]

Vanessa Kirby was great, and she's actually one of my favorite actresses, but the script was so poorly written that I think this might be my least favorite of her performances I've seen! She certainly did her best with what she was given. Totally agree with everything in your review! I just saw it and it was so boring that I really felt this movie's run time, and Phoenix seemed to be just as bored by the film as I was (and I do like him as an actor in many other films). This movie had no historical context and was absolutely not necessary. Hahaha.

[@albertbresca8904]

i am so glad i didn't watch the reviews til after i had seen the film (well tried to see the full film... i couldn't stomach it... sadly... i will try again) so that I could try to enjoy the film without any preconceptions... sadly i think she is being very generous.....

[@martinoreilly1525]

I've seen about 15-20 reviews of this film so far, but this is the best review. Clear and to the point. I'm a military history nut and was looking forward to watching the movie, but I've decided not to watch it now. I think I'll wait for Spielberg's mini-series about Napoleon instead.

[@tuscanyjc]

Great review. Like chewing on dry meat without a glass of water sums it up perfectly

[@amafirenze-vi1uh]

One big thing missing in Josephine life in the movie is she was six years older than Napoleon and was a fashonable woman known for her wit and charm. She was quite the life of all parties of the high society. And Napoleon was a young rude corsican officer in Paris who she introduced to the political and intellectual world. So she was Napoleon's mentor in Paris.

[@MannyKnowsYourSecrets]

She was also responsible for bringing back slavery no matter how much feminists try to deny it.

[@laurentfournier561]

@@MannyKnowsYourSecrets she was a slave owner herself being the daughter of Tascher de la Pagerie a French west Indies settler.

[@Chrisfeb68]

Probably better off watching documentaries on Napoleon than any movies made about his life.

[@Alachia]

Definitely

[@SuicidalBastard]

i totally recomend you watch waterloo from 1970, that movie is insanely good @@Alachia

[@steveblundell7766]

The 1927 movie by Abel Gance is brilliant (but very long)

[@nont18411]

I think the best format of media for an entire history of Napoleon is a format of taiga drama. It’s a Japanese style of historical drama that runs weekly for a year (48 episodes). The latest show of this format is about a life of a Shogun Tokugawa Ieyasu. This will help fleshing out Napoleon big time without diminishing significant events in his life. It can also elevate the role of Josephine as a deuteragonist without sidelining Napoleon’s character as well.

[@toedpens4954]

Thank you! I have no idea why western countries never produce anything like it. Historical c dramas and k dramas are also rather long. Some big ones reaching 80 episodes. We need stuff like that for so many eras of the world's history! Napoleon certainly deserves one! Then his generals can finally exist! So much!

[@laurentfournier561]

Your idea really appeal to me as there is so much to say about this era that could be both entertaining and elevating. With as many as 48 episodes the series could even bring some depth to other characters of the era, Mozart, Bethoven, de Jomini and Von Clausewitz, Pitts and Bernadotte and of course Alexander 1st Romanov...

[@dbhgray]

Napoleon was a brilliant military strategist whose life and career is impossible to condense into a 2 and 1/2 hour film. I knew the film could only display bits and pieces from his career and that was acceptable to me. Joaquin Phoenix was a bit old to play Napoleon as a young officer in his 20's but overall I enjoyed his performance and the film itself. I do recommend that Napoleon 'fans' should watch Waterloo (1970) with Rod Steiger as Napoleon for a better summary of that battle (available on KZbin).

[@albertbresca8904]

i couldn't watch this movie as fully as it deserved and comparing it to waterloo (I had seen that movie many years before) just felt bad... as it concentrated so much on his personal life... and as he was such a hero he came across (to me) in this movie as not such a great person....

[@stephenbeckett2067]

The 1970 Waterloo movie is fun, but grossly inaccurate, just a caricature of the campaign and battle. Do watch the 1970 Waterloo, but not for history.

[@thecaynuck]

If they want to portray Napoleon's life best, a TV series would certainly be most suitable

[@user-lb6ch3ns7g]

​@@stephenbeckett2067Not "grossly" innacurate. Slightly, or at worst from a specialist perspective somewhat innacurate. Basically the lack of hill and surrounding infrastructure.

[@aceofswords1725]

Phoenixes "performance" is godawful. I don't think he even plays Napoleon. He is just going through the motions "ah, he's a genius. How does hollywood portray geniuses these days? Like some kind of borderline autistic self-obsessed pricks. Righto. I'm on it". Terrible. The nadir of his career. And Scott's ridiculous British contempt of everything "frog" doesn't help at all.

[@Glrk10]

Napoleon’s enemies wanted to protect the divine right of kings. Their motivations were not pure

[@nukiesduke6868]

Hollywood rewriting history? Must be a day ending in Y. I don't know what's sadder, the fact they do that or the fact people will basically get their info from hollywood movies and think that's actually how it all went.

[@abloshow91]

He fricken saved France almost singlehandedly. All of Europe tried to stop the revolution and Napoleon was like "Bitch who do y'all think you are".

[@christiandaugherty6339]

Napoleon ended the revolution.

[@daddy_1453]

​@@christiandaugherty6339 Waterloo ended the Revolution. But the Revolution continued to burn outside French borders even after Napoleon was defeated. As the ideas and laws had spread and implemented for 10+ years abroad. Millions had tasted new rights that they previously thought impossible. They wouldn't tolerate a total return to pre Napoleon era

[@christiandaugherty6339]

@@daddy_1453 Nah, the revolution ended in 1799.

[@jean-noell2269]

@@christiandaugherty6339 Napoleon was the result of the foreign aggression against France after the revolution, British can bash him all they want, they've created him. (a caricatural simplification, but that's about it)

[@christiandaugherty6339]

@@jean-noell2269 The rich French Capitalists who didn't like their interests being affected by the radicalism of earlier stages of the revolution created him.

[@user-iq2yp1dn1q]

You make a good point in that a movie like this should be an opportunity for the audience to enter into the full context of the life of a historical figure whose life changed the course of history of France, Europe, and beyond. Squandering this opportunity missed the point of what historian-minded audiences want from a movie like this.

[@victoriousomen]

Imagine being so powerful, that a coalition of major European powers simply avoids engaging you - yes, you personally - in the field of battle.

[@shirleypulawski8221]

I love a good historical epic drama. This had the money and star power to take it there. As an indie film maker, it's especially insulting because getting funding is incredibly hard, so $200 million to churn out boring crap is a slap in the face to those of us who make films on shoestring budgets. Thanks for sharing this and saving us money and time we can't get back by seeing this.

[@Alachia]

Sometimes when I see these $200 million budget films that underwhelm, I think, how many independent films could have been made for the same cost...

[@Antares-vj7su]

Are you Ridley Scott? Have you made Alien, Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven movies considered classic masterpieces? Do you have your own production company like Ridley Scott? I Guess not. Also this movie struggled a lot to get funds and at some point when Apple decided to buy it, was not even supposed to go in theatres. So even Ridley Scott struggled a lot to get funds.

[@Alachia]

But I did pay 17 dollars to see the film and am sharing my opinion of the film for free. How is that bad?

[@adamropp4757]

@@Antares-vj7su​​⁠ Kingdom of heaven sucked. Alien and Gladiator were 20 years a part. This shows that Scott is only really good at hiring a good producer unit/art team for a quality production and that a good film will only occur if he lucks into good screenwriters.

[@_uncredited]

Ridley Scott was around at the time of Napoleon and it's possible that they shared a bed together, which would explain the tone of the film. I'm not a historian, but that's what I reckon.

[@biffstrong1079]

Don't tell me this. I so wanted to see this movie. Ridley Scott's Gladiator was such a mess at the end. Napoleon was one of the greatest leaders of all time. He put together a brand new legal system. One of the greatest military geniuses of all time. He revolutionized the way wars were fought.

[@Alachia]

He is literally portrayed as sleep for a lot of the movie. Literally sleeping while on the battlefield.... While in meetings.. everything. I forgot to mention this in my review. Scarpa has no respect for Napoleon at all

[@xanderk84]

I haven't seen Napoleon yet so can't speak on that but Gladiator was NOT a mess at the end. It was a perfect movie.

[@biffstrong1079]

@@xanderk84 Gladiator ended with the Roman Empire becoming some sort of republican senate lead democracy. The actual emperor at the death of Commodus was the Senator Pertinax who is then quickly killed. the emperor ship was auctioned off by the Praetorian guard to Didius Julianus who then was ousted by Septimius Severus. This became the year of the five emperors where military dictatorships followed each other in rapid succession Severus ended up holding the throne but the message at the end of Gladiator was the roman empire had become some sort of semi-democratic institution at this time. The historical lesson was a hundred years of roman power and peace and peaceful succession from one picked emperor to another . Nerva to Trajan to Hadrian to Pius Antoninus to Marcus Aurelius ended when Marcus Aurelius chose his son to be coemperor with him and when the son then succeeded him. The Ridley Scott movie outlines a completely opposite fake history. Oh and Commodus killed his sister early in his reign. All this information is written down. Rome evolved from a peacefully transitioned one man rule system to a military dictatorship constantly in flux, with the strongest military power tending to grasp or contend for the position of emperor. The contest among themselves was one of the contributing factors to the fall of the roman empire in the west in a couple hundred years.

[@biffstrong1079]

@@xanderk84 Oh and check out The Fall of the Roman Empire with Commodus played by Christopher Plummer. This is the movie that Ridley Scott remade when he made Gladiator. This movie captured the actual historical moment and sea change that happened in the roman empire at that time that the movie gladiator completely reverses and I think that ridley scott wasn't interested in. Maybe he should have made a fantasy movie about a king and a general who becomes a gladiator. I liked the movie gladiator but the end was ridiculous fantasy.

[@spartakas659]

Im a huge fan of the napoleonic era but this trailer ruins absolutely everything about napoleon’s life. The movie “Waterloo 1970 is an absolute masterpiece but this looks terrible. The battle of Waterloo was fought on a sunny summers day but in this it looks like November. Thanks for the review 👍🏻

[@michelbarbier995]

I m french and your critique was the best i ve seen so far ... Ridley scoot for défense his several historique mistake said "have you been there" ? But dear Ridley to showing Napoléon ficking like a Rabbit have you been there ? Under the bed ? 😂 Napoléon was nt the only one to make the war and often did nt start the first....

[@mightytaiger3000]

His replies to criticism during this have been so unsophisticated, I agree. I haven’t seen the movie yet but that’s not good PR for it or Ridley himself.

[@rolandwhittle8527]

The better films on Napoleon is the 1927 Abel Gance epic that leads up to his first invasion of Italy. Good at showing his intellectual and unusual charisma. Then there's the 1950a Austerlitz also by Abel Gance the actor playing Napoleon is French shows his dynamic brilliance as a commander good battle scenes. Then the there's Russians version of War and Peace by same director done Waterloo. The Russian actor playing Napoleon is very good. It's one of the best history films ever made it's on KZbin. Finally Waterloo by same director I agree bringing Rod Steiger and Christopher Plummer together but that was the days of great actors great films and great directors won't see that again.

[@mudbuket8064]

If you want a good napoleon movie watch Waterloo (1970) by Sergei Bondarchuk and if you want a good movie about the 18th century and that period watch Barry Lyndon (1975) by Stanly Kubrick.

[@Alachia]

I am definitely going to check this movie out.

[@lraoux]

Shame that *this* one had to be the one titled “Napoleon.”

[@clottadams5028]

If you're going to fire at The Pyramids of Giza in a movie, then go all out and make the pyramids a fort defended by xenomorphs, then. Have a time traveling Ripley show up in the mech-forklift suit fighting the aliens, too. Sounds like this Napoleon movie has more in common with Abraham Lincoln Zombie Hunter than a historical accurate movie like Waterloo.

[@AzyxA]

I approve of your vision for this movie 😂

[@MK_ULTRA420]

So, a movie about the Finno-Korean Hyperwar?

[@da009999]

Ridley Scott is a legend... but a lot of these directors don't age well artistically. Spielberg (Ready Player One), Tim Burton (Charlie and The Chocolate Factory), Ridley Scott (Alien: Convenant). Exceptions for Sam Raimi and Scorsese.

[@greggibson33]

'Flowers' is average Scorsese. Love Raimi but what has he done lately? Mostly a producer. The only direction was Dr. Strange 2 which was awful.

[@greggibson33]

George Miller is as great as ever at 78. 'Fury Road' is one of the greatest action films ever created.

[@da009999]

@@greggibson33 You're right. Apologies for forgetting about him.

[@Alachia]

I love that these directors still think big but I think the problem is that they have been so far removed form the world for most of their lives at this point that they don't understand stories anymore. They understand film...but not great stories.

[@greggibson33]

@@Alachia Agree 100%! Their recent films show the actual regression away from a great story to just spectacle or style. It's frustrating to watch.

[@f.c.6441]

Napoleon, with all his flaws, was one of if not the greatest man that ever lived. The extent of the lasting impact he achieved in 51 years (including, oddly, instruments like the civil code, the civil service, which are essential do democracy) is *vastly* underestimated because of relatively small aspects of his personal history. It's sad, really.

[@mightytaiger3000]

lol the “greatest” man that ever lived set back women’s rights… Insightful.

[@AiringAustin]

This was one of the most disappointing films for me. The trailer looked so good!

[@DJ-fl4gn]

You might not know this, but one of the lesser known articles within the Treaty of Vienna which ended the Napoleonic Wars was that we, the British, get to shit on the French for at least 250 years in any and all forms of media, and people aren't allowed to complain about it. This film just follows in that proud tradition.

[@Alachia]

ah!! it all makes more sense now. My apologies to Sir Scott. carry on, good sir! lol.

[@cathbelle5096]

Hi DJ .. I do know well the British french bashing , and i thank you for explaining me the origin of it .

[@erichert1001]

Most of Napoleon's early wars were defensive. It was his amazing successes in these wars that contributed to his later hubris, sense of invincibility, aggressive wars, and ultimate downfall. Showing this progression would have made an interesting movie instead of whatever this was.

[@randyorton3141]

It was so painful to watch this parody of a movie. Your review really did help soothe the bad taste it left. I hope Ridley Scott gets called out for making this sick joke.

[@Alachia]

Yes, the more and more I think about it, the movie really was a parody

[@greggibson33]

'Napoleon' is its own Waterloo.

[@bwanahaguziki307]

I fine your critique refreshingly honest. That movie was bull and you got it exactly right....

[@markkelly9621]

I dont think the fact that the director is British is going to affect his attitude on Napoleon, over 200 years later!

[@partoutatix5057]

Brexit Napoleon...

[@neovenkata]

I felt like watching 'The Joker' palying Napolean. Phoenix still looks and acts like the Joker in this movie sometime.

[@drerfanrasti]

Being a Napoleon Hater is insanely awkward and a highly odd phenomenon that I've just realizes exists. Even the Russians respect and revere him in every way.

[@olivierdastein2604]

I'm a Napoleon hater and French. I'm not sure why it would surprise you, given that his record isn't exactly impeccable. To begin with, he overthrew the Republic to replace it by a personal dictatorship. That only is already enough to hate him.

[@cototheyounger8831]

Napoleon is not fading into obscurity. I spent 4 years in Europe and I can tell you his mark will be left on that continent for years.

[@jamiemcerlain5897]

He’ll never fade into obscurity. Neither will Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler. Men like these have all cast too great a shadow on history to ever be forgotten whether we like it or not

[@daustin8888]

Why is Gladiator getting a sequel?

[@NefariousKoel]

The money-men in Hollywood only fund sequels these days, or "re-imaginings". They're terrified of taking chances on anything without name recognition. Then hire mediocre writers who screw it up because they believe they can do it better.

[@Alachia]

monies?

[@daustin8888]

@@Alachia I'm still waiting on my Thelma and Louise sequel. Open endings can go f*ck themselves. I want sequels to EVERYTHING!

[@ms1535]

Great synopsis. I’m surprised they didn’t have Josephine giving Napoleon military and political advice. The battle scenes really fall short. It’s just cheap spectacle. The cavalry is used wrong, the infantry squares are a joke. This is another Hollywood movie for the ignorant masses. It’s complete fiction.

[@christomorpho]

"a good sketch is better then a long speech" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

[@blinkzone1]

"Barbie and Ken under the Empire"

[@brucek66]

Don't normally pay attention to reviews, especially ones that run 13 minutes - but you caught my interest and did an excellent job of encapsulating the film. Kudos on your perspective

[@tacklengrapple6891]

This is what I knew this movie would be as soon as it was announced. I read an amazing biography on Napoleon, called “Napoleon: A Life” by Andrew Roberts, and after reading it I knew there would never be a remotely accurate depiction of his life either as a movie or miniseries. The man was just too complicated to pigeonhole into a conventional narrative. Ridley Scott was never going to deviate from the standard British view of “Napoleon was a evil dictator and we stopped him”.

[@jamesmcleod4335]

I finished that book a few days before going to watch the movie. It was one of the grandest books I've ever read. One of the worst films I've ever watched as well.......

[@vashtibandy1614]

I’ll have to check out that book, ty!

[@michaeldemesquita2175]

Lol the thumbnail for this video has more French in it than the entire movie 😂. But other than that, I agree with everything you said

[@Alachia]

lmao

[@Heathcoatman]

I was trying to have a rational and reasoned discussion about this film on another video, saying that artistic license in a biopic is fine, like showing Napoleon at Antoinette's execution. He wasnt there for her execution, but showing him there gives the audience a glimpse of his reaction to an event that was central to his early rise. Totally fine imo. I then said that small changes are fine to tell the story, but complete fabrications (like the long debunked 'French soldiers were firing cannons at the pyramids and sphinx') are going to get some backlash. In other words it is a film, a work of art, but it also is implied that it's at least about the actual Napoleon, and not a fantasy. I was then told I was no different than a nazi trying to destroy art. Other people agreed. So now I'm a Nazi for expecting some actual history in a historic biopic about an actual person. That's where we are in 2023. Most of these idiotic takes are coming from the youth of America, and as an American I apologize to my French brothers and sisters for this film.

[@olivierdastein2604]

Calling everybody who disagrees with you a Nazi is very trendy. I was called a Nazi for disagreeing with a proposed change about how comments are displayed under photos on a social media. The reason being that the petition for change had been initiated by a transsexual person (I didn't even know that, and it had no conceivable relationship with the suggested change), so opposing it was described as an attempt to silence her made by a privileged cis male.

[@robtierney5653]

Phoenix can play weird characters. But the man isn't very charismatic. Napoleon was incredibly charismatic. Shame casting didn't get the note on that one.

[@greggibson33]

Agree 100%. Add this to the list of worst casting in history. Joaquin can only play psychopathic weirdos. Anything else seems forced and stiff. What was the screen test for 'Napoleon.' Did he just have to try on the hat and Scott hired him on the spot? Embarrassing for both.

[@ArtfulDodger566]

Michael Fassbender would have been great

[@theintroverttraveler1849]

I've read a few books about Napoleon; he was a great innovator; he modernized the French civil code and brought these innovations to all the conquered countries, civilizing them in a sensitive way; he brought great scientists with him, particularly in the Egyptian campaign, where he contributed significantly to the studies of Egyptology; he was very literate for a soldier; he had been greatly influenced by the Enlightenment and by the study of the Greek and Latin classics; he had a great sense of humor; he was also a valiant soldier, much more than it appears from the film, where he is shown stuttering to gather courage before the battle of Toulon. The man was so brilliant that the most his contemporary detractors could argue against him were his bourgeois origins. Did he do all this at the sound of cannons? All the states of the time were militarist and were based on the war economy.

[@GabFrrost]

There is so much in life of Napoleon to make at least a Trilogy ! He was not just a general. A man that saved the Republic, abolished feudalism in Europe, allowed divorce, unified units of measurements, sold Louisiana to USA, had affairs in Poland and St Helene.

[@Alachia]

If anyone actually wanted to tell his story, it should definitely be done as a mini series. His life growing up in Corsica would be two episodes alone. Actually, I changed my mind. It has to be like 3 seasons. One to cover his early life and his rise in the military and his time in Corsica, two to cover 60+ military battles, and three to cover his political life...oh shit..maybe a fourth to cover his love affairs. lol.

[@worlddd7777]

@@Alachia I think Spielberg talked about how he wants to do Napoleon series

[@cybersurf5]

Yes and limited women’s rights in other respects, attempted to reintroduce slavery and slaughtered millions in furtherance of his own glory (yes he inherited the wars of the revolution but there’s no doubt he furthered them for the benefit of himself and his family). All things that were recognised in his own time as contentious and/or problematic. Not trying to detract from his other qualities and achievements but he is not simply a man to be championed or shown in only a positive light. Having said all that, this film sounds abysmal.

[@knightheaven8992]

@@cybersurf5 If you are going by that measure the other leaders of the time ( even those who opposed Napoleon) were no different from a morality perspective Most of them Kings or Emperors themselves.... again this is why Historical context of the period is important to tackle with this things.

[@xanderk84]

@@Alachia I'll still watch Napoleon as I like Ridley Scott overall and want to support historical films after 10 years of super hero overload, but you're right that a series makes more sense for Napoleon. Too much content to pack into one movie. Maybe the director's cut will be better.

[@celestinebennett212]

I think Napoleon was an interesting man ..Humble , yet Dark, Tenacious, smart, out going, smart , Good listener but makes his own decisions, true leader ...very intriguing am sure most women would be attracted to his character true definition of MAN

[@bachtobebop]

I only wish, that more women, were as intelligent and noble, like you.

[@lightschunk]

I was excited to see this but I have yet to hear a positive review of this movie.

[@thomasorif3653]

I now make a point to refer to this movie exclusively as either "Ridley Scott's Napoleon" or "Napoleon & Josephine". The choice of making the movie revolve almost completely around the relationship between him and Josephine could have been fine-ish by me (still would've been a waste of very rich historical content imo), had they not sold it, in the trailers, as a historical epic with grandiose battle scenes. I recommend rewatching the trailer ; it looks like a different movie altogether. It's gloomy, serious and dramatic, and Napoleon gives the impression of an intimidating figure. Then the actual movie turns out to be almost satirical and depicts Napoleon as a cuck prone to childish tantrums. It's borderline false advertisement. It is also worth noting that his military genius - literally what he is known for - is never shown (or even implied!) even once. To give a French perspective : the general French sentiment seems to be resigned indifference. Here, people are either not going or, when they do, shrug their shoulders and say "well yeah, another shit movie from Ridley Scott. Moving on". Everyone seems to know what's going on and realise that this is either, at best, catastrophic historical ignorance, or, at worst, yet another soft-power psy-op. from the Anglo-Saxons but, at the same time, no one seems to really care either about the harm this movie can do to the perception of Napoleon and France around the world. I watched this movie with my South-Korean girlfriend who knows nothing about the era, and she did not question a single thing in this movie. She only realised it was a historical shit-show after we discussed it later. That harm is very much a reality when you look at the difference in ratings between foreign reviews - which are, incomprehensibly, above average - and French reviews, which sit at an average of 1 star. "The only chills felt were those of uneasiness" is a phrase I read in a French review, which I believe encapsulates pretty well the French public opinion. Another one wrote that the movie might as well have been titled "Barbie and Ken under the Empire", lol. Some even described it as a "Tik-Tok like, ADHD-afflicted mess", in the sense that it is a succession of very short, caricatural scenes, with little-to-no cohesion between them, filled with "very American and burlesque" obligatory one-liners. As a guilty pleasure, here are a few more historical inaccuracies that seem to have flown under the radar : - The "It's a shame such a great man has such bad manners" line (in response to the catastrophically bad one "You think you're so great because you have BOATS") was not said by a British official, but by Talleyrand himself on the day he got dismissed by Napoleon from the position of Minister of Foreign affairs. Here's a cool phrase from Stefan Zweig refering to this event : "There is no laundry-woman that ever cursed at their neighbour more than Napoleon insulted Talleyrand on that day" (in Fouché's biography). - The story about Napoleon responding to the "You French fight for money. We fight for honour" line with "Each of us fights for what he lacks most" is untrue. It was said by Robert Surcouf, a French corsair, to a British officer he'd captured. - Napoleon absolutely and unequivocally DID NOT leave Egypt because of Josephine's infidelity, which was pretty much a non-event. He left both because the situation was dire, and because he had received reports suggesting that France's leadership was ripe for the taking. - It is worth mentionning that, interestingly, Napoleon is never shown WORKING even once. Outside of military, political, and romantic scenes, he is only shown killing time with his brothers, throwing little rocks at cups or whatever, which couldn't be farther from reality considering all accounts of the era depict him as a workaholic maniac - His last words DID NOT mention Josephine whatsoever. They were either "France... Head... Army" or "France... My son... Army". Which makes the entire premise of this film - Napoleon's obsession with Josephine - founded on yet another historical fallacy I would add, to be fair, that one of the few things this movie had going for it is the historical photography. Many of these scenes had picture-perfect resemblance with actual paintings from the era, which I can only praise.

[@casbyness]

Awwe, you could have made it F for French. :D

[@Alachia]

that would have been rude. lol

[@thiscorrosion900]

Man this is even more brutal than Waterloo! LOL Oh dear Lord. Why didn't Ridley see how poor the screenplay was, fire that idiot, and get someone better? That's probably what William Friedkin would have done. He famously said about the French Connection book "f--k this boring piece of shit" and threw most of the book away, kept the good bits, and had young turk (at the time-the guy who wrote SHAFT and the novels) Ernest Tidyman write the screenplay. And what a good idea it was! With a good writer this could have been Ridley's Lawrence of Arabia. But not.

[@huliohuliohamijo]

Sad to hear. I haven't watched it yet, but I was excited to see this film, because I thought Ridley Scott would do justice to the character and history. I will still watch it with an open mind, but if what you say is true... what a wasted opportunity.

[@DYT2]

I walked out of the cinema after Austerlitz and went and did some shopping and came back for Waterloo.

[@diddo9338]

Welp, I'll stick to the 1927 Napoleon lol, almost a 100 years later and it still might be better.

[@kairandbellinger1973]

"CHEWING ON DRY MEAT". That's the best line in all of the review specialists. You're good! I signed up and will watch you and make comments. Very good Review!!!

[@AlexeiRamotar]

You can't have a Napoleon biopic over just 2.5 hrs. Anyone trying to do a Napoleon film from his rise to power to Waterloo in 2.5 hrs will fail. The movie Waterloo, a really good one, was 2 hours and there they even cut out Ligny.

[@shellw1506]

Hollywood will never show a Caucasian alpha male in a positive light.

[@dthendrick1]

My first red flag was seeing Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon, not because he's a bad actor, but he's a phenomenal actor when portraying a certain "type" of character, look at Commodus and the Joker. He's mastered the "pathetic man" trope. My next red flag was seeing the historical inaccuracies in the trailers, such as the bombing of the pyramids or Josephine calling him a "pathetic LITTLE man." I have been extremely exited for this movie, but knew in today's culture it was probably going to be a "deconstruction" rather than an epic historical drama. My next red flag was seeing the trailers heavy focus on Josephine, which I wouldn't mind, if the movie wasn't called Napoleon and if the toxic feminism of today hadn't soured my taste for "strong women" Characters. I am extremely disappointed in this movie, but it's honestly what I expected. I will say without a doubt Napoleon was a "great" man, that doesn't mean morally good nor bad, but what he managed to accomplish is nothing short of greatness, and his story, good and evil, deserves to be told with a certain amount of respect. At least I have Waterloo to watch for the 1000th time, watch the 1970s Waterloo if you want to see a tasteful telling of a part of Napoleons story, you'll also get treated to some of the greatest battle scenes ever put to film, truly an underrated gem of a movie.

[@LUCCI_25]

Joaquin is not just great at a certain type of character if that’s what you’re saying. He’s a great actor in general. In 2021 he gave a great performance being just a normal person 😂And obviously many more that are not like joker or gladiator

[@dthendrick1]

@LUCCI_25 I slightly disagree. The roles he's got the most recognition from are roles where he plays some kind of broken, pathetic, or deranged man. Ask anyone what movies he's in and your Get Gladiator, The Joker, or Occasionally Her. Yes, he can play other roles, but people love him for Commodus and Joker. I can already tell by your laughing emoji you're gonna disagree, which is fine. It just seems obvious to me that he was selected not to play an accurate Napoleon, but a pathetic Napoleon, which the movie proves me right on. Still, we can agree to disagree, I'm not gonna waste too much time arguing over this point.

[@LUCCI_25]

@@dthendrick1 lol no shit I would disagree anyone who’s seen his movies would. People know him from those movies because they are very popular blockbusters. His best performance is probably the master, and then walk the line he’s phenomenal in. But nobody says anything because the movies are not huge popular movies. He got tons of critical acclaim from those roles. So yeah I mean obviously he’s know for the huge movies he’s done

[@plausibleg.3170]

So, Hollywood does it again! Says the hell with the historians. Let's make a movie we think might make lots of money.

[@mickratters8073]

As a British man who admired Napoleon, I apologise for this nonsense of a movie.

[@slyredfox4607]

This movie basically takes the stance of "Short french baby becomes emperor". They portrayed Napoleon as being such a LOSER, and I don't blame Joaquin for the portrayal, I blame the writers

[@sonicocr]

You can’t judge the character decisions or values with “modern standards” and directly use that to start the analysis of the film.

[@mrt445]

Exactly, in fact historically Napoleon was an evil person.

[@davidlawler8295]

The words, "evil" and "fact" have no place in the same sentence.@@mrt445

[@Alachia]

the character in this film made very few decisions and had very few values showcased. that was my point. If they wanted to show him as evil that would have been fine...but Scarpa did nothing but show the man as lame and weak...neither of which was true.

[@davidlawler8295]

All of my worst fears were confirmed about the movie.@@Alachia

[@TheGoldenCapstone]

Lol you think that's gonna stop Alachia? Most of these people don't know much about him but view him as "deplorable".

[@tedhodge4830]

I think the biggest red flag is Ridley's response to criticism, which essentially indicated that he did not care whatsoever about the subject matter or what people thought about it. I'm genuinely curious about his motivation behind making the film. Honestly, I suspect strongly that he was simply drawn into the gravity of Joaquin Phoenix and the idea that his brilliance would carry the portrayal despite a strange script. The trailer was a disappointment, and I think I will pass on the movie after all. It is another indication of the decline of high budget cinema. For period films, I would rather watch Danton again.

[@duckonquack6969]

Wow i saw it last night and i could not agree more with your analysis! My disappointment in this 1 is immeasurable

[@christomorpho]

This movie was so beautiful. It looks like a Neo-Classical painting coming to life. The source material were the paintings of that era, you should study them.

[@mephistro]

Awesome review. You went underneath the shiny coating and definitely analyzed aspects of the film far more than these other alleged critics. I was going to see this on Black Friday but because of this review I switched last minute and reserved seats for Saltburn. We'll see...🤞

[@Alachia]

Please let me know what you think of Saltburn

[@greggibson33]

@@Alachia I wonder if someone would say 'Awesome review' if they disagreed with you? Has that ever happened? Also.... do you like when you receive personal compliments or would you prefer the comments be more specific to your content? Just wondering.

[@jannelonnqvist2947]

A solid and perhaps a bit harsh review, but not inaccurate (unlike the film). This is the first time I've run into the reviewer but I'll definitely give you videos more viewings. You have solid points and pleasant voice and pacing!

[@ize1000009]

The biggest slap in the face in the Movie for me was…. When during their divorce Napoleon Slaps Josephine in the face….. That did not happen and Napoleon never physically hurt Josephine, because he loved her. (Which was showed in the movie, but they also wanted to downplay that) and Josephine’s ex-husband was the one who actually abused her, and Napoleon wanted to show that he’s a different man who cares for her. And that slap even doesn’t fit the narrative of the film where they show that Napoleon didn’t want to divorce Josephine and was trying to convince everyone to go along with the lie that his bastard is from Josephine. So it’s a total out of character move for even the movie Napoleon, not even talking about the real one and historical records. The whole movie just felt like the British making a movie “about those stupid French people and their little guy”. Probably compensating for the fact that besides the last battle at Waterloo the British did nothing throughout the whole napoleonic wars, besides hiding on their island (plus trafalgar, so that the French cant do land invasion)

[@Alachia]

That slap was so jarring, people in the theater thought it was a comedy bit and were laughing

[@StephenLuke]

I’ve seen Napoleon in theaters and it was so intriguing!!! Despite the historical inaccuracies, I count this film as one of my favorites in 2023.

[@automatic6216]

Here's the thing... Gladiator was a massive success because Maximus was and still is f--ing BADASS. The whole indelibly amazing scene where Maximus gives the most f--ing AMAZING Resume reading: I "I am Maximus Decimus Meridus, Commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legion, Servant to the true Emperor Marcus Aurelius, etc." That is a gloriously badass moment. You UNDERSTAND why men will fight and die for Maximus with STRENGTH AND HONOR. And that, frankly, was the Young Napoleon. He had that charisma IN SPADES. He had grown up, lonely and isolated and instead fell in love with BOOKS - and these books opened up a whole universe of science, knowledge, philosophy and military tactics, and made Napoleon a sheer genius. The man could discuss history and philosophy with Goethe, art and propaganda with Jacques Louis David, economics and law with Sieyes, etc. He was nerd enough to get elected into the French national scientific organization and yet alpha male enough to lead armies into battle and win - not through dumb as f--k video gamey moves as the movie shows, but through a brilliant combination of tactics, grand strategy and innate understanding of the mind of the soldier. Motivation plus Tactical Success which not only kept his dudes alive but brought them victory and plunder. That was young Napoleon - he was the historical embodiment of Maximus Decimus Meridius. And then he turned into COMMODUS. That is the story Ridley should have told but Ridley's got his head way too far up his own a$$ to begin to comprehend that. Napoleon, to the end of his life, lamented that "people wanted me to be George Washington / the French Cincinnatus, but I couldn't". That would have been a story worth telling.

[@rickbase833]

And.....we are still entertained. I make it a habit to watch Gladiator one a year...especially with all the SheBoss shite being put out over the past 10 years. Maximus is a tragic hero and Russel Nailed it.

[@Alachia]

yes! the fact that it didn't show how much time Napoleon spent reading and studying was weird to me. Honestly, from this film, you'd be shocked if he even knew how to read.

[@cathbelle5096]

Great comment here ....

[@automatic6216]

@@rickbase833 that's because Gladiator is actually good. It has just the right feel for a Gladiator/ancient Rome movie despite some very obvious unhistorical howlers ("Rome will be a Republic again"), it had a compelling story and compelling characters and a badass-beyond-awesome lead character. None of which his Napoleon movie has.

[@rickbase833]

@@automatic6216 Thanks....was really looking forward to seeing this in the cinema since Ridley Scott movies also tend to be spectacles on screen....will wait until streaming.

[@KeysAndDoorss]

I came here trying to find his military tactics, his marshals, his best unit (old guard) and a lot of things that made him Napoleon only to find a romance drama.

[@motivationallizard6644]

I’ll be seeing it tomorrow but from what I’ve heard it’s an atrocious historical piece that mostly focuses on napoleons private life rather than the highlights of his military and political career. I’m not entirely opposed to napoleon being portrayed as an awkward and even insecure person because he’s chronicled as being exactly that. On the battlefield he was charismatic and a great leader but when it came to social events and off battle activities Napoleon was notorious for not really having a good grasp of social interaction. He was isolated from his piers as a young student and he carried that over to his adulthood, especially when it came to speaking with women. Hell, just read some of the letters he wrote to Josephine while on campaign in Italy and you can see how atrocious his social skills really were when outside of a militaristic or political context. It’s not bad to portray Napoleon as the relatively awkward guy that he was, but it needs to be balanced with his brilliance as a politician and especially his brilliance as a general. It’s no coincidence that Napoleon is considered THE best general of all time and if you study his campaigns you can really see why. He pulled off impossible victory after victory and was so unbeatable that his opponents could only defeat him by shear numbers alone. Any film or production on Napoleon should have covering his military accomplishments as a prerequisite and requirement because he quite literally cannot be understood without it. He admired Caesar abs Alexander the Great from a young age and wanted to emulate them in his life, which for all intents and purposes he did both in terms of his political, militaristic, and historical accomplishments. I’ll still check it out, mostly because I love the Napoleonic wars as a historical topic, but what I’m hearing is incredibly worrying because it seems like they’ve completely butchered his life into being a purely awkward man who bumbled his way into power instead of the conniving and ambitious man he really was.

[@Alachia]

Let me know what you thought of it after you see it.

[@motivationallizard6644]

@@Alachia I can say with confidence that I disliked the film. There were parts throughout it where I enjoyed it and they were mostly the more comedic scenes between Napoleon and Josephine. But that in and of itself signifies my main complaint with the movie. It’s not a movie about napoleon himself, his career, or his effect on the world. It’s a dramatized piece of historical fiction that glosses over major battles, events, and much of napoleons life to focus on his relationship with Josephine. Every scene from the beginning to the end of the movie is entirely reliant on their relationship. It’s obviously the main focus of the film and you can obviously tell that napoleons marshals, entire battles, and even sections of his life have been cut to make as much room as possible for their relationship. I say this mostly because the battle of Marengo is notably absent from the film despite being a major turning point in napoleons career and being listed in the credits as one of the battles they portrayed, yet it’s simply not there. They also glossed over the VERY important Italian campaign in 1796, the entire wars of the second, fourth, and fifth coalitions, and the invasion of Spain. It’s clear that much of the political events occurring that caused these wars is also absent and left mostly to “Britain has boats” which is a lazy explanation at best. I recognize that it’s literally impossible to cover all of napoleons career in a single movie but if that’s true they should’ve made a series or trilogy to cover it all because this is bare bones at best and blatantly incorrect and disingenuous as worst. Napoleons characterization is also pretty bad. From the beginning of the movie he’s this cold and withdrawn person who’s practically unapproachable. This wouldn’t be as much of a problem if he was like this in private with Josephine but showing him that reserved on the battlefield and in front of political dignitaries is atrocious and the childish tantrum he throws in-front of the British diplomat is ridiculous. It makes it hard to root for him as a character because instead of the genius and charismatic general we’re given a man child who can’t act like an adult when faced with the slightest inconvenience. They also demonize him a lot in the film and by all accounts this is blatantly false. He never cheated on Josephine until he heard about her infidelity and wanted to confirm if he could have children. He was also a great husband, if not clingy, before figuring out her infidelity. Marshall Massena noted that when he and the other generals first met napoleon before entering Italy that napoleon went around to each of them to show off the portrait he had of his wife. He wore his love on his sleeve and literally begged her to come see him while he was campaigning in Italy, which she lied about being pregnant to get out of. It’s a blatant and disgusting misrepresentation of his character to have him be a controlling Monster, especially when Josephine was worse for cheating on him rights after they married. Overall the movie is horrible in everything but it’s acting and set design. The costumes, look of the film, and acting was all great, but I will note that Robespierre and emperor Francis are WAY to chubby and barely resemble their real life counterparts and are poorly casted. Joaquin himself was also somewhat odd in this role since he wasn’t given much to work with and his best scenes come in the more comedic moments of the movie. Overall I’d give it a 3/10. It tried to condense way to much material and ended up losing its direction entirely as a film, while focusing on the least important section of napoleons life.

[@Alachia]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I appreciate it

[@marilyn8490]

I was struck by a reviewer who mentioned one interesting idea...would have been more intriguing to focus on why Napoleon inspired such fierce devotion in his troops. Apparently, no mention of those personal qualities that compelled so many soldiers to follow him in his military campaigns.

[@kashg4415]

Thank you for this review, I needed it after watching the movie last night and feeling so dissapointed. The movie had no flow, hated napoleon, and was filled with moral judgement. And it focused so much on his marriage instead of him or his genius etc.

[@jim5408]

Felt the same. Have studies the man, his charisma, and his genius. Not sure what this was. Just dribble.

[@MrKrtek00]

Just for the record, he did great things, too, not just war

[@MythwrightWorkshop]

I think if the point of this show was to make the audience feel cucked for having seen it, especially if their wives were actually stepping out on them while they watched it, they may have just succeeded. One impressively myopic biopic!

[@ShrekLorrain]

After all these bad comments about this Napoleon on KZbin site, I think Ridley Scott fell in love with Josephine and gave her a great role in this film. He put her on the top and Napoleon below. 02h37mn for the last 28 years of Napoleon's life, it seems to me too short. A Napoleon campaign is more than 2 hours of movie. Ridley Scott made this film as a Shakespeare play, a drama in a couple with the Napoleonic battles as a movie set. The best part in this film is the costumes. If you have no knowledge about the Napoleon period, you can watch this film and enjoy it. The trailers showed us the fails of this film. All connoisseurs of Napoleonic era could be disappointed. Ridley Scott didn't want to respect history facts. This film is just a staged historical novel. It could be named Josepha and Napoli, a love story.

[@TheGoddon]

It is terminally miscast.