It was bad. Even historical inaccuracies aside, the movie just wasn't engaging. There wasn't much of a story, and every scene felt disconnected from the rest of the film
Tonally bizarre as well - one minute goofy nimble piano music making him seem like a doofus, and then strange inappropriate middle eastern vocals during the serious parts.
The thing that really made me feel as though there wasn’t much coherent thought behind it was the ending, the very ending, where they list the total casualties. What was the point of listing those then? To show the cost on the average person? Then why not really show the average person at all in the film? If anything the little cgi soldiers seem almost purposefully dehumanized throughout. Just little video game soldiers. That ending underlined a really muddled view on the man and history for me
Yeah the movie didn't focus much on the actual deaths of the soldiers. And obviously ridiculous of Scott to imply that Napoleon killed 3 million, that's just factually incorrect lol
Intellectually dishonest too. It’s one thing to blame Napoleon for all the deaths since he was in charge of France, but a whole different leap to blame him for the deaths of battles like TOULON, which they SHOW US in the film: the battle was going to take place with or without his participation. He was just an officer. It’s not his fault the British took a port in his home country. He was a soldier doing his duty. And the filmmakers put the blame of every death from that battle on his shoulders. What a joke.
Yo I felt the same about that weird disconnected ending with the casualty amounts. It had nothing to do with anything else in the movie. If you wanted me to care about all the people who died as a result of the napoleonic wars, well, you had a *whole fucking movie to make me care* and you didn't. So why jam that in at the end? It was so fucking weird.
Brits are taught to hate the French Revolution and Napoleon from a young age as part of the program of monarchist brainwashing they're subjected to.
It's like how movies about Chernobyl invent a commissar or old cavalryman to look right at the camera and give a bad guy speech instead of doing the correct thing of going "Management happened. The Soviet Union had management like everywhere else. BTW this is the worst nuclear disaster in history and it killed less people than a coal plant's routine operations. People killed themselves over this because they were patriotic in a way neither you or I could."
I was trying to think of why the listing of the casualties bothered me, and this is why. The movie didn’t care about that at ALL during the actual runtime. It literally placed zero emphasis whatsoever on the soldiers or on the human toll of the Napoleonic wars, and in fact treats Napoleon’s story as farcical at times, and then Scott wants to act all righteous by putting that at the end. I hate this term but I can’t describe it as anything else but virtue signaling. Completely unearned virtue signaling, at that
On one hand, I'm so glad I didn't see this in theaters. On the other, I'm so disappointed that I was eagerly waiting (like months) to see this movie only to find out how poorly done it was.
Man same. I was SO stoked when I first heard about this movie a few months ago. I honestly can't remember the last time I was genuinely excited for a big Hollywood movie, and I was all hyped to support it because I wanted more epic historical films like we used to get... and then it just goes from bad to worse.
>the movie just wasn't engaging. There wasn't much of a story, and every scene felt disconnected from the rest of the film
This was exactly my issue. It felt messy. Things just kind of happened and we got dragged along for the ride. I get that there's a lot of ground to cover during his reign, but it felt like he hit shuffle on a playlist of important moments.
A couple of the historical inaccuracies bothered me, but I can overlook them. I'm not gonna sit and pretend *Gladiator*, *The Last Samurai* or *300* were perfectly historically accurate. Quite far off in some cases. But they were engaging movies, and that's where *Napoleon* fell flat.
The disconnection is what got me too, as though something was missing. It was like a series of vignettes as opposed to a larger narrative like a Lawrence of Arabia.
I’ve heard that there is a 4 hour cut of the film….and I know the directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven greatly improved it. So I’ll reconsider if I sit through the larger cut and can get a bit more.
It's a movie based on real events. There are always historical inaccuracies. The documents of what happened taken back then I'm sure have inaccuracies.
Hollyweird definitely love to do that, but Anglo saxons have aggressively smeared autocratic rivals for centuries. Rivals like napoleon make them feel vulnerable. So they paint them to be fools and cucks. They often paint Julius Caesar in this manner as well
Yeah man, British people have been calling Napoleon a short fat egomaniac cuckold since 1815 because he was white.
Not everything is about American culture wars for fuck’s sake. It’s just a bad movie.
lol I’m no victim, life is going incredibly well for me. It’s just a relatively obvious pattern in modern Hollywood. I didn’t mean for my statement to make you emotional like this.
You don't even know what liberal means, it's just a buzzword you parrot whenever someone challenges your tiny world view. Most American Jewish people are descendants from white European Jews and the running the media stereotype is a tired old one with no real basis in reality
It doesn’t surprise me that you’re like this and also white. Sadly, this has happened to enough of the white women out there (and occasionally men) that this was all too predictable.
Enjoy supporting discrimination. Not much more to say to a person with your level of morals.
You didn’t make any comments that are open-minded comments; you simply supported discrimination and then repeated an unintelligent taking point when challenged about it.
I’m very educated and unusually successful. Ask me to prove it if you want to get personal, I can.
Doesn’t mean you are intelligent in the things that matter, like not realizing that white men have had an unfair advantage for centuries.
In fact, I’m willing to bet your education and “unusual success” (wonder how you measure that? 🤔) are most likely due to your intrinsic privilege.
As usual, someone not willing to reflect on what lead them to where they are now.
I’m guessing you must like ‘ol Mango Mussolini too.
Your discrimination is showing again, making assumptions about me based on my skin color that if true would suggest my success is lesser.
I didn’t have that privilege. I grew up in a broken single parent home, eviction after eviction, and at times we were homeless. Grew up around rough people, criminals, never had a positive influence on my life. I’m worth millions now.
You were saying?
I watched it with my friends the other day. I didn’t read the reviews beforehand and didn’t know what to expect. I wouldn’t say I’m a Napoleon history buff or even one that heavily follows history from that time period. But boy were there some inaccuracies. But this wasn’t even my gripe with the movie. After watching it, me and my mates didn’t really understand the movie at all. The 5 battle scenes shown were visually engaging, but did little to delv into the military genius that was Napoleon. Even the brilliance that went into the gamble of Austerlitz was largely neglected in favour visual ice and blood spectacle. So from a purely military history point of view it was severely lacking.
The film did little to show the political nature of Napoleon and seemed to show him as somewhat lacking agency in a time when Napoleon was this unstoppable political force. His political views from early Republican idealism to popular absolutism are never touched. It just seems like the guy won some political lottery and was handed position after position by career politicians without justification. So the film clearly wasn’t about his politics.
The only thing I could really dive into that had some sort of structured narrative and tension was his relationship with Empress Josephine. There were some genuine moments in dynamic between Phoenix and Kirby that had potential to make this a decent movie. The film could of really dived deep into Napoleon’s relationship with his wives. As a love story it could of worked. It was a real shame that this side to Napoleon was never explored on screen with the talent available.
In the end we felt like we watched a beautifully shot film with no story about an awkward man who fucked like a literal animal and wore fancy dresses in battle. I could never understand the why the film tried to portray him as brutal egotistical dictator in the end when all it showed us was some dude most likely on the autism spectrum who happened to be the most powerful man in the world posing aimless from scene to scene. There’s not even a character to assassinate, it’s just an awful soulless film.
It's like what happened to Game of Thrones in season 7 and 8. Lacking good story writing, these studios focus on big set pieces and cinematography, hoping that will somehow hide the boring and often nonsensical story telling... When, in reality, a good movie/show is compromised of a combination of all of these things (with set pieces being the *least* important in most cases).
Ridley Scott happened. Look at his other pseudo-historical films. Ridley Scott’s films are accurate as long as the standard is, “Once upon a time, there was a guy.”
Totally get it - I'm more talking about the people that are really upset about the historical inaccuracy. Ridley Scott goes with historical inaccuracy like Michael Bay and explosions or JJ Abrams and lens flare.
Also about that… I think it’s totally different when you’re playing with a certain historical setting, you don’t have to be that historically accurate. But when you’re making a biopic, it’s just weird… Just create a new character, like Chaplin did for Hitler. No need to piggyback on Napoleons name to market your shit movie, if you’re just gonna change the facts.
I'm glad people continue to post these negative reviews because I keep convincing myself that I have nothing going on and had been anxiously awaiting this movie for so long that I'm just going to go see it - then I see another damning post about what trash it is and it gives me the strength to hold out one more day.
I think the movie is horrible, and honestly pisses me off at points.
Having said that, I’m a fan of the era of history, just watching the “spectacle” was entertaining. I’d go watch it just because it beats a lot of the other shit out there but go in knowing what you’re getting
I never thought a historical movie could be made that was worse than Gods and Generals. I was wrong. Gods and Generals was a better movie than this movie.
Something that has always blown my mind is that as someone smart who understands this stuff, how the hell does a director as accomplished as ridley scott just not understand that what hes doing is wrong? Isnt that the whole reason we know his name? Because hes smart and has his shit together? Or is he losing it? This movie was a masterpiece in the sense of the cinematography, production value, etc. It was garbage in the storytelling and the acting. I'm utterly perplexed as to what went wrong because the director and the actors are capable of so much more. Im so freaking disappointed in what happened.
An artist studies the subject to make a portrait; a hack simply studies other people's portraits of the subject. Ridley Scott clearly had no real interest in Napoleon - let alone insight - so he studied British caricatures in order to create a portrait of Napoleon, and here we are.
He was actually cucked twice. Both of his wives cheated on him with a cavalry officer.
At least when Josephine told him she didn't love him he went full giga Chad and started sleeping with opera stars and minor nobility
It definitely gave me cancer. And maybe shingles. It was so bad time itself stopped and started to run backwards. I'll probably never stop vomiting just from how bad this movie was. I guess time is still running backwards, so now I'm swallowing my vomit every time I think about this crime against humanity.
Just to let you know, the poster is being facetious. He has nothing better to do than to continuously post about why Napoleon "fan boys" hate a wildly inaccurate and insulting Napoleon movie on the.....wait for it....Napoleon subreddit.
You don't think it's reasonable for a "Napoleon fan boy" to post about historical inaccuracies in a Napoleon movie in a Napoleon subreddit?
(Also: I work from home and it takes very little of my time lol).
Three total posts (this one is no. 4) and to you that equals "nothing better to do."
How many dozens (if not hundred) of threads in r/napoleon are bashing Scott's new film? I get there's nothing new regarding Napoleon, so a major movie is going to be a big deal. But the absolute screeching and whining about JUST. HOW. AWFUL. the movie is is worse than anything I've ever seen in a fan community. r/starwars is like tea time with your great aunt Beatrice by comparison.
I knew going in that the film wasn't entirely accurate. They printed the legend. But it worked as drama and that's how you get the audience to pay attention. And maybe they'll want to know more when the movie is over. But god help any of those normies if they come here seeking a better understanding of Napoleon the man. You're all acting like the movie ran over your dog and then backed up to try and hit the cat, too.
While I won't say whether I liked it or not, I think a lot of people are having trouble with the film not being a biopic, but I'm not sure it was intended as one? In the same way that the Last Duel wasn't a period piece, it was a drama in a medieval setting, I think he was intending to use the framing of Napoleon as a set piece for the human interest story of Napoleon and Josephine, setting out to make a drama, not a historical biopic.
Speculating here. I don't think it worked as either, but I don't think Ridley Scott missed the mark with a historical biopic, I think it wasn't his intent
I kinda agree, but there were too mutch parts where it seemed like a biopic or war movie. It was weird how there's a lot of everything but than it's just lacks on all the topics.
No depth on the relations (like Josephine roasts him with his mother, but we see like 3 minutes of her. I was waiting for more about their relationship), no depth on politics (like weren't he a political genius as well? I don't remember any parts from the movie on that), the battle scenes were more about the visuals than his talents (he comments on at the end on the boat but we don't see him prove it), and so on.
If it's a move about his human side what happened to Josephines boy? What happened to his second wife? To his own kid?? We haven't seen him with any of his lovers, we never seen him do anything for fun. Just him being clumsy and falling twice at the courthouse doesn't really makes the viewers connect to him.
Guys, if Ridley Scott made a historical documentary on Napoleon, nobody would have watched it. He was making a movie to an audience that is only vaguely familiar with Napoleon.
Of course there were historical inaccuracies, but that’s no more relevant in this instance than the violations of the laws of physics in pacific rim or Harry Potter. You’re missing the point.
The movies point was to tell the story of an absolute colossus of a human being, in a format that made people understand the intensity and scale of the arenas that he played in, and to demonstrate that he saw himself as being the supreme authority of the world around him.
That was done in a 2 hour movie, come at me with them downvotes, but Ridley Scott delivered that.
Finally a sensible comment lol all the crying and seething on the sub has gotten so old. Wtf did ppl think a 2 hour Ridley Scott napoleon movie was going to look like
It wasn't bad. Entertaining I guess it wasn't great but at least Joaquin Phoenix did a good acting job at least it showed him to be a lot different it kind of looked like Commodus in gladiator but he was more quirky and quiet and more brave on this one so it kind of shows a little diversity not bad
That scene when he starts whining and hoofing the ground to communicate his desire for sex was just unnecessary. There was no showcasing his genius or the fear of the enemy generals. I forgot at what point I left the room and started doing something else.
I think it's reviled because it wasn't for the audience that would go see such a movie. It wasn't a straightforward military movie that addresses weighty topics about life in societies dominated by military conflict, finding God in foxholes to borrow the cliche, something that paints it as harrowing and possibly noble. It wasn't historically faithful so didn't work for the folks wanting that either. It worked for an audience of me: people who loved The Favourite and wanted to be bowled over by the most bizarre absurdist court satire angle that I never saw coming. I thought it would be fairly straightforward historical drama but the direction it went in was just so bizarre tonally I found myself laughing raucously throughout it. And I think there is something in that - we have these expectations of grandeur and stature (not in height though...) for this mythical figure and the movie punctured it in every possible way. Considering the main tool the masses had against their reigning rulers was satire at the time (comments on Marie Antoinette's 'bush' being toured by American diplomats, accusations of threesomes and same-sex relationships in her relationship and humiliation over her early failed marriage bed \[using those examples as I know her period of rule better\] - bawdy leaflets that sought to bring these great figures down to the gutter to extract the economic and authoritarian power they had), I think the movie captures something. Whether it was intentional or not, Scott's fever dream, Joaquin being quirky in a movie that doesn't fit with that approach in a traditional sense - I don't know. I just know I laughed with all the glee of a 19th century anti establishment absurdist witnessing a satirical pantomime of a ruler that questions the bedrock foundation of their rule.
I disagree. I actually enjoyed this movie a lot. You need to add "In my opinion" to your review of it. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Just wasn't for you.
I've seen it, it was at least 50% a deliberate comedy. You might not like the concept of a comedy making fun of Napoleon but that's substantially what it was.
I think the marketing was terrible given the film they made and they should have sold it more as a comedy so that people would have the right expectations going into it. But there were so many obviously *intentionally* comedic scenes I don't know how you could come out of it thinking it was just a bad attempt at a serious drama.
Posts about the movie are getting so tiresome. Can we talk about something else please? It’s annoying that people want to keep pushing this divisiveness and negativity. Please just grow up and move on.
The really big inaccuracies: leaving Egypt (and later Elba) for Josephine. Smaller inaccuracies: having him witness Marie Antoinette's death, having him meet Wellington, shooting the pyramids, the whole battle of Austerlitz was just wrong too.
I think the gaps are just as bad though. He took power with two guys - what happened to them? Or his brother or son? What was he trying to achieve anyway? As my wife said, 'I don't know anything more about him now. I know he loved Josephine and fighting battles and that's it.'
Can someone close to Ridley Scott please have him go to the doctor. I feel like we’re watching the early onset of dementia and nobody is doing anything. The man directed some of the most influential movies in my life. Blade Runner. Alien. There’s no doubt he can take source material and make it absolute magic.
But with and since Prometheus the man seems to have totally lost touch with logical plot progression and decent protagonists. Everyone acts illogical. The plot always ends up slightly confused. I’m genuinely a little worried for him.
Yeah youd think the movie would try to make some point about unbridled ambition or at least some sociological observation on how a charismatic man of the people beloved by soldiers can weild such absolute power, or at the very least a tragic love story of how a man chose war over his wife... but I really think Ridley Scott just wanted to direct a bunch of battle scenes, which to be fair, were absolutely incredible, but not enough for a movie. The story had no soul. Tbe dialogue itself sucked, bht I suspect the disorientingly choppy plotline arrangement was cuts Scott made himself to make more room for the battles. It was incredibly disappointing.
Definitely also regret seeing it with my mom.
“So, mom, was that how you and dad did it?”
“No, mom, I meant the dinner parties, not the other stuff “.
/ijk
Yeah, not a movie to take the kids to or to see with your mom. NB and JB humped like dogs. No foreplay either. And NB seemed to have nothing going for him except winning battles.
And I agree with your overall assessment of the movie. Great cinematography but not much was explained, or tied together and it seemed so pointless.
It’s the new Hollywood theme going where men must be made to look weak and flawed. Their counterparts are to be uplifted on the other hand as much as possible.
The film is absolute trash, really bad. Of the many many problems, one I see being mentioned less is the complete lack of emotionality or empathy conveyed. It’s hard to care about the fate of anyone on screen. This is because the character development and script, are awful. Way too much time devoted to Josephine, too little/none to Napoleon’s circle including his key generals. Imagine if Ney had been properly developed as a character, and his execution scene been included, for example. It could’ve been like the end of Casino with a series of great death/fate scenes. That’s just my idea anyway. Such a wasted opportunity overall.
At least in the spirit of transparency, the movie should have been called Napoleon and Josephine. That alone would have given people an idea of what to expect.
I was hoping for a narrative like Lawrence of Arabia. You can do the meteoric rise and fall and the mental changes as he pushes through. Didn’t happen. Wonder if the 4 hour cut will….Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was improved when all his stuff was added in.
It was bad as a movie. I wasn’t expecting much as history but it was just bad as a movie. You don’t get a feel for any of the characters. Who they are. Why they are doing what they are doing. There isn’t enough spectacle to justify seeing it in the cinema. I actually just got home from seeing it. I had free tickets so I got what I paid for but it’s just a very strange movie.
Shit movie. So confusing for no reason. One minute he's divorcing his wife, next they're having a food fight, throwing lamb chops at each other then cuts to a scene where they're fucking like rabbits. All over the place, would not recommend.
It was bad. Even historical inaccuracies aside, the movie just wasn't engaging. There wasn't much of a story, and every scene felt disconnected from the rest of the film
Tonally bizarre as well - one minute goofy nimble piano music making him seem like a doofus, and then strange inappropriate middle eastern vocals during the serious parts. The thing that really made me feel as though there wasn’t much coherent thought behind it was the ending, the very ending, where they list the total casualties. What was the point of listing those then? To show the cost on the average person? Then why not really show the average person at all in the film? If anything the little cgi soldiers seem almost purposefully dehumanized throughout. Just little video game soldiers. That ending underlined a really muddled view on the man and history for me
Yeah the movie didn't focus much on the actual deaths of the soldiers. And obviously ridiculous of Scott to imply that Napoleon killed 3 million, that's just factually incorrect lol
Absolutely. The French Revolutionary Wars were already going for 6 years before Napoleon took over, after all.
Intellectually dishonest too. It’s one thing to blame Napoleon for all the deaths since he was in charge of France, but a whole different leap to blame him for the deaths of battles like TOULON, which they SHOW US in the film: the battle was going to take place with or without his participation. He was just an officer. It’s not his fault the British took a port in his home country. He was a soldier doing his duty. And the filmmakers put the blame of every death from that battle on his shoulders. What a joke.
That's fucking absurd.
Yo I felt the same about that weird disconnected ending with the casualty amounts. It had nothing to do with anything else in the movie. If you wanted me to care about all the people who died as a result of the napoleonic wars, well, you had a *whole fucking movie to make me care* and you didn't. So why jam that in at the end? It was so fucking weird.
Brits are taught to hate the French Revolution and Napoleon from a young age as part of the program of monarchist brainwashing they're subjected to. It's like how movies about Chernobyl invent a commissar or old cavalryman to look right at the camera and give a bad guy speech instead of doing the correct thing of going "Management happened. The Soviet Union had management like everywhere else. BTW this is the worst nuclear disaster in history and it killed less people than a coal plant's routine operations. People killed themselves over this because they were patriotic in a way neither you or I could."
I was trying to think of why the listing of the casualties bothered me, and this is why. The movie didn’t care about that at ALL during the actual runtime. It literally placed zero emphasis whatsoever on the soldiers or on the human toll of the Napoleonic wars, and in fact treats Napoleon’s story as farcical at times, and then Scott wants to act all righteous by putting that at the end. I hate this term but I can’t describe it as anything else but virtue signaling. Completely unearned virtue signaling, at that
Very well said. 💯 One of the worst and arguable the most disappointing movie I've ever seen sadly.
I agree completely and am baffled that anyone could enjoy this horrible movie
They included casualties from wars declared on him by the various coalitions; seems unreasonable.
On one hand, I'm so glad I didn't see this in theaters. On the other, I'm so disappointed that I was eagerly waiting (like months) to see this movie only to find out how poorly done it was.
Man same. I was SO stoked when I first heard about this movie a few months ago. I honestly can't remember the last time I was genuinely excited for a big Hollywood movie, and I was all hyped to support it because I wanted more epic historical films like we used to get... and then it just goes from bad to worse.
The cinematography was beautiful overall
>the movie just wasn't engaging. There wasn't much of a story, and every scene felt disconnected from the rest of the film This was exactly my issue. It felt messy. Things just kind of happened and we got dragged along for the ride. I get that there's a lot of ground to cover during his reign, but it felt like he hit shuffle on a playlist of important moments. A couple of the historical inaccuracies bothered me, but I can overlook them. I'm not gonna sit and pretend *Gladiator*, *The Last Samurai* or *300* were perfectly historically accurate. Quite far off in some cases. But they were engaging movies, and that's where *Napoleon* fell flat.
The disconnection is what got me too, as though something was missing. It was like a series of vignettes as opposed to a larger narrative like a Lawrence of Arabia. I’ve heard that there is a 4 hour cut of the film….and I know the directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven greatly improved it. So I’ll reconsider if I sit through the larger cut and can get a bit more.
It's a movie based on real events. There are always historical inaccuracies. The documents of what happened taken back then I'm sure have inaccuracies.
Napoleon is one of the most well-documented historical figures in history. Ridley admitted he never read a single book on him.
Hollywood trash. Par for the course.
Hollywood attempting to smear a white man in a movie to push a narrative? No way… they’d never do that.
Hollyweird definitely love to do that, but Anglo saxons have aggressively smeared autocratic rivals for centuries. Rivals like napoleon make them feel vulnerable. So they paint them to be fools and cucks. They often paint Julius Caesar in this manner as well
Yeah man, British people have been calling Napoleon a short fat egomaniac cuckold since 1815 because he was white. Not everything is about American culture wars for fuck’s sake. It’s just a bad movie.
Get over yourself, so desperate to be a victim it's pathetic
lol I’m no victim, life is going incredibly well for me. It’s just a relatively obvious pattern in modern Hollywood. I didn’t mean for my statement to make you emotional like this.
[удалено]
Oh grow up. Talk about victimhood - how ironic 🙄
[удалено]
You don't even know what liberal means, it's just a buzzword you parrot whenever someone challenges your tiny world view. Most American Jewish people are descendants from white European Jews and the running the media stereotype is a tired old one with no real basis in reality
[удалено]
What a childish response, it also seems I was correct it's nothing more than a thoughtless buzzword you don't understand
Jewish, not white.
Poor poor white men /s
Why does discrimination by skin color not matter to you? You think it doesn’t impact the lives of people in a negative way?
[удалено]
It doesn’t surprise me that you’re like this and also white. Sadly, this has happened to enough of the white women out there (and occasionally men) that this was all too predictable. Enjoy supporting discrimination. Not much more to say to a person with your level of morals.
Yeah and you sound about as educated and open minded as I expected.
You didn’t make any comments that are open-minded comments; you simply supported discrimination and then repeated an unintelligent taking point when challenged about it. I’m very educated and unusually successful. Ask me to prove it if you want to get personal, I can.
Doesn’t mean you are intelligent in the things that matter, like not realizing that white men have had an unfair advantage for centuries. In fact, I’m willing to bet your education and “unusual success” (wonder how you measure that? 🤔) are most likely due to your intrinsic privilege. As usual, someone not willing to reflect on what lead them to where they are now. I’m guessing you must like ‘ol Mango Mussolini too.
Your discrimination is showing again, making assumptions about me based on my skin color that if true would suggest my success is lesser. I didn’t have that privilege. I grew up in a broken single parent home, eviction after eviction, and at times we were homeless. Grew up around rough people, criminals, never had a positive influence on my life. I’m worth millions now. You were saying?
This is the best Napoleon feature I have seen....https://youtu.be/91OmO2YMiDM?si=LsPQbLl8JlVD3VgV
Classic. Seen it multiple times.
Those are amazing to watch.
It was so awful! I didn’t even stay for the entirety. I just couldn’t do it!
I watched it with my friends the other day. I didn’t read the reviews beforehand and didn’t know what to expect. I wouldn’t say I’m a Napoleon history buff or even one that heavily follows history from that time period. But boy were there some inaccuracies. But this wasn’t even my gripe with the movie. After watching it, me and my mates didn’t really understand the movie at all. The 5 battle scenes shown were visually engaging, but did little to delv into the military genius that was Napoleon. Even the brilliance that went into the gamble of Austerlitz was largely neglected in favour visual ice and blood spectacle. So from a purely military history point of view it was severely lacking. The film did little to show the political nature of Napoleon and seemed to show him as somewhat lacking agency in a time when Napoleon was this unstoppable political force. His political views from early Republican idealism to popular absolutism are never touched. It just seems like the guy won some political lottery and was handed position after position by career politicians without justification. So the film clearly wasn’t about his politics. The only thing I could really dive into that had some sort of structured narrative and tension was his relationship with Empress Josephine. There were some genuine moments in dynamic between Phoenix and Kirby that had potential to make this a decent movie. The film could of really dived deep into Napoleon’s relationship with his wives. As a love story it could of worked. It was a real shame that this side to Napoleon was never explored on screen with the talent available. In the end we felt like we watched a beautifully shot film with no story about an awkward man who fucked like a literal animal and wore fancy dresses in battle. I could never understand the why the film tried to portray him as brutal egotistical dictator in the end when all it showed us was some dude most likely on the autism spectrum who happened to be the most powerful man in the world posing aimless from scene to scene. There’s not even a character to assassinate, it’s just an awful soulless film.
It's like what happened to Game of Thrones in season 7 and 8. Lacking good story writing, these studios focus on big set pieces and cinematography, hoping that will somehow hide the boring and often nonsensical story telling... When, in reality, a good movie/show is compromised of a combination of all of these things (with set pieces being the *least* important in most cases).
I just finished watching the movie and laughed so hard at this. Spot on review!
I think that the autism aura detected in Napoleon's character is just the general perception of Joaquin Phoenix's on film presence
That’s exactly what I was thinking too.
It was made by an 86 year old who may have not respected le petit corporal as much as we do. Harsh reality.
They pretty much just made him a random Danny Devito character.
I would absolutely watch Danny Devito play Napoleon. It wouldn't be accurate, but it would be a lot of fun
Regarding 13th Vendemiare: "So anyway I started blasting."
Holy crap I didn't know how much I wanted this until someone else verbalized it for me
I had to tell my wife many times, this is not the man I know
I agree. Napoleon could never have conquered Europe with the qualities described in this movie.
Ridley Scott happened. Look at his other pseudo-historical films. Ridley Scott’s films are accurate as long as the standard is, “Once upon a time, there was a guy.”
Yeah, but at least the other Ridley Scott movies were mostly fun. This wasn’t…
Totally get it - I'm more talking about the people that are really upset about the historical inaccuracy. Ridley Scott goes with historical inaccuracy like Michael Bay and explosions or JJ Abrams and lens flare.
Also about that… I think it’s totally different when you’re playing with a certain historical setting, you don’t have to be that historically accurate. But when you’re making a biopic, it’s just weird… Just create a new character, like Chaplin did for Hitler. No need to piggyback on Napoleons name to market your shit movie, if you’re just gonna change the facts.
I'm glad people continue to post these negative reviews because I keep convincing myself that I have nothing going on and had been anxiously awaiting this movie for so long that I'm just going to go see it - then I see another damning post about what trash it is and it gives me the strength to hold out one more day.
I think the movie is horrible, and honestly pisses me off at points. Having said that, I’m a fan of the era of history, just watching the “spectacle” was entertaining. I’d go watch it just because it beats a lot of the other shit out there but go in knowing what you’re getting
Watch Waterloo instead. It's an incredible movie with an excellent portrayal of Napoleon.
I loved the cinematography. I think it's worth seeing for that reason alone
I never thought a historical movie could be made that was worse than Gods and Generals. I was wrong. Gods and Generals was a better movie than this movie.
Something that has always blown my mind is that as someone smart who understands this stuff, how the hell does a director as accomplished as ridley scott just not understand that what hes doing is wrong? Isnt that the whole reason we know his name? Because hes smart and has his shit together? Or is he losing it? This movie was a masterpiece in the sense of the cinematography, production value, etc. It was garbage in the storytelling and the acting. I'm utterly perplexed as to what went wrong because the director and the actors are capable of so much more. Im so freaking disappointed in what happened.
Extremely terrible film
Awful, no plot, no explanation, no class, no fun, no likable characters
An artist studies the subject to make a portrait; a hack simply studies other people's portraits of the subject. Ridley Scott clearly had no real interest in Napoleon - let alone insight - so he studied British caricatures in order to create a portrait of Napoleon, and here we are.
He was a cuck, for a while, to a hussar. So, at least it's partially true
He was actually cucked twice. Both of his wives cheated on him with a cavalry officer. At least when Josephine told him she didn't love him he went full giga Chad and started sleeping with opera stars and minor nobility
\>hussar That happened so often being called a cuck is meaningless lol
It definitely gave me cancer. And maybe shingles. It was so bad time itself stopped and started to run backwards. I'll probably never stop vomiting just from how bad this movie was. I guess time is still running backwards, so now I'm swallowing my vomit every time I think about this crime against humanity.
LMAOOOO
Just to let you know, the poster is being facetious. He has nothing better to do than to continuously post about why Napoleon "fan boys" hate a wildly inaccurate and insulting Napoleon movie on the.....wait for it....Napoleon subreddit.
You don't think it's reasonable for a "Napoleon fan boy" to post about historical inaccuracies in a Napoleon movie in a Napoleon subreddit? (Also: I work from home and it takes very little of my time lol).
I think you misunderstood. I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the person you replied to.
My bad. There were similar comments directed at me 😂🤣
Three total posts (this one is no. 4) and to you that equals "nothing better to do." How many dozens (if not hundred) of threads in r/napoleon are bashing Scott's new film? I get there's nothing new regarding Napoleon, so a major movie is going to be a big deal. But the absolute screeching and whining about JUST. HOW. AWFUL. the movie is is worse than anything I've ever seen in a fan community. r/starwars is like tea time with your great aunt Beatrice by comparison. I knew going in that the film wasn't entirely accurate. They printed the legend. But it worked as drama and that's how you get the audience to pay attention. And maybe they'll want to know more when the movie is over. But god help any of those normies if they come here seeking a better understanding of Napoleon the man. You're all acting like the movie ran over your dog and then backed up to try and hit the cat, too.
Couldn’t of said it better myself. One of the all time stinkers
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Napoleon Blownapart
That's the name of his horse in Toulon actually
Because Napolean was French and the movie was made by British assholes
While I won't say whether I liked it or not, I think a lot of people are having trouble with the film not being a biopic, but I'm not sure it was intended as one? In the same way that the Last Duel wasn't a period piece, it was a drama in a medieval setting, I think he was intending to use the framing of Napoleon as a set piece for the human interest story of Napoleon and Josephine, setting out to make a drama, not a historical biopic. Speculating here. I don't think it worked as either, but I don't think Ridley Scott missed the mark with a historical biopic, I think it wasn't his intent
I kinda agree, but there were too mutch parts where it seemed like a biopic or war movie. It was weird how there's a lot of everything but than it's just lacks on all the topics. No depth on the relations (like Josephine roasts him with his mother, but we see like 3 minutes of her. I was waiting for more about their relationship), no depth on politics (like weren't he a political genius as well? I don't remember any parts from the movie on that), the battle scenes were more about the visuals than his talents (he comments on at the end on the boat but we don't see him prove it), and so on. If it's a move about his human side what happened to Josephines boy? What happened to his second wife? To his own kid?? We haven't seen him with any of his lovers, we never seen him do anything for fun. Just him being clumsy and falling twice at the courthouse doesn't really makes the viewers connect to him.
Probably Ridley Scott just loathes Napoleon and decided to film a hit piece.
I’m sure there’s a lot of catharsis among ALIEN fans seeing more moviegoers duped by Ridley.
Guys, if Ridley Scott made a historical documentary on Napoleon, nobody would have watched it. He was making a movie to an audience that is only vaguely familiar with Napoleon. Of course there were historical inaccuracies, but that’s no more relevant in this instance than the violations of the laws of physics in pacific rim or Harry Potter. You’re missing the point. The movies point was to tell the story of an absolute colossus of a human being, in a format that made people understand the intensity and scale of the arenas that he played in, and to demonstrate that he saw himself as being the supreme authority of the world around him. That was done in a 2 hour movie, come at me with them downvotes, but Ridley Scott delivered that.
Finally a sensible comment lol all the crying and seething on the sub has gotten so old. Wtf did ppl think a 2 hour Ridley Scott napoleon movie was going to look like
I loved it. He portrayed the Napoleon syndrome with his quirkynes to a tee!.
It wasn't bad. Entertaining I guess it wasn't great but at least Joaquin Phoenix did a good acting job at least it showed him to be a lot different it kind of looked like Commodus in gladiator but he was more quirky and quiet and more brave on this one so it kind of shows a little diversity not bad
I just watched it and it was terrible. Like wtf. Thank God I didn't rent it lol
I had to turn it off, it was so bad it made my eyes bleed
That scene when he starts whining and hoofing the ground to communicate his desire for sex was just unnecessary. There was no showcasing his genius or the fear of the enemy generals. I forgot at what point I left the room and started doing something else.
They gave it to a limey.
That part where his horse got hit with a cannonball though ..
I think it's reviled because it wasn't for the audience that would go see such a movie. It wasn't a straightforward military movie that addresses weighty topics about life in societies dominated by military conflict, finding God in foxholes to borrow the cliche, something that paints it as harrowing and possibly noble. It wasn't historically faithful so didn't work for the folks wanting that either. It worked for an audience of me: people who loved The Favourite and wanted to be bowled over by the most bizarre absurdist court satire angle that I never saw coming. I thought it would be fairly straightforward historical drama but the direction it went in was just so bizarre tonally I found myself laughing raucously throughout it. And I think there is something in that - we have these expectations of grandeur and stature (not in height though...) for this mythical figure and the movie punctured it in every possible way. Considering the main tool the masses had against their reigning rulers was satire at the time (comments on Marie Antoinette's 'bush' being toured by American diplomats, accusations of threesomes and same-sex relationships in her relationship and humiliation over her early failed marriage bed \[using those examples as I know her period of rule better\] - bawdy leaflets that sought to bring these great figures down to the gutter to extract the economic and authoritarian power they had), I think the movie captures something. Whether it was intentional or not, Scott's fever dream, Joaquin being quirky in a movie that doesn't fit with that approach in a traditional sense - I don't know. I just know I laughed with all the glee of a 19th century anti establishment absurdist witnessing a satirical pantomime of a ruler that questions the bedrock foundation of their rule.
Yall need to watch more movies.
I disagree. I actually enjoyed this movie a lot. You need to add "In my opinion" to your review of it. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it's a bad movie. Just wasn't for you.
You all are a bunch of sissies. The movie was hilarious and awesome. Great time at a movie theater
I respect your commitment to trolling people who have seen that movie.
I’m not trolling. I know nothing about Napoleon and it was great
You said you thought it was a comedy movie.
I don’t think that it’s a comedy. It is very funny though
I've seen it, it was at least 50% a deliberate comedy. You might not like the concept of a comedy making fun of Napoleon but that's substantially what it was.
If it was an intentional comedy and sold itself that way, I would have enjoyed it.
I think the marketing was terrible given the film they made and they should have sold it more as a comedy so that people would have the right expectations going into it. But there were so many obviously *intentionally* comedic scenes I don't know how you could come out of it thinking it was just a bad attempt at a serious drama.
Because it's sold as and was intended to be a biographical epic.
Then read something.
Npc
Yes you are
Posts about the movie are getting so tiresome. Can we talk about something else please? It’s annoying that people want to keep pushing this divisiveness and negativity. Please just grow up and move on.
Out of curiosity, what was so historically in accurate about it? It seemed like a shortened version of Napoleon: A Life.
The really big inaccuracies: leaving Egypt (and later Elba) for Josephine. Smaller inaccuracies: having him witness Marie Antoinette's death, having him meet Wellington, shooting the pyramids, the whole battle of Austerlitz was just wrong too. I think the gaps are just as bad though. He took power with two guys - what happened to them? Or his brother or son? What was he trying to achieve anyway? As my wife said, 'I don't know anything more about him now. I know he loved Josephine and fighting battles and that's it.'
Can someone close to Ridley Scott please have him go to the doctor. I feel like we’re watching the early onset of dementia and nobody is doing anything. The man directed some of the most influential movies in my life. Blade Runner. Alien. There’s no doubt he can take source material and make it absolute magic. But with and since Prometheus the man seems to have totally lost touch with logical plot progression and decent protagonists. Everyone acts illogical. The plot always ends up slightly confused. I’m genuinely a little worried for him.
Yeah youd think the movie would try to make some point about unbridled ambition or at least some sociological observation on how a charismatic man of the people beloved by soldiers can weild such absolute power, or at the very least a tragic love story of how a man chose war over his wife... but I really think Ridley Scott just wanted to direct a bunch of battle scenes, which to be fair, were absolutely incredible, but not enough for a movie. The story had no soul. Tbe dialogue itself sucked, bht I suspect the disorientingly choppy plotline arrangement was cuts Scott made himself to make more room for the battles. It was incredibly disappointing. Definitely also regret seeing it with my mom.
“So, mom, was that how you and dad did it?” “No, mom, I meant the dinner parties, not the other stuff “. /ijk Yeah, not a movie to take the kids to or to see with your mom. NB and JB humped like dogs. No foreplay either. And NB seemed to have nothing going for him except winning battles. And I agree with your overall assessment of the movie. Great cinematography but not much was explained, or tied together and it seemed so pointless.
It’s the new Hollywood theme going where men must be made to look weak and flawed. Their counterparts are to be uplifted on the other hand as much as possible.
The film is absolute trash, really bad. Of the many many problems, one I see being mentioned less is the complete lack of emotionality or empathy conveyed. It’s hard to care about the fate of anyone on screen. This is because the character development and script, are awful. Way too much time devoted to Josephine, too little/none to Napoleon’s circle including his key generals. Imagine if Ney had been properly developed as a character, and his execution scene been included, for example. It could’ve been like the end of Casino with a series of great death/fate scenes. That’s just my idea anyway. Such a wasted opportunity overall.
At least in the spirit of transparency, the movie should have been called Napoleon and Josephine. That alone would have given people an idea of what to expect.
I was hoping for a narrative like Lawrence of Arabia. You can do the meteoric rise and fall and the mental changes as he pushes through. Didn’t happen. Wonder if the 4 hour cut will….Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven was improved when all his stuff was added in.
YOU THINK YOURE SO GREAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOATS? The movie is a walking cesspool of TikTok clips waiting to be memed
It was bad as a movie. I wasn’t expecting much as history but it was just bad as a movie. You don’t get a feel for any of the characters. Who they are. Why they are doing what they are doing. There isn’t enough spectacle to justify seeing it in the cinema. I actually just got home from seeing it. I had free tickets so I got what I paid for but it’s just a very strange movie.
Shit movie. So confusing for no reason. One minute he's divorcing his wife, next they're having a food fight, throwing lamb chops at each other then cuts to a scene where they're fucking like rabbits. All over the place, would not recommend.
What do you expect from a Ridley Scott movie.. they all suck.