Movies: Napoleon (NOV 2023)

[John Price]

thanks for your all input. probably won't see it now

 

[Osprey]

thanks for your all input. probably won't see it now

It has the same RT score as The Marvels, which you went to see in spite of and came back declaring that "reviewers don't know sh*t that was a good movie," so maybe you should just go see it and decide for yourself again.

 

[beowulf]

Was interesting but not amazing especially when compared to some of Scott's previous period movies. It really focused on a smallish section of Napoleon's life and battles and his love for Josephine. Scott really seemed to want to show that while he was known as an amazing strategist he also got a lot of people killed with his ego.

 

[JetsWillFly4Ever]

That was really bad, I think Scott is cooked as a director.

Historically inaccurate, Joaquin has 0 charisma. Feels like Scott wanted to make a mockery of Napoleon instead of focusing on any of the things that made him a famous and accomplished military general.

Sad part is he couldn't even do that well, movie was boring, relationship with Josephine could have been interesting but was poorly depicted, especially considering she was older than Napoleon historically and the actress was much younger than Joaquin. Military battles were basically out of a powerpoint, no sense of the awe inspiring victories and major defeats, there were never any stakes that made you care about what was happening.

Cinematography was good though.

 

[beowulf]

The casting choice of Vanessa Kirby as Josephine, Napoleon's wife, also drew scrutiny due to the age difference between Kirby and Phoenix. Historians noted the discrepancy, emphasizing that Josephine was notably older than her cinematic portrayal.

Discrepancies in depicting Napoleon's life further fueled debate among experts. Snow contested several aspects presented in the film, negating Napoleon's supposed humble beginnings and debunking scenes of his heroic charges and presence at Marie Antoinette's execution.

According to Tumblety, Scott's film seems to perpetuate existing narratives and images of Napoleon, many crafted by the ruler himself, rather than accurately representing historical truth.

In defense of his creative choices, Scott asserted that the film was not intended as a historical lecture but as an artistic interpretation. He challenged historians, questioning their firsthand knowledge of historical events in interviews with various media outlets.

Read more at:
Here's why historians are not a fan of Ridley Scott's Napoleon

 

[RandV]

In defense of his creative choices, Scott asserted that the film was not intended as a historical lecture but as an artistic interpretation. He challenged historians, questioning their firsthand knowledge of historical events in interviews with various media outlets.

Well that's endearing. It's up to politicians and artists and the like to take creative liberty with history. Actual history in which historians work is really dry and boring, where they do their best to be unbiased and apolitical. If you go by the saying 'history is written by the victors', historians are like criminal investigators slowly piecing throw all the various bits of evidence to try and piece together as best as they can what actually happened.

To the point while sure there's no cameras when you get to the 1800's the French Revolution and following Napoleonic wars were kind of the big deal, like the WWI & WII are for us today. It was post enlightenment era moving into the industrial era. People could read & write. The printing press was well established and a part of every day life (at least in the city). And for historians they've had 200 years to comb through all sorts of documents and first hand correspondents and accounts. So unlike many other points of history historians have a pretty damn good grasp on what happened here.

So here I'd say Scott did great with Gladiator because it's such a vague point in history for most people, but maybe Napoleon is a little too well known to make a good 'Ridley Scott' movie.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

That was really bad, I think Scott is cooked as a director.

Historically inaccurate, Joaquin has 0 charisma. Feels like Scott wanted to make a mockery of Napoleon instead of focusing on any of the things that made him a famous and accomplished military general.

Sad part is he couldn't even do that well, movie was boring, relationship with Josephine could have been interesting but was poorly depicted, especially considering she was older than Napoleon historically and the actress was much younger than Joaquin. Military battles were basically out of a powerpoint, no sense of the awe inspiring victories and major defeats, there were never any stakes that made you care about what was happening.

Cinematography was good though.

Napoleon was so loathed that at the time, he managed to piss off most of Europe to the point that they rallied together to combat him, with the English leading the charge.

200 years later, and the British still raise their noses at even the slightest media that portrays Napoleon in a positive light.

I didn't expect a movie made by an elderly Scott about Napoleon to have a single picosecond of footage that praised him or anything he did.

 

[beowulf]

Napoleon was so loathed that at the time, he managed to piss off most of Europe to the point that they rallied together to combat him, with the English leading the charge.

200 years later, and the British still raise their noses at even the slightest media that portrays Napoleon in a positive light.

I didn't expect a movie made by an elderly Scott about Napoleon to have a single picosecond of footage that praised him or anything he did.

Especially since the director is British. It is amazing he is still going at 85. Some older directors that just never quit like Scott, Scorsese is 81, Herzog is 81 also, Eastwood is 93. Ivory is 95!

 

[Osprey]

It sounds like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was more flattering towards the "short dead dude" than Ridley Scott's epic biopic.

 

[John Price]

It sounds like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure was more flattering towards the short, dead dude than Ridley Scott's epic biopic.

The best part is when Bill and Ted muse where a French dictator would be in the afternoon and then come up with Waterloo

"Bro why did you ditch Napoleon?"
"He was a dick!"

 

[johnjm22]

Ridley Scott has a predilection towards creating films that are icy and self-serious. Dry.

In Napoleon there's an attempt to add some humor and quirkiness. It doesn't work. It's not in Scott's wheelhouse.

He should stick to his strength which is giving his films an immersive sense of realism.

I guess you can't expect an Englishman to give a flattering portrayal of a Frenchman.

The Last Duel was much better.

 

[Osprey]

I agree that his films tend to be icy, self serious and dry, but he has had a few hits that weren't. The Martian had some humor and quirkiness. Thelma & Louise did, as well. So, he evidently can do somewhat lighter, less serious fare. I think that the screenplay is critical. The Martian and Thelma & Louise had strong ones that married the humor and seriousness well. I haven't seen Napoleon, but it sounds like the screenplay didn't do that. That's not to excuse Scott, who's partly responsible, but since the combination isn't his strength, he may need a good screenplay that already combines them well in order to pull it off.

 

[Kurtz]

Terrible movie.

Had they primed the audience better by naming this movie "Napoleon and Josephine", letting us know ahead of time that this movie was about their toxic relationship and not at all about Napoleon the ruler/general, maybe it would have been less of a disappointment.

Phoenix is badly miscast. He plays the same antisocial weirdo he does in every movie, which to my understanding, is the polar opposite of who Napoleon was.

It also looks bad visually - too dark blue/gray. Looks like a bad Batman film. I won't even get into the soundtrack (what soundtrack?).

Had they cut most of the overly repetitive Josephine scenes, maybe they could have let some of the other scenes breathe a little, and built in some decent transitions. As is, it's as if they're just checking off independent scenes. No letting them breathe, no natural transition from one scene to the next, no character development. Just a series of poorly edited shorts with characters instantly forgotten the moment they're off screen.

The battles were decent, but too short and too few. The acting, aside from Phoenix was fine, but again the actors were given very little to work with.

Overall, a waste of 3 hours and somehow I know less about Napoleon now than I did prior to the movie.

 

[PeteWorrell]

Joaquin Phoenix was miscast the moment that the movie was supposed to cover three decades of Napoleon's life. The Siege of Toulon happened when Napoleon was 24. Phoenix just looks too old to be believable.

Terrible movie.

Had they primed the audience better by naming this movie "Napoleon and Josephine", letting us know ahead of time that this movie was about their toxic relationship and not at all about Napoleon the ruler/general, maybe it would have been less of a disappointment.

Phoenix is badly miscast. He plays the same antisocial weirdo he does in every movie, which to my understanding, is the polar opposite of who Napoleon was.

It also looks bad visually - too dark blue/gray. Looks like a bad Batman film. I won't even get into the soundtrack (what soundtrack?).

Had they cut most of the overly repetitive Josephine scenes, maybe they could have let some of the other scenes breathe a little, and built in some decent transitions. As is, it's as if they're just checking off independent scenes. No letting them breathe, no natural transition from one scene to the next, no character development. Just a series of poorly edited shorts with characters instantly forgotten the moment they're off screen.

The battles were decent, but too short and too few. The acting, aside from Phoenix was fine, but again the actors were given very little to work with.

Overall, a waste of 3 hours and somehow I know less about Napoleon now than I did prior to the movie.

The Josephine scenes end up being a bigger waste of time when you realize that she disappears later in the movie. Many characters just disappear from the plot once the movie no longer needs them.

It's like they threw everything on the wall to see what stuck, but then never bothered to create a coherent story. They were more interested splicing something "cool" like Napoleon shooting at the great pyramids then creating a good movie.

 

[HanSolo]

Yeah I saw it about a week ago. Other than some fun warfare and cinematography it felt like a big wet fart of a movie. I boned up on my knowledge of Napoleon after the fact, but even going in somewhat blind to historical accuracy/inaccuracy, it just felt like a scattered and disjointed mess of a series of events in a notable historical figure's legacy without much of a reason to care about the story.

I do find it funny that it continues the trope of any English language movie having any European nation speaking with British accents (while Joaquin didn't bother and just used his own American accent) and here you had Brits and Frenchmen with little difference in their accents. It's far from a big deal but the amusement I got from that was greater than most of what was going on with the movie.

 

[Bowski]

I do find it funny that it continues the trope of any English language movie having any European nation speaking with British accents

K-19 was the ultimate hilarious accent blender IMO.
You had Harrison Ford trying a subtle Russian accent vs. Liam Neeson mostly sticking to Irish, all aboard a Soviet Sub, with Bostonians, New Yorkers, and other "Russians" mixed in.

 

[Jumptheshark]

critics here in Europe are just slamming it

 

[johnjm22]

I agree that his films tend to be icy, self serious and dry, but he has had a few hits that weren't. The Martian had some humor and quirkiness. Thelma & Louise did, as well. So, he evidently can do somewhat lighter, less serious fare. I think that the screenplay is critical. The Martian and Thelma & Louise had strong ones that married the humor and seriousness well. I haven't seen Napoleon, but it sounds like the screenplay didn't do that. That's not to excuse Scott, who's partly responsible, but since the combination isn't his strength, he may need a good screenplay that already combines them well in order to pull it off.

I was actually going to bring up The Martian. It is a Scott film that works while still having some character humor and charisma.

I'm purely speculating, but I think it's mostly because of Matt Damon. I think Scott gave him free rein to do whatever he wanted with the character and it worked out.

In Napoleon, I also get the impression that Joaquin Phoenix was given freedom to portray the character how he wanted. The results this time were very mixed. This is a situation where the movie needed a director who's good at directing actors.

I've actually never seen Thelma and Louise. I'll probably check it out.

 

[trojansoilers]

I was actually going to bring up The Martian. It is a Scott film that works while still having some character humor and charisma.

I'm purely speculating, but I think it's mostly because of Matt Damon. I think Scott gave him free rein to do whatever he wanted with the character and it worked out.

In the book, Mark Watney was also very snarky and humorous, and Matt Damon played it pretty close to the source material IMO.

 

[Osprey]

In the book, Mark Watney was also very snarky and humorous, and Matt Damon played it pretty close to the source material IMO.

Agreed. Watney and the overall movie were very close to the book. That's why I praised the screenplay. It preserved most of what was great about the book. Scott and Damon just had to stick to the script, literally, and, to their credit, they did.

 

[sdf]

Just by how he's speaking and by responds to the critics, im waiting absolutely nothing good from this guy. It seems that those his movies whish is considering to be good, are sussesful really not because of him

 

[sdf]

Not hinting at anything, but in Russia we have a cake called Napoleon

 

[Jack Straw]

Not hinting at anything, but in Russia we have a cake called Napoleon

It originated in France.