Ridley Scott wants to vandalize history again (Napoleon)

[Pinarius]

https://twitter.com/NapoleonBonabot/...53445332893804

[mishkin]

Not very good reviews (Metascore 64). I was excited to go to the cinema to see it tomorrow, but I changed my mind

[Kyriakos]

Hm, it'd be nice if this becomes a legendary failure - if there's any chance it leads to more historically accurate movies. I know, not much of a chance for the latter, so one has to make do with the memes for the former

[Pinarius]

The movie takes some liberties with regard to Joséphine's appearance. As Professor Michael Broers told Time Out, Joséphine was known to have bad teeth that "were almost non-existent from chewing sugar cane when she was in the Caribbean." As a result, she kept her mouth closed most of the time.

https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/napoleon/

[Kyriakos]

^

Damn, I mean I get that portraits are touching up one's appearance for the better, but still, this comparison makes it look as if Phoenix is a muppet

[Pinarius]

https://twitter.com/KKriegeBlog/stat...92482121941213

[Kyriakos]

Many hostile videos reviews on youtube.
Not really a surprise. Napoleon charging on horseback as if he was Alexander the Great ^^

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Am watching Napoleon 2023 right now. This is my real time reaction. Only 40 minutes in and I already have 5 million reasons to complain.

-scenes go by way too quickly
-much of the cinematography is too dark, can barely see anything, I usually have this complaint for a lot of movies now
-Joaquin Phoenix seems really miscast as Napoleon, having seen Napoleon and Josephine yesterday I can say that Armand Assante did a much better job, as he really captured the sort of plebeian and outspoken Napoleon
-I can't stand Joaquin's voice in this, he sounds like he has severe testicular damage from receiving grapeshot to his nuts
-Joaquin acts so awkwardly he seems like he is on the spectrum and then starts laughing awkwardly like if he was still Joker
-Toulon battle scene lasts like 2 minutes maybe... too dark I can't see what is happening, and no the British did not actually take Toulon they set up forts like Little Gibraltar so already a glaring mistake
-scenes go by too quickly, lets see how many scenes we can cram into 15 minutes holy cow, a lot of these scenes are not even necessary or are completely pointless
-there are so many scenes so quickly that I can barely tell what is happening, this movie is incoherent and the editing is terrible, if I didn't have a background in Napoleonic history I honestly couldn't tell what this movie was, imagine how the average movie goer will experience this, there is no chance this movie will do well in theaters, but I can't wait to see what excuse Ridley will use this time
-I can barely hear what they are saying cause the sound effects and music don't go well with them speaking
-no Napoleon didn't wipe out the British fleet at Toulon... in fact if you want a better Toulon look up the one episode of BBC's Warrior (Heroes and Villains in USA)
-a bunch of historical stuff thrown in for context and done as ahistorical as possible; for example guillotined the Queen, or the arrest of Robespierre which I would add was done completely inaccurately
-scenes are terrible and it doesn't feel like a compelling film at all, sort of like the actors are just phoning it in for 1-2 minutes and then okay end it and move onto the next scene
-Royalist uprising in Paris was like 10 seconds and honest to god I blinked and missed most of it
-there is literally a scene of Napoleon giving doggy to his wife and then falling over in exhaustion, I swear to god this is a parody and the theme is if you're a malcontented midget with a tiny ram rod then you will cause a world war or something
-Napoleon shoots the Pyramids
-Napoleon puts his ear up to the friggin mummy to hear what it is saying or something... was the mummy speaking?
-Napoleon leaves Egypt cause his wife is cheating on him... tldr this movie is about Napoleon being a simp, I'm not exaggerating, apparently he never took any action independent of his wife
-bunch of random scenes with peasants chimping out and a jolly song in French playing over it... what???
-0h my god he sounds like such a just whining in every other scene, I've been kicked in the cannonballs and I didn't cry this much
-I've reached just over 30 minutes and am already tired of this movie... is Ridley trying some kind of new and radical film techniques? if so then he should stop being experimental cause this "film" is incoherent... Ridley needs to go back to basics and relearn how to make a film
-this movie is very boring

[Post Hoc]

This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen in a theater. I wish i had never went. Even if you knew absolutely nothing about Napoleon or the time, it is a terrible film. There is nothing there, no story, no plot, no characters, nothing.

[Kyriakos]

Well, it's likely the best we could get, because now (maybe) Hollywood will rethink doing this.

[Flinn]

-there is literally a scene of Napoleon giving doggy to his wife and then falling over in exhaustion, I swear to god this is a parody and the theme is if you're a malcontented midget with a tiny ram rod then you will cause a world war or something

Hitler anyone?

However, watched the movie, and it's a big meh. Believe me, I went to see it with the best intention to not to be critical, I was like "ok let's suppose I know nothing about the man", but even so the movie is terrible. I agree with most of what Oda wrote, even technically it has some limitations which are frankly inexplicable for a production of this level; similarly, some of the historical inaccuracies have no sense at all (he shot the mothering pyramids, goddamit) .. so basically it is like if they did everything possible to piss off the audience, at every possible level

There are only two more considerations I can do: first, the real intent of the movie could have been that of telling the story that even great men, could be little ones in their private .. honestly, even if so, the result is still awful and they are like 50 or 60 years late on that theme. Second, there's a huge difference between creating a fictional historical character (Massimo) and play around a not so well known history (gladiators) and pretending to replicate the same with one of the most known and analyzed historical character that ever existed; hope you learnt the lesson, Ridley.

Final remark: there are voices about an extended version, which supposedly will render the movie less chaotic and more adherent to (atl some) historical facts, but even so honestly the overall product will remain pretty mediocre.

[Kyriakos]

Even from the released scenes (eg burning of Moscow) one can tell this is a boring film and JP doesn't work as Napoleon. He doesn't even work as the husband in Madame Bovary

[Flinn]

I don't think Ridley gave JP much room to do what he liked with Napoleon.. it actually seemed to me that JP was bored playing the role and that this comes out on the performance

[Knight of Heaven]

Many hostile videos reviews on youtube.
Not really a surprise. Napoleon charging on horseback as if he was Alexander the Great ^^

That is the least of it. Also Phoenix wasnt a good cast for the role imo. His performance was weird as hell

"You think you are so powerful because you have boats???!!! MENH!!"

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Among the living Armand Assante or Joaquim de Almeida could have done a better job. I feel so vindicated for saying that Joaquin Phoenix was an overrated actor. They definitely got the wrong Joaquim. I mean if age doesn't matter then cast him anyway. No actually cast Armand Assante and Sylvester Stallone and Joaquim de Almeida. We will use CGI to cast Rod Steiger and make it a Napoleon multiverse. Well there was actually one film where a French director cast four actors to portray different periods of Napoleon's life.

[Pinarius]

Among the living Armand Assante or Joaquim de Almeida could have done a better job. I feel so vindicated for saying that Joaquin Phoenix was an overrated actor. They definitely got the wrong Joaquim. I mean if age doesn't matter then cast him anyway. No actually cast Armand Assante and Sylvester Stallone and Joaquim de Almeida. We will use CGI to cast Rod Steiger and make it a Napoleon multiverse. Well there was actually one film where a French director cast four actors to portray different periods of Napoleon's life.

The big silent movie?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Actually I think the first two are closer together than the third. Alex liked him some fighting and conquest and was not really all that interested in running the toys he conquered. The first two were stuck with war as something they were good at and it solved short term problems but both I think wanted to settle with their last good hand but could not. The larger system would not let them. I can't see a story that argues Josephine is the reason N rushed off to Russia.

I think there are similarities between Caesar and Napoleon most of all, maybe Hannibal. I do recall that when Napoleon was a child he had a thing for Hannibal and Caesar, as well as Alexander. But in Napoleon's writings he is very generous to Hannibal and Caesar, and not so much to Alexander, Gustavus, or Frederick. He says that compared to other generals of history Alexander was rather unexceptional, says that Gustavus didn't accomplish enough to deserve his reputation, and just rips apart Frederick.

But my point was that Napoleon's motivation was not actually to conquer the globe or to build an empire. Even when we look at Napoleon's "empire" it just consists of France and a bunch of puppet regimes. Fact is that Napoleon was content with his 1800 borders, the borders after 1809 were more trouble than they were worth and largely a reactionary measure. But there was just no exit because the coalition members would not allow a Revolutionary regime in France. In my opinion he should have gone out of his way to dismantle Austria and Prussia. That said he had no way to dismantle Russia and he knew it, that is probably why he left Prussia and Austria, and further created Poland, in an attempt to balance the great powers and contain Russia. Other alliances with Qajar Iran and the Ottomans were attempts to contain Russia. In so far as he was willing to appease Russia he only offered them Moldavia, Wallachia, and Finland, but not access to Poland which was the obsession of Tsar Alexander.

In this movie Napoleon apparently ran back from Egypt cause he wanted to see his wife. He also returns from Elba because of his wife. Which is hilarious and dumb. They don't say that his wife had anything to do with 1812 though.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The big silent movie?

Not the 1927 film by Abel Gance which ends with Napoleon in Italy.

I refer to the 1955 film by Sacha Guitry.

[Kyriakos]

I don't know, Assante's Napoleon looks very cheesy too. I liked Steiger.

[Knight of Heaven]

I think there are similarities between Caesar and Napoleon most of all, maybe Hannibal. I do recall that when Napoleon was a child he had a thing for Hannibal and Caesar, as well as Alexander. But in Napoleon's writings he is very generous to Hannibal and Caesar, and not so much to Alexander, Gustavus, or Frederick. He says that compared to other generals of history Alexander was rather unexceptional, says that Gustavus didn't accomplish enough to deserve his reputation, and just rips apart Frederick.

But my point was that Napoleon's motivation was not actually to conquer the globe or to build an empire. Even when we look at Napoleon's "empire" it just consists of France and a bunch of puppet regimes. Fact is that Napoleon was content with his 1800 borders, the borders after 1809 were more trouble than they were worth and largely a reactionary measure. But there was just no exit because the coalition members would not allow a Revolutionary regime in France. In my opinion he should have gone out of his way to dismantle Austria and Prussia. That said he had no way to dismantle Russia and he knew it, that is probably why he left Prussia and Austria, and further created Poland, in an attempt to balance the great powers and contain Russia. Other alliances with Qajar Iran and the Ottomans were attempts to contain Russia. In so far as he was willing to appease Russia he only offered them Moldavia, Wallachia, and Finland, but not access to Poland which was the obsession of Tsar Alexander.

In this movie Napoleon apparently ran back from Egypt cause he wanted to see his wife. He also returns from Elba because of his wife. Which is hilarious and dumb. They don't say that his wife had anything to do with 1812 though.

They portray him in a pathetic, "simpy" feeble way with Josephine, everything was in relation to her ( He was nothing without her, its actually a dialogue line in the movie)... never mind that Napoleon had mistresses and even had children with other women. At some point he even considered a divorce, but chooses not to for propaganda purposes.


Honestly overall, i could overlook liberties regarding some Historical accuracies ( Ridley Scott was never known to be that caring with it), if only the movie was entertaining and engaging, but it isnt. I went on and rewatch the 1970 waterloo movie of Sergei Bondarchuk, with Christopher Plumber, an Orson Wells, and Rod Steiger.. Its probably the best Napoleon movie there is, and its just about one battle...



No CGI thousands and thousands of soldiers in uniform...