วีดีโอ

Napoleon's life is just too vast for anything short of a maxi series.

No, Napoleon is still a cuck and weakling, that's a horrible portrayal of the man. I've never seen such betrayal of the story of Napoleon.

I still dont understand why you would make a movie centered around someone like napoleon just to focus on his fucking lovelife

It’s too much stuff to try and fit in one film should’ve been a to show

This movie can be summed up in one word: childish.

Stanley Kubrick left us too soon. The main problem with Ridley Scott's Napoleon is Joaquin Phoenix. He doesn't fit the character. He only plays Joker all the time.

this video made me realize how much the french revolution devolved in ways very close to communist uprising lead to totalitarian governement terrorizing the people.

I really hope a French director comes and decides to take a famous British leader like Churchill, William the Conquer and turn them into weak, little baby men as a F U to Scott for his portrayl of Napoleon.

Maybe the film would have been something. A strange experiment if they had restricted themselves to the period of Napoleon's life up to 1800.

This has to be the worst film I have watched over the years it is also the worst film Ridley Scott ever directed I did try to give it a go I turned it off after 1 hour but then I gave it a 2nd go by watching the director's cut. However, what finally put the nail in the coffin was the Waterloo battle scene I can't even begin to say what I feel but just one word I think will sum this up utter fuc.king sh.t.

This film is not as bad as people make it out to be

Josephine, Feat. Napoleon

They should've coverd only a few years or 1 campaign, instead trying to take on the entirety of Napoleonic wars and French Revolution

It was too ambitious. It tried to do too much in too little time. Imagine a trilogy showing his early life, rise and fall

I do not get Ridley Scott. There is no doubting the man is capable of creating amazing movies with extremely high production values. However, in recent years he seems to have churned out several projects which have missed their mark. Is it simply a case that Ridley has lost his touch, is too old or gives in to studios too easily? To cover the life of someone like Napoleon in one movie was always going to be a tall order as one would have to leave so much history out. For goodness sake, the 1970s Waterloo film covered one battle in as much time as this movie. May be in reality, such a project would have been served better by a multi part miniseries where time could be taken to cover major events in Napoleon’s rise, campaigns and eventual fall. Very disappointing.

A project like this needs to be a big budget show that goes on for multiple seasons. I would even suggest giving each season of the show a different actor to play Napoleon at the various stages in his life. Joaquin plays a fine older Napoleon, but dear God someone get Timothy Chalamet to play him young! A Napoleon tv series produced the way The Queen was for Elizabeth II is the only way to do any justice to Napoleon’s life. If you’re going to do a movie, then pick one event like Waterloo did. Otherwise it’s just way too much to cram…

Napoleon's story can't be told in a single movie. You need an HBO-style series to do it justice, 2-3 seasons at least.

they should have just done a part 1 that focused on the historical aspects and rise of Napoleon, climax is the battle of Austerlitz, and then if that did well make a part 2 from Austerlitz to waterloo. Phoenix played a great Napoleon, the writing and directing failed him

Still disappointing how this movie portrayed Napoleon and this entire era. Only 3 battles in which 2 were rushed. Practically overlooked all of Napoleon's marshals, how France grew and adored Napoleon initially, and what drove Napoleon in the first place. No mention of the Peninsular War, Invasion of Egypt and Nelson's defeating France's navy, Italy campaign. How Napoleon helped unify Germany, or how the rest of Europe's monarchies were threatened by the French Revolution spreading. *Kingdom Of Heaven* will still be Ridley Scott's most historically accurate and entertaining film, which its directors cut did save ironically. (The Last Duel is great too). Its impossible to condense Napoleon's life, influence and era into 1 movie, can only be done through multiple. Would have loved more of Kubrick's Napoleon or Rod Steiger's instead of this

I thought before how the "Director's cut" could change major errors like Napoleon too old and tired in his youth or all these strange flags? Or no battle showing the really important aspects of the events...

I heard rumors of a 6 hour "ultimate" cut, at that point better to just make it a mini-series in my opinion but hopefully it does cover his life a little bit better because a single movie is definitely not enough.

The fıgure playing Robespierre was actually dressed and bewıgged to look like Danton, Boney wasn’t ın Parıs at the time of Marie Antoinette’s execution or during Thermidor, and where was Wellington?

how do you fix a film with the leading actor sleepwalking through ıt?With all the appalling historical ınnaccuracıes too,

this should have been a whole series not a film

Can we have the anti-directors cut that cuts out the useless romance scenes?

This goes to show that Stanley Kubrick’s idea for the Napoleon film would’ve been a disaster. Glad he stuck to Barry Lyndon

No, a directors cut can’t save the movie. The movie is so bad I stoped it half way through the movie. The focus on Napoleons relationship with his wife and not showing Napoleons real personality and genius. The movie doesn’t show a man, a nation would follow. Ridley Scott hated Napoleon and it shows.

It was a mess …

don't let a yellow teeth brit to do a movie about napoleon

Should have been an HBO mini-series with a Frenchman playing napoleon. Could still have been in English but at least have everyone speaking with a French accent.

This really needed to be a trilogy 1st film: French Revolution up until being crowned emperor 2nd film: His time as emperor up until his first exile 3rd film: A soft remake of Waterloo, ending with his exile on St. Helena.

'Napoleon's hemorrhoids were a significant improvement to the film.'

I'm starting to get fed up with Ridley Scott's increasing inability to pick a running time and stick with it. I didn't see Napoleon in theatres because it felt like another, longer version was destined for Apple TV later. Scott is directing like he's in a hurry these days, too.

Sorry I just can’t watch a thing of Napoleon if he’s charging on the battlefield on top of a horse

Worse movie, comedy meets historical lies, Napoleon as a clown, sorry Mr. Scott, that was crap

This is lipstick on a pig. This film is a disgrace to history and just a bad movie.

Ce film peut manger ma merde!

Doubt this movie can be salvaged. It did too many things and fails because of that. It could have been a more narrow epic historical drama like Kingdom of Heaven, I think most people expected that and would have been happy with a well crafted and well acted war movie. Or it could have been a more psychological movie exploring Napoleon's thoughts, his plans, his ambitions and how he evolves throughout his life. We get little pieces of both of those but it's mostly superficial. The action scenes feel disconnected, have very little buildup and don't connect. Same thing on the more personal side, it's all about shallow romance drama and nothing else. Disappointing!

As long as they dont genderbend, racebend, agebend or sexbend characters then this movie will do alright. No place for some trans gay gladiator couple in an legendary drama history film.

Alexander with all the gay scenes was better than Napoleon. Thats crazy.

I recently Watched the 1970s Waterloo. Would highly recommend it, great actors, a nice slow burn and tension building before the battle itself. No cgi, just thousands of people re-enacting the battle. It’s brilliant.

The "hémorroïdes" story is a myth. We actually know from the Emperor's correspondance that he solved this with three or four leeches in 1797, and ten years later "have not been troubled since". 🦁☀️🐝⚡🦅⚡🐝☀️🦁

Loved this movie!!!

The whole movie is: something cool - back to Josephine - something cool - back to Josephine - someth… - back to Josephine

I made it about 25-30 minutes into the original movie and just could not stand anymore. It's just a bad movie.

*No.*

Not even Joaquin Phoenix could save this trainwreck. Ridley Scott's completely lost his touch. When was the last time he actually made a good movie? Maybe The Martian? That was 9 years ago!

But why make up so much when Napoleon’s life was interesting enough. It’s called ‘creative license’ when in fact it really shows a lack of creativity with real life events. At least it’s significantly better than Mr. Scott’s laughably horrendous Robin Hood starring Russel Crowe as an irishman, and the Norman’s invading with landing craft! Creative license on heavy drugs.

When first heard that a Napoleon movie was in the works was very much looking forward to it, then the detail came out that it would cover pretty much is whole life there is just no way you could fit everything in unless it was 10hrs long. Am sure i heard it was meant to be a series first that may have worked but not a under 3hr film, even the directors cut its all just too rushed and you cant connect to any of the characters/story. Expected much better as Kingdom of Heaven is a fav film even though lots of it is made up you can still get to grips with the story and then added in great battle scenes. Scott should have focused on just one aspect of his life if making this movie like Russia or Waterloo etc. Although an English soldier having a scope aimed at Napoleon during Waterloo is a step to far as well.

This movie was terrible. So beautiful, yet they made Napoleon unlikable and pointless.