Now that I am over 60 and have many friends who are over 70, lack of stamina is real. Only a very few can still push through the 12 - 18 hour days like Scott does. It has gotten to be a joke in the film industry that as Clint Eastwood aged, an 8-hour day of filming was the rule and he often cut the work days short. To be fair, he was very good at making good movies at this pace.
Napoleon survived many assassinations attempts including at the Paris Opera when a knife wielding maniac ran at him screaming "I am having an affair with the Emperor's wife" Napoleon shouted back "Surely I am the last person in all of France you should be telling this?"
This is a prime example of how you can take a fascinating historical material and turn it into a set of disconnected images that can easily cause an epileptic seizure. I'm surprised Napoleon isn't wearing a half faced helmet when he's shooting at pyramids. BTW he never done that and they were half covered with sand at that time.
It's a MOVIE. Not a book. Not a documentary. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO LAUGH FOLKS. Every frame of this film looks like a neo classical painting. Thoroughly entertaining, visually spectacular, and hilariously dark. Yes, it wasn't historically accurate and the script lacked a bit, but psychologically, it wins all around. Brilliant entertainment. The violence was awesome. 4/5 stars
@@christomorpho Every frame of Baldur's Gate 3 looked like a painting. And every frame of this MOVIE looked like it was drawn by a crazy artists locked for decades in a mental institution without any paints. Ridley Scott can't sh*t on our history like that!
I seen the movie yesterday, id give it a 5/10 , it’s 70% drama , 30%history, didn’t portray napoleon as the military genius he is … no where near other military historic movies
Nothing will beat Waterloo for me. The fact they had 2k horses and 15k extras, then accurately recreated the battle to a T was jawdropping and a one of a kind film
I agree. The extras used in the battle were Soviet military, truly one of a kind for a Western production. The stealing of the pig 🐖 is one of the best parts, in my opinion.
@@LuisSierra42he was little too fat and tan than what napoleon in real life. Though phoenix would have fit well if this was done 20 yeara ago. He looks too old for protrary Napoleon in the early years.
If anyone is interested, there's another great Napoleon film called Waterloo from 1970 which covers Napoleon's exile from France, return and his last Battle of Waterloo that's 99% historically accurate and an epic war film with a cast of thousands and great actors. It's a great film that explores the stature of Napoleon's legend in his own time. An early scene has him say such a powerful line "France has fallen! So remember me! Though I love you all, I cannot embrace you all"
The 1970 Waterloo movie is one of my all-time favourites. For those who actually care about historical accuracy in historical films, it's a million times better than this weird fantasy.
The problem with the project might be that, with a historical figure so controversial and with so much eventful time to cover, you have to essentially decide upon a lense/theory through which to view Napoleon's life. From different reviews, and according to Scott himself, it appears that the lense selected was that of Napoleon's relationship with Joséphine. "Napoleon is a man I've always been fascinated by", Scott said in a statement. "He came out of nowhere to rule everything - but all the while he was waging a romantic war with his adulterous wife Joséphine. He conquered the world to try to win her love, and when he couldn't, he conquered it to destroy her, and destroyed himself in the process." It's an interesting choice, but not one I'd make compared to Napoleon's transition from revolutionary to tyrant bcause I simply can't believe that Napoleon did it all just for Joséphine. A longer cut of the film might be better, if only on the simple basis that the history presented isn't so truncated.
I share most of this view. Also, the "tyrant" thing is usually overblown in English-speaking historiography because, if you pay attention, most of the royal families that wanted to take him down were worse tyrants than he was. That is proven by the staggering amount of social mobility that his new laws triggered in all countries he ruled. Eventually, locals grew dissatisfied with him but God only knows what good he did for science and engineering, for example. And all the creation of democratic (albeit corrupt) governments all around Europe set things in motion in unprecedented ways.
@@andreamarcelli4672- To be fair, various royal families had a problem with Napoleon, not so much because he was any kind of real revolutionary, but because he had no problem at all with deposing/replacing those that didn't play ball with him - I can't remember how many members of his own family he placed upon thrones for exactly this reason. He didn't oppose royalty so much as royalty that was uncooperative. That said, Napoleon was a firm believer in progress... but primarily that progress that benefitted Napoleon. Napoleon was a believer in democracy only in cases where the outcome was a foregone conclusion or could be made to be so at gunpoint.
Yeah I don’t think he did it for just Josephine, because he divorced her for a child. He did it for the love of France and mostly to remain in power, which he obviously loved
I am not a historian, but I happen to have read a lot of books and watched a lot of documentaries on Napoleon and the Napoleonic era and I am very said to say that the person depicted on the screen was not in any way the Napoleon you can read about in books. Napoleon was not a socially awkward person, he was very meticulous and calculating in battle and politics. He was also a very hard worker, often spending the evening before battles awake to go over his tactics over and over again in detail. I would love to go on about the other ways that he is wrongly depicted in this movie, but the truth is almost non of it is right. And that is said because I want to this movie witch a group of people and they all left saing "I didn't know Napoleon was like that" because a lot of people expect the depiction in the movie to be rouchly acurate and it just isn't. It is movies like this that "poison" peoples perception of history. I mean no, Napoleon didn't have a Napoleon complex, he wasn't the petty person you see in the movie, Napoleon was very specific that despite ending their merrage that Josephine kept the tittle of Empress and I can go on and on and on. This movie is just a complete and utter misstelling of history and feels like an insult to the person that was Napoleon. He was far from a saint, but if you are going to make a movie deppicting Napoleon in a bad light, at least depict him honestly and blame him for the thing HE ACTUALLY DID DO.
You have to remember that Napoleon was an enemy to the Britain and big problem in the balance game they played. If just Russia held on to the continetal blockade of Britain, it would be very different outcome. But they have always been cheap bastards.
@@Killu-e9n Basing yourself on current evidence written in books and even the letters of the very own Napoleon will most certainly give you a more accurate version of the character than a movie version of him that throws that to the bin and creates a version that's literally nonexistent in the texts, even making up historical facts that are proven wrong (he didn't watch the execution of the queen, he didn't shoot at the piramids, he did want Josephine to preserve the title...). Long af sentence, but I think I made it pretty clear. Books are the evidence, you can't possibly create a version of Napoleon that goes directly against it to a point that it denies 100% proven historical facts and expect people to swallow it.
@microondasletal accurate to who? What was the purpose of the books? Unless it's a stale retelling of his history, then it probably falls into the same hero worship of propaganda. If you want to have a complete view it's important to read books along with the ones you already have, from the countries and people he conquered because those millions of deaths matter more then giving napoleon flowers.
It's a shame that Kubrick never filmed the Napoleon movie. Filming Napoleon's life with those zooms, that music, that cinematography, that production design... Damn, it would have been a masterpiece.
@@gr-8166Damn Right! But ya, if we can't have Kubrick's Napoleon, Ridley Scott is a good second choice - Scott's The Duellists, which was heavily influenced by Barry Lyndon, looked pretty darn amazing, too!
From what I've heard, there would have been a lot more of the mundane minutiae of running an empire, plenty of battle scenes but apparently lots of meetings and paperwork as well. Sounds very divisive, but that's Stanley Kubrick for ya.
Famously Stanley Kubrick attempted to make a film on Napoleon's life in the 70's [aiming to have Jack Nicholson and Audrey Hepburn as Napoleon and Josephine] but it ended up being one of his 'unrealised' projects]. At 85, it's amazing that Ridley Scott is making epics like this and the upcoming Gladiator sequel.
I thought the theatrical version was disjointed, jumping from one major event to the next without giving us a sense of how we got there. I hope the 4-hour Apple TV version fills in a lot of the blanks.
Actually Josephine was 32 with 2 kids when she met Napoleon who was 26. And She couldnt get kids after that and Napoleon was barely there most of the time because he went to wars. So Josephine would cheat with different men, then Napoleon would find out and kick her out, then she would come back and beg and beg to Napoleon, with promises that she won't again but she continued, then Napoleon would cheat too but kept her as his wife anyway since he loved her. Then Napoleon had a boy heir with an Austrian Duchess called Marie Louise. The son died at only 21.
We don’t get nearly as many of historical epics like we did in the early to mid 2000’s but it’s still one of my favorite genres and I will check out any one of them. They’re just fun to watch and a spectacle on screen. Looking forward to this.
@@Matthew-dd6kp Sure. But it doesn't have to be 99% fiction either. Some people just want to see at least a bit of real history recreated visually. From what I watched, he didn't even made Austerlitz justice. That's a battle that doesn't need "cinema" to be enjoyable as a film. The battle itself was incredibly epic already, and a story to tell on itself. It's the problem I have with most movies really, they don't quite know how to tell the story of a battle, this is something that only Peter Jackson accomplished in his LOTR trilogy. The battles themselves followed a narrative.
Very disappointing movie. Had no interest in the love story. Waiting for an epic movie about Napoleon but almost half of it devoted to his marriage??? Also thought Joaquin Phoenix was not very good here. Not convincing as a military leader at all. Even at times it seemed like he was doing scenes from the Joker movie for some reason. One of the best actors of our time but not good here.
Yes, downright disappointing. What happened to the marshals? Forget the love story and focus on the relationship between his marshalls, troops & love for them and France.
For whatever reason the film felt so loosely tied together. From event to event, the characters and their relationships didn't feel like they organically grew. The cinematography is fine but certain choices of what was and wasn't show, I did not agree with. It's a 6/10 that I'm happy was made but it feels like it missed the mark and Napoleon deserved better.
Apparently there will be a 4 hour directors cut coming out on Apple TV which could flesh out stuff more. I am way more excited for that version then this one.
I made the mistake of not seeing The Last Duel while it was in theaters. I'm not going to make the mistake this time with Napoleon. I am going to see this when it gets released next week! Thank you for the review
The Last Duel was so good! I didn’t see it in theatres either because it got such middling reviews, and I really regretted that after seeing it latest, as it was such a good movie that felt like real cinema. So cinematic and well acted.
The way Napoleon dances in the final battle to win and then decides to elect Pedro for the president was extraordinary!! A true marveling, encompassing tale!! Bravo, Ridley!!
I wish Ridley would have went into detail about how all of the bloodshed and slaughter could have been prevented if napoleon would have donated a mere couple of tots.
Just saw it last night. I left the theater feeling ... "Meh"... as my wife and I were walking to our car, she turned and said the exact word that I was about to say to her. The movie felt "disjointed". It was not cohesive. I know a lot of the history of Napoleon so I was able to follow. I wonder how well someone would follow if they knew almost nothing. It felt like a 6 hour movie that was cut down to 2hr 40 min. Yes, it was visually stunning... but that's it. There was no "story", no arc, no character development of how he became who he was. Much like Chris said, it started when Napoleon was in his rise. Then it just kept on going up until his success fell off the cliff at Waterloo. His exile to Elba showed no emotion... it's as if one day, he just decided to go back to France and that was that. I believe the movie should have focused on a shorter time period, or maybe just the relationship with Josephine... that might have been cool. The move could have been called ... Josephine. Chris is giving a much better review than the movie deserves. Normally, I am a champion for these kinds of movies. Unless the director's cut adds "meat" to the movie, I'll give it a 4 of 10. I'd almost say, don't waste your money in the theater... I hate to say it because I love theater movies, but hey... it's just my opinion.
@@malekiththeeternityking5433 yeah i thought was super meh at best. like 5/10 movie. guess i need to watch this director's cut everyone keeps mentioning. hard to believe an extra 40 minutes can make a 5/10 into a 9/10 but we'll see
So I saw Napoleon and I have been telling everyone I know to NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. I don't know what film Chris watched. But Napoleon is a disappointment. It's not a terrible film. The 4 and a half hour version to be released on Apple TV might be alot better. If I was rating it I'd give it maybe 2 and a half stars at best. Why Ridley Scott shot the whole film with some kind of Filter leaves you feeling like your watching it in the shade. Maybe for the tone I don't know. It wastes way too much time on his relationship with Josephine. I saw this at 7:45 PM on Thanksgiving night. The lady in my aisle fell asleep and was snoring. The guy next to me kept squirming and you could feel it in the theater. He also kept looking at his phone which was annoying. You GET the picture? The battle scenes are hard to see clearly because of that filter used on the camera. Ridley Scott has been out lashing at some critics but they are right this time. I wanted to like the film but yes it's the most disappointing film this year. I didn't come on here to be a hater just to help save viewers a few bucks. If you want to watch this movie just wait for the Apple TV 4 and a half hour version where you can pause it etc... I was concerned when I saw Apple was producing it. I think if a major studio had released it they might have had some input. People wanted to see Gladiator and it's not Gladiator. Ridley is kind of odd in he will make some really great films but also has made some duds. This is not one of his best films. Vanessa Kirby as Josephine was good.
This is why you can't take critics seriously.. saying this was a "damn good movie" is a ridiculous statement, it wasn't even half decent. Scenes beautiful, story trash and conclusion movie bad. You'll get a more accurate review of the movie watching the general opinion of the public.
I was very excited for this movie before, but now that the first reactions from critics are coming out, it's elevated that. The main problem I see people having with it us that it seems more like a collection of sequences rather than an actual story, which I feel like the 4 hour director's cut should take care of. I'm gonna see it in IMAX if I can just for the experience of watching those epic scenes on the big screen, but if I had to guess based on what I have heard so far, I would imagine that the director's cut is the one I'll go back to in years to come
They skipped the whole years after his retreat in Russia which is the most important part of his life.Battles we’re not accurate and they made the greatest leader of men ever seem like a wuss and a sex addict!
4 hours?!?! Dude, no... Movies are not fucking shores. At least they're not supposed to be... And I'm not even talking about entertainment. The movie deprived of any character or story inperspection, and it is rather a collection of abrupt short stories, that's vaguely connected by the characters themselves, like a documentary... The only redeeming quality is Joaquin Phoenix's acting skill, and Vanessa Kirby's too, but it cannot, despite them playing the main characters, be enough to maintain this movie...
@@cardboard2night how was the acting good, if it completely misrepresented who napoleon actually was according to every account.I grow more and mor appalled the more I think about the movie.They may aswell have just made a fictional crybaby war porno with made up history
I kept drifting to sleep after awhile. I was expecting to see his leadership skills development, instead got that typical awkward Joaquin Phoenix performance.
I still can't believe Ridley Scott is producing and directing a direct sequel to Gladiator. I love and respect his passion for film making, to still be creating and directing at the age of 85 these historical epics is amazing, but such an odd choice for a film to create a sequel for. I'm sure he's realistic and understands his next film may be the last one he creates, so I'm very interested to see him interviewed when the movie premieres.
@Guigley I agree. I wasn't happy to hear that there's a sequel. I thought I read it was directly related as it involved Maximus' son or something and I think that would absolutely ruin the emotional impact of the first one. He only had the one son with his wife and he was faithful to her. The only way I think it might work would be if it followed Juba, someone else from Proximo's ludus, or a completely new character with no relation to Maximus or those events. I'd say someone in the Servile Wars era (like Spartacus) but that happened long before Marcus Aurelius's time. Maybe then a Christian or a narrative set in the time of Constantine or something.
@ThatGuy-bh9qhNot really. Maximus was killed, obviously, and Commodus. But Juba was alive, and Lucilla (and her son), as well as a bunch of senators. Even if they followed Lucius because Lucilla loved Maximus and Lucius admired him, it wouldn't make much sense as he was royalty so wouldn't be fighting in the games.
As a military history nerd I hated this movie. Disjointed pacing, a heavy focus on his relationship and a comedic bend that made it feel like a hit piece at times. Yes, the battles were excellently shot and Vanessa Kirby was great, but where were his Marshals? No way you can tell a complete Napoleon story without mentioning them. Moreover, they show us one scene from Austerlitz and arguably not even the most important scene. Then his next battle we're in Russia? To me, that totally ignored what makes Napoleon interesting.
I saw an interview with Ridley Scott the other day and he said that he has basically a four and a half hour directors cut that goes into a lot of what you probably thought the film was missing. So hopefully that ends up coming out sometime in the not so distant future.
This movie has 2 GLARING problems. The romantic relationship (at least how they presented it) was EXTREMELY uninteresting. Like Napoleon literally just stares at her and she just kinda admits she F’d a guy to not get killed and that’s all the context given before they get married and “fall in love” everything proceeding that felt forced and inauthentic. The movie didn’t give me a reason believe that these people were actually in love. My second major criticism is the god awful pacing for some of the events. Like the entire with Egypt had literally no context or build up. One moment he’s in Egypt, the next moment they fire a shot at the pyramid, the next scene the battle is over and Napoleon just kinda admires a mummy and that’s it. Sudden, confusing and dull. That same type of occurrence happened with the scene in which Napoleon orders for the protesters to be killed. Why are they protesting? Who knows because the movie doesn’t bother to say and it all happens suddenly with no anticipation or suspense.
My favourite movie on that era is the Soviet adaptation of "War & Peace" from 1966/1967. It might just be the most artful, epic, sensitive period piece ever made.
Ridley Scott taught me that Napoleon used his artillery genius to bombard the pyramids because "fk egyptology, right?", that he was a depressing 50 years old war veteran at 26... and a wife beater. Because its such an irrelevant trait of character, especially these days, right Ridley?
it feels like we’ve come full circle back to his first film, The Duellists, which is still one of the most beautifully shot films I’ve ever seen. If you are planning on rewatching Kingdom of Heaven I strongly recommend (as others have said) the Directors Cut which is vastly superior and reinstates a cut plot line that adds significant development to certain characters. Unfortunately, I think it’s only available on Blu-ray (not streaming) but well worth hunting down.
I really hope they have a throwaway line somewhere about how annoying it is that officers keep dueling. Just a minor reference would make me ridiculously happy.
Looking forward to seeing this. Would love to see you do a review of the "Director's Cut" version of "Kingdom of Heaven" because it's a hiddem gem. Should be regarded as one of Ridley Scott's best IMO.
There are definitely many inaccuracies in this film but I think that has to do more with pacing and squeezing the massive amount of history that is Napoleons reign into 3 hour movie. I heard there is going to be a 4 and a half hour directors cut that will be on the Blu-ray… Point is this should have been a mini series. That would have allowed the history to be less condensed, and showed the separate aspects of Napoleons life in more detail. Still I’m very happy this film got made, and am definitely going to watch it in IMAX. I’m going to forgive the no doubt many inaccuracies, and look at this movie as more a tale of historic fiction with the focus being a character study.
Stanley Kubricks next project was going to be a film about Napoleon. In a sort of museum/exposition of Kubricks stuff there was a big piece of furniture where he had files on EVERY day on Napoleons life. That was the level of his obsession. Too bad we never got to see that film.
originally Kubrick's Napoleon was going to be his next movie after 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was about to enter pre-production when the epic Waterloo (1970), starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon, failed at the box office. Kubrick then produced his 'quickie' A Clockwork Orange, then abandoned Napoleon altogether for Barry Lyndon. He reused some of the costumes and props he had made for Napoleon in BL. Steven Spielberg has Kubrick's Napoleon script and has been developing an epic mini-series from it in the last few years.
I'm always glad to see you sneaking in more praise for The Last Duel. Both film and book were absolutely phenomenal and seeing it get the recognition it deserves in Ridley's Canon is a welcome sight.
If I was in charge, I would delay putting this movie on streaming for a while. I think because the window between theatical release and release on streaming services has shrank that now some people are just waiting until movies hit streaming services to watch them. I would increase that window to try and get more people into the theaters.
Overall, Napoleon fails in almost all aspects. It fails in character development and plot explanation, as well as historical accuracy. It is cinematically beautiful, however, hence why I will not give it one star. But overall, a massive disappointment coming from Ridley Scott, a director I admire, about Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most fascinating men in history.
Ridley Scott + Jaquin Phoenix + historic epic = guaranteed fun. I can't wait to see this movie. Napoleon is the greatest general of all time in my opinion and it's about time we got a new blockbuster about him
Kingdom of Heaven just gets more and more relevant each year. What a brave film to make so soon after 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War. It truly is astoundingly beautiful and one of my favorites.
Agreed. It is eminently rewatchable too which is a sign of a great film. The difference between the theatrical release and the directors cut is significant.
If you are looking for a serious movie this is not it. Also the time that is spent on the relationship between napolean and his wife is exhausting. This historical epic movie is not like Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator.
Your comment 'not everybody's gonna like this guy' indicates the level at which you are able to assess things like historical accuracy. How you can call this 'a damn good movie' is a total mystery.
The movie falls flat, people at the cinema were talking at the end asking how much time was left. When it ended most people were relieved. The last duel was much better
@@nqobilengema2165 The HISTORY is so complicated, I had to watch the film about four times before it all came together. That's not Ridley's fault, it's the history of the region. Look at all the troglodytes who pick one side or the other in the recent Israeli vs Palestinian clash. You have to be blinkered one-eyed and delusional to do that.
Wow... It's the 1st time I COMPLETELY disagree with Chris about a movie! This review almost looks like a paid promotion, since it is totally NOT what that movie really is! And what is it? A COMPLETE DISAPPOINTMENT!!! Did Chris Stuckman watch the same movie as the rest of us...?
Chris...have you somehow lost 40 IQ points all of a sudden? this movie completely threw historical accuracy out the window and you are praising this train wreck? wtf happened????
This film is going to play out exactly like Kingdom of Heaven where the theatrical cut will be so-so, but everyone will be waiting for the already confirmed 4 hour director's cut that will make this film a masterpiece. I can't wait to see both versions.
Chris, please watch the Kingdom of Heaven director’s cut if you’re going to review that film. It changes it from a decent historical drama to an outright masterpiece.
Just saw it today. Honestly, thought it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I’m honestly in shock at how strange and disjointed this film was.
I find the recreations of the battles to be well done but as someone who heavily studied the French Revolution and Napoleon in university I found the interpersonal relationship moments to be lacking. Having a volatile relationship as Napoleon's primary source of motivation weakens him and weakens the ending where they hammer in just how many deaths he was responsible for.
A massive disappointment. I can’t agree with this review. His character has been effectively dismantled in this production via a 21st century revisionist version of his life. Clearly the fact of his support of the reinstitution of slavery in France was enough to be dealt a modern day cancellation. His feats as a military leader,his great achievements in education and law in particular have been conveniently brushed aside….Ridley,how dare you.
I'm sorry this movie was flat out terrible. The movie was more about his relationship with his wife than it was about command and conquer. Big let down.
Chris… this movie is one of the main reasons people are slowing leaving the theaters. What a missed opportunity. I was sad at how disappointing this movie was.
I wasn’t feeling The Last Duel for the first 30 mins, but I continued and it turned into one of my favorite films of that year. I want to rewatch Kingdom of Heaven (Director’s Cut Roadshow Version as the first time seeing this) and even Robin Hood (Unrated) at some point.
You had me at Vanessa Kirby, she's stunning. She has that otherworldly kind of vintage/30s actress on a red carpet in a fur coat appeal especially in historic costumes. Kind of gives me Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn in The Tudors vibes. I wish she'd do some Tudor era or Shakespeare for TV/Film. Season 1 and 2 of The Crown were hard to watch with her and Claire Foy since they are both stunning to me. LOL.
The film is bad. At least from a french point of view. Everyone hate it here because there is a lot of historical errors and a lack of vision of what was really this man (and this woman). Nobody wants to see it. Ridley Scott is furious.
The point of the czar abandoning Moscow was to lure Napoleon into a trap. The movie failed to show how they had burned the fields and literally starved the French army. It wasn't because they didn't want to negotiate. It was because they didn't have to. The movie missed the mark at every turn. There was no narrative arc, just poorly connected setups to recreate classical paintings in a motion picture.
My wife fell asleep in the first 20 minutes. If you’re interested in why the French people loved Napoleon and why his men were willing to die for him, look elsewhere. First half of the movie paints Napoleon as an incel mumbling cuck who can hardly put a sentence together. Battle scenes were great though.
Scott’s set pieces are always incredible, the scenery becomes another cast member. In these days of green screen propaganda we can’t take what he does for granted.
@@M_k-zi3tn I’m not against using it, he did use it but the majority were practical effects versus an entire movie set against a green screen hanging in a warehouse.
Why make a movie about arguably the greatest general in human history and make the main focus of the movie his marriage? By far the least compelling aspect of his life.
As a French, I was enraged at the end of the film. It's like seing the continuity of the British propaganda of the 1800'. Even the british historians recognise in the early 1990 that Napoléon wasn't that arrogant. Nothing works, everything is shit. Please, America, never retouch to our History. You don't deserve it. Make fiction, you're good for that.
No British propaganda at all....I wanted RS to show the kicking Wellington truly gave him or Nelson battering his fleets on sea..maybe RS should've shown his reinstating of slavery or how Josephine lived off it...🇬🇧
why do they keep spending millions on historical authenticity to then hire an actor who looks nothing like the person they are playing, it takes me out of the movie mandela with idris elba being a prime example followed by denzil a black man playing a light skinned mixed race malcome x.
It's a shame that this movie won't lead to a sort of biopic series revolving around the French Revolution and the rise and fall of Napoleon. I would love to see a movie condensing the life and achievements of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas made by Ridley Scott- his life is just as fascinating as Napoleon's and I feel like there would be potential in a crossover movie series that would cover him and other important figures in both Napoleon's army and the French Revolution. The French Revolution as a whole is a treasure trove of drama.
To be fair, General Dumas’ life was very far from being as exiting as Napoleon’s and he didn’t achieve anything that would come close to Napoleon’s foot little toe. He was just a general in revolutionary France like hundreds more, and he never did anything of value but following orders.
I would disagree. Dumas held major commands and did well. He wasn't "one among hundreds more", but his career was cut short, and I don't see what you could make of it. These days, the whole movie would probably be about racism and how much adversity and oppression Dumas faced. @@brunol-p_g8800
Unless you know a bit about Napoleon, the movie will confuse you. For a movie almost 155 minutes long, much of the truly fascinating aspect of his life was ignored. Glad I saw it, so I recommend that you DO NOT.
Very excited to see this. I personally love Kingdom of Heaven, the extended director's cut is easily one of my all time favorites, anyone who hasn't seen it should go watch.
And it suffered in the box office because of the edits he was forced to make. So I wonder if some of the criticism Napolean is facing would be corrected in a Director's Cut. It seems like Ridley Scott is often pushed to cut out content. I know Bladerunner was one though I think he was forced to edit/remove scenes from Prometheus that led to a lot of confusion/criticism. Not saying having more content would mean that he never makes poor films. Something like Promethus probably would've bombed regardless. But sometimes when it's slightly below essentially flawless, it ends up he was forced to remove scenes.
Kingdom of Heaven will end up being a great parallel to this movie I’d presume. The theatrical cut of kingdom of Heaven was a structural mess, confusing and poorly paced. The directors cut turns that movie into an all time great period piece epic.
I'm sorry, but this is not a good movie. The scenes are very disconnected with almost no build up. The Napoleon we got looks like how a british propagandist of his era would depict him. The sex scenes, the jokes, the clumsiness , the stupidness, everything is made to turn him into a fool. I'm surprised Ridley didn't pick a short guy to play him. Where is the the charismatic leader he was ? Seeing how uncharismatic he is, I have no idea why soldiers sent by the king would rally to him, especially the was his speech was delivered. And Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor, but he is good at playing melancholic psychopaths, not charismatic military geniuses. And the battle of Austerlitz was so bad for a battle still studied today. You don't see Napoleon as a military genius, the enemy commanders are just stupid. But of course, they spend the most time on Waterloo, as any anglo saxon movie should. Vanessa Kirby was great though.
This sounds very much like a typical flat Hollywood drama. Napoleon had a massive influence on the political and cultural landscape of europe and was part of the Enlightenment.
I can't tell people enough to watch (or read) different reviews and not just one by your favorite critic. Been watching Chris for a long time. The interesting part to me is when I have a complete different view than Chris. Such is the case with Napoleon. Yes, the technical aspects of the movie are great. But the rest is almost insulting to history and the people long gone. (Yes, I am European) The critical drinker has the best review out there (and I rarely agree with the drinker's views)
Movies this good? This good? The whole movie is just a bunch of clips thrown together, there is no consistent narrative in any part of the film. The score is weak and every actor was told to look sad, and that was it. Throughout the 3 hours I had no idea what Ridley wanted me to feel, the battles look like shit its just "now this side attacks, now that''. Ridley has been an arrogant bitch for a very ling time, but this might be his worst film ever.
As a big Ridley Scott fan, I will definitely go see this movie. Also, go watch The Las Duel if you haven't seen it. This movie deserves every ounce of recognition.
There is no spoiler in this text : Lol this film is boring as hell, probably the first time i almost fell asleep in the theater. The lovestory with Jospehine is flat, there are only very few war/fighting scene that are not even good, the FX and special effect looks fake as hell (especialy the explosions and the smoke), from a historic POV it is a DISASTER ( I invite you to look at the interviews, and see what Scoot answer was when historians told him it was completely wrong). I still would rcommand you to watch it , because everyone need to make his own opinion. Just wait for it to be out on streaming sites , because it ain't worth your money, for a 2H30 perspective of "I'm Ridley Scott , an old film maker of 85yo , and everyone need to say yes and agree with what i want to do."
Does Chris even review movies anymore? He just points some story elements here and there, makes some vague statements that could be interpreted either way... I don't know, it sounds like he just doesn't care.
Maybe just because I’m a big fan of the time period but I really wasn’t a fan. The movie just cuts out so much of his life. It sounds weird to think that a 2:30 min movie was 4 hours too short, but that’s how I feel.
Man I forgot he did Kingdom of Heaven. I fucking LOVE that movie (especially the Director's Cut, way better than the Theater run). So eager to see Napolean. Would love you making a video about Kingdom of Heaven, specifically the Director's Cut. The things they cut from Theatrical Release cut SO MUCH character stuff. Also, Edward Norton is GOAT for his role as the king of Jerusalem.
Historical epics like Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer and now Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, are definitely worth watching on the big screen! Can't wait to see this in IMAX.
Chris smiling on the thumbnail means that the movie is good and that I am buying the tickets. Gold standard of TH-cam movie review.
In the thumbnail we trust
I don't think he reviews films he dislikes anymore.
@@Robloxman226he doesn't
Idk I seem to remember him smiling for “Knock at the cabin” and that film was genuinely terrible. To each they own tho.
@@firstlast9846 he's given positive reviews to horrible movies, including insidious red door.
To be fair, when it comes to older filmmakers such as Ridley Scott, the only thing they lose with age is a fear of failure.
damn that's a bar
Martin Scorsese says he is finally hitting his stride and he says it's sad because he doesn't have that much time left
beter those old guy's at least the make films not CGI movies getting sick of look at my CGI and not look at my acting
did they lose the fear of failure?...
or did they just FORGET the fear of failure? (because they are senile LOL)
Now that I am over 60 and have many friends who are over 70, lack of stamina is real. Only a very few can still push through the 12 - 18 hour days like Scott does. It has gotten to be a joke in the film industry that as Clint Eastwood aged, an 8-hour day of filming was the rule and he often cut the work days short. To be fair, he was very good at making good movies at this pace.
Napoleon survived many assassinations attempts including at the Paris Opera when a knife wielding maniac ran at him screaming "I am having an affair with the Emperor's wife" Napoleon shouted back "Surely I am the last person in all of France you should be telling this?"
Man counter heckles his own assassin.
😅 what a response
Damn really?!?
“You seem to have chosen a strange confidant” Napoléon, known for his sense of humour even under pressure, supposedly said to the lunatic 😂
And the maniac responded: "Don't call me Surely!"
This is a prime example of how you can take a fascinating historical material and turn it into a set of disconnected images that can easily cause an epileptic seizure. I'm surprised Napoleon isn't wearing a half faced helmet when he's shooting at pyramids. BTW he never done that and they were half covered with sand at that time.
but he did almost make out with a mummy, so there is that lol
ok….
It's a MOVIE. Not a book. Not a documentary. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO LAUGH FOLKS. Every frame of this film looks like a neo classical painting. Thoroughly entertaining, visually spectacular, and hilariously dark. Yes, it wasn't historically accurate and the script lacked a bit, but psychologically, it wins all around. Brilliant entertainment. The violence was awesome. 4/5 stars
@@christomorpho Every frame of Baldur's Gate 3 looked like a painting. And every frame of this MOVIE looked like it was drawn by a crazy artists locked for decades in a mental institution without any paints. Ridley Scott can't sh*t on our history like that!
we don’t care
I seen the movie yesterday, id give it a 5/10 , it’s 70% drama , 30%history, didn’t portray napoleon as the military genius he is … no where near other military historic movies
This movie was a travesty
Nothing will beat Waterloo for me. The fact they had 2k horses and 15k extras, then accurately recreated the battle to a T was jawdropping and a one of a kind film
Same. The actor in that movie even looked a lot more like Napoleon than Phoenix
I agree. The extras used in the battle were Soviet military, truly one of a kind for a Western production. The stealing of the pig 🐖 is one of the best parts, in my opinion.
@@LuisSierra42he was little too fat and tan than what napoleon in real life. Though phoenix would have fit well if this was done 20 yeara ago. He looks too old for protrary Napoleon in the early years.
My my
@@LuisSierra42
Waterloo: where Napoleon rises from exile... like a Pheonix LOL
If anyone is interested, there's another great Napoleon film called Waterloo from 1970 which covers Napoleon's exile from France, return and his last Battle of Waterloo that's 99% historically accurate and an epic war film with a cast of thousands and great actors. It's a great film that explores the stature of Napoleon's legend in his own time. An early scene has him say such a powerful line "France has fallen! So remember me! Though I love you all, I cannot embrace you all"
Brilliant movie
@amygordon2716 good call
@amygordon2716 that's how a lot of people outside of France viewed him, or any foreign conqueror for that matter.
Great movie. This new movie sucks
The 1970 Waterloo movie is one of my all-time favourites. For those who actually care about historical accuracy in historical films, it's a million times better than this weird fantasy.
Wow, it's amazing to think that Ridley Scott has been making classics since 1979.
Guy knowes how to make deamn good movies.
Agree
his debut movie The Duellists (1977) is actually quite great too.
77. The Duelists is a great debut!
Duelists is a masterpiece
The problem with the project might be that, with a historical figure so controversial and with so much eventful time to cover, you have to essentially decide upon a lense/theory through which to view Napoleon's life. From different reviews, and according to Scott himself, it appears that the lense selected was that of Napoleon's relationship with Joséphine.
"Napoleon is a man I've always been fascinated by", Scott said in a statement. "He came out of nowhere to rule everything - but all the while he was waging a romantic war with his adulterous wife Joséphine. He conquered the world to try to win her love, and when he couldn't, he conquered it to destroy her, and destroyed himself in the process."
It's an interesting choice, but not one I'd make compared to Napoleon's transition from revolutionary to tyrant bcause I simply can't believe that Napoleon did it all just for Joséphine. A longer cut of the film might be better, if only on the simple basis that the history presented isn't so truncated.
I share most of this view. Also, the "tyrant" thing is usually overblown in English-speaking historiography because, if you pay attention, most of the royal families that wanted to take him down were worse tyrants than he was. That is proven by the staggering amount of social mobility that his new laws triggered in all countries he ruled. Eventually, locals grew dissatisfied with him but God only knows what good he did for science and engineering, for example. And all the creation of democratic (albeit corrupt) governments all around Europe set things in motion in unprecedented ways.
@@andreamarcelli4672- To be fair, various royal families had a problem with Napoleon, not so much because he was any kind of real revolutionary, but because he had no problem at all with deposing/replacing those that didn't play ball with him - I can't remember how many members of his own family he placed upon thrones for exactly this reason. He didn't oppose royalty so much as royalty that was uncooperative.
That said, Napoleon was a firm believer in progress... but primarily that progress that benefitted Napoleon. Napoleon was a believer in democracy only in cases where the outcome was a foregone conclusion or could be made to be so at gunpoint.
Yeah I don’t think he did it for just Josephine, because he divorced her for a child. He did it for the love of France and mostly to remain in power, which he obviously loved
I am not a historian, but I happen to have read a lot of books and watched a lot of documentaries on Napoleon and the Napoleonic era and I am very said to say that the person depicted on the screen was not in any way the Napoleon you can read about in books. Napoleon was not a socially awkward person, he was very meticulous and calculating in battle and politics. He was also a very hard worker, often spending the evening before battles awake to go over his tactics over and over again in detail. I would love to go on about the other ways that he is wrongly depicted in this movie, but the truth is almost non of it is right.
And that is said because I want to this movie witch a group of people and they all left saing "I didn't know Napoleon was like that" because a lot of people expect the depiction in the movie to be rouchly acurate and it just isn't. It is movies like this that "poison" peoples perception of history.
I mean no, Napoleon didn't have a Napoleon complex, he wasn't the petty person you see in the movie, Napoleon was very specific that despite ending their merrage that Josephine kept the tittle of Empress and I can go on and on and on.
This movie is just a complete and utter misstelling of history and feels like an insult to the person that was Napoleon. He was far from a saint, but if you are going to make a movie deppicting Napoleon in a bad light, at least depict him honestly and blame him for the thing HE ACTUALLY DID DO.
You have to remember that Napoleon was an enemy to the Britain and big problem in the balance game they played. If just Russia held on to the continetal blockade of Britain, it would be very different outcome. But they have always been cheap bastards.
Bro believes thats in books are TRUE information about Napoleon. History was rewritten hundred time, so u cant be so confident about history
@@Killu-e9n Basing yourself on current evidence written in books and even the letters of the very own Napoleon will most certainly give you a more accurate version of the character than a movie version of him that throws that to the bin and creates a version that's literally nonexistent in the texts, even making up historical facts that are proven wrong (he didn't watch the execution of the queen, he didn't shoot at the piramids, he did want Josephine to preserve the title...). Long af sentence, but I think I made it pretty clear. Books are the evidence, you can't possibly create a version of Napoleon that goes directly against it to a point that it denies 100% proven historical facts and expect people to swallow it.
@microondasletal accurate to who? What was the purpose of the books? Unless it's a stale retelling of his history, then it probably falls into the same hero worship of propaganda. If you want to have a complete view it's important to read books along with the ones you already have, from the countries and people he conquered because those millions of deaths matter more then giving napoleon flowers.
@@Killu-e9n so you prefer the story of a britain cinema director than thousand historian... You're a Clown
It's a shame that Kubrick never filmed the Napoleon movie.
Filming Napoleon's life with those zooms, that music, that cinematography, that production design...
Damn, it would have been a masterpiece.
Closest we’ll ever get from Kubrick is Barry Lyndon and even that was just incredible
So true
@@gr-8166Damn Right! But ya, if we can't have Kubrick's Napoleon, Ridley Scott is a good second choice - Scott's The Duellists, which was heavily influenced by Barry Lyndon, looked pretty darn amazing, too!
I wouldn’t give up Barry Lyndon for it
From what I've heard, there would have been a lot more of the mundane minutiae of running an empire, plenty of battle scenes but apparently lots of meetings and paperwork as well. Sounds very divisive, but that's Stanley Kubrick for ya.
The Last Duel is an underrated gem. At the very least, I'm glad movies like this are still being released regardless of whether I love it or not
I loved it too, not sure why it got so much hate
@@NoiselessBob It was not hate. I was not even aware the movie existed until like a week before it released and I am an obsessive movie nerd
It was nominated for a Razzie, what a joke
@@LuisSierra42there was a lot political bs and propaganda about the movie before it came out, and the fact it won a Razzie just doesn’t make sense
Awful film
Famously Stanley Kubrick attempted to make a film on Napoleon's life in the 70's [aiming to have Jack Nicholson and Audrey Hepburn as Napoleon and Josephine] but it ended up being one of his 'unrealised' projects]. At 85, it's amazing that Ridley Scott is making epics like this and the upcoming Gladiator sequel.
I read that Ridley actually reworked Kubrick's script for this film. Don't quote me on that but I believe it's also in the imdb trivia.
@@TechnicJunglist I know Spielberg is making a Napoleon miniseries for hbo using Kubrick’s script. You might be thinking of that
@@jewby795 oh cool thank you for letting me know
Gladiator sequel?
Gladiator sequel will be stupid idea.
But i think its not going to happen
I thought the theatrical version was disjointed, jumping from one major event to the next without giving us a sense of how we got there. I hope the 4-hour Apple TV version fills in a lot of the blanks.
Actually Josephine was 32 with 2 kids when she met Napoleon who was 26. And She couldnt get kids after that and Napoleon was barely there most of the time because he went to wars. So Josephine would cheat with different men, then Napoleon would find out and kick her out, then she would come back and beg and beg to Napoleon, with promises that she won't again but she continued, then Napoleon would cheat too but kept her as his wife anyway since he loved her. Then Napoleon had a boy heir with an Austrian Duchess called Marie Louise. The son died at only 21.
That account was all basically in the movie
Im sorry but Napoleon had 22 MISTRESSES AND 3 BASTARDS. It was the 1800s, cheating was not as much of an issue back then.
We don’t get nearly as many of historical epics like we did in the early to mid 2000’s but it’s still one of my favorite genres and I will check out any one of them. They’re just fun to watch and a spectacle on screen. Looking forward to this.
The director's cut of Kingdom Of Heaven is fantastic!
Because they are too woke and dominated by men
Most of them were mid thats why it died out
@@bornanagaming3329 If you're using "mid" then you must be under 16 years old and you don't know what you're talking about.
@@One.Zero.One101 it’s just a word, toe rag. Says a lot about your maturity to dismiss someone for their age, too
Ridley Scott and Martin Scorcese still going strong in their 80's, you love to see it.
And many others!
In the last old times of their lives, and still making good art.
Is appreciated.
The problem with amazing scenes in Scott's historical dramas is that they generally turn out never to have happened.
And that's ok. This is cinema
Who gives a shit?
Yeah but that is true of many "historical" dramas. Whenever you see the line "Based on a true story..." assume that 99% of the film is fiction.
Let people enjoy the film, it doesn't have to be 100% historically accurate.
@@Matthew-dd6kp Sure. But it doesn't have to be 99% fiction either. Some people just want to see at least a bit of real history recreated visually. From what I watched, he didn't even made Austerlitz justice. That's a battle that doesn't need "cinema" to be enjoyable as a film. The battle itself was incredibly epic already, and a story to tell on itself.
It's the problem I have with most movies really, they don't quite know how to tell the story of a battle, this is something that only Peter Jackson accomplished in his LOTR trilogy. The battles themselves followed a narrative.
Very disappointing movie. Had no interest in the love story. Waiting for an epic movie about Napoleon but almost half of it devoted to his marriage??? Also thought Joaquin Phoenix was not very good here. Not convincing as a military leader at all. Even at times it seemed like he was doing scenes from the Joker movie for some reason. One of the best actors of our time but not good here.
Definitely agree.
Yes, downright disappointing. What happened to the marshals? Forget the love story and focus on the relationship between his marshalls, troops & love for them and France.
For whatever reason the film felt so loosely tied together. From event to event, the characters and their relationships didn't feel like they organically grew. The cinematography is fine but certain choices of what was and wasn't show, I did not agree with. It's a 6/10 that I'm happy was made but it feels like it missed the mark and Napoleon deserved better.
Apparently there will be a 4 hour directors cut coming out on Apple TV which could flesh out stuff more. I am way more excited for that version then this one.
I made the mistake of not seeing The Last Duel while it was in theaters. I'm not going to make the mistake this time with Napoleon. I am going to see this when it gets released next week! Thank you for the review
The Last Duel was so good! I didn’t see it in theatres either because it got such middling reviews, and I really regretted that after seeing it latest, as it was such a good movie that felt like real cinema. So cinematic and well acted.
@@pressrepeat2000The Last Duel didn't get middling reviews at all, though. It was reviewed really well by both critics and fans. Such a good movie.
Last Duel in theaters was def an experience
and it was disappointing...
The way Napoleon dances in the final battle to win and then decides to elect Pedro for the president was extraordinary!! A true marveling, encompassing tale!! Bravo, Ridley!!
Well done sir . . . well done😂
I wish Ridley would have went into detail about how all of the bloodshed and slaughter could have been prevented if napoleon would have donated a mere couple of tots.
This ‘good’ review of Napoleon by Chris really makes me question if I should listen to his thoughts on other films as I thought it was rubbish
Just saw it last night. I left the theater feeling ... "Meh"... as my wife and I were walking to our car, she turned and said the exact word that I was about to say to her. The movie felt "disjointed". It was not cohesive. I know a lot of the history of Napoleon so I was able to follow. I wonder how well someone would follow if they knew almost nothing. It felt like a 6 hour movie that was cut down to 2hr 40 min. Yes, it was visually stunning... but that's it. There was no "story", no arc, no character development of how he became who he was. Much like Chris said, it started when Napoleon was in his rise. Then it just kept on going up until his success fell off the cliff at Waterloo. His exile to Elba showed no emotion... it's as if one day, he just decided to go back to France and that was that. I believe the movie should have focused on a shorter time period, or maybe just the relationship with Josephine... that might have been cool. The move could have been called ... Josephine. Chris is giving a much better review than the movie deserves. Normally, I am a champion for these kinds of movies. Unless the director's cut adds "meat" to the movie, I'll give it a 4 of 10. I'd almost say, don't waste your money in the theater... I hate to say it because I love theater movies, but hey... it's just my opinion.
The director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven was one of Ridley Scott's best films.
That movie was garbage
@@malekiththeeternityking5433the original version was but the directors cut is amazing
@@SirEggo2412 The directors cut is a one time watch. havent watched original version yet
@@josaphcj7199 don’t watch the original cut it has like 40 minutes of important scenes removed for some reason
@@malekiththeeternityking5433 yeah i thought was super meh at best. like 5/10 movie. guess i need to watch this director's cut everyone keeps mentioning. hard to believe an extra 40 minutes can make a 5/10 into a 9/10 but we'll see
Apparently, there will be a 4 hour version released later on home media, just like they did with Kingdom of Heaven.
You must have seen a completely different movie than I did. It failed miserably.
So I saw Napoleon and I have been telling everyone I know to NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. I don't know what film Chris watched. But Napoleon is a disappointment. It's not a terrible film. The 4 and a half hour version to be released on Apple TV might be alot better. If I was rating it I'd give it maybe 2 and a half stars at best. Why Ridley Scott shot the whole film with some kind of Filter leaves you feeling like your watching it in the shade. Maybe for the tone I don't know. It wastes way too much time on his relationship with Josephine. I saw this at 7:45 PM on Thanksgiving night. The lady in my aisle fell asleep and was snoring. The guy next to me kept squirming and you could feel it in the theater. He also kept looking at his phone which was annoying. You GET the picture? The battle scenes are hard to see clearly because of that filter used on the camera. Ridley Scott has been out lashing at some critics but they are right this time. I wanted to like the film but yes it's the most disappointing film this year. I didn't come on here to be a hater just to help save viewers a few bucks. If you want to watch this movie just wait for the Apple TV 4 and a half hour version where you can pause it etc... I was concerned when I saw Apple was producing it. I think if a major studio had released it they might have had some input. People wanted to see Gladiator and it's not Gladiator. Ridley is kind of odd in he will make some really great films but also has made some duds. This is not one of his best films. Vanessa Kirby as Josephine was good.
This is why you can't take critics seriously.. saying this was a "damn good movie" is a ridiculous statement, it wasn't even half decent. Scenes beautiful, story trash and conclusion movie bad. You'll get a more accurate review of the movie watching the general opinion of the public.
Loved that part when Napoleon said his famous line, "There's nothing we can do!"
Lol okay
It's napo time
Napoleón never said it tho
@@twirlyturd4364
Joke------->
Your head
I was very excited for this movie before, but now that the first reactions from critics are coming out, it's elevated that. The main problem I see people having with it us that it seems more like a collection of sequences rather than an actual story, which I feel like the 4 hour director's cut should take care of. I'm gonna see it in IMAX if I can just for the experience of watching those epic scenes on the big screen, but if I had to guess based on what I have heard so far, I would imagine that the director's cut is the one I'll go back to in years to come
They skipped the whole years after his retreat in Russia which is the most important part of his life.Battles we’re not accurate and they made the greatest leader of men ever seem like a wuss and a sex addict!
4 hours is not enough, the movie pacing is terrible, if I were you I wouldn’t watch it
4 hours?!?! Dude, no... Movies are not fucking shores. At least they're not supposed to be... And I'm not even talking about entertainment. The movie deprived of any character or story inperspection, and it is rather a collection of abrupt short stories, that's vaguely connected by the characters themselves, like a documentary... The only redeeming quality is Joaquin Phoenix's acting skill, and Vanessa Kirby's too, but it cannot, despite them playing the main characters, be enough to maintain this movie...
@@cardboard2night how was the acting good, if it completely misrepresented who napoleon actually was according to every account.I grow more and mor appalled the more I think about the movie.They may aswell have just made a fictional crybaby war porno with made up history
I kept drifting to sleep after awhile. I was expecting to see his leadership skills development, instead got that typical awkward Joaquin Phoenix performance.
I still can't believe Ridley Scott is producing and directing a direct sequel to Gladiator. I love and respect his passion for film making, to still be creating and directing at the age of 85 these historical epics is amazing, but such an odd choice for a film to create a sequel for. I'm sure he's realistic and understands his next film may be the last one he creates, so I'm very interested to see him interviewed when the movie premieres.
The very idea of a _Gladiator_ sequel is utterly absurd. That Ridley Scott would waste his time on it when he could be making other films is very sad.
@Guigley I agree. I wasn't happy to hear that there's a sequel.
I thought I read it was directly related as it involved Maximus' son or something and I think that would absolutely ruin the emotional impact of the first one. He only had the one son with his wife and he was faithful to her.
The only way I think it might work would be if it followed Juba, someone else from Proximo's ludus, or a completely new character with no relation to Maximus or those events. I'd say someone in the Servile Wars era (like Spartacus) but that happened long before Marcus Aurelius's time. Maybe then a Christian or a narrative set in the time of Constantine or something.
@ThatGuy-bh9qhNot really. Maximus was killed, obviously, and Commodus. But Juba was alive, and Lucilla (and her son), as well as a bunch of senators.
Even if they followed Lucius because Lucilla loved Maximus and Lucius admired him, it wouldn't make much sense as he was royalty so wouldn't be fighting in the games.
As a military history nerd I hated this movie. Disjointed pacing, a heavy focus on his relationship and a comedic bend that made it feel like a hit piece at times.
Yes, the battles were excellently shot and Vanessa Kirby was great, but where were his Marshals? No way you can tell a complete Napoleon story without mentioning them. Moreover, they show us one scene from Austerlitz and arguably not even the most important scene. Then his next battle we're in Russia? To me, that totally ignored what makes Napoleon interesting.
Ridley Scott is 85 and the busiest director in Hollywood with a heap of films due to come out next year too
I saw an interview with Ridley Scott the other day and he said that he has basically a four and a half hour directors cut that goes into a lot of what you probably thought the film was missing. So hopefully that ends up coming out sometime in the not so distant future.
The movie was so bad that four hours sounds like torture. Four hours of an historically inaccurate abomination.
@@facelessandnamelessI'm sorry you can't hero worship a mass murder
This movie has 2 GLARING problems. The romantic relationship (at least how they presented it) was EXTREMELY uninteresting. Like Napoleon literally just stares at her and she just kinda admits she F’d a guy to not get killed and that’s all the context given before they get married and “fall in love” everything proceeding that felt forced and inauthentic. The movie didn’t give me a reason believe that these people were actually in love. My second major criticism is the god awful pacing for some of the events. Like the entire with Egypt had literally no context or build up. One moment he’s in Egypt, the next moment they fire a shot at the pyramid, the next scene the battle is over and Napoleon just kinda admires a mummy and that’s it. Sudden, confusing and dull. That same type of occurrence happened with the scene in which Napoleon orders for the protesters to be killed. Why are they protesting? Who knows because the movie doesn’t bother to say and it all happens suddenly with no anticipation or suspense.
My favourite movie on that era is the Soviet adaptation of "War & Peace" from 1966/1967. It might just be the most artful, epic, sensitive period piece ever made.
Ridley Scott taught me that Napoleon used his artillery genius to bombard the pyramids because "fk egyptology, right?", that he was a depressing 50 years old war veteran at 26... and a wife beater. Because its such an irrelevant trait of character, especially these days, right Ridley?
it feels like we’ve come full circle back to his first film, The Duellists, which is still one of the most beautifully shot films I’ve ever seen. If you are planning on rewatching Kingdom of Heaven I strongly recommend (as others have said) the Directors Cut which is vastly superior and reinstates a cut plot line that adds significant development to certain characters. Unfortunately, I think it’s only available on Blu-ray (not streaming) but well worth hunting down.
I really hope they have a throwaway line somewhere about how annoying it is that officers keep dueling. Just a minor reference would make me ridiculously happy.
Looking forward to seeing this. Would love to see you do a review of the "Director's Cut" version of "Kingdom of Heaven" because it's a hiddem gem. Should be regarded as one of Ridley Scott's best IMO.
There are definitely many inaccuracies in this film but I think that has to do more with pacing and squeezing the massive amount of history that is Napoleons reign into 3 hour movie. I heard there is going to be a 4 and a half hour directors cut that will be on the Blu-ray… Point is this should have been a mini series. That would have allowed the history to be less condensed, and showed the separate aspects of Napoleons life in more detail. Still I’m very happy this film got made, and am definitely going to watch it in IMAX. I’m going to forgive the no doubt many inaccuracies, and look at this movie as more a tale of historic fiction with the focus being a character study.
This probably sounds really petty but as a Brit it was so annoying when they kept calling the British English
At this point it's not inaccuracies, it's fiction
@@HTS123RK Hmm… Just a inquiry are you from England or Scotland, Wales Northern Ireland?
@@blakelester1776 England
Most of the inacurracies is revolving napoleons entire soul around josephine and making him an uncharismatic moron that bumbled his way to power
To the people around him, Napoleon was anything but a closed book. He was a man of nervous energy, constantly pacing, talking, analyzing.
The movie felt like I was watching Instagram highlights of Napoleon's life.
Stanley Kubricks next project was going to be a film about Napoleon.
In a sort of museum/exposition of Kubricks stuff there was a big piece of furniture where he had files on EVERY day on Napoleons life. That was the level of his obsession. Too bad we never got to see that film.
originally Kubrick's Napoleon was going to be his next movie after 2001: A Space Odyssey. He was about to enter pre-production when the epic Waterloo (1970), starring Rod Steiger as Napoleon, failed at the box office. Kubrick then produced his 'quickie' A Clockwork Orange, then abandoned Napoleon altogether for Barry Lyndon. He reused some of the costumes and props he had made for Napoleon in BL. Steven Spielberg has Kubrick's Napoleon script and has been developing an epic mini-series from it in the last few years.
I'm always glad to see you sneaking in more praise for The Last Duel. Both film and book were absolutely phenomenal and seeing it get the recognition it deserves in Ridley's Canon is a welcome sight.
If I was in charge, I would delay putting this movie on streaming for a while. I think because the window between theatical release and release on streaming services has shrank that now some people are just waiting until movies hit streaming services to watch them. I would increase that window to try and get more people into the theaters.
Overall, Napoleon fails in almost all aspects. It fails in character development and plot explanation, as well as historical accuracy. It is cinematically beautiful, however, hence why I will not give it one star. But overall, a massive disappointment coming from Ridley Scott, a director I admire, about Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most fascinating men in history.
IF you´re into history, this is crap, if you´re into great movies like Gladiator, this is boring.
Ridley Scott + Jaquin Phoenix + historic epic = guaranteed fun. I can't wait to see this movie. Napoleon is the greatest general of all time in my opinion and it's about time we got a new blockbuster about him
Kingdom of Heaven just gets more and more relevant each year. What a brave film to make so soon after 9/11 and the start of the Iraq War. It truly is astoundingly beautiful and one of my favorites.
Agreed. It is eminently rewatchable too which is a sign of a great film. The difference between the theatrical release and the directors cut is significant.
If you are looking for a serious movie this is not it. Also the time that is spent on the relationship between napolean and his wife is exhausting. This historical epic movie is not like Kingdom of Heaven or Gladiator.
Your comment 'not everybody's gonna like this guy' indicates the level at which you are able to assess things like historical accuracy. How you can call this 'a damn good movie' is a total mystery.
The movie falls flat, people at the cinema were talking at the end asking how much time was left. When it ended most people were relieved. The last duel was much better
Cool Coraline shirt, Chris. A review of Coraline would be awesome.
The Director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is a masterpiece. It is so much better than the theatrical release. It is a must-see.
This
Just like most movies about French history, they’re all masterpieces.
How can i get it?
If you're going to rewatch Kingdom of Heaven, make sure its the Director's Cut or Roadshow Version. Incredible movie.
I second that!
Really underrated film, but confusing as hell. The director's cut helps it make more sense.
@@rocketassistedgoat1079knowing the history helps a lot. Makes everything come together.
@@misanthropicservitorofmars2116 that's bad you can't call a movie great if you need prereading to enjoy or understand it
@@nqobilengema2165 The HISTORY is so complicated, I had to watch the film about four times before it all came together. That's not Ridley's fault, it's the history of the region. Look at all the troglodytes who pick one side or the other in the recent Israeli vs Palestinian clash. You have to be blinkered one-eyed and delusional to do that.
Wow... It's the 1st time I COMPLETELY disagree with Chris about a movie! This review almost looks like a paid promotion, since it is totally NOT what that movie really is! And what is it? A COMPLETE DISAPPOINTMENT!!! Did Chris Stuckman watch the same movie as the rest of us...?
Chris...have you somehow lost 40 IQ points all of a sudden? this movie completely threw historical accuracy out the window and you are praising this train wreck? wtf happened????
This film is going to play out exactly like Kingdom of Heaven where the theatrical cut will be so-so, but everyone will be waiting for the already confirmed 4 hour director's cut that will make this film a masterpiece. I can't wait to see both versions.
Chris, please watch the Kingdom of Heaven director’s cut if you’re going to review that film. It changes it from a decent historical drama to an outright masterpiece.
If this movie is bad… There’s nothing we can do.
Dans mon esprit tout divague, je me perds dans tes yeux!
Meaning…..?
"Stares into the abyss"
It’s already being called historically inaccurate. So yeah it’s bad
It’s obviously bad and no doubt will be a political side swipe cause “dictators are bad” moralising.
i'm so confused that Chris got paid from an Apple?
Just saw it today. Honestly, thought it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I’m honestly in shock at how strange and disjointed this film was.
“Kingdom of Heaven” (Director’s cut) is a must watch! Truly an epic that wasn’t seen by many.
I find the recreations of the battles to be well done but as someone who heavily studied the French Revolution and Napoleon in university I found the interpersonal relationship moments to be lacking. Having a volatile relationship as Napoleon's primary source of motivation weakens him and weakens the ending where they hammer in just how many deaths he was responsible for.
A massive disappointment. I can’t agree with this review.
His character has been effectively dismantled in this production via a 21st century revisionist version of his life. Clearly the fact of his support of the reinstitution of slavery in France was enough to be dealt a modern day cancellation. His feats as a military leader,his great achievements in education and law in particular have been conveniently brushed aside….Ridley,how dare you.
I'm sorry this movie was flat out terrible. The movie was more about his relationship with his wife than it was about command and conquer. Big let down.
Chris… this movie is one of the main reasons people are slowing leaving the theaters. What a missed opportunity. I was sad at how disappointing this movie was.
I wasn’t feeling The Last Duel for the first 30 mins, but I continued and it turned into one of my favorite films of that year. I want to rewatch Kingdom of Heaven (Director’s Cut Roadshow Version as the first time seeing this) and even Robin Hood (Unrated) at some point.
Robin Hood wasn't that good but the directors cut of Kingdom of Heaven was one of Ridley Scott's best films.
@@Batman-jc5uc Robin Hood was mediocre at best
@@LuisSierra42 I didn't even think it was mediocre.
I really hated how much they focused on Napoleon's awkward relationships and barely looked into his military career and battlefield tactics...
You had me at Vanessa Kirby, she's stunning. She has that otherworldly kind of vintage/30s actress on a red carpet in a fur coat appeal especially in historic costumes. Kind of gives me Natalie Dormer as Anne Boleyn in The Tudors vibes. I wish she'd do some Tudor era or Shakespeare for TV/Film. Season 1 and 2 of The Crown were hard to watch with her and Claire Foy since they are both stunning to me. LOL.
She was terrific in it
Yes nail on head!!!!
The film is bad. At least from a french point of view. Everyone hate it here because there is a lot of historical errors and a lack of vision of what was really this man (and this woman). Nobody wants to see it. Ridley Scott is furious.
My only concern is the sheer amount of history compressed into a film. Early nap aloe on could easily be a brilliant four hour film
The point of the czar abandoning Moscow was to lure Napoleon into a trap. The movie failed to show how they had burned the fields and literally starved the French army. It wasn't because they didn't want to negotiate. It was because they didn't have to. The movie missed the mark at every turn. There was no narrative arc, just poorly connected setups to recreate classical paintings in a motion picture.
My wife fell asleep in the first 20 minutes. If you’re interested in why the French people loved Napoleon and why his men were willing to die for him, look elsewhere. First half of the movie paints Napoleon as an incel mumbling cuck who can hardly put a sentence together. Battle scenes were great though.
Aside from the visuals this movie was a sh*t 😐
He is portrayed as a weak pathetic man instead of the charismatic, strong, confident leader he was
Scott’s set pieces are always incredible, the scenery becomes another cast member. In these days of green screen propaganda we can’t take what he does for granted.
Great, AI can picture those with a detailed prompt, WE WENT TO SEE A FOKING MOVIE MATE.
@@pedrosanchez-br4br no idea what your trying to say
@@dreamsneezer8668 he's saying we went to see a story. not a bunch of mind-numbing cgi spectacle. you might as well just watch ai pictures
He used green screen and CGI a lot in this movie. What are you talking about?
@@M_k-zi3tn I’m not against using it, he did use it but the majority were practical effects versus an entire movie set against a green screen hanging in a warehouse.
Sometimes, I dont know how these guys are movie critics.
Why make a movie about arguably the greatest general in human history and make the main focus of the movie his marriage? By far the least compelling aspect of his life.
As a French, I was enraged at the end of the film. It's like seing the continuity of the British propaganda of the 1800'. Even the british historians recognise in the early 1990 that Napoléon wasn't that arrogant.
Nothing works, everything is shit.
Please, America, never retouch to our History. You don't deserve it.
Make fiction, you're good for that.
No British propaganda at all....I wanted RS to show the kicking Wellington truly gave him or Nelson battering his fleets on sea..maybe RS should've shown his reinstating of slavery or how Josephine lived off it...🇬🇧
why do they keep spending millions on historical authenticity to then hire an actor who looks nothing like the person they are playing, it takes me out of the movie mandela with idris elba being a prime example followed by denzil a black man playing a light skinned mixed race malcome x.
It's a shame that this movie won't lead to a sort of biopic series revolving around the French Revolution and the rise and fall of Napoleon. I would love to see a movie condensing the life and achievements of Thomas-Alexandre Dumas made by Ridley Scott- his life is just as fascinating as Napoleon's and I feel like there would be potential in a crossover movie series that would cover him and other important figures in both Napoleon's army and the French Revolution. The French Revolution as a whole is a treasure trove of drama.
To be fair, General Dumas’ life was very far from being as exiting as Napoleon’s and he didn’t achieve anything that would come close to Napoleon’s foot little toe. He was just a general in revolutionary France like hundreds more, and he never did anything of value but following orders.
I would disagree. Dumas held major commands and did well. He wasn't "one among hundreds more", but his career was cut short, and I don't see what you could make of it. These days, the whole movie would probably be about racism and how much adversity and oppression Dumas faced. @@brunol-p_g8800
I dont know if someone has said this already but AMAZING shirt you are wearing in this video, Chris! All the best!
Unless you know a bit about Napoleon, the movie will confuse you. For a movie almost 155 minutes long, much of the truly fascinating aspect of his life was ignored. Glad I saw it, so I recommend that you DO NOT.
I just got out of the theater. I have to say I was thoroughly bored for most of the movie. I literally fell asleep a couple of times
Very excited to see this. I personally love Kingdom of Heaven, the extended director's cut is easily one of my all time favorites, anyone who hasn't seen it should go watch.
can i ask what kingdom of heaven has to do w this ? im confused
@@kio7560 Chris mentioned it in his review and wanting to rewatch it as it was also directed by Ridley Scott...
And it suffered in the box office because of the edits he was forced to make. So I wonder if some of the criticism Napolean is facing would be corrected in a Director's Cut. It seems like Ridley Scott is often pushed to cut out content. I know Bladerunner was one though I think he was forced to edit/remove scenes from Prometheus that led to a lot of confusion/criticism. Not saying having more content would mean that he never makes poor films. Something like Promethus probably would've bombed regardless.
But sometimes when it's slightly below essentially flawless, it ends up he was forced to remove scenes.
Kingdom of Heaven will end up being a great parallel to this movie I’d presume. The theatrical cut of kingdom of Heaven was a structural mess, confusing and poorly paced. The directors cut turns that movie into an all time great period piece epic.
As someone who loves Kingdom of Heaven, I was disappointed by Napoleon 😞
I'm sorry, but this is not a good movie.
The scenes are very disconnected with almost no build up.
The Napoleon we got looks like how a british propagandist of his era would depict him. The sex scenes, the jokes, the clumsiness , the stupidness, everything is made to turn him into a fool. I'm surprised Ridley didn't pick a short guy to play him.
Where is the the charismatic leader he was ? Seeing how uncharismatic he is, I have no idea why soldiers sent by the king would rally to him, especially the was his speech was delivered.
And Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor, but he is good at playing melancholic psychopaths, not charismatic military geniuses.
And the battle of Austerlitz was so bad for a battle still studied today. You don't see Napoleon as a military genius, the enemy commanders are just stupid.
But of course, they spend the most time on Waterloo, as any anglo saxon movie should.
Vanessa Kirby was great though.
This sounds very much like a typical flat Hollywood drama. Napoleon had a massive influence on the political and cultural landscape of europe and was part of the Enlightenment.
I can't tell people enough to watch (or read) different reviews and not just one by your favorite critic. Been watching Chris for a long time. The interesting part to me is when I have a complete different view than Chris. Such is the case with Napoleon. Yes, the technical aspects of the movie are great. But the rest is almost insulting to history and the people long gone. (Yes, I am European) The critical drinker has the best review out there (and I rarely agree with the drinker's views)
Movies this good? This good? The whole movie is just a bunch of clips thrown together, there is no consistent narrative in any part of the film. The score is weak and every actor was told to look sad, and that was it. Throughout the 3 hours I had no idea what Ridley wanted me to feel, the battles look like shit its just "now this side attacks, now that''. Ridley has been an arrogant bitch for a very ling time, but this might be his worst film ever.
This was the first time i disagreed with your review ever. Massive flaws in the movie and it was terribly boring.
He doesn’t like to say negative things now.
As a big Ridley Scott fan, I will definitely go see this movie. Also, go watch The Las Duel if you haven't seen it. This movie deserves every ounce of recognition.
If you want to remain a fan, I would recommend you skip this.
There is no spoiler in this text : Lol this film is boring as hell, probably the first time i almost fell asleep in the theater. The lovestory with Jospehine is flat, there are only very few war/fighting scene that are not even good, the FX and special effect looks fake as hell (especialy the explosions and the smoke), from a historic POV it is a DISASTER ( I invite you to look at the interviews, and see what Scoot answer was when historians told him it was completely wrong). I still would rcommand you to watch it , because everyone need to make his own opinion. Just wait for it to be out on streaming sites , because it ain't worth your money, for a 2H30 perspective of "I'm Ridley Scott , an old film maker of 85yo , and everyone need to say yes and agree with what i want to do."
Does Chris even review movies anymore? He just points some story elements here and there, makes some vague statements that could be interpreted either way... I don't know, it sounds like he just doesn't care.
Maybe just because I’m a big fan of the time period but I really wasn’t a fan. The movie just cuts out so much of his life. It sounds weird to think that a 2:30 min movie was 4 hours too short, but that’s how I feel.
Man I forgot he did Kingdom of Heaven. I fucking LOVE that movie (especially the Director's Cut, way better than the Theater run). So eager to see Napolean.
Would love you making a video about Kingdom of Heaven, specifically the Director's Cut. The things they cut from Theatrical Release cut SO MUCH character stuff. Also, Edward Norton is GOAT for his role as the king of Jerusalem.
I'll have to check out the directors version
He might not be my favorite director but I certainly like the highest % of his movies over most others. Dude hardly misses. Can't wait to see this.
Prometheus was ass tho
Historical epics like Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer and now Ridley Scott’s Napoleon, are definitely worth watching on the big screen!
Can't wait to see this in IMAX.
Allegedly, a 4 hour long uncut version is coming out in a few months, gonna wait for that version.
The title: Napoleon
The “Actual” title: Josephine the cuckhold of Napoleon