@@firedestination1935 --- SORRY, DUDE, BUT YOU ARE WRONG . . . A film is a STORY told in images; only two Scott films stand re-watching, "The Duellists" (1977) and "Matchstick Men" (2003), because they have a story to tell; otherwise, just pretty pictures. When was the last time you watched "Blade Runner" (1982) for the story, rather than a given scene?
@@marianotorrespico2975 I'm not a fan of Ridley Scott, I watched Napoleon and I hated the film, the first half was horrible in my opinion, but I was pointing out that when someone is so successful, hes not that stupid (also, Napoleon is the only film from Scott I watched, I didn't even watch the gladiator)
@@firedestination1935 --- SUCCESS IS NOT THE ARTISTIC PROBLEM . . . Mr. Scott is not unintelligent, but he is INDIFFERENT to the NARRATIVE WORDS, to the STORY told in pictures. Scott's indifference to the substance of a script leaves no reason to re-watch his films beyond their visual beauty, try that with his crusade movie, wherein European Westerners (in U.S. English) ARGUE their right to be in Palestine, in the south-west of Asia. You missed NOTHING by skipping "Gladiator", the script is redolent with Modern century anachronisms of language and social concepts, AND the "hero" (who is a slave) kills the Roman Emperor in single combat and then gives a Greek speech about the Fraternity of Man, and lives to tell.
A movie could have been made focusing on napoleans major battle victories where napolean is in the background as a character. The napoleonic wars were complicated.
The Duelists is an astonishing film and one of my all-time favourites (I have two DVDs of it - only one of which I ever lend out). One of my main problems with Napoleon is that it depicts so many needlessly inaccuracies - when shooting a scene it would surely have taken the same amount of effort to actually get the historical details right as to not do so. it appears that the production team (and RS himself) simply didn't care about this and decided that portraying such important historical events with a degree of authenticity just didn't matter. Indeed, he must have known that with the title "Napoleon" this film would attract a LOT of people with an interest in the period and/or the man himself- if he didn't want us to get sniffy about the facts then perhaps he should have given the called the film something else.
Scott has lost his mind with this movie. The French critics are absolutely right. Making a movie about Napoleon with an American accent is just idiotic. Completely ruins it for me there's no way I could sit through this without laughing. Next he needs to make a movie about George Washington with a Chinese accent.
No offense but you have a very low movie iq. First off English is such a common earth language nowadays, the most popular so that’s one reason, for adaptation because it is in fact a movie for customers to enjoy and second more importantly it’s really not that big of a deal. Words mean the same thing in any language. I’m always honest. It’s the best movie ever made, especially the last half hour of it. An example of a terrible movie that was praised a lot was aqua man a few years ago. That’s literally the worst movie ever made. I fell asleep because it was so boring the first 40 minutes. It was terrible. Also the will Ferrell movie about Sherlock Holmes was also EXTREMELY underrated. Many people said it sucked when it was great because it was so funny. I enjoy laughing.
This to me reminds me of those parodies, or comedy films where they show a big hotshot hollywood director with a huge budget making a complete hash of historical events. The 4 hour version has napoleon driving off in the sunset being chased by british tanks!
Every historical epic Scott has made is full of ridiculous inacuracies. He clearly doesn't care about history, all he cares about is spectacle and a chance to direct battle scenes, because he does them well and it sells tickets.
@@LtColwtf Yes, but his target audience is folk who are enamored with explosions and blood spatter. Today's audiences are the equivalent of a dog watching the TV screen; easily entertained by motion and sound.
Loved your approach, thoughts and reaction on this topic, Dr Parenque. I completely agree with you and as a history enthusiast I appreciate Sir Ridley Scott's historical films as well as the work by credited historians and academics whose contributions make to the general public. History lovers are aware that Hollywood films are not documentaries hence we cannot expect absolute historical accuracy but these magnificent productions may as well be enjoyed due to the fact that they provide good entertainment which may spark some curiosity and interest in the public to do some research. Because this is history, it's important that film directors work in hand with historians and experts like yourself since they are portraying historical figures and events that actually existed and happened, not random fictional characters in a fantasy film. Anyway, toxic people will always spread hate and negativity everywhere regardless if they are right or wrong. Looking forward to watch this film and know your thought about it. Thank you so much🙏🏻
The end of Gladiator was a joke. He ended up making a point that was the exact opposite of what actually happened at that point in time of the Roman Empire. Ridley Scott Was not making a movie about history. He was remaking a 1960's movie called "The Fall of the Roman Empire". He went away from the ending that the original movie had because he wanted a happier more uplifting end to his movie. Unfortunately the actual history of that period in time is not happy or uplifting. The passing of the Empire from Marcus Aurelius to his son Commodus was the point that marked the end of the Five Good Emperors and the Pax Romana. Prior to this the Emperors had chosen an able successor to take on the mantle of the empire. Nerva chose Trajan. Trajan chose Hadrian, Hadrian chose Antoninus Pius and Pius chose Marcus Aurelius. This system worked well and a series of competent, sane emperors were left in charge of the Roman Empire for almost 90 years from 96 to 180. Aurelius went back to choosing his son to succeed him. He was co-emperor for three years before he died trying to bring the boy up to speed. Unfortunately as has turned out in a lot of hereditary monarchies , Commodus, if not mad before, was not up to having this much power and became mad as emperor. His death was followed by the year of five emperors and chaos in Rome. The Empire became little more than a military dictatorship run by whatever general could grasp and hold power. Scott ignored this reality, the movie he was copying, and the huge body of history to end with the sister of commodus supporting Pertinax and the senate to reestablish the Roman Republic. Unfortunatelly none of that happened. Commodus's sister had been killed by him a couple years into his reign for plotting against. him. Pertinax was killed by the Praetorian guard soon after he seized power and the guard then auctioned off the Emperorship to the highest bidder. Septemius Severus eventually fell out as the next emperor and there was no one actually trying to reestablish some sort of Roman Republic at that point in time. If you are going to make a movie about an historical figure your primary audience is going to be people interested in that person and history. They are likely to know something about that person. If you want to rip that person down, use the information available. There is plenty on Napoleon. Plenty. Don't make up some strange random story about him. It won't go over well. I was a big baseball fan. I read a biography on Babe Ruth. A movie starring John Goodman in 1992 The Babe came out and I went to see it. Babe Ruth was a fascinating driven character and one of the greatest baseball players of all time. He would have been ,for me a fascinating subject . He played America's past time from WWI till 1935 through an interesting period in American history. Instead they made a stupid movie that included every made up ridiculous Paul Bunyonesque story about babe ruth and put it in their movie. They had the legend of him popping up to second base but hitting it so high that he made it home base before the ball came down. This was a tale told about The Babe, but not possible, not true. Ridiculous. That is sort of the feeling this movie of Napoleon has left me with. Ridley has made his own story only this time it's not just the ending he has changed. He has changed the character and ability of Napoleon to service his plot. He covers a wide historical time from the beginning of the french revolution to the end of Napoleon's reign and yet I come away with no idea how he came to power, mostly, or why he was successful, or why he was sent to Egypt or how he revolutionized warfare and defeated all of Europe after france had been bankrupt by the Bourbons and the reign of terror had pretty well killed the entire officer class of the french army. I just come away disappointed and angry that Ridley Scott had so little regard for the actual history and for what actually happened. If you want to have a made up story in this time frame, do so, but don't use characters as well known as Napoleon.
Scott and the rest are British, and they have a long term negative view of the French. He made a mountain into a mole hill, since Napoleon was a mountain of a man.
I am going to see the film on Wednesday. Originally, I was quite happy to cut Scott some slack as it is a film, not a documentary, but there was no need to be rude to historians - okay, none of us were there, but many people have done work on various aspects of the story and for myself now, I am more inclined to be critical in terms of he could have done a better job. Kellerman's charge at Marengo would be so much better if done properly, rather than a simple charge against Grenadiers about 25 ranks deep in open order! The Austerlitz part is just silly, but that is a great scene at the end with the Dragoon and his flag going through the ice, but why not get the helmet crest and flag pattern right. It is not that hard. I suspect it is going to be bits of the story hanging off his relationship with Josephine, which is going to make it very unsatisfactory in telling us about a view of Napoleon. As for the Sharon Stone scene, it still make me laugh when Josephine tells Napoleon that he will get a surprise as I expect her to reveal she is a bloke. As for Phoenix, the youthful air seems to be there up to meeting Josephine, but thereafter, it is more a poor, dour impersonation of Rod Steiger.
I noticed french troops in the Russia scenes with white cockards of the restoration.....obviously just filmed the return from Elba scenes, same as using the same field for waterloo as the borodino with the trenches. Sloppy, rushed mess of a film.
You know, the honest truth is that they are jealous. Had they had the greatest military genius since Alexander, or better yet, of all time, you bet this movie would be very, very different. It just pains them he was French (actually Italian) and not English. Napoleon was a very complex individual. He was so much more than a "mere brute". Same as with Alexander and Caesar, his army loved him to bits and would have gone to the end of the known world had he asked them. Napoleon is hands down the greatest military leader in history. That man was a God of War, the equivalent of 50,000 men on the battlefield. No general comes even near him.
YOU ARE GO GREAT Dr. Estelle!!! It would certainly be nice if the writers and directors that develop scripts like this were as keen on getting the details correct as the costume designers and set designers and armorers are at getting their contributions as accurate as possible!
Honestly part of me thinks he’s still salty because of the criticism he faced for the House of Gucci movie. How it portrayed her as a victim and how other parts of the story are inaccurate. He should know as a director, especially for historical movies, you’re going to face criticism. And when it comes to historical movies, I think there needs to be criticism from historians and other academics. Because most will take the movies as truth and not know the true story. Historians and historical advisors will help us understand the story and point us to resources to learn more.
I’ve been seeing and reading a lot about the film these past days. One thing people forget is the script comes from David Scarpa and Scott is only filming the scenario. It seems that the way it’s written is giving the negative image the brits had of Napoleon, at the time. I don’t think Scott his a master when it comes to subtle subject that implies emotions. Sure he is good in big battle scenes but don’t forget he comes from the world of publicity ; you shoot short stories with beautiful images. As for history they should have been closer to the truth, if there is an historic character that the french know well it’s Napoléon. They learn his life in school and even military schools still study his battle tactics. P.S. 1 : In promotion clips done in France Scott tells in two different clips that there were 10,000 books written about Napoléon. And a YT channel made Scott and Phoenix visit the military museum in Paris were you have plenty of artefacts about Napoléon. It was the first visit for both of them (they should have been there many times before shooting the film!). In the video of a few minutes Phoenix his a bit annoying, saying «oh, it’s a copy» for almost everything he sees. P.S. 2 : On a movie site in France the film has 2.4/5, which is really low for a film by Scott (a lot of critics absolutely love Scott’s filmography) and it’s really low for a film about Napoleon.
I didn't see the movie yet so I avoid discussions and reviews on social media as much as possible. I'm curious yet very suspicious of this movie, because I admit it, I'm a Napoleonic Era nerd who read too many books. I'm not an expert and I know I wasn't there, but I'm a little psychorigid when it comes to historical accuracy (and I know there's no such thing, it's all very subjective). So if I like the movie and feel I've been quite entertained, it will be a victory for Ridley Scott! We'll see!
Every movie is going to have historical inaccuracies in order to streamline the story. That's inevitable. However, they're something you try to work around as much as you can. Scott and consorts seem to just want to make a "fun film" and nothing else. Completely opposite to something like Oppenheimer, where Nolan seemed motivated to tell us something about the central figure. A great example is the alleged piramid scene: apparently they just threw it in because it made them laugh due to it's ridiculous nature. But this wasn't some randomn dick-joke from Napoléon's secretary or such that they made up, they seem to have depicted it as an actual MASSIVE event in history....while it never happened.... Imagine a historical film about the Pelopponesian war.... and all of the sudden a couple of dinosaurs appear cuz.... why not?
The controversy should not have happened ; I'm french and I watched the videos of the Musée de l'Armée about the trailers a few weeks ago; they're not about any kind of bad historical accuracy at all; truly, it's the complete opposite: the historian, who - by the way - IS doing her job, is genuinely and mostly AMAZED by the details, the costumes, the dedication of the people who made it; once or twice, she says things like "we have no historical evidence about this tiny thing, Scott HAD to choose and to make something up to fill the gaps, and that's perfectly fine", and of course, that direct fire on the pyramids never occured (too far and totally useless), but as a cinematic effect, it's a thing. The interviewer, albeit an historian (and subsequently presumably serious), chose to only point this as criticisms, not talking about the good part, and Scott, knowing nothing about said videos, was genuinely upset (he was criticised a lot in the past, and, as a regular "once bitten twice shy" Brit, somewhat cautious about french reactions; you're right about this: we, French people, sometimes don't need a reason to bite hard). I have not seen the movie yet, maybe I'll hate the movie as much as I hate Prometheus, Covenant and House of Gucci, maybe I'll love it like I love Alien, Blade Runner and The Last Duel... But that will be me and only me, no offense intended to good old Ridley...
Oui, enfin, il y a quand même beaucoup de choix très conscients dans ce film qui pissent à la raie de la réalité historique - on va se mettre au niveau du cher vieux grand homme, hein - d'une manière plus francophobe que distrayante. Mine de rien. L'excuse de la fiction est commode mais passablement malhonnête quand on considère l'obsession du réalisateur pour les détails dont le grand public se serait passé éperdument ; il n'a pas, que je sache, choisi de faire un film sur une créature d'épopée dans quelque pays imaginaire, mais bien de consacrer une œuvre de deux heures à une figure historique qui déchaîne les passions depuis deux siècles...
As for the inaccuracies: as long as it amazes kids who'll be interested in History like Gladiator did, and the French media choke on it, I'm all for it! On the other hand,my mind tickled when he said 400 books, I had more in mind like 20 times more... But maybe that kind of reaction of mine suggests I need to work on getting a life too 😂
Watched it. Absolute joke. Like the guy had been paid by the British monarchy to ridicule Napoleon on all possible fronts. He ridiculed himself and his actors by a factor of 10.
I haven’t seen the interview in question but even though I wasn’t there I think it is very rude of Sir Ridley to tell Dan Snow, or anyone else, to get a life. (I get told that a lot, to which I can only reply, “It’s a little late for that”. Sadly, I am 66, and that laudable goal still eludes me). In any case, one doesn’t need to have been present at Marengo, for example, to know that Napoleon did not lead a cavalry charge, though as it’s a movie we cannot rule out the possibility that it occurs in his head.. I hope he does take you up on your offer to make a film about Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici based on your book, which I am currently reading, based on your recommendation. Rather like those monarchs and, still more, Napoleon, you excel at self-promotion, Madame. BTW, I note that The Guardian has awarded Napoleon ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I can’t find the full interview, which may have been removed. (The link below the description didn’t take me to it) but I’ve watched a brief clip from which it appears Sir Ridley’s disparaging comments about historians are not aimed at Dan Snow in person. It would be interesting to know which specific biographies he read. Some of the early ones are commonly seen a flawed - the memoir of his secretary, De Bourienne, for example. While he was ‘there’ - or thereabouts - at least some of the time, he couldn’t possibly have observed all the events. More importantly, he may well have had reasons to present Napoleon and various incidents in a certain way, possibly exaggerating his own role. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the case - I haven’t read that book - but merely that caution should be exercised when reading books by contemporaries. He would be on much firmer ground, I feel, were he discussing, say, Alexander the Great, as all of the ancient sources were based on the biography written by Ptolemy, which is now lost. The material for Napoleon is much more extensive, and not all of it reliable.
When Ridley Scott said there are 400 books on Napoleon, he must have actually meant the true figure - there are as many as _400,000_ books. He is the most-biographied person in history. And we still don't have a consensus on him. At this point, we never will. So you could look at the movie from that perspective. One perspective of the man among a great many.
As a history nerd, my initial response to a filmmaker (making a *historical* movie) telling us to "get a life"...was this: "Do your job." If you're making a historical movie about one of the best documented and most epic figures in history, why not just TELL THE STORY without adding a bunch of "artistic license". This is why I'm refusing to bother with this movie. I know it will annoy me more than entertain me 😅
Good for you. I guess, if one knows nothing of the events and characters depicted, it may be seen as some generic historical epic... Although I thought it dragged often and wasn't very cohesively put together overall.
I just have seen the movie and compared to the trailer, it is a little desapointing. Is it a common rule to make a trailer different than the movie ? Some discussions aren't so interesting, Campaign of Italy is forgotten. Austerlitz battle is nice but inacurate as the ice trap was only for the few escaping. NApoleon from Scott misses some ".grandeur". Looks like ridley does not like Napoleon that much. I don't understand why he says he or they have read 400 books about Napoleon if it is to do almost a fiction.
This is like Argo. Ben Afflect took one of the proudest moments in Canadian history changed it to the Americans being the hero and accepted an Academy Award! We wept in Canada and no one gave a s%$t!
I think its a filmmaker his right to be creative. But when making a movie about historical figures i think Hollywood should be honest about where they changed things and where they where historical accurate.
Ridley Scott is 85YO. He does not have time for historical truth. This is sad, but this is how things are. And, really, who will give 100 million USD to a historian to make a movie about Napoleon? Nobody will. But Ridley Scott, as we can see, can rise 100 million USD for such project. that is why is HIS project.
Ridley Scott stopped making anything great after Kingdom of Heaven . And he's gotten progressively worse as time went on. Here the maxim of making 3 maybe 4 great movies and then go grow tomatoes in the country has not been applied, I'm thinking his ego makes these bombs and he expects adulation no matter the outcome but I say 🥓&🍳 have more appeal than his latest fumblings. Funny thing is he was there in the Duelists and that was a brilliant movie.
@@falconeshield Yup different strokes for different folks. It was a masterpiece in filming, yes it was slow and it was a Joseph Conrad story done on a tight budget, but it was deep and imo masterfully acted by the two main actors Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel, definitely not an action movie but a slice of time instead. Did you know Scott was in advertising before, I didn't until just now. Lol learned something interesting today.
Scott is just like Oliver Stone and his movie JFK.... No regard for historical accuracy. I think when you make a movie about a significant historical figure, you have an obligation to be as accurate as possible. Otherwise, the public gets a distorted or even false view of the person and the events.
Ridley Scott is simply not a documentarian, and is essentially a dramatist. Dan Snow is a British snob historian who tends to repeat popular modernist rhetoric and often misses on wider perspectives. Virtually all English-speaking (and reading) academics tend towards anti-European in their perspective of figures like Napoleon. This stems from the long standing English bias against continental perspectives, so it is no surprise. What this film might do is allow a wider discussion to lend more dimensions to events and figures beyond the English hemisphere.
I must disagree here.I have been reading about Napoleon since the age of 10.In fact,British historians have written some of the BEST and some of the most UNBIASED books on Napoleon. And very appreciative of him. One recent example of that is Andrew Roberts book " Napoleon the Great ". Is now available as pocket-book. Before that,some examples: Napoleon by Vincent Cronin; Napoleon by Felix Markham; trilogy by Michael Broers; ..... Older books: Napoleon by Holland Rose; The last phase by Lord Rosebery.( reprinted ).
It's troubling to see movie directors interpret the past in a way that aligns with their beliefs. Riddley Scott is a movie director who is not educated in historical study. He is not fit to take a delicate matter (history) into his own hands. While the common perception of history is that it refers to past events and a historian's interpretation thereof, it can be more accurately portrayed as an ongoing constructive process actively undertaken by historians in the present. Therefore, trained individuals must be tasked to give us the past, or the un-trained will provide us with a fiasco.
Ridley Scott and Scarpa depict Napoleon as a.....weirdo, which is very far from the truth and certainly historically inaccurate! Napoleon was the one who transformed Europe in so many aspects, like his civil code, metric system, political reforms (meritocracy) military innovations that even modern armies in the present era copy! Even the numerical system in the streets was his idea! All these brilliant achievements are totally missing from the movie and the only thing one can see is his eternal desire to f@#%# Josephine. What about the battle scenes? Except from Austerlitz which is indeed very good, all other major Napoleonic battles are either totally absent (where is his campaign in Italy, where is Eylau, where is Borodino, where is the Berezina crossing?) or poorly presented like Waterloo! Waterloo battle scenes include a few cannon shots and Ney's disastrous cavalry charge and nothing else!!!! There is Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte (where the French almost seized victory), there is the bloodbath at Plancenoit village against the Prussians......we saw NOTHING of that. In my opinion except from the costumes (extremely accurate) and cinematography.....this movie is very mediocre and above all an insult to a major historical figure who gave his name to a whole era!
To be fair, this was the movie NOBODY was waiting for. I kind of think anybody in France would know what Ridley Scott would do to it. And everybody else is like "the french won battles??"
@@dicezart9667 They didn't 'fold' as much as their government betrayed them by granting full power to wannabe-dictator Philippe Pétain, though. Meanwhile, the French managed to set up the Résistance.
I think we can agree that Barbie was way more historically accurate than this monstrosity, basically a Brit's prejudiced view on an important historical figure that wasn't Winston Churchill. He's become a small-minded little Brexiteer.
I’m going to wait till you have watched it. I bet you won’t be so kind to Ridley Scott after you watch it. It’s not just historical accuracy I have a problem with…
I am your new subscriber from india. Because i love your Napoleon Trailer 2 reaction video.... That is perfect Explanation...... Highly highly Excited for Napoleon movie❤❤❤❤❤
I suppose with the epic job of making the movie, the fact that he read two books is amazing but then maybe that's why you hire more experts to help you construct a story. Then again, how do you write a script with so many cooks in the kitchen often arguing over what was correct when nobody knows for sure. But i get that historians will have the best theories, unless they have their own narrative and agender. I know that in the world of archeology it is very corrupt and suffer from bad politics. When people like Graham Hancock reveals evidence that human civilization goes back tens of thousands of years earlier than we thought. The hate and cover ups from the mainstream is unreal because they don't want their precious work to be wrong.
Am i the only one who notices Marie Antoinette has to kneel at the guillotine instead of being strapped to a plank and slid into place? We saw the film Thanksgiving day. If you had no knowledge of Napoleon's life or basic French history, you will certainly be lost. It jumps from event to event with little to no explanation. It also recycles music from the Marie Antoinette film which is distracting. And Piaf accompanies Marie Antoinette to the guillotine? I guess for me the whole thing is disconcerting. It would make you think it always rains in France. Malmaison is always gloomy and grey. I wanted to see it because i love the history of the period. I didn't learn anything new but it certainly did cause me to get out my books a read again for reference.
Little man wanted to cut a great man down to size. Thank God Rid didn't make this movie when Joe Pesci was still in his forties. Then again, that might have made for a more entertaining movie.
The Harry Potter series of books held no interest for me. But they got a lot of people to read who otherwise wouldn't have done so. Same thing with historical accuracy in a movie. If it raises interest in learning about history then it's ok with me.
That was a bad comment from him, not sure why he said that. And he should probably just apologize. I believe a Hollywood Director has the right and needs to condense battles for example - they've often raged on for days and were extremely complex - the way he won The Battle of Austerlitz had a lot of strategic steps that would be difficult to follow for the audience. Even though - there is a 4 hour Director's Cut coming to AppleTV which will be much more in-depth that I am looking forward to. Hope we'll see a review of it from you :)
Funny you should mention filmmakers and making the same film over and over again. The great French Filmmaker, Jean Renoir, once said, "A Director makes only one movie in his life. Then he breaks it into pieces and makes it again." Ridley Scott loves controversy and bombastic statements. Thanks for the nice reaction!!!!!! Nick Stasnopolis
Absolutely anti French nd anti napoleon in particular.the people who published napoleon personal letters in news paper Ridley Scott seems to be of the same category.
Couldn’t even finish watching it, it was that awful. Costumes were good but not accurate as well, especially Marie Antoinette. This should have been advertised as a comedy.🤦♀️😂
Scott sound like a MAGA Republican. I am getting tired of all this anti France propaganda. Of course it got worse with the Brexit nonsense but It took even more extreme proportion since the start of the invasion of Ukraine.
Almost every person who encountered Napoléon wrote memoirs, from well-known writers like Chateaubriand, Goethe to officers like Grand Marshal Bertrand, general Marbot to Napoléon's ennemies or ex ennemies like Hyde de Neuville, doctor O'Meara, the little Betsy Balcombe to Napoléon's servants like Constant, Marchand or Ali. So, we have a little idea of how he was, even if certains of these memoirs must be taken carefully ( those of Barras or Bourrienne for example since they had a prejudice against Napoléon).
@@MajorDenisBloodnok Yes but it is still an observational opinion. If each person who knows you were to write an essay about you they would all differ. Anyways Scott knew that he could not make Kubrick’s version so he opted for an artistic version of the man not a factual one. I thought the film was great.
@@rancosteel Well, to each his own... IMO, the movie reduces Napoléon to a not very bright, violent, un charismatic old teenager who has issues with mummy and who has a toxic relationship with his unfaithful wife who happens to be a wore. At the end, one wonder how this man succeeded to be so powerful... And apart from the historical inaccuracies, the movie is really bad: scenes without links, no developed secondary characters, the battles are terribly made (they are historicaly wrong and don't give the idea of the scale of those battles) and worst, the movie is boring, no epic breath. Scott even manages to screw up the scene of the meeting between Napoléon and the royal troops in 1815. This scene is a dream for a scriptwriter, too good to be true and yet, no tension, no emotion! Compare it with the same scene in the 1970 Waterloo...
@@MajorDenisBloodnok I don’t agree. He told the critics to “fuck off and get a life”. The movie is a tour de force art house film about a blood thirsty man who was an inspiring greeting card writer prior to his military engagements. His “love letters” to his wife were x-rated minus the profanity. He wasn’t a cuck because screwed other women while married. Anyway, the word is Spielberg is making Kubrick’s 12 part series for HBO that is suppose to be very accurate.
I have enjoyed His previous Works as The Gladiator & Kingdom of Heaven & Black Hawk Down & even when he was partly part of the TV Series "The Man In The High Castle" But..I watched this on the Big Screen & I was Bored out of my mind..The Only deceant Part Was Toulon...but Other than That Total Garbage Movie..Worse than the Latest Movie with Daemon & Driver in it. This Movie Screams "I am an Old English Movie Creator, whom Doesnt Like History & I Espcially Dislikes the French & I am running out of Time, want to do Much as possible"
Please just speak to the main issue, is this movie in anyway representative of the actual history, the answer is no Joaquin Phoenix is not Napoleon, his early portrayal is a joke, he looks fifty not thirty and lacks energy and drive. This is deliberate he is a deconstructed Napoleon. Wellington is a John Bull caricature again nothing like the original historical character. So we have a strong female character and diverse placement at the most inappropriate locations. The Battles are Austerlitz = icecapades Waterloo = Trench Warfare with a brawl at the end of it. Why show the Battles at all if you are going to make no attempt to portray them in a accurate way. So this is a typical Hollywood movie, the history books are thrown out of the window, and we have large Hollywood ego's imposing their own political agenda's on their project's. Forget this movie, read a book on the period. Or if you must watch a movie, the 1970 movie Waterloo is worth your time, and attempts to follow the pages of history books, not the self indulgent ravings of Hollywood celebs.
@@jackdoyle7453 If he meant the Charlton Heston version then yes for the most part I would agree although there was still some cheesy parts to it. The 2019 version of Midway that had one of the Jonas brothers in it was just bad. Like pathetically bad
@RichardSchiffman-jn1ds According to History Buffs, a TH-cam channel that researchers the movie and historical events, the last movie made about the attempted invasion of Midway during World War II, was pretty accurate. There is also another animated historical account done about this event that also supports this claim. If you have an issue about the film not being historically accurate, then take it up with them. I really don't care or have the time to dispute it. Cheers... th-cam.com/video/4qQim09n6mY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6yKPUnUjatJTR6dr
This movie is very anti British too,this looks like a boring soap not a movie.Ridley Scott has not made a decent film in decades.He did a great Napoleonic film in tge 70s, The Duelists.
Come on people! It’s a freaking movie! It’s not a doctoral student’s dissertation. It’s not supposed to be accurate, it’s supposed to entertain. Again, it’s a MOVIE! Is it accurate? No! Does it entertain? Yes!
![[UNCUT] "บอสณวัฒน์" แฉ! แหล่งซุกเงินแก๊งบอส ขยันผิดที่ไม่กี่ปีก็เข้าคุก l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l17ต.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/BL56qIfXYZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Ridley Scott: ego, size of a planet; brain, size of a marshmallow…
Are you a famous film director? Who did at least five great movies in the last 20 years?
@@firedestination1935All it takes is one bad movie.
@@firedestination1935 --- SORRY, DUDE, BUT YOU ARE WRONG . . . A film is a STORY told in images; only two Scott films stand re-watching, "The Duellists" (1977) and "Matchstick Men" (2003), because they have a story to tell; otherwise, just pretty pictures. When was the last time you watched "Blade Runner" (1982) for the story, rather than a given scene?
@@marianotorrespico2975 I'm not a fan of Ridley Scott, I watched Napoleon and I hated the film, the first half was horrible in my opinion, but I was pointing out that when someone is so successful, hes not that stupid (also, Napoleon is the only film from Scott I watched, I didn't even watch the gladiator)
@@firedestination1935 --- SUCCESS IS NOT THE ARTISTIC PROBLEM . . . Mr. Scott is not unintelligent, but he is INDIFFERENT to the NARRATIVE WORDS, to the STORY told in pictures. Scott's indifference to the substance of a script leaves no reason to re-watch his films beyond their visual beauty, try that with his crusade movie, wherein European Westerners (in U.S. English) ARGUE their right to be in Palestine, in the south-west of Asia.
You missed NOTHING by skipping "Gladiator", the script is redolent with Modern century anachronisms of language and social concepts, AND the "hero" (who is a slave) kills the Roman Emperor in single combat and then gives a Greek speech about the Fraternity of Man, and lives to tell.
The very best Napoleonic movie ever was Ridley Scott "The duelists" and it didn't even show Napoleon at all. A true masterpiece.
yes agree with Caradine and Keitel and the travel across Europe
A movie could have been made focusing on napoleans major battle victories where napolean is in the background as a character. The napoleonic wars were complicated.
Glad you mentioned such a masterpiece, like _The Duelists._
And the same guy goes on to make an unintentional joke of a film, _The Duel._
And had the Mollo brothers as costume and weapons consultants, along with a Conrad short story to supply a ready made dramatic plot.
The Duelists is an astonishing film and one of my all-time favourites (I have two DVDs of it - only one of which I ever lend out). One of my main problems with Napoleon is that it depicts so many needlessly inaccuracies - when shooting a scene it would surely have taken the same amount of effort to actually get the historical details right as to not do so. it appears that the production team (and RS himself) simply didn't care about this and decided that portraying such important historical events with a degree of authenticity just didn't matter. Indeed, he must have known that with the title "Napoleon" this film would attract a LOT of people with an interest in the period and/or the man himself- if he didn't want us to get sniffy about the facts then perhaps he should have given the called the film something else.
The crazy thing is the actual history is fucking insane and awesome
I agree!
French people: « F**king Hollywood! Their historically inaccurate and stereotypical portrayals of French people! 🤬 »
Russian people: « First time 👀? »
Scott has lost his mind with this movie. The French critics are absolutely right. Making a movie about Napoleon with an American accent is just idiotic. Completely ruins it for me there's no way I could sit through this without laughing. Next he needs to make a movie about George Washington with a Chinese accent.
so I guess you didn't like the gladiator, right?
@@walter_the_danger hated it.
Ratatouille was set in France but you don't see the characters speaking French. Your point?
No offense but you have a very low movie iq. First off English is such a common earth language nowadays, the most popular so that’s one reason, for adaptation because it is in fact a movie for customers to enjoy and second more importantly it’s really not that big of a deal. Words mean the same thing in any language. I’m always honest. It’s the best movie ever made, especially the last half hour of it. An example of a terrible movie that was praised a lot was aqua man a few years ago. That’s literally the worst movie ever made. I fell asleep because it was so boring the first 40 minutes. It was terrible. Also the will Ferrell movie about Sherlock Holmes was also EXTREMELY underrated. Many people said it sucked when it was great because it was so funny. I enjoy laughing.
Saw the movie on release day. The accent is the least of it's problems.
This to me reminds me of those parodies, or comedy films where they show a big hotshot hollywood director with a huge budget making a complete hash of historical events. The 4 hour version has napoleon driving off in the sunset being chased by british tanks!
Every historical epic Scott has made is full of ridiculous inacuracies. He clearly doesn't care about history, all he cares about is spectacle and a chance to direct battle scenes, because he does them well and it sells tickets.
His battles are not convincing though. Totally inauthentic. A caricature.
@@LtColwtf Yes, but his target audience is folk who are enamored with explosions and blood spatter. Today's audiences are the equivalent of a dog watching the TV screen; easily entertained by motion and sound.
@@LtColwtfThe battles as portrayed were innacurate to history but they were very well directed
If someone had answered to Ridley Scott, "I've been there!", it wouldn't be much further from the truth than this movie.
Loved your approach, thoughts and reaction on this topic, Dr Parenque. I completely agree with you and as a history enthusiast I appreciate Sir Ridley Scott's historical films as well as the work by credited historians and academics whose contributions make to the general public. History lovers are aware that Hollywood films are not documentaries hence we cannot expect absolute historical accuracy but these magnificent productions may as well be enjoyed due to the fact that they provide good entertainment which may spark some curiosity and interest in the public to do some research. Because this is history, it's important that film directors work in hand with historians and experts like yourself since they are portraying historical figures and events that actually existed and happened, not random fictional characters in a fantasy film. Anyway, toxic people will always spread hate and negativity everywhere regardless if they are right or wrong. Looking forward to watch this film and know your thought about it. Thank you so much🙏🏻
Bless you for always being such a supporter of my channel and videos! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The end of Gladiator was a joke. He ended up making a point that was the exact opposite of what actually happened at that point in time of the Roman Empire. Ridley Scott Was not making a movie about history. He was remaking a 1960's movie called "The Fall of the Roman Empire". He went away from the ending that the original movie had because he wanted a happier more uplifting end to his movie. Unfortunately the actual history of that period in time is not happy or uplifting. The passing of the Empire from Marcus Aurelius to his son Commodus was the point that marked the end of the Five Good Emperors and the Pax Romana. Prior to this the Emperors had chosen an able successor to take on the mantle of the empire. Nerva chose Trajan. Trajan chose Hadrian, Hadrian chose Antoninus Pius and Pius chose Marcus Aurelius. This system worked well and a series of competent, sane emperors were left in charge of the Roman Empire for almost 90 years from 96 to 180. Aurelius went back to choosing his son to succeed him. He was co-emperor for three years before he died trying to bring the boy up to speed. Unfortunately as has turned out in a lot of hereditary monarchies , Commodus, if not mad before, was not up to having this much power and became mad as emperor. His death was followed by the year of five emperors and chaos in Rome. The Empire became little more than a military dictatorship run by whatever general could grasp and hold power. Scott ignored this reality, the movie he was copying, and the huge body of history to end with the sister of commodus supporting Pertinax and the senate to reestablish the Roman Republic. Unfortunatelly none of that happened. Commodus's sister had been killed by him a couple years into his reign for plotting against. him. Pertinax was killed by the Praetorian guard soon after he seized power and the guard then auctioned off the Emperorship to the highest bidder. Septemius Severus eventually fell out as the next emperor and there was no one actually trying to reestablish some sort of Roman Republic at that point in time.
If you are going to make a movie about an historical figure your primary audience is going to be people interested in that person and history. They are likely to know something about that person. If you want to rip that person down, use the information available. There is plenty on Napoleon. Plenty. Don't make up some strange random story about him. It won't go over well.
I was a big baseball fan. I read a biography on Babe Ruth. A movie starring John Goodman in 1992 The Babe came out and I went to see it. Babe Ruth was a fascinating driven character and one of the greatest baseball players of all time. He would have been ,for me a fascinating subject . He played America's past time from WWI till 1935 through an interesting period in American history.
Instead they made a stupid movie that included every made up ridiculous Paul Bunyonesque story about babe ruth and put it in their movie. They had the legend of him popping up to second base but hitting it so high that he made it home base before the ball came down. This was a tale told about The Babe, but not possible, not true. Ridiculous.
That is sort of the feeling this movie of Napoleon has left me with. Ridley has made his own story only this time it's not just the ending he has changed. He has changed the character and ability of Napoleon to service his plot. He covers a wide historical time from the beginning of the french revolution to the end of Napoleon's reign and yet I come away with no idea how he came to power, mostly, or why he was successful, or why he was sent to Egypt or how he revolutionized warfare and defeated all of Europe after france had been bankrupt by the Bourbons and the reign of terror had pretty well killed the entire officer class of the french army. I just come away disappointed and angry that Ridley Scott had so little regard for the actual history and for what actually happened.
If you want to have a made up story in this time frame, do so, but don't use characters as well known as Napoleon.
I'm still waiting for a miniseries focused on Talleyrand, me.
Scott and the rest are British, and they have a long term negative view of the French. He made a mountain into a mole hill, since Napoleon was a mountain of a man.
Its just the English that dislike the French and even then, its mostly a joke on their part
It begs the question, doesn't it: how would he know the first two books he read are the most accurate?
I am going to see the film on Wednesday. Originally, I was quite happy to cut Scott some slack as it is a film, not a documentary, but there was no need to be rude to historians - okay, none of us were there, but many people have done work on various aspects of the story and for myself now, I am more inclined to be critical in terms of he could have done a better job. Kellerman's charge at Marengo would be so much better if done properly, rather than a simple charge against Grenadiers about 25 ranks deep in open order! The Austerlitz part is just silly, but that is a great scene at the end with the Dragoon and his flag going through the ice, but why not get the helmet crest and flag pattern right. It is not that hard. I suspect it is going to be bits of the story hanging off his relationship with Josephine, which is going to make it very unsatisfactory in telling us about a view of Napoleon. As for the Sharon Stone scene, it still make me laugh when Josephine tells Napoleon that he will get a surprise as I expect her to reveal she is a bloke. As for Phoenix, the youthful air seems to be there up to meeting Josephine, but thereafter, it is more a poor, dour impersonation of Rod Steiger.
I noticed french troops in the Russia scenes with white cockards of the restoration.....obviously just filmed the return from Elba scenes, same as using the same field for waterloo as the borodino with the trenches. Sloppy, rushed mess of a film.
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" Napoleon
Napoleon had an instrumental approach to truth - as to everything and everybody else.
You know, the honest truth is that they are jealous.
Had they had the greatest military genius since Alexander, or better yet, of all time, you bet this movie would be very, very different.
It just pains them he was French (actually Italian) and not English. Napoleon was a very complex individual. He was so much more than a "mere brute". Same as with Alexander and Caesar, his army loved him to bits and would have gone to the end of the known world had he asked them.
Napoleon is hands down the greatest military leader in history.
That man was a God of War, the equivalent of 50,000 men on the battlefield. No general comes even near him.
YOU ARE GO GREAT Dr. Estelle!!! It would certainly be nice if the writers and directors that develop scripts like this were as keen on getting the details correct as the costume designers and set designers and armorers are at getting their contributions as accurate as possible!
Thank you so much for being here and being so supportive!
@@ElleHistory Thank YOU for being here!!
If only Kubrick had made his movie.
We need to bring Kubrick back. 24 years and he's still missed.
Honestly part of me thinks he’s still salty because of the criticism he faced for the House of Gucci movie. How it portrayed her as a victim and how other parts of the story are inaccurate. He should know as a director, especially for historical movies, you’re going to face criticism. And when it comes to historical movies, I think there needs to be criticism from historians and other academics. Because most will take the movies as truth and not know the true story. Historians and historical advisors will help us understand the story and point us to resources to learn more.
Omg i totally forgot he directed that!😂
You have a point Jess!!
I don’t know of anybody who would take a movie, a work of fiction, as the truth. Or said person is very dumb.
I’ve been seeing and reading a lot about the film these past days. One thing people forget is the script comes from David Scarpa and Scott is only filming the scenario. It seems that the way it’s written is giving the negative image the brits had of Napoleon, at the time. I don’t think Scott his a master when it comes to subtle subject that implies emotions. Sure he is good in big battle scenes but don’t forget he comes from the world of publicity ; you shoot short stories with beautiful images. As for history they should have been closer to the truth, if there is an historic character that the french know well it’s Napoléon. They learn his life in school and even military schools still study his battle tactics.
P.S. 1 : In promotion clips done in France Scott tells in two different clips that there were 10,000 books written about Napoléon. And a YT channel made Scott and Phoenix visit the military museum in Paris were you have plenty of artefacts about Napoléon. It was the first visit for both of them (they should have been there many times before shooting the film!). In the video of a few minutes Phoenix his a bit annoying, saying «oh, it’s a copy» for almost everything he sees.
P.S. 2 : On a movie site in France the film has 2.4/5, which is really low for a film by Scott (a lot of critics absolutely love Scott’s filmography) and it’s really low for a film about Napoleon.
like your review and comment on this movie Napoleon 2023 ! let's not stop learning studying watching History !!!
Napoleon, as a story, is too complicated for a movie unless you are hyperfocused on a particular event.
Such as Waterloo
@@tdoran616NanananannanaNAAAANANAANAA
I didn't see the movie yet so I avoid discussions and reviews on social media as much as possible. I'm curious yet very suspicious of this movie, because I admit it, I'm a Napoleonic Era nerd who read too many books. I'm not an expert and I know I wasn't there, but I'm a little psychorigid when it comes to historical accuracy (and I know there's no such thing, it's all very subjective).
So if I like the movie and feel I've been quite entertained, it will be a victory for Ridley Scott! We'll see!
Well I saw it yesterday. ‘merde de cheval’ came to mind
Every movie is going to have historical inaccuracies in order to streamline the story. That's inevitable.
However, they're something you try to work around as much as you can. Scott and consorts seem to just want to make a "fun film" and nothing else. Completely opposite to something like Oppenheimer, where Nolan seemed motivated to tell us something about the central figure.
A great example is the alleged piramid scene: apparently they just threw it in because it made them laugh due to it's ridiculous nature. But this wasn't some randomn dick-joke from Napoléon's secretary or such that they made up, they seem to have depicted it as an actual MASSIVE event in history....while it never happened....
Imagine a historical film about the Pelopponesian war.... and all of the sudden a couple of dinosaurs appear cuz.... why not?
The controversy should not have happened ; I'm french and I watched the videos of the Musée de l'Armée about the trailers a few weeks ago; they're not about any kind of bad historical accuracy at all; truly, it's the complete opposite: the historian, who - by the way - IS doing her job, is genuinely and mostly AMAZED by the details, the costumes, the dedication of the people who made it; once or twice, she says things like "we have no historical evidence about this tiny thing, Scott HAD to choose and to make something up to fill the gaps, and that's perfectly fine", and of course, that direct fire on the pyramids never occured (too far and totally useless), but as a cinematic effect, it's a thing. The interviewer, albeit an historian (and subsequently presumably serious), chose to only point this as criticisms, not talking about the good part, and Scott, knowing nothing about said videos, was genuinely upset (he was criticised a lot in the past, and, as a regular "once bitten twice shy" Brit, somewhat cautious about french reactions; you're right about this: we, French people, sometimes don't need a reason to bite hard).
I have not seen the movie yet, maybe I'll hate the movie as much as I hate Prometheus, Covenant and House of Gucci, maybe I'll love it like I love Alien, Blade Runner and The Last Duel... But that will be me and only me, no offense intended to good old Ridley...
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Oui, enfin, il y a quand même beaucoup de choix très conscients dans ce film qui pissent à la raie de la réalité historique - on va se mettre au niveau du cher vieux grand homme, hein - d'une manière plus francophobe que distrayante. Mine de rien.
L'excuse de la fiction est commode mais passablement malhonnête quand on considère l'obsession du réalisateur pour les détails dont le grand public se serait passé éperdument ; il n'a pas, que je sache, choisi de faire un film sur une créature d'épopée dans quelque pays imaginaire, mais bien de consacrer une œuvre de deux heures à une figure historique qui déchaîne les passions depuis deux siècles...
As for the inaccuracies: as long as it amazes kids who'll be interested in History like Gladiator did, and the French media choke on it, I'm all for it!
On the other hand,my mind tickled when he said 400 books, I had more in mind like 20 times more... But maybe that kind of reaction of mine suggests I need to work on getting a life too 😂
Hmm this guy is right. Vive l’empereur !!!
I’m questioning whether Napoleon as an egotistical cuckold manchild gets kids excited like did a noble fallen general in Spartacus.
Mystery concern is that the viewers will believe that it is accurate, instead of interested in history.
@@DonRoux Les aristocrates à la lanterne ! Vive la République !
Watched it. Absolute joke. Like the guy had been paid by the British monarchy to ridicule Napoleon on all possible fronts. He ridiculed himself and his actors by a factor of 10.
I haven’t seen the interview in question but even though I wasn’t there I think it is very rude of Sir Ridley to tell Dan Snow, or anyone else, to get a life. (I get told that a lot, to which I can only reply, “It’s a little late for that”. Sadly, I am 66, and that laudable goal still eludes me). In any case, one doesn’t need to have been present at Marengo, for example, to know that Napoleon did not lead a cavalry charge, though as it’s a movie we cannot rule out the possibility that it occurs in his head..
I hope he does take you up on your offer to make a film about Elizabeth I and Catherine de Medici based on your book, which I am currently reading, based on your recommendation. Rather like those monarchs and, still more, Napoleon, you excel at self-promotion, Madame.
BTW, I note that The Guardian has awarded Napoleon ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I can’t find the full interview, which may have been removed. (The link below the description didn’t take me to it) but I’ve watched a brief clip from which it appears Sir Ridley’s disparaging comments about historians are not aimed at Dan Snow in person.
It would be interesting to know which specific biographies he read. Some of the early ones are commonly seen a flawed - the memoir of his secretary, De Bourienne, for example. While he was ‘there’ - or thereabouts - at least some of the time, he couldn’t possibly have observed all the events. More importantly, he may well have had reasons to present Napoleon and various incidents in a certain way, possibly exaggerating his own role. I’m not saying that this is necessarily the case - I haven’t read that book - but merely that caution should be exercised when reading books by contemporaries. He would be on much firmer ground, I feel, were he discussing, say, Alexander the Great, as all of the ancient sources were based on the biography written by Ptolemy, which is now lost. The material for Napoleon is much more extensive, and not all of it reliable.
His interview is on the History Hit TH-cam channel. :)
Just The Guardian things, being absolute establishment propaganda trash that is
The film does not even merit half a star.Its 0/5.
When Ridley Scott said there are 400 books on Napoleon, he must have actually meant the true figure - there are as many as _400,000_ books. He is the most-biographied person in history. And we still don't have a consensus on him. At this point, we never will. So you could look at the movie from that perspective. One perspective of the man among a great many.
he's the 27th
I know that Jesus is the most written about, and heard somewhere that Napoleon was second. Not sure if that holds today.
@@greyone40 We talk about real historical person, not mythological super hero.
As a history nerd, my initial response to a filmmaker (making a *historical* movie) telling us to "get a life"...was this:
"Do your job."
If you're making a historical movie about one of the best documented and most epic figures in history, why not just TELL THE STORY without adding a bunch of "artistic license".
This is why I'm refusing to bother with this movie. I know it will annoy me more than entertain me 😅
Yesyesyes all of it!🎉❤
🥰
Abel Gance "Napoleon" is highly recommended.
Agree
This film was so beautiful! It was fantastic and entertaining. Some scenes look like oil paintings. It was amazing.
Good for you. I guess, if one knows nothing of the events and characters depicted, it may be seen as some generic historical epic... Although I thought it dragged often and wasn't very cohesively put together overall.
I just have seen the movie and compared to the trailer, it is a little desapointing. Is it a common rule to make a trailer different than the movie ? Some discussions aren't so interesting, Campaign of Italy is forgotten. Austerlitz battle is nice but inacurate as the ice trap was only for the few escaping. NApoleon from Scott misses some ".grandeur". Looks like ridley does not like Napoleon that much. I don't understand why he says he or they have read 400 books about Napoleon if it is to do almost a fiction.
Ridley consulted a historian named Michael for the movie. Someone talk about that
This is like Argo. Ben Afflect took one of the proudest moments in Canadian history changed it to the Americans being the hero and accepted an Academy Award! We wept in Canada and no one gave a s%$t!
I think its a filmmaker his right to be creative.
But when making a movie about historical figures i think Hollywood should be honest about where they changed things and where they where historical accurate.
That is a valid point!
Ridley Scott is 85YO. He does not have time for historical truth. This is sad, but this is how things are.
And, really, who will give 100 million USD to a historian to make a movie about Napoleon?
Nobody will.
But Ridley Scott, as we can see, can rise 100 million USD for such project. that is why is HIS project.
that's why the film is not about Nap
Ridley made another turkey
Is the entire Waterloo sequence shot through that distracting blue/green filter?
When even the 1970 film depicted the weather better. 🤣
Ridley Scott stopped making anything great after Kingdom of Heaven . And he's gotten progressively worse as time went on. Here the maxim of making 3 maybe 4 great movies and then go grow tomatoes in the country has not been applied, I'm thinking his ego makes these bombs and he expects adulation no matter the outcome but I say 🥓&🍳 have more appeal than his latest fumblings. Funny thing is he was there in the Duelists and that was a brilliant movie.
The Duel was booooring and frankly the grape could've not been shown twice
@@falconeshield Yup different strokes for different folks. It was a masterpiece in filming, yes it was slow and it was a Joseph Conrad story done on a tight budget, but it was deep and imo masterfully acted by the two main actors Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel, definitely not an action movie but a slice of time instead. Did you know Scott was in advertising before, I didn't until just now. Lol learned something interesting today.
Scott is just like Oliver Stone and his movie JFK.... No regard for historical accuracy. I think when you make a movie about a significant historical figure, you have an obligation to be as accurate as possible. Otherwise, the public gets a distorted or even false view of the person and the events.
At least he didn't try to make Napoleon black.
Well-said!
Ridley Scott is simply not a documentarian, and is essentially a dramatist. Dan Snow is a British snob historian who tends to repeat popular modernist rhetoric and often misses on wider perspectives. Virtually all English-speaking (and reading) academics tend towards anti-European in their perspective of figures like Napoleon. This stems from the long standing English bias against continental perspectives, so it is no surprise. What this film might do is allow a wider discussion to lend more dimensions to events and figures beyond the English hemisphere.
I disagree about Dan Snow
... Non. Juste non.
I must disagree here.I have been reading about Napoleon since the age of 10.In fact,British historians have written some of the BEST and some of the most UNBIASED books on Napoleon. And very appreciative of him.
One recent example of that is Andrew Roberts book " Napoleon the Great ". Is now available as pocket-book.
Before that,some examples: Napoleon by Vincent Cronin; Napoleon by Felix Markham; trilogy by Michael Broers; .....
Older books: Napoleon by Holland Rose; The last phase by Lord Rosebery.( reprinted ).
Always thought Ridley Scott seemed like a cool, no BS guy. Dan Snow, meanwhile, is utterly insufferable.
I disagree about your view on Dan Snow.
It's troubling to see movie directors interpret the past in a way that aligns with their beliefs. Riddley Scott is a movie director who is not educated in historical study. He is not fit to take a delicate matter (history) into his own hands. While the common perception of history is that it refers to past events and a historian's interpretation thereof, it can be more accurately portrayed as an ongoing constructive process actively undertaken by historians in the present. Therefore, trained individuals must be tasked to give us the past, or the un-trained will provide us with a fiasco.
Ridley Scott and Scarpa depict Napoleon as a.....weirdo, which is very far from the truth and certainly historically inaccurate!
Napoleon was the one who transformed Europe in so many aspects, like his civil code, metric system, political reforms (meritocracy) military innovations that even modern armies in the present era copy! Even the numerical system in the streets was his idea!
All these brilliant achievements are totally missing from the movie and the only thing one can see is his eternal desire to f@#%# Josephine.
What about the battle scenes? Except from Austerlitz which is indeed very good, all other major Napoleonic battles are either totally absent (where is his campaign in Italy, where is Eylau, where is Borodino, where is the Berezina crossing?) or poorly presented like Waterloo!
Waterloo battle scenes include a few cannon shots and Ney's disastrous cavalry charge and nothing else!!!! There is Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte (where the French almost seized victory), there is the bloodbath at Plancenoit village against the Prussians......we saw NOTHING of that.
In my opinion except from the costumes (extremely accurate) and cinematography.....this movie is very mediocre and above all an insult to a major historical figure who gave his name to a whole era!
The next epic historical film should be about Robespierre and the totally necessary reign of terror.
To be fair, this was the movie NOBODY was waiting for. I kind of think anybody in France would know what Ridley Scott would do to it. And everybody else is like "the french won battles??"
Haven't the French the best record of military victories in the world?
@@dicezart9667 They didn't 'fold' as much as their government betrayed them by granting full power to wannabe-dictator Philippe Pétain, though. Meanwhile, the French managed to set up the Résistance.
I think we can agree that Barbie was way more historically accurate than this monstrosity, basically a Brit's prejudiced view on an important historical figure that wasn't Winston Churchill. He's become a small-minded little Brexiteer.
😂😂😂
I’m going to wait till you have watched it. I bet you won’t be so kind to Ridley Scott after you watch it. It’s not just historical accuracy I have a problem with…
You were right. I’ve reviewed it in full now haha
Thank you calling him out. He blamed Millennials for the Last Duel bombing when most are in their 30s and not 'young people' like Gez Z.
I am your new subscriber from india. Because i love your Napoleon Trailer 2 reaction video.... That is perfect Explanation...... Highly highly Excited for Napoleon movie❤❤❤❤❤
Thank you so much! I’m so glad you’re here!!! 😊🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The interesting thing is the biases that history has vs reality. And how much more inflammatory truth we dont like tp admit as a public.
What happened to the truth is better than fiction
It’s always better than fiction: I hope people read the books written by historians 😊🙏🏻
I suppose with the epic job of making the movie, the fact that he read two books is amazing but then maybe that's why you hire more experts to help you construct a story. Then again, how do you write a script with so many cooks in the kitchen often arguing over what was correct when nobody knows for sure. But i get that historians will have the best theories, unless they have their own narrative and agender. I know that in the world of archeology it is very corrupt and suffer from bad politics. When people like Graham Hancock reveals evidence that human civilization goes back tens of thousands of years earlier than we thought. The hate and cover ups from the mainstream is unreal because they don't want their precious work to be wrong.
Fair point…
For an American reading TWO books post high school is amazing! Good for him!
I love your hair.
Thanks
Am i the only one who notices Marie Antoinette has to kneel at the guillotine instead of being strapped to a plank and slid into place?
We saw the film Thanksgiving day. If you had no knowledge of Napoleon's life or basic French history, you will certainly be lost. It jumps from event to event with little to no explanation. It also recycles music from the Marie Antoinette film which is distracting. And Piaf accompanies Marie Antoinette to the guillotine? I guess for me the whole thing is disconcerting. It would make you think it always rains in France. Malmaison is always gloomy and grey. I wanted to see it because i love the history of the period. I didn't learn anything new but it certainly did cause me to get out my books a read again for reference.
Little man wanted to cut a great man down to size. Thank God Rid didn't make this movie when Joe Pesci was still in his forties. Then again, that might have made for a more entertaining movie.
You’re spot: Bonaparte was a great man!
❤🎉😊❤
Should be banned in France for being so irresponsible 😡
Only if Kubrick was alive, such a shame
The Harry Potter series of books held no interest for me. But they got a lot of people to read who otherwise wouldn't have done so. Same thing with historical accuracy in a movie. If it raises interest in learning about history then it's ok with me.
Hollywood is interested in money. Full stop.
His vision of Napoleon is a joke
Anti French movie and pretty humiliating of a great figure in history
The same old British anti French propaganda
Dear god I wonder if Germans will defend Hitler like this one day and try to revise history.
If only he hadn't invaded Russia...
That was a bad comment from him, not sure why he said that. And he should probably just apologize. I believe a Hollywood Director has the right and needs to condense battles for example - they've often raged on for days and were extremely complex - the way he won The Battle of Austerlitz had a lot of strategic steps that would be difficult to follow for the audience. Even though - there is a 4 hour Director's Cut coming to AppleTV which will be much more in-depth that I am looking forward to. Hope we'll see a review of it from you :)
If I haven’t given birth before you will 😊🙏🏻 thanks for engaging with my content!
Funny you should mention filmmakers and making the same film over and over again. The great French Filmmaker, Jean Renoir, once said, "A Director makes only one movie in his life. Then he breaks it into pieces and makes it again." Ridley Scott loves controversy and bombastic statements. Thanks for the nice reaction!!!!!!
Nick Stasnopolis
I would of loved Stanley Kubrick to of made it.
c'est un film, pas un documentaire, ridley scott as raison
Et puis il y’a tous les livres d’histoire! 😊
Absolutely anti French nd anti napoleon in particular.the people who published napoleon personal letters in news paper Ridley Scott seems to be of the same category.
Couldn’t even finish watching it, it was that awful. Costumes were good but not accurate as well, especially Marie Antoinette. This should have been advertised as a comedy.🤦♀️😂
Scott sound like a MAGA Republican. I am getting tired of all this anti France propaganda. Of course it got worse with the Brexit nonsense but It took even more extreme proportion since the start of the invasion of Ukraine.
Want to see him make a movie about the holocaust 🤣
No one knows what Napoleon was like. It’s all speculation. It’s an art film not a documentary.
Almost every person who encountered Napoléon wrote memoirs, from well-known writers like Chateaubriand, Goethe to officers like Grand Marshal Bertrand, general Marbot to Napoléon's ennemies or ex ennemies like Hyde de Neuville, doctor O'Meara, the little Betsy Balcombe to Napoléon's servants like Constant, Marchand or Ali. So, we have a little idea of how he was, even if certains of these memoirs must be taken carefully ( those of Barras or Bourrienne for example since they had a prejudice against Napoléon).
@@MajorDenisBloodnok Yes but it is still an observational opinion. If each person who knows you were to write an essay about you they would all differ. Anyways Scott knew that he could not make Kubrick’s version so he opted for an artistic version of the man not a factual one. I thought the film was great.
@@rancosteel Well, to each his own...
IMO, the movie reduces Napoléon to a not very bright, violent, un charismatic old teenager who has issues with mummy and who has a toxic relationship with his unfaithful wife who happens to be a wore.
At the end, one wonder how this man succeeded to be so powerful...
And apart from the historical inaccuracies, the movie is really bad: scenes without links, no developed secondary characters, the battles are terribly made (they are historicaly wrong and don't give the idea of the scale of those battles) and worst, the movie is boring, no epic breath. Scott even manages to screw up the scene of the meeting between Napoléon and the royal troops in 1815. This scene is a dream for a scriptwriter, too good to be true and yet, no tension, no emotion! Compare it with the same scene in the 1970 Waterloo...
@@MajorDenisBloodnok I don’t agree. He told the critics to “fuck off and get a life”. The movie is a tour de force art house film about a blood thirsty man who was an inspiring greeting card writer prior to his military engagements. His “love letters” to his wife were x-rated minus the profanity. He wasn’t a cuck because screwed other women while married. Anyway, the word is Spielberg is making Kubrick’s 12 part series for HBO that is suppose to be very accurate.
I have enjoyed His previous Works as The Gladiator & Kingdom of Heaven & Black Hawk Down & even when he was partly part of the TV Series "The Man In The High Castle" But..I watched this on the Big Screen & I was Bored out of my mind..The Only deceant Part Was Toulon...but Other than That Total Garbage Movie..Worse than the Latest Movie with Daemon & Driver in it. This Movie Screams "I am an Old English Movie Creator, whom Doesnt Like History & I Espcially Dislikes the French & I am running out of Time, want to do Much as possible"
Please just speak to the main issue, is this movie in anyway representative of the actual history, the answer is no Joaquin Phoenix is not Napoleon, his early portrayal is a joke, he looks fifty not thirty and lacks energy and drive. This is deliberate he is a deconstructed Napoleon. Wellington is a John Bull caricature again nothing like the original historical character. So we have a strong female character and diverse placement at the most inappropriate locations. The Battles are Austerlitz = icecapades Waterloo = Trench Warfare with a brawl at the end of it. Why show the Battles at all if you are going to make no attempt to portray them in a accurate way. So this is a typical Hollywood movie, the history books are thrown out of the window, and we have large Hollywood ego's imposing their own political agenda's on their project's.
Forget this movie, read a book on the period. Or if you must watch a movie, the 1970 movie Waterloo is worth your time, and attempts to follow the pages of history books, not the self indulgent ravings of Hollywood celebs.
Midway is a good example of how a movie can be entertaining and simultaneously historically accurate.
nice one🤣
Please tell me you're joking? Midway was a steaming hot pile of garbage. Not even Red Box worthy
@@RichardSchiffman-jn1ds He could mean the one from the 70s?
@@jackdoyle7453 If he meant the Charlton Heston version then yes for the most part I would agree although there was still some cheesy parts to it. The 2019 version of Midway that had one of the Jonas brothers in it was just bad. Like pathetically bad
@RichardSchiffman-jn1ds According to History Buffs, a TH-cam channel that researchers the movie and historical events, the last movie made about the attempted invasion of Midway during World War II, was pretty accurate. There is also another animated historical account done about this event that also supports this claim. If you have an issue about the film not being historically accurate, then take it up with them. I really don't care or have the time to dispute it. Cheers...
th-cam.com/video/4qQim09n6mY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=6yKPUnUjatJTR6dr
This movie is terribly funny 😂😂😂
This movie is very anti British too,this looks like a boring soap not a movie.Ridley Scott has not made a decent film in decades.He did a great Napoleonic film in tge 70s, The Duelists.
Scott hasn't made a decent film since Black Hawk Down
Come on people! It’s a freaking movie! It’s not a doctoral student’s dissertation. It’s not supposed to be accurate, it’s supposed to entertain. Again, it’s a MOVIE!
Is it accurate? No!
Does it entertain? Yes!
Encore un film de merde sur l'histoire de France dommage