If I'm not mistaken, Mark Schneider has been going to Bohemia to the Austerlitz battlefield for almost 20 years. Mark is a big personality, his "Napoleon" speech to the soldiers before the battle (in French) is so convincing that it brings tears to my eyes. I had the honor of meeting him at Austerlitz several times, this August at Napolean Day in Prague, I even gave him a short saber fencing lesson. Seeing him ride for 80 minutes across the battlefield (this year in a blizzard) is an experience and one had to admire his stamina as a rider and his impressive portrayal of the French emperor. Mark, I look forward to Austerlitz next year and we will continue with the fencing lesson!
I had no intention of watching all of this video, but Mark is simply delightful, and his knowledge doesn't come across as smug or arrogant. Very warm way to educate your audience. I am grateful to you all for this marvelous interview.
@@WalkwithHistory It felt like it had many more layers to it. I felt like I was getting inside the head of an actor committed to his craft, and then exploring the curiosity of an historical re-enactor, and then a sincere movie critic. Everyone gave this interview a friendliness without negativity or ick, even if the opinions were strong. People like myself who don't have so much free time need content like this to make the time meaningfully pass, the heart warm, and the mind think.
Now I'm mad as hell. That I miss Mark (as Napoleon) for the opening of the movie in Montreal... Grrrr. Me neither, I was not going to watch a 1 hour video, but like you said Mark was so interesting. Thanks.
I was greatly honored to meet Mark just 2 days ago during my first Napoleonic reenactment, we were with him for 2 days as we guarded him and hung out with him
Only reason Ney charged with the cavalry was because it looked to him as if Wellington was retreating behind the hill and yielding the field in the face of overwhelming and superior forces but in reality it was all a feign to lure them in. Had Grouchy not followed his strictly written orders (as was customary or Napoleon would be infuriated if his Marshals didn't) and returned to the field as his aid recommended, the battle might've been won as the English would've been defeated in a vast enveloping move with Grouchys 30.000 men flanking from the sides in a surprise move, which would have the French army consolidated as one whilst the English and Prussians were still separated and the English soundly beaten. Napoleon was also very ill on the day of the battle, he was reportedly sitting in the shade with his head in his hands as the army paraded past him on their way to the field and he had to withdraw from the battle for an hour or so, which is when Ney makes his charge. Had Napoleon been there he'd had stopped Ney and maybe the battle would've been won by merely that factor. Then there's the heavy rain during the night which prolonged the battle to almost noon, which was hours later than Napoleon had planned, as he wanted to defeat the Brits before the Prussians even had a chance at arriving to the field. Lots of chance was involved in the British and Prussian victory on this day.
Always a pleasure to hear Mark ... as a Belgian citizen, I met him as "l'Empereur" during a enactment of the battle of Waterloo and he was amazing, above all when the “French” actors shouted “Vive l’Empereur, vive la Nation” …
that first Abel Gance Napoleon film is so remarkable and the figureof Napoleon is perfect. He looks every bit like he is straight from the portraits and he coveys so much power and sense that he is to be the world spirit for an age
Marie Antoinette was portrayed wrongly. She was humiliated ( unlike Louis who had his own carriage to arrive in ) - she was slipped in with others on a tumbril, wrists tied and she conducted herself with humility, grace, dignity. Even all her enemies ( save the painter David ) conceded she showed great grace and bravery the way she faced her death - I think it is important to adhere to something like that and not change it for entertainment. After all, you are portraying someone in their dying moments - all they've got left - a sort of legacy concerning their name and character at the end. I like your show and am glad to hear Jenn's comments about Marie Antoinette. She too was complex and not many people know she tried to change and apply herself. She did some good things like organize a sort of Red Cross group that she headed and they went into Paris. It's always ignored that she was Queen when France declared war to help the Americans although obviously she had no great say in that but it is documented that she intervened to save a young English soldier from hanging by The Americans after his mother crossed the channel and sought an audience with Marie Antoinette and she saved him. Also she was blatantly framed in The Diamond Necklace Case and Napoleon said hatred for the Queen by the populace who believed she was extravagant ( she had sent the necklace back saying it was too extravagant and particularly when the population was in dire straits, even though Louis 16th and his successive treasurers balanced the books twice - the worst crop disaster in 1987 wiped out the crops ) was a major cause of The Revolution a,long with the bankruptcy caused by France's helping The Americans. Also, she never said, "Let them eat cake." That was said by Louis 15th's mistress of the previous reign. Thank-you Scott and Jenn for letting me make this long comment. Best wishes.
This is Jenn. I love your comment. I feel like we could just talk about how if they would have portrayed the execution of Marie Antoinette accurately it actually would have had more of a cinematic impact. I think the 1939 version does the best job but there is still so much more to unpack. Her trial for incest is the most heartbreaking, gut wrenching experience and that would make for so much more than what was shown in this version. It was SO unacceptable that I wondered if it was supposed to be Marie Antoinette or just an aristocratic woman bc it was so wrong. I thank you again for your comment. It was a part of the movie that really bothered me.
He is great playing our emperor the nearest thing to the great man himself I to at a very young age have been opsesed with our emp napoleon I salute you sir keep up you're great worck great channel
100% agree with Mark and Jenn about the movie. I was prepared to the historical inaccuracies but the main problem is how the movie shows Napoléon. He is reduced to an angry dull not very smart teenager with no charisma who obeys to mummy and has a toxic affair with his wife. At the end, we wonder how this man became so powerful! Plus, the battles are badly made, the scenes are not linked, there are no other developed characters but Napoléon and Joséphine, no epic breath. As Mark pointed it, R.Scott even manages to screw the scene of the meeting of Laffrey when Napoléon and his little troops meet the royal regiment which must stop him. This scene is a dream for a scriptwriter, too good to be true! But in the movie, nothing, no suspens, no emotion. Watch the same scene in the 1970 Waterloo, it is another level. This movie is a big waste. My note: 1 star over 5 for the costumes. In my opinion, the best Napoléon/Joséphine in movie: a French TV mini serie called "Joséphine ou la comédie des ambitions" with Danièle Lebrun as Joséphine and Daniel Mesguich, maybe the best young general Bonaparte looking actor. Two errors if I could dare: Madame du Barry was the mistress of Louis XV, not Louis XIV. She was guillotined during the Revolution. Napoléon was Emperor of the French, not of France.
You all summarized my issues with the narrative of Napoleon very well. I am but a historical neophyte for much of this era and especially military tactics, but the remarks made about Austerlitz and Waterloo was confirmation of my thoughts of it in the theater of "...Really?" Thank you all for having such a wonderful conversation about such an interesting man that Ridley Scott's film did such a disservice to.
The big build up of the Napoleon movie made me excited to go and watch it, but I came out of the movie disappointed and not happy. Watching this interview, I agree with everything that was said. Mark Schneider would have been great in this movie. I hope the uncut version will be much more better.
@@WalkwithHistory I thought you could contact him and tell him that I would like to meet him if you know him, tell him that I'm waiting for his friend request on Facebook or do you have his telephone contact?
Found this by chance, so glad I did. Mark is already a legend and finding out he is such a great guy is a real bonus :) hope he sees all these positive comments! Look forward to watching more of your videos
Mark is the best! We always enjoy interacting with him in Colonial Williamsburg. He is always gracious and friendly and courteous. He is one of my top Nation Builder in CW--for a number of reasons!
The moment I heard that Phoenix would be cast as Napoleon, I knew I would not bother with this movie. But from what I've heard, it seems to portray Napoleon in that 'cartoon-esque' manner that has been official British propaganda from the start. We must remember that Napoleon represented the French Revolution, the first real revolution in modern European history, and the threat that republicanism posed to the crowns of Europe. Concomitantly, we must think of the veneration that is heaped upon "the Royals" of Britain to this day!!!!!! Yuuuuch!!!!!!
By the way Mark, Napoléon by Abel Gance was released on DVD by BFI. It's the restoration of 5h30 version by Kevin Brownlow. You can find on TH-cam the wonderful trailer of this release. Also, the French cinématheque has been working for many years on a new restoration, a 7h30 version!
Wow I really enjoyed this talk, I'm familiar with Mark from the Documentary Becoming Napoleon and enjoyed it very much. He really does become Napoleon, a current day doppelganger. I had a period where I was fascinated with Napoleon as do many it seems, he is so well written on. I agree with all the criticism, you could really make a great drawn out streaming series based on a more true Historical account. Napoleon is fascinating he experiences a wide range of emotions many people can relate to from being bullied and introverted early on, even melancholic to being the complete opposite reaching states of Mania...and I agree with Mark, I was fortunate to catch the silent movie Napoleon by Abel Gance on Turner Classic Movies and was mesmerized by it even though it was a silent movie.
Monsieur N is a film many should see. It's about Napoleon's time on St Helena (if he escaped or died there). Actually shows some of his generals who went into exile with him.
Yes, a very good movie, alas not known. It is an uchrony, a "what if" movie with a very smart script, a very good representation of St Helena and good actors. The French people are played by French actors, the British, by British actors.
Brilliant one. Proud to have the living Napoleon at the battle of Nations in 2013 at Leipzig. Have also got a pic of him from distance. Thx from Germany to mention my country which apart from Austria not really got mentioned in the film. Lovely Berlin Story. The story of occupation and suppressing it's European neighbours is also forgotten in the movie. Also it puzzles me why Kutusov Blücher and Schwarzenbeck are not really shown .as the battle of Nations..his biggest defeat is forgotten , not even mentioned in the end .but making up scenes with Wellington and Napoleon. So not only the French have a reason to be angry about this movie, most of continental Europe has in particular Spain, Holland, Italy and Germany...greetings from Northern German which was a part of France during that time. It was its own department, not just an occupied territory. Fully integrated into the French state..
Both Austerlitz and Waterloo battles were disastrous in this movie in so many ways. They never actually showed the grand scale, especially the Waterloo, shot again in those crappy dark blue grey filters to mask the CGI used from the spectator, inaccurate as hell, total lack of context, importance, tactics, thrill...it was like watching a gamer trying to kill as many orcs as possible and feel happy about it. And those are totally on Ridley: he did a crap of a job there! Use CGI for the wide angles, i would not mind, but use your imagination and use tighter shots to bring back the intensity even with just a couple of dozens of extras (which still dazzles me how with such an enormous budget and actually 2 main characters that took part for more than 2 minutes he could not get more extras for those scenes). Sorry but reducing the waterloo cavalry charge of 20k horsemen to a couple of dozens circling around a square...really? And all those squares firing in all directions? Are you kidding me? Those squares would be decimated by friendly fire by the time the french cavalry reached them...Digging trenches in the mud during heavy rain for the whole night? Yeah, right! The squares even behind the actual ridge were obliterated by french canon before the cavalry charge, i can only imagine what would be were they formed in front...pffff...such a tragic epic failure this movie was...I love Braveheart, even the Patriot, as inaccurate they were, but at least they had a plot, a moto, a symbol to root for...this one has a 5th grader dialogues, randomly selected episodes with no coherence and context between them, no real direction or even a sense of what this movie depicts...
Mark, I think one of the best portraits of the Emperor was as you mentioned War & Peace. You said it was made in 1955, which is incorrect. I’m looking at my Criterion edition Which clearly states 1966-67. 1955 was before The famous Secret Speech about Stalin. In that year no one had the power to make such a Big Hollywood movie, since this was a challenge to show Hollywood “We can make an Epic better”, a Cold War thing. Anyway, great job & I think you Should be #14 instead of #27 on that list (my opinion.)
The one and only one to do Napoleon was Stanley Kubrick ... period. There are a number of interesting online reviews detailing the preparation work he for his unrealized project.
Votre invité était merveilleux. The scene in Egypt, when Napoleon is given a step stool to view Cleopatra, is pathetic; one of many of Ridley Scott’s jabs at Napoleon throughout this PowerPoint Presentation excuse for a movie. Napoleon was 5’6” and of average height for a male during this period of time. I’d love to see a well-financed, historically accurate French Production of “Napoleon” in a detailed series form. 1/5 or 2/10 And, that’s mainly for the period costumes and most of the set designs.
There is one. Series is called Napoleon with Christian Clavier as Napoleon and John Malkovich as Taleyrand. I think Depardieu plays in it as well. If I remember well, they did all the scenes twice in French and English (but don't quote me on this).
Seconded. During reenactments here in France, he IS Napoleon, way better than THE official Napoleon's lookalike.. And , as a french, i don't give a rat's ass that he's american.
With Napoleon1 being the subject of popular culture for past 200 years, I sometimes wonder whether Ridley Scott has missed the chance to make a movie on the other Napoleon. Not that difficult to make since the theme was consistently that of the nephew trying to recreate the glories of his uncle. Maybe fewer battle scenes but still has enought twists and turns in the storyline to make it exciting. The age gap between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby in an alternate Napoleon movie would also be more or less historically accurate.
Can you imagine the British reaction to a French made movie about Henry V at Agincourt if they screwed around with the facts in the same way. Or if France made a movie About Washington with the same disregard. Outrage would have ruled.
The city of Memphis TN did an amazing exhibit of Napolean artifacts and art to commerate the Lousiana Purchase in 2004. Very memorible foe anyone fortunate to attend.
@Marc Schneider - the insane thing is that Ridley Scott had Commodus (of course played by Joaquin Phoenix) DO A NAPOLEON in a deleted scene in Gladiator. The Praetorian Guards who failed to kill Maximus are ordered executed. Commodus (Phoenix) stands in between the two condemned men and PRACTICALLY DARES GENERAL QUINTUS TO SHOOT HIM - just like Napoleon historically did in front of the 5th Ligne. It's not like Ridley Scott doesn't know how to get this stuff right!!! Moreover, Ridley had to answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to make the Napoleon movie a success: How does General Maximus (young Napoleon Bonaparte circa 1790's) transform into Emperor Commodus (Emperor Napoleon circa 1805). THAT'S ALL RIDLEY SCOTT NEEDED TO DO and this would have been an awesome movie. But no. I'm convinced that Scott and Scarpa actually hate Napoleon and other "great men" and so they make him into a laughably pathetic PARODY.
Correct, but not sure why you keep saying Commodus...unless you're implying that Gladiator did a better job showing the rise...because it's a Scott film.
@@denroy3 that's the point. Scott has done this before. He didn't have to reinvent the wheel. He literally had the scene of Napoleon and the 5th of the Line in Gladiator. He had Maximus and Commodus as two sides of the Napoleon coin. This wasn't rocket science.
But Napolone was not small - From Britannica: "... Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”. Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller..." It was the British that wanted used this as probaganda - and it was not true. But this still "sticks" - even today. Just wanted to state this.
Sure, and Mark is about 5’7” as well. So a very good reenactor and you are right at the time not considered short. Mark was talking about being teased by today’s standards. It was the British that tried to say Napoleon was shorter but he wasn’t.
this new napolean movie swckd, phoenix portrayl and the character as written were so far from a historical napolean that the only tie were the uniforms and other costumes. napolean was half phoenix' age but phoenix was the lovesick teenie.
From (host) Scott's comments on the Ridley Scott battlefield depictions, he has OBVIOUSLY not seen the Bondarchuk film, "Waterloo!" Scott: if you want to see impressive battlefield depictions, don't bother with Ridley's "Napoleon."
Hello from France, Nice Interview Mark Schneider Well done. You should know that Ridley Scott's film "Napoleon" is not very well received and appreciated in France. Far too many anachronisms, it's as if a great French director made a film about Washington or Davy Crockett and made him appear in very vulgar and racy scenes!. What would the American public say? Historians, writers and speakers are all unanimous in saying that the film is a historical catastrophe. Too bad because he could have made a grandiose film with the advice of historians like Thierry Lentz, Jean Tulard, David Chanteranne etc... Film remains with coldness without emotion and access only to marital relationships. Access to carnal relations with Joséphine and showing only as a man of war. Bonjour de France, Belle interview avec Mark Schneider Bravo. Il faut savoir que le film "Napoléon" de Ridley Scott n'est pas très bien accueilli et apprécié en France. Beaucoup trop d'anachronismes, c'est comme si un grand réalisateur français faisait un film sur Washington ou Davy Crockett et le faisait apparaître dans des scènes très vulgaires et racées !. Que dirait le public américain ? Historiens, écrivains et intervenants sont tous unanimes pour dire que le film est une catastrophe historique. Dommage car il aurait pu faire un film grandiose avec les conseils d'historiens comme Thierry Lentz, Jean Tulard, David Chanteranne etc... Le cinéma reste avec froideur, sans émotion et sans accès aux seules relations conjugales. Accès aux relations charnelles avec Joséphine et se manifestant uniquement comme un homme de guerre.
There is the ten part Napoleon series made in Europe about twenty years ago and it is in English. It is a lavish and accurate portrayal of his career, with several major stars such as Gerard Depardieu Highly recommended. The 2023 movie was just awful.
It's so refreshing to see Mark Schneider commenting on this! Finally someone who knows who can give valid criticism to Mr. Scott and shut his ugly face up. Ridley Scott spat on the memory of Europe's Greatest Liberator of all time. I hope Ridley has all his licenses and filmmaking rights revoked for this hack job.
I love Napoleonic wars and what Napoleon done for our nation in Ilyrian provinces. I serve 15 years , i study napoleonic era Hussars and their bad ass general Antoine Charles Louis de Lasalle and for these movie i can onlly say is bad even for fiction
Lol Scott is Ridley a patron of the channel? Definitely getting that vibe from your comments lol. Or maybe you’re just playing Devil’s Advocate? But I do like how Mark is able to open up; I can tell his suspension of disbelief only got him so far with this dumpster fire of a movie. And I’m not an expert, but I agree with Jen that the material culture in the movie generally did seem very good, but there was definitely some weird inconsistent stuff, like grenadiers of the guard wearing Phrygian caps to Elba, etc. AND SO MANY F-ING FLAGS EVERYWHERE
lol. I (Scott) am a chronic devils advocate person. 😂😂 I’d be excited if Ridley Scott listened to Talk With History…but I doubt it. Thank you for watching!
The Napoleon in the movie was NOT Napoleon Bonaparte at all! It was Phoenix's joker role copy & paste to this film. Not a true representation of the Napoleon. He was to old to play Napoleon to begin with. There was zero charisma, energy or any sign of character at all. They turned this man into a whiny, awkward bitch that likes to hump. The battles scenes were all completely done wrong, esp Waterloo and are all historically inaccurate and that further frustrated me. This movie is terrible. The only good Napoleon movie was 1970's 'Waterloo'.. which to me is a masterpiece.
20:25 Why would you like to change the real story? It's quite simple, it is made by a British guy who hates Napoleon. He is portrayed insecure, old, autistic, paranoid, at the feet of Josephine, bloodthirsty, etc. etc.
How wonderful to have Mark who not only looks like Napoleon but does re-enactments AS Napoleon but knows his history quite well. Had he played the role for Scott and assisted in the script the movie could have been good, maybe great but as it is this version is the worst historical film I've seen, it's a character assassination showing nothing of his genius or charisma displaying only a single aspect his character; the man baby.
I thought this movie was a character assassination of Napoleon from yet another Brit. Napoleon was a flawed man but not this flawed. I think the general of color is Alexandre Dumas not Mathieu Dumas.
@@fabs8498 thanks for the correction, I knew there was an Alexandre in there some where. What name did the Napoleon reenactor say in the video though? It didn't sound like Thomas either, unless I misheard.
I think we may have misspoke by accident…need to double check. But good catch!! History is important to get right and if we got that fact wrong we’ll add a Fact Check/correction to the video description. 😊
How the fuck was Joaquin's depiction in the top 50 if not even lower?? There must have been some godawful Napoleons out there, which I guess shouldn't be too surprising since they needed a hundred/names depictions.
I think the argument that Napoleon was not a tyrant because of his love of literature and art is a weak one. For example, Putin is philosophy enthusiast and art patron. Does it disenfranchise his dictatorship?
Napoleon became intoxicated by his success. He is not black and white but must be viewed in shades of grey. Our argument is not he can’t be a tyrant because he loved literature and art. Our argument is that he loved literature and art. He was highly authoritative but also modernized France. One does not negate the other.
Also, Napoleon didn't take Egypt.. the Egypt Campaign was a failure. He abandoned his men in Egypt because Nelson destroyed the french fleet at the Nile and political trouble in France. Also, he couldn't stay in Egypt because his army was dying of lack of supplies and disease.
I am sure not all the time especially if he had any part in its firing. But there is evidence that people were beginning to understand that hearing loss was connected to the loud sounds of warfare. Therefore, it is plausible that he did cover his ears while observing cannon fire.
And one thing to add.. Waterloo, the great British victory and Wellington the greatest. Why is this propaganda always shown as if only British were fighting there. Does anyone know that half of the losses were Germans. Prussians and Northern Germans under the command of Wellington. Another 25% were Dutch/Belgian and the other 25% true British. Looking at the whole campaign with it's 4 battles it was the Prussians who had the main burden. And by far the highest losses. Hence 60-70% of the Allied losses were Germans. And it was Blücher who bailed Wellington out at Waterloo while Wellington failed to help Blùcher at Ligny. Blücher got even injured and was the only supreme commander involved in true fightings. Covered by his dead horse the French cavalry ran even over him. History has given us the best script for a true Hollywood movie and it was never used. Well even in 2023 a Prussian cannot be a hero as it seems.
The average movie goer isn’t dumb and shouldn’t be treated as such but that goes to show you the people who PAYS for these films don’t care about movie making at all. They just would sell TRASH to people if the audience would let them. It’s sad state of Hollywood now. I gave up on them. I can live without films tbh
If I'm not mistaken, Mark Schneider has been going to Bohemia to the Austerlitz battlefield for almost 20 years. Mark is a big personality, his "Napoleon" speech to the soldiers before the battle (in French) is so convincing that it brings tears to my eyes. I had the honor of meeting him at Austerlitz several times, this August at Napolean Day in Prague, I even gave him a short saber fencing lesson. Seeing him ride for 80 minutes across the battlefield (this year in a blizzard) is an experience and one had to admire his stamina as a rider and his impressive portrayal of the French emperor. Mark, I look forward to Austerlitz next year and we will continue with the fencing lesson!
Thank you for the comment! 😁 We talked to Mark the other day and he saw your comment!! 😁
I had no intention of watching all of this video, but Mark is simply delightful, and his knowledge doesn't come across as smug or arrogant. Very warm way to educate your audience. I am grateful to you all for this marvelous interview.
Thank you so much. That is great feedback. That is how I felt about the interview. It was just a great historical conversation!!
@@WalkwithHistory It felt like it had many more layers to it. I felt like I was getting inside the head of an actor committed to his craft, and then exploring the curiosity of an historical re-enactor, and then a sincere movie critic. Everyone gave this interview a friendliness without negativity or ick, even if the opinions were strong. People like myself who don't have so much free time need content like this to make the time meaningfully pass, the heart warm, and the mind think.
@@NealKlein wow…thank you so much! 😊
Now I'm mad as hell. That I miss Mark (as Napoleon) for the opening of the movie in Montreal... Grrrr.
Me neither, I was not going to watch a 1 hour video, but like you said Mark was so interesting. Thanks.
@@RodolfLeclerc Thank you 🙏🏻 Happy you enjoyed Mark as much as we did. 😊
I was greatly honored to meet Mark just 2 days ago during my first Napoleonic reenactment, we were with him for 2 days as we guarded him and hung out with him
He is fantastic!!! A real professional and great human. Thank you for watching.
No tents,snipers, or trenches at Waterloo. Also the infantry squares formed behind Wellington's ridge, not infront while calvary was coming.
Good info on the squares…found that interesting even if slightly inaccurate
Only reason Ney charged with the cavalry was because it looked to him as if Wellington was retreating behind the hill and yielding the field in the face of overwhelming and superior forces but in reality it was all a feign to lure them in.
Had Grouchy not followed his strictly written orders (as was customary or Napoleon would be infuriated if his Marshals didn't) and returned to the field as his aid recommended, the battle might've been won as the English would've been defeated in a vast enveloping move with Grouchys 30.000 men flanking from the sides in a surprise move, which would have the French army consolidated as one whilst the English and Prussians were still separated and the English soundly beaten.
Napoleon was also very ill on the day of the battle, he was reportedly sitting in the shade with his head in his hands as the army paraded past him on their way to the field and he had to withdraw from the battle for an hour or so, which is when Ney makes his charge. Had Napoleon been there he'd had stopped Ney and maybe the battle would've been won by merely that factor.
Then there's the heavy rain during the night which prolonged the battle to almost noon, which was hours later than Napoleon had planned, as he wanted to defeat the Brits before the Prussians even had a chance at arriving to the field.
Lots of chance was involved in the British and Prussian victory on this day.
@@Daggz90You probably should have watched the video. Most of your comment was already covered.
@@Taima I did finish watching and listening to it after I commented. Enjoyed it very much, thanks.
Always a pleasure to hear Mark ... as a Belgian citizen, I met him as "l'Empereur" during a enactment of the battle of Waterloo and he was amazing, above all when the “French” actors shouted “Vive l’Empereur, vive la Nation” …
Mark is so great!
They are no actors, they are re enactors
@@marioguidotomasone1265Mark is an actor.
@@HenryWadensjö he is indeed.
I am a consulting engineer and a re-enactor, he is an actor and a re-enactor.
Vive Napoleon. Vive Mark Schneider. Greetings from Chile
Thank you for watching and your support.
that first Abel Gance Napoleon film is so remarkable and the figureof Napoleon is perfect. He looks every bit like he is straight from the portraits and he coveys so much power and sense that he is to be the world spirit for an age
It is remarkable. I have to watch it.
Marie Antoinette was portrayed wrongly. She was humiliated ( unlike Louis who had his own carriage to arrive in ) - she was slipped in with others on a tumbril, wrists tied and she conducted herself with humility, grace, dignity. Even all her enemies ( save the painter David ) conceded she showed great grace and bravery the way she faced her death - I think it is important to adhere to something like that and not change it for entertainment. After all, you are portraying someone in their dying moments - all they've got left - a sort of legacy concerning their name and character at the end. I like your show and am glad to hear Jenn's comments about Marie Antoinette. She too was complex and not many people know she tried to change and apply herself. She did some good things like organize a sort of Red Cross group that she headed and they went into Paris. It's always ignored that she was Queen when France declared war to help the Americans although obviously she had no great say in that but it is documented that she intervened to save a young English soldier from hanging by The Americans after his mother crossed the channel and sought an audience with Marie Antoinette and she saved him. Also she was blatantly framed in The Diamond Necklace Case and Napoleon said hatred for the Queen by the populace who believed she was extravagant ( she had sent the necklace back saying it was too extravagant and particularly when the population was in dire straits, even though Louis 16th and his successive treasurers balanced the books twice - the worst crop disaster in 1987 wiped out the crops ) was a major cause of The Revolution a,long with the bankruptcy caused by France's helping The Americans. Also, she never said, "Let them eat cake." That was said by Louis 15th's mistress of the previous reign. Thank-you Scott and Jenn for letting me make this long comment. Best wishes.
This is Jenn. I love your comment. I feel like we could just talk about how if they would have portrayed the execution of Marie Antoinette accurately it actually would have had more of a cinematic impact. I think the 1939 version does the best job but there is still so much more to unpack. Her trial for incest is the most heartbreaking, gut wrenching experience and that would make for so much more than what was shown in this version. It was SO unacceptable that I wondered if it was supposed to be Marie Antoinette or just an aristocratic woman bc it was so wrong. I thank you again for your comment. It was a part of the movie that really bothered me.
He is great playing our emperor the nearest thing to the great man himself I to at a very young age have been opsesed with our emp napoleon I salute you sir keep up you're great worck great channel
thank you!
Well done, Mark! I absolutelly agree.
Thank you for watching.
100% agree with Mark and Jenn about the movie.
I was prepared to the historical inaccuracies but the main problem is how the movie shows Napoléon.
He is reduced to an angry dull not very smart teenager with no charisma who obeys to mummy and has a toxic affair with his wife. At the end, we wonder how this man became so powerful!
Plus, the battles are badly made, the scenes are not linked, there are no other developed characters but Napoléon and Joséphine, no epic breath. As Mark pointed it, R.Scott even manages to screw the scene of the meeting of Laffrey when Napoléon and his little troops meet the royal regiment which must stop him. This scene is a dream for a scriptwriter, too good to be true! But in the movie, nothing, no suspens, no emotion. Watch the same scene in the 1970 Waterloo, it is another level.
This movie is a big waste.
My note: 1 star over 5 for the costumes.
In my opinion, the best Napoléon/Joséphine in movie: a French TV mini serie called "Joséphine ou la comédie des ambitions" with Danièle Lebrun as Joséphine and Daniel Mesguich, maybe the best young general Bonaparte looking actor.
Two errors if I could dare:
Madame du Barry was the mistress of Louis XV, not Louis XIV. She was guillotined during the Revolution.
Napoléon was Emperor of the French, not of France.
Ann you for those catches. Well try and get some fact checks annotated in the description 😊
You all summarized my issues with the narrative of Napoleon very well. I am but a historical neophyte for much of this era and especially military tactics, but the remarks made about Austerlitz and Waterloo was confirmation of my thoughts of it in the theater of "...Really?"
Thank you all for having such a wonderful conversation about such an interesting man that Ridley Scott's film did such a disservice to.
Thank you so much! We really appreciate the comment and we’re glad that Mark got to share his perspective 😊
The big build up of the Napoleon movie made me excited to go and watch it, but I came out of the movie disappointed and not happy.
Watching this interview, I agree with everything that was said.
Mark Schneider would have been great in this movie. I hope the uncut version will be much more better.
Agreed! It was so close! Crossing my fingers for that uncut version. Thanks for watching and the comment! 😁🙌🏻
Sadly the uncut version as makers of the movie stated IT WOULD HAVE MORE SCENES OF JOSEPHINE
@@dukekevy6650 🤔 Still curious to see it…but good info. Thank you!
I want to meet Mark Schneider now I love that historical reenactor too much
He is amazing. You can meet him anytime in Colonial Williamsburg!!! ❤️🇫🇷🇺🇸
@@WalkwithHistory I thought you could contact him and tell him that I would like to meet him if you know him, tell him that I'm waiting for his friend request on Facebook or do you have his telephone contact?
Love this podcast, I learned many fact and great experinces I need to hear, thank you all❤
Our pleasure! Thank you for joining us 😊
Found this by chance, so glad I did. Mark is already a legend and finding out he is such a great guy is a real bonus :) hope he sees all these positive comments!
Look forward to watching more of your videos
Welcome aboard and thank you for watching! 😁
47:39 this is the Soviet War and Peace (1965) with Tikhonov as the Duke. One of the greatest series about the period ever produced.
It’s a long one too! Haven’t watched it all but it may be in the list now. Thanks for joining us! 😁🙌🏻
On behalve of the troisiéme Regiment a Pied de la Garde Imperiale I would like to thank Mark for the immersive experiences !
Thank you. Mark is truly an artist and valuable historian to living history. A true Nation Builder.
Mark is the best! We always enjoy interacting with him in Colonial Williamsburg. He is always gracious and friendly and courteous. He is one of my top Nation Builder in CW--for a number of reasons!
Agreed! He is amazing
The moment I heard that Phoenix would be cast as Napoleon, I knew I would not bother with this movie. But from what I've heard, it seems to portray Napoleon in that 'cartoon-esque' manner that has been official British propaganda from the start. We must remember that Napoleon represented the French Revolution, the first real revolution in modern European history, and the threat that republicanism posed to the crowns of Europe. Concomitantly, we must think of the veneration that is heaped upon "the Royals" of Britain to this day!!!!!! Yuuuuch!!!!!!
Agreed. Not an accurate portrayal
You gotta get Mark back to sit down and discuss 1970's "Waterloo".
Yessss!!!
Josephine was too young in this movie, which changes the whole dynamic. And Napoleon was too old, and didn't age a bit over 20 years.
That I can totally agree with. His lack of youth is one thing that I think made it hard to understand his charisma with his men.
In real life Josephine was actually several years older than Napoleon.
@@WalkwithHistory This movie was a hit piece that ridiculed Napoleon.
Agreed, it made no sense! The movie focused so much on their relationship, but it didn't even bother to portray them accurately.
Yes exactly - you are so right about that.
Vive l'Empereur !! (Mark Schneider )
Yes!! 🙌
Trivia Note, Mathew Dumas' son is Alexandre Dumas who is known for writing the Three Musketeers
Love it!!! ♥️
By the way Mark, Napoléon by Abel Gance was released on DVD by BFI. It's the restoration of 5h30 version by Kevin Brownlow.
You can find on TH-cam the wonderful trailer of this release.
Also, the French cinématheque has been working for many years on a new restoration, a 7h30 version!
Thank you for sharing!
Wow I really enjoyed this talk, I'm familiar with Mark from the Documentary Becoming Napoleon and enjoyed it very much. He really does become Napoleon, a current day doppelganger. I had a period where I was fascinated with Napoleon as do many it seems, he is so well written on. I agree with all the criticism, you could really make a great drawn out streaming series based on a more true Historical account. Napoleon is fascinating he experiences a wide range of emotions many people can relate to from being bullied and introverted early on, even melancholic to being the complete opposite reaching states of Mania...and I agree with Mark, I was fortunate to catch the silent movie Napoleon by Abel Gance on Turner Classic Movies and was mesmerized by it even though it was a silent movie.
I think we’re going to need to watch that 1927 film. 😁
Monsieur N is a film many should see. It's about Napoleon's time on St Helena (if he escaped or died there). Actually shows some of his generals who went into exile with him.
Interesting! We’ll have to check it out.
Yes, a very good movie, alas not known.
It is an uchrony, a "what if" movie with a very smart script, a very good representation of St Helena and good actors. The French people are played by French actors, the British, by British actors.
@@MajorDenisBloodnok I totally agree - the score is amazing & one of my favorites. A rare gem of great filmmaking.
Brilliant one. Proud to have the living Napoleon at the battle of Nations in 2013 at Leipzig. Have also got a pic of him from distance. Thx from Germany to mention my country which apart from Austria not really got mentioned in the film. Lovely Berlin Story. The story of occupation and suppressing it's European neighbours is also forgotten in the movie. Also it puzzles me why Kutusov Blücher and Schwarzenbeck are not really shown .as the battle of Nations..his biggest defeat is forgotten , not even mentioned in the end .but making up scenes with Wellington and Napoleon. So not only the French have a reason to be angry about this movie, most of continental Europe has in particular Spain, Holland, Italy and Germany...greetings from Northern German which was a part of France during that time. It was its own department, not just an occupied territory. Fully integrated into the French state..
Great info. Thank you for sharing and for watching. 😁
Both Austerlitz and Waterloo battles were disastrous in this movie in so many ways. They never actually showed the grand scale, especially the Waterloo, shot again in those crappy dark blue grey filters to mask the CGI used from the spectator, inaccurate as hell, total lack of context, importance, tactics, thrill...it was like watching a gamer trying to kill as many orcs as possible and feel happy about it. And those are totally on Ridley: he did a crap of a job there! Use CGI for the wide angles, i would not mind, but use your imagination and use tighter shots to bring back the intensity even with just a couple of dozens of extras (which still dazzles me how with such an enormous budget and actually 2 main characters that took part for more than 2 minutes he could not get more extras for those scenes). Sorry but reducing the waterloo cavalry charge of 20k horsemen to a couple of dozens circling around a square...really? And all those squares firing in all directions? Are you kidding me? Those squares would be decimated by friendly fire by the time the french cavalry reached them...Digging trenches in the mud during heavy rain for the whole night? Yeah, right! The squares even behind the actual ridge were obliterated by french canon before the cavalry charge, i can only imagine what would be were they formed in front...pffff...such a tragic epic failure this movie was...I love Braveheart, even the Patriot, as inaccurate they were, but at least they had a plot, a moto, a symbol to root for...this one has a 5th grader dialogues, randomly selected episodes with no coherence and context between them, no real direction or even a sense of what this movie depicts...
Yup
Mark, I think one of the best portraits of the
Emperor was as you mentioned
War & Peace. You said it was made in 1955, which is incorrect. I’m looking at my
Criterion edition
Which clearly states 1966-67.
1955 was before
The famous
Secret Speech about Stalin. In that year no one had the power to make such a
Big Hollywood movie, since this was a challenge to
show Hollywood
“We can make an Epic better”,
a Cold War thing.
Anyway, great job & I think you
Should be #14 instead of #27 on that list (my opinion.)
Good catch! Well annotated that correction in the video description. 😊and thank you for the kind words. 😁 Mark is amazing!
The one and only one to do Napoleon was Stanley Kubrick ... period. There are a number of interesting online reviews detailing the preparation work he for his unrealized project.
I’m gonna have to look that up
Votre invité était merveilleux.
The scene in Egypt, when Napoleon is given a step stool to view Cleopatra, is pathetic; one of many of Ridley Scott’s jabs at Napoleon throughout this PowerPoint Presentation excuse for a movie.
Napoleon was 5’6” and of average height for a male during this period of time.
I’d love to see a well-financed, historically accurate French Production of “Napoleon” in a detailed series form.
1/5 or 2/10
And, that’s mainly for the period costumes and most of the set designs.
A Napoleon series would be amazing.
There is one. Series is called Napoleon with Christian Clavier as Napoleon and John Malkovich as Taleyrand. I think Depardieu plays in it as well. If I remember well, they did all the scenes twice in French and English (but don't quote me on this).
This guy would have been a excellent Napoleon, 🤔
For sure!!! 👍
Seconded. During reenactments here in France, he IS Napoleon, way better than THE official Napoleon's lookalike.. And , as a french, i don't give a rat's ass that he's american.
With Napoleon1 being the subject of popular culture for past 200 years, I sometimes wonder whether Ridley Scott has missed the chance to make a movie on the other Napoleon.
Not that difficult to make since the theme was consistently that of the nephew trying to recreate the glories of his uncle. Maybe fewer battle scenes but still has enought twists and turns in the storyline to make it exciting.
The age gap between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby in an alternate Napoleon movie would also be more or less historically accurate.
Great point!
This video was. VERY INTERESTING THANK YOU FRANK FROM MONTANA.......
Thank you for watching. It was super fun to film.
Can you imagine the British reaction to a French made movie about Henry V at Agincourt if they screwed around with the facts in the same way. Or if France made a movie About Washington with the same disregard. Outrage would have ruled.
That is a great way to look it. :/
Well France has 1066.
Wellington? 😏
MARK should have starred in this film
Yes!!! 🤘👍♥️💪
The city of Memphis TN did an amazing exhibit of Napolean artifacts and art to commerate the Lousiana Purchase in 2004. Very memorible foe anyone fortunate to attend.
Sounds amazing! Would have loved to have seen it.
@Marc Schneider - the insane thing is that Ridley Scott had Commodus (of course played by Joaquin Phoenix) DO A NAPOLEON in a deleted scene in Gladiator.
The Praetorian Guards who failed to kill Maximus are ordered executed. Commodus (Phoenix) stands in between the two condemned men and PRACTICALLY DARES GENERAL QUINTUS TO SHOOT HIM - just like Napoleon historically did in front of the 5th Ligne.
It's not like Ridley Scott doesn't know how to get this stuff right!!!
Moreover, Ridley had to answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION to make the Napoleon movie a success: How does General Maximus (young Napoleon Bonaparte circa 1790's) transform into Emperor Commodus (Emperor Napoleon circa 1805). THAT'S ALL RIDLEY SCOTT NEEDED TO DO and this would have been an awesome movie.
But no. I'm convinced that Scott and Scarpa actually hate Napoleon and other "great men" and so they make him into a laughably pathetic PARODY.
Correct, but not sure why you keep saying Commodus...unless you're implying that Gladiator did a better job showing the rise...because it's a Scott film.
@@denroy3 that's the point. Scott has done this before. He didn't have to reinvent the wheel. He literally had the scene of Napoleon and the 5th of the Line in Gladiator. He had Maximus and Commodus as two sides of the Napoleon coin. This wasn't rocket science.
Good point there
It was all very fair and honest criticism, or at least I agreed with all of it. This movie was extremely lacking in areas
Thank you for watching. We tried to be very respectful of what a great creative project it was.
Mark -Napoleon nomer 1
For all that money and for posterity, the history ought to be correct.
Exactly. Truth is better!!! Thank you for watching.
But Napolone was not small - From Britannica: "... Sources consequently estimate that Napoleon was probably closer to 5’6” or 5’7” (1.68 or 1.7 meters) than to 5’2”. Although the range may seem short by 21st-century standards, it was typical in the 19th century, when most Frenchmen stood between 5’2” and 5’6” (1.58 and 1.68 meters) tall. Napoleon was thus average or taller..." It was the British that wanted used this as probaganda - and it was not true. But this still "sticks" - even today. Just wanted to state this.
Sure, and Mark is about 5’7” as well. So a very good reenactor and you are right at the time not considered short. Mark was talking about being teased by today’s standards. It was the British that tried to say Napoleon was shorter but he wasn’t.
this new napolean movie swckd, phoenix portrayl and the character as written were so far from a historical napolean that the only tie were the uniforms and other costumes. napolean was half phoenix' age but phoenix was the lovesick teenie.
43:27 Mathieu Dumas or Thomas-Alexandre Dumas?
Need to double check. If we misspoke we’ll put a fact check in the video description
From (host) Scott's comments on the Ridley Scott battlefield depictions, he has OBVIOUSLY not seen the Bondarchuk film, "Waterloo!" Scott: if you want to see impressive battlefield depictions, don't bother with Ridley's "Napoleon."
I definitely will see it! Others are saying the same thing. 😂
Hello from France,
Nice Interview Mark Schneider Well done.
You should know that Ridley Scott's film "Napoleon" is not very well received and appreciated in France.
Far too many anachronisms,
it's as if a great French director made a film about Washington or Davy Crockett and made him appear in very vulgar and racy scenes!.
What would the American public say?
Historians, writers and speakers are all unanimous in saying that the film is a historical catastrophe.
Too bad because he could have made a grandiose film with the advice of historians like Thierry Lentz, Jean Tulard, David Chanteranne etc...
Film remains with coldness without emotion and access only to marital relationships.
Access to carnal relations with Joséphine and showing only as a man of war.
Bonjour de France,
Belle interview avec Mark Schneider Bravo.
Il faut savoir que le film "Napoléon" de Ridley Scott n'est pas très bien accueilli et apprécié en France.
Beaucoup trop d'anachronismes,
c'est comme si un grand réalisateur français faisait un film sur Washington ou Davy Crockett et le faisait apparaître dans des scènes très vulgaires et racées !.
Que dirait le public américain ?
Historiens, écrivains et intervenants sont tous unanimes pour dire que le film est une catastrophe historique.
Dommage car il aurait pu faire un film grandiose avec les conseils d'historiens comme Thierry Lentz, Jean Tulard, David Chanteranne etc...
Le cinéma reste avec froideur, sans émotion et sans accès aux seules relations conjugales.
Accès aux relations charnelles avec Joséphine et se manifestant uniquement comme un homme de guerre.
That’s a really great point. Thank you so much for watching and joining us!
There is the ten part Napoleon series made in Europe about twenty years ago and it is in English. It is a lavish and accurate portrayal of his career, with several major stars such as Gerard Depardieu Highly recommended. The 2023 movie was just awful.
We’ll have to look that up!
@@WalkwithHistoryDo not forget about the tremendously good actor Christian Clavier. He plays the great Empreor himself.
It's so refreshing to see Mark Schneider commenting on this! Finally someone who knows who can give valid criticism to Mr. Scott and shut his ugly face up. Ridley Scott spat on the memory of Europe's Greatest Liberator of all time. I hope Ridley has all his licenses and filmmaking rights revoked for this hack job.
It was great to have mark give u some real insight in to Napoleon (the movie and the real man)
Joaquin Phoenix came 28th out of 100?
You mean to tell me that there are 72 WORSE Napoleon movies?
😂
Your content adds much value and needed perspective to the movie.
Enjoyed this so much.
Thank you so much for watching. It was really a joy to film, Mark knows so much about Napoleon.
@@WalkwithHistory Pondering if , in his prime and versed in the rules of American football, would Napoleon have made a notable coach ?
@@AB-ye7bw lol...i'll say yes!
Pls put Hamilton the play
Ooohhh, good idea!
God damn that dude is impressive
Napoleon did a lot for sure! We were so lucky to have Mark on to talk about all. 😁
@@WalkwithHistory I was talking about Mark that whole opening was fantastic
Joaquin Phoenix ❤🎉😊
Let's say it: Ridley Scott is a hack and the movie is just TERRIBLE.
Yeah, it disappointed a bit
The movie was garbage. I'm not sold on garbage because it looks pretty. It was also a bait and switch. I will not be watching it ever again.
It definitely could have been better
I love Napoleonic wars and what Napoleon done for our nation in Ilyrian provinces. I serve 15 years , i study napoleonic era Hussars and their bad ass general Antoine Charles Louis de Lasalle and for these movie i can onlly say is bad even for fiction
Thank you for your service 😊 Yes, they fell short with many facts in this movie.
I would pay to watch these guys watch waterloo
You mean the movie? Hmmm…maybe we can add that to our Watch With History to-do list! 😁
Lol Scott is Ridley a patron of the channel? Definitely getting that vibe from your comments lol. Or maybe you’re just playing Devil’s Advocate?
But I do like how Mark is able to open up; I can tell his suspension of disbelief only got him so far with this dumpster fire of a movie.
And I’m not an expert, but I agree with Jen that the material culture in the movie generally did seem very good, but there was definitely some weird inconsistent stuff, like grenadiers of the guard wearing Phrygian caps to Elba, etc. AND SO MANY F-ING FLAGS EVERYWHERE
lol. I (Scott) am a chronic devils advocate person. 😂😂 I’d be excited if Ridley Scott listened to Talk With History…but I doubt it. Thank you for watching!
I hated the movie, it embarrassed Napoleon's current surving surving family and France citizens alike and I'm an American.
Yeah. I can see that. Thank you for watching.
The movie depicts a c*ntstruck Napoleon who is destined to lose. If the real Bonaparte was alive he would sue ...
LOL. That is so true.
The Napoleon in the movie was NOT Napoleon Bonaparte at all! It was Phoenix's joker role copy & paste to this film. Not a true representation of the Napoleon. He was to old to play Napoleon to begin with. There was zero charisma, energy or any sign of character at all. They turned this man into a whiny, awkward bitch that likes to hump. The battles scenes were all completely done wrong, esp Waterloo and are all historically inaccurate and that further frustrated me. This movie is terrible.
The only good Napoleon movie was 1970's 'Waterloo'.. which to me is a masterpiece.
Need to see Waterloo!
20:25 Why would you like to change the real story?
It's quite simple, it is made by a British guy who hates Napoleon. He is portrayed insecure, old, autistic, paranoid, at the feet of Josephine, bloodthirsty, etc. etc.
this movie is a catastrophe
It could have been much with minor tweaks.
The host says "captivating" portrayal...after all the bad reviews. That's a laugher. It's like he just decided to shill.
The male host is not a historian and liked the movie for the cinematic content which is what was captivating, which is what he said.
How wonderful to have Mark who not only looks like Napoleon but does re-enactments AS Napoleon but knows his history quite well. Had he played the role for Scott and assisted in the script the movie could have been good, maybe great but as it is this version is the worst historical film I've seen, it's a character assassination showing nothing of his genius or charisma displaying only a single aspect his character; the man baby.
Yes the movie definitely had a point of view. Missed the mark. Thank you so much watching! 😁🙌🏻
ridley schott's movie is hollow and bitter and empty and unsatisfying
Not quite up to the real history for sure
I thought this movie was a character assassination of Napoleon from yet another Brit. Napoleon was a flawed man but not this flawed.
I think the general of color is Alexandre Dumas not Mathieu Dumas.
The father of the writer Alexandre was the general Thomas Alexandre Dumas.
@@fabs8498 thanks for the correction, I knew there was an Alexandre in there some where. What name did the Napoleon reenactor say in the video though? It didn't sound like Thomas either, unless I misheard.
I think we may have misspoke by accident…need to double check. But good catch!! History is important to get right and if we got that fact wrong we’ll add a Fact Check/correction to the video description. 😊
How the fuck was Joaquin's depiction in the top 50 if not even lower?? There must have been some godawful Napoleons out there, which I guess shouldn't be too surprising since they needed a hundred/names depictions.
Good point
I think the argument that Napoleon was not a tyrant because of his love of literature and art is a weak one. For example, Putin is philosophy enthusiast and art patron. Does it disenfranchise his dictatorship?
Napoleon became intoxicated by his success. He is not black and white but must be viewed in shades of grey. Our argument is not he can’t be a tyrant because he loved literature and art. Our argument is that he loved literature and art. He was highly authoritative but also modernized France. One does not negate the other.
Also, Napoleon didn't take Egypt.. the Egypt Campaign was a failure. He abandoned his men in Egypt because Nelson destroyed the french fleet at the Nile and political trouble in France. Also, he couldn't stay in Egypt because his army was dying of lack of supplies and disease.
Lots of historical accuracy didn’t make it in to this movie.
Did Napoleon really cover his ears when they fired the cannons?
I am sure not all the time especially if he had any part in its firing. But there is evidence that people were beginning to understand that hearing loss was connected to the loud sounds of warfare. Therefore, it is plausible that he did cover his ears while observing cannon fire.
😂😂😂
Napoleon was a TYRANT... But a brilliant one!
And one thing to add.. Waterloo, the great British victory and Wellington the greatest. Why is this propaganda always shown as if only British were fighting there. Does anyone know that half of the losses were Germans. Prussians and Northern Germans under the command of Wellington. Another 25% were Dutch/Belgian and the other 25% true British. Looking at the whole campaign with it's 4 battles it was the Prussians who had the main burden. And by far the highest losses. Hence 60-70% of the Allied losses were Germans. And it was Blücher who bailed Wellington out at Waterloo while Wellington failed to help Blùcher at Ligny. Blücher got even injured and was the only supreme commander involved in true fightings. Covered by his dead horse the French cavalry ran even over him. History has given us the best script for a true Hollywood movie and it was never used. Well even in 2023 a Prussian cannot be a hero as it seems.
Great point!
Losers!I loved it despite few things.
So 4 Stars from you!!! ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
The average movie goer isn’t dumb and shouldn’t be treated as such but that goes to show you the people who PAYS for these films don’t care about movie making at all.
They just would sell TRASH to people if the audience would let them.
It’s sad state of Hollywood now.
I gave up on them.
I can live without films tbh
That’s why you have us here on TH-cam. 😉