For the people saying we shouldn't complain about inaccuracies, imagine if the first scene of Saving private Ryan had been Eisenhower riding a horse charge in Omaha Beach. And Hitler showed up from behind the hills leading a flight of Apache helicopters from the Luftwaffe. This is how it feels watching this movie if you have the slightest knowledge about the Napoleonic wars 😂
That is way different and out of fetch argument you made up. Did it show Napoleon riding a car and Napoleon waterloo enemies using swords instead of guns? No so be quiet and come up with something better.
@SpokeNyan1390 it showed the British using rifles with scopes 30years too early, napoleon firing on the pyramids which is something he would never do as he had great interest in ancient history and napoleon drowning an entire army in a frozen lake drowning thousands when in reality less than 200 drowned as they fled at the end of the battle? This scene alone is ridiculous since napoleon was quite literally incapable of riding his horse and travelled by carriage for the majority of the campaign, had to come off the feild at Waterloo as a result, never mind charging and fighting in hand to hand combat. Yeah no, it's ridiculous fantasy.
@@loyalpiper Ok, those are really good examples of how inaccurate this movie is. Sure. But I suppose who ever created this movie made it for people who are sheeples and NPCs, who can’t possibly see these mistakes. So you know what, those 3 or so mistakes, especially the scope rifles is bad. But what the guy comment above is trying to make it seem that the Napoleon film is beyond reality of what really happened in napoleon life. Such as cars or horses or whatever. You over here being reasonable than the guy I was replying to.
Check out the 1970 movie ‘Waterloo’. A masterpiece in how to film battle scenes pre cgi. There were literally tens of thousands of extras used to film the massed ranks of the French and allied armies. One particularly shot where the camera pans from right to left along the allied line is simply breathtaking.
The aerial shots of the British squares under assault are magnificent… and the charge of the Scots Grays never ceases to hypnotize me. Even the scene where Napoleon bids his Old Guard farewell before exile is amazing (Another lost opportunity in this new film). I wish the full-length 4-hour (?) theatrical release was preserved and released on DVD at one point. But apparently, the film - in its original form - was never archived and is lost. What a shame.
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the director Soviet & gained permission to use 20,000 Soviet Union soldiers as extras spending months training them on formations before even filming?
Napoleon swinging his sword and stabbing people in the midst of battle like a damn hussar is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. What was Scott thinking? If Napoleon actually did something like that he would be dead in seconds because everyone would know who he was. Not to mention the fact that he would not be able to direct the battle.
Bare with me for you or anybody with low attention spans and who are Gen Z kids who can’t read a long comment: Literally you are complaining about one mistake from this scene. This is like people complaining why didn’t Iron Man just give the infinity gauntlet to captain marvel, why did he transport the stones to himself? Why didn’t Tony build multiple suits containing the contingency plan of teleporting the stones to the other powerful avengers? But you know why people didn’t say that during endgame? Because it just works. Now if you say that “endgame was a science fiction movie, it’s fake and not real.” Well take for example saving private ryan, that film made plenty of mistakes. Yet do you see people bi- I mean whine about those few mistakes? No because the film just works. So tell me, where is the logic that people like you are making? Because all I see is just complaining and whining.
No no no. This is ONE mistake of the multitude of nonsense that i am seeing right now, i could do a god damn essay of 40 pages about every bloody thing that is wrong there because the only accurate thing are the uniforms !@@SpokeNyan1390 Someone pointed out that even the direction the Prussian are coming from is wrong godamnit
So much bad faith from Ridlet simps. The battles we see even look shit with 20 people fighting in the background, even The Patriot was doing it better @@thiagoalabat
@@SpokeNyan1390 Napoleon is a supposed biopic and Saving Private Ryan is not. If I made a biopic about George Washington and have him fist fight Cornwallis on the battlefield and said it just works then i am not making biopic i am making a fantasy movie inspired by George Washington. Since clearly Ridley Scott wants to focus more on Napoleons relationship with Josephine for his Biopic yet presents the simplest details wrong about Napoleon his biopic ends up as fantasy. This why people complain not because its not entertaining but that its marketed as an analysis of Napoleon yet its relying on bullshit Ridley Scott made up.
Yes Napoleon really needed to win this battle.If the French had won then maybe the Prussians would not have eventually set up the Austrian Hungarian Empire.There by creating the first World War which led to National Socialist Germany which led to the Second World War.Thanks Wellington and Blucher.
The whole film felt this way. All they managed to do was show that he was awkward and it seems, has sex like a jack rabbit... Horrible movie making IMO
. . . From the Director of Gladiator and the screenwriter of The Day The Earth Stood Still remake. Just as long as there are "Epic Battle Scenes" and "Massive Explosions," audiences don't seem to care too much about accuracy; it's a shame that the producers but out this garbage and then this garbage makes a ton of money; there's no discernment in pop culture these days.
lol true. Also don’t forget when he writes to Josephine that after the battle of Borodino he tells her he’s 200 miles or something from Moscow. When it’s actually 70 miles. I mean they couldn’t even look at a map right
How is it a show with the budget of six peanuts and a stick of gum portrayed Waterloo better? Also fun fact: Leroy’s real life father played Ney in the superior Napoleon film
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256They decided to cancel the sequel- Napoleon after he died irl was put into *four* coffins...they knew how bad the sequel would be lol. Not to mention they marooned him on St. Helena with 2000 British soldiers to monitor him.
Nah, the Dacentrurus and Torvosaurus fight is the real highlight of Waterloo and Scott also threw in oversized Harpactognathus to be air cavalry for the Russians in Borodino.
Mon Dieu! I had heard that the Waterloo sequence was bad, but I never dreamed it was THIS bad. Forget the fact that absolutely no attempt was made to show any real tactics (but at least they did have the Anglo-Allied troops forming squares in the face of a cavalry charge) ... but trenches/field works? A huge French camp immediately behind the ridiculously thin battle line? The two armies just running at each other and looking more like "Braveheart" than Waterloo? Napoleon himself leading a cavalry charge, and with no Marshal Ney in sight (at least no officer that in any way resembled Ney) and then personally skewering at least one Brit? A sniper with a scope taking a pot shot at Nappy and blowing a hole in his famous hat? Napoleon turning and raising his sword as if to salute Wellington across the field? The list goes on. I actually think "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer" may have been a more historically accurate movie than this... but it's a close call. Watch Rod Steiger and Chirstopher Plummer in Sergey Bondarchuk's epic 1970's "Waterloo" instead of this pile of steaming merde de cheval from Sir Ridley "Were-you-there?" Scott.
@@ryanwebb5082 - I agree. - Rod Steiger owned the role. - I couldn't take my eyes off him. His performance made it easier for the other actors to play against. - I measure all other Napoleon actors against him. None have surpassed him.
@@KeithHays-ek4vrreally? Steiger the best Napoleon? What about Terry Camilleri and his portrayal of Napoleon in “Bill and Ted’s excellent adventure”?…..
I see British ego has gotten in the way of yet another victory, lmao seriously tho you cant tell me if they did have a marksmen tell Wellington "Sir I've got him scoped" Wellington would've probably told him to TAKE THE SHOT, it wouldve ended the battle potentially before it began.
Yeah, 1970 "Waterloo" is the masterpiece. Majestic music, set of great actors, filmed with actual troops, clever dialogues. Ridley Scott has no idea how these battles were fought, none
Agreed, the gold standard. It amalgamates a few Scottish characters, and takes some minor liberties, but it's just the best thing on screen by far. I wish Kubrick had done one in his prime. I also wish Scott did this in the 1970s when he was on his game. The Duelists is pretty good. Scott's latest movie is entertaining for those who watch action movies and know nothing about Napoleon. Everyone who has read 3 paragraphs about him hates this movie.
Of course, didn't you know? He lead the charge in person. He also used US Marines and Russian T34 to break the allied Mecha-dinosaurs lines of defense (but it was to expensive to shoot, so Ridley Scott had to skip that part).
And fun fact, it isn't Waterloo. This battle took place in Braine-l'Alleud but because it was too difficult for non-french speaking people, they chose the closest pronunciable village
Napoleon did not charge with his cavalry that day he was ill he was told to go rest a while and I believe that’s when Marshal Ney led his cavalry charge against Wellingtons Infantry squares. Napoleon’s strategic genius was not what it once was as before. The last act of the French that day was the infantry attack of the Imperial Guard.
Ive paused this twice, about to comment, and I keep telling myself "Dont be a history nerd! Leave it alone!" Even when I saw a soldiers bayonet flopping, even when I saw Napoleon shouting commands instead of sending one of his messengers on horseback, even when the cannonballs seem to "blow up." But now, Napoleon riding in front, sinking his sabre into some private??? God what a stupid movie, and I thank those of you who referenced Monty Python!!
I had the same feeling. I lived in Brussels and actually led tours of the Waterloo battlefield. I cringe at all the people who will think this is how it really was. If people really want to know, direct them to the PBS documentary on Napoleon. Rod Steiger made a better Napoleon.
the bayonet thing is just the soft ones used by extras in combat scenes its not ideal but like.. it makes SENSE, you dont want metal ones being stabbed around i combat scenes fun ffact, in the battle of gaugamela scene in oliver stones 'alexander' for a brief moment you can see the white, tape covered balls on the end of sticks as safety heads for the spears you see it... as the left flank gets hit hard by persian infantry and the camera focuses on the close brutal fighting between the two sides right before it zooms out and focus on alexander right before he did the
To be fair, during the Napoleonic wars, in addition to round shot, various forms of ball were fitted with fuses to detonate in the air. Amongst the British developments was the implementation of Shrapnel. A ball filled with explosive and metal bits which had a fuse and detonated over the enemy to inflict injury to the infantry and gunners. Named after its inventor Colonel Shrapnel.
I can overlook the floppy rubber bayonets as just a technical "blooper". I can't overlook the sheer stupidity of the way this sequence was written / scripted.
Wait wait wait.... is that a British "sharpshooter", armed with a flintlock rifle that has a *SCOPE* like a modern day sniper rifle, taking a shot at Napoleon?! *WHAT THE ACTUAL SHIT, RIDLEY SCOTT?!*
@@artemusp.folgelmeyer4821 They did exist, but they were completely inpractical, expensive and useless because the weapons at that time were too inaccurate and had an effective range of about 700 meters max..
Napoleon was not in the thick of the fighting at waterloo. And the battle did not turn into a disorganized melee. Glad I didn't waste my money on this at the cinema.
There looks to be a bout two thousand men in the entire battle field and the grass is green and as dry as a bowling green. Napolean swinging his sword in battle and then the shocking acting by the so called Duke of Wellington as Blucher suddenly emerges from nowhere is Monty Pythonesque. This is truly hideous!
They couldn't even be bothered to get someone who vaguely looked like Wellington. And there's no gravitas to the man. A mere shadow of Christopher Plummer.
I think he likes to start projects before the script is finished, just kind of wings it and trusts in his genius direction and good acting to pull off another big hit
@@memergas740 this argument is stupid. There is a lot of books telling what happened. Not just the life of Napoleon is well documented, but his marshals as well.
Look, I like fiction as much as the next guy, but you're asking the audience to imagine Bush the Lesser risking his own precious skin. Nobody's gonna buy that, it's way too implausible for a good story.
@@samuelglover7685 lol true, atleast Napoleon actually used to charge from the front with his men when he was just a lowly officer (got bayonetted in the thigh as well)
With time, battles were starting to get really huge, and Napoleon was a lot about multitasking and trying to micromanage every little thing, which simply got impossible with increasing scope of the battlefield. This ended up on him relying on his various generals and marshalls and was one of the reasons how he could be defeated after retreating from Russia. Coalition did receive some serious asskicking before but you can observe how over the years his victories became closer and more bloodier. He wasn't very "economic" with troop conservation, though he did produce results. In following campaings, coalition went to focus more on directly fighting Napoleon's generals who were varied in terms of their quality. Personally charging into the fray did happen in history, but it was a dangerous venture - you could die, you lose sight of the battle, usually it was done when were in dire straits for that extra morale boost and hoping that a scary cavalry charge would cause a mass rout.
I get that a Hollywood films has to make a film exciting, but with the Napoleonic wars you really don't have to make anything up to make it exciting to watch.
Hollywood writers do this for everything, give them a beloved video game with an already great story and they will figure out a way to mess it up with their "professional" retelling
I know right! Especially if its about one of the most important era in history. This is like a ww2 movie with Italians surrendering after Americans killed Hitler in the battle of Berlin.
To be fair Hollywood does the same when making anything to do with WW2... Did you know that only American forces were in WW2... according to Mr Spielberg...
There's only one battle of Waterloo and that's in the 1970 film version which catpures the vast scale and horror of that encounter. Scott's version (all be it cramped into an already overfull attempt at Napoleon's life) looks like a minor battle and sadly the lack of numbers tell.
Despite it's share of compromises for a movie (you have to) it still stands up after over fifty years. I think there were something like 15,000 soviet troops. That is impressive and gives an idea of what it was like but when you think how many people were actually there it's still a drop in the ocean. I've been to the battle field and it's not large. To have seen it with the number that were actually there must have been awesome (until large lumps of metal started flying around).
what ? i believe this is one thing the movie got right. Blucher arrived late at the battle because he was defeated a few days before, the ''germans'' are the Kings German Legion, which is seen here and the brits suffered most of the casulties (also shown here). Only troops not shown are a few Duche, which doesnt matter since there were very little soldiers from these.
The research was based on reading a cereal box and skimming wiki. In defense of the 1970 version all did actually get a mention but the spotlight was on the British, the French and, to a lesser extent, the Prussians. Since it's target audience was English speaking it's not that uncommon for everyone to be properly represented. All movies have to tell a story and have to focus on the characters that will resonate with the audience. Those that don't are called documentaries and generally don't have blockbuster audiences. I believe Le Haye Saint was held by The KGL so you did see them, also many of the troops lined up on the hill would have been Dutch etc. Many of the Uniforms back then were not, ummm, uniform. So there were Hanovarian units that wore red coats, and others that wore green or blue (as did some British Hussars and Dragoons). The Prussians might be in dark blue or grey. The French wore blue but also red and green. The Belgians wore blue or teal. In fact I think many were veterans of Napoleons army. To equip the thousands of Soviet army extras with the proper uniforms would have been hugely expensive, confusing for the audience (it was confusing enough for the troops) and, because the number of actual units, compared to the number of extras, you would have seen ten guys per different uniform making it look like a patchwork quilt. During the attack on the squares most of the units under attack were British. Dutch units were further back. Squares were not actually always square, but rectangular. There were a lot of small scale actions during the battle. Multiple cavalry charges not just by the British or French. Some of the action took place on the flanks and basically lasted all day. To put all that detail into a movie would have cost more than the Manhattan project and ended up with a movie at least as long as the battle. Lastly, the main characters were Blucher, Napoleon and Wellington with Ney and Picton etc. in secondary roles. That is actually factually true. It was an allied army but Wellington was at it's head. Some of the allied units were ex-Napoleon soldiers and some did actually break, so not all were 100% reliable. At that time Germany didn't exist. The King of Britain was actually also the king Hanover. It's a bit of a mistake to think of allegiencies of 1815 as equivalent to the modern nationalities. Even France was not, and still isn't, a homogeneous state. In 1815 Napoleon had to station a portion of his forces in France not only to protect against invasion but to suppress insurections. Most nation states in Europe are much younger than the USA and nearly without exception have regions that have different languages and cultures to the national state. Sorry I got carried away. 😂
I was half expecting Wellington to charge as well and personally engage Napoleon in an epic 30 minute one-on-one sword fight where Napoleon is eventually disarmed and toppled off his horse. Wellington points his sword to Napoleon’s throat and demands surrender to which Napoleon says “Merde! Va te faire foutres ”. Being sporting and in recognition of a gallant foe (and not understanding French) Wellington allows him to honourably retire from the field of battle whereupon all hostilities cease. My understanding is that most British casualties resulted from forming squares to repulse cavalry attacks - ten or eleven of them. This was successful but it meant that between each cavalry attack squares were subjected to artillery fire which, although not always well coordinated, could not fail to kill and maim many in the densely packed formations. After the capture of La Haye Sainte French gunners fired into central squares from close range with canister to devastating effect, such that reduced squares had to amalgamate.
LMAO this would fit Scott's weird thing about slightly altering historical quotes or moments for no reason whatsoever. Maybe when Wellington asks Napoleon to surrender he goes, "Napoleon dies, but he does not surrender." lolol
Scott actually planned an epic sword duel between Napoleon and Wellington but scrapped the scene since he was concerned with criticism of historical innacuracy.
"Ridley, how should we shoot this climactic battle, to really do justice to the characters and real historical figures?" "Just...have them run at each other on horses. I don't know, it worked for Peter Jackson." "Are you sure?" "Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Then fuck off. Also, give the green bloke a sniper scope, he needs a sniper scope so that we'll know he's a sniper." "What role does he play in the film?" "He doesn't play any role at all. Just shoots at Napoleon in a throwaway bit." "That seems like poor directing-" "Excuse me, mate, were you there when I directed this film? No? Then fuck off."
I'm jealous that I didn't come up with this! As far as "the green bloke"... So according to Sir Ridley, Marshal Ney was not at Waterloo, but (fictional) Richard Sharpe was?
@@staceyfake8303 95th rifles were present at Waterloo. But the movie has this single man, using a sniper scope, with an officer spotting for him and requesting permission to fire like a modern sniper, rather than what the rifles were. I'd rather they'd got Sharpe in, to be perfectly honest.
Just imagine if this battle was extensively documented by both the French and the British and even the Prussians. This was so bad and if I could I would ask my money back from the ticket. This movie is quite a fine example that it's not (always) a question of money to make a good product.
I can imagine both Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington watching this, laughing and shaking their heads. Wellington says "by God what nonsense" whilst Napoleon laughs "pauvres imbéciles"
Not to mention there would have been alot more. It’s so depressing that the filmmakers of 1970 were much more aware of how many extras were needed. That film was done with CGI and STILL captured the true nature of the battle.
Ridley Scott didn't know what he was doing. If he had wanted to make a movie about Napoleon and Josephine, he should have made that movie and not also try and depict Napoleon's entire career.
Napoleon was ill and had a lot of stomach pain that day (and days prior). Has it ever been established whether or not there was any possible case of either food poisoning or attempts at poisoning him in the days before the battle? Because based on all accounts from that time, there's one apparently very consistent report in that Napoleon was unequivocally ill (especially the very day of the battle, of all things).
Actually, truth be told, Joaquin Phoenix loooks really ill and reluctant at the start of this scene which reflects some reality. Napoleon was very poorly on the day of Waterloo, unable to take the field and lead his cavalry (early stomach cancer? acute stress and worry?) and so does Mr Phoenix. He looks as though he is walking in a lot of pain and discomfort. Kudos to the makeup people.
The most recent study done of his death back in 2021 suggested Napoleon died of gastric cancer, so he was very likely suffering from it (or at least suffering from ulcers) at Waterloo.
This is stupidly inaccurate. At this stage of the battle, the imperial guard were the ones advancing. They would have advanced in column, not in the line depicted in this scene. This is incredibly important - since this is how british infantry were able to defeat them. The kind of free-for-all depicted in this scene seems in-accurate. British volleys devastated those French columns, and the Imperial guards broke and ran. This is also significant - as it was the first time they had ever failed an assault, and because of this, the rest of the french line tucked and ran too.
While your synopsis of what happened is correct, don't even waste your breath trying to compare what actually happened to the fictional account that Sir Ridley "Were-you-there?" Scott dreamed up.
The British infantry were partially obscured behind a reverse slope, as well. - They weren't standing out in the open, exposed. Wellington used deception as one of his tactics. - That is important as well.
A Year ago i went to a small museum in Sens, France. To my surprise in the middle of it is a very dark room with Napoleon‘s hat on display, which he supposedly wore during the battle of Waterloo. No bullet holes in it. It still sent chivers down my spine because it was so unexpected to see that object there.
"On the field of battle, his hat is worth forty thousand men!" - the Duke of Wellington. Insane that the reverence Napoleon's hat can induce in people is still around til this day.
@@NixonRules963 Even though he didn't win all the time and lost the "Big One" in the end Napoleon for most of his career was a winner, and people admire a winner.
To those who say that Napoleon could not have charged into the middle of a battle, all accounts indicate that he was determined to commit suicide at Waterloo by throwing himself into the fray at the end. It was his entourage and the officers of the Guard who prevented him from doing so while he was moving towards death. Already the year before at Arcis-sur-Aube (1814), he had fought physically, always with the same suicidal aim, by galvanizing his troops (inexperienced adolescents) on a bridge, within range of cannons, or by protecting his body. All accounts agree that he deliberately threw himself on a shell to impress them. His horse exploded and he survived. We are so far from the character played by Phoenix.
Yeah, no. Where's Hougement and La Haye Sainte? Also, where's the strategy here? Just throw your infantry and cavalry at the enemy and you win, NO. As a result it feels cheep and rushed. Also the fact that the french speak english, it really stings for people who expect historical accuracy like me, it sounds really weird and destroyed the immersion for me. Haha, another funny detail, 4:05, hole in hat, 4:37, no hole exists, 4:44, it's back.
"I'm a history!" in the voice of Ralph Wiggum of the Simpsons is how this movie should be regarded. I'm surprised that the British sniper shooting at Napoleon wasn't wearing a ghillie suit.
Oh no Napoleon actually did lead a cavalry charge at Waterloo. You guys for real? He charged in dual wielding his light sabers. Only Wellington calling in his tanks and spitfires saved him from certain defeat.
Fun fact: The actor playing Marshal Ney (the guy next to Napoleon with the handlebar moustache), contacted the descendants of the real Marshal Ney and apologised for this movie. Apparently he was super excited for the role and did a ton of research about Ney's life, personality and appearance, only for none of it to get used. He brought up the fact that Ney never wore a handlebar moustache to Ridley Scott, but Scott told him it didn't matter and he should grow the moustache anyway.
I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE IT. TO MASSACRE A GODLY MAN LIKE NAPOLEON WITH SUCH A RIDICULOUS WORK OF "ART"! The concept of rifle scopes were first even thought of in around 1840s. And at 4:00, we see a man trying to snipe out Napoleon with a scoped musket. JUST, WOW....
Yeah I liked it. Braveheart also wasnt historically accurate either. Vikings the TV series definitely wasnt historically accurate.... god damned entertaining though.
Are we sure this was not a reenactment by Monty Python's Batley Townswomen's Guild. I am sure the battle of Waterloo was a lot longer and Napoleon never fought at the battle.
Either the ladies re-enactment of Waterloo or their re-enactment of Pearl Harbor. Really can't tell the difference... Sir Ridley's sequence doesn't look anything even remotely close to either.
Exactly, when the true battle that ended the first French empire was Leipzig. Waterloo was just a spin-off, the least interesting moment of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, because by 1813 it was pretty much over.
@sans_hw187 Ironically being a gold mine of first-hand memoirs and stuff for a movie or mini-series. Imagine the Battle of Dresden, the Six Days' Campaign or an actor portraying Schwarzenberg. The Young Guard having literally young conscripts and the re-organization of Prussian army
Well yeah. Napoleon was too scared to go to Spain and face Wellington himself. He just kept sending incompetent marshals and poor young men to die at hands of British and Portuguese volley fire.
This definitely surpasses Braveheart in terms of inaccuracies. HOLY COW. All that was missing was for Napoleon to get betrayed and abandoned by his officers and him going on a revenge quest, killing them one by one, before being captured in an ambush and getting paraded around London before being executed. The only good thing this movie brought me was appreciation for the Waterloo Film of 1970.
They should have had at least one platoon of Cheyenne Warriors, for added "Realism!" Oh: and Napoleon should have stood in the stirrups and yelled "I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!"
Napoleon crossing the Alps in a Mule 32 years old Josephine was married with 26 years old Napoleon in March 9,1796 49 years old Joaquín and 35 Vanessa 14 years OLDER than her The battle in the ice lake never happened Napoleon didn't see Maria Antonieta Napoleon spoke Corso an Italian language and French Joaquín spoke English with an American accent Green papers with arsenic in his wall in his bedroom in Elba Island. Stomach ulcers
"Napoleon crossing the Alps in a Mule" Thats in fact correct. He crossed it on a white horse only on the picture.... "The battle in the ice lake never happened" Well, it was an episode during the Battle of Austerlitz during the russian retreat. But of course the real battle was totaly different. "Napoleon didn't see Maria Antonieta" Instead they didnt show the realy thing Napoleon witnessed: The storming of the Tullerie-palace and the massacer of the royal swiss-guard. This errupion of brutality deeply traumatised him. He had a panic towards uncontrolled civil uprisings during his reign because of that. "Green papers with arsenic in his wall in his bedroom in Elba Island. Stomach ulcers" Not because of that, but because of a genetical disposition. Several members of the Bonapart-family had stomac-cancer.
is the language/accent in an English language film really that critical? I can't think of too many films/tv shows (historical) where the French, Italian/Roman, Spanish, Viking etc characters spoke EXACTLY as they would have done at the time being portrayed.
@@TOFKAS01Great exposition of proving some of that guy points wrong. Now let me add on to that exposition. Below is me explaining how some mistakes of the film should not mean the film is bad overall. Of me explaining to these people who say “napoleon is inaccurate” is mostly wrong. So bare with me for you or anybody with low attention spans and who are Gen Z kids who can’t read a long comment: Literally people are complaining about one or a few mistakes from this scene. This is like people complaining why didn’t Iron Man just give the infinity gauntlet to captain marvel, why did he transport the stones to himself? Why didn’t Tony build multiple suits containing the contingency plan of teleporting the stones to the other powerful avengers? But you know why people didn’t say that during endgame? Because it just works. Now if people say that “endgame was a science fiction movie, it’s fake and not real.” Well take for example saving private ryan, that film made plenty of mistakes. Yet do you see people bi- I mean whine about those few mistakes? No because the film just works. So tell me, where is the logic that these people are making? Because all I see is just complaining and whining. Just like you pointed out. Like damn these people make no sense.
This was inspiring. This is why Napoleon is considered a great. He wasn't just a pen-pusher, he was prepared to go out onto the field and die with his army. Tearing up rn hope there's a Napoleon 2 from ridders.
I'm taking a moment out of my day to acknowledge this under-appreciated comment that's a clear nod to Steiger's Napoleon in "Waterloo" (1970). Well done, sir.
I always thought the British line was lying down as the French advanced. Then they stood surprising the French cutting them down with volley fire , the French line was broken and they retreated and the battle was won.
The British infantry line was on a reverse slope to conceal their numbers. When the French came over the rise the British lines stood up and fired taking the French by surprise. Oh, and there were no 'trenches' at Waterloo.
@@russelldutton8117I've heard the story that that day it rained heavily, and Napoleon's artillery was heavy, it sank in the mud, while England was light and had the advantage to win the battle
@@alexsandrohbyyhygodoydelim930 It certainly rained but mostly the night before. Napoleon acceded to his Marshals requests and delayed the start of the battle to 11:30 for the reasons you mentioned. On the artillery, both sides had varying sizes of artillery denoted by the weight of shot. The French infantry actually had guns used in the same fashion as the skirmishers, which were obviously lighter pieces. But the most interesting thing I found was, while the French used the new metric system, the old imperial system of pounds and ounces did not mean the same weight of shot for different countries. A pound was a different weight in Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia to name a few. Anyway, by commencement of the battle the ground was firm if heavy for most things. Though I imagine Napoleons Daughters would have been awkward to move. The heaviest field guns in Europe.
Что ж, можно точно сказать, что у Ридли Скотта получился первый ТикТок-фильм. Буквально нарезка сцен (в том числе и батальных), которые теперь можно полностью заливать на ютуб и смысл фильма от этого не потеряется никак. В общем, кинематограф можно описать фразой "Он эволюционирует, но назад".
В советской истории из Наполеона сделали..." Гитлера", но если посмотреть в глубь, что можно сейчас сделать, а не было возможности в советские годы, то можно узнать, что Наполеон не шёл войной на Россию, его Провоцировали...Англия и нажимали на Александра1.!!!😢😮
I haven't seen the movie, but chanced upon this clip, and watched it to the end. Then scrolled innocently to the comments section. Bloody glad I did. Well played, lads. Well played.
Things this movie got incorrectly: The prussians arrival was at the right side. Not left! (French Perspective) You can't put a spyglass onto a musket! Napoleon and Wellington never met in the battlefield! Didn't Napoleon also send the imperial Guard?
@@markscouler2534 Good spot. I believe the KGL in La Haye Sainte also used rifles. Which made it a bloody victory for the French. Even the rifles would not have a great deal of accuracy, though better than unrifled muskets, which might be able to hit a barn.
@@stevem2323 Good question! I have no idea. From what I gather people who know next to nothing about Napoleon like the movie and those who DO know about Napoleon hate it. So how much money it's making is open to question.
@@stevem2323 I believe that's the case. I just took a quick look (Honestly I don't care how much money a movie makes since I'm not going to get any of it anyway!) and it looks like it's only made 137 million at the box office which doesn't cover its 200 million budget. Not good.
На счет фильма Наполеон могу сказать следующее: В фильме ОТЛИЧНЫЙ визуал и изумительная актëрская игра. Батальные сцены самобытны и реалистичны, так что зритель не теряется в происходящем. Сценарий хорошо раскрывает исторический контекст и взаимоотношения между персонажами. Фильм чередует события между сражениями, политическими интригами и любовными линиями, таким образом, заскучать во время просмотра НЕВОЗМОЖНО физически. Главный герой вовсе не ничтожество, а рассудительный, исполнительный, целиустремленный, расчетливый, холоднокровный и амбициозный человек. Наполеон не из тех, кто легко сдаëтся. Он из бедной семьи и поэтому знает, что удача не достанется человеку, если тот не возьмëт еë в свои руки. Он отлично командует артиллерией и хорошо разбирается в тактике. В битве за Тулон в его лошадь попадает пушечное ядро, но Наполеон не колеблясь ведëт солдат в атаку, что очень многое говорит о его силе воли. Многие люди упустили основную мысль фильма, а именно, что не бывает всесильных людей, Наполеон талантливый, но всё же человек, и следовательно - неидеален. Он решает судьбы тысяч людей, меняет карту Европы, но в то же время режется бритвой и забывает шляпу перед свиданием. Ему не чужды эмоции и романтика, и как любой человек, герой Хоакина Феникса снидаем страстями: похотью, гордыней, высокомерием, ревностью. Добравшись до невиданных высот, Наполеон забыл о главном, а именно о том, что он такой же человек как все, и даже его возможностям есть предел. Наполеон подлетел слишком близко к солнцу, и оно сожгло его. Наполеон очерствел из-за власти и стал жертвой своих амбиций. Основная мысль фильма лучше всего прослеживается в битве под Ватерлоо, где Наполеон с сарказмом приказывает солдатам остановить дождь. Вот, что я имею ввиду, когда говорю, что Наполеон 2023 - воистину Великое Кино. Тем, кому кажется, что Хоакин Феникс лишен харизмы Наполеона скажу следующее: Когда герой Хоакина Феникса оказывается на острове Эльба, то он бросает вызов своей судьбе и берëт своë по праву. Его возвращение во Францию не увенчалось успехом, но Наполеон не бездействовал. Герой Хоакина Феникса не стал мириться с унижением и хотя бы попытался что-то изменить. Таким образом герой Хоакина Феникса в очередной раз проявляет силу воли и стойкость своего характера. С исторической точки зрения картина очень недоставерна, но основную суть тех событий создатели передали довольно точно. Сама же личность Императора Франции перенесена на экран без изменений. Все те жизненные трудности с которыми столкнулся Наполеон Бонапарт и черты его характера нашли воплощение в актëрской игре Хоакина Феникса. Как я уже сказал, в картине много исторических неточностей, но это ХУДОЖЕСТВЕННОЕ произведение, а не документальное. Я настоятельно рекомендую посмотреть этот фильм каждому здравомыслящему человеку, уделите ему всë нужное для этого внимание, оно того стоит. Я просмотрел этот фильм за один вечер и ни о чем не жалею. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
я фильм не смотрел, но 5 минут ролика - глупость несусветная... У Наполеона за все это время примерно одно и то же выражение лица, и у других тоже :) а уж когда он на коне скачет, неуклюже подпрыгивая как бочка, и тычет саблей ... вообще молчу. Временами появляется ощущение, что актеры не знают, что им делать. Музыка, которая играет на заднем плане, это тоже что-то невообразимое. По комментариям видно, что у зрителя рождается чувство отторжения, фильм его не захватывает. Я понимаю, что сегодня очень трудно сделать исторический фильм - тогда не делай баталий, придумай что то другое.
@@DabraLibanos Главный герой недавно узнал о смерти своей бывшей супруги, которую очень сильно любил, битва к показанному моменту уже продолжается значительное время, однако так и не были достигнуты весомые результаты, становится ясно, что это конец. Поэтому Наполеон Хоакина Феникса в этой сцене подавлен. Стоит заметить, что в фильме батальные сцены не главное, главное то, что скрывается за ними, учитесь читать между строк.
Let me clear this up real quick; *NAPOLEON WAS 46 YEARS OLD, SUFFERING FROM STOMACH CANCER IN A BARN OUTSIDE THE BATTLEFIELD* Never let Ridley Scott direct a historical movie, I can already imagine Gladiator 2 being an absolute abomination.
the battle scene of this movie is such a huge disappointment. If Steven Spielberg was given a chance to make a film about Napoleonic war, it would be so brutal and memorable.
I'm not a historian, just a buff...but the battle of waterloo (and the days/weeks before) was almost a surprise attack by the english and everyone else. Correct me if im wrong, but wasn't Napoleon very VERY sick, and his army was absolutely exhausted from all the smaller battles that happened days before waterloo, in an attempt to defend Paris? I don't remember exactly, but I know I heard that Napoleon had several health issues and stomach problems, that seemed to lead into his stressful and poor decision making during this battle. ? (I haven't seen the movie yet, just going off of what I remember from High school and College history classes)
This movie woulda got better reviews if it was called Napoleon+Josephine. It did a really good job depicting their relationship but not Napoleons career as a general or leader. Specifically, they never even named a single one of Frances Marshalls or showed the Peninsular Campaign
It didn't really work in this movie, but I could buy it at Waterloo - Napoleon wasn't in a good condition there and it could show how he literally falls apart just like his empire.
He was an artillery man so I think his weapon of choice would have been a canon. If he'd pulled out a canon it would have been totally believable. I think they missed a trick there.
I don't know of any real history buffs who think that this is a good movie. Several of my friends who were looking forward to it will not even bother seeing it.
The infantry square was a common tactic used to counter cavalry. The horsemen are not doing it willingly. Horses are not willing to charge into a wall of bayonets and rifles, and so the horses just circle the square impotently. Also, the way it is portrayed in this scene is pretty innaccurate (like, the circling wouldn’t be that uniform lol) so it ain’t safe to assume this is how it looked in real life nor how it looked in other cases where this formation was used. A much more realistic depiction is in “Waterloo.”
It also resembles a tactic I’ve heard of native Americans using. They would circle a group and the inner ring would fire their arrows or rifles then cycle to the outer ring to keep the whole group firing constantly. That and it immobilizes your opponent.
despite this movie being a shitty one, This is actually what happens irl when cavalries charges onto square formations. They would usually do this to either shoot back at the infantry whilst circling around them (Cavalries during this era were sometimes armed with pistols and carbines) or wait for an opportunity if one of the square's walls are breached.
At 2:55 - when British cavalry begin to charge, is that a French cuirassier on the left of screen charging with them lol, please tell me it's not!!!😲😂😂😂😅but I think it is 100%, oh boy modern movies........
@@TOFKAS01 yeah same, but then I thought wait a minute British cavalry never wore a cuirass lol 😂😂😂 I guess I will rewatch 1970 waterloo with rod steiger waaayýy better!!!....
For the people saying we shouldn't complain about inaccuracies, imagine if the first scene of Saving private Ryan had been Eisenhower riding a horse charge in Omaha Beach. And Hitler showed up from behind the hills leading a flight of Apache helicopters from the Luftwaffe. This is how it feels watching this movie if you have the slightest knowledge about the Napoleonic wars 😂
That is way different and out of fetch argument you made up. Did it show Napoleon riding a car and Napoleon waterloo enemies using swords instead of guns? No so be quiet and come up with something better.
history importance is surely something foreign for you @@SpokeNyan1390
@SpokeNyan1390 it showed the British using rifles with scopes 30years too early, napoleon firing on the pyramids which is something he would never do as he had great interest in ancient history and napoleon drowning an entire army in a frozen lake drowning thousands when in reality less than 200 drowned as they fled at the end of the battle?
This scene alone is ridiculous since napoleon was quite literally incapable of riding his horse and travelled by carriage for the majority of the campaign, had to come off the feild at Waterloo as a result, never mind charging and fighting in hand to hand combat.
Yeah no, it's ridiculous fantasy.
@@loyalpiper Ok, those are really good examples of how inaccurate this movie is. Sure. But I suppose who ever created this movie made it for people who are sheeples and NPCs, who can’t possibly see these mistakes. So you know what, those 3 or so mistakes, especially the scope rifles is bad. But what the guy comment above is trying to make it seem that the Napoleon film is beyond reality of what really happened in napoleon life. Such as cars or horses or whatever. You over here being reasonable than the guy I was replying to.
wait isn't that what happened?
Check out the 1970 movie ‘Waterloo’. A masterpiece in how to film battle scenes pre cgi. There were literally tens of thousands of extras used to film the massed ranks of the French and allied armies. One particularly shot where the camera pans from right to left along the allied line is simply breathtaking.
The Gold Standard!
The aerial shots of the British squares under assault are magnificent… and the charge of the Scots Grays never ceases to hypnotize me. Even the scene where Napoleon bids his Old Guard farewell before exile is amazing (Another lost opportunity in this new film). I wish the full-length 4-hour (?) theatrical release was preserved and released on DVD at one point. But apparently, the film - in its original form - was never archived and is lost. What a shame.
I actually stopped watching the clip halfway through. I'd like my money back 😅
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the director Soviet & gained permission to use 20,000 Soviet Union soldiers as extras spending months training them on formations before even filming?
This movie is a kick in the park compared to 1970, sums up todays Hollywood no clue, Ridley Scott included
Napoleon swinging his sword and stabbing people in the midst of battle like a damn hussar is one of the most absurd things I have ever seen. What was Scott thinking?
If Napoleon actually did something like that he would be dead in seconds because everyone would know who he was. Not to mention the fact that he would not be able to direct the battle.
Bare with me for you or anybody with low attention spans and who are Gen Z kids who can’t read a long comment:
Literally you are complaining about one mistake from this scene. This is like people complaining why didn’t Iron Man just give the infinity gauntlet to captain marvel, why did he transport the stones to himself? Why didn’t Tony build multiple suits containing the contingency plan of teleporting the stones to the other powerful avengers? But you know why people didn’t say that during endgame? Because it just works.
Now if you say that “endgame was a science fiction movie, it’s fake and not real.” Well take for example saving private ryan, that film made plenty of mistakes. Yet do you see people bi- I mean whine about those few mistakes? No because the film just works.
So tell me, where is the logic that people like you are making? Because all I see is just complaining and whining.
No no no. This is ONE mistake of the multitude of nonsense that i am seeing right now, i could do a god damn essay of 40 pages about every bloody thing that is wrong there because the only accurate thing are the uniforms !@@SpokeNyan1390 Someone pointed out that even the direction the Prussian are coming from is wrong godamnit
its a movie kid. And if you were napoleon and they make a movie about you, you would like them to recreate your battles in an epic way.
So much bad faith from Ridlet simps. The battles we see even look shit with 20 people fighting in the background, even The Patriot was doing it better @@thiagoalabat
@@SpokeNyan1390 Napoleon is a supposed biopic and Saving Private Ryan is not. If I made a biopic about George Washington and have him fist fight Cornwallis on the battlefield and said it just works then i am not making biopic i am making a fantasy movie inspired by George Washington. Since clearly Ridley Scott wants to focus more on Napoleons relationship with Josephine for his Biopic yet presents the simplest details wrong about Napoleon his biopic ends up as fantasy. This why people complain not because its not entertaining but that its marketed as an analysis of Napoleon yet its relying on bullshit Ridley Scott made up.
“SIR! BLUCHER!”
*Every horse on the battlefield rears up on its hind legs and whinnies*
Ha ha ha, nice reference.
Ovaltine
"He's alive! ALIVE!"
Lmao😂
Frankenstein Junior...
If ridley scott was a marshall and used this levels of strategy, napoleon would call him an imbecile
Napoleon:Clearly not a student of Caesar's
Now imagine him doing that with a french accent!
Next thing you know Scott is going to make a movie with Abraham Lincoln fighting at Gettysburg.
Either that, or a movie about the Lincoln Assignation and having Jefferson Davis sneak into the President's Box at Ford's Theater with a derringer.
@@staceyfake8303 A shootout between Lincoln and his assasin, followed by a swordfight over the roofs of Washington...
Everyone knows Abe Lincoln wasn't at Gettysburg.....he was too busy slaying vampires
Abe going at it with Davis, while Lee and Grant face each other in an oldschool high noon gunfight.
Actually factual, if you ask Scott
One of the worst cases of historical inaccuracy put to film. Truly disgraceful treatment of the battle which shaped Europe for the next hundred years.
Yes Napoleon really needed to win this battle.If the French had won then maybe the Prussians would not have eventually set up the Austrian Hungarian Empire.There by creating the first World War which led to National Socialist Germany which led to the Second World War.Thanks Wellington and Blucher.
The whole film felt this way. All they managed to do was show that he was awkward and it seems, has sex like a jack rabbit... Horrible movie making IMO
Pardon my ignorance, but what were some of the more glaring historical inaccuracies in this movie?
. . . From the Director of Gladiator and the screenwriter of The Day The Earth Stood Still remake. Just as long as there are "Epic Battle Scenes" and "Massive Explosions," audiences don't seem to care too much about accuracy; it's a shame that the producers but out this garbage and then this garbage makes a ton of money; there's no discernment in pop culture these days.
I guess, Napoleon didn't take part in a Charge at Waterloo, die he?
Scott had a 50% chance of getting the direction of Blücher’s attack correct. He butchered that too.
Well put.
Thanks for writing Blücher and not Blucher like many non german speaking folks out there😅
The 1970 movie "Waterloo," was better from what I have seen. It was co-produced by the Soviet Union using Soviet troops as extras!
lol true. Also don’t forget when he writes to Josephine that after the battle of Borodino he tells her he’s 200 miles or something from Moscow. When it’s actually 70 miles.
I mean they couldn’t even look at a map right
Not necessarily 50%, atleast he didn't have them coming from directly behind the French or from the sky
Lashing a spyglass to your Baker rifle... Now that's soldiering.
Even Sharps short cameo of Waterloo was better than this rubbish...
Was looking for this in the comments. 🫡
God bless Sharpe!
How is it a show with the budget of six peanuts and a stick of gum portrayed Waterloo better? Also fun fact: Leroy’s real life father played Ney in the superior Napoleon film
@@joeszymaszek1146Waterloo 1970
They cut the lightsabre duel between Napoleon and Wellington. Might as well have left that in.
That's in the sequel, "Napoleon The Undead"
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256They decided to cancel the sequel- Napoleon after he died irl was put into *four* coffins...they knew how bad the sequel would be lol. Not to mention they marooned him on St. Helena with 2000 British soldiers to monitor him.
Nah, the Dacentrurus and Torvosaurus fight is the real highlight of Waterloo and Scott also threw in oversized Harpactognathus to be air cavalry for the Russians in Borodino.
😂😂😂 I'm loving these innovative insults towards the inaccuracies...
Mon Dieu! I had heard that the Waterloo sequence was bad, but I never dreamed it was THIS bad. Forget the fact that absolutely no attempt was made to show any real tactics (but at least they did have the Anglo-Allied troops forming squares in the face of a cavalry charge) ... but trenches/field works? A huge French camp immediately behind the ridiculously thin battle line? The two armies just running at each other and looking more like "Braveheart" than Waterloo? Napoleon himself leading a cavalry charge, and with no Marshal Ney in sight (at least no officer that in any way resembled Ney) and then personally skewering at least one Brit? A sniper with a scope taking a pot shot at Nappy and blowing a hole in his famous hat? Napoleon turning and raising his sword as if to salute Wellington across the field? The list goes on.
I actually think "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer" may have been a more historically accurate movie than this... but it's a close call.
Watch Rod Steiger and Chirstopher Plummer in Sergey Bondarchuk's epic 1970's "Waterloo" instead of this pile of steaming merde de cheval from Sir Ridley "Were-you-there?" Scott.
Nice serve, sir!
I thought Rod Steiger and CP were brilliant in that. Steiger particularly seemed to relished the role.
@@ryanwebb5082 - I agree. - Rod Steiger owned the role. - I couldn't take my eyes off him. His performance made it easier for the other actors to play against. - I measure all other Napoleon actors against him. None have surpassed him.
@@KeithHays-ek4vrreally? Steiger the best Napoleon? What about Terry Camilleri and his portrayal of Napoleon in “Bill and Ted’s excellent adventure”?…..
@@TheWizardOfTheFens - Yeah. - You could be right there - or Napoleon Dynamite. - Rod couldn't dance like that!........
That sniper must have been grinding all night to unlock that scope
😂hahahahahaha
probably Dan Hagman 🫡
@@thecrimsonbubblesDan didn’t need a scope
I see British ego has gotten in the way of yet another victory, lmao seriously tho you cant tell me if they did have a marksmen tell Wellington "Sir I've got him scoped" Wellington would've probably told him to TAKE THE SHOT, it wouldve ended the battle potentially before it began.
Lmfao that made me laugh way too hard
"Waterloo". 1970 starring Rod Steiger. NO CGI
That movie is superb, should be remastered in 4K and re-released digitally on all platforms like Netflix, etc.
@@lyrand6408YUP!
Yeah, 1970 "Waterloo" is the masterpiece. Majestic music, set of great actors, filmed with actual troops, clever dialogues. Ridley Scott has no idea how these battles were fought, none
Agreed, the gold standard. It amalgamates a few Scottish characters, and takes some minor liberties, but it's just the best thing on screen by far. I wish Kubrick had done one in his prime. I also wish Scott did this in the 1970s when he was on his game. The Duelists is pretty good. Scott's latest movie is entertaining for those who watch action movies and know nothing about Napoleon. Everyone who has read 3 paragraphs about him hates this movie.
Absolutely. The 1970 version stands alone.
3:07 When all your cavalry has routed so you have to charge in your general:
Rome total war problems 101
LOL good one.
@@damedusa5107 Our general is in GRAVU DANGEL my lord!
Is...is that Napoleon conducting and leading a Cavalry charge at Waterloo? 😂😂
Of course, didn't you know? He lead the charge in person. He also used US Marines and Russian T34 to break the allied Mecha-dinosaurs lines of defense (but it was to expensive to shoot, so Ridley Scott had to skip that part).
And fun fact, it isn't Waterloo. This battle took place in Braine-l'Alleud but because it was too difficult for non-french speaking people, they chose the closest pronunciable village
Napoleon did not charge with his cavalry that day he was ill he was told to go rest a while and I believe that’s when Marshal Ney led his cavalry charge against Wellingtons Infantry squares. Napoleon’s strategic genius was not what it once was as before. The last act of the French that day was the infantry attack of the Imperial Guard.
Napoleon wouldn't have charged at all. He'd have been at his commend post directing the battle.
Yes he committed the old guard....Full scale infantry advance no cavalry, nor he lead the attack but marshall Ney.....Inaccurate completely....
…and the Guard advanced in column, not line. They were decimated and broke. There was no collision of line against line.
Yeah, he was suffering from hemorrhoids!
"Get a life!"
- Ridley Scott
Safe to say, nothing like that happened at Waterloo. The whole set up was absurd.
I know because I was there. It was nothing like that
Agreed what a farce of a movie , napoleon charging lol so funny , he never charged at all he watched from a distance
Yeah I don't remember it being like this at all. Maybe it was that cannon ball I took on the chin early doors
Maybe watch a old film from the 1970s called waterloo which is 1 million times better than this shit
@@pikiwiki you must be as old as Ridley Scott... btw there are 1000s books about the battle, bunch of them written by people who were there.
Ive paused this twice, about to comment, and I keep telling myself "Dont be a history nerd! Leave it alone!" Even when I saw a soldiers bayonet flopping, even when I saw Napoleon shouting commands instead of sending one of his messengers on horseback, even when the cannonballs seem to "blow up." But now, Napoleon riding in front, sinking his sabre into some private??? God what a stupid movie, and I thank those of you who referenced Monty Python!!
I had the same feeling. I lived in Brussels and actually led tours of the Waterloo battlefield. I cringe at all the people who will think this is how it really was. If people really want to know, direct them to the PBS documentary on Napoleon. Rod Steiger made a better Napoleon.
the bayonet thing is just the soft ones used by extras in combat scenes its not ideal but like.. it makes SENSE, you dont want metal ones being stabbed around i combat scenes
fun ffact, in the battle of gaugamela scene in oliver stones 'alexander' for a brief moment you can see the white, tape covered balls on the end of sticks as safety heads for the spears
you see it... as the left flank gets hit hard by persian infantry and the camera focuses on the close brutal fighting between the two sides right before it zooms out and focus on alexander right before he did the
To be fair, during the Napoleonic wars, in addition to round shot, various forms of ball were fitted with fuses to detonate in the air. Amongst the British developments was the implementation of Shrapnel. A ball filled with explosive and metal bits which had a fuse and detonated over the enemy to inflict injury to the infantry and gunners. Named after its inventor Colonel Shrapnel.
I can overlook the floppy rubber bayonets as just a technical "blooper".
I can't overlook the sheer stupidity of the way this sequence was written / scripted.
Wel said sir ! 👍
Napoleon acting like a sergeant is funniest thing i ever saw
The more i watch this the more i appreciate the 1970 Waterloo movie.
Wait wait wait.... is that a British "sharpshooter", armed with a flintlock rifle that has a *SCOPE* like a modern day sniper rifle, taking a shot at Napoleon?!
*WHAT THE ACTUAL SHIT, RIDLEY SCOTT?!*
Uh huh. And it looks like a modern scope as well. Don't ask.
I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE IT. TO MASSACRE A GODLY MAN LIKE NAPOLEON WITH SUCH A RIDICULOUS WORK OF "ART"!
Well, what did you expect after D-Day landing crafts in "Robin Hood"?
Scope is about 150 years ahead of time.
@@artemusp.folgelmeyer4821 They did exist, but they were completely inpractical, expensive and useless because the weapons at that time were too inaccurate and had an effective range of about 700 meters max..
Napoleon was not in the thick of the fighting at waterloo. And the battle did not turn into a disorganized melee. Glad I didn't waste my money on this at the cinema.
You and me both. Ridley Scott is now incapable of making a decent movie.
You guys would hate Inglorious Basterds then
Sadly I wasted $ on 5 tickets !
@@marvies5959 I haven't watched Napoleon movie, but I don't like historical mistakes like those.
@@Lucas-q2l5e They are not mistakes Lucas because Ridley Scott never cared about being historically accurate to begin with.
There looks to be a bout two thousand men in the entire battle field and the grass is green and as dry as a bowling green. Napolean swinging his sword in battle and then the shocking acting by the so called Duke of Wellington as Blucher suddenly emerges from nowhere is Monty Pythonesque. This is truly hideous!
Right! It seems so paltry compared to "Waterloo". Glad I didn't shell out money to see "Napoleon" at the theater.
I'm even wondering why I wasted 5 min of my time on this video. Thank God I didn't pay for a ticket and waste 2+ hours of this in the theater on this.
It’s so inaccurate I was waiting for some storm troopers off Star Wars to arrive! 😂 absolute crap 💩
They couldn't even be bothered to get someone who vaguely looked like Wellington. And there's no gravitas to the man. A mere shadow of Christopher Plummer.
I lived near Mooroolbark.
The film 'Waterloo' was a thousand times better than this Twaddle....
5:10 Napoleon was not involved in the fighting at Waterloo. Read some history before you make a film.
I'm struggling to find a source that says he was not on the battlefield during the battle of waterloo bud.
@@eats4cheaps305he was ill so he basically rested while the army was fighting, cancer the british lost
I'll never understand why Ridley Scott decided to make a fairy tale of Napoleon
I think he likes to start projects before the script is finished, just kind of wings it and trusts in his genius direction and good acting to pull off another big hit
Especially when the actual story is so incredibly interesting and doesn't need to be exaggerated for it to be engaging
Were u there sir?
@@memergas740 this argument is stupid. There is a lot of books telling what happened. Not just the life of Napoleon is well documented, but his marshals as well.
@@memergas740 "Your honor, you weren't there, so how can you charge this man guilty? Checkmate!"
Imagine George W Bush was charging at the frontline and shooting enemy soldiers in a movie about the Iraq War.
Look, I like fiction as much as the next guy, but you're asking the audience to imagine Bush the Lesser risking his own precious skin. Nobody's gonna buy that, it's way too implausible for a good story.
@@samuelglover7685 lol true, atleast Napoleon actually used to charge from the front with his men when he was just a lowly officer (got bayonetted in the thigh as well)
With time, battles were starting to get really huge, and Napoleon was a lot about multitasking and trying to micromanage every little thing, which simply got impossible with increasing scope of the battlefield. This ended up on him relying on his various generals and marshalls and was one of the reasons how he could be defeated after retreating from Russia. Coalition did receive some serious asskicking before but you can observe how over the years his victories became closer and more bloodier. He wasn't very "economic" with troop conservation, though he did produce results. In following campaings, coalition went to focus more on directly fighting Napoleon's generals who were varied in terms of their quality.
Personally charging into the fray did happen in history, but it was a dangerous venture - you could die, you lose sight of the battle, usually it was done when were in dire straits for that extra morale boost and hoping that a scary cavalry charge would cause a mass rout.
yes but napoleon was on the field and already fough fight in italy and in toulon and in others battles.
LMAO that's hilarious to think about hahahaha
I get that a Hollywood films has to make a film exciting, but with the Napoleonic wars you really don't have to make anything up to make it exciting to watch.
Very good point.
Hollywood writers do this for everything, give them a beloved video game with an already great story and they will figure out a way to mess it up with their "professional" retelling
I know right! Especially if its about one of the most important era in history. This is like a ww2 movie with Italians surrendering after Americans killed Hitler in the battle of Berlin.
To be fair Hollywood does the same when making anything to do with WW2... Did you know that only American forces were in WW2... according to Mr Spielberg...
The battles could last a long time tho, lasting for hours, sometimes even entire days, gotta have a 5 minute long battle scene for the ADHD people 😉
There's only one battle of Waterloo and that's in the 1970 film version which catpures the vast scale and horror of that encounter.
Scott's version (all be it cramped into an already overfull attempt at Napoleon's life) looks like a minor battle and sadly the lack of numbers tell.
Despite it's share of compromises for a movie (you have to) it still stands up after over fifty years. I think there were something like 15,000 soviet troops. That is impressive and gives an idea of what it was like but when you think how many people were actually there it's still a drop in the ocean. I've been to the battle field and it's not large. To have seen it with the number that were actually there must have been awesome (until large lumps of metal started flying around).
Sharpe made a rather dismal attempt at it but can be forgiven since it had a budget of around £2.50
132.000 against French Army... 45.000 Prussians, 43.000 Belgian, Dutch, Germans and only 24.000 British. But I see only British troops again.
Bro even sharpe did it better we get to see dutvh troops.
what ? i believe this is one thing the movie got right. Blucher arrived late at the battle because he was defeated a few days before, the ''germans'' are the Kings German Legion, which is seen here and the brits suffered most of the casulties (also shown here). Only troops not shown are a few Duche, which doesnt matter since there were very little soldiers from these.
There was so much wrong with this film that this inaccuracy is lost in a sea of others.
The research was based on reading a cereal box and skimming wiki.
In defense of the 1970 version all did actually get a mention but the spotlight was on the British, the French and, to a lesser extent, the Prussians. Since it's target audience was English speaking it's not that uncommon for everyone to be properly represented. All movies have to tell a story and have to focus on the characters that will resonate with the audience. Those that don't are called documentaries and generally don't have blockbuster audiences. I believe Le Haye Saint was held by The KGL so you did see them, also many of the troops lined up on the hill would have been Dutch etc. Many of the Uniforms back then were not, ummm, uniform. So there were Hanovarian units that wore red coats, and others that wore green or blue (as did some British Hussars and Dragoons). The Prussians might be in dark blue or grey. The French wore blue but also red and green. The Belgians wore blue or teal. In fact I think many were veterans of Napoleons army. To equip the thousands of Soviet army extras with the proper uniforms would have been hugely expensive, confusing for the audience (it was confusing enough for the troops) and, because the number of actual units, compared to the number of extras, you would have seen ten guys per different uniform making it look like a patchwork quilt. During the attack on the squares most of the units under attack were British. Dutch units were further back. Squares were not actually always square, but rectangular.
There were a lot of small scale actions during the battle. Multiple cavalry charges not just by the British or French. Some of the action took place on the flanks and basically lasted all day. To put all that detail into a movie would have cost more than the Manhattan project and ended up with a movie at least as long as the battle. Lastly, the main characters were Blucher, Napoleon and Wellington with Ney and Picton etc. in secondary roles. That is actually factually true. It was an allied army but Wellington was at it's head. Some of the allied units were ex-Napoleon soldiers and some did actually break, so not all were 100% reliable. At that time Germany didn't exist. The King of Britain was actually also the king Hanover. It's a bit of a mistake to think of allegiencies of 1815 as equivalent to the modern nationalities. Even France was not, and still isn't, a homogeneous state. In 1815 Napoleon had to station a portion of his forces in France not only to protect against invasion but to suppress insurections. Most nation states in Europe are much younger than the USA and nearly without exception have regions that have different languages and cultures to the national state. Sorry I got carried away. 😂
@@Peter-xg1olBlucher was instructed by Wellington to arrive when he did and where he did.
I was half expecting Wellington to charge as well and personally engage Napoleon in an epic 30 minute one-on-one sword fight where Napoleon is eventually disarmed and toppled off his horse. Wellington points his sword to Napoleon’s throat and demands surrender to which Napoleon says “Merde! Va te faire foutres ”. Being sporting and in recognition of a gallant foe (and not understanding French) Wellington allows him to honourably retire from the field of battle whereupon all hostilities cease.
My understanding is that most British casualties resulted from forming squares to repulse cavalry attacks - ten or eleven of them. This was successful but it meant that between each cavalry attack squares were subjected to artillery fire which, although not always well coordinated, could not fail to kill and maim many in the densely packed formations. After the capture of La Haye Sainte French gunners fired into central squares from close range with canister to devastating effect, such that reduced squares had to amalgamate.
And then Barbie and Captain Marvel and Galadriel defeat them both and all their soldiers in the ultimate triumph against Patriarchy!
Yeh like a scene out of Star Wars 😂
LMAO this would fit Scott's weird thing about slightly altering historical quotes or moments for no reason whatsoever. Maybe when Wellington asks Napoleon to surrender he goes, "Napoleon dies, but he does not surrender." lolol
Scott actually planned an epic sword duel between Napoleon and Wellington but scrapped the scene since he was concerned with criticism of historical innacuracy.
You made me laugh 😂😂😂😂
"Ridley, how should we shoot this climactic battle, to really do justice to the characters and real historical figures?"
"Just...have them run at each other on horses. I don't know, it worked for Peter Jackson."
"Are you sure?"
"Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Then fuck off. Also, give the green bloke a sniper scope, he needs a sniper scope so that we'll know he's a sniper."
"What role does he play in the film?"
"He doesn't play any role at all. Just shoots at Napoleon in a throwaway bit."
"That seems like poor directing-"
"Excuse me, mate, were you there when I directed this film? No? Then fuck off."
I'm jealous that I didn't come up with this!
As far as "the green bloke"... So according to Sir Ridley, Marshal Ney was not at Waterloo, but (fictional) Richard Sharpe was?
@@staceyfake8303 95th rifles were present at Waterloo. But the movie has this single man, using a sniper scope, with an officer spotting for him and requesting permission to fire like a modern sniper, rather than what the rifles were. I'd rather they'd got Sharpe in, to be perfectly honest.
Just imagine if this battle was extensively documented by both the French and the British and even the Prussians. This was so bad and if I could I would ask my money back from the ticket. This movie is quite a fine example that it's not (always) a question of money to make a good product.
Ridley "Just a get life, mate and stop nitpicking everything" Scott. Lol.
Napoleon himself would laugh at this!😂
I can imagine both Napoleon and the Duke of Wellington watching this, laughing and shaking their heads. Wellington says "by God what nonsense" whilst Napoleon laughs "pauvres imbéciles"
@@Apollo890 No doubt😆
Never knew he led the attack at the Battle of Waterloo 1815.
According to History book, he wasn’t feeling he had some sort of tummy ache.
I nearly choked on my cornflakes when I saw the unbelievable, how does Ridley Scott sleep at night
Then why don't all of you critics go make a movie ?!? 😂
The 1970 Movie "Waterloo" is more accurate then this
"I wanted to show people how the common imige of Napoleon is a myth" *puts the 50 yo man with fever in the middle of the battle 😂
Even the side where the prussians are comming is wrong.....From Wellingtons point of view, it would have been on the left....
Not to mention there would have been alot more. It’s so depressing that the filmmakers of 1970 were much more aware of how many extras were needed. That film was done with CGI and STILL captured the true nature of the battle.
Just be grateful they were's hovering guys in space suits with laser guns. Had the budget been big enough that's what we would have got. 🤣
Oops... "weren't"
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256Star Wars the Empire Strikes back war scene is closer to Waterloo than this 😂
Yup. Given how the Battle of Ligny & Quatre Brass went, the Prussians appeared from an impossible position. 😅
if only the movie had been about him, the battles, the achievements, the history ..... but its a love story :(
Ridley Scott didn't know what he was doing. If he had wanted to make a movie about Napoleon and Josephine, he should have made that movie and not also try and depict Napoleon's entire career.
Brando as Napoleon? Not familiar with that one. Are you thinking of Rod Steiger as Napoleon in "Waterloo?" (1970)?
@@staceyfake8303 No Marlon Brando played Napoleon in a 1960s movie called "Desiree".
Its not a love story, its a fuck story
You can't easily compress Napoleon's entire career, rise and downfall into one movie, at best you only get some bullet points.
Napoleon was ill and had a lot of stomach pain that day (and days prior). Has it ever been established whether or not there was any possible case of either food poisoning or attempts at poisoning him in the days before the battle? Because based on all accounts from that time, there's one apparently very consistent report in that Napoleon was unequivocally ill (especially the very day of the battle, of all things).
I think it was more constant stress and the beginning cancer.
Actually, truth be told, Joaquin Phoenix loooks really ill and reluctant at the start of this scene which reflects some reality. Napoleon was very poorly on the day of Waterloo, unable to take the field and lead his cavalry (early stomach cancer? acute stress and worry?) and so does Mr Phoenix. He looks as though he is walking in a lot of pain and discomfort. Kudos to the makeup people.
Piles.
He had a bad case of the "Farmer Giles" or piles lol
The most recent study done of his death back in 2021 suggested Napoleon died of gastric cancer, so he was very likely suffering from it (or at least suffering from ulcers) at Waterloo.
Lord of the rings is more historically accurate than this nonsense.
Glad I saved my money. Thank you youtube! 💰💰
The historical accuracy of this film was simply breathtaking, almost as good as Abraham Lincoln, the Vampire Hunter.
Are you implying the documentary "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" is not accurate?
This is stupidly inaccurate. At this stage of the battle, the imperial guard were the ones advancing. They would have advanced in column, not in the line depicted in this scene. This is incredibly important - since this is how british infantry were able to defeat them. The kind of free-for-all depicted in this scene seems in-accurate. British volleys devastated those French columns, and the Imperial guards broke and ran. This is also significant - as it was the first time they had ever failed an assault, and because of this, the rest of the french line tucked and ran too.
Napoleon himself did not participate.
While your synopsis of what happened is correct, don't even waste your breath trying to compare what actually happened to the fictional account that Sir Ridley "Were-you-there?" Scott dreamed up.
@@staceyfake8303 Ah, yes. The 57th Trans brigade, with the 124th African wheelchair regiment in support really turned the tide that day.
@@jeffpotipco736he certainly didn’t go poking his sword in a cavalry charge, no. 😂
The British infantry were partially obscured behind a reverse slope, as well. - They weren't standing out in the open, exposed. Wellington used deception as one of his tactics. - That is important as well.
A Year ago i went to a small museum in Sens, France. To my surprise in the middle of it is a very dark room with Napoleon‘s hat on display, which he supposedly wore during the battle of Waterloo. No bullet holes in it. It still sent chivers down my spine because it was so unexpected to see that object there.
"On the field of battle, his hat is worth forty thousand men!" - the Duke of Wellington.
Insane that the reverence Napoleon's hat can induce in people is still around til this day.
@@NixonRules963 Even though he didn't win all the time and lost the "Big One" in the end Napoleon for most of his career was a winner, and people admire a winner.
To those who say that Napoleon could not have charged into the middle of a battle, all accounts indicate that he was determined to commit suicide at Waterloo by throwing himself into the fray at the end. It was his entourage and the officers of the Guard who prevented him from doing so while he was moving towards death. Already the year before at Arcis-sur-Aube (1814), he had fought physically, always with the same suicidal aim, by galvanizing his troops (inexperienced adolescents) on a bridge, within range of cannons, or by protecting his body. All accounts agree that he deliberately threw himself on a shell to impress them. His horse exploded and he survived. We are so far from the character played by Phoenix.
4:01 bro the Napoleon move predicted the future cuz the same thing happened to Trump😮
Yeah, no. Where's Hougement and La Haye Sainte? Also, where's the strategy here? Just throw your infantry and cavalry at the enemy and you win, NO. As a result it feels cheep and rushed. Also the fact that the french speak english, it really stings for people who expect historical accuracy like me, it sounds really weird and destroyed the immersion for me. Haha, another funny detail, 4:05, hole in hat, 4:37, no hole exists, 4:44, it's back.
My point exactly! I did a presentation on this in college, and this scene disappointed me.
"I'm a history!" in the voice of Ralph Wiggum of the Simpsons is how this movie should be regarded. I'm surprised that the British sniper shooting at Napoleon wasn't wearing a ghillie suit.
Ha!!!
The ghillie suit was back in the supply train. No time go back for it.
I cannot believe Napoleon ever made a charge into the thick of battle at Waterloo.
He didn't. This movie is garbage.
@@timothystan2430 Yeah, I figured.
He was suffering with thrombosed hemorrhoids at Waterloo.
Oh no Napoleon actually did lead a cavalry charge at Waterloo. You guys for real?
He charged in dual wielding his light sabers. Only Wellington calling in his tanks and spitfires saved him from certain defeat.
The film has Napoleon in a cavalry charge at the Battle of Waterloo. This never happened.@@marshalmichelney-bc8qn
One could say that with this abysmal movie, Scott met his personal Waterloo as a director.
Fun fact: The actor playing Marshal Ney (the guy next to Napoleon with the handlebar moustache), contacted the descendants of the real Marshal Ney and apologised for this movie.
Apparently he was super excited for the role and did a ton of research about Ney's life, personality and appearance, only for none of it to get used. He brought up the fact that Ney never wore a handlebar moustache to Ridley Scott, but Scott told him it didn't matter and he should grow the moustache anyway.
Who's Waterloo was it? Napoleon's or ridley Scott's?
BROOO😂😂😂😂
What
Abba's
I SIMPLY CAN'T BELIEVE IT. TO MASSACRE A GODLY MAN LIKE NAPOLEON WITH SUCH A RIDICULOUS WORK OF "ART"!
The concept of rifle scopes were first even thought of in around 1840s. And at 4:00, we see a man trying to snipe out Napoleon with a scoped musket. JUST, WOW....
Even with a scope he'd need to be ten feet away. Muskets were about as accurate as strategic bombing.
@@littlefluffybushbaby7256 Right. It's just pure comedy, man. I expected so much more...
4:01 Someone please CGI Sean Bean's face onto this guy.
Sharpe eh?😏 Great series.
@@RussellAdlerCIA sharpe's waterloo is better than this nightmare
Now that's soldiering!
4:02 predicted the future 😱
Ça craint!
They had the budget and actors to make a great historical movie, but instead we got this.
Yeah I liked it. Braveheart also wasnt historically accurate either. Vikings the TV series definitely wasnt historically accurate.... god damned entertaining though.
@@jaredc.8849not enough BBC on the battlefield i wanted to see some black azz
Ah yes, nothing like using World War and Medieval military advisors to show you how Napoleonic warfare went down.
Are we sure this was not a reenactment by Monty Python's Batley Townswomen's Guild. I am sure the battle of Waterloo was a lot longer and Napoleon never fought at the battle.
Either the ladies re-enactment of Waterloo or their re-enactment of Pearl Harbor. Really can't tell the difference... Sir Ridley's sequence doesn't look anything even remotely close to either.
Well Borodino lasted all of 5 seconds apparently so you're lucky to get 5 minutes
That would have been a better watch.
The British perspective of Napoleon's battles:
Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, Waterloo, ...
Exactly, when the true battle that ended the first French empire was Leipzig. Waterloo was just a spin-off, the least interesting moment of the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, because by 1813 it was pretty much over.
@sans_hw187 Ironically being a gold mine of first-hand memoirs and stuff for a movie or mini-series. Imagine the Battle of Dresden, the Six Days' Campaign or an actor portraying Schwarzenberg. The Young Guard having literally young conscripts and the re-organization of Prussian army
ABBA are not British
Well yeah. Napoleon was too scared to go to Spain and face Wellington himself. He just kept sending incompetent marshals and poor young men to die at hands of British and Portuguese volley fire.
This definitely surpasses Braveheart in terms of inaccuracies. HOLY COW. All that was missing was for Napoleon to get betrayed and abandoned by his officers and him going on a revenge quest, killing them one by one, before being captured in an ambush and getting paraded around London before being executed.
The only good thing this movie brought me was appreciation for the Waterloo Film of 1970.
They should have had at least one platoon of Cheyenne Warriors, for added "Realism!" Oh: and Napoleon should have stood in the stirrups and yelled "I FART IN YOUR GENERAL DIRECTION!!"
Napoleon crossing the Alps in a Mule
32 years old Josephine was married with 26 years old Napoleon in March 9,1796
49 years old Joaquín and 35 Vanessa
14 years OLDER than her
The battle in the ice lake never happened
Napoleon didn't see Maria Antonieta
Napoleon spoke Corso an Italian language and French
Joaquín spoke English with an American accent
Green papers with arsenic in his wall in his bedroom in Elba Island. Stomach ulcers
"Napoleon crossing the Alps in a Mule"
Thats in fact correct. He crossed it on a white horse only on the picture....
"The battle in the ice lake never happened"
Well, it was an episode during the Battle of Austerlitz during the russian retreat. But of course the real battle was totaly different.
"Napoleon didn't see Maria Antonieta"
Instead they didnt show the realy thing Napoleon witnessed: The storming of the Tullerie-palace and the massacer of the royal swiss-guard. This errupion of brutality deeply traumatised him. He had a panic towards uncontrolled civil uprisings during his reign because of that.
"Green papers with arsenic in his wall in his bedroom in Elba Island. Stomach ulcers"
Not because of that, but because of a genetical disposition. Several members of the Bonapart-family had stomac-cancer.
@@TOFKAS01 arsenic in Napoleon's hair according with analysis
@@zv3456u- Yes, but not in a critical level.
is the language/accent in an English language film really that critical? I can't think of too many films/tv shows (historical) where the French, Italian/Roman, Spanish, Viking etc characters spoke EXACTLY as they would have done at the time being portrayed.
@@TOFKAS01Great exposition of proving some of that guy points wrong. Now let me add on to that exposition. Below is me explaining how some mistakes of the film should not mean the film is bad overall. Of me explaining to these people who say “napoleon is inaccurate” is mostly wrong. So bare with me for you or anybody with low attention spans and who are Gen Z kids who can’t read a long comment:
Literally people are complaining about one or a few mistakes from this scene. This is like people complaining why didn’t Iron Man just give the infinity gauntlet to captain marvel, why did he transport the stones to himself? Why didn’t Tony build multiple suits containing the contingency plan of teleporting the stones to the other powerful avengers? But you know why people didn’t say that during endgame? Because it just works.
Now if people say that “endgame was a science fiction movie, it’s fake and not real.” Well take for example saving private ryan, that film made plenty of mistakes. Yet do you see people bi- I mean whine about those few mistakes? No because the film just works.
So tell me, where is the logic that these people are making? Because all I see is just complaining and whining. Just like you pointed out. Like damn these people make no sense.
If Napoleon had arrived riding a three headed velociraptor this movie wouldn't be much less accurate 😂
I wanna see that
This was inspiring. This is why Napoleon is considered a great. He wasn't just a pen-pusher, he was prepared to go out onto the field and die with his army. Tearing up rn hope there's a Napoleon 2 from ridders.
we need more history movies like these
I miss Rod Steiger.
and Christopher Plummer even more.
Considering this battle shaped the world , it's a terrible display of real events.
Note to self
Don't be a drummer boy in Ridley Scott's movies
OUW
Has Scott nothing to offer me but these inaccuracies?
I'm taking a moment out of my day to acknowledge this under-appreciated comment that's a clear nod to Steiger's Napoleon in "Waterloo" (1970). Well done, sir.
This is worst Napoleon movie ever made. 😢 Every scene is so wrong. Very little understanding of what actually happened. This is a disgrace. 😢
I always thought the British line was lying down as the French advanced. Then they stood surprising the French cutting them down with volley fire , the French line was broken and they retreated and the battle was won.
Yes. This is a case where history is more interesting than its cinematic dramatization.
The British infantry line was on a reverse slope to conceal their numbers. When the French came over the rise the British lines stood up and fired taking the French by surprise. Oh, and there were no 'trenches' at Waterloo.
Yep.
@@russelldutton8117I've heard the story that that day it rained heavily, and Napoleon's artillery was heavy, it sank in the mud, while England was light and had the advantage to win the battle
@@alexsandrohbyyhygodoydelim930 It certainly rained but mostly the night before. Napoleon acceded to his Marshals requests and delayed the start of the battle to 11:30 for the reasons you mentioned. On the artillery, both sides had varying sizes of artillery denoted by the weight of shot. The French infantry actually had guns used in the same fashion as the skirmishers, which were obviously lighter pieces. But the most interesting thing I found was, while the French used the new metric system, the old imperial system of pounds and ounces did not mean the same weight of shot for different countries. A pound was a different weight in Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia to name a few. Anyway, by commencement of the battle the ground was firm if heavy for most things. Though I imagine Napoleons Daughters would have been awkward to move. The heaviest field guns in Europe.
Since Wellington was facing South, wouldn't the Prussians have approached from his left (the East)?
yes
I do believe
This is the leastest least of inaccuracies but it is true nonetheless 😂 But it's like a small stain of ketchup in a table full of blood
And more to the rear
Stop asking awkward questions. 😂
Что ж, можно точно сказать, что у Ридли Скотта получился первый ТикТок-фильм. Буквально нарезка сцен (в том числе и батальных), которые теперь можно полностью заливать на ютуб и смысл фильма от этого не потеряется никак.
В общем, кинематограф можно описать фразой "Он эволюционирует, но назад".
В советской истории из Наполеона сделали..." Гитлера", но если посмотреть в глубь, что можно сейчас сделать, а не было возможности в советские годы, то можно узнать, что Наполеон не шёл войной на Россию, его Провоцировали...Англия и нажимали на Александра1.!!!😢😮
Absolutely brilliant comment
I haven't seen the movie, but chanced upon this clip, and watched it to the end. Then scrolled innocently to the comments section.
Bloody glad I did.
Well played, lads. Well played.
I saw a more accurate representation of the battle last time I checked my blocked toilet.
Things this movie got incorrectly:
The prussians arrival was at the right side. Not left! (French Perspective)
You can't put a spyglass onto a musket!
Napoleon and Wellington never met in the battlefield!
Didn't Napoleon also send the imperial Guard?
95th rifles the bloke in green didn't use muskets they used baker rifles which were technical sharp shooters but they never used a scope
@@markscouler2534 Good spot. I believe the KGL in La Haye Sainte also used rifles. Which made it a bloody victory for the French. Even the rifles would not have a great deal of accuracy, though better than unrifled muskets, which might be able to hit a barn.
The worst part is that this actually looks really good
That's the whole point. It doesn't have to look right, it just has to look good. And put butts in seats.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 But it didn't really did it?
@@stevem2323 Good question! I have no idea. From what I gather people who know next to nothing about Napoleon like the movie and those who DO know about Napoleon hate it.
So how much money it's making is open to question.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 That too, but i was referring to putting buts in seats results, he disappointed i think, financially.
@@stevem2323 I believe that's the case. I just took a quick look (Honestly I don't care how much money a movie makes since I'm not going to get any of it anyway!) and it looks like it's only made 137 million at the box office which doesn't cover its 200 million budget. Not good.
napoleon personally fighting in waterloo? never happened.
Yeah. This movie is trash bro.
На счет фильма Наполеон могу сказать следующее:
В фильме ОТЛИЧНЫЙ визуал и изумительная актëрская игра. Батальные сцены самобытны и реалистичны, так что зритель не теряется в происходящем. Сценарий хорошо раскрывает исторический контекст и взаимоотношения между персонажами. Фильм чередует события между сражениями, политическими интригами и любовными линиями, таким образом, заскучать во время просмотра НЕВОЗМОЖНО физически. Главный герой вовсе не ничтожество, а рассудительный, исполнительный, целиустремленный, расчетливый, холоднокровный и амбициозный человек. Наполеон не из тех, кто легко сдаëтся. Он из бедной семьи и поэтому знает, что удача не достанется человеку, если тот не возьмëт еë в свои руки. Он отлично командует артиллерией и хорошо разбирается в тактике. В битве за Тулон в его лошадь попадает пушечное ядро, но Наполеон не колеблясь ведëт солдат в атаку, что очень многое говорит о его силе воли.
Многие люди упустили основную мысль фильма, а именно, что не бывает всесильных людей, Наполеон талантливый, но всё же человек, и следовательно - неидеален. Он решает судьбы тысяч людей, меняет карту Европы, но в то же время режется бритвой и забывает шляпу перед свиданием. Ему не чужды эмоции и романтика, и как любой человек, герой Хоакина Феникса снидаем страстями: похотью, гордыней, высокомерием, ревностью. Добравшись до невиданных высот, Наполеон забыл о главном, а именно о том, что он такой же человек как все, и даже его возможностям есть предел. Наполеон подлетел слишком близко к солнцу, и оно сожгло его. Наполеон очерствел из-за власти и стал жертвой своих амбиций. Основная мысль фильма лучше всего прослеживается в битве под Ватерлоо, где Наполеон с сарказмом приказывает солдатам остановить дождь.
Вот, что я имею ввиду, когда говорю, что Наполеон 2023 - воистину Великое Кино.
Тем, кому кажется, что Хоакин Феникс лишен харизмы Наполеона скажу следующее:
Когда герой Хоакина Феникса оказывается на острове Эльба, то он бросает вызов своей судьбе и берëт своë по праву. Его возвращение во Францию не увенчалось успехом, но Наполеон не бездействовал. Герой Хоакина Феникса не стал мириться с унижением и хотя бы попытался что-то изменить. Таким образом герой Хоакина Феникса в очередной раз проявляет силу воли и стойкость своего характера. С исторической точки зрения картина очень недоставерна, но основную суть тех событий создатели передали довольно точно. Сама же личность Императора Франции перенесена на экран без изменений. Все те жизненные трудности с которыми столкнулся Наполеон Бонапарт и черты его характера нашли воплощение в актëрской игре Хоакина Феникса. Как я уже сказал, в картине много исторических неточностей, но это ХУДОЖЕСТВЕННОЕ произведение, а не документальное. Я настоятельно рекомендую посмотреть этот фильм каждому здравомыслящему человеку, уделите ему всë нужное для этого внимание, оно того стоит. Я просмотрел этот фильм за один вечер и ни о чем не жалею. 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
я фильм не смотрел, но 5 минут ролика - глупость несусветная... У Наполеона за все это время примерно одно и то же выражение лица, и у других тоже :) а уж когда он на коне скачет, неуклюже подпрыгивая как бочка, и тычет саблей ... вообще молчу. Временами появляется ощущение, что актеры не знают, что им делать. Музыка, которая играет на заднем плане, это тоже что-то невообразимое. По комментариям видно, что у зрителя рождается чувство отторжения, фильм его не захватывает. Я понимаю, что сегодня очень трудно сделать исторический фильм - тогда не делай баталий, придумай что то другое.
@@DabraLibanos
Главный герой недавно узнал о смерти своей бывшей супруги, которую очень сильно любил, битва к показанному моменту уже продолжается значительное время, однако так и не были достигнуты весомые результаты, становится ясно, что это конец. Поэтому Наполеон Хоакина Феникса в этой сцене подавлен. Стоит заметить, что в фильме батальные сцены не главное, главное то, что скрывается за ними, учитесь читать между строк.
Let me clear this up real quick; *NAPOLEON WAS 46 YEARS OLD, SUFFERING FROM STOMACH CANCER IN A BARN OUTSIDE THE BATTLEFIELD*
Never let Ridley Scott direct a historical movie, I can already imagine Gladiator 2 being an absolute abomination.
the battle scene of this movie is such a huge disappointment.
If Steven Spielberg was given a chance to make a film about Napoleonic war, it would be so brutal and memorable.
Mel Gibson would have killed it. It wouldn’t be historically accurate either, but it would be exciting and entertaining.
I'm not a historian, just a buff...but the battle of waterloo (and the days/weeks before) was almost a surprise attack by the english and everyone else. Correct me if im wrong, but wasn't Napoleon very VERY sick, and his army was absolutely exhausted from all the smaller battles that happened days before waterloo, in an attempt to defend Paris? I don't remember exactly, but I know I heard that Napoleon had several health issues and stomach problems, that seemed to lead into his stressful and poor decision making during this battle. ?
(I haven't seen the movie yet, just going off of what I remember from High school and College history classes)
The movie is trash...this is completely inaccurate.
@@theoneaboveall7708 I haven't seen it, I'd imagine any Hollywood movie would be. Is it that bad though?
@no.6atutubejail239 You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you
This movie woulda got better reviews if it was called Napoleon+Josephine. It did a really good job depicting their relationship but not Napoleons career as a general or leader. Specifically, they never even named a single one of Frances Marshalls or showed the Peninsular Campaign
"Break the square"
*Proceed to keep riding around the square*
4:25 broken sword.... ok!??!? lol
Thats happened in real life. There are pictures of Ney with his broken sword in Waterloo
When Hollywood touches something like this, it falls to peaces.
That sickly glazed over look is so inspiring.
Yeah, you can see why Napoleon was considered so charismatic, the charisma is so well done with the monotone, dead eyed look in every scene.
@@jasontibbetts9981 😂 its so true
It didn't really work in this movie, but I could buy it at Waterloo - Napoleon wasn't in a good condition there and it could show how he literally falls apart just like his empire.
I can’t tell whether you’re talking about Phoenix or the cinematography, or both.
Wow napoleon was fighting too! This is like when Hitler was battling in Stalingrad, very memorable and very true!
He was an artillery man so I think his weapon of choice would have been a canon. If he'd pulled out a canon it would have been totally believable. I think they missed a trick there.
I don't know of any real history buffs who think that this is a good movie. Several of my friends who were looking forward to it will not even bother seeing it.
0:45 can someone explain to be the strategic benefit of circling some men that are shooting you
The infantry square was a common tactic used to counter cavalry. The horsemen are not doing it willingly. Horses are not willing to charge into a wall of bayonets and rifles, and so the horses just circle the square impotently.
Also, the way it is portrayed in this scene is pretty innaccurate (like, the circling wouldn’t be that uniform lol) so it ain’t safe to assume this is how it looked in real life nor how it looked in other cases where this formation was used.
A much more realistic depiction is in “Waterloo.”
It also resembles a tactic I’ve heard of native Americans using. They would circle a group and the inner ring would fire their arrows or rifles then cycle to the outer ring to keep the whole group firing constantly. That and it immobilizes your opponent.
despite this movie being a shitty one, This is actually what happens irl when cavalries charges onto square formations. They would usually do this to either shoot back at the infantry whilst circling around them (Cavalries during this era were sometimes armed with pistols and carbines) or wait for an opportunity if one of the square's walls are breached.
Watch the 1970 film, Waterloo with Rod Stiger and Christopher Plummer.
Then the Winged Hussars arrived, coming down the mountainside.
And they were led by Gandalf, riding a white horse.
2:53 There's a deserting French cuirassier among the British cavalry lol
When you're playing a Total War battle and give up midway through to just Ctrl-A and charge at one enemy unit.
The soldier that shot Napoleon's cap had a scope on his flintlock tied on with rags.
Ridley Scott really mess up Napoleon i glad i didn't went to see it in theatre. ,now how good it is Waterloo in 1970 that is a master piece.
At 2:55 - when British cavalry begin to charge, is that a French cuirassier on the left of screen charging with them lol, please tell me it's not!!!😲😂😂😂😅but I think it is 100%, oh boy modern movies........
Yes..I first thought its a british household-guardsman...but yes...defiantely french....
@@TOFKAS01 yeah same, but then I thought wait a minute British cavalry never wore a cuirass lol 😂😂😂 I guess I will rewatch 1970 waterloo with rod steiger waaayýy better!!!....
@3:52 listen to marshal Ney
"Come see how Marshal of France dies"🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
4:57
Napoleon Bonaparte: I surrender
Napoleão em cima de um cavalo, no meio de uma batalha corpo a corpo? Simplesmente impossível.