Thanks! I can definitely see why the film would be an acquired taste. Even if you're totally sold on the premise, like I was, there are still aspects of the movie that just don't quite come together or that are too uncomplicated and heavy-handed.
I didn’t want to see this film, both as a lover of film but more importantly a lover of history. However, my dad is a stuntman and was apart of the stunt team for Napoleon and wanted to see it - so we went. And from the moment it started, I loathed it. When they started speaking in English and American accents I couldn’t help but bursting into laughter. I found the changes of Josephine “Rose” (her real name) and Napoleon’s ages (which completely changes the history and it’s dynamics) to be as nonsensical as it was disrespectful. We literally have copies of his battle plans, yet the scenes of war had some of the most basic (inaccurate) military structures I have seen on screen. Scott’s attitude to the film and the historians (he invited!) he insulted and borderline bullied, I found disgusting. The three hours felt like seven hours of torture. It’s still one of the worst films I have ever seen and probably ever will see. Sorry for the ranting, I just had to get it out after all this time. Brilliant review though, love your work!
I'm sorry but I don't think there is any audacity in this film. The audacity would have been actually making a film with a serious new actor (young) and making what an historical movie is supposed to do. If the premise of your movie is an "historical" movie, you don't make a fake movie filled with old and repetitive propaganda (like the Napoleon short and bad in bed). Is this supposed to be "profound", because Scott transforms a famous historical figure look like an old depressed farting pig who liked to blow up piramids. If the movie was about a depressed french guy it would have made sense, but this is supposed to be an EPIC film on NAPOLEON. This is called tricking your audience to go to a movie they don't want to see.....Such audacity....
I don't completely agree, *but* one area where I think you're totally right is that the movie was sold to audiences in a deceitful way. The trailers made it look exactly as you say: like an epic historical war film. So it's not their fault at all if they're disappointed when they discover that it's an awkward black comedy. And I think that's a big reason why it fell apart at the box office after the first week. I wish Apple Films had had the confidence to just be honest about the true nature of the film in their advertising.
An apalling movie which misrepresented Napoleon Bonaparte at every level. Phoenix was not very good I'm afraid - he looked bored and worn out, and delivered his lines like he was reading the news. Not the depiction of the charismatic, intelligent, energetic and (until he started ailing) handsome leader he was. If Josephine is in the directors cut for even another second, she will already have been in the film far too much. The battles were dull and utterly wrong. To see why watch the 1970 film 'Waterloo'. Dont worry about spoiling plot lines - there weren't any.
I could agree with you up to a point except for a few things. The Death of Stalin's humor is derived from actual things that happened. They didn't invent things to poke fun at, or despise him for. Another factor is the people that went to the theater and saw the movie that hated it, or knew nothing about Napoleon were laughing at the characters not with them. The so called comedy aspects made them cringe. Also your Napoleon has to have a basis in reality in order to be a successful black comedy. And it can't be so obvious that your whole take on the man is based on British tabloid propaganda. Also the depiction of Marie Antoinette on her way to the guillotine was the exact opposite of what actually happened, so it's impossible to see the situation from Ridley Scott's point of view. Her hair was cut in her prison cell, she was given a plain white dress to wear. If Scott wanted to something about the state of France with her messy hair, say that some other way. Otherwise, it is, who is that lady and why are they killing her? It was a valient attempt to try to make lemonade out of lemons. But Scott's Napoleon fails at everything it tried to do. Also the idea that Napoleon was someone akin to Lloyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber who because of certain circumstances stumbled his way to emperor is rubbish. You received a high position in the military because of who you're related to and who your parents were and how much wealth you had and who you're friends with. Those are the people that were the Lloyd Christmases and the Harry Dunnes. Napoleon rose to the top due to his intelligence and knowledge. Since he was from Corsica and didn't speak French well he was bullied and chided,, therefore he kept to himself. And while he kept to himself he was a veracious reader. He read everything, and he wrote stories too. And he read about the great military men and conquerers, and studied their tactics. Sometimes he would go without food at school in order to buy books. And due to all that he became knowledgeable with math and artillery and tactics. That's what propelled him upwards. Does that sound like a simpleton to you? "Well, the first thing I'm going to do once I get a say in what's what is get a lobotomy and become dim". Your worthy efforts are wasted on a Napoleon and Josephine that only live in Scott's head. When its that fictionalized and fantasized its like trying to look deeper into a Fractured Fairytale. Although Fractured Fairytales would be more grounded in truth. And the humor would be more sophisticated. If I were to be generous with Scott about this I'd say that Scott hates Napoleon, and to an extent Josephine. But, what Scott hates more is that Napoleon wasn't a moron, so Scott turned him into one. What you want to look at is Oversimplified The Napoleonic Wars. That is more worth your time and thoughts.
because movie goers are not historians and wouldnt know it was Antionette without the getup, Scott wanted this to appeal to a wide audience not just history buffs
@@essiewoo That's probably true. It's kind of ironic though. He purposely turned off 2/3s of his audience to get that 1/3. I still say he could have shown Marie Antoinette getting her hair cut in the prison cell. It would be more suspenseful getting into the mind of Marie. You know then that, there is no help coming, no pardon of any kind. Then getting thrown that white dress and being told to put it on. It gives the audience something to do with their mind. It becomes even more chilling when she's wheeled out and the crowd sees her and gasps because she's quiet and humble and brave. That's what is so infuriating about this movie. The actual true story writes itself. It does all your work for you.
This is a really eloquent and well-reasoned rebuttal of my thoughts on the film. I think the question of whether Napoleon would have been better *as a comedy* if it was more historically accurate is a fascinating one. I tend to agree that taking the Death of Stalin approach where you opt for historical accuracy in the broad outlines of the story and improvise and exaggerate the smaller details of interpersonal interactions and the personalities and pathologies of the people involved would have led to a more nuanced and interesting film.
It was a British hit piece on one of the world’s greatest military tacticians. This film is the equivalent of a German movie producer and director doing a hit piece film on General George S. Patton.
That's the thing the Nazi military command had very high respect for Patton. But then again they wouldn't have been the ones in charge of making a movie like that.
Honestly, shut up with that bullshit. British people equally think it's terrible. Nobody is happy with the film and British people don't really hate the French. Get your head out of your conspiracy theory space. Do you honestly think that the UK is patriotic enough to create artistic propaganda these days?
I thought there was no good supporting actor. Some of the battles were good and haven’t quite seen elite cannon skills since Pirates of the Caribbean. I believed they didn’t cuck Napoleon enough. I did see it as a dark quirky comedy. It also seems as if they left too much in the cutting room. I need the Zach Snyder cut
Yes, it’s a good film. I saw it on the first day and commented on Karsten Runquist’s video, who reviewed it on day one. His title was something like, “Wait, is Napoleon good, actually?” Since then, response has been curious. The voices saying that it’s really bad have been loud to the point that people who haven’t seen it (who bring up that they’re considering watching it) think it must be a bad film. At the same time, as people continue to see the film, there have also, of course, been responses of the “hey, it was fun, what do I know?” kind. I think Ridley Scott intuited that making something more traditionally sombre out of this film would have come across as too old fashioned. I suppose it’s impossible to predict what audiences want. I believe Ridley Scott thought he was reading the zeitgeist and showing that he understood that the rigid straight drama of Kingdom of Heaven wasn’t what audiences today wanted. I liked Napoleon because it gave me what I wanted. Yes, I don’t care for a creaky historical re-enactment. Napoleon’s two lead are a dynamite pairing, are fun to watch, and with the battle scenes on top of that, that was all the film needed. It seems a large majority disagrees with that. Again, it’s near impossible to predict what audiences really want. Do they know themselves? I don’t think Ridley Scott failed at all, but going by the commentary on the film generally, you’d have to conclude that he did.
I thought there was no good supporting actor. Some of the battles were good and haven’t quite seen elite cannon skills since Pirates of the Caribbean. I believed they didn’t cuck Napoleon enough. I did see it as a dark quirky comedy. It also seems as if they left too much in the cutting room. I need the Zach Snyder cut
You know, I hadn't considered this before, but I think you're absolutely right about the supporting actor thing. The film leans so heavily on the rapport between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby that's there's a vacuum when they're not both on screen. Giving Napoleon a stronger foil to play off of during the political and battle scenes would have made those sections more compelling.
Great take of the movie. The movie wasn't compelling for me so I left the theater halfway through
Thanks! I can definitely see why the film would be an acquired taste. Even if you're totally sold on the premise, like I was, there are still aspects of the movie that just don't quite come together or that are too uncomplicated and heavy-handed.
I didn’t want to see this film, both as a lover of film but more importantly a lover of history. However, my dad is a stuntman and was apart of the stunt team for Napoleon and wanted to see it - so we went. And from the moment it started, I loathed it. When they started speaking in English and American accents I couldn’t help but bursting into laughter. I found the changes of Josephine “Rose” (her real name) and Napoleon’s ages (which completely changes the history and it’s dynamics) to be as nonsensical as it was disrespectful.
We literally have copies of his battle plans, yet the scenes of war had some of the most basic (inaccurate) military structures I have seen on screen. Scott’s attitude to the film and the historians (he invited!) he insulted and borderline bullied, I found disgusting.
The three hours felt like seven hours of torture. It’s still one of the worst films I have ever seen and probably ever will see. Sorry for the ranting, I just had to get it out after all this time.
Brilliant review though, love your work!
I'm sorry but I don't think there is any audacity in this film. The audacity would have been actually making a film with a serious new actor (young) and making what an historical movie is supposed to do. If the premise of your movie is an "historical" movie, you don't make a fake movie filled with old and repetitive propaganda (like the Napoleon short and bad in bed). Is this supposed to be "profound", because Scott transforms a famous historical figure look like an old depressed farting pig who liked to blow up piramids. If the movie was about a depressed french guy it would have made sense, but this is supposed to be an EPIC film on NAPOLEON. This is called tricking your audience to go to a movie they don't want to see.....Such audacity....
I don't completely agree, *but* one area where I think you're totally right is that the movie was sold to audiences in a deceitful way. The trailers made it look exactly as you say: like an epic historical war film. So it's not their fault at all if they're disappointed when they discover that it's an awkward black comedy. And I think that's a big reason why it fell apart at the box office after the first week. I wish Apple Films had had the confidence to just be honest about the true nature of the film in their advertising.
An apalling movie which misrepresented Napoleon Bonaparte at every level. Phoenix was not very good I'm afraid - he looked bored and worn out, and delivered his lines like he was reading the news. Not the depiction of the charismatic, intelligent, energetic and (until he started ailing) handsome leader he was. If Josephine is in the directors cut for even another second, she will already have been in the film far too much. The battles were dull and utterly wrong. To see why watch the 1970 film 'Waterloo'. Dont worry about spoiling plot lines - there weren't any.
I could agree with you up to a point except for a few things. The Death of Stalin's humor is derived from actual things that happened. They didn't invent things to poke fun at, or despise him for.
Another factor is the people that went to the theater and saw the movie that hated it, or knew nothing about Napoleon were laughing at the characters not with them. The so called comedy aspects made them cringe.
Also your Napoleon has to have a basis in reality in order to be a successful black comedy. And it can't be so obvious that your whole take on the man is based on British tabloid propaganda.
Also the depiction of Marie Antoinette on her way to the guillotine was the exact opposite of what actually happened, so it's impossible to see the situation from Ridley Scott's point of view. Her hair was cut in her prison cell, she was given a plain white dress to wear. If Scott wanted to something about the state of France with her messy hair, say that some other way. Otherwise, it is, who is that lady and why are they killing her?
It was a valient attempt to try to make lemonade out of lemons. But Scott's Napoleon fails at everything it tried to do.
Also the idea that Napoleon was someone akin to Lloyd Christmas from Dumb and Dumber who because of certain circumstances stumbled his way to emperor is rubbish.
You received a high position in the military because of who you're related to and who your parents were and how much wealth you had and who you're friends with. Those are the people that were the Lloyd Christmases and the Harry Dunnes.
Napoleon rose to the top due to his intelligence and knowledge. Since he was from Corsica and didn't speak French well he was bullied and chided,, therefore he kept to himself. And while he kept to himself he was a veracious reader. He read everything, and he wrote stories too. And he read about the great military men and conquerers, and studied their tactics. Sometimes he would go without food at school in order to buy books. And due to all that he became knowledgeable with math and artillery and tactics. That's what propelled him upwards. Does that sound like a simpleton to you?
"Well, the first thing I'm going to do once I get a say in what's what is get a lobotomy and become dim".
Your worthy efforts are wasted on a Napoleon and Josephine that only live in Scott's head. When its that fictionalized and fantasized its like trying to look deeper into a Fractured Fairytale. Although Fractured Fairytales would be more grounded in truth. And the humor would be more sophisticated.
If I were to be generous with Scott about this I'd say that Scott hates Napoleon, and to an extent Josephine. But, what Scott hates more is that Napoleon wasn't a moron, so Scott turned him into one.
What you want to look at is Oversimplified The Napoleonic Wars. That is more worth your time and thoughts.
because movie goers are not historians and wouldnt know it was Antionette without the getup, Scott wanted this to appeal to a wide audience not just history buffs
@@essiewoo That's probably true. It's kind of ironic though. He purposely turned off 2/3s of his audience to get that 1/3.
I still say he could have shown Marie Antoinette getting her hair cut in the prison cell. It would be more suspenseful getting into the mind of Marie. You know then that, there is no help coming, no pardon of any kind. Then getting thrown that white dress and being told to put it on. It gives the audience something to do with their mind.
It becomes even more chilling when she's wheeled out and the crowd sees her and gasps because she's quiet and humble and brave.
That's what is so infuriating about this movie. The actual true story writes itself. It does all your work for you.
This is a really eloquent and well-reasoned rebuttal of my thoughts on the film. I think the question of whether Napoleon would have been better *as a comedy* if it was more historically accurate is a fascinating one. I tend to agree that taking the Death of Stalin approach where you opt for historical accuracy in the broad outlines of the story and improvise and exaggerate the smaller details of interpersonal interactions and the personalities and pathologies of the people involved would have led to a more nuanced and interesting film.
Was genuinely interested in watching the movie but now I'm EXTRA interested
Thank you! It's a weird and imperfect film, but I thought it was a fascinating one.
It was a British hit piece on one of the world’s greatest military tacticians.
This film is the equivalent of a German movie producer and director doing a hit piece film on General George S. Patton.
That's the thing the Nazi military command had very high respect for Patton. But then again they wouldn't have been the ones in charge of making a movie like that.
Great video William!
Thanks Adam!
This movie is an insult. It's a movie against Napoléon, with a british point of view. British propagand.
Honestly, shut up with that bullshit. British people equally think it's terrible. Nobody is happy with the film and British people don't really hate the French. Get your head out of your conspiracy theory space. Do you honestly think that the UK is patriotic enough to create artistic propaganda these days?
I thought there was no good supporting actor. Some of the battles were good and haven’t quite seen elite cannon skills since Pirates of the Caribbean.
I believed they didn’t cuck Napoleon enough. I did see it as a dark quirky comedy.
It also seems as if they left too much in the cutting room.
I need the Zach Snyder cut
Yes, it’s a good film. I saw it on the first day and commented on Karsten Runquist’s video, who reviewed it on day one. His title was something like, “Wait, is Napoleon good, actually?” Since then, response has been curious. The voices saying that it’s really bad have been loud to the point that people who haven’t seen it (who bring up that they’re considering watching it) think it must be a bad film. At the same time, as people continue to see the film, there have also, of course, been responses of the “hey, it was fun, what do I know?” kind.
I think Ridley Scott intuited that making something more traditionally sombre out of this film would have come across as too old fashioned. I suppose it’s impossible to predict what audiences want. I believe Ridley Scott thought he was reading the zeitgeist and showing that he understood that the rigid straight drama of Kingdom of Heaven wasn’t what audiences today wanted.
I liked Napoleon because it gave me what I wanted. Yes, I don’t care for a creaky historical re-enactment. Napoleon’s two lead are a dynamite pairing, are fun to watch, and with the battle scenes on top of that, that was all the film needed. It seems a large majority disagrees with that. Again, it’s near impossible to predict what audiences really want. Do they know themselves? I don’t think Ridley Scott failed at all, but going by the commentary on the film generally, you’d have to conclude that he did.
Well said! I completely agree.
I thought there was no good supporting actor. Some of the battles were good and haven’t quite seen elite cannon skills since Pirates of the Caribbean.
I believed they didn’t cuck Napoleon enough. I did see it as a dark quirky comedy.
It also seems as if they left too much in the cutting room.
I need the Zach Snyder cut
You know, I hadn't considered this before, but I think you're absolutely right about the supporting actor thing. The film leans so heavily on the rapport between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby that's there's a vacuum when they're not both on screen. Giving Napoleon a stronger foil to play off of during the political and battle scenes would have made those sections more compelling.