Who else is excited to see #Napoleon on the big screen! We hope you enjoyed this exclusive interview with the legendary Sir Ridley Scott. Make sure to leave a like and comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. And make sure you to see it in cinemas on November 22! 🎥🇫🇷
It would be great if Riddley Scott made a remastered and enhanced remake of the 1985 film "Legend" like he did in the Alien films and its prequel Prometheus.
Nah, it’ll be typical Ridley Scott, great cinematography with a crappy non-historical story. Just like gladiator. He had to make a fake story with a fake Spaniard Roman general that never existed or happened. The French made a mini-series in ten part with Christian Clavier as Bonaparte and it’s excellent.
If you guys want a great Napoleonic War movie, and just an all around good movie in general, you should watch Waterloo. It’s on TH-cam free with no ads and has 17,000 Russian extras from the Soviet army as the soldiers. No CGI. It was made in 1970 but it probably the 2nd or 3rd best movie I’ve ever seen, and also Christopher Plummer and Rob Steiger play Wellington and Napoleon.
05:48 Another Director who tries to lie and downplay the use of CG and VFX in a movie. That’s how he respects the hundreds of artists doing visual work in front of a computer instead of working on set. Bravo Ridley! You can join Christopher Nolan in this regard.
Cmon... he tries to tell US there were no cgi at all, all real. As if no one would have seen galleons getting destroyed by a frecking fort and their cannons😂
Okay. After watching this, I'm convinced that Scott didn't only not care for historical accuracy, he just made what he thought would look good without even taking accuracy into *consideration*.
Not entirely "bAd" on historical accuracy, most of the sets and costumes were spot on perfect of the era. But it's just the structure of events being shown people had problems with.
Well - after having a look at the whole thing, I no longer think so. Especially when it's up to the battlescenes which are, from my point of view a total mess. I say that from the studies about Napoleonic warfare that not only me, but lots of historians and reenactors have made. It begins with depictions of tactics that are completely don't fit with the era. It goes over equipment that wasn't present at the depicted time (should I mention scopes for rifles, just as an example?). It continues with units that are shown completely mixed together (three sorts of infantry from two different nations on the same spot) and a fetish for giant flags (which are almost completely wrong). Austerlitz - completely wrong depiction. Waterloo - completely wrong depiction. Borodino/Moscow - totally wrong depiction. The sets don't match with the real ones, strategies/tactics don't match. Yes, the uniforms look great, but these chaps do nonsensical things. One might show Napoleon leading the cavalry charge at Waterloo being led by Napoleon instead of Ney just for the reason of cinematic drama, okay. But in this movie, cinematic drama takes the lead just for the cause of 'nice pictures' therefore completely *ignoring* what reality was like. And that's what I have problems with. It would have been easy to avoid all these mistakes and nevertheless tell a good story. Scott decided to say 'I don't care, f* off, you historians'. @@Gadget-Walkmen
The Austerlitz scene does bother me. It is a small anecdote about the battle that some retreating troops were shot at while on ice, and he uses this to explain how Napoleon won… the true story is much more interesting how he tricked the allied armies into attacking him and sprung a trap. Scott’s explanation of history books and historians is completely wrong. History is written way different to how we wrote it and recorded it back even 100 years ago. Taking artistic license is fine but telling historians they are wrong when you are not a historian and don’t understand how history is studied and written isn’t fine. Edit: for clarity, I am okay with the historical inaccuracy for entertainment reasons, it’s normal for a Ridley Scott movie, but his misinterpretation of the study of history and using it as an excuse is pretty insulting. Dan Snow must feel bad that he couldn’t/can’t comment on this, because it’s Ridley Scott.
I'm inclined to agree. Whenever I saw scenes of it in trailers, I thought it was Eylau because of the ice and snow and dark weather. I couldn't believe it was Austerlitz because of how utterly different it was from the recorded event. There's a difference between taking liberties and in so doing, attempting to completely rewrite the historical narrative. Now it's possible that Scott was taken out of context here and that he meant something else, but between that and how it looks like it's going to be shown in the film, it really does look like they're trying to say Napoleon's ENTIRE strategy at Austerlitz was to make the idiotic Austrians and Russians just walk out onto the ice, which is not what happened at all.
I mean we really should not be surprised. Remember Gladiator? A ton of fiction in that. But that's what Ridley does, as long as the film is fun most people will ignore the historical accuracy.
@@hannibalb8276 I wish he would just say that, instead of incorrectly comment on how history is studied. I’m fine with him trying to make a more entertaining movie, but I didn’t like his point of view on that. I also think that Austerlitz was Napoleon’s greatest victory, and his strategy was impressive, they didn’t need to fake it
What I think Ridley is saying, and I could be wrong, is that the first historical record of an event is written closest to said event, and is thus likely to be more accurate than a modern account. We get new books on famous battles, wars, and people, all the time. Ridley is correct to a degree when he says that a later book will have more of the writer in it because said writer will want to put something unique in there, even if it's merely their own point of view. However he sounds a bit too dismissive of later works for my tastes. I've read histories written in the 19th Century which clearly contain sections which are entirely fictional as against later works that dispense with that nonsense and deal with things far more incisively. On one point he is entirely correct though: There is no such thing as 'historical accuracy'. History is all about perspective and the further back in time one goes the less sure one can be of the facts.
Maybe Ridley created it that way because he doesn't understand Napoleon's genius. The emperor outwitted the European continent for over 15 years. I'm not surprised a modern film maker doesn't grasp his unique genius.
Stanley Kubrick once planned on making a Napoleon film and even had the script finished and began shooting background footage. It never got made, but he famously said that if it did, it would be the greatest film ever made. Kubrick's vision may never be realized, but Ridley's version may be the next best thing. At 85 years old, he's still making epics. A true legend of film making.
The reason Kubrick stopped his Napoleon movie is because he learned that "Waterloo" (1970) would be released a few months before his Napoleon epic was going to wrap-up. He didn't want to risk being seen as a "copycat making knock-off films" by the movie going public. Kubrick was all about releasing something new nobody had seen before.
@@McLarenMercedes A small correction: Kubrick didn't decide to not make his planned Napoleon epic; according to his long time producer Jan Harlan, his financers withdrew their funding after 'Waterloo' failed at the box office and that's why it wasn't made. A lot of the research, costumes and props made for his Napoleon project, were used in 'Barry Lyndon' instead.
Austerlitz was by itself a amazing story. No need to falsify the account. Napoleon doesn't need stupid Hollywood remake. In the battle of Rivoli, hos center was breaking, his right flank was gone and he had enemy troops blocking his path of retreat and yet he looked at the nap and said to the present officers: they are ours.
Waterloo is probably the best Napoleonic era film ever made. Over two hours focused on a single decisive battle really shows the drama and grittiness compared to two and a half hours in this new film trying to cover Napoleons entire life. I can definitely see how the rumors that this was a four-hour film cut down to the current running time. The focus on the Napoleon/Josephine relationship as the key narrative device would have benefited from longer more sympathetic character development. It seemed hard to care for any character in the film. The score was also a little wanting, with some rousing battle music and other classical ambience, but also some weird almost mongolian moaning at some points. The historical events & politics should have been the driving force. a mid-tier rating film for me. If you want to enjoy a good Napoleonic era film go watch the Classic Waterloo again, far superior with two hours being devoted to just one battle rather than the entire period
@@castlerock58 Yes and someone said the movie with Charles Boyer was good as well. If someone is going to have a Frenchman as the main Character. USE A BLOODY FRENCHMAN
What we are looking at here 5:49 is not CGI?: at the very moment Ridley says 'NO', big CGI explosion 😂 As a (french) vfx artist this marketing argument is degrading the whole profession; we'll move to theater for the story, the performances and the craft; the hundreds of invisible VFX shots you won't even notice is part of it and should be celebrated and credited as the rest of the craft. It's like saying there is no historians, no props and set makers, no costumes designers, and everything appeared by magic ;)
Came here looking for this comment. It’s a real shame for VFX artists. Their craft and technology is getting so good, and their work so hard to spot, many people assume it’s not there. Evidently this includes people on set, but directors like Scott know better. It should be their responsibility to champion their VFX team’s work all the more. Instead, many are just flat-out lying to the press about no CGI. Shouldn’t these artists’ guilds have something to say about this?
@@CarterElkins I don't think they have much representation but I think with the strikes recently that might be changing. The vfx company that won an Oscar for life of pi went bankrupt the year they won, so things need to change
Scott is being a bit silly here. Historians don't claim to know what happened because they were there, but because they have read the reports and recollections of those who were.
He either enjoys hyperbole & soundbytes or is simply ignorant. Either is possible. Listening to him say, “Napoleon tried to conquer the world for Josephine,” I rolled my eyes so hard they nearly fell out of my head.
The French historiography on the Napoleonic era is one of the most extensive in any fields existant. It would take at least three years to just touch the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. In the anglophone world, it is not as important, but in France, nearly every history graduate has done its Master 1 or Master 2 on the Napoleonic era, in a military perspective or otherwise.
@@KalafinwëGive it a break. We study Napoleon in high school and University in the anglophone countries. We know he is one of the best conquerors to have lived, his genius military strategies, etc. All you have to do is see the English speaking trailers to see anglophones geeking out on him. What's even more surprising is that I'm an American in France, the amount of French people who don't even know their own history well is just as bad as the Americans and their own history. I literally had to have an interview with the city mayor to see if I should be eligible for permanent residency in France. We spoke in France and he was absolutely flabbergasted by my knowledge, and mentioned that many French people don't know the answers to the questions he was asking me. And please don't think I knew so much about France because I dreamed of living here, because that's not true. I happened upon here by circumstance. I just love learning history as a hobby.
@@ddc2957the interview is edited so it may be that Scott isn't shown elaborating. However, it's an interpretation--what motivates us? To impress sexually is not a farfetched notion if you read psychology. When he wrote to her about his victories, he certainly intended to impress--exaggerating and so on.
@@HistoryHit Phoenix is a stunning actor. Completely encompassing his characters and truly brings them to life. His Napoleon is sure to be a benchmark performance for all representations in film of the character. Your recommendation is just fueling my excitement 😁
I love how youthful and energetic Ridley still seems to be. For a man of his age it's inspirational to see him still tackling these epic productions. I hope he can follow in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood & keep directing into his nineties. He's one of the greats & i wish him continued good health & success.
9 VFX studios, nearly 300 credit VFX artists specializing in compositing, tracking, lighting, 3D modeling, texturing and animation - But no CGI. Uh huh. Okay.
Sure but what's your point? They are literally looking at CGI when they say "that's not CGI". There's tons of bluescreen and CGI in this film. th-cam.com/video/Tq8DaTOKSNc/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/exWFS-0Rois/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/G6lLZgKrqwM/w-d-xo.html
He's 85, and you're.. which is evident that! You.... are not and never will be.. a fan of bladerunner, Gladiator, alien or even kingdom of heaven. No man would disrespect cinematography. So this is truth.
There is a ridiculously methodical process that historians follow to know which is accurate and which is not. History isn't an easy subject to say "how do they know?"
But they still take a lot on faith that the writings etc.. have not been manipulated or made to fool readers. Look at procopius and his secret history.
You clearly have not talked to any history major. History is like anything else, it is political. This is why white males dominate history departments.
“No CGI” has become a popular and sloppy way of saying “filmed on location” (which was later dramatically changed or enhanced by CGI) and “filmed with some real props” (which were then enhanced and multiplied by CGI to look real on the screen). It’s apparently unfashionable to use CGI in movies. So they still do it (and it’s getting ever better), but deny it in public. That’s the new Hollywood.
@@jalin8039, The term CGI is by now practically synonymous with VFX. Miniatures come to mind, but because they are practical, I heard people putting them in the SFX department. The video title talks about CGI, Scott talks about CGI, and the 9 companies who did the CGI on Napoleon call it CGI either.
Great video on this very thing on a new channel called “The Movie Rabbit Hole”. He shows that basically every jet onscreen in Top Gun: Maverick was completely CGI despite them saying it was all real and there was no CGI in the movie. Napoleon will be no different. It will be wall to wall CGI.
I think times like these ( with the strikes and a stupid porportion of the industry let go and suffering for months) it hurts! He's using the small difference between VFX and CGI, to bolster his film, and it's just depressing to hear.
I can imagine there is an extended cut of this interview... And I need it. If it's Ridley, I can listen him talk about movies, filmmaking and camera operation for hours. He's still on top. And he will always be.
Seems like it was heavily cut...and some of Ridley's comments are possibly being taken out of context...plus Dan interrupted and talked over Ridley a tad too much. People are getting so het up and slagging him and the film off..The man is in the film /entertainment industry, he is a bloody good film maker, who knows how to make an entertaining film. He will be perfectly aware of how fickle audiences and 'studio types' can be. It's always going to be a balancing act between historical accuracy, entertainment and box 16:51 Office receipts....I could listen to him talking film all day.... ..didn't realise how old he was !.l remember when he and Alan Parker were making the step from advertising to film making...they didn't disappoint ! Ridley Scott taking on monumental projects like Napoleon at his age is incredible....long may he run!
The director’s cut of KOH barely saved what was left by the glaring historical errors that superior channels such as the typically reserved History Buffs lose their marbles over. Nick Hodges’ loss of composure over the inaccuracies was as entertaining as the movie itself. 😅
Why is CGI treated like a disease? Obviously the shot with the Seabattle is 99% CGI. The Ships, the gunfire the explosions, most ships crews are all CGI.
Ridley keeps saying there are 400 books written about Napoleon. According to historian J.D Markham, the actual number is over 300,000. There have been more books written about Napoleon than days since his death.
Its ridiculous to say that there have been 400 books written on Napoleon.That only goes to show that he hasn't really researched his topic....! There are hundreds of thousands of books written on Napoleon alone,plus books on the period as a whole and innumera- ble articles that can't even be counted....
I am more worried about him believing the historic research gets worse over time. He equates number of books written to quality of historians dissecting biases and matching facts with new findings and understanding of history.
Wanted to make the movie without CGI, yet used tons of it. For some reason the use of CGI gets downplayed in every new movie, pandering to the audiences ignorance.
Thank you for admitting that there was way more to Napoleon Bonaparte than a war master. He was a very special man talented in so many ways. He was also a caring and compassionate down to earth man and that’s why he was so loved by everyone, especially his soldiers which were his children.
While I'm certainly intrigued by his perspective as a film maker, I do question his simplistic thoughts on the books about him (Napoleon/ historical figures)- yes, sometimes the earliest accounts come from eyewitnesses/ people who had access to eyewitnesses/ information, & later accounts might be written long after eyewitnesses are dead- but beyond authorial bias, the information available can change over time, too. Some writers have a role that allows them access to information that others simply aren't privy to. For others, Government documents become accessible after a certain amount of time- people leave hithertofore unknown artefacts & private papers to museums & whathaveyou. So long as a writer applies a rigorous standard (knowing the background of sources, & so on) - there's no reason a newer work can't be just as valid as the first. And saying 'Were _you_ there?' is a foolish retort; No, I wasn't there for Marie Antoinette's execution, but there *is* documentation for it- we know the date, the month & the year (& thus, the likely weather)- preceding events are also known (she attracted a great deal of sympathy during her trial, due to the vileness of some of the accusations leveled at her)- so that can give a stronger impression of her attitude & mindset (unlikely she was haughty & arrogant, & that the entire crowd was screaming abuse at her) We also know what she was wearing- because she'd *requested* to wear black, & the revolutionary authority _forced_ her to wear white; her hair was cut short at the prison & she was made don a mobcap. We _also_ know how she came to her execution (the route, means, & company)- as well as the process for it. I'm not trying to sh*t on the movie, or anything- but if so much was gotten wrong in such a small section, then I do have to wonder how _so _*_much_* of Napoleon's life & reign, & campaigns can be accurately depicted in a movie, rather than a mini-series...
I agree, Scott's "were you there" argument was shockingly poor for an intelligent man like him. It's the sort of asinine argument young earth creationists use to dismiss evolution. I was disappointed to hear it, because I like his movies. But I guess it explains why he's so comfortable portraying inaccuracies in his historical films.
Give the man a break. He is a massy filmmaker not a scholar. Why do people become so serious when it comes to historical movies. At the end of the day they're largely meant for entertainment.
Then watch a well-made documentary or better, read your favorite history books. No feature film will ever be 100% authentic, that's not the purpose of this form of art. (Coming from a person who notices many inaccuracies in WWII movies and often has a good laugh about them)
Historically accurate doesn't always make for the best movie. It's an adaptation of history for the cinema and I can live with any historical inaccuracies.
95% of the movie is wrong. I’m sure he had the resources to get the facts right, but I seriously don’t think he cared. I love this period of history and while certain parts of the movie are well done (costumes and sets are top notch) it gets so many things incorrect. If it helped propel the narrative forward to change things, fine. That’s not the case here.
Thoroughly recommend a visit to Waterloo if you're into history. Wellington's HQ in the town, Napoleon's HQ at the farm, Hougemont, all still there and accessible. Museum at the battlefield is underneath, lots of uniforms on display and so much to read. 30mins by train from Brussels. Buses in the town take you to a 5min walk from Lions Mound.
I’ve got a book from one of my 20+ 7th great grandfathers who served as an artillery plunger at the battle of Vitoria and how he thought he broke his back during the three hour artillery duel and how he was injured and therefore couldn’t rejoin in Waterloo, that book that’s nearly destroyed goes more into detail about the Napoleonic era and it’s like 12 sentences
As a historian I find it a bit worrying what Mr. Scott has said about historical accuracy here in general. Of course, he is an artist making a movie, not a documentary, all right, but Mr. Snow should have replied something. 'Were you there?' and 'the first book was maybe the most accurate' - these are among the worst takes on history and historical accuracy I ever heard.
Ridleys comment there about historical accuracy, he's so dismissive and has already made up his mind to retell history his way. I wonder, how easy is he to work with if you were an onsite historian, advising on the script... Sounds like a tough job.
It's so stupid too because he *could* play by the historical facts and tell more or less the same story. He just chooses not to and makes unforced blunders that ruin the movie in the process for history buffs. This new movie will be no different to all his others.
He does make mistakes most definitely. Gladiator had it's first mistakes only the first 10 minutes in the film during the battle. I think it's a bit of a compromise between being 100% accurate and making a spectacular scene. On the other hand being more accurate could have made the scene even more spectacular.
As a huge fan of Ridley Scott's first Napoleonic movie The Duellists, I hope that the characters Armand d'Hubert and Gabriel Feraud get a cameo in this film.
I was thinking of the Duelists as I was watching this clip. That movie is an amazing movie that so many today are unaware of how good it was and still is.
The Duellists was a film I found late while looking into his filmography, I stuck it on and was spellbound. It overshadowed all the recent movies I'd watched
"How do you know? Were you there?" That's such a lame argument and he gets 0 push back for it. Just say that to make the movie he wants, he has to take liberties with the material.
agreed, the historian next to him should have at least argued back. we have many sources on Napoleon, probably enough to make an accurate depiction of most important events @@ni8shadow
I would happily take a few historical inaccuracies for the sake of getting a historical epic on film again, no other director is making films like him right now.
What's with the bashing of VFX artists lately? There's thousands of us artists working REALLY hard to bring you films as realistic as we possibly can. Claiming it's "all practical" is just not true. This film will be the same. The immediate foreground and actors may be real, but it'll be all digital extensions beyond, digital doubles and crowds (especially those in the line of fire), digital explosions (too dangerous on set), digital boats with CG water, and many other smaller CG elements and corrections all over the shot. So a big shout out to all the VFX artists that did such a seamless job on this from MPC, ILM, Bluebolt, Outpost VFX, One of Us, Light VFX, In-house, PFX and Ghost VFX. Awesome job!
I LOVE WATERLOO. I own it and have watched it numerous times. The opening scene. One of my favorites of all time sets up the whole movie. The French Generals are walking through the huge palace halls. All In lock step, faces confident. Sure of themselves and the bad news and message they must give to their emperor Napoleon. Lock step, chins hi. As soon as they round the corner to face the BACK of Napoleon, hands gathered, they fall out of step, mouths agape and try to compose themselves. Like Children to the master. BRILLIANT !!!! The next scene is Napoleon speaking to his old guard, relinquishing power. Calling them his Children and gathering the flag of France and kissing it as his wife, their mother. And that's just the first few minutes in !!!!!!!!!!!!! The most epic live action battle scene ever. So epic. Over 2k in real Calvery alone!!!!!!! 1970's movie I highly , highly recommend it watch it before this one.
I think anyone who has read even one historical book about Napoleon would cry watching this movie. It's a fantasy for 7-10 years old children, not a historical movie.
The whole point is that it isn't. Barely anyone will watch a actual historical documentary on Napoleon. So why not add some spice and make it into a fun entertaining movie with good actors. Directors are confined to the rules of movies and the entertainment world.
@@imperium9101 the whole Napoleonic period is totally spicy and outstanding. You don't need change it to make a great entertaining movie. In 1799 Napoleon was 20 year old youth, not a 50 year old man like in movie
@@imperium9101 "The whole point is that it isn't. Barely anyone will watch a actual historical documentary on Napoleon." Both the time period and the life of Napoleon fascinate people. And you're arguing no-one would want to look at a movie depicting that life. You think that the story of the French revolution, the Italian campaigns, Waterloo, his conquests in Egypt and Eastern-Europe, his reforms that to this day are felt in the US and Western-Europe are boring? Then why are you here in this comment section?
@@imperium9101Bullshit, there are enough good historial movies that follow the source closely. Look at the movie Alexander (2004). That is the uncontested best historical battle scene in movie history as well.
@@SolesElegance It's an Epic, I'm not sure what to tell you. If you don't like it don't watch it. The 4 hours Director cut will have more battle scenes and obviously be more in-depth. You have the right to your opinion but being rude to others and saying "bullshit" doesn't support your argument. Everyone has different opinions especially when it comes to movies. Personally I was able to look past the Historical Inaccuracies and enjoy the movie for what it is. I understand that it's harder for others to do the same and that's alright. Enjoy the rest of your day. Take care.
Not a fan of Ridley's answer to the historical accuracy question. I'm sure the movie will be exceptionally well put together but I have many doubts about the historicity, especially since there were three major inaccuracies in the trailer alone.
The point isn't to be incredibly 100% historical, the entertainment world wouldn't let anything like that be put on a big screen. The whole purpose is entertainment and epic battle. Don't act like a 90 year old trying to be a smart ass on a movie no one's making you watch.
@imperium9101 it sounds like you didn't read my comment thoroughly. "I'm sure the movie will be exceptionally well put together." I plan on watching the movie but I will point out what was not historical fact afterward as I want to maintain historcicity.
I’m so glad there is finally a big spotlight on Napoleon. People don’t realize how important he was to history. People mostly know him for a short French dude or his loss at Waterloo. Not how he ran Europe for a decade
I love the Napoleonic era where a man of any status fought for the emperor and for his country, that time was the time of heroes where marshals led the army and struck at the enemy, the heroes of old times were simply not afraid!!!
There is a channel called "Real Time History" with some brilliant episodes about Napoleon and the battles he was involved with (hours and hours of them) and the men that served in those wars accounts of them. And it is brutal honesty too, not leaving out the disgusting acts that men did in those times and what they witnessed. Massively recommend it to anybody who hasn't come across it yet.
Yep, all latin American countries began their wars of independence because of the aftermath of his wars in Spain. He also helped unify italy and germany
It's crazy, I was just thinking that the Austerlitz pond scene resembled the opening battle of Gladiator. And Scott confirms that it was indeed filmed in the same place 😅
This film will be great I don’t doubt it but the attitude Ridley has towards historical accuracy is slightly concerning. It’s obviously ok to take liberties in this regard, especially for things that the audience won’t really remember, but the depiction of Austerlitz already doesn’t look great, and could easily be seen as fact by people. It’s arguably the most important battle to get right too as it was his masterpiece.
I would not give a damm about this movie, but behaviour of Ridley is a fucking joke. He just up attack all historians by saying his childish "Were you there?" I think he should work on his childish ego first, than talk about anything in public. Waterloo from 1970 is still 1 milion times better than this Ridley Ego fantasy.
As someone who thought that Rod Steiger in Waterloo was the standard, I will definetly see this. I just hope there is a Director's Cut available because those always carry about an hour more. Vive la' emporer.
ABSOLUTELY ROD STEIGER WAS A GREAT "NAPOLOEN" IN THE TRAILER FOR RIDLEY SCOTT'S VERSION MR. PHOENIX MUMBLES THE LINE "I FOUND THE CROWN IN THE GUTTER AND PUT IT UPON MY HEAD" MR. PHOENIX IS JUST GOING TO MUMBLE HIS WAY THROUGH THE ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE. EVERYBODY READING THIS--DROP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND FIND BONDERCHUCK'S VERSION OF NAPOLEON STARRING ROD STEIGER.
Do you know the story of Napoleon? 2 and a half hours seems insanely short and if it is boring that would be Ridley's fault because the real story is as far from boring as a story could be.
You want a 20 year movie? Or 20 hour? Paciness counts if we want to keep those cinema-going bums on seats! People forget how most of us older film-goers grew up on 90 minute movies. Film-makers are making increasingly flabby films with the advent of digital. And I'm not sure how Christopher Nolan persuades his financiers to indulge his adherence to 70mm film!
Ridley’s 2 major flaws: comments on historical accuracy are hilariously bad. He fundamentally doesn’t understand Napoleon and Josephine’s relationship. He’s taking his relationship of 1796-1799 and projecting it to 1796-his divorce without understanding things very much changed. Josephine did come to love him. And they did have a very happy relationship (even though he had a few dozen affairs)
Actually she was the first one having affairs, and I think he might be right at a certain point because in the beginning Josephine didn't really love Napoleon. There relationship just got better after his coronation to emperor.
@@danssjeje2950 she had her affair while Napoleon was in Italy and Egypt 1796-1797. It is true she had one first. But when he came back from Egypt (1799), they had a huge blow up argument and she begged him not to divorce her and she was faithful and came to love him. Nap went on to have many affairs
@@dejabu24 this is one of, if not the most documented relationships in history. There are tens of thousands of surviving letters. You can pinpoint to the day she broke up with Hippolyte Charles and when J&N reconciled when he came back from Egypt. Their relationship took a fundamental turn. Don’t give the director a free pass because he did a bad/lazy job prepping this movie
Not to mention the inexcusable omission of Lannes & Murat. His relationship with Lannes until his death during the last successful campaign is practically made for hollywood, not to mention Murat's persona and dress too are perfect for hollywood visualisation. A tremendous disappointment, sufficient to warrant entirely skipping the film
This brings him full circle back to his first film The Duallists known for its phenomenal cinematography using natural lighting. I hope the cinematography is just as good in Napoleon.
🙏 Respect & Salute to Sir Ridley Scott >>> One of the Legendary Movie Director of our generation! Many Happy Good Blessings in Return to Sir Ridley Scott ... 🌷🌿🌎💜🕊🇬🇧
It amazes me how this man at 85 years of age manages to bring us a large scale, historical epic in which overshadows most of younger directors nowadays.
Well, Ridley gets to make films this big because, again and again, he's proved that he can! If you want epic, he's a safe pair of hands for investors and producers. Most younger directors simply wouldn't have that opportunity. Although, to be fair, Christopher Nolan is carving his own big film niche, in his own way. But he's not quite the same. Nor looks inclined to make the same kind of movies.
I could and have listened to Sir Ridley talk about making his movies for hours. His director commentary on the Prometheus Blue Ray is great, the amount of control and detail he poured into that movie is evident his comments, he takes you through the process of filming that minute by minute.
I absolutely cannot wait for this. That Waterloo battle scene, that formation of the square to being surrounded by the Dragoons...WOW. JUST WOW. Counting down the days!!! HUZZAH!
So glad to have been a subscriber for over 2 years just fir this very moment here thank you to all involved behind the scenes helping generations of all ages rediscover all of human history here on this channel
Ridley Scott is the only one who can portray the scenes in the film so well, and of course he is at the very top with the stories themselves, and he is very good there. Genius.
If I were Mr. Scott I would want people to leave the theatre wanting to know more about the characters in the film. I'm excited to see the movie. It looks to be Epic.
The 2002 TV miniseries starring Christian Clavier as Napoleon was almost 6 hours long. Even at that length, the series couldn't cover all the major battles and events in detail.
It could be, but to be honest I wouldn't trust the Californians not to gradually infect it with their contemporary political nonsense; that's what they did with Game of Thrones by the end 😒
@@ReekieReelsIt wont be gradual. You are getting that with Ridley's version. Just watch The Last Duel or even go back to the comical, over the top "evil man" rape scene and all the other nonsense in Thelma and Louise, which he also directed.
even though I've lived in the UK as a child since 1967 as my step dad is english,I speak as a french born person and I tip mon chapeau to Sir Ridley having the courage to make a film on such an epic scale about Napoleon,a complex historical character that no historian or film or documentary maker will ever be able to fully discover how this unknown little Corsican and within a matter of a few years became such a powerful force at the beginning of the 19th century and it has shaped the history and continent of Europe ever since.The legacy of Napoleon is still among us and not just in France but right across the world.Only a few days one of his many famous and widespread quotes was used by a leading political figure in the UK on TV “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” If the descendants of Napoleon could claim the royalties on Napoleon's quotes,they would be very very rich.As for historical accuracy,as Napoleon once said which I'm sure found its way to Sir Ridley “Those who receive the most images into their memories have the most lively imaginations.”
I'm reading the biography of Napoleon written by Adam Zamoyski, the story is incredible and seeing this human side especially from the letters was an experience that I will never forget!
If you have the literary appetite for a second Napoléon book, Andrew Roberts wrote the exhaustive Napoléon the Great, which views the Emperor in a far more favourable light, making for a great contrast. Or for a condensed approach, the two men argue for more than an hour over his legacy on TH-cam.
Andrew Roberts (and Adam Zamoyski to a lesser degree) is not seen as producing a very good biography by many British historians, including Charles Esdaile who has written a lot on the Peninsular- but who is also a proud hater of Napoleon
@@diego_penha 3 volume work by Philip Dwyer, there's also a 3vol set by Michael Broers which is ok. "Campaigns of Napoleon" by Chandler is very good for the military side. After that is where you get into the more niche works, such as one's devoted to his romances etc.
@@goonerlee You are welcome. Your post didn’t clarify who was making such claims, given the director himself said it wasn’t true in this interview by saying he did use CGI. Also you said “every single clip”, “literally every single shot”, so you include the studio shots in the video with real actors actually acting as also using CGI. Perhaps they do who knows if parts of the background in these parts are CGI, what does it matter. Is the director supposed to go through every single clip for you explaining exactly what is real and what is CGI. Most modern films are a mixture of photography methods and CGI, if you don’t like it don’t watch them, no one is forcing you to do so.
Cant wait to see this.We did the catering for this film,and i have to say it was one of the most challenging films to work on.....but totally worth it.😊
Hollywood...meh.. Now Imagine several seasons covering not only the main character Napoleon but all his 26 marechal / marshals , this would be splendid! all their factions , beginnings , the beginnings before the Republic - the old regime generals that fought for the Republic - the Pyrynees front , the Alps front , the Rhein front etc. gradually showing - Berthie , Jean Bernadotte , Davout , Murat , Ney , Souchet , Soult , Bessières , Massena , Serurier , Lefebvre and their wives , their friendships and also their disdain toward each other , it is so much more complex. I would pay prime $ to have all these covered , also the rest of his marshals too ,battles other generals that were brighter but never had the privilege to become marshals with the baton.
Just watched it last night. 80% confusing, non related scenes of “melancholy” painting Napoleon out to be a bit of a simp. Obviously he was one of the greatest leaders in history, don’t get the sense from that movie. 20% war scenes. Visually spectacular with the costumes, set design, and special effects amazing. Just felt underwhelmed coming out of the theatre. 6/10
"Once you get to 399 books on Napoleon, that's a lot of speculation ... " Er no... that's now how the historical method works. Historians are supposed to build upon the work that their predecessors produced, so that by the time you've got hundreds of texts, there is much more certainty about the events that are being investigated and documented. I used to think that Ridley Scott had a bit of substance. My goodness, how wrong I was.
Dan, you as an historian should have asked more searching questions of Ridley Scott, you shouldn’t change or ignore history just to suit the way you want to make a film! It’s like winding the clock back to the 50 to 70’s as to how the Americans won WW2 single handedly via Hollywood
Ridley must be one of the most efficient directors out there. He knows what he's doing and goes about it with enormous gusto. He would probably also be the last one standing in a bar brawl.
The problem is that Phoenix is way too old for the role, 20 years older than Napoleon was for instance in Egypt. That is compounded by the absurd casting of Josephine. She is beautiful and 13 years younger than Phoenix, whereas Josephine was not beautiful and 6 years older. Their real relationship was much more John Lennon/Yoko Ono, than this film will be
Well, yes, but that's the limitation inherent in making this film. If you cover 20 years of a man's life, you are going to have age differences (unless the film takes 20 years to make.) And there is only so much you can do with makeup. Maybe they should have tried CGI to make Joaquim look younger, like they did with Harrison Ford in the most recent Indiana Jones movie. As for Josephine, in her youth she was described as pretty; in later life, a more charitable description could be that she was 'charming', reminding me not of Yoko Ono but Cleopatra. Certainly Napoleon was besotted with her, so there must have been something going on.
@@dmeinhertzhagen8764Ridley Scott is a great film maker! He’s made loads of great movies, adverts etc he has invested heavily in film making and has transformed film making industry. Just because you don’t like some of his work shouldn’t be a reason to wish him ill
Who else is excited to see #Napoleon on the big screen! We hope you enjoyed this exclusive interview with the legendary Sir Ridley Scott. Make sure to leave a like and comment on this video and subscribe to the channel. And make sure you to see it in cinemas on November 22! 🎥🇫🇷
Congratulation you got a chance meeting him and discussing the movie. I am impressed.
It would be great if Riddley Scott made a remastered and enhanced remake of the 1985 film "Legend" like he did in the Alien films and its prequel Prometheus.
Definitely a big screen must
Nah, it’ll be typical Ridley Scott, great cinematography with a crappy non-historical story. Just like gladiator. He had to make a fake story with a fake Spaniard Roman general that never existed or happened.
The French made a mini-series in ten part with Christian Clavier as Bonaparte and it’s excellent.
400 books about it but did not read any just another braveheart nice images but god awful story
If you guys want a great Napoleonic War movie, and just an all around good movie in general, you should watch Waterloo. It’s on TH-cam free with no ads and has 17,000 Russian extras from the Soviet army as the soldiers. No CGI. It was made in 1970 but it probably the 2nd or 3rd best movie I’ve ever seen, and also Christopher Plummer and Rob Steiger play Wellington and Napoleon.
Much better than this BS
Cool thanks
@@robbillington1982 for real, this movie was so trash it’s insane
@@Verdun16 Lol to be totally fair -- Waterloo's pretty silly. And the four hour silent is even sillier.
I agree,Waterloo is a great film.Steiger was his usual magnificent self.
Ridley Scott confirmed he has an 'extended' 4 hour version ready to roll, it will be released after the theatrical run. FANTASTIC!
😮 Say less and take my money!
Gimme that 4k
and its always way better then the theatre version
barbie sucksoppenheimer sucks! I hope this movie won't sucks.. rip hollywood. nowadays are 99% rubbish movies
Awesome! It looks truly epic
05:48 Another Director who tries to lie and downplay the use of CG and VFX in a movie. That’s how he respects the hundreds of artists doing visual work in front of a computer instead of working on set. Bravo Ridley! You can join Christopher Nolan in this regard.
Cmon... he tries to tell US there were no cgi at all, all real. As if no one would have seen galleons getting destroyed by a frecking fort and their cannons😂
Okay. After watching this, I'm convinced that Scott didn't only not care for historical accuracy, he just made what he thought would look good without even taking accuracy into *consideration*.
Not entirely "bAd" on historical accuracy, most of the sets and costumes were spot on perfect of the era. But it's just the structure of events being shown people had problems with.
Well - after having a look at the whole thing, I no longer think so. Especially when it's up to the battlescenes which are, from my point of view a total mess. I say that from the studies about Napoleonic warfare that not only me, but lots of historians and reenactors have made. It begins with depictions of tactics that are completely don't fit with the era. It goes over equipment that wasn't present at the depicted time (should I mention scopes for rifles, just as an example?). It continues with units that are shown completely mixed together (three sorts of infantry from two different nations on the same spot) and a fetish for giant flags (which are almost completely wrong). Austerlitz - completely wrong depiction. Waterloo - completely wrong depiction. Borodino/Moscow - totally wrong depiction. The sets don't match with the real ones, strategies/tactics don't match. Yes, the uniforms look great, but these chaps do nonsensical things.
One might show Napoleon leading the cavalry charge at Waterloo being led by Napoleon instead of Ney just for the reason of cinematic drama, okay. But in this movie, cinematic drama takes the lead just for the cause of 'nice pictures' therefore completely *ignoring* what reality was like. And that's what I have problems with.
It would have been easy to avoid all these mistakes and nevertheless tell a good story. Scott decided to say 'I don't care, f* off, you historians'. @@Gadget-Walkmen
I can't comment because I was not there to see it happen...@@Gadget-Walkmen
What about his personality? I would like opinions of whether he had the personality aspect depicted accurately
@@jeffsmith2022 Neither was Ridley Scott.
apparently there wasn't any cgi in any of the pixar films either, they used real monsters and talking cars, so impressive
😂😂
The Austerlitz scene does bother me. It is a small anecdote about the battle that some retreating troops were shot at while on ice, and he uses this to explain how Napoleon won… the true story is much more interesting how he tricked the allied armies into attacking him and sprung a trap. Scott’s explanation of history books and historians is completely wrong. History is written way different to how we wrote it and recorded it back even 100 years ago.
Taking artistic license is fine but telling historians they are wrong when you are not a historian and don’t understand how history is studied and written isn’t fine.
Edit: for clarity, I am okay with the historical inaccuracy for entertainment reasons, it’s normal for a Ridley Scott movie, but his misinterpretation of the study of history and using it as an excuse is pretty insulting. Dan Snow must feel bad that he couldn’t/can’t comment on this, because it’s Ridley Scott.
I'm inclined to agree. Whenever I saw scenes of it in trailers, I thought it was Eylau because of the ice and snow and dark weather. I couldn't believe it was Austerlitz because of how utterly different it was from the recorded event. There's a difference between taking liberties and in so doing, attempting to completely rewrite the historical narrative. Now it's possible that Scott was taken out of context here and that he meant something else, but between that and how it looks like it's going to be shown in the film, it really does look like they're trying to say Napoleon's ENTIRE strategy at Austerlitz was to make the idiotic Austrians and Russians just walk out onto the ice, which is not what happened at all.
I mean we really should not be surprised. Remember Gladiator? A ton of fiction in that. But that's what Ridley does, as long as the film is fun most people will ignore the historical accuracy.
@@hannibalb8276 I wish he would just say that, instead of incorrectly comment on how history is studied. I’m fine with him trying to make a more entertaining movie, but I didn’t like his point of view on that. I also think that Austerlitz was Napoleon’s greatest victory, and his strategy was impressive, they didn’t need to fake it
What I think Ridley is saying, and I could be wrong, is that the first historical record of an event is written closest to said event, and is thus likely to be more accurate than a modern account. We get new books on famous battles, wars, and people, all the time. Ridley is correct to a degree when he says that a later book will have more of the writer in it because said writer will want to put something unique in there, even if it's merely their own point of view. However he sounds a bit too dismissive of later works for my tastes. I've read histories written in the 19th Century which clearly contain sections which are entirely fictional as against later works that dispense with that nonsense and deal with things far more incisively. On one point he is entirely correct though: There is no such thing as 'historical accuracy'. History is all about perspective and the further back in time one goes the less sure one can be of the facts.
Maybe Ridley created it that way because he doesn't understand Napoleon's genius. The emperor outwitted the European continent for over 15 years. I'm not surprised a modern film maker doesn't grasp his unique genius.
Stanley Kubrick once planned on making a Napoleon film and even had the script finished and began shooting background footage. It never got made, but he famously said that if it did, it would be the greatest film ever made. Kubrick's vision may never be realized, but Ridley's version may be the next best thing. At 85 years old, he's still making epics. A true legend of film making.
The reason Kubrick stopped his Napoleon movie is because he learned that "Waterloo" (1970) would be released a few months before his Napoleon epic was going to wrap-up. He didn't want to risk being seen as a "copycat making knock-off films" by the movie going public. Kubrick was all about releasing something new nobody had seen before.
I though the same thing. Apparently Spielberg is adapting Kubrick's script.
We concur!
@@McLarenMercedes A small correction: Kubrick didn't decide to not make his planned Napoleon epic; according to his long time producer Jan Harlan, his financers withdrew their funding after 'Waterloo' failed at the box office and that's why it wasn't made. A lot of the research, costumes and props made for his Napoleon project, were used in 'Barry Lyndon' instead.
Steven Spielberg confirmed in Feburary that he is working with HBO on a miniseries based on the script
Austerlitz was by itself a amazing story. No need to falsify the account.
Napoleon doesn't need stupid Hollywood remake.
In the battle of Rivoli, hos center was breaking, his right flank was gone and he had enemy troops blocking his path of retreat and yet he looked at the nap and said to the present officers: they are ours.
Waterloo is probably the best Napoleonic era film ever made. Over two hours focused on a single decisive battle really shows the drama and grittiness compared to two and a half hours in this new film trying to cover Napoleons entire life.
I can definitely see how the rumors that this was a four-hour film cut down to the current running time. The focus on the Napoleon/Josephine relationship as the key narrative device would have benefited from longer more sympathetic character development. It seemed hard to care for any character in the film. The score was also a little wanting, with some rousing battle music and other classical ambience, but also some weird almost mongolian moaning at some points.
The historical events & politics should have been the driving force. a mid-tier rating film for me. If you want to enjoy a good Napoleonic era film go watch the Classic Waterloo again, far superior with two hours being devoted to just one battle rather than the entire period
War and Peace, by the same director, is even better.
@@castlerock58 Yes and someone said the movie with Charles Boyer was good as well. If someone is going to have a Frenchman as the main Character. USE A BLOODY FRENCHMAN
Total BS
Rod Steiger for the win
This is defeinitely the worst Napoleon adaptation ever done,.
I mean there are better Mini-series done on Napoleon's life than this debacle~
What we are looking at here 5:49 is not CGI?:
at the very moment Ridley says 'NO', big CGI explosion 😂
As a (french) vfx artist this marketing argument is degrading the whole profession; we'll move to theater for the story, the performances and the craft; the hundreds of invisible VFX shots you won't even notice is part of it and should be celebrated and credited as the rest of the craft. It's like saying there is no historians, no props and set makers, no costumes designers, and everything appeared by magic ;)
What they're really saying is the CGI looks so realistic I can try and sell you a lie for marketing, see Top Gun Maverick and Oppenheimer
Came here looking for this comment. It’s a real shame for VFX artists. Their craft and technology is getting so good, and their work so hard to spot, many people assume it’s not there. Evidently this includes people on set, but directors like Scott know better. It should be their responsibility to champion their VFX team’s work all the more. Instead, many are just flat-out lying to the press about no CGI. Shouldn’t these artists’ guilds have something to say about this?
For real people are happy because they are no CGI but they just don't notice them
@@CarterElkins I don't think they have much representation but I think with the strikes recently that might be changing.
The vfx company that won an Oscar for life of pi went bankrupt the year they won, so things need to change
Scott is being a bit silly here. Historians don't claim to know what happened because they were there, but because they have read the reports and recollections of those who were.
He either enjoys hyperbole & soundbytes or is simply ignorant. Either is possible. Listening to him say, “Napoleon tried to conquer the world for Josephine,” I rolled my eyes so hard they nearly fell out of my head.
The French historiography on the Napoleonic era is one of the most extensive in any fields existant. It would take at least three years to just touch the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg. In the anglophone world, it is not as important, but in France, nearly every history graduate has done its Master 1 or Master 2 on the Napoleonic era, in a military perspective or otherwise.
History is often written for those in power and who win at war. The narratives are often full of lies & half truths spun with a bias.
@@KalafinwëGive it a break. We study Napoleon in high school and University in the anglophone countries. We know he is one of the best conquerors to have lived, his genius military strategies, etc. All you have to do is see the English speaking trailers to see anglophones geeking out on him. What's even more surprising is that I'm an American in France, the amount of French people who don't even know their own history well is just as bad as the Americans and their own history. I literally had to have an interview with the city mayor to see if I should be eligible for permanent residency in France. We spoke in France and he was absolutely flabbergasted by my knowledge, and mentioned that many French people don't know the answers to the questions he was asking me. And please don't think I knew so much about France because I dreamed of living here, because that's not true. I happened upon here by circumstance. I just love learning history as a hobby.
@@ddc2957the interview is edited so it may be that Scott isn't shown elaborating. However, it's an interpretation--what motivates us? To impress sexually is not a farfetched notion if you read psychology. When he wrote to her about his victories, he certainly intended to impress--exaggerating and so on.
This is the first film I really want to see in theaters, in a long time.
My word it's worth it
@@HistoryHit Phoenix is a stunning actor. Completely encompassing his characters and truly brings them to life. His Napoleon is sure to be a benchmark performance for all representations in film of the character. Your recommendation is just fueling my excitement 😁
Havent you watched Openheimer? It was really good in Imax. The Trinity test made the whole cinema hall silent, just wow....
@@phil_5430 haven’t watched it yet. It’s on the docket for the holidays. But it’s definitely On lol
the last time i stepped foot in a theater was 2017. ridley scott might be the first person to get me back in one after nearly 7 years.
Sir Scott's "The Duelist" 1977 is Napolean era, and well worth watching for its structure and full character development.
Frankly, he should have stopped at that :P A striking final scene with 'the emperor' on a hill above the river, referencing the famous artwork.
I agree, The Duellists is a great movie and I believe influenced by Barry Lyndon
I never get tired of watching it. Beautiful photography.
It is worth watching the "How it was made" video to see what risks and problems they had during its production.@@donaldcunningham2386
Every shot of that film looks like a painting
I love how youthful and energetic Ridley still seems to be. For a man of his age it's inspirational to see him still tackling these epic productions. I hope he can follow in the footsteps of Clint Eastwood & keep directing into his nineties. He's one of the greats & i wish him continued good health & success.
This film was absolutely appalling.
9 VFX studios, nearly 300 credit VFX artists specializing in compositing, tracking, lighting, 3D modeling, texturing and animation - But no CGI. Uh huh. Okay.
This
There is difference between enhancing scenes via cgi vs shooting everything using green screen
Sure but what's your point? They are literally looking at CGI when they say "that's not CGI". There's tons of bluescreen and CGI in this film.
th-cam.com/video/Tq8DaTOKSNc/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/exWFS-0Rois/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/G6lLZgKrqwM/w-d-xo.html
He's 85, and you're.. which is evident that! You.... are not and never will be.. a fan of bladerunner, Gladiator, alien or even kingdom of heaven. No man would disrespect cinematography. So this is truth.
@@territorialamcape2726What?
There is a ridiculously methodical process that historians follow to know which is accurate and which is not. History isn't an easy subject to say "how do they know?"
But they still take a lot on faith that the writings etc.. have not been manipulated or made to fool readers. Look at procopius and his secret history.
Depends what history, and when, and studied by whom, and why.
history is written by the victors - professional historians know what to say and not say to keep their jobs and have their books published
@@yingyang1008 "History is written by the victors" Not true, just to give one example. Vietnam.
You clearly have not talked to any history major.
History is like anything else, it is political.
This is why white males dominate history departments.
“No CGI” has become a popular and sloppy way of saying “filmed on location” (which was later dramatically changed or enhanced by CGI) and “filmed with some real props” (which were then enhanced and multiplied by CGI to look real on the screen).
It’s apparently unfashionable to use CGI in movies. So they still do it (and it’s getting ever better), but deny it in public. That’s the new Hollywood.
You know CGI and VFX are not the same thing
@@jalin8039, The term CGI is by now practically synonymous with VFX. Miniatures come to mind, but because they are practical, I heard people putting them in the SFX department.
The video title talks about CGI, Scott talks about CGI, and the 9 companies who did the CGI on Napoleon call it CGI either.
Great video on this very thing on a new channel called “The Movie Rabbit Hole”. He shows that basically every jet onscreen in Top Gun: Maverick was completely CGI despite them saying it was all real and there was no CGI in the movie. Napoleon will be no different. It will be wall to wall CGI.
I think times like these ( with the strikes and a stupid porportion of the industry let go and suffering for months) it hurts! He's using the small difference between VFX and CGI, to bolster his film, and it's just depressing to hear.
As an artist that worked at one of those big companies his claims of no CGI are 100% BS
I can imagine there is an extended cut of this interview...
And I need it. If it's Ridley, I can listen him talk about movies, filmmaking and camera operation for hours. He's still on top. And he will always be.
Seems like it was heavily cut...and some of Ridley's comments are possibly being taken out of context...plus Dan interrupted and talked over Ridley a tad too much. People are getting so het up and slagging him and the film off..The man is in the film /entertainment industry, he is a bloody good film maker, who knows how to make an entertaining film. He will be perfectly aware of how fickle audiences and 'studio types' can be. It's always going to be a balancing act between historical accuracy, entertainment and box 16:51 Office receipts....I could listen to him talking film all day.... ..didn't realise how old he was !.l remember when he and Alan Parker were making the step from advertising to film making...they didn't disappoint ! Ridley Scott taking on monumental projects like Napoleon at his age is incredible....long may he run!
People tend to forget about Kingdom of Heaven (Director's Cut) and The Duellists. Both of Ridley's epics.
I thought of The Duellists while watching this, a film a feast for the eyes.
The Duellists was NOT epic by any means with its threadbare budget, but it was amazingly good. Can't say this about his Napoleon venture, though.
@@williet.3058 Too true. I meant "epic" as in a great film 👍
The Duellists was brilliant
The director’s cut of KOH barely saved what was left by the glaring historical errors that superior channels such as the typically reserved History Buffs lose their marbles over. Nick Hodges’ loss of composure over the inaccuracies was as entertaining as the movie itself. 😅
Why is CGI treated like a disease? Obviously the shot with the Seabattle is 99% CGI. The Ships, the gunfire the explosions, most ships crews are all CGI.
Ridley keeps saying there are 400 books written about Napoleon. According to historian J.D Markham, the actual number is over 300,000. There have been more books written about Napoleon than days since his death.
Napoleon and Jesus. Just sayin.'
Its ridiculous to say that there have been 400 books written on Napoleon.That only goes to show that he hasn't really researched his topic....! There are hundreds of thousands of books written on Napoleon alone,plus books on the period as a whole and innumera-
ble articles that can't even be counted....
I am more worried about him believing the historic research gets worse over time. He equates number of books written to quality of historians dissecting biases and matching facts with new findings and understanding of history.
Wanted to make the movie without CGI, yet used tons of it. For some reason the use of CGI gets downplayed in every new movie, pandering to the audiences ignorance.
Thank you for admitting that there was way more to Napoleon Bonaparte than a war master. He was a very special man talented in so many ways. He was also a caring and compassionate down to earth man and that’s why he was so loved by everyone, especially his soldiers which were his children.
Soldiers would even switch sides when they would meet to confront him before the battle of Waterloo!
A lot of English wanted Napoleon to invade England and displace a cruel and despotic monarchy
Lmao, you were there?
I’m assuming this is sarcasm.
Congratulations Ridley Scott, you made 'Josephine!'
While I'm certainly intrigued by his perspective as a film maker, I do question his simplistic thoughts on the books about him (Napoleon/ historical figures)- yes, sometimes the earliest accounts come from eyewitnesses/ people who had access to eyewitnesses/ information, & later accounts might be written long after eyewitnesses are dead- but beyond authorial bias, the information available can change over time, too.
Some writers have a role that allows them access to information that others simply aren't privy to.
For others, Government documents become accessible after a certain amount of time- people leave hithertofore unknown artefacts & private papers to museums & whathaveyou.
So long as a writer applies a rigorous standard (knowing the background of sources, & so on) - there's no reason a newer work can't be just as valid as the first.
And saying 'Were _you_ there?' is a foolish retort; No, I wasn't there for Marie Antoinette's execution, but there *is* documentation for it- we know the date, the month & the year (& thus, the likely weather)- preceding events are also known (she attracted a great deal of sympathy during her trial, due to the vileness of some of the accusations leveled at her)- so that can give a stronger impression of her attitude & mindset (unlikely she was haughty & arrogant, & that the entire crowd was screaming abuse at her)
We also know what she was wearing- because she'd *requested* to wear black, & the revolutionary authority _forced_ her to wear white; her hair was cut short at the prison & she was made don a mobcap.
We _also_ know how she came to her execution (the route, means, & company)- as well as the process for it.
I'm not trying to sh*t on the movie, or anything- but if so much was gotten wrong in such a small section, then I do have to wonder how _so _*_much_* of Napoleon's life & reign, & campaigns can be accurately depicted in a movie, rather than a mini-series...
I agree, Scott's "were you there" argument was shockingly poor for an intelligent man like him.
It's the sort of asinine argument young earth creationists use to dismiss evolution.
I was disappointed to hear it, because I like his movies. But I guess it explains why he's so comfortable portraying inaccuracies in his historical films.
Give the man a break. He is a massy filmmaker not a scholar. Why do people become so serious when it comes to historical movies. At the end of the day they're largely meant for entertainment.
Then watch a well-made documentary or better, read your favorite history books. No feature film will ever be 100% authentic, that's not the purpose of this form of art. (Coming from a person who notices many inaccuracies in WWII movies and often has a good laugh about them)
Historically accurate doesn't always make for the best movie. It's an adaptation of history for the cinema and I can live with any historical inaccuracies.
95% of the movie is wrong. I’m sure he had the resources to get the facts right, but I seriously don’t think he cared. I love this period of history and while certain parts of the movie are well done (costumes and sets are top notch) it gets so many things incorrect. If it helped propel the narrative forward to change things, fine. That’s not the case here.
Thoroughly recommend a visit to Waterloo if you're into history. Wellington's HQ in the town, Napoleon's HQ at the farm, Hougemont, all still there and accessible. Museum at the battlefield is underneath, lots of uniforms on display and so much to read.
30mins by train from Brussels. Buses in the town take you to a 5min walk from Lions Mound.
I’ve got 400 books about Napoleon! And there’s thousands more… what a ridiculous understatement about the man.
10 000 BOOKS ON NAPOLEON
I’ve got a book from one of my 20+ 7th great grandfathers who served as an artillery plunger at the battle of Vitoria and how he thought he broke his back during the three hour artillery duel and how he was injured and therefore couldn’t rejoin in Waterloo, that book that’s nearly destroyed goes more into detail about the Napoleonic era and it’s like 12 sentences
Wisdom is an acculmation of many facets of intellectual fields. When you understand this. You'll pay attention too bc and ad generals.
As a historian I find it a bit worrying what Mr. Scott has said about historical accuracy here in general. Of course, he is an artist making a movie, not a documentary, all right, but Mr. Snow should have replied something. 'Were you there?' and 'the first book was maybe the most accurate' - these are among the worst takes on history and historical accuracy I ever heard.
Scott is an entitled luvvie encouraged by unnecessary fawning
A lot more detail has come out in the last 5 years than the first " Books" which were full of false fable tales.
Yes, that was irksome. A less sycophantic interviewer would have had a back-up question.
Agreed.
As a historian, how do you feel about the Anglo-Saxons re-telling the history of the entire world in books and movies?
this man is 85 and is still doing his thing. Love it
And he chomps on cigars like they're groceries.
He doesn't look that age.
Ridley needs to stop
Just awful...
Being 85 is not an excuse for talking rubbish and filming nonsense.
Ridley Scott's Kingdom of heaven is the masterpiece as well , must watch 10/10 🍿
so underrated!
*the director's cut
Ridleys comment there about historical accuracy, he's so dismissive and has already made up his mind to retell history his way. I wonder, how easy is he to work with if you were an onsite historian, advising on the script... Sounds like a tough job.
Astounding arrogance
Agreed.
400 books about it but did not read any just another braveheart nice images but god awful story
It's so stupid too because he *could* play by the historical facts and tell more or less the same story. He just chooses not to and makes unforced blunders that ruin the movie in the process for history buffs. This new movie will be no different to all his others.
He does make mistakes most definitely. Gladiator had it's first mistakes only the first 10 minutes in the film during the battle. I think it's a bit of a compromise between being 100% accurate and making a spectacular scene. On the other hand being more accurate could have made the scene even more spectacular.
As a huge fan of Ridley Scott's first Napoleonic movie The Duellists, I hope that the characters Armand d'Hubert and Gabriel Feraud get a cameo in this film.
I suspect this will be Scott’s last film & intentionally chosen as so. A Napoléon film bookends how his career began neatly.
I was thinking of the Duelists as I was watching this clip. That movie is an amazing movie that so many today are unaware of how good it was and still is.
The Duellists was a film I found late while looking into his filmography, I stuck it on and was spellbound. It overshadowed all the recent movies I'd watched
Well, the 7th Hussars were at Waterloo, so...
A genius film.
Napoleon never led a cavalry charge. This goes to show how accurate this movie is going to be.
Still, I am looking forward to watching this movie.
"How do you know? Were you there?" That's such a lame argument and he gets 0 push back for it. Just say that to make the movie he wants, he has to take liberties with the material.
agreed, the historian next to him should have at least argued back. we have many sources on Napoleon, probably enough to make an accurate depiction of most important events
@@ni8shadow
@@ni8shadow Same with the cannon ball striking the Great Pyramid. They were nowhere near for starters!
Your first mistake is to expect a movie to be accurate
I would happily take a few historical inaccuracies for the sake of getting a historical epic on film again, no other director is making films like him right now.
My biggest concern is how credibly a 49-year-old Joaquin Phoenix can portray a 24-year-old Napoleon at Toulon in 1793.
Absolutely
I really cant get past this and its so irksome. couldn't they find a charismatic young guy. old phoenix-nooooo
Many older actors were actually good in the role, it's just that Phoenix isn't. I'm getting Joker vibes from his portrayal.
My biggest concern is that god awful Austerlitz scene
Rotten tomatoes put a clip of that and its being torn to shreads 😂
What's with the bashing of VFX artists lately? There's thousands of us artists working REALLY hard to bring you films as realistic as we possibly can. Claiming it's "all practical" is just not true. This film will be the same.
The immediate foreground and actors may be real, but it'll be all digital extensions beyond, digital doubles and crowds (especially those in the line of fire), digital explosions (too dangerous on set), digital boats with CG water, and many other smaller CG elements and corrections all over the shot.
So a big shout out to all the VFX artists that did such a seamless job on this from MPC, ILM, Bluebolt, Outpost VFX, One of Us, Light VFX, In-house, PFX and Ghost VFX. Awesome job!
Besides Oppenheimer, this is the movie I have been wanting to see the most all year!
I LOVE
WATERLOO. I own it and have watched it numerous times.
The opening scene. One of my favorites of all time sets up the whole movie.
The French Generals are walking through the huge palace halls. All In lock step, faces confident. Sure of themselves and the bad news and message they must give to their emperor Napoleon.
Lock step, chins hi.
As soon as they round the corner to face the BACK of Napoleon, hands gathered, they fall out of step, mouths agape and try to compose themselves.
Like Children to the master.
BRILLIANT !!!!
The next scene is Napoleon speaking to his old guard, relinquishing power. Calling them his Children and gathering the flag of France and kissing it as his wife, their mother.
And that's just the first few minutes in !!!!!!!!!!!!!
The most epic live action battle scene ever. So epic. Over 2k in real Calvery alone!!!!!!!
1970's movie
I highly , highly recommend it
watch it before this one.
And read the book about it too!
I think anyone who has read even one historical book about Napoleon would cry watching this movie. It's a fantasy for 7-10 years old children, not a historical movie.
The whole point is that it isn't. Barely anyone will watch a actual historical documentary on Napoleon. So why not add some spice and make it into a fun entertaining movie with good actors. Directors are confined to the rules of movies and the entertainment world.
@@imperium9101 the whole Napoleonic period is totally spicy and outstanding. You don't need change it to make a great entertaining movie. In 1799 Napoleon was 20 year old youth, not a 50 year old man like in movie
@@imperium9101 "The whole point is that it isn't. Barely anyone will watch a actual historical documentary on Napoleon."
Both the time period and the life of Napoleon fascinate people. And you're arguing no-one would want to look at a movie depicting that life. You think that the story of the French revolution, the Italian campaigns, Waterloo, his conquests in Egypt and Eastern-Europe, his reforms that to this day are felt in the US and Western-Europe are boring?
Then why are you here in this comment section?
@@imperium9101Bullshit, there are enough good historial movies that follow the source closely. Look at the movie Alexander (2004). That is the uncontested best historical battle scene in movie history as well.
@@SolesElegance It's an Epic, I'm not sure what to tell you. If you don't like it don't watch it. The 4 hours Director cut will have more battle scenes and obviously be more in-depth. You have the right to your opinion but being rude to others and saying "bullshit" doesn't support your argument. Everyone has different opinions especially when it comes to movies. Personally I was able to look past the Historical Inaccuracies and enjoy the movie for what it is. I understand that it's harder for others to do the same and that's alright. Enjoy the rest of your day. Take care.
The man is over 80 and he's still filming epics like this and Gladiator 2; that's truly remarkable.
The sequel to the movie "Gladiator" is in production? OMG! The best news I've heard! And will it be released in theaters in Europe, do you know?
@@alexsky88749 I suppose it will, it is currently filming in Malta.
@@alexsky88749yes 🔥🙌 cant wait
really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?? @@alexsky88749
@@antoniovaldespino6650 this was trash he probably ruin gladiator too
Not a fan of Ridley's answer to the historical accuracy question. I'm sure the movie will be exceptionally well put together but I have many doubts about the historicity, especially since there were three major inaccuracies in the trailer alone.
AGREED---"WERE YOU THERE?" LITERALLY SOMETHING A 9 YEAR OLD KID WOULD SAY
The point isn't to be incredibly 100% historical, the entertainment world wouldn't let anything like that be put on a big screen. The whole purpose is entertainment and epic battle. Don't act like a 90 year old trying to be a smart ass on a movie no one's making you watch.
@imperium9101 it sounds like you didn't read my comment thoroughly. "I'm sure the movie will be exceptionally well put together."
I plan on watching the movie but I will point out what was not historical fact afterward as I want to maintain historcicity.
I’m so glad there is finally a big spotlight on Napoleon. People don’t realize how important he was to history. People mostly know him for a short French dude or his loss at Waterloo. Not how he ran Europe for a decade
I love the Napoleonic era where a man of any status fought for the emperor and for his country, that time was the time of heroes where marshals led the army and struck at the enemy, the heroes of old times were simply not afraid!!!
There is a channel called "Real Time History" with some brilliant episodes about Napoleon and the battles he was involved with (hours and hours of them) and the men that served in those wars accounts of them. And it is brutal honesty too, not leaving out the disgusting acts that men did in those times and what they witnessed. Massively recommend it to anybody who hasn't come across it yet.
Napoleon reshaped Europe. Completely
Yep, all latin American countries began their wars of independence because of the aftermath of his wars in Spain. He also helped unify italy and germany
Napoleon choose to see himself as a soldier. not a ruler. nut he was wrong. he really did change so much of the worlds civilization
When I saw Ridley Scott was talking about his new movie I CLICKED THE THUMBNAIL SO FREAKING FAST!!!!!!
click click click!!!!
Napoleon was a remarkable character of history!
It's crazy, I was just thinking that the Austerlitz pond scene resembled the opening battle of Gladiator. And Scott confirms that it was indeed filmed in the same place 😅
This film will be great I don’t doubt it but the attitude Ridley has towards historical accuracy is slightly concerning. It’s obviously ok to take liberties in this regard, especially for things that the audience won’t really remember, but the depiction of Austerlitz already doesn’t look great, and could easily be seen as fact by people. It’s arguably the most important battle to get right too as it was his masterpiece.
The Waterloo scene has medieval anti-cavalry stakes in the ground in front of both armies too. Utter disaster.
I would not give a damm about this movie, but behaviour of Ridley is a fucking joke. He just up attack all historians by saying his childish "Were you there?"
I think he should work on his childish ego first, than talk about anything in public. Waterloo from 1970 is still 1 milion times better than this Ridley Ego fantasy.
I love historical epics with real extras and battles scenes like the way David Lean Akira Kurosawa. Sergio Leone, Serge Eisenstein. Used to do
As someone who thought that Rod Steiger in Waterloo was the standard, I will definetly see this. I just hope there is a Director's Cut available because those always carry about an hour more. Vive la' emporer.
ABSOLUTELY ROD STEIGER WAS A GREAT "NAPOLOEN" IN THE TRAILER FOR RIDLEY SCOTT'S VERSION MR. PHOENIX MUMBLES THE LINE "I FOUND THE CROWN IN THE GUTTER AND PUT IT UPON MY HEAD" MR. PHOENIX IS JUST GOING TO MUMBLE HIS WAY THROUGH THE ENTIRE FUCKING MOVIE.
EVERYBODY READING THIS--DROP WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND FIND BONDERCHUCK'S VERSION OF NAPOLEON STARRING ROD STEIGER.
If you know anything about the subject you’re going to come away very disappointed and pissed off.
Ridley Scott, I love his movies, I just really enjoy his work, in my eyes he is a genius with a brilliant mind.
Its a horrible movie
I’d like to hear sir Ridley Scott’s opinion of the 1927 silent version of Napoleon or the epic soviet production of war and peace.
And the epic 'Waterloo' of 1970 with it's massive and awe inspiring footage of the battle with 17k Soviet soldiers taking part!
doubt he's seen it. the guy admitted he's never even read one single book in his life.
The Soviet moves were the best about the Napoleonic era
@@johncartwright8154 which had just been used on a Russian version of War and peace I think
I'm worried about how this film manages to condense 20 years of Napoleon's life into a two and a half hour movie.
That's why he has prepared a 4 hour cut for Apple TV.
That still is... Too short@@jesustovar2549
I am worried 2 and a half hours will be too long and boring.
Do you know the story of Napoleon?
2 and a half hours seems insanely short and if it is boring that would be Ridley's fault because the real story is as far from boring as a story could be.
You want a 20 year movie? Or 20 hour? Paciness counts if we want to keep those cinema-going bums on seats! People forget how most of us older film-goers grew up on 90 minute movies. Film-makers are making increasingly flabby films with the advent of digital. And I'm not sure how Christopher Nolan persuades his financiers to indulge his adherence to 70mm film!
Ridley’s 2 major flaws: comments on historical accuracy are hilariously bad. He fundamentally doesn’t understand Napoleon and Josephine’s relationship. He’s taking his relationship of 1796-1799 and projecting it to 1796-his divorce without understanding things very much changed. Josephine did come to love him. And they did have a very happy relationship (even though he had a few dozen affairs)
Actually she was the first one having affairs, and I think he might be right at a certain point because in the beginning Josephine didn't really love Napoleon. There relationship just got better after his coronation to emperor.
cmon is hard enough to understand modern relationships , let alone one that happened 200 years ago , he is right making that point
@@danssjeje2950 she had her affair while Napoleon was in Italy and Egypt 1796-1797. It is true she had one first. But when he came back from Egypt (1799), they had a huge blow up argument and she begged him not to divorce her and she was faithful and came to love him. Nap went on to have many affairs
@@dejabu24 this is one of, if not the most documented relationships in history. There are tens of thousands of surviving letters. You can pinpoint to the day she broke up with Hippolyte Charles and when J&N reconciled when he came back from Egypt. Their relationship took a fundamental turn. Don’t give the director a free pass because he did a bad/lazy job prepping this movie
Not to mention the inexcusable omission of Lannes & Murat. His relationship with Lannes until his death during the last successful campaign is practically made for hollywood, not to mention Murat's persona and dress too are perfect for hollywood visualisation. A tremendous disappointment, sufficient to warrant entirely skipping the film
This brings him full circle back to his first film The Duallists known for its phenomenal cinematography using natural lighting. I hope the cinematography is just as good in Napoleon.
🙏 Respect & Salute to Sir Ridley Scott >>> One of the Legendary Movie Director of our generation! Many Happy Good Blessings in Return to Sir Ridley Scott ... 🌷🌿🌎💜🕊🇬🇧
It amazes me how this man at 85 years of age manages to bring us a large scale, historical epic in which overshadows most of younger directors nowadays.
it amazes me how young he looks
Well, Ridley gets to make films this big because, again and again, he's proved that he can! If you want epic, he's a safe pair of hands for investors and producers. Most younger directors simply wouldn't have that opportunity. Although, to be fair, Christopher Nolan is carving his own big film niche, in his own way. But he's not quite the same. Nor looks inclined to make the same kind of movies.
"large scale" hahahahahahahahahahahah
its not historic.. its a fantasy... a SHIT film.
Ah yes because he did it all by himself. You biffin.
Ridley’s storyboard of Alien is a fantastic piece of artwork and worth googling
I could and have listened to Sir Ridley talk about making his movies for hours. His director commentary on the Prometheus Blue Ray is great, the amount of control and detail he poured into that movie is evident his comments, he takes you through the process of filming that minute by minute.
Ridley Scott is 85. What a legend. Still has the passion for making films.
When was his last good film? 1985?
I absolutely cannot wait for this. That Waterloo battle scene, that formation of the square to being surrounded by the Dragoons...WOW. JUST WOW. Counting down the days!!! HUZZAH!
Love Snow and his father too. They are the history Attenboroughs
Saw this film a few days ago and disappointed is an understatement. Both Austerlitz and Waterloo were very inaccurate depictions.
Just atrociously bad,.But even if the rest of the movie had a Life it could have been decent,.
But this was ALL AROUND garbage~
His film The Duellists is extremely good.
So glad to have been a subscriber for over 2 years just fir this very moment here thank you to all involved behind the scenes helping generations of all ages rediscover all of human history here on this channel
I am a bigger fan of Lord Nelson, but Napoleon was truly the most important figure of the 1800s.
Ridley Scott is the only one who can portray the scenes in the film so well, and of course he is at the very top with the stories themselves, and he is very good there. Genius.
just watched kingdom of heaven the other day a second time and thought. he really makes movies wich get better and better when you revisit them
If I were Mr. Scott I would want people to leave the theatre wanting to know more about the characters in the film. I'm excited to see the movie. It looks to be Epic.
No CGI?Come on,I bet there is a ton of it.
Im a history nerd, but I'm also a movie buff so im gonna watch the movie to get entertained. Can't wait for his next movie too
Oh my goodness! This might be your best get yet- It is an honor to watch your time with Ridley.
Ridley Scott is the best director. Us history buffs cannot lose him and his epics. Nobody else like him
This could easily be a 8 seasons TV series.
he said were getting a 4 and a half hour directors cut when it goes to appletv. im so stoked for it
The 2002 TV miniseries starring Christian Clavier as Napoleon was almost 6 hours long. Even at that length, the series couldn't cover all the major battles and events in detail.
It could be, but to be honest I wouldn't trust the Californians not to gradually infect it with their contemporary political nonsense; that's what they did with Game of Thrones by the end 😒
@@ReekieReelsIt wont be gradual. You are getting that with Ridley's version. Just watch The Last Duel or even go back to the comical, over the top "evil man" rape scene and all the other nonsense in Thelma and Louise, which he also directed.
8 seasons would just cover the rise to generalship. There's no way this movie should cover as much ground as it does.
even though I've lived in the UK as a child since 1967 as my step dad is english,I speak as a french born person and I tip mon chapeau to Sir Ridley having the courage to make a film on such an epic scale about Napoleon,a complex historical character that no historian or film or documentary maker will ever be able to fully discover how this unknown little Corsican and within a matter of a few years became such a powerful force at the beginning of the 19th century and it has shaped the history and continent of Europe ever since.The legacy of Napoleon is still among us and not just in France but right across the world.Only a few days one of his many famous and widespread quotes was used by a leading political figure in the UK on TV “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” If the descendants of Napoleon could claim the royalties on Napoleon's quotes,they would be very very rich.As for historical accuracy,as Napoleon once said which I'm sure found its way to Sir Ridley “Those who receive the most images into their memories have the most lively imaginations.”
I can't wait to see this. It looks EPIC. Love Ridley Scott movies.
The interview and outtakes have me even more excited about watching another Ridley Scott epic!!!
I'm reading the biography of Napoleon written by Adam Zamoyski, the story is incredible and seeing this human side especially from the letters was an experience that I will never forget!
If you have the literary appetite for a second Napoléon book, Andrew Roberts wrote the exhaustive Napoléon the Great, which views the Emperor in a far more favourable light, making for a great contrast.
Or for a condensed approach, the two men argue for more than an hour over his legacy on TH-cam.
Andrew Roberts (and Adam Zamoyski to a lesser degree) is not seen as producing a very good biography by many British historians, including Charles Esdaile who has written a lot on the Peninsular- but who is also a proud hater of Napoleon
@@ddc2957 THANKS for the tip, I'll look for this book immediately 👏🤠
@@AttyDouro22 Can you recommend me other good books about him?
@@diego_penha 3 volume work by Philip Dwyer, there's also a 3vol set by Michael Broers which is ok. "Campaigns of Napoleon" by Chandler is very good for the military side. After that is where you get into the more niche works, such as one's devoted to his romances etc.
Claims they don't use CGI and literally EVERY single clip in this video has some form of CGI in it. Literally every single shot.
Accurate
He actually said in this interview it was a mix of real action and CGI.
@@johnharvey1786 True but he said "the cannonballs hitting the water, that's digital". It's a lot more than that. @8:48
@@johnharvey1786 Thanks for pointing out the blatantly obvious. There I was thinking all the actors were actually CGI created....
@@goonerlee You are welcome. Your post didn’t clarify who was making such claims, given the director himself said it wasn’t true in this interview by saying he did use CGI. Also you said “every single clip”, “literally every single shot”, so you include the studio shots in the video with real actors actually acting as also using CGI. Perhaps they do who knows if parts of the background in these parts are CGI, what does it matter. Is the director supposed to go through every single clip for you explaining exactly what is real and what is CGI. Most modern films are a mixture of photography methods and CGI, if you don’t like it don’t watch them, no one is forcing you to do so.
The fact this man is putting out the most epic movie in the last decade AND he’s giving us a gladiator sequel at the age of 80+ is just mind blowing!
why do you think a gladiator sequel is a good thing?
Cant wait to see this.We did the catering for this film,and i have to say it was one of the most challenging films to work on.....but totally worth it.😊
I was extremely disappointed seeing the film I hope you ain't
I haven't seen a movie in theaters since 2016, but Im going to see this one on the big screen
In an age of streaming, and race to the bottom production quality, it feels like Ridley Scott is single handedly keeping major cinema alive.
The movie was crap
@@Jackengledew-davis i am just seeing reviews now and am a bit saddened to hear about how much he missed the mark :(
85 years old and still knocking out epic cinema!
We're so lucky to have Ridley Scott
Any cameos for Keith Carradine, Harvey Keitel & Edward Fox?
Even a mention of the characters names would be a nice touch 👌
@@stu_gibson Marshal Carradine was promoted way above his ability.
And he did tha annoying thing with his mouth.
About time a film finally worth watching on the big screen and worth bloody paying for
"Are you not entertained!" YES, we are & that Ridley, is what your films are all about.
Keep going, mate. #ridleyscott🎞🎞🎞🎞🎞
Hollywood...meh..
Now Imagine several seasons covering not only the main character Napoleon but all his 26 marechal / marshals , this would be splendid! all their factions , beginnings , the beginnings before the Republic - the old regime generals that fought for the Republic - the Pyrynees front , the Alps front , the Rhein front etc. gradually showing - Berthie , Jean Bernadotte , Davout , Murat , Ney , Souchet , Soult , Bessières , Massena , Serurier , Lefebvre and their wives , their friendships and also their disdain toward each other , it is so much more complex. I would pay prime $ to have all these covered , also the rest of his marshals too ,battles other generals that were brighter but never had the privilege to become marshals with the baton.
Another super great movie known as, “Waterloo” with Rod Steiger is phenomenal as well.
Ooooooooooooooooh. Please, don´t compare this VERY strange thing to that masterpiece.
Just watched it last night. 80% confusing, non related scenes of “melancholy” painting Napoleon out to be a bit of a simp. Obviously he was one of the greatest leaders in history, don’t get the sense from that movie. 20% war scenes. Visually spectacular with the costumes, set design, and special effects amazing. Just felt underwhelmed coming out of the theatre. 6/10
"Once you get to 399 books on Napoleon, that's a lot of speculation ... "
Er no... that's now how the historical method works. Historians are supposed to build upon the work that their predecessors produced, so that by the time you've got hundreds of texts, there is much more certainty about the events that are being investigated and documented.
I used to think that Ridley Scott had a bit of substance. My goodness, how wrong I was.
So glad he eventually came back to the Napoleonic era. Been waiting since the Duelists......
Dan, you as an historian should have asked more searching questions of Ridley Scott, you shouldn’t change or ignore history just to suit the way you want to make a film! It’s like winding the clock back to the 50 to 70’s as to how the Americans won WW2 single handedly via Hollywood
Ridley must be one of the most efficient directors out there. He knows what he's doing and goes about it with enormous gusto. He would probably also be the last one standing in a bar brawl.
Really? He screwed up big time on this movie.
The problem is that Phoenix is way too old for the role, 20 years older than Napoleon was for instance in Egypt. That is compounded by the absurd casting of Josephine. She is beautiful and 13 years younger than Phoenix, whereas Josephine was not beautiful and 6 years older. Their real relationship was much more John Lennon/Yoko Ono, than this film will be
Well, yes, but that's the limitation inherent in making this film. If you cover 20 years of a man's life, you are going to have age differences (unless the film takes 20 years to make.) And there is only so much you can do with makeup. Maybe they should have tried CGI to make Joaquim look younger, like they did with Harrison Ford in the most recent Indiana Jones movie. As for Josephine, in her youth she was described as pretty; in later life, a more charitable description could be that she was 'charming', reminding me not of Yoko Ono but Cleopatra. Certainly Napoleon was besotted with her, so there must have been something going on.
@@davidfinch7407 as someone said earlier- phoenix looks like Napoleon when he was on his deathbed.
No one could beat 1970 Waterloo movie which used 15,000 costumed military extra people. No one will ever beat this masssive of people in future ever.
War and Peace by Sergey Bondarchuk
Thank you so much for all the movies Ridley.
Sir Ridley is an outstanding filmmaker! So prolific and passionate
Can't wait to see this at the movies
❤🎉😊
Can't wait to see this
Go see it in cinemas... it's incredible...
This man is 85 years old? Good for you, Sir Ridley!
Hopefully his last movie ever. He has done enough disservice to history with his Hollywood version of great historical events.
@@dmeinhertzhagen8764 “Kingdom of Heaven” in particular was atrocious, but you have to agree that he looks great 😎👌🏾
@@ismarwinkelman5648directors cut was the real movie, we dont talk abt theatrical release
@@dmeinhertzhagen8764Ridley Scott is a great film maker! He’s made loads of great movies, adverts etc he has invested heavily in film making and has transformed film making industry. Just because you don’t like some of his work shouldn’t be a reason to wish him ill
And hes doing Gladiator 2 right now.
Naturally a Golden child should never be ignored-November 22 will be memorable
What a fantastic historical figure to pick, from an important time period that is often forgotten.
The trailer for this movie is already unbelievably historically inaccurate. This movie could have been so much more than it is going to be.
Bingo! Napoleon charging on a horse with sabre in hand, what a joke! He was an artillery man, not Murat nor Ney...