winjer
Member
That is another example, of a movie that is not historically accurate, but fun to watch.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rottenwatch: Napoleon (2023)
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
That is another example, of a movie that is not historically accurate, but fun to watch.
Badlucktroll
Member
How come Ridley hasn’t shitted out prometheus 3 yet?
Alcibiades
Member
Saw it in dual laser IMAX last night. It's OK. I enjoyed it as a sucker for historical epics, but it's not something I would look forward to sitting through again.
Despite the long runtime, it feels like it was missing more explanation and context. The movie jumps from point to point and I often wished for more information on what happened in between, as well as what was happening in the scenes themselves.
The character Napoleon himself was often annoying times, not sure if that's how he acted in real life. The battle scenes were great, but we only saw his "genius" a couple of times. Would have loved to see more of his battle expertise.
Overall though I don't regret seeing it. I'm not looking forward to a 4 hr version though, especially on TV. If they did a theatrical extended version I might be up for it if it got good reviews. I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, but didn't like Exodus. Napoleon IMO is somewhere in-between these two.
Despite the long runtime, it feels like it was missing more explanation and context. The movie jumps from point to point and I often wished for more information on what happened in between, as well as what was happening in the scenes themselves.
The character Napoleon himself was often annoying times, not sure if that's how he acted in real life. The battle scenes were great, but we only saw his "genius" a couple of times. Would have loved to see more of his battle expertise.
Overall though I don't regret seeing it. I'm not looking forward to a 4 hr version though, especially on TV. If they did a theatrical extended version I might be up for it if it got good reviews. I enjoyed Kingdom of Heaven Director's Cut, but didn't like Exodus. Napoleon IMO is somewhere in-between these two.
JimmyRustler
Member
Just came back from seeing it. Can just echo the reviews. The two big battles were amazing and had a great flow. The rest… not so much. Felt more like a highlight reel. Think that the DC will indeed be the real version of this movie.
I can understand why Scott cut it down though. There is just so much to tell here. Should be been two movies… or three.
I can understand why Scott cut it down though. There is just so much to tell here. Should be been two movies… or three.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
Did they include the amazing burn Napoleon allegedly gave to Talleyrand?
Vous êtes un voleur, un lâche, un homme sans foi. Vous ne croyez pas à Dieu ; vous avez toute votre vie manqué à tous vos devoirs, vous avez trompé, trahi tout le monde […] Tenez, Monsieur, vous n’êtes que de la merde dans un bas de soie.
"You are a thief, a coward, a man with no faith. You don't believe in God; all your life you have skirted your duties, you have deceived and betrayed everyone [...] There, Monsieur, you are nothing but shit in a silk stocking."
Vous êtes un voleur, un lâche, un homme sans foi. Vous ne croyez pas à Dieu ; vous avez toute votre vie manqué à tous vos devoirs, vous avez trompé, trahi tout le monde […] Tenez, Monsieur, vous n’êtes que de la merde dans un bas de soie.
"You are a thief, a coward, a man with no faith. You don't believe in God; all your life you have skirted your duties, you have deceived and betrayed everyone [...] There, Monsieur, you are nothing but shit in a silk stocking."
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
Saw it on thanksgiving and wanted to let this one sink in a bit before posting impressions.
I would recommend people go watch this movie for the battle scenes which are some of the best work Ridley has done, which means they are some of the best action setpieces ever filmed. Especially the last two. So well choregraphed and shot, and they are LONG.
Sadly, the rest is just too vapid. They focus way too much on the marriage, and not the man himself. Even the battles, you see just one hint of his military genius in three long battle scenes. I am sorry, but this man is the greatest military mind of all time. you cannot give him just three battle scenes then have one of them be where he lost. And even the Waterloo battle as amazing as its shot, is shot from the perspective of him making mistakes and going on a YOLO charge which he never did.
TBH, I think focusing on the marriage instead of the actual tactical maneuvering he did is a huge mistake. Ridley made Black Hawk Down which is a 2.5 hour action setpiece. He could have made the same thing here. Napolean as a man is not interesting. Napolean as a general is probably the greatest man who ever lived outside of maybe Alexander. So pick a few of his battles and just showcase his genius there. Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs biography was basically three scenes, three apple product launches each of them 40 minute long scenes. Maybe do that with napolean's best battles, and then fill in the blanks in flashbacks.
The rest of the movie feels like a montage anyway. The way he becomes king is so boring it might as well be a footnote. The numerous sex scenes of him being a horndog serves what purpose?
Then there are the inaccuracies. i dont typically mind them, but slapping his wife in front of everyone at the divorce proceedings when it DID NOT happen is just insane. The guy was a total simp and he loved her till his death. He wouldve never done that in public. We dont have any history of him every doing that. Whats worse is that it was improvised by Juaquin Pheonix and they kept it in. Also, josephine was made to be a one time cheater who reforms after being caught but she was a serial cheater and was not a victim like she's made out to be in the second half of the movie. I am ok with shooting the pyramids. I know it didnt happen and it looks cool, whatever. But then the makeout scene with the mummy? What. The Fuck. Napolean had a great reverence for Egyptian culture, and his decisions to create new expeditions led to many new discoveries, and this is how they show it off?? Who writes this stuff lol They made up so much shit for this movie, and why? Real life is so much more dramatic and exciting here. Why leave all that out and then fabricate stuff?
Above all, im most disappointed by how poorly he covered the retreat from moscow. Now that was thrilling stuff that they couldve based a whole movie around. he lost 540,000 of his 600,000 men and ridley shows that in a text on screen. What happened to screenplay 101: show dont tell? THAT was his biggest fuck up. Not waterloo. That is where you climax the movie.
So yeah, this is not the Napolean movie i wanted. But the battle scenes are worth it. this is way better than trash you get on netflix. way better than even HBO's excellent game of thrones battle scenes. These movies dont come along very often so go watch it. Just know that is flawed.
I would recommend people go watch this movie for the battle scenes which are some of the best work Ridley has done, which means they are some of the best action setpieces ever filmed. Especially the last two. So well choregraphed and shot, and they are LONG.
Sadly, the rest is just too vapid. They focus way too much on the marriage, and not the man himself. Even the battles, you see just one hint of his military genius in three long battle scenes. I am sorry, but this man is the greatest military mind of all time. you cannot give him just three battle scenes then have one of them be where he lost. And even the Waterloo battle as amazing as its shot, is shot from the perspective of him making mistakes and going on a YOLO charge which he never did.
TBH, I think focusing on the marriage instead of the actual tactical maneuvering he did is a huge mistake. Ridley made Black Hawk Down which is a 2.5 hour action setpiece. He could have made the same thing here. Napolean as a man is not interesting. Napolean as a general is probably the greatest man who ever lived outside of maybe Alexander. So pick a few of his battles and just showcase his genius there. Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs biography was basically three scenes, three apple product launches each of them 40 minute long scenes. Maybe do that with napolean's best battles, and then fill in the blanks in flashbacks.
The rest of the movie feels like a montage anyway. The way he becomes king is so boring it might as well be a footnote. The numerous sex scenes of him being a horndog serves what purpose?
Then there are the inaccuracies. i dont typically mind them, but slapping his wife in front of everyone at the divorce proceedings when it DID NOT happen is just insane. The guy was a total simp and he loved her till his death. He wouldve never done that in public. We dont have any history of him every doing that. Whats worse is that it was improvised by Juaquin Pheonix and they kept it in. Also, josephine was made to be a one time cheater who reforms after being caught but she was a serial cheater and was not a victim like she's made out to be in the second half of the movie. I am ok with shooting the pyramids. I know it didnt happen and it looks cool, whatever. But then the makeout scene with the mummy? What. The Fuck. Napolean had a great reverence for Egyptian culture, and his decisions to create new expeditions led to many new discoveries, and this is how they show it off?? Who writes this stuff lol They made up so much shit for this movie, and why? Real life is so much more dramatic and exciting here. Why leave all that out and then fabricate stuff?
Above all, im most disappointed by how poorly he covered the retreat from moscow. Now that was thrilling stuff that they couldve based a whole movie around. he lost 540,000 of his 600,000 men and ridley shows that in a text on screen. What happened to screenplay 101: show dont tell? THAT was his biggest fuck up. Not waterloo. That is where you climax the movie.
So yeah, this is not the Napolean movie i wanted. But the battle scenes are worth it. this is way better than trash you get on netflix. way better than even HBO's excellent game of thrones battle scenes. These movies dont come along very often so go watch it. Just know that is flawed.
Wildebeest
Member
He had to cut this down from 4.5 hours for Sony, but apparently what he cut was about Josephine's story, not battles or historical context. I don't think he was ever that interested in the military history.
Last edited:
PaddyOCanager
Member
I'll wait for the director's cut, if I see it at all.
Kingdom of Heaven was a night and day difference, so if the reviews for this are middling I'd rather wait and see if it makes a difference.
Kingdom of Heaven was a night and day difference, so if the reviews for this are middling I'd rather wait and see if it makes a difference.
Sounds almost nothing like the real Napoleon. That's a shame. Could have stayed much closer to the actual history without harming the narrative at all.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
this historian said only 38 of the 2 hours and 38 minutes of the movie were accurate. lol. not sure if he's joking or if thats an accurate assessment.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
He's probably correct.
That is Andrew Roberts. A historian and Napoleonic expert who has written probably my favourite biography on Napoleon titled Napoleon: The Great.
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
That's absolute bs on their part. The retreat from Russia - and the Russian expedition as a whole - alone is worthy of a 2+ hour movie. Pure horror, and arguably Napoleon's greatest defeat, the moment when he did a series of fatal mistakes all in a row.
That book is indeed excellent. I still have to finish it, but it's incredibly interesting all the way through. Full of detail without being too technical or boring.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
For comparison I'd recommend the book Napoleon: The Man Behind the Myth by Adam Zamoyski.
Where Andrew Roberts is a huge Napoleon fan boy, Zamoyski is the complete opposite and is very critical of Napoleon.
I think I posted it in this thread, but both Roberts and Zamoyski had a debate a few years ago on the greatness of Napoleon. Worth a watch.
Last edited:
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Is that King Hunter Hearst Helmsley?I'd TOTALLY be down for this if it was hard R. Historically accuracy is always secondary to the power of dat booty.
And imagine a 70's funkadelic soundtrack!
SirKicksalot
Member
What makeout lol?
It's based on a famous painting.
The pyramids scene had the best sound IMO. It was incredible in IMAX.
Last edited:
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
he went right up to his face acting all creepy and leaned in for a kiss until the mummy slid to the side. it was so awkward.What makeout lol?
It's based on a famous painting.
DKehoe
Member
I saw it yesterday and took it to be that he was acting like it was telling him something like he was convinced this was a moment that was all part of his grand destiny because he views himself (accurately, to be fair) as this great man of history. But then the mummy just falls to the side because it's just an inanimate object at this point. Apparently, the mummy prop falling to the side was accidental, then Scott liked it and decided to keep it.
Also, I did not expect the film to have a reference to this guy
NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt
Biggest Trails Stan
I saw it yesterday and took it to be that he was acting like it was telling him something like he was convinced this was a moment that was all part of his grand destiny because he views himself (accurately, to be fair) as this great man of history. But then the mummy just falls to the side because it's just an inanimate object at this point. Apparently, the mummy prop falling to the side was accidental, then Scott liked it and decided to keep it.
Also, I did not expect the film to have a reference to this guy
Who is that guy?
DKehoe
Member
One of the members of the Directory declares, in a similar tone, "I am eating a succulent breakfast!" when asked to sign the resignation paperwork.
Last edited:
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Overall it does focus way to much on Nap and Joe. I did like the movie. And I thought it had some good battle sequences.
Showing the British make square to defeat Napolean Calvary was nice. Also seeing the black count Dumas in the first half of the movie was great. After Italy he abandons him to captivity.
I think there are better movies about Napolean. But this one was decent.
I will watch the longer cut on apple.
Showing the British make square to defeat Napolean Calvary was nice. Also seeing the black count Dumas in the first half of the movie was great. After Italy he abandons him to captivity.
I think there are better movies about Napolean. But this one was decent.
I will watch the longer cut on apple.
SirKicksalot
Member
That's Bayek from Assassin's Creed, previously directed by Ridley in Raised By Wolves.
Check out Kubrick's Napoleon script - starting on page 56, Napoleon's interaction with Josephine is almost identical to the movie. Maybe they were sourced from the same book or letter.
AJUMP23
Parody of actual AJUMP23
Well it was clearly their letters. I just would prefer more battle napolean than lusty nap.