NAPOLEON

french review excerpt, as ref'd in r4 review I heard

www.lepoint.fr

Patrice Gueniffey : « “Napoléon”, c’est le film d’un Anglais… très antifrançais »

ENTRETIEN. L’historien Patrice Gueniffey relève, non sans ironie, les multiples erreurs historiques et les partis pris « wokistes » de Ridley Scott.
www.lepoint.fr www.lepoint.fr
Basically, Ridley Scott reconnects, perhaps unintentionally, with the old caricature that was made of Napoleon just after his fall, coming from the Restoration or from the English enemy at the time of the Congress of Vienna. He is hardly served, it is true, by a Joaquin Phoenix too old for the role who, from start to finish, displays a blank look and a somber expression. As Madame de Staël pointed out, Napoleon was famous, on the contrary, for his icy gaze and his very seductive smile

We can reasonably think so as he systematically demeans the character. At the age of 24, during the siege of Toulon, he was a coward. During the coup d'état of 18 Brumaire, he ridiculed him by making him fight and fall like a common brat. During the Egyptian campaign , he bombed the pyramids – which was never the case – while he took dozens of scholars to study this civilization. When he dictates a letter, he looks hesitant, stupid, even though he exhausted his secretaries dictating. During the coronation, he does not wave the crown as if he had won the raffle. And everything is consistent. He belittles him so much that he gives the impression that Joséphine – played by an excellent actress, perhaps a way of reinforcing this reversal – was superior to him to the point of concluding that, next time, she would be the emperor. Certainly, woman is the future of man, but by subscribing to such a woke vision of History, Ridley Scott does not realize the logical absurdity to which he arrives: how could such a stupid character, as mediocre and ridiculous, would have managed to write such a destiny.
Click to expand...
 
Hollywood rewriting history because it wants to but presenting their version as fact and then getting angry when people point out the mistakes :eek: - shocked I tell you, shocked :D

I've no problem with changes being made, but the wishy washy statement of "based on true events" which gives media makers carte blanche to rewrite their version of "history" without further context/clarification needs to be stopped. Personally (when I'm king of the world :)), if changes are made to historical events and/or people which alters the facts around those events/people, then I would force films/TV shows worldwide to have a 5 second slide at the start (before titles) and at the end (before credits) which says something to the effect of "whilst this is based upon a true story/historial event/person - the story/event/person has been changed for entertainment purposes and therefore this film/TV show is a fictionalised account", just like they were 'forced' to in the UK with the WW2 submarine film U251 and its portrayal of "America captures the first German enigma machine", which was utter fiction and, in the UK only, had an additional slide added with the "true" info.
 
Last edited:
Tombstone said:
From the reviews I've read it sounds like its a pretty decent entertainment film, historically inaccurate (I mean, its Hollywood so that was always going to be the case) but good for the eyeballs
Click to expand...
*Spoilers* The bit where the Americans arrived and rescued Napoleon from the Brits at the end killed it for me.

just kidding :-D Haven't seem it.
 
PlacidCasual said:
*Spoilers* The bit where the Americans arrived and rescued Napoleon from the Brits at the end killed it for me.
Click to expand...
I actually coped with that part ok but when it was revealed that Napoleon was actually the illegitimate love child of the Pope and a French cabaret dancer and Napoleon had grown up just wanting to dance, I gave up

:)
 
Damn well i kinda expected it to be honest... Still it should be entertaining. in a swashbuckling way.

i'm on part 44 of my napoleon audio history and its only 1800... hes just left egypt lol Not a chance ill finish it before Wednesday when i got tickets....

Joaquín Fénix is way too old.....

i hope it dedicates an equal amount of time to his whole life and not just weighs it hard into the later years.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how I’d score it, being ignorant of the history. The action scenes were great, it showed Napoleon’s egotism well.

Some very ropey CGI and some very poor scripting too. Will have to ponder on it some more.
 
Stu999 said:
Not sure how I’d score it, being ignorant of the history. The action scenes were great, it showed Napoleon’s egotism well.

Some very ropey CGI and some very poor scripting too. Will have to ponder on it some more.
Click to expand...

Haven't watch it yet. But got it booked on Saturday. Can't wait lol.

Better not have something like Prometheus where's people make crazy decisions and blowing themselves up trying to swat a fly lol.
 
Last edited:
Kyo said:
Haven't watch it yet. But got it booked on Saturday. Can't wait lol.

Better not have something like Prometheus where's people make crazy decisions and blowing themselves up trying to swat a fly lol.
Click to expand...
No, nothing like that. The battle sequences are genuinely great. I’m interested to hear what everyone else thinks of the other bits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kyo
Disappointed but also not disappointed.

In some respects excellent but others....

I'd wait for a 4h cut. Way too much missing . Entire campaigns and years glossed over in a sentence.. hopefully only edited out?

Without being genuinely interested in the man I wouldn't go near this even if it was free.

Edit: im home, I still don't know what to think, but 7/10 just for the costumes. Decent acting from all, Oscar worthy? I dunno. Some accuracy in some scenes but others just fantasy.
Worst depiction of Waterloo I've ever seen. Embarrassing to history.
It feels so souless in some scenes but comes to life in others...which I think sums it up, huge hit and miss at same time.
 
Last edited:
4/10 for me

Very bland and he goes from captain to general to consul to emperor in as many scenes.

The scale of the battles looked to consist of 100 men a side.

The less said about the random accents the better.
 
Just back from watching it. My views changed over the course of the film.

At first, I found myself really not liking it. It was very dry and Napoleon himself was ultra stoic and barely said anything. I didn’t feel like I got to know him (whether truthful or as a fictional character) at all. The presentation was very ‘snap shotty’, like flicking through a textbook to see photos but without feeling like there was any warmth in doing so.

The struggles with his wife made me become a little more invested. Even the mighty have difficulties! I was keen to see what would happen in her personal life, as I’m not familiar with that side of history at all. As it progressed further, I got a bit more into and accepted its unusual ‘flat’ / ‘aloof’ tone.

The battle sequences were quite impressive in places, particularly the ‘squares’. Must have been a nightmare to film that.

Oh, and towards the end with Waterloo, I found myself unexpectedly routing for the British… go get him lads, yeaaaahhh Eng-gurrr-lunddd - we’re on the ball, we’re on the ball \o/ :o :p

Far from a failure but probably not something that most of us would consider a ‘compelling’ piece of entertainment in the way we crave emotions to be shoved down our throats. This is more of a long and slow burn sort of thing.

Because of that, I think it’ll disappoint anyone wanting Braveheart and it’ll disappoint anyone wanting a romcom. I sort of admire it for playing it that way.

7/10
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
Way too much missing . Entire campaigns and years glossed over in a sentence.. hopefully only edited out?

Without being genuinely interested in the man I wouldn't go near this even if it was free.

Some accuracy in some scenes but others just fantasy.
Worst depiction of Waterloo I've ever seen. Embarrassing to history.
It feels so souless in some scenes but comes to life in others...which I think sums it up, huge hit and miss at same time.
Click to expand...
These are the bits I cannot understand, the lifestory and events of Napoleons life are amazing in themselves, they do not need altering, they do not need fleshing out, you could make a film entirely accurate to Napoleons life and it would make for an incredible tale without having to change a thing, so why bother making changes or "embellishments"
 
@Tombstone - Hollyweird - it just can't help itself "I can make this way better because I'm amazing" etc.

He did the same for Blackhawk Down and the "real" SGT Eversmann (the main hero of the film played by Josh Harknet) had his real accomplishments completely rewritten and not only had to live with an almost entirely fictional version of his tale onscreen for friends and family to watch, but the studio also wheeled him out for PR to say "it's OK that it's not real, I'm OK with that" which is pretty awful to do to the man.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
Disappointed but also not disappointed.

In some respects excellent but others....

I'd wait for a 4h cut. Way too much missing . Entire campaigns and years glossed over in a sentence.. hopefully only edited out?

Without being genuinely interested in the man I wouldn't go near this even if it was free.

Edit: im home, I still don't know what to think, but 7/10 just for the costumes. Decent acting from all, Oscar worthy? I dunno. Some accuracy in some scenes but others just fantasy.
Worst depiction of Waterloo I've ever seen. Embarrassing to history.
It feels so souless in some scenes but comes to life in others...which I think sums it up, huge hit and miss at same time.
Click to expand...
I thought this.
Its a very hit and miss film. Would do better as a mini series. Too many years in history and too many times in his life to do any of them justice.

Each era needs more time dedicated to it. Felt like it jump around and was rushed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom