"Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon" Topic

…apparently.

link

"Kitbag"? Pfft.

I'm not optimistic given Sir Diddly Squat's track record with history.

Disappointing Shatner wasn't available.

Joaquin Phoenix is a joker…

You're right, Lin-Manuel Miranda needs to write the musical version.

Personally, I would prefer Samuel L Jackson for the role of Napoleon.

Ugh.

JP is usually effing brilliant.

Most of the Ridley Scott I've seen is really good. And he makes fiction, not documentaries. So I don't give a toss about accuracy. I'll definitely be seeing this.

Too slow::::: TMP link Ridley Scott and Napoleon
________

Scott's first film was "The Duelists." I'm sure he's as capable as anyone of doing the era justice.

"What's the use of worrying?
It never was worthwhile
Pack up your general's stick in your old kit-bag
And smile, smile, smile"

"The Duellists", based on a short story by Joseph Conrad was an excellent movie.

Yes, and in an era when good uniform data was harder to come by, they did an excellent job with the uniforms and the atmosphere.

No doubt we will have to grit our teeth and suffer through howitzer shells and cannon shot that explode into giant hours of flame on impact, but it will be worth it to see what the cluster of officers d'ordonnance look like on screen.

in an era when good uniform data was harder to come by, they did an excellent job with the uniforms and the atmosphere

And then on the other hand there's Gladiator.

The Duellists was good for three reasons I think. First, it was low budget, so unlike Gladiator it couldn't get away with being crass by looking flashy. Second, the screenplay was constructively written by Joseph Conrad. Third, Hollywood research is other Hollywood movies (which explains Gladiator) and in 1979 there weren't any to speak of in the era, so you looked at Bondarchuk or you researched it for yourself. Either of these would get you a movie that looked about right.

It could be great that Didley Squott is making another Napoleonic movie after 40 years, but OTOH look at what happened when he made another Alien movie after 33 years: we got Prometheus. 1492 and his Robin Hood movie are his most recent forays into the historical biopic genre and there was pretty solid consensus about those.

I hope I'm wrong but I strongly suspect this effort will have the usual quality of cinematography, but the narrative coherence of Prometheus, the period sense of Robin Hood and the historical accuracy of Gladiator, resulting in an abject, total turkey. It could easily do for Napoleonic movies what Monty Python and the Holy Grail did for Arthurian movies, i.e. make them reflexively laughable for the next 50 years.

Why are people on tmp always so negative?

Bitter experience…

Why are people on tmp always so negative?

Maybe because some feel that only they know what really happened historically?

Personally, when it comes to knowing what really happened during a given battle, I channel my inner Peter Ustinov.

It's so lonely on Olympus:

YouTube link

Why are people on tmp always so negative?

Connoisseurs and aficionados have high expectations.

In this particular case Ridley Scott has previous "form" (4th's post is en pointe).

The Historical accuracy of Gladiator?

Someone needs to relax…

Not every film can be as accurate as "The Patriot"

In terms of Roman movie accuracy, it would be hard to top "Quo Vadis?" in terms of purity. I understand even Nero's poetry was an accurate pursuit.

link

Gladiator was a smash hit… no way you could describe it as a flop.

Gladiator was a great film, I couldn't give a monkeys if it wasn't "accurate". It wasn't supposed to be a documentary.

"Gladiator was a great film, I couldn't give a monkeys if it wasn't "accurate". It wasn't supposed to be a documentary."

It certainly had its moments and so, when Wellington, played by Ryan Gosling (with a dodgy Anglo-Irish accent) cries out to Congreve (in a red coatee) "Now's your chance, Congrève- Unleash Hell!" and salvos of rockets mow down the Middle Guard like reaped corn… that'll be fun.

{Appropriate emoticon}

Oh dear, people appear to be unable to understand the difference between an historical or period movie, made for entertainment and an historical documentary.

If it happens it will be either highly entertaining or a dud. But even then, how good or how bad it is depends on what people expect and want. And we all know that if it dares show Napoleon in a good light at any level, that there will be plenty of posts knocking the film, no matter what the quality is or how many awards it might earn. LOL

Stop moaning. Embrace the fact it is a Napoleonic film. How often does that happen?

They were the Old Guard until they got defeated, at which point they became the Middle Guard. By the time they were streaming past La Belle Alliance they were the Young Guard and by Genappe they were the Chocolate Fire Guard.

Now, 4th C, don't start.

Surely, the end result can't be worse than Sharpe's Waterloo? And I'm a Sharpe fan, books and films, but Waterloo was the worst I've ever seen. Perhaps it should be suggested that those making the film watch it so they can learn how not to do it?

First off, I hope whoever was praising the historical accuracy of "Patriot", in which church-burning redcoats looked worse than Einsatzgruppen units was just kidding.
Second, let's recall that about 10 years ago Spielberg trumpeted a series based on Kubrick's Napoleon film script that never got made (neither did his 8th Air Force series), so let's see if Mr. Scott (whose Robin Hood features amphibious landing craft) actually makes it.

vlad48

Come on, think positive! Let's hope a Napoleonic film does actually get made. Although I guess that might depend on if the actors will still have to adhere to social distancing. Wouldn't be very accurate that, would it. Troops in ranks all spread out instead of close together? LOL