"My Review of Ridley Scott's Napoleon" Topic

I saw it with my wife last night knowing it wouldn't be good. I told my wife afterward ‘If you knew nothing about Napoleon going into the movie, you'd still know very little about him coming out of it.'

It fails as a character study. You get no understanding at all why he garnered such admiration and loyalty from his followers, you get no real understanding of why the events in the film happen, and you get no understanding at all why is considered at genius on the battlefield.

We saw it at an art house brew theater and the 30 minutes before they showed other movies and music featuring Napoleon. They showed Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure Napoleon scenes and that Napoleon during the ice cream eating scene showed more of the character of Napoleon than the entire Ridley Scott film.

And they played ABBA's Waterloo, so at least we were entertained.

And they had a great beer selection.

napoleons leading a cavalry charge at waterloo? thats just bad,- what is thought process behind that decision, that all battles before the 20th century were just like braveheart or alexander the great at Issus

why go the trouble of making trenches at a battle that didnt have them

It reminds me of that Mitchell and Webb sketch of the two tv script writers for a medical drama who think people get too bogged down in "research" and just want the drama
YouTube link

Perris0707+1, thanks for the correction!

The ambiance was pretty good--particularly the ominous feeling of Paris during the reign of terror. And there were bits and pieces of disconnected history that were visually appealing but left out of context. As mentioned by many, the battles do not reflect Napoleonic French (or Austrian or British tactics at all). The actor was credible as an older Napoleon, but ridiculous as a young hero. The sex scenes eliminated it as a family or educational movie. It may also have something to do with attracting puerile interest. So we are left with a few interesting bits and pieces of atmosphere and little else. This should have been a much better movie.

IMHO, and this is an issue with pretty much all Hollywood schlock, the inaccurate battle scenes were most likely inspired by other films.

Didley Squott's own previous inaccurate battle scenes, such as the ludicrous Gladiator, were clearly referenced, with the same complete absence of formations, and notably the single combats fought personally by the general. The French flags planted everywhere, with units carrying several of them for no apparent reason, look like a lift from Kurosawa movies – see this from 'Ran', for example:

The mortars, trenches and palisades are probably because he found the recent All Quiet On The Western Front battle scenes exciting:

while the scenes featuring what looked to me like Hasidic Jews, i.e. bearded blokes wearing furry drums on their heads, in the forest were probably influenced by The Predator, which also has exciting scenes of butchery set in forests. Probably these were meant to be Cossacks who had mislaid their horses?

But Ridley knows everything so there. He is rapidly turning into the Peter Hofschroer of film, where he makes stuff up and then sneers at anyone who points this out.

lol – i didnt know Peter Hofschroer had such a reputation, i think i have a few of his osprey books

Having seen Scott play loose with history in the Kingdom of Heaven there was no reason to think he would in anyway faithfully present Napoleon in a film. It is not just bad history that follows but bad movies. I think of Zulu as the exact opposite where the discipline of remaining faithful to history produces a great movie and a compelling story.

I tend to go to movies for entertainment only. For me, history is found in books. With Napoleon I wasn't even entertained. The grumbling of the patrons walking out of the movie was more enjoyable.

Zulu was accurate at a summary level – small number of British line infantry held off 4,000 Zulus (until the Prussians arrived obvs). The depiction of the battle was fantasy. That said, a 12-hour melee into the night with no respite would not have worked well as a film.

Bromhead, Chard and Dalton all looked like Shoreditch hipsters in real life, so getting that bit wrong was actually a big improvement.

lol – i didnt know Peter Hofschroer had such a reputation, i think i have a few of his osprey books

You'll find his biggest crime is suggesting to the pro British guys who pretend they dont think the British won Waterloo single-handedly that, in fact, the British didnt win Waterloo single-handedly.

I think there are far more serious charges and then convictions against him than that. Last I heard he was in an Austrian secure unit indefinitely.

Zulu Dawn showed what a great film could result from (largely) sticking to the historical facts. Zulu was great entertainment. But this new release sounds like nonsense direction spoiling what is very nice cinematography. I will find out on Wednesday!

I think there are far more serious charges and then convictions against him than that. Last I heard he was in an Austrian secure unit indefinitely.

You'll find that the more fanatically British Napoleonic one is, the more likely those charges conveniently disprove his historical writing.

Meanwhile his books seem to be well received everywhere else by everyone else.

And there's some controversy around that decision.
link

PDF link

All in all Scott should vave done more to go 2 movies, include Prussia then Tilsit ending there in part 1, Starr 2 with Russia. Germany than exile and Waterloo

How about doing a movie about Josephine? He could then cut in bits and pieces of the fighting as background.

Wait, the movie WASN'T about Josephine?

Wait, the movie WASN'T about Josephine?

LOL, it was just about that – since they show her chasing the young men around her, maybe it should have been called "Josephine -- The Cucking of Napoleon"

Though honestly they both did that during the years-long relationship. Not to mention she was 6 years older in RL than Napoleon was.

Saw the movie today and it was disappointing. The Waterloo segment of the movie was the worst depiction of a historical event on film I have ever seen. You can't do everything in one movie but you can make what you can do more accurate and compelling. Honestly, had he never read a book or watched a documentary? I will not sit through 4 hours of the same crap.

YouTube link

14Bore,

Making two movies wouldn't help. It would just be more of the same. It's not the length of the film. It is the content of the film.

If Film Producers read social media, it'll be another 50 years before anyone risks making another major film about the 'Napoleonic' period. Well done, lads.

I browsed through some reviews at IMDB:

link

To my surprise, most agreed that the battle scenes were excellent. Maybe we are just too hampered by our historial knowldege to be able to enjoy their dramatics ?

For the rest, most saw Phoenix as a miscast and found the love story dull. Alas, like me. I would have prefered to enjoy at least a thrilling storyline with fascinating characters, set in a far away universe, where by accident people are wearing Napoleonic costumes .

It's almost hard to believe this is the same Ridley Scott who brought us The Duelists in 1977.

My thought exactly.

And ditto everyone who decried the "medieval mob" presentation of battles, Napoleon leading cavalry charges…and when they uttered the immortal "over the top" line as the French left their trenches at Waterloo I laughed out loud. Equally crazy was the British (or as Ridley Scott likes to call them The English) leaving their trenches (substituting for the sunken road I suppose) to form squares. Yup, let's leave these nice trenches and go and stand in the open to receive cavalry.

Wait, the movie WASN'T about Josephine?

It certainly was to a great extent – I wish they'd cast Olivia Coleman, the actress they used was fine but she was really channelling Olivia Coleman

And they played ABBA's Waterloo, so at least we were entertained.

We were really hoping they'd slip that into the movie proper…it would at least have been funny.

Why didn't the Polish Lancers have lances….we could have had some jousting scenes…

..really I'm amazed no-one thought of that.

@connaught
well by all accounts the movie is doing well in the box office so its not an either or situation – the folks interested in the actual history can express their irritation here and disappointment and the film can still do well because the general population has no idea what napoleonic battles remotely looked like.

I don't think it's being over picky to criticise a film on Napoleon that just mentions "the conquest of Italy" and has no reference to Trafalgar or the Peninsula War. That's actually worse than there being no redoubts at Borodino. Wellington just pops up from nowhere.

For the record – I really wanted to like this film, and I could have just accepted the battle scenes being done in an "exciting action sequence" way if that was the price of getting an overall good film. But if the film isn't even that good then sure I'll pick holes in the battles too just for completeness.

Time to let it go boys. Just let it go… and pray for Spielberg.

"If Film Producers read social media, it'll be another 50 years before anyone risks making another major film about the 'Napoleonic' period. Well done, lads."

If it's another like this one, then good!

I thought Rex Reed summed it up admirably.

@ OC +1

The movie could be looked at as potentially both good and bad.

Good:
If it's gets people interested in exploring more information on Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars. Many movies and shows did that for me. For instance "Braveheart". Inaccurate as h#ll, but made me want to read more on Wallace and the Scottish fight for independence.

Also good if it brings younger people into historical gaming. Something that has really decreased.

Bad;
If people leave and never research further and believe the movie to be the facts.

Was Braveheart inaccurate, well yes but it was still a great film. Won best picture. Patton (1970), is not 100% accurate but still a great film. Won best picture. Other great films that were not 100% accurate, Zulu, Gettysburg, Saving Private Ryan, and Lawrence of Arabia which won Best Picture. There are many others. The difference is that they are great films and Ridley Scott's Napoleon is not. Great films are allowed to take a few liberties with history.

i think Artilleryman you are right, time to just accept this as a failure and hope for better next time.

Disagree OC. If the movie is based on historical people or events then fidelity to that history becomes part of the criteria by which the movie's status as a "great film" is judged. Minor discrepancies that are unlikely to be noticed by someone with a passable knowledge of the subject are OK. Major changes that are not necessitated by the limits of the medium get strikes.

Case in point. Saving Private Ryan, a story about a fictional team assembled to retrieve a fictional paratrooper in Normandy due to the Sole Survivor provision, is a great film, Tiger tank scene notwithstanding. If it had been Saving Fritz Nyland though, it would not. Too many discrepancies from the actual events.

I am surprised why a Hollywood production is taken as seriously as a history book or documentary, and a lot of those fail as well due to poor research. So far as I can read from the critics, the movie fails to be entertaining. I also cannot agree on Privat Ryan, overhyped and one of the best films : The Thin Red Line, same year production as Privat Ryan, being ignored.

Everyone seems to be faulting the film as if it was a documentary, rather than an entertainment film. It would be interesting to hear what those not military or Napoleonic minded, think about it, as a film, not the historical or non historical accuracy. I've not seen it yet but my youngest son said he enjoyed it, as a film, but that I might not enjoy it. Guess he doesn't win at Waterloo then! LOL

Perhaps the problem lies with the film's military adviser being a 'British' ex-paratrooper? LOL

If a film is a dramatic portrayal of real people or events then it ought to at least attempt to show those people or events reasonably realistically, not wantonly ignore the facts altogether, as Bill N pointed out.

There are different ways to interpret Napoleon's character, but there can be no justification for showing him leading cavalry attacks at Borodino and Waterloo, or for meeting Wellington aboard HMS Bellerophon, as these things simply never happened.

No serious historical novelist would write such nonsense in a book; why should it be acceptable in a film?

To me there is no reason to make up history as what really happened is a fantastic story .
As said above it didn't cover anything that made Napoleon the best commander of any army in that period. If so pinning much of Waterloo on sub commanders was there for the taking.
I recommend seeing it, it has a good period to see in costumes, uniforms, actually surprised artillery recoils somewhat.

The air strikes by Typhoons at Waterloo and the pilum volleys by the Russians at Borodino were a bit surprising, but as Ridley says, "Were you there?"

Out doing yard work and thought of another untapped Napoleonic era story, Joachim Marat and Caroline Bonaparte
Lots of intriguing stuff in their story

Good Napoleon Quarterly podcast on the movie

I'm kinda surprised at the number of posters who essentially say they know it's bad but will go anyway.

Even on the podcast they brought up good points about it. Uniforms and costumes are very good, the spectacle of the movie, background, fighting and such is fine, artillery almost recoils as it should, but the making up stuff when actual history is better than fiction.
I always use the 1966 Battle of the Bulge movie as being so bad it has to be seen might now be Napoleon.

Marat? And Caroline? Good grief! Did he survive that stabbing in the bath? (Sorry. Could not help myself.)

Seriously, Murat's life would be a great story even if the hero is not the sharpest pin in the box.

14Bore – rem acu tetigisti. The Battle of the Bulge is *exactly* what this is like.

Artilleryman – you could do a life of Murat, in which the hero is a sort of cross between Flashman and Flash Gordon, and for laughs. He's manly, he's dashing, he's rather thick and he's completely, completely untrustworthy.

link

Here is a honest and brutal take down of the film.

@ Gazzola. Is someone else's opinion about whether a movie is entertaining really relevant? What one person finds entertaining another may find boring or crass. One reason I have "official reviews" of movies is the reviewer assumes that what they expect from an "entertaining movie" is what I should want from an entertaining movie.

I saw the movie yesterday. It was horrible.

Positives: The uniforms were fairly accurate; I didn't fall asleep.

Negatives: The storyline was weak; Joaquin Phoenix was way too old to play Napoleon, the script was lame; the acting was poor (JP carried a scow across the entire movie); the entire film was dimly lit (not even the Sun of Austerlitz); the historical accuracy was laughable.

Now the average movie goer may not be concerned about historical accuracy, but like I said, it was laughable. Examples – French army entrenched at Austerlitz, French cannons camoflauged by white tarps to blend in with snow at Austerlitz, part of Austerlitz battle occurs in the French army's tent encampment, Napoleon's columns are ambushed by cossacks with portable mortars in 1812, both armies at Waterloo are entrenched, Napoleon personally leads cavalry charge at Waterloo and crosses swords with British cavalry, etc., etc.

View the movie at your own risk

Stephen

A couple of weeks on from seeing it, I feel like I watched a rather unfunny sex comedy.

Its my opinion that most of you gentlemen set your expectations far too high. I was content with:
1. It got me out of the house.
2. The movie did not malfunction.
3. There was a guy named Napoleon on screen.
4. He was married to a manipulative and self-righteous ball-buster (of which I can relate).
5. I got to eat a lot of popcorn.