"Would you advise to someone to see Napoleon?" Topic

Yes -
There are qualities about it worth seeing
It's so bad you have to see how bad it is
No –
It is make believe and has barely anything factual

No. One of the worst movies that I have ever seen.

See it so you can critique it or compare it to the director's cut I assume will come out. I thought "Waterloo" was much, much better.

Costumes are great and it has plenty of period atmosphere.

Yes. My friend and I liked it. We recommend it. It is not a war movie. It's a well made movie about Napoleon, Josephine and his rise and fall. Yes, the 4 battles scenes are a far cry from the scope they should have been shown. Think Sharpe from the French perspective. But go to it realizing you are not seeing a historical documentary, but a movie "based on real events". I think you will be intertained…

Dave

I have been advising my friends not to see it. Mainly because I want to remain their friends. I saw it even though from the multitude of bad reviews I knew it was a terrible movie and indeed it was terrible. I didn't want people saying 'How do you know, you haven't seen it.' "Were you there?" But some people like to watch train and car accidents for them I say go see it. For the rest of you, don't waste your time or money.

There was nothing about this movie that was good. This movie didn't work as a biography, as a love story, as a political history, as a military history, and certainly not as a historical film. It was two hours and 28 minutes of my life which I will never get back.

There are several films I can think of that were not 100% historical but were great movies. Braveheart (won best picture) comes to mind, ZULU, Gettysburg, and Saving Private Ryan. Patton (1970), won best picture and it was full of inaccuracies and yet was a great film. Ridley Scott's Napoleon isn't one of them. I don't plan to sit through four hours of this and will not recommend it.

The Waterloo scene was the worst depiction of a historical event I have ever seen on film and it could have been easily done correctly.

The Nap and Josephine show!
Could have cut 2 hours of Josiphine scenes and us gamers would have loved it!
An example of oversimplification: narrator says that after his retreat from Moscow, that he had so few men he was forced into exile!
Bam! 2 important years gone! Probably because She was out of it…

Yes I would even though there are plenty of inaccuracies. I found the movie entertaining and enjoyed the battle scenes. I also got to discuss Napoleon with my wife which otherwise probably would not happen. I am happy that movies about Napoleon are still being made.

My wife saw the trailers and wanted no part of this. She has a history degree and is familiar enough with this period of history to know this was a dumpster fire. I am glad that it doesn't take sitting through a disaster like this movie for me to talk about Napoleon with my wife. We have viewed "Waterloo" several times and she loves it.

I thought it was OK. A decent enough story of Napoleon and Josephine with a few war bits thrown in. Lovely uniforms, but the battle scenes are laughable, especially Waterloo which just descends into a Pythonesque brawl.

I watch a lot of films, but unlike The Duellists or Gladiator, I probably won't go out of my way to watch this one again.

It's meh, but has a stellar performance from Vanessa Kirby that almost makes it a recommend. Almost.

No I wouldn't.

I expected the battles to be "wrong" but I couldn't conceive of how wrong they would be. The "love story" I found very dull and quite clumsy. The costumes are good…that's not enough for me. All the bits of the film that were filmed in Malta were good.

I was talking with a French colleague, and their main gripe with the film was not the portrayal of Napoleon himself whom they described as a brute and probably very unpleasant on a social level (so Ridley Scott gets a big tick there) but with the total disregard of Napoleon's main accomplishments (as they saw it) – of the introduction of the continental system, the regulation of taxation and the investments in infrastructure. For them the wars are a side-issue, albeit that he was a great general, and the inaccuracies in the battles are therefore unimportant.

Costumes were great! The movie was bad, so bad! Come on, Napoleon leading the cavalry charge at Waterloo. PLease!

You know, I really hate to say anything nice about Ridley "were you there?" Scott in this context. But I don't think, even in France, you could expect much box office for a movie about tax reform, infrastructure investment, a new judicial code and the introduction of the metric system.

Possibly a few showings at the École nationale d'administration would be well attended.

NO, my wife and I got free tickets and I think we "Over Paid"

I think that a great film maker could do something with that – unfortunately we had Ridley "my last great film was Alien" Scott….

IF you dislike that person, then yes.

Otherwise, no. Rent it when it hits a streaming service. Here's my review (SPOILER ALERT!)

*************
I found the movie visually appealing, and Ridley Scott spent a lot of screen time building a spectacle, including faithfully reconstructing some famous paintings of Napoleon within the movie.

BUT…HOWEVER…

He never painted a picture of who Napoleon was. For a movie about Napoleon I never got a sense of what motivated him, and who he was as a person. Joaquin R. Phoenix delivered a very inconsistent performance as Napoleon -- sometimes showing a driven man, but many other times a sort of buffoonish clown who acted as an impulsive petulant Mama's boy and was infatuated with Josephine. And it was an infatuation, not a romance because their relationship never evolves, I never get any sense of sensuality or deeper love. Disappointing. Maybe they should have called it "Josephine and Napoleon" because the elevate her into being the central pillar of his life, who seemed to simply flash a pair, as it were, and he came running. For example, they depict Napoleon leaving the Egyptian Campaign because he hears she's cheating on him in Paris. They even have him decide to leave exile in Elba and return because….Josephine is sick and he misses her. Josephine gets lots of screen time.

The battles are very poorly choreographed -- and I'm not talking about "oh, that guy has the wrong buttons for an 1807 campaign." No, I mean there's almost no effort made to depict a battle of the Napoleonic period, and they don't look epic. Maybe Ridley Scott decided to not use much in the way of CGI on the battles -- he SHOULD HAVE. The "Battles" may show long shots of troops via CGI, but once the action starts they are more like Sharpe's Rifles TV-show skirmishes with maybe a few hundred guys per side – though he does do lots and lots of cannon scenes. 'cause Napoleon liked cannons. They don't use Napoleonic tactics, and do silly things like troops digging in and making concealed positions that they then jump out of to surprise the enemy. And while the soldiers may start off in a simple formation, then they just all run at each other and engage in a big rugby scrum, that kind of thing. And they depict Napoleon charging about at Borodino and Waterloo hacking down soldiers with his sword. What?!?

Come to think of it -- Sharpe's Rifles did a better job of trying of trying to portray Napoleonic combat…and I must say that the climax of the battle of Waterloo in this movie reminded me of the famous reenactment of the battle of Pearl Harbor: YouTube link

So. Visually appealing, great costumes. No consistent feel for who Napoleon was, poorly choreographed battles and not very many of them, and a weird depiction of Napoleon and Josephine. That's my take on it.

I saw it this afternoon. The film was a wasted opportunity.

I was warned about the British using stakes and trenches at Waterloo but not by both sides.

How can you put foot high information on the screen and get the year of Napoleon's birth wrong ?!?

Who checked anything?

Scott used a transition screen that looked like quill pen writing on parchment to tell you what year it was. When the screen came up "1789" one of the guys I went to see the movie with quipped, "Later, 1789…" and someone else said "That night, 1789" – lines from Gene Wilder's Napoleonic comedy "Start the Revolution Without Me."

Nope – it sucked!

It should've been titled "Josephine (with a bit of Napoleon)"

Visually appealing – yep but weird dialogue, historically inaccurate, too much 'girl boss' Josephine, not enough Napoleon.

Waste of celluloid/digital space or whatever

What sort of idiot would ask me for movie-watching advise?

I was torn. The reviews suggested it was so inaccurate,- that it was little more than a fantasy film akin to Tolkien. But surely I should make my own judgement? which meant seeing it. Of course if I do see it, I am helping to promote a bad film. What could I do?. The decision was made by my friend who said I am not going to sit by you and listen to an unending running commentary on historical errors

I really am looking to see what other like minded people would suggest to go see see a inaccurate movie, probably even a Napoleonic fantasy movie. Right away thought it had some quality but on other hand so very wrong. Still looking for a review from more a movie buff than a history buff.

@ 20thmaine

unfortunately we had Ridley "my last great film was Alien" Scott….

Generally agree but not as to which one was his last great one. After Alien we had Blade Runner (1982), Someone to Watch Over Me (1987), and Black Rain (1989), which were all terrific.

Everything after that was meh with Gladiator being the absolute nadir – until now.

In fact if you look at his entire oeuvre, most of it sucks.

The Duellists – good
Alien – good
Blade Runner – good
Legend – sucks
Someone to Watch Over Me – good
Black Rain – good
Thelma & Louise – sucks
1492: Conquest of Paradise – sucks
White Squall – sucks
G.I. Jane – sucks
Gladiator – execrable
Hannibal – sucks
Black Hawk Down – sucks
Matchstick Men – sounded boring, avoided
Kingdom of Heaven – sounded boring, avoided
A Good Year – sounded boring, avoided
American Gangster – sounded boring, avoided
Body of Lies – sounded boring, avoided
Robin Hood – sounded boring, avoided
Prometheus – execrable
The Counselor – got bored, DNF
Exodus: Gods and Kings – sounded boring, avoided
The Martian – sucks
Alien: Covenant – execrable
All the Money in the World – sounded boring, avoided
The Last Duel – sounded boring, avoided
House of Gucci – sounded boring, avoided
Napoleon – execrable
Gladiator 2 – will be execrable

…which tallies to 5 good ones but 24 to avoid, 5 of which are execrable or sure to be.

A mate of mine has a view that most directors make two good movies, then fizzle. For example, John McTiernan made Predator and Die Hard, then fizzled. There are many others but I forget offhand. Ridley looks like someone who made more than the usual two but who simply fizzled worse thereafter.

I did like Prometheus and Alien: covenant….

I know that is not a popular viewpoint