"Napoleon" Topic

Oh My God.

How did that get made?

I shouldn't be laughing at the representation of Waterloo….and that was far from the worst bit.

No wonder I've read reviews that state it hasn't gone down well in France….

Miles Jupp was good though….

My friend and I liked it. We recommend it. No, 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

Lush and gorgeous to look at. Phoenix was fantastic. History took a back seat and the story that was inserted was a plotless progression. "Waterloo" was comical; I thought at first that I was watching an artistic fever dream. Still, I will probably watch it again when it comes out for home.

A poorly made softcore porn movie. the straw that broke the camels back was Napoleon leading the cavalry charge at Waterloo! What a piece of rubbish!

I tried to ignore recognizing some of the locations as well…I did wonder why Josephine had relocated to a Garden Pavilion at Stowe. Be a bit cramped you'd think, although TARDIS like it was bigger on the inside.

I couldn't understand why everything was so brown, and buildings that were only about 50 years old seemed to have accrued a lot of wear and tear. That's the problem of shooting somewhere that is now 250+ years old. Malta looked great though, those bits I did enjoy.

I've said elsewhere on TMP that I didn't expect "realism" in the battles…but I did not anticipate trenches, cries of "over the top men!" and Napoleon leading a couple of cavalry charges. There's stretching things a little for dramatic effect and then there's just making a total fantasy.

I should have been warned by Ridley Scott's widely reported remarks on historians, basically saying "they know nothing so I'm free to make up what I like" – which is actually complete bull.

It's sad because he can – or perhaps could – make great films.

I had fun idenifying the unnamed Marshals. They were not named until the credits.

It was a dreadful movie not just the battles but in all respects. JP as Napoleon was too old to play him. Very dour. Where was the charismatic Napoleon? Then there was the deal breaker, Waterloo. It was the worst depiction of a historical event I have ever seen on film and it could have been easily done correctly. 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.

I'm glad I haven't spent the money to see this in a theatre. I might try an expanded DVD someday, tho. I understand a "Director's Cut" that's at last twice as long is mooted. That might rectify some of the shortcomings. But I've never liked Scott's historical films, in part due to his contempt for history, and this one seems no different from the rest.

I was hoping it would be something like the movie "Patton" which played fast and loose with the history, but was a great character study. Apparently not. :(

Interestingly Rotten Tomatoes gives it 59% on Critics and 59% on Audience reviews.

I'd have given it…probably 2/10…3/10 if I was feeling generous.