Film Napoleon (Dir. Ridley Scott)

[Redplane]

• Apocalypse Now Redux (1979)
• Das Boot (1981)
• Once Upon a Time in America (1984)... Roger Ebert even called the American theatrical version a travesty after he finally saw the director's version.
• The Abyss (1989)
• The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003)
• Alexander (2004)
• Kingdom of Heaven (2005)

I actually just watched the DC again of Kingdom of Heaven this week (despite its flaws still one of my favorite epics) - and I actually think the DC is a hot mess compared to theatrical. Some of the added material isn't necessarily bad - but it does feel out of place at times and the scene transitions are extremely jarring in some cases.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

The director's cut of The Abyss is terrible, imho. Go figure.

I skipped over this earlier, but no one gets away. The theatrical version didn't make sense. They didn't finish the VFX in time so they couldn't show the threat/blackmail the aliens represented to earth. There were a couple other things. I remember seeing the DC of it and thinking it finally made sense.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

If anyone interested. This is more fun than the boring movie

Did they depict this battle in the movie?

 

[Sky1981]

Did they depict this battle in the movie?

Yes. But a very short and very different form of it. Much much different and nothing more than a simple night raid

 

[Sweet Square]

Good man.

It's a great film. It's so much fun. It's such a fresh take on the biopic genre to have a director taking a historical figure so many nerds have a weird affection for, himself clearly despising him, and then putting that on the screen for a couple of hours. I thought Phoenix's mopey performance was quite on the nose and suited the film perfectly.

Nice you’ve seen it. Yep it’s a lot of fun. Gave me Barry Lyndon vibes.

Some of my favourite moments

Spoiler

• Neoclassicism painting looking shot of Josephine with her legs open and Napoleon looking.
• Rupert Everett was so incredible as the Duke of Wellington.
• Ian McNeice as the disgusting royal slob Louis XVIII
• The “sex scene” with Napoleon fecking at a comical speed and Josephine looking completely disinterested.
• “You think you are so great because you have boats!”
• “Destiny has brought me this lamb chop!” Followed by a food fight
• The creepy mouth noises Phoenix makes whenever he wants to have sex.

I wonder if the negative reactions to the film(It’s now under 60% on RT for both critics and audience) is people expecting to see a very serious and sober 3 hour epic. While it’s obviously not a comedy I do think lot of people are miss reading the film and not seeing that it has comic elements. It seems to me Scott and everyone in the film is fully aware how absurd a character like Napoleon is.

Agree with you on Phoenix's performance. The difficulty with any interpretation of Napoleon is the man was full of contradictions. A self crowed king who was completely submissive to the idea of the french state. A commanding general on the battlefield but becomes deeply insecure if the wife doesn’t text back straight away. Phoenix definitely gets the this tone right with his performance imo.

As for the death count, it's pretty clear that Scott sees little merit in war, and is pointing out that the little tyrant's ambition laid waste to early 19th century Europe. Even his feeble attempts at peace are just political ploys. That view of war was already quite visible in Kingdom of Heaven, focusing on the ambitions of certain war-hungry lords to the detriment of peace.

Yep it’s there to tell the audience these wars were awful and contributed to so much wasted life. There’s also a scene where Napoleon gets to Moscow and his reward is a shit stained throne.

Scott clearly hates Napoleon(Although he makes Duke of Wellington admit the British would have lost if not for the reinforcements)and its great to see the film is more than happy to show this.

Looking forward to seeing what Scott adds in the directors cut.

 

[Beans]

I skipped over this earlier, but no one gets away. The theatrical version didn't make sense. They didn't finish the VFX in time so they couldn't show the threat/blackmail the aliens represented to earth. There were a couple other things. I remember seeing the DC of it and thinking it finally made sense.

What didn't make sense? In the theatrical cut the aliens are somewhat incidental, without the threat, but the "extra" stuff just struck me as silly. Though I'm not sure I can explain why, it's like the dream sequence in the director's cut of Blade Runner, just seemed cheesy and broke the mood.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

What didn't make sense? In the theatrical cut the aliens are somewhat incidental, without the threat, but the "extra" stuff just struck me as silly. Though I'm not sure I can explain why, it's like the dream sequence in the director's cut of Blade Runner, just seemed cheesy and broke the mood.

The aliens were directly threatening to kill everyone unless we stopped fecking around, for one. There was at least one death among the main cast that was different too.

 

[Beans]

The aliens were directly threatening to kill everyone unless we stopped fecking around, for one. There was at least one death among the main cast that was different too.

I didn’t ask what was different, I asked what didn’t make sense.

 

[Simbo]

If anyone interested. This is more fun than the boring movie

Great shout, there's 29 video's in this playlist I'm slowing working my way through. Will keep me occupied while travelling this weekend.

That channel is an instant subscribe.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

I didn’t ask what was different, I asked what didn’t make sense.

Okay guy.

 

[Beans]

Okay guy.

I thought maybe you took a wrong turn, no insult intended.

You said, "The aliens were directly threatening to kill everyone unless we stopped fecking around, for one. There was at least one death among the main cast that was different too."

This is phrased like you're answering a question, but you aren't. Can you clarify what you're getting at please? I'm sure that's true but I don't see your point.

 

[GDaly95]

Just back from seeing it. I didn't love it.

Two main reasons being:

Spoiler

- A lot of it was about his dysfunctional marriage and about how off-putting and weird he is around his wife/women in general. I just couldn't give a feck about his marriage. At times it felt like him becoming the fecking Emperor and taking on the rest of Europe was a mere distraction going on in the background of the real story which was his love story. It was boring to me.

- He had no redeemable qualities or moments that explained why his army was so loyal to him. Other than a brief bit during the rebellion at Toulon they didn't once give us an insight into how Napoleon gained the undying loyalty of his men. And was he really totally devoid of any ideological drive whatsoever as portrayed in this movie? Maybe he was, I don't know.

 

[VorZakone]

I wonder how this all happens. You're making an epic on Napoleon and you're Ridley Scott. You see the final product and you think....yeah, this is a good movie?

 

[0le]

I didn't enjoy it. I thought it was too long and focused too much on the relationship with his wife. His wife was an interesting character, actually more interesting than Napoleon, but the film is supposed to be about Napoleon and not his wife. The battle scenes were not enjoyable, except the final one at Waterloo.

I also found it difficult to read the on screen text. It used a silly font and also did not remain on the screen for a long enough amount of time for me.

Overall, a very frustrating film for me.

 

[Big Andy]

Did he neck his mate Hardy at the end of this one?

 

[Eyepopper]

It's a fast forward, skim read summary really.

Pretty disappointing.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Just a note here regarding historical accuracy: in contrast to Scott’s approach to Napoleon’s history, in the Oppenheimer movie the courtroom scenes’ dialogue was taken From the actual transcripts, word for word.

 

[Wibble]

it's like the dream sequence in the director's cut of Blade Runner, just seemed cheesy and broke the mood.

The dream sequence is vital to prompting us to question Deckard's humanity.

 

[Belisarius]

I finally made the time to see this film as it seems likely to end its theatrical run here in Canada very soon.

Thought it was pretty mediocre. Not quite terrible but certainly not good either. It felt to me like I was watching a summary of Napoleon's life where all the high points were mentioned but without much, if any, context or depth. Someone should really do a television series on his life. There is so much material there.

I also think they should have used two different actors to play Napoleon. One as a young Napoleon and Phoenix as Napoleon later in his career. His portrayal in this film did not show his energy and dynamism at all.

 

[Redplane]

I finally made the time to see this film as it seems likely to end its theatrical run here in Canada very soon.

Thought it was pretty mediocre. Not quite terrible but certainly not good either. It felt to me like I was watching a summary of Napoleon's life where all the high points were mentioned but without much, if any, context or depth. Someone should really do a television series on his life. There is so much material there.

I also think they should have used two different actors to play Napoleon. One as a young Napoleon and Phoenix as Napoleon later in his career. His portrayal in this film did not show his energy and dynamism at all.

Agree with you on everything but that to a degree. I think the biggest thing they could have done better is perhaps to show how different he was with Josephine for instance than the powerful leader he was outside of it. It makes one wonder how he could have inspired anyone and get to the place he did.

Having said that - there are a lot of sometimes conflicting reports about what Napoleon was like. One thing that seems to be a fairly common theme however is that he was fairly unremarkable in not just appearance but demeanor as well. Some contemparies who met him described him as borderline dull, and relatively uninspiring but that he was simply extremely shrewd and intelligent. In a way then it would make sense why so much of his popularity was driven by military succeses that clearly required less time politicking in France. It seems Ridley and Joaquin focused on that depiction. Whether that is accurate or not no one knows of course but if he truly was a military man through and through like seems likely - I can see why it would make sense.

I also think his life would be much better served by a series of sorts. Despite his military prowess Napoleon had a huge impact on anything from architecture to taxation models etc as well. I think the visuals were awesome but other than that the movie was way too fragmented and lacking in detail.

 

[Belisarius]

Agree with you on everything but that to a degree. I think the biggest thing they could have done better is perhaps to show how different he was with Josephine for instance than the powerful leader he was outside of it. It makes one wonder how he could have inspired anyone and get to the place he did.

Having said that - there are a lot of sometimes conflicting reports about what Napoleon was like. One thing that seems to be a fairly common theme however is that he was fairly unremarkable in not just appearance but demeanor as well. Some contemparies who met him described him as borderline dull, and relatively uninspiring but that he was simply extremely shrewd and intelligent. In a way then it would make sense why so much of his popularity was driven by military succeses that clearly required less time politicking in France. It seems Ridley and Joaquin focused on that depiction. Whether that is accurate or not no one knows of course but if he truly was a military man through and through like seems likely - I can see why it would make sense.

I also think his life would be much better served by a series of sorts. Despite his military prowess Napoleon had a huge impact on anything from architecture to taxation models etc as well. I think the visuals were awesome but other than that the movie was way too fragmented and lacking in detail.

I understand what you're saying regarding young Napoleon being considered dull and uninspiring by society contemporaries. My understanding is that Josephine was instrumental in helping him overcome these weaknesses with her connections early in his career. (Something that was also not shown in the movie). But, from what I've read he had enormous energy and capacity for work early in his career. As a general certainly, but also as an administrator. I believe he left his two joint consuls in the rear view mirror mostly by out-working them so that he ended up making most of the decisions. And while his initial fame and popularity certainly came from his military successes, he cemented that popularity by governing France very effectively when he first took the levers of government. I didn't feel any of that energy coming off the screen in Phoenix' portrayal of Napoleon.

 

[Ali Dia]

Watched Last Duel last night.

Matt Damon really was tragically miscast. Such a shame as the film has real potential and could have been excellent with proper casting. Adam Driver for example was excellent.

Big time! Matt and Ben were way out of place. Decent movie. Would not watch again.

 

[Beans]

The dream sequence is vital to prompting us to question Deckard's humanity.

The standard (?) cut of the Abyss misses the aliens destroying civilization element. But I think the movie is better for it.

Maybe if I saw the standard version without the voice overs but with the dream sequence I'd feel differently. The voice overs really disturbed the vibe to me, though I know others love it.

 

[Wibble]

The standard (?) cut of the Abyss misses the aliens destroying civilization element. But I think the movie is better for it.

Maybe if I saw the standard version without the voice overs but with the dream sequence I'd feel differently. The voice overs really disturbed the vibe to me, though I know others love it.

The original cinematic version, with the voiceover is great but not a patch on The Final Cut, which is sublime (with the dream sequence) - watch it if you haven't. I don't believe there is a version that is just the original version without the voiceover but with the dream sequence.

 

[Phil Jones Face]

Keeping up with the Bonapartes would have been a more apt title than Napoleon.

I don't think Josephine is interesting enough of a historical figure to justify that much screen time. I get why they framed it that way for the modern audience, but she featured too much and the Napoleon's story was far too rushed.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

Keeping up with the Bonapartes would have been a more apt title than Napoleon.

I don't think Josephine is interesting enough of a historical figure to justify that much screen time. I get why they framed it that way for the modern audience, but she featured too much and the Napoleon's story was far too rushed.

I guess the rationale is that while she might not have been that interesting herself, she was relevant enough to someone who did go down in history. I feel like Scott was a lot more interested in trying to gather why Napoleon did what he did in his life, rather than what he did specifically.

 

[Redplane]

I guess the rationale is that while she might not have been that interesting herself, she was relevant enough to someone who did go down in history. I feel like Scott was a lot more interested in trying to gather why Napoleon did what he did in his life, rather than what he did specifically.

I think that's a fair assessment but it also felt like forceably making the movie more palatable for a wider audience. Say someone who loves something like Bridgerton or The Crown (for the record, I liked the latter). In doing so though I think it still fell flat. The emotion was robotic (though as I mentioned earlier in here, perhaps a good characterization of the personality of Napoleon himself) but as a movie it made it worse and in turn it also rushed past so many things that are historically relevant it just never landed for me (and clearly most others).

Like the Alexander the Great movie, it tries to pack way too much into one film. And even in comparison to that one, I still think Alexander did a much better job in covering as much as possible (and that's probably saying something).

 

[Rooney in Paris]

I think that's a fair assessment but it also felt like forceably making the movie more palatable for a wider audience. Say someone who loves something like Bridgerton or The Crown (for the record, I liked the latter). In doing so though I think it still fell flat. The emotion was robotic (though as I mentioned earlier in here, perhaps a good characterization of the personality of Napoleon himself) but as a movie it made it worse and in turn it also rushed past so many things that are historically relevant it just never landed for me (and clearly most others).

Like the Alexander the Great movie, it tries to pack way too much into one film. And even in comparison to that one, I still think Alexander did a much better job in covering as much as possible (and that's probably saying something).

Yeah although I think those are 2 wildly different films. I feel Alexander fails because it's almost bulimic, it tries so much, it spreads itself thin. I don't think Napoleon is a failed film - I think it achieves exactly what Scott wants it to.

I also remember that Alexander has various versions (I think 3 or 4), I wonder if there's one of them that addresses the issues of the theatrical release?

 

[justsomebloke]

I think that's a fair assessment but it also felt like forceably making the movie more palatable for a wider audience. Say someone who loves something like Bridgerton or The Crown (for the record, I liked the latter). In doing so though I think it still fell flat. The emotion was robotic (though as I mentioned earlier in here, perhaps a good characterization of the personality of Napoleon himself) but as a movie it made it worse and in turn it also rushed past so many things that are historically relevant it just never landed for me (and clearly most others).

Like the Alexander the Great movie, it tries to pack way too much into one film. And even in comparison to that one, I still think Alexander did a much better job in covering as much as possible (and that's probably saying something).

The Alexander movie never got past it's crucial casting errors, did it. How can anyone stand to watch a film where Alexander is played by a George W. Bush lookalike? A casting mistake only surpassed by having the amiable, mildly confused and gangly Lord Emsworth played by the squat and perennially angry Timothy Spall in the Blandings Castle TV series.

 

[Rooney in Paris]

The Alexander movie never got past it's crucial casting errors, did it. How can anyone stand to watch a film where Alexander is played by a George W. Bush lookalike? A casting mistake only surpassed by having the amiable, mildly confused and gangly Lord Emsworth played by the squat and perennially angry Timothy Spall in the Blandings Castle TV series.

Wait what