- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
I just got home from watching Napoleon...
Posted on 11/21/23 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 11/21/23 at 7:19 pm
Ridley Scott has always been hit or miss for me. This one is definitely one of his misses as far as I'm concerned. It's way too disjointed and attempts to tell too large a story in too little time. There are four battles depicted in this movie, all of which are (mostly) historically inaccurate. Only Waterloo seemed to stay close to the actual tactics used by the opposing sides. And while I like Joaquin Phoenix as an actor I feel like he was wrong for the role of Napoleon Bonaparte. If this film were chronicling ONLY Napoleon's final years I think he would have been perfect. However, for the entire 2 1/2 runtime he portrays Napoleon as a tired and frail man who was nothing like the boundlessly energetic young man who rose quickly through the ranks to be crowned emperor of the French.
Vanessa Kirby was the true stand out of the picture. I really enjoyed how she portrayed Josephine and found her to be the more interesting figure in the movie. With that said, however, I feel like she had absolutely zero chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix. The film had to constantly remind us that they were in love as their relationship on screen just wasn't believable. The only truly good scene that highlighted their relationship was the scene in which the two of them divorce. Only here did you get the sense that they truly felt love for one another.
I will give the film credit where credit is due. Ridley Scott has created a technical marvel with excellent production design, great camera work, an incredible score, and brilliant spectacle. It definitely is epic. Perhaps the four-hour-long director's cut releasing on Apple+ later next year will restore some of what I feel the 2 1/2-hour version lacked. This was just too big an undertaking to reduce down to your standard movie run time. It should have been a miniseries.
Vanessa Kirby was the true stand out of the picture. I really enjoyed how she portrayed Josephine and found her to be the more interesting figure in the movie. With that said, however, I feel like she had absolutely zero chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix. The film had to constantly remind us that they were in love as their relationship on screen just wasn't believable. The only truly good scene that highlighted their relationship was the scene in which the two of them divorce. Only here did you get the sense that they truly felt love for one another.
I will give the film credit where credit is due. Ridley Scott has created a technical marvel with excellent production design, great camera work, an incredible score, and brilliant spectacle. It definitely is epic. Perhaps the four-hour-long director's cut releasing on Apple+ later next year will restore some of what I feel the 2 1/2-hour version lacked. This was just too big an undertaking to reduce down to your standard movie run time. It should have been a miniseries.
This post was edited on 11/21/23 at 7:21 pm
15
Posted on 11/21/23 at 7:33 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Perhaps the four-hour-long director's cut releasing on Apple+ later next year will restore some of what I feel the 2 1/2-hour version lacked
Ridley Scott and Zach Snyder’s cuts are usually
Better than their theatrical releases IMO
Appreciate the feedback.
Posted on 11/21/23 at 9:28 pm to RollTide1987
Perhaps you are right about the 4 hour director's cut being the product to look forward to.
I saw Napoleon earlier this evening. I enjoyed it, but, I don't think I'll purchase additional product or pay to see this film again.
I was very disappointed to see that Mr. Ridley Scott decided against doing the most basic historical research that should have been done to provide some verisimilitude to his Waterloo Battle scenes. Here's my main beef: the earthworks and trenches at Waterloo depicted in the movie looked beautiful, but there were no such constructions on the battlefield, in real life.
There were no earthworks at Waterloo. There were no trenches at Waterloo. I cannot imagine why Scott decided to include them.
Now, at the Battle of Borodino in Russia, earthworks played a very prominent role. Darn it but I can't remember if the film's depiction of Borodino contains earthworks or not.
Now, if Mr. Ridley Scott took the liberty to place earthworks at Waterloo when there were none in real life, the question that is begged is: What other important things did he also take liberty with? I mean, how much of this film is pure fiction?
Finally, I would have liked to see Josephine's "secret".
I saw Napoleon earlier this evening. I enjoyed it, but, I don't think I'll purchase additional product or pay to see this film again.
I was very disappointed to see that Mr. Ridley Scott decided against doing the most basic historical research that should have been done to provide some verisimilitude to his Waterloo Battle scenes. Here's my main beef: the earthworks and trenches at Waterloo depicted in the movie looked beautiful, but there were no such constructions on the battlefield, in real life.
There were no earthworks at Waterloo. There were no trenches at Waterloo. I cannot imagine why Scott decided to include them.
Now, at the Battle of Borodino in Russia, earthworks played a very prominent role. Darn it but I can't remember if the film's depiction of Borodino contains earthworks or not.
Now, if Mr. Ridley Scott took the liberty to place earthworks at Waterloo when there were none in real life, the question that is begged is: What other important things did he also take liberty with? I mean, how much of this film is pure fiction?
Finally, I would have liked to see Josephine's "secret".
Posted on 11/21/23 at 9:31 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
2 1/2 runtime
Your reviews seem to mirror some of the others I've seen come out. Which is disappointing. I was looking forward to this. I immediately balked at such a short run time for someone as prominent and eventful as Napoleon. The fact that historical accuracy seems to be prominently dismissed and Napoleon's personality seems to be misrepresented isn't what I was hoping to here.
I would love to see a lengthy, well thought out series on Napoleon. Something like a 10-epsiode mini-series that HBO has done well in the past.
Posted on 11/21/23 at 10:12 pm to RollTide1987
I am still very excited to go see this film, but I appreciate all honest reviews.
Posted on 11/21/23 at 11:12 pm to theGarnetWay
It's going to be VERY tough to ever see an honest film about Napoleon. WAY too much of what we now consider "settled history" about him is the product of British historians, who, generally are biased.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Fact: Napoleon decided to crown himself Emperor. The British historical interpretation of this is that it is a demonstration of his extreme megalomania and desire to be a total Dictator. End of story. But, is it?
The British historical interpretation fails to note that, prior to the many years before he crowned himself in Dec, 1804, Britian sponsored several secret operations whose Objective was to assassinate him. Napoleon knew that if he were a fellow Royal, like the Allied national leaders, it would probably end those efforts to assassinate him, because the European Royalty wanted to avoid that precedent - assassination of Royals. Napoleon was right about that.
Another historical fact that is portrayed somewhat in the movie is the fact that he did indeed want peace back in 1802, and again in 1807 when he struck a deal with the Russian Czar. The British and Austria were the ones who wanted no peace with him. This interpretation is almost never explained in an English language history book - Napoleon is almost always interpreted to be a lunatic war-monger and blood-guzzler.
In sum, IMHO, we will probably never see an English language HONEST interpretation of Napoleonic history.
IMHO, beware of British military historians because they tend to be biased towards their side.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about. Fact: Napoleon decided to crown himself Emperor. The British historical interpretation of this is that it is a demonstration of his extreme megalomania and desire to be a total Dictator. End of story. But, is it?
The British historical interpretation fails to note that, prior to the many years before he crowned himself in Dec, 1804, Britian sponsored several secret operations whose Objective was to assassinate him. Napoleon knew that if he were a fellow Royal, like the Allied national leaders, it would probably end those efforts to assassinate him, because the European Royalty wanted to avoid that precedent - assassination of Royals. Napoleon was right about that.
Another historical fact that is portrayed somewhat in the movie is the fact that he did indeed want peace back in 1802, and again in 1807 when he struck a deal with the Russian Czar. The British and Austria were the ones who wanted no peace with him. This interpretation is almost never explained in an English language history book - Napoleon is almost always interpreted to be a lunatic war-monger and blood-guzzler.
In sum, IMHO, we will probably never see an English language HONEST interpretation of Napoleonic history.
IMHO, beware of British military historians because they tend to be biased towards their side.
This post was edited on 11/22/23 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 11/22/23 at 4:03 am to Champagne
quote:
Nappy
quote:
Nappy
quote:
Nappy
quote:
Nappy
quote:
Nappy
Why?
Posted on 11/22/23 at 5:18 am to Mo Jeaux
“Verisimilitude”
Why? Why do people feel the need to include such uncommon words to come across as either intellectual or sophisticated?
Why? Why do people feel the need to include such uncommon words to come across as either intellectual or sophisticated?
Posted on 11/22/23 at 5:24 am to Champagne
quote:
beware of British military historians because they tend to be biased towards their side.
I agree and i think they were particularly biased against Napoleon. The British were hell bent on insulting his legacy. They went to great lengths to not only convince the world he was a tiny man, but that he had a tiny dick too.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 5:29 am to Dirk Dawgler
quote:
Verisimilitude” Why? Why do people feel the need to include such uncommon words to come across as either intellectual or sophisticated?
While also saying “Nappy” over and over again
Posted on 11/22/23 at 6:01 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
I agree and i think they were particularly biased against Napoleon. The British were hell bent on insulting his legacy. They went to great lengths to not only convince the world he was a tiny man, but that he had a tiny dick too.
For whatever it’s worth, I’m reading a biography called Napoleon: A Life. It’s pretty long (~800 pages) but very good. It was published around 2014 and I think was the first biography after tens of thousands of Napoleon’s own letters were published/released so it can get way more into the personal thoughts and ideas of the man.
And with that I think the author, who is British, tries to dispel British and Napoleon’s own propaganda where he can. He explicitly calls out several stories, ideas, ‘facts’ about Napoleon that can or should be dismissed as pure propaganda by the British that was designed to destroy his legacy. He also calls out historians in general for having erroneously accepting some of these as indisputable fact.
On the other hand, the author isn’t afraid to call out Napoleon for exaggerating in his own personal letters (often about casualty rates but also other things).
Worth a read for anyone who’s interested.
This post was edited on 11/22/23 at 6:03 am
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:11 am to Dirk Dawgler
quote:
Why? Why do people feel the need to include such uncommon words to come across as either intellectual or sophisticated?
No. I actually enjoy language, so I don't mind people using less common words, even if they're doing so to seem intellectual or sophisticated. Unlike some on the OT who look down on education, I enjoy it, and I will simply look up a word if I'm not familiar with it's meaning.
I was referring to the use of "nappy", which is why I quoted it.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:13 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
Worth a read for anyone who’s interested.
I need to pick it up again. I have it, and I have started it on a couple of occasions, but haven't made it through.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 7:14 am to Champagne
quote:
There were no earthworks at Waterloo. There were no trenches at Waterloo. I cannot imagine why Scott decided to include them.
Because most people these days don’t care about the historical significance of things… unless it is a confederate statue or monument that they feel needs to be torn down.
It’s fricking sad.
This post was edited on 11/22/23 at 7:37 am
Posted on 11/22/23 at 8:44 am to theGarnetWay
quote:
And with that I think the author, who is British, tries to dispel British and Napoleon’s own propaganda where he can. He explicitly calls out several stories, ideas, ‘facts’ about Napoleon that can or should be dismissed as pure propaganda by the British that was designed to destroy his legacy. He also calls out historians in general for having erroneously accepting some of these as indisputable fact.
This is the correct approach for historians, however, we should note how many centuries it took for an honest interpretation of his history to be written.
A great example mentioned by someone in this thread is the example of "Nap was short" - a piece of British propaganda that persists to this day. It's a very simple piece of research and work to establish with certainty that he was not "short" by the standards of his day, but, for centuries, English language historians would rather cling to "he was short" than to tell the truth. Nap was not short. He was often seen around his Old Guard troops, and those troops were hand-picked and had a height requirement - they were extraordinarily tall for their day.
One particular act of demonstrating huge balls was Nap's return to France to once again take power after his first exile. It took balls to all alone walk up to a wall of the King's French soldiers and ask them to join you. The soldiers had orders to arrest him as a criminal. He could have gotten shot. How many men would have the balls to do that?
Anyway, "Nappy" is just an abbreviation.
"Verisimilitude" is a word that everybody learns in college when they study literature or film.
Here is a link to David Chandler's classic book about who he calls "History's Greatest Soldier".
LINK
This post was edited on 11/22/23 at 8:47 am
Posted on 11/22/23 at 8:52 am to Dirk Dawgler
quote:
Verisimilitude”
Why? Why do people feel the need to include such uncommon words to come across as either intellectual or sophisticated?
Its a fairly common word used in movie reviews. If you dont know what a word means, look it up.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 8:58 am to HoustonGumbeauxGuy
quote:
Because most people these days don’t care about the historical significance of things… unless it is a confederate statue or monument that they feel needs to be torn down.
It’s fricking sad.
Of course you are right about that, but, you also know how stupid it is to waste your film-making budget on a project to construct earthworks to portray a battle that had none. So, you spent your money in order to make your portrayal LESS historical and less accurate. That US Government-level stupidity.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 9:24 am to Champagne
He's looking for people to enjoy an action movie.
"Napoleon was the short guy from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"
I honestly don't think most of America cares too much beyond that. Sad.
"Napoleon was the short guy from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure"
I honestly don't think most of America cares too much beyond that. Sad.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 10:03 am to RollTide1987
Thanks for taking the time to provide this information and your assessment.
Posted on 11/22/23 at 10:11 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Ridley Scott has created a technical marvel with excellent production design, great camera work, an incredible score, and brilliant spectacle. It definitely is epic. Perhaps the four-hour-long director's cut releasing on Apple+ later next year will restore some of what I feel the 2 1/2-hour version lacked. This was just too big an undertaking to reduce down to your standard movie run time. It should have been a miniseries.
I haven’t seen it yet but I’ve posted a couple times that this was my expectation for the film. Had my fingers crossed hoping I was wrong. I may just wait for the 4 hour version
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News