That was a good movie though. You just got filtered.
***Napoleon*** (Ridley Scott, Joaquin Phoenix)
29,355 Views |
248 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by G Martin 87
Brian Earl Spilner said:
I enjoyed it.
Really the main issue with this movie is some odd pacing. At times it feels like it's skipping over pretty massive events or giant spans of time, with very little connective tissue between scenes other than a quick voiceover. And, it feels like some key stuff just gets glossed over or skipped completely. (What happened to his son? Etc.)
To me that's the only thing that's keeping this from being great. For my money, the Battle of Austerlitz alone was worth the price of admission.
I can already tell the 4 hour cut is going to fix a ton of issues with it; it's too bad I won't get to see it since I don't have apple tv.
Still, I didn't really feel the length, and was pretty entertained throughout. I give it a strong 7.5.
Not to derail, but why no Apple TV? Pound for pound it's one of the top streaming services out there.
This. I feel like out of all the streamers it's the one I'm watching the most consistently. They just always have something good to great airing, nearly year round. It's one of the cheapest streamers too.
I wonder how many people think they still have to buy an actual apple tv to use the serviceTCTTS said:
This. I feel like out of all the streamers it's the one I'm watching the most consistently. They just always have something good to great airing, nearly year round. It's one of the cheapest streamers too.
Sadly, probably quite a few.
Shouldn't you have a softcore review website out there somewhere?TCTTS said:
with Cinemax and Showtime - in my room, from age six.
After a delay, I finally saw this last night.
It was better than I thought it would be based on some of the reviews and reactions on this thread. I agree with the sentiment that Phoenix was really good, but that his Napoleon was shallow and underdeveloped. I will watch the directors cut when it comes out on AppleTV+.
What I will say is that I was floored by the Waterloo battle scene. That was probably the best, most sweeping, set-piece battle scene I've ever seen on film. Amazing job by Scott and the rest filming that. The choreography and cinematography were incredible. That was worth the price of admission, and a great payoff for sitting through the previous 2 hours.
The Austerlitz battle was really good, but Waterloo was incredible.
It was better than I thought it would be based on some of the reviews and reactions on this thread. I agree with the sentiment that Phoenix was really good, but that his Napoleon was shallow and underdeveloped. I will watch the directors cut when it comes out on AppleTV+.
What I will say is that I was floored by the Waterloo battle scene. That was probably the best, most sweeping, set-piece battle scene I've ever seen on film. Amazing job by Scott and the rest filming that. The choreography and cinematography were incredible. That was worth the price of admission, and a great payoff for sitting through the previous 2 hours.
The Austerlitz battle was really good, but Waterloo was incredible.
You had unsupervised access to HBO and Cinemax throughout your childhood and adolescence? Good lord. Would hate to know how much Kleenex you went through in a week.
You don't know how hard the rest of us had it...
You don't know how hard the rest of us had it...
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
Joined:
May 17, 2004
Posts:
70,304
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That it was entertaining enough. Not great though
No it wasn't, reverse filteredCapybara said:
That was a good movie though. You just got filtered.
Somewhere between fine and moderately enjoyable, but overall pretty meh. Phoenix gave a lazy and pretty forgettable performance in my opinion.
Ok, just got back from seeing it, and it was an interesting comparison to what I've read here.
1. This was clearly Napoleon from the British perspective. As a Service Academy kid, I'm fairly well-versed in Napoleon's exploits and tactics. The tactical aspect is completely overlooked because it would make Napoleon look good. Almost all the focus and story try to make him look bad.
2. A great example of this is the end of the film. It cherry-picks battles with heavy losses and not-so-subtly hints at the horrors of Napoleon. But the ruse doesn't work. Even viewers who don't know much about Napoleon will be able to grasp that, even though the film skips it, the guy obviously was a magician to rise from his state to conquering Europe.
3. I didn't have a problem with the Josephine angle. I thought the film's first half was fairly boring, but the more we learned about them, the more interested I got. It was like a soap opera, although obviously, a bunch was embellished (The film only casually hints that Josephine's stolen letters were sold to the British).
4. Also, with sooooo many people talking about the gratuitous sex scenes, I was very surprised to find that those scenes were barely PG-13 in nature and usually quite quick. I was expecting Monster's Ball on crack. Instead, I got something out of an 80s teen flick.
5. Joaquin Phoenix wasn't great here. At no point does he seep into the role. It felt mailed in like De Niro's character in Killers of the Flower Moon. This was Phoenix being Phoenix. Again, I realize the characterization of Napoleon in this film is basically British propaganda, but the resolve, tenacity, and sense of humor Napoleon possessed are not on display here. It also portrays him as a petulant child, which is more of a British tabloid characterization than reality.
6. The best acting in the film goes to Vanessa Kirby, whose presence is engrossing.
7. Yeah, I know the battle sequences in this film are mostly inaccurate, but I felt they were pretty solidly choreographed. One poster mentioned the Waterloo battle scene being the best they've seen in a long time. I'll disagree. It was good, but not amazing. Ridley Scott is a victim of his own success here. The opening Germania battle sequence in Gladiator is arguably the best pre-20th century battle sequence in the history of film, and we've come to expect that each time out of Scott.
8. The aforementioned first half of the film is fairly blah. It jumps through a bunch of history very quickly, without really providing much context. Viewers who aren't well-acquainted with the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror perpetuated by Robespierre will likely get lost. It also continuously shows Napoleon present for events that he was not present for.
9. With this, and this is where a lot of the complaining comes from, Napoleon just seems to magically ascend to the top, almost by osmosis. It doesn't cover his political cunning or military conquests. That's fine. The film is what it wants to be. But the advertising on this film revolved heavily on Napoleon's military prowess. There was very little of that in the film.
10. Something the film did a good job of was showing how adored Napoleon was by his men and the French people. The dude was wildly popular before he ever stepped foot in Paris. His men would've followed him to the grave, and many did.
11. All in all, it's definitely a better effort for Apple than Killers of the Flower Moon, which was a shell of a film. I rolled my eyes when I heard about Scott's extended version on Apple+, but now I'm curious to see if it paints a better picture of Napoleon. This film has been destroyed by French critics, and I get it. It's like if the British made a film about George Washington and showed him to be a wuss who struggled in the bedroom. I'd recommend it if you have a few hours to kill, but just know it's a movie and not exactly a historical document.
1. This was clearly Napoleon from the British perspective. As a Service Academy kid, I'm fairly well-versed in Napoleon's exploits and tactics. The tactical aspect is completely overlooked because it would make Napoleon look good. Almost all the focus and story try to make him look bad.
2. A great example of this is the end of the film. It cherry-picks battles with heavy losses and not-so-subtly hints at the horrors of Napoleon. But the ruse doesn't work. Even viewers who don't know much about Napoleon will be able to grasp that, even though the film skips it, the guy obviously was a magician to rise from his state to conquering Europe.
3. I didn't have a problem with the Josephine angle. I thought the film's first half was fairly boring, but the more we learned about them, the more interested I got. It was like a soap opera, although obviously, a bunch was embellished (The film only casually hints that Josephine's stolen letters were sold to the British).
4. Also, with sooooo many people talking about the gratuitous sex scenes, I was very surprised to find that those scenes were barely PG-13 in nature and usually quite quick. I was expecting Monster's Ball on crack. Instead, I got something out of an 80s teen flick.
5. Joaquin Phoenix wasn't great here. At no point does he seep into the role. It felt mailed in like De Niro's character in Killers of the Flower Moon. This was Phoenix being Phoenix. Again, I realize the characterization of Napoleon in this film is basically British propaganda, but the resolve, tenacity, and sense of humor Napoleon possessed are not on display here. It also portrays him as a petulant child, which is more of a British tabloid characterization than reality.
6. The best acting in the film goes to Vanessa Kirby, whose presence is engrossing.
7. Yeah, I know the battle sequences in this film are mostly inaccurate, but I felt they were pretty solidly choreographed. One poster mentioned the Waterloo battle scene being the best they've seen in a long time. I'll disagree. It was good, but not amazing. Ridley Scott is a victim of his own success here. The opening Germania battle sequence in Gladiator is arguably the best pre-20th century battle sequence in the history of film, and we've come to expect that each time out of Scott.
8. The aforementioned first half of the film is fairly blah. It jumps through a bunch of history very quickly, without really providing much context. Viewers who aren't well-acquainted with the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror perpetuated by Robespierre will likely get lost. It also continuously shows Napoleon present for events that he was not present for.
9. With this, and this is where a lot of the complaining comes from, Napoleon just seems to magically ascend to the top, almost by osmosis. It doesn't cover his political cunning or military conquests. That's fine. The film is what it wants to be. But the advertising on this film revolved heavily on Napoleon's military prowess. There was very little of that in the film.
10. Something the film did a good job of was showing how adored Napoleon was by his men and the French people. The dude was wildly popular before he ever stepped foot in Paris. His men would've followed him to the grave, and many did.
11. All in all, it's definitely a better effort for Apple than Killers of the Flower Moon, which was a shell of a film. I rolled my eyes when I heard about Scott's extended version on Apple+, but now I'm curious to see if it paints a better picture of Napoleon. This film has been destroyed by French critics, and I get it. It's like if the British made a film about George Washington and showed him to be a wuss who struggled in the bedroom. I'd recommend it if you have a few hours to kill, but just know it's a movie and not exactly a historical document.
A fair, informed take. I'm going to have disagree with you hard, re: Killers of the Flower Moon, and I didn't really get the "wuss" angle you got from this movie, but overall I really appreciate your breakdown. Good stuff.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
You had unsupervised access to HBO and Cinemax throughout your childhood and adolescence? Good lord. Would hate to know how much Kleenex you went through in a week.
You don't know how hard the rest of us had it...
I mean, pre-high school, it's not like I was allowed to stay up super late or have my door closed all the time. That said, junior high sleepovers at my place were pretty popular, and sure, I learned... a lot... from Red Shoe Diaries and the like.
Thanks for that.
This confirms what I've read about the movie in other places. I will wait to just watch the extended cut.
This confirms what I've read about the movie in other places. I will wait to just watch the extended cut.
#Napoleon may not have conquered the top spot in North America, but it emerged victorious at the worldwide box office.
— Variety (@Variety) November 27, 2023
Ridley Scott’s historical epic debuted to $78.8 million, including $46.3 million internationally. https://t.co/DILzS4b1pc
Overseas, #Napoleon’s invasion crushed industry’s projections, as the #RidleyScott film grossed strong 46.3M on its 5-day Opening over 48 markets, doubling projections.
— Luiz Fernando (@Luiz_Fernando_J) November 26, 2023
Added 32.5M US cume, #JoaquinPhoenix hits a 78.8M Global #BoxOffice cume, almost 2x industry’s 40M-46M… pic.twitter.com/wVBocrX766
Ridley Scott's two and a half hour historical biopic made more money than the new animated Disney movie this holiday week?? Nature is healing.
— Andrew J. Salazar (@AndrewJ626) November 26, 2023
worth it to see in 70 mm or whatever in the theater over waiting for it on streaming?
the most important thing is that this movie does well at the box office around the world
so that they will keep making historical epics
rather than Transformers #32
and Superman #67
so that they will keep making historical epics
rather than Transformers #32
and Superman #67
Or anything "MCU" crapfest those have become.
LMCane said:
worth it to see in 70 mm or whatever in the theater over waiting for it on streaming?
For the battle scenes, yes. The poster above disagrees with my assessment of the Waterloo scene but I thought it was great.
Belton Ag said:LMCane said:
worth it to see in 70 mm or whatever in the theater over waiting for it on streaming?
For the battle scenes, yes. The poster above disagrees with my assessment of the Waterloo scene but I thought it was great.
It was by no means a bad sequence. I thought it was well done. Would've liked to have seen a bit more close-quarters combat, ala The Patriot. Lot of wide and medium-wide shots. Felt like I was on the outside looking in for most of it. Maybe that was Scott's point, to have us see the battle from the eyes of Wellington and Napoleon.
Maybe so. Now that you mention it, that's kind of how the whole movie, comes across, from the outside looking in. Maybe why that's why I liked it but didn't love it.
Belton Ag said:
Maybe so. Now that you mention it, that's kind of how the whole movie, comes across, from the outside looking in. Maybe why that's why I liked it but didn't love it.
Something that's more common nowadays is using a rolling shutter to film battle sequences. That really gained popularity from Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator. The rolling shutter basically creates a stop-motion effect that cuts frames into moving photos. This effect allows the viewer to notice blood splatter, dirt, facial expressions, and action more clearly, because it doesn't have a blur with the movement. It's a surreal way of shooting that really pulls the viewer into a moving sequence in a way the traditional 24fps shot (or 29.97fps for TV) does not. I didn't notice that in Napoleon, which was a bit surprising.
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
aTmAg said:
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
Yes, do not see it for the education. The battle sequences and tactics aren't historically accurate, and it skips over Napoleon's rise to power.
See it if you wish they made Days of Our Lives during the French Revolution.
Joes said:If you're really interested, I might suggest this two-part series for a quick summary. It's presented in a cartoony way but the history is accurate and there's lots of humor to keep it entertaining and fun. And it really highlights the degree to which he towered over the other powers. Oversimplified has a bunch of really great ones like this. The Punic Wars one is absolutely hysterically funny but also spot on.Definitely Not A Cop said:
Thanks. I will take my dunce card and sit down.
Just quoting this post for those interested in learning more history on him, I thought the videos were entertaining and informative.
That is unfortunate, as I think his rise is the most interesting part of his life. I couldn't care less about his love interest(s).BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
Yes, do not see it for the education. The battle sequences and tactics aren't historically accurate, and it skips over Napoleon's rise to power.
See it if you wish they made Days of Our Lives during the French Revolution.
For example, I read somewhere about an early battle of note where he was a young officer. Something about him recognizing that if they took a certain peninsula, they could have the enemy port in cannon range. And that this suggestion to his superiors changed the battle. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. What were the smart things he FIGURED out. Not who he banged.
Edit: fixed a little autocorrection issue there.
aTmAg said:That is unfortunate, as I think his rise is the most interesting part of his life. I couldn't care less about his love interest(s).BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
Yes, do not see it for the education. The battle sequences and tactics aren't historically accurate, and it skips over Napoleon's rise to power.
See it if you wish they made Days of Our Lives during the French Revolution.
For example, I read somewhere about an early battle of note where he was a young officer. Something about him recognizing that if they took a certain peninsula, they could have the enemy port in cannon range. And that this suggestion to his superiors changed the battle. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. What were the smart things he fingered out. Not who he banged.
Not gonna lie, the soapy parts get more enthralling as you watch, just like a soap opera.
aTmAg said:That is unfortunate, as I think his rise is the most interesting part of his life. I couldn't care less about his love interest(s).BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
Yes, do not see it for the education. The battle sequences and tactics aren't historically accurate, and it skips over Napoleon's rise to power.
See it if you wish they made Days of Our Lives during the French Revolution.
For example, I read somewhere about an early battle of note where he was a young officer. Something about him recognizing that if they took a certain peninsula, they could have the enemy port in cannon range. And that this suggestion to his superiors changed the battle. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. What were the smart things he fingered out. Not who he banged.
On r/napolean they said the movie made Napoleon out to be a simp. That it portrayed his love interest as not really giving a rats ass about him (or something like that). I wouldn't know, but I get the impression from them that that was not true.BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:That is unfortunate, as I think his rise is the most interesting part of his life. I couldn't care less about his love interest(s).BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
Yes, do not see it for the education. The battle sequences and tactics aren't historically accurate, and it skips over Napoleon's rise to power.
See it if you wish they made Days of Our Lives during the French Revolution.
For example, I read somewhere about an early battle of note where he was a young officer. Something about him recognizing that if they took a certain peninsula, they could have the enemy port in cannon range. And that this suggestion to his superiors changed the battle. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. What were the smart things he fingered out. Not who he banged.
Not gonna lie, the soapy parts get more enthralling as you watch, just like a soap opera.
It also made Napolean look like he failed upwards. That he lucked into basically everything.
Not that it would change my mind about going to see the movie, but are they overblowing that?
aTmAg said:On r/napolean they said the movie made Napoleon out to be a simp. That it portrayed his love interest as not really giving a rats ass about him (or something like that). I wouldn't know, but I get the impression from them that that was not true.BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:That is unfortunate, as I think his rise is the most interesting part of his life. I couldn't care less about his love interest(s).BassCowboy33 said:aTmAg said:
As a guy who is semi-ignorant on Napoleon, I was hoping this movie would educational for me. But damn the r/napolean subreddit is bashing the hell out of it. Saying "it did Napoleon dirty". I was thinking about skipping the movie for that reason. But I would prefer Hollywood to do more historical movies than Transformers 32 and Superman 67. So I think I'll go next weekend to show my support.
Yes, do not see it for the education. The battle sequences and tactics aren't historically accurate, and it skips over Napoleon's rise to power.
See it if you wish they made Days of Our Lives during the French Revolution.
For example, I read somewhere about an early battle of note where he was a young officer. Something about him recognizing that if they took a certain peninsula, they could have the enemy port in cannon range. And that this suggestion to his superiors changed the battle. That's the kind of stuff I'm interested in. What were the smart things he fingered out. Not who he banged.
Not gonna lie, the soapy parts get more enthralling as you watch, just like a soap opera.
It also made Napolean look like he failed upwards. That he lucked into basically everything.
Not that it would change my mind about going to see the movie, but are they overblowing that?
She's definitely hostile towards him early on. For her, it's a marriage of convenience. For him, it's infatuation. As the film progresses, the relationship flips. She needs him more than he needs her.
There's historical evidence showing that Napoleon was enamored with Josephine.
I need another Master & Commander movie
Basically my exact thoughts, summarized…
NAPOLEON is a weird film. I could not ascertain a point-of-view. Ridley Scott described the film as a character study, but the film is not interested in exploring Napoleon as a person. The film sways between epic battles and a half-baked love story, but commits to neither. pic.twitter.com/yJYCoiPbfb
— Dan Marcus (@Danimalish) November 27, 2023
it's still pretty cool to see a time when the French Army was feared and triumphant
I still think the Duellist is the better Scott film covering the same period of history.
Featured Stories
See All
Phelps' career night wills Taylor-less Aggies to improbable comeback
by Olin Buchanan
5 Thoughts: No. 10 Texas A&M 80, No. 17 Oklahoma 78
by Luke Evangelist
10:08
27m ago
573
13:45
3h ago
1.1k