Mel Gibson should remake Napoleon... it would be a block buster hit.

@AstroBuoyant

8 ай бұрын

Really?

@ThePiratemachine

8 ай бұрын

Maybe for Kubrick 40 years ago

@multipipi1234

8 ай бұрын

He would completely re-write history.

@privateuser7726

6 ай бұрын

Mel's a really great filmmaker who makes you feel, he connects you to the material.

@b22s35

6 ай бұрын

Ur a genius i wish i thought of that

"the soufflé didn't rise" I'm stealing that.

I'm so impressed by both your knowledge and ability to articulate....

At the start, Phoenix is playing Napoleon in his early 20s. That's just silly. But it's funny you mention Barry Lyndon since Ridley Scott's first feature film, "The Duellists" was a full on imitation of BL.

Just watch Waterloo 1970. Its really good.

Glad you mentioned Wikipedia articles because so many biopics these days are very surface level that Wikipedia articles are more interesting and emotionally engaging.

I can't get over Phoenix being far too old to play a man who was a general at age 23. It's much easier for a young man (Orson Welles in Citizen Kane) then for a 50 year old to play a young man.

@andygossard4293

8 ай бұрын

Bronson Pinchot would have been a good idea, 20 years ago maybe. I think Phoenix is a miscast.

@manymany4879

8 ай бұрын

me too.

@nicktamer4969

8 ай бұрын

Totaly agree; and despite the fact that Napoleon wasn't so short for his country and age, he wasn't a giant either. The legendary natural authority Napoleon is still known for today despite he wasn't a giant like De Gaulle, and despite his youthness and his mediterranean physic and strong accent, cannot be act by a tall old guy with yank physic and accent like Phoenix.

@wrmty56413

8 ай бұрын

People would've looked older in the late 18th century. A 23-year-old probably would've looked 50 (they were basically middle-aged)

@manymany4879

8 ай бұрын

@@nicktamer4969 Joachim Phoenix just isn't napoleon. no matter how old he is. I got no sense from the movie how napoleon inspired such loyalty and authority. Also he had no chemistry at all w the girl playing Josephine. I just didn't believe they loved each other.

Scott is such an atmospheric director that often characters are indistinguishable from the set. Gladiator and Prometheus are both solid examples.

@only257

8 ай бұрын

Agreed 🎉

@daninbox

8 ай бұрын

Michael Fassbender’s David is one of my favorite characters of the last 20 years.

@nighttrain1236

8 ай бұрын

Prometheus was a real letdown. The more control Scott has over the whole production (such as the script) the worse his films seem to be. His strength is no compromise direction and visuals not plot.

@switchcapturebutton

8 ай бұрын

Prometheus is a film that has been been debated for over a decade now. Some really like it and think there's big themes and discussions it presents. Others just don't get much out of it. I liked LIKE STORIES OF OLD In-depth analysis.

@nighttrain1236

8 ай бұрын

@@switchcapturebutton Damon Lindelof (of Bad Robot affiliation) co-wrote it hence the 'mystery box' of the 'black goo'. Just braindead writing.

I miss (historical epics). They are by far one of my favorite genres. I want all of them to be successful because that might draw more directors/producers to pick them up. Shame this does not sound like win.

@luxurybuzz3681

8 ай бұрын

DragpnSlayer is underrated

@callumcc8897

8 ай бұрын

Alot of them bombed at the box office! Then they become cult classics!

@Nebula37

8 ай бұрын

I don't think it's as bad as some reviewers have said. It omits a lot, but it captures the vibe of the era, and does a good job exploring the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine.

@luxurybuzz3681

8 ай бұрын

@@Nebula37 I find it intetersting how there's a lot of criticism on Napoleon being awkward and childish insecure but isn't that where "Napoleon Complex" comes from? His insecurities....

@Nebula37

8 ай бұрын

​@@luxurybuzz3681 Actually the term "Napoleon complex" comes from the erroneous assumption that Napoleon was unusually short, which was British propaganda designed to make him unpopular. But it stuck, so the term is commonly used today.

Every movie about Napoleon is always about Napoleon and Josephine, without Napoleon Josephine wouldn’t be a comma in the footnotes of history.

Napoleon opens here in Australia tomorrow so I'm expecting that I'll be seeing it in the cinema sometime soon. I appreciate your review so my expectations are reduced a little bit but will make my own judgement. But it seems that the best film about Napoleon still is Abel Gance's 1927 opus, Napoleon, largely because it only covers his early years in its 5-and-a-half-hour length (all very worthwhile, mind you). Once I see Ridley Scott's version I'll probably put my Blu-ray of Gance's version on. Still, the rumoured 4-hour Scott version may do wonders to improve the Scott theatrical version.

@flashgordon6510

8 ай бұрын

Ugh, skip it.

Imbalance between the comedy and the drama resulting in a tonally inconsistent film is just everywhere in cinema today, I feel. But that happening in stuff like the MCU or other works of pure fiction is less bad than in a historical drama, imo. It makes it come across as disingenuous or fake, which a historical film obviously should never feel. Btw, what do you think about Kingdom of Heaven?

@thrawncaedusl717

8 ай бұрын

I viewed the weird humor in Napoleon very differently. To me, it came off as awkward and very realistic (especially considering real world accounts of Napoleon being awkward). He was great, and he was awkward, and both show something about ambition and the historic figure’s journey. It’s a very different humor than Marvel humor (initially, it just comes off as pure awkwardness; for about the first five jokes I was the only one in the theater laughing before the audience eventually realized the awkwardness was on purpose).

@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL

8 ай бұрын

when a culture is disintegrating it comes out in the art. Makes me think of the very weird late Roman art that is almost comic in its distortions of anatomy… then the whole tradition of anatomical realism was forgotten. Our sense of psychological truth in drama is falling away.

@isengrim99

8 ай бұрын

@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL It's very much expressed in the mainstream, yes. Things are becoming increasingly repetitive, infantile and banal, imo. It will be interesting to see what the popular opinion about this era will be in the future.

@matthewjames2565

8 ай бұрын

@@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL Exactly. This is still the post-modern era of decadence, and it's reflected in our culture (certainly the mainstream) and it's never been worse. All the infantile humor to appeal to the lowest IQ demographic, the being ironic for the sake of irony, the refusal to find a consistent balance or allow egoism to weigh down a narrative (which is why there are so many supporting performances that are great nowadays but dragged down by the overall narrative). The banality is fitting with all the absurd special effects we see today where everything just seems the same. A true degeneration of culture.

@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL

8 ай бұрын

@@matthewjames2565 duellists was such a fun movie 🍿 i had hopes for napoleon… different era now

Well.... The real Napoleon and Josephine was way more a clash between equals. They were both outliers. Likely both a bit narcisistic. They both cheated on each other heavy. But in ways, there is something in their letters where you get that they understood each other. Maybe precisely because there was more in common between them at the core. Which is what explains why such apparently awkward relationship did last. And despite constantly cheating on each other, they always came back together. They always had some place deep down where they really understood each other and were team mates. It would have been interesting for instance how Napoleon actually supported her kids A LOT. He very much ensured her kids would have some of the best opportunities ever. There was a surprisingly good relationship between them. Which is obviously something you could not have in this movie because it would not fit the movie characters. Yes, Napoleon was narcisistic and quite a tirant. He was! He could be ruthless. In real life, he had no big issues sidelining Josephine when he found out she could not get pregnant and he could. He would sacrifice anyone to his greatness / career. He would gladly send his best friend on a suicide charge if need be. That was real Napoleon. But he would also support his friends and family whenever he could. And he was also an amazing administrator. He was genius. Very few people in history come even close to his skills in administration. The way in which he reorganized his armies is still relevant today. I get the feeling that most people will leave the theatre not understanding anything about Napoleon. And asking themselves how and why did he achieve the things he did.

@artm1973

8 ай бұрын

Actually he put off sidelining Josephine for four years, even though he was under a lot of pressure to do so. Finally events forced him to.

@thefrenchspacer

8 ай бұрын

Well he was the less tyrannic ruler of his time and no less narcisistic than any other kings and emperor of ANY time. he could at least put some merit on himself to where he got himself contrary again ALL his fellow rulers.

@fauxbro1983

8 ай бұрын

Napoleon conquered a vast area of the known world at the time. Josephine wasn't his equal. stop with this feminist driven.

@Slayer398

8 ай бұрын

​@@fauxbro1983he was definitely*not* a feminist by any definition and was very regressive if women's rights as a matter of fact from what they'd been after the French Revolution.

@ThePiratemachine

8 ай бұрын

Very good. He was caught up in the mistaken murder of The Duc d'Enhein

The film is called Napoleon. Too much Josephine. Ugh. More war. Lol. Your sound and pic are excellent. I read the historical tome Napoleon by Roberts. Napoleon sucked with women but once he was emperor and Josephine was obvious about cheating and she couldn’t bear him kids he moved on. Plus the victors write history so every chance they got England would document Napoleon as pathetic. We definitely have a skewed view of history. France was the upstart republican nation and all the European monarchies had to put it down for their own existence. Napoleon threatened their status quo. Sounds familiar…. Of course Napoleon’s downfall was his pride and ego. Weaknesses that seem to take all humans.

Isabella Rosselini's depiction of Josephine in the 2002 French Napoleon tv mini-series does much better justice to her character (but Napoleon is weaker than Phoenix). In my head canon now, it's Rosselini and Phoenix that make the best 'marriage' of the couple. I also think Scott was afraid of retreading Rosselini's Josephine with Kirby and avoids some of the more revealing attitudes she is known to have held - deep fear of the Guillotine, of being seen as another Marie Antoinette, and deeply superstitious about her and Napoleon's fortunes as the Imperial couple and the fragility of the state they sat in power over. Great review, nailed it again.

really interested in hearing your thoughts on saltburn. i don’t particularly think you’ll enjoy it as a whole but definitely would like to hear what worked for you and what didn’t.

I wonder what you’ll think of the 4 hour version when it’s on Apple TV

I really enjoyed this review and how you delved deeply into the performances. Thanks for your thoughts.

Ridley Scott - some of his films are masterworks. Some are turkeys. His best stuff probably sci-fi.

@krystofthepolishguytalksan310

8 ай бұрын

No. His two best movies are Gladiator and director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven.

@nr1229

8 ай бұрын

I don't know about that. Someone who knows a thing or two about history might think Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven are not that great and I personally never liked them that much. Of course they are nice to look at, the war scene in Germania in Gladiator is very intense and well made but I always thought the overall story was quite dull. And they are clearly not as breathtaking and immersive as Alien and Blade Runner. By far his best movies if you ask me.

The movie was almost completely devoid of the political backgrounds that presented alott of the drama and intrigue in his life~

Thanks M! Another good honest review, I can’t remember the last movie I watched that was new to me that had any impact whatsoever and was easily forgotten maybe “A Ghost Story” from 2017 , watched that and thought it was excellent, also “Ghost Story” from 1981 is really good for anyone who hasn’t seen it, entire family went to see it on Christmas Day, I miss those Christmas days when we would all go to the movies after the festivities , thanks

@hannahpumpkins4359

8 ай бұрын

Check out 'The Neon Demon' - it's horrifying, stunningly beautiful, and that age-old tale of the Devil (as a woman), 2 'witches', and a sacrifice.

I'd much prefer watching this reviewer than sitting through Napoleon again.

Wonder if deepfocuslens has any thoughts on Patton (1970), another film about a war commander starring George C. Scott and 7 Academy Award Winner?

Fun fact- Napoleon and TE Lawrence had the same birthday.

Great channel and review, thank you for posting.

I agree with your review. It needed to focus on an aspect of his life rather than juggle between different ideas. Maybe the dynamic between him and Josephine would've sufficed. The theater I went to normally a third full was completely sold out. I have to remember those people were probably expecting a Scott Era "Gladiator" film.

I think the man Napoleon is probably one of the hardest roles Phoenix has had to fill. I dont know if it was a bad performance or a great performance but his presence does command the screen when you watch it. And his stout and chubby frame does fill the uniform as it should. I dont think he looked ridiculous as you say. But i think Kirby has the best performance in the movie. She really impressed me, playing someone so broken and off and always teetering on the edge of keeping her "pieces and limbs together" from falling apart. Whether or not if it was accurate or not i enjoyed Napoleon and Josephine's continued correspondence and lingering connection within the story. Even after she dies she remains in Napoleons heart and mind and ours as her memory continues to haunt him. It took about an hour for me to get into the movie but around the time of the royal divorce is when i started to fall into the story and began to enjoy the movie for what it is. I dont think it was bad. I didnt notice the long runtime and i was mostly engaged with what transpired on the screen. I especially enjoyed the battle of Waterloo. A better movie than Exodus by far. Im still deciding on if i like The Last Duel, and that requires a rewatch. But this might have been one of Ridley's better efforts in the last 10-15 years.

What you said at 5:45 - 7:00 reminds me of a description by another reviewer, that this movie "highlights the 'napoleon' in napoleon complex"

Would love to hear your take on The Boy and the Heron. I thought it had a lot going for it, but it ended up really disappointing me, since I love most of Miyazaki's work.

There is a directors cut which is 4.5 hours long. I will want to see it.

Great review, keep the videos coming! :D

The big problem for me is knowing that all the dramatic, actorly parts will come out in the Apple+ release next year. I just can't get into the "not-as-good theatrical release" ethos, I guess. In any case, Napoleon is one of those characters like Christ - impossible to depict. Such characters hide from us. Which is, I suppose, part of their mystique.

It’s as good as Napoleon dynamite, just without the dynamite

@mariestreeting4213

8 ай бұрын

😆😆😆😆

I'd be curious as to the review of the extended version coming to Apple+.

Would be interested to hear your opinion on the four hour directors cut version of this film.

A four hour cut is coming to Apple TV after its theatrical run.

We appreciate your thoughts and insights. You’ll always have our support.

I think that Ridley Scott is absolutely great as a director - when it comes to "directing". The problems with his movies as of late have been with the writing and this makes it difficult to rate him as a director. You could argue that he should do a better job at agreeing to direct a movie if the script is lacking or pick a different writer if it's up to him, but he might prefer directing-for-pay, or as a "hired hand" as Tarantino has worded it in the past.

What do you call Napoleon hit by a cannonball? Napoleon Blown Apart.

@mariestreeting4213

8 ай бұрын

😆😆😆😆😆😆

The tagline: "He came from Nothing.He conquered Everything." Is wrong on so many levels.

Considering her review of Phoneix in Napoleon and strong criticism of Joker I'd like to hear what she thought of his Johnny Cash performance.

Saw the film today (in Plymouth, which actually gets a mention in the film - the whole city came out to see Napoleon at the time when the Bellerophon was in the Sound - that might have been a scene to show in the film instead of the small scale there). Not like me to go so early in a film's run. The two leads are great, but I felt the film was thin. There was too much to cover, and I didn't feel I was seeing progress or an arc, or how things were achieved. I didn't gain any insight. Maybe this is an introduction to a subject for a layman. There was a lot of value on the screen, it looked great, but it wasn't in service of anything - I was thinking of Barry Lyndon. I don't think this is a film I could love. I enjoyed it, but I'm a positive person who tries to appreciate things for what they are.

The only thing the film did a decent job of Josephine's and Napoleon's relationship. The problem with Napoleon is there is WAY too much material. This is why the mini-series in 2002 was solid because it was a mini-series and could provide more depth. It was lazy film making at how bad the history was missed. I could go on and on. They focused on his relationship and they screwed up the end. Josephine died before his escape from Elba and he wouldn't come out of his bedroom in Elba for days. Toulon was the only battle they somewhat got right. Toulon was a siege. What they showed in the movie was the final assault on the fort. Austerlitz was 100% incorrect. Napoleon's most brilliant battle. He evacuated the Pratzen Heights and weakened his right. He wanted the larger Austrian and Russian army to attack him where he wanted. He ordered Davout to force march to support the right. Napoleon then used the fog to cross the value and retake the Pratzen Heights when the Austrians and Russians committed all the forces there. What they showed in the movie is the end game of the battle. The Austrians were caught on 3 sides and retreated across the frozen pond. A few hundred died on the ice as the French hit it with cannon. Waterloo was a disaster. It looked like someone played Napoleon Total War and said lets go with that. What they showed was BEYOND historically inaccurate. They didn't even acknowledge the twin battles of Ligny and Quatra Bras and the British and Prussian defeat there, which led to Waterloo. The Dino DeLaurantis masterpiece from 1970, Waterloo. The history, practical effects, Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington IS the gold standard.

Interesting review. Actual substance and no fluff. Good channel. And she's as pretty as she is smart.

"Waterloo" and this version can be compared now.

First, some helpful hints: Never trust a movie that employs loud, thundering soundtrack as cue for its "epic-ness." Or underlit cinematography to hide more than it shows. Or flash editing to camouflage lousy action or CGI. Or clueless acting for profundity. Or script that lacks story continuity (or simply story telling for that matter.) And so forth. Second, in this particular case, there's the elephant in the room, ie R. Scott: The older sir Scott gets the more he veers towards the visual, his mind losing grip on the mechanics of story telling (not that he cares much to begin with, his bread and butter "moving images" business lie in the realms of commercials/tv spots.) This movie is basically a 2 1/2 hour trailer of the 4 hr "movie" to be streamed later on. Expect more of the same: underlit cinematography, trickling dialog, and story continuity/exposition taking a vacation. Maybe some would appreciate the "acting" of those hired to do the job but left to their own device. Oh yes, and the washed out, colorless costumes.

Wonderful analysis. Please review The Holders next.

Kubrick worked for years on a version of Napolean - like he did with A.I. before he died and Spielberg finished the work - I wonder if the same happened here but Ridley Scott is such a different beast entirely that I now doubt it.

@TTM9691

8 ай бұрын

No, but Spielberg IS working on a miniseries, based on Kubrick's script. Of course, it won't be anything close to what Kubrick would have come up with as he changed the scripts radically while filming, and changed them even further during editing. A less-Kubrickian film than "A.I." you'd be hard pressed to find.

@sticksman1979

8 ай бұрын

Kubrick’s Napoleon would have been a masterpiece.

Can you please do a video praising the greatest director in history, the genius Michael Bay and can you say that Pearl Harbour is the bestest movie of ALL TIME

@DeanOliver1964

8 ай бұрын

LOL

@MaxxRemKing1

8 ай бұрын

I get it! It’s a joke 😂

In the PBS documentary on Napoleon (which was spectacular) the one thing that Napoleon was NOT is a weak, simpy, childish person. in fact, his second wife, the princess of the Austrian Empire--who did not want to marry Napoleon--wrote that he was completely different than she expected. She found him charming, kind, romantic and (get this) electrifying. She was quickly won over and fell head over heels in love with him. Additionally, as Napoleon became powerful, older, fabulously famous and nearly worshipped by millions, with women throwing themselves at him, Josephine was now a former court mistress grown old.

I am waiting for his 4 hour cut of the film which will be released I have heard

Soo.. what do you look like non- mirrored?

Vanessa Kirby was the wrong choice for the part of Josepine ! Eva Green would have been the Logical Choice and she is FRENCH !! Especially if you are going to focus on the Love Story part of Napoleon's life.

so how would you look at tesla's woman?

"Sticks to the ribs" totally sums up my disappointment with Ridley. Gladiator didn't do it for me really but it was close. Yeah, I dunno

I think you were very kind about this film, whilst diplomatically saying that - as history - it is virtually worthless.

Thanks for an engaging and insightful review.

Excellent review, subbed

you gonna review saltburn next? 😊😊😊

Kirby takes up the screen.

To do justice to this subject matter, it ought to have been a multi-season HBO epic, not an unfocussed miss-mash of scenes by a director with an obvious contempt for Napoleon.

@TTM9691

8 ай бұрын

Spielberg is actually doing a miniseries about Napoleon based on Kubrick's script (he ended up making Clockwork Orange instead). I don't know that Spielberg is the one for the job - I thought A.I. was completely lame - but at least it looks to be a miniseries, which is probably the only way to tell Napoleon's story.

I agree. They should have chosen a section of his story. The story is too big even for a 4-hour director's cut. That said, Napoleon was only awkward with women early in his career. By 1800 the relationship dynamic had drastically changed and Josephine was no longer controlling the relationship. Scott failed to portray that dynamic change. Napoleon might not have been dashing, but he had a strong charisma which was attractive to women at the time and they failed to reflect. I won't even get into the historical inaccuracy of the battles. Its very apparent that the portrayal of Napoleon was colored by the British propaganda of the period.

I thought it was horrible, quite frankly. As in Gladiator (which I liked a little better), historically is so wrong. Scott may not like the criticism, but this is a biography basically. When your history is off, hard to make a case for it. Also, didn't real feel for the characters. But cool reaction and opinion.

Just saw Saltburn and can't wait for your review

@briancarr4607

8 ай бұрын

CRAP ?

Gonna wait for directors cut on Apple TV

Napoleon, like Hitler, is a historical figure who's almost been reduced to a comedic caricature in the Anglo mindset. It's no coincidence the best movies about Hitler are European. Might I suggest Napoleon would be better served cinematically outside the US/UK.

Hey, at least it’s not as bad as anything Disney has been presenting over the past 15 years.

Please do a collab with pillbox movies. You both are the only reviewers who give ACTUALLY interesting takes on films people SHOULD see . Love ya both

"Matchstick Men" was brilliant. Aside from that...

To understand Napoleon is to listen to the people who fought and worked with him. one of the best books written about Napoleon, but is not about Napoleon is called La Grande Armee but George Blond and translated into English by Marshall may published in 1979 and I think if you read this book you will understand Napoleon and why he was such a powerful force in world history. And why this movie fails.

Being Riddley Scott fan is like being in an abusive relationship.

It would have been a better film if it was centered on the last days of Napoleon with flashbacks. Napoleon was a great general as well as left his mark as creating the Napoleon Code which was not really shown.

Maggie why don't you like joker or gladiator?

Ridley Scott should stick to doing stories further back in history like King Arthur. A character that has more legend to them and gives more creative license. But Napoleon comes from a more recent time in Western history that is very well documented and this is a figure that is highly attached to a national identity (France and the French people). To so carelessly handle history and the magnitude of a person like Napoleon is reckless and stupid, not bold and creative. Say what you will about Oliver Stone's Alexander not being entertaining, but Stone gives reverence to Greek Macedonian culture being portrayed correctly, and the impact Alexander had on civilization being told through the narration of Ptolemy. Stone captures the idea of Alexander being a giant. Scott does the exact opposite with Napoleon and it's an utter disgrace, because Napoleon is a giant in history and has such a historical impact on history we even have to mention Napoleon when talking about the history of the United States, and how the New World was left alone to develop independently from Europe because Napoleon shook the foundations of the entire continent to the core. SEVEN different coalition/alliances of the strongest European militaries had to be made to defeat Napoleon. That alone tells you how badass this man was, and I don't need Scott's Napoleon to tell me he was just an insecure narcissist that killed a bunch of people. Scott needs to check himself because he made a terrible film and needs to own up instead of making excuses.

"Post early 1990s", your tough! But I'll agree one of my favorite things to do is watch a big sprawling epic film in a theater over a holiday weekend like Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Nice breakdown

Fantastic review! Seeing it tomorrow evening.

I appreciate your review! I watched it last night and it was the first film where i considered walking out of. It was terrible

I wish you would watch and review Succession.

I'll wait for the 4 hour cut on Apple TV

It's interesting that you don't care for Gladiator. It's still as muscularly impressive as when it first came out in my view. There are only a handful of films that I saw in the cinema upon release and went back the next day to watch again.

@sonnyhuynh007

8 ай бұрын

This women is terrible at reviews, half of the time she just talking about like what!?

@chronicillz1879

8 ай бұрын

well yea, shes a woman

@M.H.I.A.F.T.

8 ай бұрын

@@sonnyhuynh007 She's excellent at reviews. She's very thoughtful and analytical; not her fault if you don't understand them.

@sonnyhuynh007

8 ай бұрын

@@M.H.I.A.F.T. Gladiator was awesome, yet she don't care for it is an example of "what!?" as in surprise not as in complicated mumbo jumbo.

@ssssssstssssssss

8 ай бұрын

If you watch it for the atmosphere, the acting, action and set design it is good. But the story is only serviceable and the dialog is a bit overwrought like a lot of epics at the time. edit: I forgot the music. That was also really good

He was above average height for his era. History has been unkind to him on that score.

@thrawncaedusl717

8 ай бұрын

“History is written by the English”

@HBarnill

8 ай бұрын

5'7" is short these days. I'm 5'11" 3/4th.

@thesmilingtitan

8 ай бұрын

​@@HBarnillimproved nutrition and living conditions

@fauxbro1983

8 ай бұрын

​@HBarnill yeah it's genetic thru centuries. Women been sleeping with taller men. Better just round up to 6'-0"

@ollieboy117

8 ай бұрын

​@@HBarnill"for his era"

Phoenix is great, but Oliver Reed steals the Gladiator from everyone else. As for Napoleon, haven't seen it yet, judging by your review it only confirms my fear that we'll never see a great "swan song" or "closer" from Stott in the likes of his early work. Hope I'm mistaken.

Josephine was 6 years older than Napoleon. Phoenix is 14 years older than Kirby. I think that says all we need to know about this movie.

@JJJJJVVVVVLLLLL

8 ай бұрын

damn. I was hoping for something better. movies just suck more nowadays

@stanleyrogouski

8 ай бұрын

Lawrence Olivier was 42 years old when he played Hamlet. The actress he cast as Gertrude, his mother, was 28.

@ThePereubu1710

8 ай бұрын

@@stanleyrogouski sure, but Hamlet is fictional, a biopic of Napoleon isn't!

@DanielB.-uv5ji

8 ай бұрын

Yes, this minor detail details everything. Please tell me you're joking.

@patfarget-nm3mt

8 ай бұрын

the character on which the last samurai is inspired was French and not American, I liked it all the same... a lot of liberties with the truth in historical films.

I watched Bladerunner when it came out at the cinema. When I realized the same man had just directed Alien, he became my favourite director. Yet somehow, time passed by... and he never reached those heights again. How did Kurosawa's output stay so brilliant till old age whereas Ridley became so mediocre?

@FirstNameLastName-kt3zn

8 ай бұрын

I would put Matchstick Men in the same tier as Blade Runner and Alien

I agree Napoleon's real life would be more compelling than this fictionalized history. The weakness of Napoleon is the same weakness that Scott was lauded for in Gladiator. The historical relationship between Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus would be more compelling.

Please state an opinion.

I do love your voice, I think you should consider recording for narration.

Great review.

What a mature, deeply thoughtful, well-versed in historical accuracy, even profound review. “Joséphine” (and Some Guy Named Napoléon) would have been a more apt film title. Almost nothing is historically accurate; except for maybe the period costumes and most of the set designs. There is no emotional resonance. So much of the Napoleonic Era is overlooked. And, Napoleon is portrayed as a cartoon much to the delight of a pompous British Director. Everything is truncated. Where is his childhood? Napoleon’s French Military School Experience? The Italian Campaign, Etcetera? He was a Charismatic Casanova and Still had Time to Rule Europe. Love to see a well-financed French 🇫🇷 Film Production from a French 🇫🇷 Perspective. This should have been a mini-series in 4-6 parts. This PowerPoint Presentation is a weak excuse for an Epic Film in only 2 hours 38 minutes. 1/5 or 2/10 And, that’s being merciful.

This film is its own Waterloo...

Superb review!

Pheonix is the weakest link. It had no chance right from the start.

It's easy to struggle with Ridley Scott movies because they are so outlandish but really really good. As for his historical films, we'll see about Napoleon. The rumor is there is a 4.5 hour version which would be awesome.

I found this to be a comedy, I don’t think it was meant to be one, but I had a lot of good laughs from Phoenix’s performance.

For me, his movies need a strong story. The visuals are not enough. What a missed opportunity for a Napoleon story, this "overstuffed" approach would have worked better as a documentary. I agree, for a movie it would have been much more effective to have told a more tightly focused period of this life and even use narration (yes, the sin of narration lol).

Great review

Respect the review. I saw it today and loved it. I liked the connection between Napoleon and Josephine throughout the film and storyline. I liked the parallels if their lives. Josephine knew Napoleon for what he was and she treeated him accordingly. But they respected one another. I got emotional when she called out for Napoleon on her deathbed. I think this point is driven home with her voice narration after she dies. They both originated as outkasts in the film. They came together. Napoleon divorces her out of pure ego and selfishness and Napoleon comes back to needing her after he fails. With the ending, i feek like it is a message of everything coming full circle. The rise to the highest power and greatness and being in love to it slowly crumbling with loss and hurt and being returned to what Napoleon began as. It was all for nothing and I sensed regret in Napoleon in the film in that regard. And then it ends with Napoleon having nothing to show for his greatness similar to the ending of godfather 3.

I wish i can see more enphisis on Napoleon s the talent of military

As if Napoleon's notoriety has anything to do with Josephine and not how he conquered nearly all of Europe and shook the world. Very weird focus for this movie. It's like doing a movie about Hitler and focusing on Eva Braun. That's.....not remotely what most people think is important about the guy.