Cant believe he's 85. He looks 20 years younger.

Ridley is giving serious Brian Cox/Logan Roy vibes here…

@notkendallroy

8 ай бұрын

fr

@mrm2204

8 ай бұрын

Im in the middle of turning a fucking tanker

@JeffsGoldblum

8 ай бұрын

😂😂😂

Wonder how Spielberg’s Napoleon series gonna look like.

@RobinHood-cd9mh

8 ай бұрын

Probably more historically accurate, being based on Kubrick's script.

Napoleon was originally a story Stanley Kubrick wanted to make and seeing as how The Duellists has strong Barry Lyndon influence,I think Ridley Scott just wanted to tap Kubrick

@HBarnill

8 ай бұрын

Everyone wants to be Kubrick. You can see Scorsese emulating him in Killers of the Flower Moon.

@SX1995able

8 ай бұрын

@@HBarnill yeah,but I think Ridley Scott legit thinks he's on that level or something,which he's not

@HBarnill

8 ай бұрын

@@SX1995able Paul Thomas Anderson is the closest to ever come to Kubrick's level.

@SX1995able

8 ай бұрын

@@HBarnill I think PTA had an interesting career trajectory. Started out Altman esque and graduated to Kubrick esque

@arch_dornan6066

8 ай бұрын

​@@HBarnillVery close, but their styles are very different for me. I think PTA packs his films with lots and pots of heart and soul, when Kubrick's work is mostly cold and calculated (not a bad thing at all)

Brilliant interview - 45 seconds in and Ridley Scott reveals why this film was doomed from the get-go. In his words, "People don't like history lessons. They don't seem like to learn anything. What's happening?" It all makes sense to me now, the boredom that is this film. In his defense, I love to learn and was quite eager to see someone's interpretation of Napoleon's strategic brilliance on the silver screen. I was not his target audience. Edit: Vanessa Kirby's eyes are of divine nature...

Pro tip: edit out the interviewer going "Mmmm" 30 times. There's no need to cut to the interviewer at all unless they're speaking.

@leehutchisonuk

8 ай бұрын

Yeah, really bugged me too

@starkingbiker

8 ай бұрын

so true - there‘s really no point in cutting back to her when she’s not having a question

@electricelephant7471

8 ай бұрын

It's probably auto-edited

@fredyflores73

8 ай бұрын

This threw me off as well lol.

Kirby is heavenly 🤩🌹

Kirby is a goddess

By this point I’d done about 2,500 commercials

Ella Kemp is FIT

My best recommendation is I feel like watching it again ASAP! ( always a necessity with a good Ridley Scott film!) salute Sir.

This sounds great.

Great and a fun movie

@raylaqua9334

8 ай бұрын

Is it great to give misleading information about a historical figure??

@titanium_expose

8 ай бұрын

@@raylaqua9334 sure idk

@hansenbee123

8 ай бұрын

the movie was HORRIBLE.....from storytelling, to battle sequences to drama ... all sucked.@@titanium_expose

Just saw the film today loved it

Vanessa Kirby is an excellent actress but she doesn’t have anything in common with Josephine Bonaparte. If you would like to see how Josephine looked like just have a look at Pauline Bonaparte naked sculpture laying down on a bed at the Borghesse Palace in Rome. They were voluptuous women with thick legs , big hips and big boots and not so tall. They didn’t wear panties and underwear clothing so their naked bodies could be seen under their Impire Style Clothing. Josephine came from the Martinique Islands so she spent most of their days naked and doing vudú rituals to keep her husband bonded to her. This is why Napoleon was always crazy thinking about their voluptuous wife.

Ridley: people don't like history lessons, 'cause they don't seem to like to learn anything. Also Ridley: I can't make it a history lesson.

@marcus6918

8 ай бұрын

agreed. he is talking so much shit its incredible

@Nicotine46

8 ай бұрын

He's saying he can't make it a history lesson because that's not what people like to see.

direction was very good, and the setpieces too. but it wasnt bad, or good. it was mid. it was ok

movie was thin in story,

Kirby is great, but Scott blew it.

How did Joker condone violence

@guileniam

8 ай бұрын

Make him like a hero a suppressed dude who's violence was his only option. I hate Joker. In reality the joker is a violent psychopath who needs to be stopped

@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat

8 ай бұрын

It's film's catharsis is entirely dependent on anticipating and reveling in the exhilaration of violence against people who've procurred for themselves a better social standing that's unhingedly perceived to be at the expense of a quietly oppressed reprobate class that envy them.

@amadeusmalonje6948

8 ай бұрын

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat it wasn't condoning violence, that was just Joker's perspective

@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat

8 ай бұрын

@@amadeusmalonje6948 It clearly took giddy satisfaction in the Joker's perspective as being a kind of justice.

@amadeusmalonje6948

8 ай бұрын

@@Geronimo_Jehoshaphat no it didn't, it was just showcasing how someone gets like that.

Ridley is such a lazy Director. It’s a never shame Stanley Kubrick never had a a chance to make this movie.

British propaganda

worst movie I have ever watched, walked out of the cinema, shame.

Terrible movie by a great director. $200 million waisted 🤑

It's been more than 20 years that Ridley didn't make a good film, so I'm not really surprised about the critics.

@JosePereira-pq5er

8 ай бұрын

A review is nothing more than an opinion.

@Nicotine46

8 ай бұрын

He made a ton of good films in the last 20 years

@xyoxus

7 ай бұрын

So are you saying he made good movies in the last 20 years or not? Seems like you didn't manage to write what you intended to.

@DiavoloGrenadine

7 ай бұрын

@@xyoxus Seems like you can't read.

Ridley shouldn't be allowed to make historical and religious movies anymore. He is too lazy and yet overconfident to even do the acquired research and seek honest knowledge. Ridley is literally so conceited he'd never believe anyone would refuse his approach and methods of making up historical events, which he tends to play with on a global scale...

@reelinlucky1074

8 ай бұрын

Counterpoint: he should make more because they rip

@Nicotine46

8 ай бұрын

He's almost only the only one to still make some and he's a master of it.

@alcottdevalte7440

8 ай бұрын

@@Nicotine46 Then Ridley shouldn't have named it Napoleon. He could instead have made a movie about a soldier during the French revolution and during that time period instead of this. Not to mention that Phoenix at 49 is playing Napoleon from the transition of a teenager and onto his 20s. And it's annoying at this point with the lack of historical knowledge considering that it shouldn't happen in 2023 when it's much easier seeking historical references and facts. Ridley was born in 1937 and should understand this more than anyone else. And there's much more to Napoleon's life and legacy than some love letters and his relationships with woman, which is the only thing that fascinates the filmmakers for some reason... I think that the movie would have worked much better if they had edited out all the battle scenes and instead focused on his personal life or edited out his love life and concentrated on his military career along with the battle scenes because it all happened too fast the way this movie was presented in this shorter version.

@Nicotine46

8 ай бұрын

@@alcottdevalte7440 You don't seem to understand cinema and the liberty a director must have, as an artist. And yes, the thing that interest Ridley Scott is the relationship with Josephine. Maybe you don't like that take on the story, but it's a fair one. I agree though that he should've either focus more on the intimate side or just focus on the military side with all the battles. But I wait for the 4h Director's Cut to have a final opinion on the film. Then, for the age of Napoleon, you'll always get a problem with the age of the actor not matching the character if you go through his whole life.

@alcottdevalte7440

8 ай бұрын

@@Nicotine46 Liberty certainly grants freedom for those who have loud voices that echoes around the world but must not be mistaken with arrogance and incompetence and abusive power to a greater extent. Ridley plays too much with national, moral and religious liberty on the screen, which misleads the viewers into believing what he has corrupted and yet used to be steady in its proclaimed history and message. When it comes to the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine; nothing is fair or on even terms in this movie. Ridley hasn't done research to be taken seriously enough, and he has blamed it upon history being corrupted because of too many books being written about Napoleon, which he didn't cared about reading at all, when the truth is that he doesn't do anything better himself. And I have actually studied Napoleon during my school years back in the days. Like I previously mentioned, Ridley was literally born a little over 100 years after Napoleon had passed away and should have known much better than most people today considering that Napoleon was more relevant back then than today, but he clearly doesn't know any better. When it comes to Phoenix playing a young Napoleon at the age of 49, it would have been wiser to use CGI or much better makeup. Imagine a biopic gets made about someone like Michael Jackson and a 50 year old man is playing him during the Thriller era of the early 80s where he was young and completely different than later on, which would be ridiculous and awful to watch...

Jodie Comer would have been awful in this.

@Chinaski1

8 ай бұрын

Why?