Ridley Scott's Napoleon (spoilers)

[Cikomyr2]

I watched Ridley Scott's Napoleon over the weekend.

What a disappointment. I had caught the first 10 minutes and absolutely loved it, and was really looking forward to finish the movie, but it was really downward from there.

First of all, the acting is great. Set and costume designs are great. Cinematography is great.

But holy **** the script. The script has nothing to say. Its not even a matter of "they put a lot of historical revisionism", because ultimately it doesn't matter to me how close you are to historical facts when you tell a good story.

And a good story is not told. This isn't about the growing failure of Napoleon to see reality straight on, starting as an anxious junior officer until he became an arrogant emperor. It isnt about his obsession with Josephine and his desire for tempestuous relationship over calm one. It isnt about how he never managed to see through the smiling lies of those sorrounding him.

Its about ****ing nothing. It just speedruns through the life stages of Napoleon, has a lot of pointless scenes, like Napoleon and Josephine having coffee in Paris. Napoleon and Josephine having sex. Napoleon touching a mummy. And none of them make thematic sense. There's no cohesive theme or story.

6/10, this is Ridley Scott at his most self indulging. He needs to fire his screenwriter.

[KorvinStarmast]

I watched Ridley Scott's Napoleon over the weekend.

What a disappointment. I had caught the first 10 minutes and absolutely loved it, and was really looking forward to finish the movie, but it was really downward from there.

First of all, the acting is great. Set and costume designs are great. Cinematography is great.

But holy **** the script. The script has nothing to say. Its not even a matter of "they put a lot of historical revisionism", because ultimately it doesn't matter to me how close you are to historical facts when you tell a good story.

And a good story is not told. This isn't about the growing failure of Napoleon to see reality straight on, starting as an anxious junior officer until he became an arrogant emperor. It isnt about his obsession with Josephine and his desire for tempestuous relationship over calm one. It isnt about how he never managed to see through the smiling lies of those sorrounding him.

Its about ****ing nothing. It just speedruns through the life stages of Napoleon, has a lot of pointless scenes, like Napoleon and Josephine having coffee in Paris. Napoleon and Josephine having sex. Napoleon touching a mummy. And none of them make thematic sense. There's no cohesive theme or story.

6/10, this is Ridley Scott at his most self indulging. He needs to fire his screenwriter.

As someone who has studied Napoleon's campaigns in some depth, as well as his political life, I am having a hard time wanting to see this movie since I perhaps know too much.
But some late night I suspect I'll end up watching it when I can't sleep.

[Mordar]

I thought it was an absolute crap-bag, self-indulgent, and meant to be "highbrow and if you don't like it that's because you cannot understand the autuer's vision and the artistic performance put forth by the most brilliant of actors". And I like Ridley Scott, but Jeebus, was this terrible. Smelled like Last Duel with extra mayonnaise, left out in the sun for three days.

But if you ask me later, I'll tell you how I really feel. Probably will include how I was looking forward to it...and then actively wanted to leave before it was complete.

- M

[Cikomyr2]

As someone who has studied Napoleon's campaigns in some depth, as well as his political life, I am having a hard time wanting to see this movie since I perhaps know too much.
But some late night I suspect I'll end up watching it when I can't sleep.

The battle scenes are well made. There's 3 major set pieces: the siege of Toulon, the battle of the 3 Emperors and Waterloo (the later is especially stupid looking at the end).

But they aren't the emphasis of the story of the movie. They are just cool setpieces, but they dont really inform anything about Napoleon except his tactical brilliance and daringness.

As a history buff you may be enraged at the innacuracies and "hollywood tactics" on display, but i hope you get to appreciate the cinematic achievement of putting that sort of warfare on such high budget display.

I thought it was an absolute crap-bag, self-indulgent, and meant to be "highbrow and if you don't like it that's because you cannot understand the autuer's vision and the artistic performance put forth by the most brilliant of actors". And I like Ridley Scott, but Jeebus, was this terrible. Smelled like Last Duel with extra mayonnaise, left out in the sun for three days.

But if you ask me later, I'll tell you how I really feel. Probably will include how I was looking forward to it...and then actively wanted to leave before it was complete.

- M

I dunnow, at least the Last Duel had a great story to say, Roshomon style, about how powerful men see the world the way they want to see it and drag the powerless around them to ruins.

Napoleon doesnt even do the dignity of having that strong of a theme.

[Maelstrom]

As someone who has studied Napoleon's campaigns in some depth, as well as his political life, I am having a hard time wanting to see this movie since I perhaps know too much.
But some late night I suspect I'll end up watching it when I can't sleep.

You may want to put it off until a night where you need to stay up, as you're a student of this particular facet of history, the way this film portrays Napoleon is infuriating and will definitely keep you awake with intense annoyance...

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah, I skipped it. Kind of a shame, as I would love for that period to have a glorious new movie, but apparently 'tis ludicrously ahistorical, and not even in the fun way, like Braveheart. Sure, that film took some liberties, but at least the film was fun, and audiences will forgive a bit so long as you manage that.

As a history buff you may be enraged at the innacuracies and "hollywood tactics" on display, but i hope you get to appreciate the cinematic achievement of putting that sort of warfare on such high budget display.

Why? If it's done terribly, it can't be much of an achievement.

When I watched Jupiter Ascending, I didn't think "Wow, what an achievement, I've never seen anyone portray a half-bee before." I thought "holy crap, they wasted $200 million on portraying space Sean Bee-an."

[Cikomyr2]

Yeah, I skipped it. Kind of a shame, as I would love for that period to have a glorious new movie, but apparently 'tis ludicrously ahistorical, and not even in the fun way, like Braveheart. Sure, that film took some liberties, but at least the film was fun, and audiences will forgive a bit so long as you manage that.



Why? If it's done terribly, it can't be much of an achievement.

When I watched Jupiter Ascending, I didn't think "Wow, what an achievement, I've never seen anyone portray a half-bee before." I thought "holy crap, they wasted $200 million on portraying space Sean Bee-an."

So, in this case I was talking about representation of turn of the 19th century style of warfare. Explicitly. the cinematography is pretty great to make you feel like you're there.

[warty goblin]

I thought the problem with Napoleon was that it was basically 1/3 of like 4 different movies; you had the history of France bit, the Napoleon is weird bit, the battles bit, and the personal drama bit. Any one, or maybe two of those, could have provided ample material for a film, but cramming all of them in at once resulted in a whole distinctly less than the sum of its parts, because none of the parts were complete and they didn't synergize particularly gracefully. Yes the Napoleon is a sex weirdo plays into the interpersonal drama, but only somewhat, and the battles dovetail with the sweep of history (kind of) but none of it comes together. After sitting through far too many flabby series that could have been a 3 hour movie and lost nothing of value, I don't usually say this, but this would have been much better as an 8 - 10 hour miniseries. Heaven knows the history is compelling enough to make for good drama.

Ridley Scott sure does know how to shoot a movie though. Some of the sequences are astonishing and haunting, but all in service of this flabby undercooked mess.

[Mordar]

After sitting through far too many flabby series that could have been a 3 hour movie and lost nothing of value, I don't usually say this, but this would have been much better as an 8 - 10 hour miniseries. Heaven knows the history is compelling enough to make for good drama.

Maybe with an actor for Napoleon. The guy from Bill and Ted was better.

- M

[warty goblin]

Maybe with an actor for Napoleon. The guy from Bill and Ted was better.

- M

I thought he did fine for everything but the Napoleon is a charismatic general whose soldiers would follow anywhere bit. Which, admittedly, is a very big ask, in no small part because we don't have a great model or cultural image of the mega-charismatic leader soldiers will follow to the ends of the Earth. Oliver Stone's Alexander suffered from the same problem, and it ain't because Colin Farrel can't act. Also because generals with that combination of talent and leadership are a distinctly less than once-a-generation or even once-a-century phenomenon, for which the world should be exceedingly thankful.

[Anonymouswizard]

I saw it with my dad just before Christmas, and we both hated it.

The issue from what I could tell was the unwillingness to focus. The film hit a natural stopping/pausing point about four times and went on going, with nothing actually giving a core story to latch onto. Which is travesty, as despite knowing nothing about Napoleon I came out thinking 'the stories of his campaigns must be better than was shown'.

The most positive thing I can say about this film is that it made me consider where you'd end a Nelson

[Aedilred]

The most positive thing I can say about this film is that it made me consider where you'd end a Nelson

On the quarterdeck of a first-rate, surely?

[tomandtish]

I thought the problem with Napoleon was that it was basically 1/3 of like 4 different movies; you had the history of France bit, the Napoleon is weird bit, the battles bit, and the personal drama bit. Any one, or maybe two of those, could have provided ample material for a film, but cramming all of them in at once resulted in a whole distinctly less than the sum of its parts, because none of the parts were complete and they didn't synergize particularly gracefully. Yes the Napoleon is a sex weirdo plays into the interpersonal drama, but only somewhat, and the battles dovetail with the sweep of history (kind of) but none of it comes together. After sitting through far too many flabby series that could have been a 3 hour movie and lost nothing of value, I don't usually say this, but this would have been much better as an 8 - 10 hour miniseries. Heaven knows the history is compelling enough to make for good drama.

Ridley Scott sure does know how to shoot a movie though. Some of the sequences are astonishing and haunting, but all in service of this flabby undercooked mess.

Have to agree with this. Way too much going on, and as a result most of it isn't done well.

Best comment I heard about this film? "Imagine the story of Napoleon if told by Lifetime Movies".