Napoleon | Sony/Apple | November 22, 2023 | Joaquin Phoenix is Napoleon | Ridley Scott

[filmlover]

Sales for this near me are pretty solid, even if not a sign of a major breakout, a week away from release. Think matching the $70-75M total that Killers of the Flower Moon is on track for is a good goal to have.

[MovieMan89]

11 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Sales for this near me are pretty solid, even if not a sign of a major breakout, a week away from release. Think matching the $70-75M total that Killers of the Flower Moon is on track for is a good goal to have.

Yeah, I mean I think that’s far from unreasonable with prime Thanksgiving real estate. The huge breakout calls are baffling to me though. 

[emoviefan]

14 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Sales for this near me are pretty solid, even if not a sign of a major breakout, a week away from release. Think matching the $70-75M total that Killers of the Flower Moon is on track for is a good goal to have.

It's sad we have to see that total as win but here we are at this point in time. 

[Gavin Feng]

french probably don't like it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hatebox]

Way better reviews than I was expecting honestly. Always rooting for Scott but it’s annoying we’re still doing the ‘don’t worry the director’s cut will sort it out’ dance. 
 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Hatebox

[Issac Newton]

 

 

[TomThomas]

13 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

That’s irrelevant though because if todays critics reviewed Gladiator it would probably be hailed as the rebirth of cinema with a 9.0 RT average or something.

Maybe it would've had a bit better reception today, just because high brow pretentious douchebags are diluted with easier going bloggers now, but definitely not up to 9.0 RT, critics often don't like Ridley and Ridley doesn't like them, so things are the same for him since 80s, and now they are trying to nuke Napoleon's RT score because it's going down hard so far.

Edited November 15, 2023 by TomThomas

[Ozymandias]

2 hours ago, TomThomas said:

Maybe it would've had a bit better reception today, just because high brow pretentious douchebags are diluted with easier going bloggers now, but definitely not up to 9.0 RT, critics often don't like Ridley and Ridley doesn't like them, so things are the same for him since 80s, and now they are trying to nuke Napoleon's RT score because it's going down hard so far.

 

I'll never understand the critics on Gladiator and Black Hawk Down.  Gladiator is a hall of famer and Black Hawk Down easily sits next to Saving Private Ryan as far as modern war movies go.  Critics really loved Thelma & Louise and The Martian though.

 

As for Napoleon, I think its gonna settle between 50-65%.  A lot of the reviews say the movie moves too quickly between the big battles.  I'll see it because I'm a sucker for these kinds of movies and because Ridley Scott and his collaborators are arguably the greatest designers in the business, but I'm really hoping the 4 hour version is gonna alleviate those issues.  90 minutes is a LOT of extra movie and apparently most of it is character stuff, particularly with Josephine.

[Barnack]

9 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

Gladiator is a hall of famer

Rewatched it a couple of months ago for the first time in a while, it is aging incredibly well, the CGI are in that perfect spot of the late 1990s early 00s like Titanic, first Lords of the Rings the mountain Troll aside, where the filmmakers assume their big limitation.

[TomThomas]

19 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

 

I'll never understand the critics on Gladiator and Black Hawk Down.  Gladiator is a hall of famer and Black Hawk Down easily sits next to Saving Private Ryan as far as modern war movies go.  Critics really loved Thelma & Louise and The Martian though.

Me neither, both Gladiator and Black Hawk Dawn are great movies. I'm not a fan of The Martian, I don't hate it, but I thought it's just generic survival movie with exactly the same content and themes as all other survival movies, just dressed in sci-fi setting. It's well shot and well acted, not challenging at all and very commercial, so I guess that's why it's one of his very few movies critics actually loved on release, when Ridley does something challenging, critics suddenly have issues with him.

Edited November 15, 2023 by TomThomas

[MovieMan89]

3 hours ago, TomThomas said:

Maybe it would've had a bit better reception today, just because high brow pretentious douchebags are diluted with easier going bloggers now, but definitely not up to 9.0 RT, critics often don't like Ridley and Ridley doesn't like them, so things are the same for him since 80s, and now they are trying to nuke Napoleon's RT score because it's going down hard so far.

Nah, todays critics are about as different from 2000 as night and day. Most of our modern “geekdom” critics would’ve lapped up Gladiator so much it wouldn’t even be funny. Ironically, I think it’s the academy it would have struggled more with today, so the critical/awards reception may have been swapped if it were released now. 
 

As for critics not liking Ridley in modern times… because he rarely ever releases theatrical cuts that aren’t a total mess. Once again, Napoleon sounds like Kingdom of Heaven 5.0 from him. Which is just ridiculous considering studies are releasing ridiculously long movies left and right this decade, can’t convince me he easily couldnt have gotten a 3hr15 runtime or something. 

[Torontofan]

Its impossibile to tell Napelon Story in like 4hrs or less.  lol

 

Oppenhimier was given a 3hr run time and his life is no where near a complex. 

[MovieMan89]

Eesh, I didn’t realize it was just about rotten already… that escalated quickly. Yeah, this thing isn’t touching “box office breakout.” Another November nuke. We are in the worst holiday 2023 box office timeline. 

[Cmasterclay]

Glad to see some raves but all of a sudden RT heading towards where I expected. Classic Ridley love it or hate it movie.

[Mojoguy]

If this movie was titled Napoleon on Mars it would have ended up Fresh on RT.

[Barnack]

25 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Nah, todays critics are about as different from 2000 as night and day. Most of our modern “geekdom” critics would’ve lapped up Gladiator so much it wouldn’t even be funny. Ironically, I think it’s the academy it would have struggled more with today, so the critical/awards reception may have been swapped if it were released now. 

There also just the average review creeping up agnostic of the movie themselve, everything is rated much higher now versus 2000

 

 

As for the Academy I understand why we would speculate this, but it is not like a Gladiator level movie was released in the 10 last years and did not do well. "Dad" movies still do really strong, Dunkirk was not as accessible and did not had that role of a lifetime matching perfectly the actor, sfx revolution going for it as much.

 

Maybe Gladiator win more today (director and Phoenix for example)

[MovieMan89]

Ridley needs to make big budget TV mini-series for HBO or something where he can execute his 8 hour visions. Movies don’t work for him with any kind of “epic.”

[Cmasterclay]

Sales near me are quite good as is buzz, but if it has a rotten tomato when people check the reviews it could kill it. Shame - I've been predicting a breakout in 75-100 range for months. Egg on face!

[Mojoguy]

6 minutes ago, MovieMan89 said:

Ridley needs to make big budget TV mini-series for HBO or something where he can execute his 8 hour visions. Movies don’t work for him with any kind of “epic.”

Scott needs to get with Apple or Netflix. They pay ridiculously well for flops... um movies.

[MovieMan89]

Top critics average is still very high for such a low tomatometer, so either many top critics aren’t giving a score or they really are loving or hating it.