Napoleon (2023)

[Eric Duncan]

Discuss

[Blue35]

Just saw this movie, and it was kind of terrible tbh. Nobody in my group liked it

 

i don’t feel like I learned anything about the character of Napoleon. Phoenix feels super miscast, and the characterization of Napoleon felt extremely inconsistent. 

 

I’m not surprised that a much longer directors cut is coming- it sure feels like a lot of important stuff was cut out of the 2.5 hour version tbh

Edited November 22, 2023 by Blue35

[WorkingonaName]

Napoléon loses at waterloo. 

[TMP]

7 hours ago, WorkingonaName said:

Napoléon loses at waterloo. 

Just like the ABBA song

[Ozymandias]

I hear a horse takes a cannon ball to the chest in this

[4815162342]

"You think you're so great because you have boats!"

"Destiny has brought me this lamb chop"

 

 

Even after reading reviews I wasn't quite prepared for this movie to be 150+ minutes of Napoleon being an insecure horndog bozo

[Kalo]

This movie started off with some great flare, it had a lot of humor in the first half and one beautifully shot battle sequence on in ice. the whole film was beautifully shot really and the costume designer needs an Oscar. but boy did this drag in parts and the last hour was the worst, it went from a somewhat quirky, darky and sexy take on Napoleon to a pretty standard war movie by the end. I would say if you loved history you may like that, but Riddley Scott has not been one to stick to close to history (The Duel being one of the most historically inaccurate films I have seen in a while, but that movie did keep my interest a bit more at least). this movie is almost an hour shorter than Killers of the Flower Moon, but somehow it felt longer. 

 

It was an alright movie overall, but it had some serious pacing issues and really dragged in the end, I would probably give the first half a B+ and the last half a B- so hovering at a low B atm. 

[elcaballero]

Can't help but think I would have preferred a movie that focuses on the hundred days and Waterloo. The final blowout battle is indeed impressive, but everything else fell a flat for me. The movie simply covers way too much, too quickly, and Joaquin Phoenix is not good in the role at all. Despite taking up a large portion of the runtime, the Napoleon-Josephine relationship was super opaque to me, and basically just provided moments to show how weird and awkward this sketch of Napoleon is.  Maybe it would have been interesting if his personal life was contrasted with how charismatic he could be to the public and with his troops, but he's anything but charismatic in this movie.

16 hours ago, 4815162342 said:

"You think you're so great because you have boats!"

 This did get a pretty good laugh in my theater, haha.

[4815162342]

1 hour ago, elcaballero said:

Can't help but think I would have preferred a movie that focuses on the hundred days and Waterloo. The final blowout battle is indeed impressive, but everything else fell a flat for me. 

 

I'd recommend checking out Waterloo from 1970. It's got pacing issues in the first half as it builds up to the battle, but there's some pretty excellent staging of the battle sequences in the final hour. Rod Steiger and Plummer are solid as Napoleon and Wellington respectively.

 

The action in this film is pretty good, but with Waterloo there's a couple extremely basic errors that have no bearing on the movie in and of itself, but still bugged me a decent amount 

[cannastop]

I admittedly didn't know a lot of French history before I saw this movie so it was slightly education. Still not a great movie though

[elcaballero]

7 hours ago, 4815162342 said:

 

I'd recommend checking out Waterloo from 1970. It's got pacing issues in the first half as it builds up to the battle, but there's some pretty excellent staging of the battle sequences in the final hour. Rod Steiger and Plummer are solid as Napoleon and Wellington respectively.

 

The action in this film is pretty good, but with Waterloo there's a couple extremely basic errors that have no bearing on the movie in and of itself, but still bugged me a decent amount 

Definitely need to make time to watch it. Some of the shots I've seen from it look really incredible in scope. 

[Cmasterclay]

I appreciated the movie's depiction of Napoleon as an insecure horndog bozo as Numbers said, but it is so uninterested in politics or history that it gives you zero reason to give a shit about this guy and why him being this way matters. If you didn't know French history, you'd be confused why this guy was any different at all. If you did know French history, like me, it feels woefully short on any perspective to add stakes. I didn't want some dry textbook, but at least make it feel like we should care about what this guy did.

[4815162342]

3 hours ago, Cmasterclay said:

I appreciated the movie's depiction of Napoleon as an insecure horndog bozo as Numbers said, but it is so uninterested in politics or history that it gives you zero reason to give a shit about this guy and why him being this way matters. If you didn't know French history, you'd be confused why this guy was any different at all. If you did know French history, like me, it feels woefully short on any perspective to add stakes. I didn't want some dry textbook, but at least make it feel like we should care about what this guy did.

 

Mentioned it elsewhere but the film felt like a greatest hits tour of Napoleon instead of a meaningful examination of any part of his career. Gotta touch on all the big parts (Toulon! Shooting cannons at a mob! Egypt! Coup! and so on) but the result is we never get a good sense of the weight or impact of many things. The coup planners putting the wolf (Napoleon) in charge of the henhouse is a particularly fascinating aspect of the transition period of the French Revolutionary Wars that has a parallel with at least one other more recent powerful country in distress but we just get an abbreviated couple of coup scenes that focus more on comedy than anything else, then a little bit later an oblique suggestion that Napoleon should just crown himself, followed up by him doing that

[lilmac]

My main issue with Ridley Scott's portrayal of Napoleon in his film is that, despite its lengthy duration, it rushes through many significant events in Napoleon's extraordinary life. This rapid pacing detracts from the experience, and I believe the story would be better served as a trilogy, although I recognize the financial impracticality of such an approach. This aspect particularly bothers me as I am currently delving into Napoleon's history. Perhaps if I were a less informed viewer, I might have rated the film higher than a B-. However, overall, I found the film somewhat dull and not as engaging as expected, especially surprising given Ridley Scott's talent for crafting action scenes and epic narratives. The final battle scene was a notable exception. My rating for the film stands at B-.

[filmlover]

I thought this worked more often than it didn't, but it certainly feels rushed even at 2.5 hours and doesn't always transition smoothly between the man's marriage and military career. Impressive battle scenes though, as expected from Ridley Scott. He's been going on during the press tour for this about a 4 hour cut being out there and that'll probably resolve most of the movie's pacing issues whenever it's released.

 

I can't decide if Joaquin Phoenix is solid or terrible in this, though he seems miscast in the role regardless at the end of the day. He's often overshadowed by the exquisite Vanessa Kirby whenever they share the screen.

 

B-

[titanic2187]

I quite enjoyed the movie, especially the battle sequences. It is weird the backdrop of the battle is soap opera between minimal chemistry of two leads, intercut with multiple horny yet unsexy scenes.  

 

Epic but not great yet still worth an IMAX trip.

[dudalb]

On 11/26/2023 at 12:43 AM, lilmac said:

My main issue with Ridley Scott's portrayal of Napoleon in his film is that, despite its lengthy duration, it rushes through many significant events in Napoleon's extraordinary life. This rapid pacing detracts from the experience, and I believe the story would be better served as a trilogy, although I recognize the financial impracticality of such an approach. This aspect particularly bothers me as I am currently delving into Napoleon's history. Perhaps if I were a less informed viewer, I might have rated the film higher than a B-. However, overall, I found the film somewhat dull and not as engaging as expected, especially surprising given Ridley Scott's talent for crafting action scenes and epic narratives. The final battle scene was a notable exception. My rating for the film stands at B-.

I think it is a dead certainity we get a much longer director's cut  a la "Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[dudalb]

On 11/24/2023 at 7:47 PM, 4815162342 said:

 

Mentioned it elsewhere but the film felt like a greatest hits tour of Napoleon instead of a meaningful examination of any part of his career. Gotta touch on all the big parts (Toulon! Shooting cannons at a mob! Egypt! Coup! and so on) but the result is we never get a good sense of the weight or impact of many things. The coup planners putting the wolf (Napoleon) in charge of the henhouse is a particularly fascinating aspect of the transition period of the French Revolutionary Wars that has a parallel with at least one other more recent powerful country in distress but we just get an abbreviated couple of coup scenes that focus more on comedy than anything else, then a little bit later an oblique suggestion that Napoleon should just crown himself, followed up by him doing that

Two Biggest Ommisions were his first Italian Campaign, which was where he really  made his reputation as a brilliant general.

The Directory put the wolf in charge of the henhouse because they had no choice, Napoleon was just about the only really good general they had.

Second big Ommision was Spain was not even mentioned, and most Historians feel 'The Spanish Ulcer" 1807 to 1814,had neary as much a role in his downfall as the Russian fiasco. It was a constant steady drain on his resources.

AH well, I think we will probably get those in the director's cut.

I also could quibble with a film that pretty much sticks to history being listed as having "Spoilers" but that is another issue.

 

[dudalb]

On 11/23/2023 at 1:39 PM, elcaballero said:

Can't help but think I would have preferred a movie that focuses on the hundred days and Waterloo. The final blowout battle is indeed impressive, but everything else fell a flat for me. The movie simply covers way too much, too quickly, and Joaquin Phoenix is not good in the role at all. Despite taking up a large portion of the runtime, the Napoleon-Josephine relationship was super opaque to me, and basically just provided moments to show how weird and awkward this sketch of Napoleon is.  Maybe it would have been interesting if his personal life was contrasted with how charismatic he could be to the public and with his troops, but he's anything but charismatic in this movie.

 This did get a pretty good laugh in my theater, haha.

It's a good line becuae aside from being funny, it showed Napoleon's failure to understand how powerful Sea Power could be...it was one of the things that destroyed him.