Napoleon (2023) (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, I have read none of the reviews for this, I will wait to read them until after I have seen it, but the one odd thing about what is being said about the film is it has quite a bit of comedy in it, primarily centered around Joaquin's performance and his relationship with Josephine. I know Ridley said Phoenix came up with a unique take on the character, but I did not think comedy would be a big part of that.

This Napoleon is said to be presented as a petulant manchild sporting a hardcore crush on his girlfriend. Also, I guess the battle of Waterloo is in this picture though I thought initially it was said that battle would not be included.

 

[YANG]

on recreating the historical battle...

...to records accuracy...​

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Got my primo seat ticket for a Wed matinee at the AMC Lincoln Square IMAX.

I was gonna wait to go w/ my posse after TDay weekend, but... figured I might wanna see this 2x anyway, especially since I now have A-List membership... and coordinating w/ my posse (on top of trying to get reasonably good seats at that IMAX) ain't super-easy, especially around this time of year, including after the strike -- one friend will be getting back to work now that the strikes are over and might not even have workable time as a result.

Anyhoo, didn't realize they're actually opening this early on Tues. Is that the norm for TDay long weekend? I suppose that's roughly equiv to Thur being 2 days before most weekends.

FWIW, I also (tentatively) decided to stick around at that IMAX for their screening of the Hunger Games prequel right afterward -- yeah, they're apparently sharing that giant screen for the week. I say tentatively because I actually have ticket for HG for 1st show this early evening at the AMC Empire 25 Dolby Cinema. IF that prequel actually sucks, I'll probably just cancel for next Wed (and watch something else instead), heh...

_Man_

 

[Jason_V]

This may be unpopular to say about a 2 1/2 hour movie, but I wanted another half hour in Napoleon. The movie moves quickly-I'd argue too quickly-and a lot of the connective tissue is barely mentioned or glossed over. That's not a knock: when you actively want a longer version of a movie that's already long, I consider that a positive.

Came home and told my husband I'd happily watch this version, or a five-hour cut, with him when it hits streaming.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

This may be unpopular to say about a 2 1/2 hour movie, but I wanted another half hour in Napoleon. The movie moves quickly-I'd argue too quickly-and a lot of the connective tissue is barely mentioned or glossed over. That's not a knock: when you actively want a longer version of a movie that's already long, I consider that a positive.

Came home and told my husband I'd happily watch this version, or a five-hour cut, with him when it hits streaming.

Well, you will get your wish because Ridley has a longer cut ready to go which apparently will be available streaming and I would guess on disc. Covering Napoleon, particularly as many years of his life as this film covers, seems like it would certainly require more than 2 and a half or 3 hours.

 

[Jason_V]

Well, you will get your wish because Ridley has a longer cut ready to go which apparently will be available streaming and I would guess on disc. Covering Napoleon, particularly as many years of his life as this film covers, seems like it would certainly require more than 2 and a half or 3 hours.

I'm down for it!

Now...something a little controversial, maybe. I want a longer cut of this movie. I don't need a longer cut of Killers of the Flower Moon or Oppenheimer. I feel like there is a lot more to this story not in the movie; those other two movies are "complete" complete, in my mind. That's not to say I didn't like KotFM and Oppenheimer: I did. I just don't have a real desire to see anything longer than what we got.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

^Let me get this straight. It's both unpopular and controversial to want a longer cut that vast majority of us already knew was very likely coming because the director actually wanted it to be 4-plus(!) hours long according to all the rumors/reports about it for (what seems like) at least a year now...

Am I reading you right, Jason?

Ok. Got it.

Anyhoo, I'm on my way to a matinee screening at the Lincoln Sq IMAX now... and to make up for the missing 1.5-2 hours in this cut, I'm gonna see (again) the Hunger Games prequel on the same screen right afterward (and maybe something else after that too!), LOL.



_Man_

PS: Yeah, I suspect most of us thought it probably could use a longer cut than the ~2.5 hours. I'm certainly not one to complain about longer films if/when they're actually good... though having the option for a good (substantially) shorter cut for certain occasions would certainly be welcome, especially if the longer one will be 4-plus hours(!).

 

[Jason_V]

^Let me get this straight. It's both unpopular and controversial to want a longer cut that vast majority of us already knew was very likely coming because the director actually wanted it to be 4-plus(!) hours long according to all the rumors/reports about it for (what seems like) at least a year now...

Am I reading you right, Jason?

Ok. Got it.

Anyhoo, I'm on my way to a matinee screening at the Lincoln Sq IMAX now... and to make up for the missing 1.5-2 hours in this cut, I'm gonna see (again) the Hunger Games prequel on the same screen right afterward (and maybe something else after that too!), LOL.



_Man_

PS: Yeah, I suspect most of us thought it probably could use a longer cut than the ~2.5 hours. I'm certainly not one to complain about longer films if/when they're actually good... though having a good (substantially) shorter cut for certain occasions would certainly be welcome, especially if the longer one will be 4-plus hours(!).

I haven't kept up with anything Ridley Scott says about this movie and just started watching this thread. The only thing I know is Scott said something stupid about the French...that's it.

Someone is going to take offense to my take on this for some reason...just you wait.

 

[Jason_V]

Eeek...double post. Sorry about that...

 

[Jeff Cooper]

Don't most of Ridley Scott's films get longer director's cuts on home video? I don't ever remember anyone saying there would be a chance of a longer Oppenhiemer cut coming out.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Well, agreed that this shorter theatrical cut isn't all that satisfying -- definitely felt like too much is missing here. Probably not worth seeing again in theater (though it certainly deserves a big screen presentation)... but definitely looking forward to the anticipated, much longer cut...

Was originally gonna try to go see it again w/ some buddies, but I might suggest for them to wait for the much longer cut to be seen on my FP setup instead...

_Man_

 

[Jason_V]

Don't most of Ridley Scott's films get longer director's cuts on home video? I don't ever remember anyone saying there would be a chance of a longer Oppenhiemer cut coming out.

Fair. But Oppenheimer doesn't need one. Nolan told a complete story with the connective elements in the theatrical version.

And really, the only reason I even mentioned it is a recent 2+ hr run time comparison. That's it.

Well, agreed that this shorter theatrical cut isn't all that satisfying -- definitely felt like too much is missing here. Probably not worth seeing again in theater (though it certainly deserves a big screen presentation)... but definitely looking forward to the anticipated, much longer cut...

Was originally gonna try to go see it again w/ some buddies, but I might suggest for them to wait for the much longer cut to be seen on my FP setup instead...

_Man_

I can see this being the "gateway drug" to the longer version or the trailer for what is to come. "Hey, you liked the theatrical version? Well come and watch the expanded super cut."

One thing I didn't mention earlier: the score. I've been listening to it on and off today and I'm really enjoying it.

 

[benbess]

This movie is seriously flawed from my pov. One problem for me is that the film starts in 1793, when Napoleon was just 24 years old. Joaquin Phoenix was 48 when the movie was made. Napoleon died at age 51. By the time Napoleon was 48 he was already in the last years of his exile.

 

[benbess]

After thinking about it overnight, my overall rating for Napoleon is a C. That means that this is the 5th Ridley Scott movie in a row that I didn't care for overall. His last really good movie from my pov was The Martian in 2015.

Napoleon covers almost 30 years of crowded history, which is just too much for one movie. Most of Lawrence of Arabia, for instance, takes places from c. 1916 to c. 1919, even though it's a full hour longer than Napoleon.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon also has inaccuracies, which is true of most historical movies, but this one seems to have more than some of the better ones. For instance:

Napoleon Didn’t Really Shoot Cannons at Egypt’s Pyramids

But scholars say that a trailer for Ridley Scott’s new film draws attention to the French emperor’s complex and lasting legacy on the study of Egypt’s cultural heritage.

www.nytimes.com

"As Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” opens for Thanksgiving holiday viewing, scenes from the film’s trailers are making waves. That was especially true of a sensational depiction of French troops led by Joaquin Phoenix as the French emperor firing cannons at the pyramids of Giza.

“I don’t know if he did that,” Mr. Scott told The Times of London. “But it was a fast way of saying he took Egypt..."



Overall I agree with this review from the Washington Post, which points out the key dramatic problem:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/2023/11/21/napoleon-movie-review/

"Review by Ann Hornaday (1.5 stars)

There are moments in “Napoleon,” Ridley Scott’s eagerly anticipated portrait of the legendary military leader and French emperor, when it looks as if it was conceived by Jacques-Louis David at his most painterly and precise. There are other moments in “Napoleon” that feel like a mash-up of Leo Tolstoy, Edward Albee and Wikipedia. Such are the contradictions of a movie that soars with ambition and historical sweep, even as it fails on some basic fundamentals....

More than once in “Napoleon,” Bonaparte is called the greatest leader in the world, but we never really see that leadership, other than him plugging his ears and giving orders to fire. By the end of the film, we might feel as if we’ve seen him in action, but we have no better understanding of what drove him, or what he was really like....“Napoleon” is less about ruthlessness, brilliance and hubris than about a man to whom many things happened. As played by a stiff and expressionless Phoenix, he’s less a legendary leader than a passive, often petulant cipher...."

Anyway, since I see most major Hollywood movies I'm still glad I saw this in IMAX, with some early battle scenes even giving me chills, but I hold out hope that the Kubrick/Spielberg miniseries will create a better cinematic portrayal of the subject:

Steven Spielberg “Mounting A Big Production” For Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Napoleon’; Project Is Set As Seven-Part Limited Series For HBO

Steven Spielberg is working on a large-scale biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte as a seven-part limited series for HBO.

deadline.com

 

[YANG]

didn't manage to get the sweetspot seat in my favorite Theatre today.
i guess I'll have to wait till next week for the valid seat, to get the best sensory experience in screening.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

After thinking about it overnight, my overall rating for Napoleon is a C. That means that this is the 5th Ridley Scott movie in a row that I didn't care for overall. His last really good movie from my pov was The Martian in 2015.

Napoleon covers almost 30 years of crowded history, which is just too much for one movie. Most of Lawrence of Arabia, for instance, takes places from c. 1916 to c. 1919, even though it's a full hour longer than Napoleon.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon also has inaccuracies, which is true of most historical movies, but this one seems to have more than some of the better ones. For instance:

Napoleon Didn’t Really Shoot Cannons at Egypt’s Pyramids

But scholars say that a trailer for Ridley Scott’s new film draws attention to the French emperor’s complex and lasting legacy on the study of Egypt’s cultural heritage.

www.nytimes.com

"As Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” opens for Thanksgiving holiday viewing, scenes from the film’s trailers are making waves. That was especially true of a sensational depiction of French troops led by Joaquin Phoenix as the French emperor firing cannons at the pyramids of Giza.

“I don’t know if he did that,” Mr. Scott told The Times of London. “But it was a fast way of saying he took Egypt..."



Overall I agree with this review from the Washington Post, which points out the key dramatic problem:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/movies/2023/11/21/napoleon-movie-review/

"Review by Ann Hornaday (1.5 stars)

There are moments in “Napoleon,” Ridley Scott’s eagerly anticipated portrait of the legendary military leader and French emperor, when it looks as if it was conceived by Jacques-Louis David at his most painterly and precise. There are other moments in “Napoleon” that feel like a mash-up of Leo Tolstoy, Edward Albee and Wikipedia. Such are the contradictions of a movie that soars with ambition and historical sweep, even as it fails on some basic fundamentals....

More than once in “Napoleon,” Bonaparte is called the greatest leader in the world, but we never really see that leadership, other than him plugging his ears and giving orders to fire. By the end of the film, we might feel as if we’ve seen him in action, but we have no better understanding of what drove him, or what he was really like....“Napoleon” is less about ruthlessness, brilliance and hubris than about a man to whom many things happened. As played by a stiff and expressionless Phoenix, he’s less a legendary leader than a passive, often petulant cipher...."

Anyway, since I see most major Hollywood movies I'm still glad I saw this in IMAX, with some early battle scenes even giving me chills, but I hold out hope that the Kubrick/Spielberg miniseries will create a better cinematic portrayal of the subject:

Steven Spielberg “Mounting A Big Production” For Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Napoleon’; Project Is Set As Seven-Part Limited Series For HBO

Steven Spielberg is working on a large-scale biopic of Napoleon Bonaparte as a seven-part limited series for HBO.

deadline.com

Gotta wonder if the 4-plus-hour version would address at least some of those issues.

But a Spielberg/Kubrick miniseries version for HBO would certainly be very welcome me thinks...

_Man_

 

[Malcolm R]

“I don’t know if he did that,” Mr. Scott told The Times of London. “But it was a fast way of saying he took Egypt..."

Based on the length of the film, I'm amazed that anything was done "the fast way".

 

[David_B_K]

After thinking about it overnight, my overall rating for Napoleon is a C. That means that this is the 5th Ridley Scott movie in a row that I didn't care for overall. His last really good movie from my pov was The Martian in 2015.

Napoleon covers almost 30 years of crowded history, which is just too much for one movie. Most of Lawrence of Arabia, for instance, takes places from c. 1916 to c. 1919, even though it's a full hour longer than Napoleon.

Ridley Scott's Napoleon also has inaccuracies, which is true of most historical movies, but this one seems to have more than some of the better ones. For instance:

Napoleon Didn’t Really Shoot Cannons at Egypt’s Pyramids

But scholars say that a trailer for Ridley Scott’s new film draws attention to the French emperor’s complex and lasting legacy on the study of Egypt’s cultural heritage.

www.nytimes.com

"As Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” opens for Thanksgiving holiday viewing, scenes from the film’s trailers are making waves. That was especially true of a sensational depiction of French troops led by Joaquin Phoenix as the French emperor firing cannons at the pyramids of Giza.

“I don’t know if he did that,” Mr. Scott told The Times of London. “But it was a fast way of saying he took Egypt..."


"Review by Ann Hornaday (1.5 stars)

That is really annoying about the Sphinx. And Ridley is actually wrong, Napoleon didn't actually "take" Egypt. They won some battles, but the army was marooned there after Nelson sank the French fleet at anchor. Napoleon took a ship back to France in time to take part in the coup of 18 Bruimaire, and the army stranded in Egypt was largely forgotten. The British eventually took over and the surviving French units were allowed to return to France under a truce.

The really annoying thing about ordering troops to fire on the Sphinx is that the expedition to Egypt was also a major scientific endeavor. Little was known about Egypt at the time, and a large number of scientists, historians, artists, mathematicians, etc went along to learn and catalog what they discovered. They found the Rosetta Stone on this campaign, and they knew its significance immediately.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

That is really annoying about the Sphinx. And Ridley is actually wrong, Napoleon didn't actually "take" Egypt. They won some battles, but the army was marooned there after Nelson sank the French fleet at anchor. Napoleon took a ship back to France in time to take part in the coup of 18 Bruimaire, and the army stranded in Egypt was largely forgotten. The British eventually took over and the surviving French units were allowed to return to France under a truce.

The really annoying thing about ordering troops to fire on the Sphinx is that the expedition to Egypt was also a major scientific endeavor. Little was known about Egypt at the time, and a large number of scientists, historians, artists, mathematicians, etc went along to learn and catalog what they discovered. They found the Rosetta Stone on this campaign, and they knew its significance immediately.

To be fair, at least in this shorter theatrical version, they didn't actually fire at the Sphinx, heh... And there was no battle shown in Egypt either... unless my short term memory has really deteriorated that much (or maybe I momentarily dozed off I suppose)...

_Man_

 

[Darby67]

I saw Napoleon yesterday with the family yesterday and I did not care for it all. It's a CliffNotes version of Napoleon's life with multiple historical inaccuracies, underwhelming performances from the cast, and an overall lack of vision or direction. A missed opportunity for sure and a waste of my time and money.