Napoleon (2023) (2 Viewers)

[jayembee]

Like the rest of France, I couldn’t wait for Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. Then I actually saw it | Agnès Poirier

I took my seat expecting a masterful take on French history. Instead, we got an industrial-grade sex-and-battles disaster, says critic and writer Agnès Poirier

www.theguardian.com

 

[titch]

Actually, I enjoyed Napoleon tremendously - having gone expecting to be underwhelmed. But I found it funny and exceptionally well-made, even though it was definitely missing an hour and a half. It probably helped to see it on an absolutely gigantic screen, with a sound system that thundered away with the cannons. I didn't mind about the historical inaccuracies - I was entertained. I think the narrative was good - has anyone tried to plow through Napoleon's Wikipedia page and attempted a screenplay from that? It's been a long time since I can say that I was entertained by a Ridley Scott movie. Comparing it to Martin Scorsese's latest, which apparently cost roughly the same amount to make and was even longer: I'm looking forward to seeing a longer version of Napoleon in future, whereas I felt Killers of the Flower Moon was far too long. I know they are two completely different genres, but still. Much has been made of Jack Fisk's production design for the Scorsese picture, but Napoleon's production design was amazing. Even though you just know there is loads of CGI used, it's really well done and certainly doesn't detract from the amazing battle scenes. The set designs and interiors were also fabulous. I kept thinking of Kubrick.

Oh - and one more tiny thing: I really liked that Napoleon actually had title credits at the start! I'm so tired of films that just start after the production logos, without a credit sequence! Remember the Scorsese films with Saul and Elaine Bass titles? Goodfellas, Cape Fear, The Age of Innocence, and Casino?

Sir Ridley Scott will be 86 in three days' time - how the hell does he do it?

 

[Edwin-S]

Another one to wait for on streaming.

 

[Ross Gowland]

I thought it was very good indeed. If you're going to see it, see it on a huge 4K screen. It will be severely diminished being shrunk to TV size.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I thought it was very good indeed. If you're going to see it, see it on a huge 4K screen. It will be severely diminished being shrunk to TV size.

That's why you need a sizable FP setup -- I'm hoping to bump mine up from 120 to 135" (or possibly bigger) next summer...

_Man_

 

[YANG]

just walk out of cinema with a lucky pick of sweet spot. presentation quality is kind of on the top, with modern historic epic flicks. this will qualify to serve as demo or setup reference material if it comes to physical disc release. the night attack scene especially... a test to ur display settings as well as sound!

 

[Wayne_j]

I finally saw this today and I agree with those who said that this film covers too much material for a 2 and a half hour movie. Apparently the Apple TV+ version is 4+ hour long. I also think that this could have worked as a Game of Thrones style series.

 

[SamT]

Just saw this. This was so bad and disappointing. Didn't feel anything. 5/10.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Streaming for subscribers on Apple TV+ beginning March 1.

‘Napoleon’ Sets Apple TV+ Streaming Release Date

Ridley Scott's Napoleon, starring Joaquin Phoenix as the notorious military commander, will begin streaming on March 1.

variety.com

 

[Robert Saccone]

Streaming for subscribers on Apple TV+ beginning March 1.

‘Napoleon’ Sets Apple TV+ Streaming Release Date

Ridley Scott's Napoleon, starring Joaquin Phoenix as the notorious military commander, will begin streaming on March 1.

variety.com

Finally!

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

But will that actually be the 4-hour version? I wouldn't wanna bother if it's just the theatrical version...

_Man_

 

[SamT]

I doubt the 4 hours will change this.

 

[jayembee]

But will that actually be the 4-hour version? I wouldn't wanna bother if it's just the theatrical version...

_Man_

Everything I've seen on-line suggests that it's the theatrical version. Whether the extended version will follow later is anyone's guess.

 

[MartinP.]

I don't think there's ever been a really good movie about Napoleon. IMO.

If anyone wants to mention Abel Gance's silent version as great, maybe for technical innovations, but I found it very tedious...I saw it in the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles once with a full orchestra a great many years ago. A place that holds over 6,000 people. The film can have different running times up to 5 1/2 hrs.; I don't recall the length at that screening, except it felt longer than that. Heh!

 

[David_B_K]

I don't think there's ever been a really good movie about Napoleon. IMO.

If anyone wants to mention Abel Gance's silent version as great, maybe for technical innovations, but I found it very tedious...I saw it in the Shrine Auditorium in Los Angeles with a full orchestra a great many years ago. It holds over 6,000 people...I recall it was packed, but I can't say how many were there, but it was advertised as sold out at some point.

Abel Gance's Napoleon is not so much about Napoleon as it is a fantasy inspired by the legend of Napoleon. I still enjoy it. In spite of its flights of fancy, Some of the scenes feel as if they were actually filmed in the 18th century.

I think Sergei Bondarchuk's Waterloo is very good, aside from a poorly written opening scene which tries to cram in too much exposition. The battle scenes are among the most epic ever filmed, and Rod Steiger as Napoleon and Christopher Plummer as Wellington are both great (IMO). One reason it succeeds, IMO is that the movie is about only one campaign and the battle of wits of its two main protagonists. It did not try to cover too much ground, unlike the Scott version. The basic plot is "will Napoleon succeed in regaining power or will Wellington and the allies stop him?" They actually manage to generate some suspense, and the back and forth viewpoint makes the viewer side with each protagonist at different points. The only weak thing about it is that simply being the story of the Waterloo campaign may not be of interest to some viewers (like my wife). I find it similar to other movies that concentrated on one battle, like The Longest Day or Zulu.

Ridley Scott apparently chose as his main plot of his film something along the lines of "the story of a man who conquered most of Europe in an attempt to win the heart of the woman he loved" (at least that is how it sounds to me from reviews; I still have not seen it). Anyone who has read a fairly in depth biography of Napoleon knows this was not the focus of his life. While he was madly in love with Josephine in the early days of their marriage, his ardor cooled when her affairs became public knowledge and he took a series of mistresses. I have also read on the interwebs that the longer version will mainly consist of more Napoleon & Josephine scenes. I am waiting for it to be streamable for free on AppleTV+.

A good TV program on Napoleon is Napoleon and Love from the mid-1970's. This 9 episode series focuses on a different wife or mistress in each episode. There is still a lot of history throughout the series, but as it is studio bound, the battles are only referred to and not shown. A great cast included Ian Holm as Napoleon, Billie Whitelaw as Josephine, and a host of other great British actors and actresses of the era.

 

[Greg Krewet]

Napoleon is scheduled to be free on March 3 on AppleTV. However it does not state if it’s the theatrical version or an extended version.

 

[trajan007]

Any word of a 4K release? Saw this on the largest screen in Michigan . WOW! and the sound blew you out of your seat. Where is the Oscar nomination for sound?

 

[David_B_K]

I watched this over the weekend. Waste of time, IMO. It was eventually so boring it was a struggle to get to the slowly-paced end. In spite of the spectacle we see in the trailer, it was really not for the most part very epic. The battle scenes in the second half looked low-budget - at Waterloo they frequently show Napoleon or Wellington with a smallish group of officers and men, and there are some CGI shots from such a height that they may as well be figures in a video game. Most of the exterior scenes in the second half are shot during overcast, drizzly looking days. Was it really that overcast when they filmed, or was it an effort to hide the dwindling forces that were showing onscreen? A few scenes are impressive, such as the coronation scene which looks just like David's painting. The tiny Egypt sequence looked good (at least it was shot during sunshine), but nothing happens there aside from the French incongruously shooting the top off one of the pyramids.

I saw no point in Scott even making this movie. It basically is presented as the story of an inarticulate jerk who only wanted to hump his wife at every opportunity. Josephine is practically the star of the film. None of Napoleon's achievements are covered. It is as if Scott and his writer approached it as "well, his achievements were military, and are those really achievements?'

The "battle of Austerlitz" is really laughable. Scott depicts it as taking place in a white snowy landscape (again at twilight time), with many of Napoleon's troops hiding under white tarps, which they jump out of and surprise the hapless Russians who run headlong over a frozen pond fall in to their deaths as the French bombard the ice ("it's a trap!"). This battle was actually fought on a sunny day and the ground was not covered in snow. Napoleon did use some clever deceptions to goad the Russians & Austrians into attacking a force that they believed to be much smaller than it was. At the end of the battle, some fleeing Russians did attempt to escape over some frozen ponds, and some drowned, but the idea that a major Napoleonic battle would consist of the silly trickery Scott shows is absurd. It might have been a good trick to pull off with small forces in an episode of Daniel Boone, but that is about it.

Phoenix was badly miscast, IMO. He looked every bit of his years, especially when playing a Bonaparte in his twenties. Bonaparte was so thin he appeared undernourished as a young man, but Phoenix looks a bit stout in the role. He basically looks like the Napoleon of 1815. He has no charisma in the role. Because none of his great victories are portrayed, there is little opportunity for Phoenix to dazzle. He speaks lowly in a hoarse voice that is almost a whisper and comes of as simply childish and unintelligent. His facial features are good for Napoleon, but the time for him to play the part is long past.

I have no interest in a longer version of this movie, which allegedly is mainly more about the Napoleon and Josephine plot, which will probably feature even more humping (she could scarcely bend over in this movie without being rogered from behind by the amorous Corsican). A good approach to the film would have been along the lines of Charles Foster Kane's story arc, showing a brilliant and impressive young man who succeeds in everything and reaches great heights, only to brought down by his own hubris and then dying alone. We are dazzled by Kane and disappointed by him when he betrays his principles. The Napoleon of this film is never shown in a positive light, so his decline and fall are unimpressive.

 

[JoeStemme]

When the pre-release buzz is about how a 149 minute theatrical release is just the teaser for a four-hour streaming cut, one can't help but be wary going in. Unfortunately, that wariness is mostly warranted in this “shortened” version of Ridley Scott's take on the life of the famed French emperor. (to be honest, flags are raised whenever a filmmaker pre-defends his movie by saying: Wait for the director's cut)

Regardless of what was left on the cutting room floor, Scott's movie does have a genuine epic feel. Production Designer Arthur Max (GLADIATOR, SE7EN) has done some splendid work here and Dariusz Wolki's camerawork ably captures it all in its big screen splendor (the movie was nominated for three tech Oscars). Scott stages the battle scenes quite impressively, including the Waterloo sequence.

Unfortunately, Scott never quite gets a handle on the movie's tone nor focus. Vanessa Kirby brings an insouciant liveliness to her Josephine. She immediately captures not only Napolean's (Joaquin Phoenix) eye, but, when the film allows her to, the attention of the audience. The big issue here is to what to make of Phoenix' performance. When he isn't glowering, he tries to inject humor into the fairly staid period piece. There are fragments of comedy that land, but it's never consistent. Virtually none of the other characters show much wit outside of Josephine (before she's shunted aside). Phoenix' acting exists in its own plane too much of the time. It's as if Scott allowed him to do “one more take, but funny this time” - and then left them all in this edit. David Scarpa's screenplay isn't consistently witty and Scott has a leaden comedy touch. Further, there is nothing in the overall design of the story that leads one to believe that was the intended approach - Phoenix is on his own island as it were. More damning is that Phoenix' Napoleon never shows the kind of magnetism nor leadership that leads one to believe he would rise to the top of the French government.

When the movie is about Josephine and Napoleon's relationship, it has a certain dramatic pull, largely guided by Kirby's fine characterization. Napoleon's other affairs lack any sense of intimacy by comparison. Sadly, this edit keeps Josephine off-camera for much of the last act. For the record, Scarpa says he prefers the theatrical cut to the longer version that will be streaming later.

NAPOLEON is a mixed bag. It's thrilling to see a true big screen saga with a generous budget about a subject of importance (as Scott achieved with GLADIATOR). Kirby and much of the cast is solid, but there's a void in the story-telling that is unlikely to be filled by just adding more minutes to the run-time.