Napoleon. Ridley Scott (1 Viewer)

jazzeum said:
From the couple of reviews I’ve read the movie operates on two tracks, his rise to and fall from power and his relationship with Josephine. Very few war movies will satisfy people on this forum because they expect movies to be faithful to the historical record (which they are often not) and, overall, they’re less than interested in love stories.
Click to expand...

I have zero interest in love stories.

I'm shocked there was no love angle worked into Saving Private Ryan.

The thing is, it's a movie about Napoleon, not the Napoleonic War, big difference, so it is what it is.
 
It's getting killed in the usual places, ie, wargaming message boards.

One of the ones I'm on has a Napoleonic war section; you are only allowed to post if you have a pipe, smoking jacket, Ascot and a hound at your feet.

One guy wrote; "The battle scenes were awful, poorly choreographed, no real napoleonic battle tactics, Cossacks has what looked like carriage less mortars instead of licornes"

WHAT?!?!?.........no licornes?!?!?!..........

That's it; I'm out.

AGAIN; it's a movie about Napoleon, not a two and half hour battle scene.

If you want that, fire up "Waterloo"..........at least the Russian version of War and Peace had a huge Borodino scene.......but wargamers found all sorts of flaws with that too..........

I give up.
 
Love story? I was being kind. After all there seemed to be more pounding in the bedroom (multiple scenes) than the battlefield.

George is right about why we go to see Napoleon's story on the big screen. This picture IMO doesn't do it for me. I'm no prude, I've been around. This is a good movie not to bring the little ones to.

Rod Steiger's portrayal of Napoleon was far superior and the movie was too.
 
Warrior said:
I have zero interest in love stories.

I'm shocked there was no love angle worked into Saving Private Ryan.

The thing is, it's a movie about Napoleon, not the Napoleonic War, big difference, so it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Knowing you as I do, I wouldn’t expect a different reaction.
 
Terp152 said:
The Forum has spoken and I'm not going. {sm2}
Click to expand...

I don’t know if you get Apple TV but once it ends its theatrical run it’s going to be on there. You could subscribe for one month for $9.99 and then terminate. Cheaper than going to the theatre.
 
Not interested in the Napoleonic era so no interest for me.
Mark
 
jazzeum said:
I don’t know if you get Apple TV but once it ends its theatrical run it’s going to be on there. You could subscribe for one month for $9.99 and then terminate. Cheaper than going to the theatre.
Click to expand...
Thanks May give it a try.
 
Went to see this film yesterday with my wife. I was aware that the well trailed historically inaccurate elements would annoy me but was willing to go and hopefully enjoy the the epic scenes and storyline. After seeing it:- boring, a bad film are the main reactions. Not a stance I would have predicted. I've liked a number ofRidley Scott films, The Duellists is one of my favourite films. Parking to some extent the inaccurate elements, the film was not for me gripping, poor continuity, was Napoleon left or right handed. The sudden jumps in the time frame e.g. Russian campaign is coming to an end the it is abdication time.
Maybe we were given an earlier warning about Ridley Scott's approach to historical accuracy a film about Robin Hood in 2010.
Went for an excellent dinner out wit wife afterwards, so all ended well.
Douglas
scott-1-jpg.480510
 
A friend of mine who's a wargamer went and saw it, he sent me this;

"[FONT=&quot]At Waterloo the British and French were dug in with no Farmhouses to be seen. When the French cavalry attack comes it is not Marshall Ney but Napoleon himself leading the charge- the English order their men out of the breastworks to form square to receive the Cavalry. Old guard in shakos marched forward as a British rifleman with a scope rifle shoots a ball through Napoleons hat while he retreats. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Shame it was made this way."

Is Ridley Scott ****ting me or what? Troops dug in behind breastworks at Waterloo? Napoleon leading a charge?

He also said he led another charge during the Russian campaign/Borodino.

I won't waste my time or money seeing it.

What a massive fail.[/FONT]
 
You might find this post from Civil War Memory about movies vs history interesting.

https://open.substack.com/pub/kevinmlevin/p/historians-hollywood-movies-and-ridley?r=b9oem&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

In addition, Andrew Roberts who wrote a very good biography of Napoleon (not to mention the best one volume bio of Churchill) said this on Twitter with regard to his upcoming documentary on Napoleon: “It presents a very different Napoleon than the hopeless, childish, underperforming twerp portrayed in the Ridley Scott movie.”

Since I already subscribe to Apple TV, I will wait to see it there, rather than in the theatre.
 
Based on recent forum comments I won't waste my time and money seeing the film at the cinema, not even sure I'll pursue an Apple tv subscription.

Ridley Scott does have a history of concentrating on pc issues such as strong female characters, and it sounds like the film has gone that way, and very disappointing to hear about the battle inaccuracies.
 
Warrior said:
A friend of mine who's a wargamer went and saw it, he sent me this;

"At Waterloo the British and French were dug in with no Farmhouses to be seen. When the French cavalry attack comes it is not Marshall Ney but Napoleon himself leading the charge- the English order their men out of the breastworks to form square to receive the Cavalry. Old guard in shakos marched forward as a British rifleman with a scope rifle shoots a ball through Napoleons hat while he retreats.

Shame it was made this way."

Is Ridley Scott ****ting me or what? Troops dug in behind breastworks at Waterloo? Napoleon leading a charge?

He also said he led another charge during the

I won't waste my time or money seeing it.

What a massive fail.
Click to expand...

May watch a few battle scenes on YouTube but that's about it.
 
I thought this crack was pretty good on another message board;

"T[FONT=&quot]he battle of Waterloo with all its flags and trenches looked like a cross between the Somme and the crowd at main stage at Glastonbury."[/FONT]
 
Saw Napoleon. It is very difficult to tell Napoleon’s story in one movie. Simply not enough time. The relationship with Josephine was more than I would have liked. I would, surprise surprise, prefer more of the inter nation politics and campaigns and battles. Even if done with narrative and some graphics of maps etc.


However Napoleon and Josephine is one of the most famous pairings of history. I dont claim to know the details of their relationship but perhaps the producers were paying more attention to that story line to make it more of a love story to appeal to the female audience.


As with many historical movies there are a number of issues that can be cherry picked for accuracy. One a historian has mentioned is the first scene that depicts Napoleon being present when Marie Antoinette was guillotined. The historian says he was not there. Who cares as the guillotine is the iconic image of the French Revolution. As I write there is a Daily Mail article about the ages of the actors in relation to Nap and Joe (in real life she was older than Nap but Pheonix is older than actress Kirby). This in my mind is petty nittpicking for the sake of it and for writing review articles.


The Austerlitz and Waterloo battles were well done but would have liked some more action in Egypt. More Mamelukes !

The filming in natural light was an issue as it did not give us the opportunity to really enjoy the many great uniforms.


Whilst there were obviously some issues in relation to accuracy there was one that was glaring to me. That was having Napoleon leading cavalry charges at Borodino and Waterloo. Not needed. No problem with him in action as a Captain at Toulon but not during those major battles involving tens of thousands on both sides.


I think the movie has to be looked at from the aspect of somebody with limited knowledge of Napoleon and that 20 years span. I would think the majority would not know much of the history and as a result might enjoy it more than those who know a bit more. As with most historical / war movies I always want them to do well as this ensures more will be made.

I guess the critics will also have fun with a planned Netflix movie featuring Denzel Washington as Hannibal (the Carthaginian, not the cannibal).

 
I've seen some statues of Hannibal, definitely has a Bronzey complexion ^&grin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top