Movies Napoleon, Directed by Ridley Scott

[Husky_Khan]

The trailer is pretty good.



Looks like it'll cover the early part of his famous life/career, from the French Revolution in 1793 but looks like there are references to Napoleon suppressing civilian rebellions with grapeshot, the Siege of Toulon perhaps, Napoleon's campaigns in Egypt (imagine how epic that massive cavalry charge at the Battle of the Pyramids would appear on film!). And of course his...crowning achievement of becoming Emperor.

Also Vanessa Kirby is a good actress. She'll do fine as Josephine.

The scene of British Squares surrounded by French Cavalry and the Battles taking place in Winter seem to indicate maybe it'll show the whole scope of his career, but there could be other explanations for that inclusion as well. Containing all of Napoleon's accomplishments into one even really long movie seems like a challenge. It really deserves a Part One and Two at least.

But those battle scenes look huge and epic... literally sweeping scenes of war and combat. Beautiful.

Coming out next Thanksgiving!

"I'm the first person to admit when I make a mistake, I simply never do."

 

[ATP]

The trailer is pretty good.



Looks like it'll cover the early part of his famous life/career, from the French Revolution in 1793 but looks like there are references to Napoleon suppressing civilian rebellions with grapeshot, the Siege of Toulon perhaps, Napoleon's campaigns in Egypt (imagine how epic that massive cavalry charge at the Battle of the Pyramids would appear on film!). And of course his...crowning achievement of becoming Emperor.

Also Vanessa Kirby is a good actress. She'll do fine as Josephine.

The scene of British Squares surrounded by French Cavalry and the Battles taking place in Winter seem to indicate maybe it'll show the whole scope of his career, but there could be other explanations for that inclusion as well. Containing all of Napoleon's accomplishments into one even really long movie seems like a challenge. It really deserves a Part One and Two at least.

But those battle scenes look huge and epic... literally sweeping scenes of war and combat. Beautiful.

Coming out next Thanksgiving!

"I'm the first person to admit when I make a mistake, I simply never do."

Winter battle seems like Wagram to me.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Winter battle seems like Wagram to me.

Maybe Eylau. Maybe Austerlitz.

Ridley Scotts historical epics tend to be pretty heavily fictionalized regardless so adding a frozen ice lake to be smashed in a winter battle when none existed seems like something he'd do for cinematic purposes.

Still makes for great movies.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Vlogging Through History did a reaction video. It's pretty short but he seems excited about it.



Reel History is going pretty detailed with their teaser trailer analysis though, offering his thoughts on a great deal of the beats in the teaser trailer.

 

[Skallagrim]

I'm sure it's going to be a big spectacle of a film, but just from what I see here, I'm bothered by the fairly ludicrous age discrepancies. The film, it seems, starts in 1793 and (from what they've said about it) is supposed to mainly focus on Napoleon's rise. Napoleon was 24 in 1793. Joaquin Phoenix is 48. That's older than Napoleon was in 1815...

And then they have Vanessa Kirby (35) as Josephine. Who was, in reality, six years older than Napoleon. As far as casting goes, she's actually about the right age, certainly if you want someone who can portray the character in a film that spans over two decades. But they should have cast an actor in his mid-thirties to play Napoleon, too. Someone you can plausibly tell us is in his mid-twenties at the start, and (with some good make-up) depict as being in his mid-forties by the end.

I think Phoenix would be a great Napoleon... in a character study about his exile on St. Helena.

 

[Husky_Khan]

One important thing to really emphasize is that I think people hoping for a "historically accurate" film are already fooling themselves. None of Ridley Scott's films have been particularly 'historically accurate' including his beloved historical epics like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (the Directors Cut of course). It'll be historical enough for cinema but I fully expect some folks to harp on this film like the entire HEMA community on YouTube apparently did in regards to The Last Duel to a degree that even kinda surprised (and annoyed) me.

I'm sure it's going to be a big spectacle of a film, but just from what I see here, I'm bothered by the fairly ludicrous age discrepancies. The film, it seems, starts in 1793 and (from what they've said about it) is supposed to mainly focus on Napoleon's rise. Napoleon was 24 in 1793. Joaquin Phoenix is 48. That's older than Napoleon was in 1815...

Might be intentional. Sony Pictures has collaborated with Marvel before and Joaquin Phoenix is a hot property. With the legal troubles that Jonathan Majors is currently in, Joaquin Phoenix... as Napoleon... as Kang the Emperor, would be a logical replacement for Phase Six of the MCU.

And then they have Vanessa Kirby (35) as Josephine. Who was, in reality, six years older than Napoleon. As far as casting goes, she's actually about the right age, certainly if you want someone who can portray the character in a film that spans over two decades. But they should have cast an actor in his mid-thirties to play Napoleon, too. Someone you can plausibly tell us is in his mid-twenties at the start, and (with some good make-up) depict as being in his mid-forties by the end.

I think Phoenix would be a great Napoleon... in a character study about his exile on St. Helena.

Yeah one of the things about Napoleon is... I guess in artwork he looks like an adult or whatever... buy kind of has a florid, round face. Almost babyfaced. But still looking old. But in the films and such he's always been portrayed by older seeming actors. And with a lot of historical figures, you get a mental image of someone... and it's usually timeless in that... it's not age appropriate. You have a visual in your mind of Napoleon, or Lincoln, or Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt and it's not when they were young. Other people have brought up the whole age thing as well I know including the actresses age. It never really occurred to me until someone mentioned it.

If the rumors/reports are true, this film will double down in that it's likely only covering the 'Rise" of Napoleon. It seems like the "Winter Battle" scene might actually be based on Napoleon's interpretation of the Battle of Austerlitz. So from 1783 through to 1805... and Austerlitz is a pretty good climax for any Rise of Napoleon story.

 

[PsihoKekec]

So they are going to cram his whole career from the siege of Toulon to Waterloo in a single movie? That's going to be crammed no matter the running time.

Maybe Eylau. Maybe Austerlitz.

The cavalry could be Eylau, shooting ice might be Austerlitz, though it's quite likely that due to limited runtime some battles got merged.

 

[Husky_Khan]

So they are going to cram his whole career from the siege of Toulon to Waterloo in a single movie? That's going to be crammed no matter the running time.

No it says its covering the RISE of Napoleon so it seems like to go from 1793 as shown in the trailer up to I'm guessing Austerlitz which is likely his most famous victory and probably the winter battle depicted in thine film.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I'm sure it's going to be a big spectacle of a film, but just from what I see here, I'm bothered by the fairly ludicrous age discrepancies. The film, it seems, starts in 1793 and (from what they've said about it) is supposed to mainly focus on Napoleon's rise. Napoleon was 24 in 1793. Joaquin Phoenix is 48. That's older than Napoleon was in 1815...

And then they have Vanessa Kirby (35) as Josephine. Who was, in reality, six years older than Napoleon. As far as casting goes, she's actually about the right age, certainly if you want someone who can portray the character in a film that spans over two decades. But they should have cast an actor in his mid-thirties to play Napoleon, too. Someone you can plausibly tell us is in his mid-twenties at the start, and (with some good make-up) depict as being in his mid-forties by the end.

I think Phoenix would be a great Napoleon... in a character study about his exile on St. Helena.

If there was any historical figure who deserved a trilogy, it was Napoleon Bonaparte. Phoenix will crush it as an older Napoleon, but he just doesn’t work as a younger Napoleon. If anything I reckon Timothy Chalamet at least has the face for a younger Bonaparte at Toulon or in Italy.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Another historian reacted to the trailer. Dude has subs in the hundreds and barely releases content so it could be a new perspective compared to more popular content creators of history.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Saw Napoleon in theaters and yeah, it actually covers his entire career from the Revolution to his exile in Saint Helena.

And just FYI the movie seems about as historically accurate as Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven so... if you have a problem with that like half of the internet, begin pounding sand now and forever until Napoleon's artillery brings the pyramids crashing down upon your heads.

The movie is good, but it's not great. I was thoroughly entertained watching it but TRAGICALLY there aren't actually that many battles. It's a full biography of Napoleon to be honest, and his eccentric personality so almost every key event covered, battles including, might take up one scene spanning only a few minutes. Sometimes years of time are skipped over. It bounces from the Revolution in France to the leadup of the Siege of Toulon. It skips the Italian Campaigns and goes to the Battle of the Pyramids. It hops from Coronation as Emperor to Austerlitz. There are time skips of like three or four years in some cases so many things are left out.

The movie itself was about two and a half hours long and despite the short battle scenes, it did hold my interest. I never felt bored or sleepy like with the even longer film I saw in theaters recently (Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon) but that was thanks to all of the political machinations and personal interactions that swirled around Napoleon on his rise to power. From his rise as a rando Coriscan Artillery Officer who really proved himself in the Siege of Toulon (which is a great sequence btw), to his ability to tell off the current Directory and rising to Co-Consul, then Emperor. Plus his diplomatic efforts and interactions with others. Tallyrand, the Foreign Minister, is probably the only other character that gets a whole lot of screentime. Lots of others are almost reduced to support background characters including many of the Marshals. I couldn't tell you which of the officers was supposed to be portraying which Marshal as example in any of the Battles. But regardless, the non-battle scenes held my interest.

The core of the film is the strange love story between Josephine and Napoleon and a few of the scenes are really awkward, but other seems of them interacting is really great. Especially so during their courtship phase. Joaquin Phoenix is a wonderful actor. Vanessa Kirby did a fine job as well, it's just her character, I dunno. Well acted but it seemed off, but then again maybe she was historically that quicky, I dunno. Good script as well, lots of good lines that upon repeated viewings will become quotable one liners. People were laughing aloud at some of that 19th century wit.

About six battles are featured, but some of them are basically just a single scene. The only ones that get some real exposure are the Siege of Toulon, the Battle of Austerlitz and the Battle of Waterloo, the last one being the longest battle sequence and it was a pretty decent battle. I felt like the scale should've felt... larger. For some reason the scope of all of the Battles, it seemed smaller then say... the battles you'd see in like the film Gettysburg for example or in Kingdom of Heaven in that you could see the whole battle onscreen so to speak. It seems like they used a lot of re-enactors as well but I don't know for sure.

The short battle scenes thusly don't really establish Napoleon's brilliance as a General. You basically just take it that he is brilliant but it never really shows in the tempo and flow of the tactics in any of the Battle scenes. Like it's kind of simplified I feel for Hollywood in like "Oh I'll ambush them from the flank which shows how brilliant I am" which is fine, just so... underwhelming.

I was really feeling it, starting with the Siege of Toulon though. I was totally rooting for Napoleon to conquer, I mean unify all of Europe under peace and crush the honoUrless British. I wanted Napoleon to march with Russia and Austria and take Constantinople... and then conquer Asia and then the Multiverse. 😭

But yeah overall, it's a good film which ironically, is mildly disappointing to be honest.

There's going to be a four hour Directors Cut apparently though, so hopefully it's just ninety minutes of battle scenes. Oddly... there is a mention in the post-credits of the Battles featured in the film and it includes mentioning Marengo which did not appear in the film at all (the Italian Campaign got only two brief mentions in the film itself) so maybe a lot of the military bits got cut out.

 

[ATP]

Saw Napoleon in theaters and yeah, it actually covers his entire career from the Revolution to his exile in Saint Helena.

And just FYI the movie seems about as historically accurate as Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven so... if you have a problem with that like half of the internet, begin pounding sand now and forever until Napoleon's artillery brings the pyramids crashing down upon your heads.

The movie is good, but it's not great. I was thoroughly entertained watching it but TRAGICALLY there aren't actually that many battles. It's a full biography of Napoleon to be honest, and his eccentric personality so almost every key event covered, battles including, might take up one scene spanning only a few minutes. Sometimes years of time are skipped over. It bounces from the Revolution in France to the leadup of the Siege of Toulon. It skips the Italian Campaigns and goes to the Battle of the Pyramids. It hops from Coronation as Emperor to Austerlitz. There are time skips of like three or four years in some cases so many things are left out.

The movie itself was about two and a half hours long and despite the short battle scenes, it did hold my interest. I never felt bored or sleepy like with the even longer film I saw in theaters recently (Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon) but that was thanks to all of the political machinations and personal interactions that swirled around Napoleon on his rise to power. From his rise as a rando Coriscan Artillery Officer who really proved himself in the Siege of Toulon (which is a great sequence btw), to his ability to tell off the current Directory and rising to Co-Consul, then Emperor. Plus his diplomatic efforts and interactions with others. Tallyrand, the Foreign Minister, is probably the only other character that gets a whole lot of screentime. Lots of others are almost reduced to support background characters including many of the Marshals. I couldn't tell you which of the officers was supposed to be portraying which Marshal as example in any of the Battles. But regardless, the non-battle scenes held my interest.

The core of the film is the strange love story between Josephine and Napoleon and a few of the scenes are really awkward, but other seems of them interacting is really great. Especially so during their courtship phase. Joaquin Phoenix is a wonderful actor. Vanessa Kirby did a fine job as well, it's just her character, I dunno. Well acted but it seemed off, but then again maybe she was historically that quicky, I dunno. Good script as well, lots of good lines that upon repeated viewings will become quotable one liners. People were laughing aloud at some of that 19th century wit.

About six battles are featured, but some of them are basically just a single scene. The only ones that get some real exposure are the Siege of Toulon, the Battle of Austerlitz and the Battle of Waterloo, the last one being the longest battle sequence and it was a pretty decent battle. I felt like the scale should've felt... larger. For some reason the scope of all of the Battles, it seemed smaller then say... the battles you'd see in like the film Gettysburg for example or in Kingdom of Heaven in that you could see the whole battle onscreen so to speak. It seems like they used a lot of re-enactors as well but I don't know for sure.

The short battle scenes thusly don't really establish Napoleon's brilliance as a General. You basically just take it that he is brilliant but it never really shows in the tempo and flow of the tactics in any of the Battle scenes. Like it's kind of simplified I feel for Hollywood in like "Oh I'll ambush them from the flank which shows how brilliant I am" which is fine, just so... underwhelming.

I was really feeling it, starting with the Siege of Toulon though. I was totally rooting for Napoleon to conquer, I mean unify all of Europe under peace and crush the honoUrless British. I wanted Napoleon to march with Russia and Austria and take Constantinople... and then conquer Asia and then the Multiverse. 😭

But yeah overall, it's a good film which ironically, is mildly disappointing to be honest.

There's going to be a four hour Directors Cut apparently though, so hopefully it's just ninety minutes of battle scenes. Oddly... there is a mention in the post-credits of the Battles featured in the film and it includes mentioning Marengo which did not appear in the film at all (the Italian Campaign got only two brief mentions in the film itself) so maybe a lot of the military bits got cut out.

He could marsh with either Austria or Russia,but never both.Becouse both wonted Constantinopole.
But yeah,pity that he lost.

 

[Poe]

Saw Napoleon in theaters and yeah, it actually covers his entire career from the Revolution to his exile in Saint Helena.

And just FYI the movie seems about as historically accurate as Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven so... if you have a problem with that like half of the internet, begin pounding sand now and forever until Napoleon's artillery brings the pyramids crashing down upon your heads.

The movie is good, but it's not great. I was thoroughly entertained watching it but TRAGICALLY there aren't actually that many battles. It's a full biography of Napoleon to be honest, and his eccentric personality so almost every key event covered, battles including, might take up one scene spanning only a few minutes. Sometimes years of time are skipped over. It bounces from the Revolution in France to the leadup of the Siege of Toulon. It skips the Italian Campaigns and goes to the Battle of the Pyramids. It hops from Coronation as Emperor to Austerlitz. There are time skips of like three or four years in some cases so many things are left out.

The movie itself was about two and a half hours long and despite the short battle scenes, it did hold my interest. I never felt bored or sleepy like with the even longer film I saw in theaters recently (Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon) but that was thanks to all of the political machinations and personal interactions that swirled around Napoleon on his rise to power. From his rise as a rando Coriscan Artillery Officer who really proved himself in the Siege of Toulon (which is a great sequence btw), to his ability to tell off the current Directory and rising to Co-Consul, then Emperor. Plus his diplomatic efforts and interactions with others. Tallyrand, the Foreign Minister, is probably the only other character that gets a whole lot of screentime. Lots of others are almost reduced to support background characters including many of the Marshals. I couldn't tell you which of the officers was supposed to be portraying which Marshal as example in any of the Battles. But regardless, the non-battle scenes held my interest.

The core of the film is the strange love story between Josephine and Napoleon and a few of the scenes are really awkward, but other seems of them interacting is really great. Especially so during their courtship phase. Joaquin Phoenix is a wonderful actor. Vanessa Kirby did a fine job as well, it's just her character, I dunno. Well acted but it seemed off, but then again maybe she was historically that quicky, I dunno. Good script as well, lots of good lines that upon repeated viewings will become quotable one liners. People were laughing aloud at some of that 19th century wit.

About six battles are featured, but some of them are basically just a single scene. The only ones that get some real exposure are the Siege of Toulon, the Battle of Austerlitz and the Battle of Waterloo, the last one being the longest battle sequence and it was a pretty decent battle. I felt like the scale should've felt... larger. For some reason the scope of all of the Battles, it seemed smaller then say... the battles you'd see in like the film Gettysburg for example or in Kingdom of Heaven in that you could see the whole battle onscreen so to speak. It seems like they used a lot of re-enactors as well but I don't know for sure.

The short battle scenes thusly don't really establish Napoleon's brilliance as a General. You basically just take it that he is brilliant but it never really shows in the tempo and flow of the tactics in any of the Battle scenes. Like it's kind of simplified I feel for Hollywood in like "Oh I'll ambush them from the flank which shows how brilliant I am" which is fine, just so... underwhelming.

I was really feeling it, starting with the Siege of Toulon though. I was totally rooting for Napoleon to conquer, I mean unify all of Europe under peace and crush the honoUrless British. I wanted Napoleon to march with Russia and Austria and take Constantinople... and then conquer Asia and then the Multiverse. 😭

But yeah overall, it's a good film which ironically, is mildly disappointing to be honest.

There's going to be a four hour Directors Cut apparently though, so hopefully it's just ninety minutes of battle scenes. Oddly... there is a mention in the post-credits of the Battles featured in the film and it includes mentioning Marengo which did not appear in the film at all (the Italian Campaign got only two brief mentions in the film itself) so maybe a lot of the military bits got cut out.

I saw it on thursday. The movie was relatively good, but they made him an extremely awkward, autistic, creep and at times it was annoying to watch.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Good news for Napoleon.

‘Napoleon’ Conquers With $79M Global Bow; ‘Wish’ Debuts To $49M WW – International Box Office

Refresh for latest…: Ridley Scott’s Napoleon has exceeded expectations with $78.8M global across the five-day opening frame, including $46.3M from the international box office. This is higher than …

deadline.com

Apparently its crushing it worldwide, and even came in second in the domestic box office this weekend (behind the new Hunger Games prequel) beating out the other big film release this weekend, Disney's generically named Wish. In fact Napoleon apparently beat out Wish in every country except China... where Napoleon isn't even playing apparently for at least a couple more weeks.

It's even doing great in France despite the whining of French critics and Academics stating that it's Francophobic or some nonsense. Ridley Scott was apparently right when he laughed off the French critics concerns and said that when he attended screenings in France the audience loved it.

Films just good, not great like I said earlier, but it's a nice sign for cinema I suppose that it's seeing success considering how far the current popular film genres like Superhero films have been dragged into the dirt quality wise. Would love to see the Historical Epics making a comeback!

 

[Captain X]

It would be nice to see something historically accurate about him, though. Seems to me most of the reason he is seen as a bad guy is because the British (and others) saw him as a threat to monarchy.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

It would be nice to see something historically accurate about him, though. Seems to me most of the reason he is seen as a bad guy is because the British (and others) saw him as a threat to monarchy.

Napoleon was just too big and ambitious for anyone’s liking at the time. That didn’t make him a monster but it did make him a danger to the rest of Europe.

The Spanish could recount long painful stories of the horror of the French occupation in their country.

 

[PsihoKekec]

And the occupation started while Spain was allied to France, with the French getting their garrisons in before imprisoning the dumbass king and heir.

To be fair he inherited the upended balance of power in Europe when he took the power from the directory. However the British would never accept a single power becoming dominant on the continent, so combination of their traditional meddling, Napoleon's ambitions and European monarchs wanting to crush the upstart/resenting being defeated by the upstart, guaranteeing the round the clock wars.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

To be fair he inherited the upended balance of power in Europe when he took the power from the directory. However the British would never accept a single power becoming dominant on the continent, so combination of their traditional meddling, Napoleon's ambitions and European monarchs wanting to crush the upstart/resenting being defeated by the upstart, guaranteeing the round the clock wars.

Given the sheer horror of the French Revolution, and that Napoleon was the living embodiment of it (not entirely his own fault. He was stuck with the Revolution’s baggage), I cannot fault the Coalitions for being twitchy around him. Especially given that he was putting his family members on thrones willy nilly.

One of the unfortunate things is, which demonstrates how Napoleon’s ego was a part of his downfall, Is that after 1812 the Coalition was willing to come to terms. The French Empire would have been diminished, but Napoleon would have kept his throne.

He refused.

Leipzig followed.

 

[ATP]

Given the sheer horror of the French Revolution, and that Napoleon was the living embodiment of it (not entirely his own fault. He was stuck with the Revolution’s baggage), I cannot fault the Coalitions for being twitchy around him. Especially given that he was putting his family members on thrones willy nilly.

One of the unfortunate things is, which demonstrates how Napoleon’s ego was a part of his downfall, Is that after 1812 the Coalition was willing to come to terms. The French Empire would have been diminished, but Napoleon would have kept his throne.

He refused.

Leipzig followed.

It is even worst.Why he go for Moscov at all? there was nothing there in 1812,capitol was in Petersburg,and Sweden was his ally.He could easily take and hold it.

Even after that,he still could survive if he listen to Poniatowski who was begging him for taking more old polish lands,and taking resources there.It could worked,too.

He lost thanks to his own mistakes.

Biggest was not finishing Prussia in 1809 - if he partitioned them between Austria,Saxony and Poland, they would never abadonn him after 1812.
Well,Poland do not abadonned him,but it do not mattered.

 

[Poe]

It is even worst.Why he go for Moscov at all? there was nothing there in 1812,capitol was in Petersburg,and Sweden was his ally.He could easily take and hold it.

Even after that,he still could survive if he listen to Poniatowski who was begging him for taking more old polish lands,and taking resources there.It could worked,too.

He lost thanks to his own mistakes.

Biggest was not finishing Prussia in 1809 - if he partitioned them between Austria,Saxony and Poland, they would never abadonn him after 1812.
Well,Poland do not abadonned him,but it do not mattered.

Moscow was a historical city with a ton of political prestige and the well from which the Russian empire poured. Taking it would be a symbol of Russias total defeat and no sane regime would continue a war after having their main city, where the levers of aristocratic power had long been seated, taken.