|
Post by Pavan on Nov 24, 2023 9:58:31 GMT
Juggles between 'good film' and 'decent content' but ultimately settles to the later. A superficial take on Napoleon. Scott slightly managed some deadpan humor and even got us a little into the central character's psyche but didn't delve into the depths to make us feel what was this famous historical figure thinking during those wars except that he mumbled "Josephine" a lot. Even in that part Phoenix and Kirby weren't allowed much to elevate their characters or the material. The battle scenes were handsomely shot and pieced together.
Enjoyable for most part but i except to be riveted by historical epics that i want to go and research the details a film might have missed and get lost into that part of history. That did not happen and i don't think i will and that's majorly the film's fault- 7/10
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Nov 24, 2023 10:48:04 GMT
The unexpected tone and humor was interesting... until the 70 minutes mark. After that I wanted to run out of the theater. Visually the set that hooked me the most was the abandoned Moscow... That and a few moments between the screwed-up lovebirds are all I'm taking from this. Don't see a reason to fawn over it's battle sequences either because a) they're never that interesting on their own come on now and b) Scott himself has directed better ones. C-tier Ridley... which means it's almost a waste of time, though still not as bad as a Hannibal or Body of Lies... but then again what is?
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 24, 2023 20:19:17 GMT
I thought this was majestic and loved this. I think it's another case of modern internet critics being plebes. I think it surpasses Blade Runner as my favorite from Ridley and it and The Holdovers are my favorite of the year, they're too different genre wise for me to really judge.
Anyway, the first thing to talk about is the visuals. An expensive movie that actually looks expensive for once. Reminded me of Barry Lyndon a lot of the time. A mix of painting-like static shots and long gorgeous tracking shots. Also kept CG to a minimum. I was under the impression there would be more because the two most prominent CG scenes were in the trailers (Pyramids and the ice sequence). If this doesn't win for PD/costumes/cinematography it's a travesty.
Phoenix is very good. I had been hoping he'd break out of his "weird guy" mold and play him more authoritatively. But the thing is I think the Ridley's idea was to play him as a neurotic eccentric so Phoenix was the perfect choice in that regard. Between he and Giamatti for my best actor pick right now, but again, totally different movies so hard to compare. Kirby is good as well, but I still wish they'd have gone with Rachel Weisz who has always been my pick for Josephine.
The emphasis is more on Napoleon's personal life than his political or military life. I liked picking one thing to focus on more instead of making it a "buffet" where you don't get anything in a big enough portion. Wouldn't surprise me if the 4 hour cut is more comprehensive in that regard.
Getting this makes me regret Kubrick's getting cancelled a bit less. I've read the script and it's better and I would have liked seeing Audrey Hepburn as Josephine, but there's no way Kubrick would have ever had this kind of budget or been able to make it as handsomely mounted as this.
I'm not sure what the criticisms even are here. The dialogue did feel a bit modern in spots but they're not speaking French anyway so why does that matter, same thing with the accents. I definitely think this one one where everyone will be talking about how great it is in ten years which seems to be the case a lot with Ridley (Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, exc)
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Nov 24, 2023 22:32:15 GMT
I'm not sure what the criticisms even are here. The dialogue did feel a bit modern in spots but they're not speaking French anyway so why does that matter, same thing with the accents. I definitely think this one one where everyone will be talking about how great it is in ten years which seems to be the case a lot with Ridley (Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, exc) Everytime I hear a super-supportive take on a new Scott release I wonder if I sat through the same thing even Anyway, my criticism towards it is that its not believable at all and it gets tiresome pretty quickly. I didn't step into this wanting to see a "glorification" of the man. It's actually interesting to see a humorous dressing down (of glory, to the point that it justifies the existence of a biopic for him) of such a character, but Scott and his screenwriter shit 10/10 on him and his lover so early on that all the "oh look how this gR8 wIsE tactician was actually a WEIRDO and his famous quotes aren't even HIS!" shtick worn out for me about an hour in... when French soldiers receive him warmly after mumbling a few words, I just don't believe it, just as I don't believe how somebody like a Josephine as portrayed here could keep seducing all these men for this long... Whenever I leave most recent Ridley Scott movies, I ask myself why he puts this much time and effort on topics he clearly has no interest in? Never mourned Kubrick's project that much either... the Able Gance version remains the definitive one.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Nov 25, 2023 0:38:56 GMT
but there's no way Kubrick would have ever had this kind of budget or been able to make it as handsomely mounted as this. Bruh...
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 25, 2023 0:57:57 GMT
I'm not sure what the criticisms even are here. The dialogue did feel a bit modern in spots but they're not speaking French anyway so why does that matter, same thing with the accents. I definitely think this one one where everyone will be talking about how great it is in ten years which seems to be the case a lot with Ridley (Blade Runner, Kingdom of Heaven, exc) when French soldiers receive him warmly after mumbling a few words, I just don't believe it, just as I don't believe how somebody like a Josephine as portrayed here could keep seducing all these men for this long In real life people say Napoleon just spread his arms out and said "Here I am, kill your emperor" so having him give an actual speech is more "believable" than what happened in real life to be honest. I don't find it plausible that common soldiers would shoot down the emperor of France who'd won all these military victories in any case, that was just a dumb way of handling it in real life. As for Josephine, Kirby is reasonably nice looking and men are horndogs, I don't think that needs any explaining. And we really only see her with the one man although obviously there were a lot more. but there's no way Kubrick would have ever had this kind of budget or been able to make it as handsomely mounted as this. Bruh... That's more a statement on the budgetary constraints Kubrick was working with than anything else. The studio was trying to pinch pennies at every corner, there was talk of having the uniforms be paper mache to save money and other things in that vein. Unfortunately Apple TV did not exist back then to give Kubrick 200 mil to do whatever he wanted.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Nov 25, 2023 1:57:08 GMT
A funnier movie than I expected and I do like the angle of making Napoleon this pathetic asshole who has a couple great battle ideas before his time inevitably passes and he makes the most boneheaded decisions ever. The movie as currently constructed has some pacing issues - I actually think the 4-hour cut in being more comprehensive could help in that regard to add to the stuff that here felt more superficial and needless - but at no point was I bored, though at no point was I really enthralled either. A solid movie that doesn't live up to its subject or the best works of its makers, but makes for a decent programmer.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 26, 2023 23:36:20 GMT
I really love that Ridley Scott basically said there were no heroes in this story and made Napoleon out to be this awkward dipshit in a sea of other awkward dipshits, and Wellington was the veritable incarnation of smugness on screen. You can absolutely tell that this is a gutted version of a longer cut, but as far as the production and performances go, I really enjoyed it. Phoenix was wobbly at the start but found his footing faster than I expected. The battle sequences show that no one does spectacle quite like Ridley Scott.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 27, 2023 0:35:01 GMT
I really love that Ridley Scott basically said there were no heroes in this story and made Napoleon out to be this awkward dipshit in a sea of other awkward dipshits, and Wellington was the veritable incarnation of smugness on screen. You can absolutely tell that this is a gutted version of a longer cut, but as far as the production and performances go, I really enjoyed it. Phoenix was wobbly at the start but found his footing faster than I expected. The battle sequences show that no one does spectacle quite like Ridley Scott. Glad someone else liked this, was feeling pretty alone out there The r/movies thread for this is such a random hateboner. it felt cohesive to me but I think the theatrical cut was very focused on Napoleon's personal life and character scenes, and as a result a lot of important historical events were glossed over or not shown. That might be something that gets more emphasis in the 4 hour cut. Reminds me a bit of a a historical version of Olivier's Hamlet adaptation where all the political machinations get cut and it's just about Hamlet as a person. Forgot to mention him in my review, but yes, whoever played Wellington did a terrific job, such a fop, had me imagining a parallel movie about him that wouldn't have been that different from this one. He was also emblematic of one of the big themes where you had all the graphic violence but then all the officers and heads of state were so polite to each other, like how he doesn't want anyone to shoot at Napoleon because it wouldn't be gentlemanly to shoot an officer or whatever but he has no problem ordering tens of thousands of regular soldiers to be cannon fodder.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 27, 2023 0:54:35 GMT
I really love that Ridley Scott basically said there were no heroes in this story and made Napoleon out to be this awkward dipshit in a sea of other awkward dipshits, and Wellington was the veritable incarnation of smugness on screen. You can absolutely tell that this is a gutted version of a longer cut, but as far as the production and performances go, I really enjoyed it. Phoenix was wobbly at the start but found his footing faster than I expected. The battle sequences show that no one does spectacle quite like Ridley Scott. Glad someone else liked this, was feeling pretty alone out there The r/movies thread for this is such a random hateboner. it felt cohesive to me but I think the theatrical cut was very focused on Napoleon's personal life and character scenes, and as a result a lot of important historical events were glossed over or not shown. That might be something that gets more emphasis in the 4 hour cut. Reminds me a bit of a a historical version of Olivier's Hamlet adaptation where all the political machinations get cut and it's just about Hamlet as a person. Forgot to mention him in my review, but yes, whoever played Wellington did a terrific job, such a fop, had me imagining a parallel movie about him that wouldn't have been that different from this one. He was also emblematic of one of the big themes where you had all the graphic violence but then all the officers and heads of state were so polite to each other, like how he doesn't want anyone to shoot at Napoleon because it wouldn't be gentlemanly to shoot an officer or whatever but he has no problem ordering tens of thousands of regular soldiers to be cannon fodder. Yeah, this film feels very much akin to Braveheart in that it's closer to an ahistorical fantasia than actual boots-on-the-ground history, but you'd think all critics had doctorates in French military history with the way they were ready to savage the movie. And to be fair, Scott wasn't doing himself any favours by talking about how historians could sod off. The historical liberties I recognized did feel like a great cinematic way to get the point across and made sense within the confines of the narrative, even if I can also acknowledge that there is a version of this same story which adheres more to the facts of the events depicted (i.e. Waterloo). Also, Wellington was played by Rupert Everett, who excels at playing these roles.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Dec 2, 2023 21:48:53 GMT
“You think you are so great because you have boats” legit might be the funniest line I’ve heard in a historical epic.
|
|
|
Post by Joaquim on Dec 2, 2023 22:06:58 GMT
“You think you are so great because you have boats” legit might be the funniest line I’ve heard in a historical epic. Now I want to go into the Hannibal movie and hear Scipio say “you think you are so great because you have elephants”
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,706
Likes: 2,129
|
Post by cherry68 on Dec 3, 2023 23:44:24 GMT
I saw it today with husband, who forced me to the theater because he likes history and he even went to Waterloo in 2015 for the historical re-enactment in the 200th anniversary of the battle. Actually he found the reenactment more accurate and even more interesting than this movie. He was disappointed to see that Jena battle, one of the highest points of Napoleon victories, was missing. Minor disappointment for the inaccurate depiction of the ages of Napoleon (shown as a man in his late 50s when he was barely 30) and Josephine (who was 6 years older than him but looked like a girl in her 20s), who both surprisingly don't age through the decades. Frankly I got bored about the love story and found very little of Napoleon 's strategic skills were properly shown in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 6, 2023 3:58:51 GMT
Movies just don’t have enough cannons. I’m glad this movie remedied that.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 6, 2023 22:04:48 GMT
Movies just don’t have enough cannons. I’m glad this movie remedied that. More insightful film criticism than any of the negative reviews for this ("He's too old and doesn't have a French accent!")
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 6, 2023 22:12:08 GMT
Movies just don’t have enough cannons. I’m glad this movie remedied that. More insightful film criticism than any of the negative reviews for this ("He's too old and doesn't have a French accent!") If you want a history lesson read a book. I don’t get complaining about historical accuracy when a movie isn’t trying to be. (Unless those inaccuracies can cause harm to living people. Which this is obviously not the case)
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Dec 7, 2023 17:41:53 GMT
Movies just don’t have enough cannons. I’m glad this movie remedied that. A drinking game where you have to take a shot everytime Napoleon covers his lil ears.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 540
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Dec 8, 2023 2:30:08 GMT
Movies just don’t have enough cannons. I’m glad this movie remedied that. A drinking game where you have to take a shot everytime Napoleon covers his lil ears. lol
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Dec 21, 2023 2:28:43 GMT
I remember seeing several reviews that described this as just a “greatest hits” highlight reel... and yep that’s pretty much what this felt like. Too rote and superficial to inspire much investment, and would have benefited from actual political-historical insight (not the same thing as wanting historical accuracy). Not sure what this movie really offers outside of nice costumes and production design... I didn’t find the battle sequences to be that engaging, the performances are just okay, it’s not as funny as I was led to believe... kind of a nothing movie tbh.
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Dec 23, 2023 13:20:24 GMT
Oh honeys, I haven't seen it but just the thought makes me cringe. I wonder what the French think of it and if they'll retaliate with a biopic of JFK with Jamel Debbouze in the lead role...
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jan 12, 2024 6:15:52 GMT
a 4-hour cut might connect more narrative dots and help the thing feel less like a bloated highlights reel sorely lacking in narrative direction and character development (especially for Josephine), but unless time machines exist nothing can repair the damage Ridley Scott did to the film in casting Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon. Setting aside the fact that he's miscast even though he is (he's as convincing a legendary French general as Henry Fonda was an aristocratic Russian bookworm in King Vidor's War and Peace), Phoenix sounds bored in almost all his line readings and presents Napoleon as an old, tired and charmless horndog. This is the least interesting Napoleon ever put to screen and spending 160 minutes with him was like being stuck on my own Saint Helena so I can't imagine what 4 hours would feel like. The performance is unsalvageable and by extension the movie, despite Scott's efforts during the battle scenes and the crafts departments putting their hearts and souls into the VFX, sound, wardrobe, and sets. These are the best costumes of Janty Yates' career and they're wasted on this excruciating picture.
|
|
Pasquale
Full Member
Posts: 540
Likes: 227
|
Post by Pasquale on Jan 12, 2024 15:13:23 GMT
The movie rocks, as is.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jan 13, 2024 2:48:33 GMT
This is as bad as people claimed it was. Wock deserves a razzie. Fiasco is the operative word. Whenever people in 30 years examine why Joaquin Phoenix crumbled into irrelevancy, this movie will be a key document. DiCaprio would never get away with something this lazy and terrible. Guy Lodge should be ready to defend this. But crickets about this utter fiasco.
|
|
|
Post by sophiefox on Jan 13, 2024 11:36:08 GMT
as far as this year's big ass biopics go, IMO...
between this and Oppie, Napoleon wins between this, Oppie and Maestro, Maestro wins between this, Oppie, Maestro and Priscilla, Priscilla wins, easily.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jan 13, 2024 12:50:16 GMT
This really should say "Based on WIKIPEDIA" in the credits.
It's great that they have a longer version somewhere (even though the writer has said that the theatrical one is better and Scott himself has referred to the latter as the director's cut) but I'm sorry, this is the movie they put out for everyone to see so this is the movie we ought to assess. Between this and Rebel Moon, this recent quasi-trend of announcing "Yeah, watch this but wait for the extended cut as well" right from the get-go is kind of annoying. Anyway, the point is that I'm not sure if I want to watch a longer iteration of this movie at all since I suspect it won't suddenly attain a sense of directorial passion that's missing from the current film. OK, to be fair, there is some passion to it but it's all confined to the battle scenes. Which are indeed incredible. Once they're over though? Nothing but filming for the sake of filming. Scott seems more hell-bent on proving he can shoot a movie on this scale this fast (scenes were shot with up to 14 cameras, don't you know!) instead of examining why he's shooting it in the first place. I'm not sure if he's ever paid less attention to stuff like scene transitions, narrative smoothness and all that - we hop along through the events of Napoleon's life like rabbits rushing to fuck with whole years passing in mere minutes. Do we actually get to know the man or understand anything about his relationships in the process? I'm not sure. But I'd be lying if I said I wasn't superficially entertained by the movie (it didn't really allow me to get bored with scenes changing so quickly). And Phoenix's portrayal turned out to be a bit more peculiar and less sleep-incuding than the trailers suggested. Plus it's all very well made and if, like me, you're able to derive some pleasure from grand production design, heaps of amazing costumes and some real neat shots, you'll have stuff to enjoy here. If the movie works, it's as an incoherent parade of terrific techs. With some great battle scenes spread across its chopped up canvas.
|
|