Napoleon (2023)

[Brian G Turner]

Could be very interesting indeed - even if Ridley Scott probably takes liberties with the history.

 

[Foxbat]

One thing about Ridley Scott - it might not be the most accurate version but it will definitely look good (and the trailer appears to confirm this).

I googled the running time and got 2 hours 38 minutes. Seems a bit short for covering - I assume - from at least 1798 (his Egyptian campaign as seen in the trailer) to 1815….or perhaps 1821 when he died.

 

[paranoid marvin]

This really needed to be a two - perhaps three parter. There are three distinct parts to Napoleon's life and career: his rise, his fall and his return. Any one of those would struggle to fit into one movie; to attempt all three, and within 150 minutes is bound to lead to massive gaps in the story.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Why does he look so old throughout? It was a significant factor in the early stages of his rise to power that so many people under-estimated him because of his youth.

 

[BAYLOR]

It looks pretty damned good.

 

[Swank]

Scott's first film is a Napoleonic era story about two army officers.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Why does he look so old throughout? It was a significant factor in the early stages of his rise to power that so many people under-estimated him because of his youth.

This is obviously part of the issue when covering a large expanse of time in one movie. Do you use more than one actor, a younger man and an older? Do you go down the de-aging CGI process?

Phoenix is actually older now than Napoleon was at the time of his death. Having said that he is a brilliant actor, and I'm prepared to suspend my disbelief when it comes to his visual representation on screen.

I still think though that 150 minutes does not do Napoleon justice.

 

[BAYLOR]

Future Oscar buzz.

 

[CupofJoe]

This is obviously part of the issue when covering a large expanse of time in one movie. Do you use more than one actor, a younger man and an older? Do you go down the de-aging CGI process?

Phoenix is actually older now than Napoleon was at the time of his death. Having said that he is a brilliant actor, and I'm prepared to suspend my disbelief when it comes to his visual representation on screen.

I still think though that 150 minutes does not do Napoleon justice.

Apparently there are another 92 minutes in the Apple+ version...

 

[Foxbat]

Seems to be getting decent reviews. The Guardian gave it five stars but Le Figaro gets my vote for most amusing criticism. Apparently, it isn’t going down well in France and the French paper said it should have been called ‘Ken and Barbie under the empire’.

 

[BAYLOR]

Seems to be getting decent reviews. The Guardian gave it five stars but Le Figaro gets my vote for most amusing criticism. Apparently, it isn’t going down well in France and the French paper said it should have been called ‘Ken and Barbie under the empire’.

Disappointing that it's not doing so well with French Critics but also , not a surprise.

 

[Foxbat]

Disappointing that it's not doing so well with French Critics but also , not a surprise.

Oddly enough, another French criticism has been that the movie is pro-British. This makes me wonder about the direction the movie takes because, let's face it, the major battles in Napoleon's heyday were against the Russians, Prussians and Austro-Hungarians. Even Waterloo was a multinational affair and not just Britain versus France. Of course, it could be argued that the Peninsular Wars, where most of the British land fighting took place, and although resulted in much smaller battles, could be seen as a slow bloodletting of French manpower. It also has to be remembered that even if Britain wanted to contribute more, it probably couldn't because within the Napoleonic Wars, it also was fighting the War Of 1812 against the USA and had to commit a lot of assets to the North American Continent.

In my opinion, Trafalgar was possibly Britain's greatest contrbution because it ultimately confined Napoleon to mainland Europe.

That all being said, I'm left wondering if either the direction the story takes is skewed or perhaps what the French critics mean is that it is to pro the other side - i.e. Prussia, Russia, Spain (to some extent), Austro-Hungary, Britain.

I suppose until we see the movie, we won't know the answer.

 

[Elckerlyc]

Based on another (half-read) review the problem seems that the movie swirls a lot around Napoleon & Josephine and that this love-story motivates Napoleon's warring and conquering life. It has little to do with historic accuracy.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Oddly enough, another French criticism has been that the movie is pro-British. This makes me wonder about the direction the movie takes because, let's face it, the major battles in Napoleon's heyday were against the Russians, Prussians and Austro-Hungarians. Even Waterloo was a multinational affair and not just Britain versus France. Of course, it could be argued that the Peninsular Wars, where most of the British land fighting took place, and although resulted in much smaller battles, could be seen as a slow bloodletting of French manpower. It also has to be remembered that even if Britain wanted to contribute more, it probably couldn't because within the Napoleonic Wars, it also was fighting the War Of 1812 against the USA and had to commit a lot of assets to the North American Continent.

In my opinion, Trafalgar was possibly Britain's greatest contrbution because it ultimately confined Napoleon to mainland Europe.

That all being said, I'm left wondering if either the direction the story takes is skewed or perhaps what the French critics mean is that it is to pro the other side - i.e. Prussia, Russia, Spain (to some extent), Austro-Hungary, Britain.

I suppose until we see the movie, we won't know the answer.

Although most of Napoleon's battles didn't involve British troops (he only ever met them in battle at Waterloo) they were the driving force behind the organisation of the opposition against him. This was in part because he could never face and defeat them in order to force them to the negotiating table.

Instead the British navy significantly hindered the French navy and used trade routes to support other European countries, hence Napoleon's Continental System designed to restrict it, and his failed invasion of Egypt to cut off British trade routes to India.

In the end the French navy was forced to remain in port, resulting in their attempted escape and destruction at Trafalgar, which as you mentioned, played a significant part in his downfall (as well as Nelson's victory at the Battle of the Nile).

Napoleon was infatuated with the British, both despising and envying them (he ultimately requested to lived in England after Waterloo), so it's no wonder that any movie about his life would be heavily influenced in that respect.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Based on another (half-read) review the problem seems that the movie swirls a lot around Napoleon & Josephine and that this love-story motivates Napoleon's warring and conquering life. It has little to do with historic accuracy.

Agreed, this is absolute nonsense. Napoleon was already a well established commander by the time he met Josephine. But whenever does reality stand in the 2ay of a good story?

Having said that Josephine meant the world to Napoleon, but the reverse does not seem to be true. Perhaps his attempts to conquer and make himself Emperor of Europe - and Josephine Empress - were designed to impress her and make her love him in the same way he loved her. Who knows?