|
The movie was entertainingly terrible. Nobody else can reach Ridley Scott's meticulous levels of not giving a gently caress
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Blood Boils posted:See this is what I mean, this sounds like a lot of fun The movie was bad and long and boring and the battles looked like something out of a Marvel movie (although Ridley Scott insists they didn't use CGI)
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 02:16
|
|
|
This felt, bizarrely, like a completely earnest anti-Napoleon propaganda movie. Like if Napoleon was still alive right now on St. Helena and there were talks in Europe about finally allowing him back to go back to the continent, this is the movie the British Crown would commission as a part of wider campaign to counter pro-Napoleon sentiment. The amount of petty vitriol this movie has for a man dead for 200 years is impressive. Outside of the treatment of Napoleon, the movie is beautifully shot, has impeccable costuming and props, is hilariously historically inaccurate (the whole Europe, including Napoleon and his army, uses miles for distance measurement, lmao) and the angle of focusing on the romance between Josephine and Napoleon, and re-framing his entire life in that context, falls flat, because Josephine is barely a character and their chemistry is non-existent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 11:43
|
|
|
Lt. Lizard posted:the angle of focusing on the romance between Josephine and Napoleon, and re-framing his entire life in that context, falls flat, because Josephine is barely a character and their chemistry is non-existent. This is the big problem with the movie that I see, yeah. Its fatal flaw is that the characters don't have enough development. And Josephine is the top tier co star of the whole film, the various historical figures that march in and out of the vignettes are an order of magnitude worse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
toiletbrush posted:The movie was bad and long and boring and the battles looked like something out of a Marvel movie (although Ridley Scott insists they didn't use CGI) The first battle scene, where he takes the fort or whatever, was better than anything in any Marvel movie and one of the best battle scenes Scott's ever shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:The first battle scene, where he takes the fort or whatever, was better than anything in any Marvel movie and one of the best battle scenes Scott's ever shot. Best scene in the whole movie. Austerlitz isn't as good as a battle but the rout is phenomenal, while Waterloo is the weakest and just a big disappointment by comparison. It probably has something to do with being so early in the movie too, because the portrayal of Napoleon's mix of fear and adrenaline and the awkward, forced way he seems to put blinders on and will himself up the ladder, and then is immediately drawn into a clumsy brawl with the first random dude he finds, is an interesting way to handle Napoleon in battle and looks especially good when you're not yet soured on the movie as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Enjoyed it a lot, classic Ridley history. Not so much about the facts as it is about the perspective. Definitely a bit scattered but it was nothing too egregious. Battle scenes were great. Certainly got the sense this was another Kingdom of Heaven theatrical cut issue and the directors cut will flesh everything out much more
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
The screenwriter just came out the other day and said the theatrical version is better. He is also clearly an idiot though so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Unless someone was going to commission the Red Army to make another 1970 Waterloo that final battle was never going to hold up. The pedantic nerd in me did get a big laugh out of all the talk about how far away Blucher was from the battlefield only for Blucher to arrive coming from the wrong side. Outside of Boney, Josephine and Alexander I could barely tell you who anyone is in this movie because none of them have anything approaching an actual character. The only reason I recognized Ney was because he got caught up in his famous cavalry charge, I don't think they ever actually said his name. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Dec 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
I liked how Wellington had one speed and it was utter contempt for Napoleon. Everett should get an Oscar nomination.
live with fruit fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
The Battle at Lake Changjin used 70,000 extras. The idea that a Bondarchuk style movie is impossible is absurd, the money and the will are lacking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Went in knowing it wouldn't be accurate, left happy after another RS action flick.. the man knows how to make a good movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:The Battle at Lake Changjin used 70,000 extras. The idea that a Bondarchuk style movie is impossible is absurd, the money and the will are lacking. It's not impossible. It *is* impossible for modern day Hollywood, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
Napoleon *was* an intense weirdo, and I thought JP did a good job. Need to see the extended cut though. 2.5 hours was not enough time to tell this story. Edit: or better yet, should have broken it up into two or three movies GoodluckJonathan fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Dec 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:This is the big problem with the movie that I see, yeah. Its fatal flaw is that the characters don't have enough development. And Josephine is the top tier co star of the whole film, the various historical figures that march in and out of the vignettes are an order of magnitude worse. But the movie clearly isn't about them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
I disliked this movie intensely. I've been waiting for it since it was first announced and now I kind of wish it had never been made. The best way I can describe it is a series of disconnected Youtube shorts about various events in Napoleon's life as visualized by a child who knew what Napoleon looked like and nothing else. Nothing that ever happens seems the least bit important, there's no context given for anything... just a mess. The Battle of Austerlitz was mostly about Napoleon shooting hidden cannons at a lake?! Napoleon crowns himself out of nowhere and then it's never mentioned again?! One of our best actors and one of our best directors and we got this out of it. What a letdown! I feel like if you want to make history movies but don't care about history, you should... make some other kind of movie? One where you can just make up whatever poo poo you want. Like any other kind of movie except a historical biography about a man with literally 20,000 books about his life and times. Maybe one about some aliens, or something like that. Imperator Furiosa will be the superior Napoleon movie! Book it!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
Ridley Scott knows what Napoleon looked like, he's seen some if not all of the portraits - he just cast Joaquin anyways because Phoenix is so good at playing goobers
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:But the movie clearly isn't about them? They still matter, it's not like we saw two hours of Napoleon by himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
Why do they matter? Obviously the protagonist or focal character doesn't have to be on screen at all times, but the movie ain't called Wellington either
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 07:32
|
|
|
JonathonSpectre posted:I disliked this movie intensely. I've been waiting for it since it was first announced and now I kind of wish it had never been made. I only saw Napoleon because The Holdovers was effectively sold out (only crappy seats were left) and I loved it, and I'm starting to think that's the trick. It's like the "The book was better" problem and I never read the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 08:12
|
|
|
Seemed pretty obvious to me that they cast Phoenix because he looks like Caesar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 11:55
|
|
|
josh04 posted:Seemed pretty obvious to me that they cast Phoenix because he looks like Caesar. Don't you mean Commodus
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 12:28
|
|
|
live with fruit posted:It's like the "The book was better" problem and I never read the book. It's very much this. I saw it with a friend who has a passing familiarity with Napoleon and he liked it a lot. I want a meticulously researched glorious re-creation of the events leading to the coup of 18-19 Brumaire with a heavy focus on the first Italian campaign, or maybe a movie that just focuses on the War of the Third Coalition culminating in Austerlitz. There are so many great characters and stories in those events. But that is Extremely not what this is, and given the format (200$ million blockbuster designed for mass consumption) that is probably an unrealistic expectation to have. The framing of the movie, a speedrun of Napoleon's career through the lense of his intense relationship with Josephine is a reasonable artistic choice, but if you know the additional context of the events it kind of feels like getting a birds-eye view of a hurricane through a pinhole. It's frustrating. Honestly after doing a bit more reading I realize what I really need to do is see the 1927 Gants film. edit: agreed on the first battle scene being awesome - it's tied for me with the scene of Talleyrand telling the Austrian ambassador to take the peace deal lmao. Would loving love more Talleyrand. edit2: maybe if the movie is successful someone will make a well funded miniseries or something. second week box office revenue is pretty bad though so 
GoodluckJonathan fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Dec 5, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
GoodluckJonathan posted:edit2: maybe if the movie is successful someone will make a well funded miniseries or something.  https://deadline.com/2023/02/steven-spielberg-stanley-kubricks-napoleon-7-part-series-hbo-1235266372/
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Popoto posted:
If this ends up getting made I wonder what his take on the guy will be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
YaketySass posted:If this ends up getting made I wonder what his take on the guy will be. Considering most critics have bemoaned Ridley’s Napoleon as being an almost laughable 19th century British propaganda caricature, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to distant themselves from that framing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Besides Spielberg already made his story about a cuck
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 00:23
|
|
|
Some of you guys are acting like there's not already a ton of other Napoleon's on film, some of which are more nuanced or respectful (lol) of the Emperor That unremarkable miniseries from 2002 is probably your best bet for something more "fair" or comprehensive
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3eyeO0R94 I found Ridley Scott's inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:Some of you guys are acting like there's not already a ton of other Napoleon's on film, some of which are more nuanced or respectful (lol) of the Emperor Napoleon is definitely the kind of historical figure who's been represented enough that interpretations can start being made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Popoto posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Popoto posted:
Don't you dare to give me hope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 10:31
|
|
|
Arc Hammer posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt3eyeO0R94 If you're on the fence about seeing Napoleon, here's a good summary
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
I'm glad someone else picked up on what feels like a 'succulent Chinese meal' joke. Felt like a pretty uneven, weirdly paced and dull three hours with lots of people in fancy outfits standing around staring like goobers. Some of the battle scenes were fun at least. Weird that they saved the worst for last though, Waterloo reminds me of Episode 1's finale with less tactical sense while fighting on the Windows XP default background.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 12:18
|
|
|
mememe mememememememe mememememe *opopopopop*
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Saw this a few weeks back in the cinema, the boats line was good, and Toulon was good. Toulon actually feels like a movie, there's things happening and lots of stuff at work there. The rest of the movie is brave, because the one thing I didn't expect Ridley Scott to do is a Seinfeldian movie about nothing, starring Napoleon. I was entertained but the movie has no depth whatsoever, and the tone is frequently off in a strange manner where I can't really even guess if I'm supposed to be amused or take this poo poo seriously. It did reinforce my belief in that Scott has lost what he used to have, and in his old age he's just coasting on his earlier career successes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
I don't think this worked as a black comedy or as a drama. I'm not even sure what the dramatic stakes were supposed to be for most of the movie. The battle scenes looked cool but outside of the first one there was no tension at all. The statecraft/empire building that was going on happened almost entirely offscreen so as someone who only knows the broad strokes of his life I learned none of the details. We know he loses at Waterloo, so pointing at it on a big map with dramatic music happening was just insultingly stupid filmmaking. The pacing was so weird that there was no buildup to his defeat. His character was so poorly defined that I was never sure whether his men hated him or had the most undying loyalty in history unless the scene directly told you how they felt. On a technical level a lot of it was pretty good, but he does so many outside shots with this color filter/color grading technique that I hate that makes everything murky. It was in The Last Duel as well and I think it made it look like poo poo. Looking at Ridley's filmography and I've seen the bulk of it but I think I only really like The Duellists, Blade Runner, Alien and Thelma & Louise. Legend looks cool and Gladiator may have been ruined for me by how many times I've had to watch it. His output for the last 25 years has been very poor in my estimation. It's funny that with the and The Duellists he has tried to make his own Barry Lyndon twice but somehow is more inept at handling it as an experienced director than a first time one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Last Duel looked amazing, turn your monitor on etc
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
I'm just grabbing frames from Youtube here but these are good examples of why I don't like The Last Duel and Napoleon's approach to a lot of the outdoor / low light cinematography. https://imgur.com/J8mTLqP There are a lot of shots like this with an extremely bright background and dimly lit foreground. Combined with a moving camera and an in my opinion ugly and tacky blue filter the image becomes very murky and ill defined. And this is for a very simple establishing shot. https://imgur.com/JdgMloB Then you also have these low light shots where it looks like you just upped the aperture or the ISO on your digital camera so everything is washed out. With the same blue filter. There were shots in Napoleon where they would show the sky and it would just be a blue filter and a blown out super bright sun. Ugly. I think in general digital cinematography defaults to bad but it's worse when you're shooting fast and with multiple cameras as I've read he does. He seems old and lazy when it comes to things other than just getting the movie done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Blood Boils posted:Last Duel looked amazing, turn your monitor on etc Despite, not because of the colouring choices. Everything looked like it was a gloomy evening all the time. Is that just the standard filter for 'olden times' now, like yellow for the global south?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2023 10:31
|
|