Ridley Scott wants to vandalize history again (Napoleon)

[Pinarius]

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

They portray him in a pathetic, "simpy" feeble way with Josephine, everything was in relation to her ( He was nothing without her, its actually a dialogue line in the movie)... never mind that Napoleon had mistresses and even had children with other women. At some point he even considered a divorce, but chooses not to for propaganda purposes.

I got cucked, I'm a simp... time to kill 5 million people.

Honestly overall, i could overlook liberties regarding some Historical accuracies ( Ridley Scott was never known to be that caring with it), if only the movie was entertaining and engaging, but it isnt. I went on and rewatch the 1970 waterloo movie of Sergei Bondarchuk, with Christopher Plumber, an Orson Wells, and Rod Steiger.. Its probably the best Napoleon movie there is, and its just about one battle...

Yeah this movie was garbage. The end of history, the end of society, the end of culture, this is the end.

[mishkin]

I
Yeah this movie was garbage. The end of history, the end of society, the end of culture, this is the end.

The possibility that this comment isn't a joke is terrifying.

[Roma_Victrix]

True facts: Napoleon invaded Egypt so he could fire cannonballs at the Pyramids of Giza.

LOL. I'm definitely not going to watch this film, not even for free.
Not sure why some of you guys tortured yourselves and spent money buying tickets to a theater to do so!

I'll definitely skip out on Gladiator II as well, cuz there's no way Scott can make a decent film anymore (not that Gladiator was historically accurate, but at least it was coherent). Might watch that for free on streaming service years from now if it gets lukewarm mixed reviews, but Napoleon? No way, not wasting my time.

[mishkin]

LOL. I'm definitely not going to watch this film, not even for free.

I have heard that there is a version of more than four hours. Jokes aside, as soon as it's available at home I'll watch it. It is impossible that, as a movie, it is as bad as some say.

Edit: Checking Scott's filmography, nothing really great after Blade Runner. And I prefer not to see it again just in case

[Kyriakos]

Best historical movie about Rome is Cyclops.
Because the rise of Cyclops is the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Knight of Heaven]

Best historical movie about Rome is Cyclops.
Because the rise of Cyclops is the fall of the Roman Empire.

[Roma_Victrix]

Oh fine! The Japanese toilet movie reigns supreme. LOL.

The Cyclops one is a close second, though, come on!

Somehow better than new Ridley Scott movies. At least they don't take themselves seriously as somewhat accurate/authentic representations of the past.

[Kyriakos]

It's beautiful ^^

[Roma_Victrix]

That Cyclops is a menace! Somebody stop him! There's only one man for the job: Ridley Scott. Quick, Ridley! Bore him to death with your inane plot points and meanderings about Empress Josephine! The rise of Ridley is the fall of the Cyclops.

[Kyriakos]

By the look on your face, patrician, I can tell that bad movie news spread fast

[Ukiah]

[mishkin]

It's not a good movie. Of course impressive production and cinematography, some spectacular scenes, good performances...

I care very little about historical rigor when I go watch a movie (eg I don't give a ### if I see a samurai from feudal Japan using a colt as long as the movie is good), and clearly the objective of the film is not to give a history lesson, it is to make a portrait of Napoleon's personality, and I don't see anything absurd or ridiculous in the description that is made. Many comments that have been made here about it are things said by people who obviously did not see the movie. Furthermore, the description is perfectly plausible and does not contradict his actions at all.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

I care very little about historical rigor when I go watch a movie (eg I don't give a ### if I see a samurai from feudal Japan using a colt as long as the movie is good), and clearly the objective of the film is not to give a history lesson, it is to make a portrait of Napoleon's personality, and I don't see anything absurd or ridiculous in the description that is made. Many comments that have been made here about it are things said by people who obviously did not see the movie. Furthermore, the description is perfectly plausible and does not contradict his actions at all.

I'm curious whether Joaquin Phoenix researched Napoleon to any depth for the role or whether he just put his own spin on the portrayal? I saw the movie and only have Rod Steiger's 1970 rendition to compare it with?
Steiger certainly put a lot of emotion into his version of the man.


.........

It is kind of both for me. I don't think he is the right actor for the job. Who is I don't know... I guess Rod Steiger.

But I don't really like Joaquin much either. I think he did a decent job at portraying a psychotic in Gladiator. But he was overacting way too much. So it was kind of average and obviously not an accurate depiction of Commodus.

I honestly can't think of a performance of his other than Gladiator which I actually thought was really that good or praiseworthy. Like I said I didn't like the Joker. Maybe Her? But definitely not Signs.

But then again did Steiger do any in-depth research, or did he wing it? I didn't notice much difference between his Napoleon and when he played the Italian Mobster on Columbo.. ........Columbo Part II

Did anyone actually watch the movie?

I did, is ite. I coulda done without the repeated "Making Bacon" skits that represented the romantic segments of this Epic Blockbuster. Now if the British guy from the Patriot mentioned earlier had starred in this ......

well.... I woulda given it a five-star rating at least. He recently starred once again as a Captain/Major of the British Dragoons in a revolutionary war era mini-series; The name of it escapes me atm. His portrayal in it was inspiring. His character was an absolute monster. Yet again. Even given that you had to be totally sympathetic for him when he met his end.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm curious whether Joaquin Phoenix researched Napoleon to any depth for the role or whether he just put his own spin on the portrayal? I saw the movie and only have Rod Steiger's 1970 rendition to compare it with?
Steiger certainly put a lot of emotion into his version of the man.

Rod Steiger probably just acted like an Italian mobster. He does that in like every movie. All he needs to do is act a little rude, have confidence, a lot of sarcasm, and order people around. Basically a hack for acting like the stereotypical charismatic leader who may or may not be a villain.

[Ishan]

I was so disappointed with this. Such a missed opportunity. I mean the historical accuracy of Kingdom of Heaven was crappy as well but Ridley Scott have created a cinematic masterpiece from it and movies like Gladiator which are still worth a rewatch even today.
Joaquin Phoenix also seems to have not put any real effort into it.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Yes. Forget history. This movie was just plain garbage.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Is that the Japanese anime about Roman bath houses?

To be fair some of the actors are Asian but they actually state that they don't look Asian. So the Asian actors here are stand ins for what are supposed to be actual Romans, most of the Asian actors are displaced by time travel. Like the actors are Asian but we are supposed to pretend that they are not Asian in this movie.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

LOL. I'm definitely not going to watch this film, not even for free.
Not sure why some of you guys tortured yourselves and spent money buying tickets to a theater to do so!

Was curious but wanted a reason to complain as well.

I'll definitely skip out on Gladiator II as well, cuz there's no way Scott can make a decent film anymore (not that Gladiator was historically accurate, but at least it was coherent). Might watch that for free on streaming service years from now if it gets lukewarm mixed reviews, but Napoleon? No way, not wasting my time.

OH MY GOD... I forgot that Gladiator 2 is going to be a thing.

Man Ridley Scott just destroying himself in real time. What the heck happened to this guy?

[Kyriakos]

Was curious but wanted a reason to complain as well.



OH MY GOD... I forgot that Gladiator 2 is going to be a thing.

Man Ridley Scott just destroying himself in real time. What the heck happened to this guy?

Are you not entertained?