I hope the additional hour and a half in the 4 hour cut covers Napoleon's excellent adventure in San Dimas California 😋

Napoleon was not a "petulant" person. Napoleon's characterization in this movie is slightly Anglo-centric and cartoonish.

The historical inaccuracies are so numbered and so glaring in this film, it can't be ignored. It's a movie, not a documentary I get it, but some historicity should be maintained in a film. This type of thing can influence generations and their understanding of historical figures.

I think Ridley Scott was just looking for an excuse to film someone wearing that hat; he got a little carried away.

He looks SO old though..... even if you count "battle fatigue" wear & tear, JP looks much older than 51, let alone the early 20s that the character is supposedly in the timeframe depicted.

The interesting thing is that it seems that it was Ridley that didn't want to make the theatrical version longer than 2.5 hours, but that seems to have handicapped the film as the film seems disjointed & obviously edited down a lot in a strange way in some places, looking forward for the 4-hour version. I agree the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven is great, totally underrated.

I really appreciate the heads up regarding the horses! Especially when it's sudden. Thank you!

What I love about your reviews is that despite the positive review, I now know I will absolutely not like this movie

Thank you Alonso and Christy for the review. 🍧

Bore and peace is what this movie was !!!

Did they include the part when he danced to Jamiroquai in a *VOTE FOR PEDRO* t-shirt? Or is that in the 4-hour cut?

"... the European establishment resented him was he wasn't one of them. He wasn't an aristocrat..." The truth is France beheaded their monarchs & gave the people power. Every monarch in Europe suddenly felt they were next. Europe banded together to return France to a monarchy. They had to defeat Napoleon.

I’m looking forward to seeing it but I’m a little disappointed it wasn’t shot on film. Oppenheimer has spoiled me.

Pony blown-apart is hilarious and clever!😂

I will be seeing this in highest quality format on Friday, but I have a feeling I'll enjoy the four-hour cut more. For historical epics, I find that my ability to fully enjoy them is maybe 40% dependent on how much I know about the historical figures and events being portrayed. Some movies are better than others at deftly letting you know all you need to know about a character or event in just a sentence or image, but generally, I find that pausing the film and doing a quick bit of research sets up the story for greater impact. Does this ruin the flow of a movie? in its purest form, sure, but like with Oppenheimer, I wish I'd known all the big events in better detail ahead of time.

As a real history buff, I just get sooooo excited to actually see history reenacted on the big screen and will absolutely see both 'cause 2h40min doesn't sound nearly long enough to me!! AND I shall eagerly await the day they have a special cinema showing of the long version too!! As you can imagine, it is causing quite a stir here in France and getting lots of anticipatory attention!! Only one more day to go!!! (new movies come out on Wednesdays here)

This of course will likely be different, but I remember one battle scene in The Patriot where they shot a cannon and the ball bounced through the crowd of people. Can't wait to see this!

Hey Guy love hearing your thought question in this theatrical cut did you think it could have benefited with some voice over to fill in the gaps of the movies anyway love hearing form you both. I will see it with my parents for thanksgiving it was my most anticipated movie for the 2nd half of 2023, and I'll watch get apple+ to see the 4 hour cut if i hear its better.

Great conversation. Sounds like an interesting movie. You guys are the best!

You both liked it more than we did. Contemplating getting Apple but don't currently have it. I knew very little to nothing going in...history seemed to be an afterthought in my school system. I'd like a strategizing scene, planning out the battles as they clearly had to have done. Show me he's the actual mastermind to it rather than him simply gesturing for another phase to begin. The ways the levels of the battles unfold I'd enjoy the following up to what might have been met by questions in the planning by his underlings.

Thank you for your refreshingly honest review. This "cut" certainly plays like an unfocused, dishevelled Greatest Hits Napolean movie. When I think of historical figures like Napolean, Mozart, I think of Polanski as a winning cinematic candidate. I admit in advance that Roman Polanski may be a touch too old to underake such an epic film as Napoleon. And if we can focus on filmmaking and not his personal foibles, I believe there is something meticulous and assured in Roman's direction that prompts me to think he would have been ideal making an epic film of this kind- in French, and with more depth and cinematic aplomb. Think of Polanski's Macbeth, The Pianist, An Officer and a Spy, Chinatown. Kubrick regarded him as an exemplary technician, which he was. Again, he is possibly too old to undertake such a lofty and ambitious film, but Roman's craftsmanship and Swiss-watch-like obsession with nuance and detail would have served this material well. Just an observation based on style and previous works.

Great review! Just out of curiousity, have you guys seen the 1927 version of Abel Gance's Napoleon? I was lucky enough to see it in Oakland, CA with 3 breaks including dinner. Leonard Maltin and Stephen Tobolowsky attended as well, just unforgettable!

His climbs to greatness could have been done better. Napolean was the greatest leader of all time - and they failed to help the audience realize that in the film. I know all about Napolean, and read several real books, so for me it was thrilling but there's no way the mainstream audience picked up on just how AMAZING of an accomplishment it was to Crown Himself Emperor. That stunning achievement will never be repeated. Napolean was the world's most Supreme Power - kings and queens the world over envied him

Everything that Alonso said is exactly how I feel.

3:49 say less! i'm sold!

From all the pre-release chatter I wasn't expecting you both to like this, but now I'm looking forward to seeing it for myself. I kind of wish Ridley had made this as a mini series, but maybe that's beyond his ken 😉. A 'highlight reel' feels awkward, indulgent even. Wouldn't it make more sense? Maybe when you review the long version you'll consider if the structure/ screenplay was a mistake.

Is the 4h version going to be available to rent for those who don’t have Apple TV+. Otherwise, I probably won’t bother

I'm excited for this but I do wish it didn't have such muted color palettes. If you've seen paintings of Napoleon then you know that guy loved him some opulent colors.

Ridley Scott has been utterly lifeless in his films including and since The Martian. They must have certain sponsors to give this glowing review to this type of film...There's no way they genuinely felt any heart or human emotion here. I refuse to believe it.

Thank you! I loved this movie. Glad to see I am not the only person to like it. Can't wait for the 4 hour version.

I hope the director's cut gets a physical media release, because some of us movie goers, we are also movie collectors. I love your reviews, you are actually very good at this guys, congrats and greetings from old Spain !

There was as scene where Josephine and Napoleon had a drink in a glass pitcher with ice . Did y'all notice this? I couldn't get ice in my drink when I went to Paris in 2010, so I doubt they had it in the 1780s. 😄 I need to wait to confirm this when the Apple TV+ version is released..

If you love this channel like I do, please help it grow by giving comments on the videos a Big Thumbs Up. Thank you and thank you, "Breakfast All Day".

Very excited! Very good review.

I have a question: What happened to What The Flick??? It was so great.

I thought this movie was awful. If you're a history buff like me, the historical inaccuracies are just too jarring to ignore. If you have only a minimal interest in the history, like my wife, the pace of the movie is too slow, the dialog is boring, some scenes are weird and uncomfortable. A better title for this movie would have been "Napoleon - the Petulant Child". And I find it sad that some people who know very little about Napoleon will think that they're learning real history from this movie.

Kingdom of Heaven as well, was good in the theatrical cut, but once the extended edition hit it was twice as good.

Biopics are hard enough, a life isn’t a dramatic construction, so the vast amount are bad imo. They either fast forward going from one event to another trying to cover too much territory and losing emotional stake in the rapidity or it’s hacked up in attempt to make it into a dramatic arc so you’re left with a cheap counterfeit version of life. On top of that, you add a life so big that it’s hard identify with(though napoleon, thanks to his roots and climb is more identifiable than, say, Alexander the Great) and it’s just one huge event after another that’s hard to identify with. Better to focus on a small section of a life and allow for more focus & emotional weight, like Lawerence of Arabia. An obvious choice would be his invasion of Russia or his exile and escape and eventual loss at Waterloo. Problem being, if you don’t get the climb of the awkward backwood outsider how does the downfall resonate (if even can resonate to the average audience member)? I’m rooting for it cuz I like period pieces & old fashioned film making a lot more than current filmmaking(really like the dualists, Scott’s first film) + since I read Les Miserable I’ve been fascinated by napoleon & have watched many a doc on him. I would like to to see more films like this being made and be done with this era of comic book movies which don’t resonate with me at all so here’s hoping it’s a success

i love the connection between Napoleon and Carol Bike.

I'm curious if either (or both) will do a out of theater reaction or review for the Beyoncé Renaissance film?

Any chance you guys would be interested in doing reactions to the new David Tennant Doctor Who specials on Disney+? The first one just aired. I know you haven’t been watching it forever (even though Alonso has seen some), but they do a decent job catching you up on the beginning.

Can I guys review one of my favorite Christmas movies all time? Serendipity. I know when it came out it wasn't loved. But I've come to love it as a romantic Christmas comedy classic. Maybe I'm in the minority but I absolutely love that movie!

I'm in the minority about Joaquin Phoenix but i do like vanessa kirby. Wonder if my weak tolerance for torture and assault scenes can handle this. And if it feels loooong...idk.

Trying to avoid it but will now watch it. Thanks for the analysis as the Josephine character analysis is interesting.

I can think of a few of my friends who won’t be digging those gory horse deaths .. 😂

For anyone who knows history this was painful to watch 😢. What a mess.

How are they gonna release these two movies in the same week? Like seriously the amount of work that's been put in to these two film it just feel wrong to force people to choose between them.

Do you guys know anything about Napoleon? He was not a lowly Corsican, his father was actually in the court at Versailles and he went to top schools with the aristocracy. Yes he was Corsican but of relatively high birth and his father became a Francophile after the French defeated Corsica.

Napoleon was Corsican not French. He was a genius and so completely in charge he seemed invincible. His two failures were first to remain mercantilist and not advance to industrial capitalism and second to seek empire in Europe rather than keep the Louisiana Territory and build a French empire in America. He wrote the Code Napoleon which remains the basis for French government and legal system. His main legacy.

Regardless of the quality of this film, I'll for sure see it to support this kind of classic epics. However, I'm concerned over hearing that Scott got snippy with a reporter for questioning the historical accuracy of the film. Is that a valid critique? If so, then that's definitely a cause for concern.

Imagine if there was an alternate cut that included 30 minutes of Napoleon shooting canon balls to hit the top of the Pyramids.. over and over and over again.. would that have pissed off Egypt as much as Netflix's alternate history rendition of Cleopatra.. worth suing for 100s of millions of dollars? lol

O horses were harmed in the making of this movie

Are you guys gonna review May December

I will be very disappointed if it is not historically accurate. For the simple reason that you don't need to embellish the life of Napoleon to make a dramatic movie. Oppenheimer was a great movie for example and was very accurate. I do have a video I made a few days ago giving some background as to the real history of Napoleon.

3.5/5 for me. I’m glad I saw on the big screen for the battle sequences alone (Ridley Scott I think is fair to say the 🐐 at battle sequences like how Michael Mann is the 🐐 at shootouts). It’s well shot, so well made (the budget is on screen), Joaquin & Vanessa deliver powerhouse performances. But knowing the 4 hour cut is coming (most likely in the summer) it’ll take care of the narrative issues I had with it (the transitions go anywhere from a few days or a few weeks all the way to like 5 years. It’s amazing that Ridley shot this in 61 days (he’s finishing “Gladiator 2” in 52 days).

Please have a portion of your review that makes it clear what rating you give the movie, and the main reasons for that rating. Then go crazy with breaking the movie down.

Btw, when Roger Ebert left us Christy became my #1 movie critic.

okay “pony blown apart” though wow

think this close to the unmade kubrick version?

It sounds like the director's cut is going to be on Apple TV+. I hope that there are more scenes of Napoleon and Josephine interacting! I might have to create an intermission if the action is presented continuously!

Please review Thanksgiving.

Kubrick’s Napoleon i’d say is one of the all time great unmade movies. Not a very original sentiment but deserves being repeated.

The Battle of Austerlitz was amazing and Napoleon's greatest victory. The movie with it's tactics that appear derived from the fantasy movie "Willow" and it's concentration on what was a tiny part of the action as the Austrians and Russians fled south at the end of the battle, after it had already been decided, had nothing to do with why this battle was his greatest victory. Thousands of french men and russians and austrians were killed at this battle. Maybe get past the dead horses. Perhaps you found this movie long and boring because it was invented. The actual history is interesting, amazing really. This movie is a goofy 2 at best. Phoenix was too old to play Napoleon even at the end at St Helena. He was 26 when he first met the 32 year old Josephine. Their story was interesting as well. I'm not sure who these two people were supposed to be.

I thought this movie was great! I want to see the director’s cut. Everything was impressive about this film. I can’t wait to buy the blue ray.

Oh that Pony-blown-apart!

Great Review. We know Ridley likes to shoot plenty of footage and tease us with more than what's really there. Kingdom of Heaven which I truly love (extended version). I'm going into this with no expectations and see Sir Ridley do what he does best.

A poor film,that is incomplete in this version edits all over the place,but after 2 and a bit hours we get to the Waterloo battle scenes they are world class,7/10 film .

Saw 'Napoleon" today with my son (age 14). Wow. We both LOVED it. A stunning epic of a film! Ridley Scott's highly anticipated film, "Napoleon," is a cinematic masterpiece that sets a new standard for historical epics. From the moment the opening credits roll, tp the opener of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, it's clear that Scott's vision for this ambitious project is nothing short of extraordinary. Joaquin Phoenix and a stellar supporting cast & their attention to detail in recreating the grandeur of Napoleon Bonaparte's era is awe-inspiring, transporting audiences back to a time of opulence, intrigue, and world-changing events. The film's cast, led by Joaquin Phoenix's mesmerizing performance from the talented actor chosen to portray Napoleon, captures the complexity and charisma of the historical figure flawlessly. The character development is exceptional, allowing the audience to empathize with Napoleon's struggles and triumphs on a deeply personal level. Scott's direction is a tour de force, seamlessly blending breathtaking battle sequences with intimate moments of reflection and vulnerability. The result is a captivating narrative that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats throughout the film's runtime. Visually, "Napoleon" is a feast for the eyes, with sumptuous costumes, lavish set designs, and stunning cinematography that make every frame a work of art. The attention to riveting battle scenes -- especially Napoleon's march on Russia and the Battle of Waterloo with Wellington and the British -- has a real world historical accuracy that is commendable, and it adds an extra layer of authenticity to the storytelling. The musical score, composed by a maestro in their own right, complements the film's emotional depth and elevates the overall experience to a cinematic symphony. In conclusion, Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is a triumph of storytelling, craftsmanship, and sheer cinematic prowess. It's a must-see for anyone who appreciates the magic of the silver screen. With its stellar cast, meticulous attention to detail, and a director at the peak of his creative powers, "Napoleon" is destined to become a classic and will undoubtedly leave a lasting impression on audiences for generations to come. Highly recommended! Definitely a Best Picture contender! Ridley Scott's highly anticipated film, "Napoleon," is a cinematic masterpiece that sets a new standard for historical epics. From the moment the opening credits roll, tp the opener of the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, it's clear that Scott's vision for this ambitious project is nothing short of extraordinary. Joaquin Phoenix and a stellar supporting cast & their attention to detail in recreating the grandeur of Napoleon Bonaparte's era is awe-inspiring, transporting audiences back to a time of opulence, intrigue, and world-changing events. The film's cast, led by Joaquin Phoenix's mesmerizing performance from the talented actor chosen to portray Napoleon, captures the complexity and charisma of the historical figure flawlessly. The character development is exceptional, allowing the audience to empathize with Napoleon's struggles and triumphs on a deeply personal level. Scott's direction is a tour de force, seamlessly blending breathtaking battle sequences with intimate moments of reflection and vulnerability. The result is a captivating narrative that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats throughout the film's runtime. Visually, "Napoleon" is a feast for the eyes, with sumptuous costumes, lavish set designs, and stunning cinematography that make every frame a work of art. The attention to riveting battle scenes -- especially Napoleon's march on Russia and the Battle of Waterloo with Wellington and the British -- has a real world historical accuracy that is commendable, and it adds an extra layer of authenticity to the storytelling. The musical score, composed by a maestro in their own right, complements the film's emotional depth and elevates the overall experience to a cinematic symphony. In conclusion, Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is a triumph of storytelling, craftsmanship, and sheer cinematic prowess. It's a must-see for anyone who appreciates the magic of the silver screen. With its stellar cast, meticulous attention to detail, and a director at the peak of his creative powers, "Napoleon" is destined to become a classic and will undoubtedly leave a lasting impression on audiences for generations to come. Highly recommended! Definitely a Best Picture contender!

If you know anything about the battle of Austerlitz the butchered visually the tactical idea if Napoleons genius

I give it a 7

I think the movie lacks conflict (Napoleon is always far away from the war conflict, it reduces the tension and so on), objective (what Napoleon want's and why it's unclear) and the "crazy" relationship between napoleon and josefine is weird and boring/repetitive. In mine opinion, Ridley Scott puted the Joker in a Napoleon movie to make it look interesting, without make the plot-points/dialogue interesting. It become so weird that i didn't feel nothing for the couple.

This film, although I still endorse seeing, if purely for the interest of investing in ambitious epics, is a solid dud for me. This film, however, cannot be even categorised as an epic, because it fails in the fundamental job of making a strong case for why the subject deserves to have their story be told. All the film comes out to be is a sequence of events without an intelligible through line. The first sin is to build the audience's expectation on a lie with the tagline "He came from nothing," when in reality his father was an important political figure in Corsica, which was a big reason how he got the opportunity to attend a prestigious military academy in Metropolitan France. Next, regarding his most important relationship, with his first wife Josephine, the development of which and the intellectual fire that made it so are completely unbelievable and absent, respectively. Third, what is Napoleon remembered in history for? The answer are his significant political and legal reforms, such as the Napoleonic Code, which he promulgated across the states he brought to heel, the bulk of which still are retained to this day in countries like NLD, and beginning the glorious process of secularisation. Not only are these two pillars not the focus of the film, there aren't even the barest of mentions of them! And lastly, even if I were to disregard all the ahistorical crimes Scott commits throughout the film, I would've been at least entertained had the battle scenes been handled well. Unfortunately, apart from the Battle of Austerlitz, all the others ones are one dimensional and don't pass the smell test, as no one remotely intelligent can believe in the age of mass-issued handheld firearms, the go-to military tactic is to have one's forces marching like cannon fodder. And because of Scott's blatant and over-the-top anti-Napoleon lense, I can't even trust the context-free figures at the end of the film at face value. Onto the performances, I find Kirby and Phoenix to be pretty good in their roles. Both show stretches of brilliance, with the former have more of it than the latter. In my judgement, Kirby is on the fence of deserving a prestigious award nomination; Phoenix? Not so much. To appropriate Kirk Lazarus, "Never go full clammy horse noise fetishist.

Mel Gibson could have been the guy to make this film. It's so sad he didn't get to as all his historic epics were magnificent -brave heart, apocalypto, Hacksaw Ridge

pony blown-apart 😭

I assume the impact of the deaths and horrific injuries inflicted on the soldiers are as dramatic as the horses, or do the men portrayed have an impersonal "toy soldier" aspect?. It almost sounds like the horses are upstaging the soldiers in all this, or is it just that the horse deaths are much more graphic than audiences are used to seeing? And do you think of it as a great war movie or will audience need more time to think about it that way because it is more of a historical biopic?

pony blown-apart sir there are children watching lol

None of the battles where even done right, learn some of the history before raving about this film first!.

When I am in my 80's I plan on being senile sitting on my porch w/ a bottle of Jack and a shotgun yelling at people to get off my lawn, so hats off to Mr. Scott. lol

I generally love history movies and I'm a person who watches history documentaries all the time. However, this movie had a few good moments that were visually great but was disinterested mostly throughout the entire movie. I actually started to fall asleep during the movie (something I rarely ever do) and kept checking my watch. By far the most disappointing movie of 2023 for me. No way do I want to EVER see a 4 hour cut of this. I'm a fan of Pheniox and Scott movies....but sadly this was a 4/10 for me.

The Movie is kind of a Mess Stunning Looking Mess But a Mess none the less The Narrative drive is all Jumbled

So thumbs down?

An immense dumpster fire of Napoleonic Proportions! Truly Ridley Scott's greatest attempt at utter hysterical revisionism! His career-penultimate Waterloo. YAAAAAY!!!

There are three components to the movie: the epic battles, the domestic duelling on the homefront and the overall context of events and their impact upon world history. In trying to demystify Napoleon, Scott and his screenwriter seem to ask: "How can we confound thee? Let us count the ways." This may be do to the truncated feel of the film where much exposition goes wanting.The four-hour version on Apple TV beckons. The last element is the most undernourished, as dates, places and names are haphardly sprinkled throughout the Swiss cheese narrative that is patchy at best. Who is who in this? No question, the production design is sumptuous, costumes, set design etc and the battles are spectacular. Being familiar with 19th century reproduction muskets and cannons--a rare skill I know--it is gratifying to see such weaponry discharged authentically. And yes, the Battle of Austerlitz recalls Saving Private Ryan as we get an upclose feel of withering enemy fire and freezing in icy waters. Bloody, indeed. The Battle of Waterloo features the vaunted British squares which enabled infrantry to fire steadily through the rotation of ranks, an effective strategy on the broad European battlefields. On the home front, well, this is a little wonky, mostly because both Napoleon and Josephine are under-written. Vanessa Kirby does well with her glacial self-possession, taunting Napoleon with a Basic Instinct bit of business. Some of their sexcapades got chortles from the audience. A big deal is made out of Josephine's inability to bear him an heir. But once he gets a boy born by another woman, whom Napoleon presents to Josephine after their divorce, where do we hear of the kid again???? Napoleon remains a cypher. Is he miscast? One advisor calls him the Ruler of the World. He does win battles but where is his impact upon France, the Napoleonic Code, the world view of him? "I know where to put a cannon" this explains his strategic brilliance? Firing a cannon ball at the Pyramids (which didn't happen) symbolizes his conquering Egypt. Upon his first return from exile, he runs into a bunch of gov't troops sent to stop him (how he managed to commandeer a ship & get a small army is a good question). He gives a speech of how he misses France and misses them. First thing y' know, the troops drop their firearms and go "All hail Napoleon!" Like they're gonna go back to the burghermeister's home for some strudel in Young Frankenstein. I guess you get the hint that this corner doesn't favour the movie as much as you do, though i appreciate your points as usual. I would encourage people to see it with caveats. "Kaboom!' There was supposed to be an earth-shattering, "Kaboom!" Not quite in this version of Napoleon Bonaparte.. Whew! I'll shut up now. lol

I liked this movie a lot. Strong performances, beautiful cinematography, great direction by sir Ridley Scott. 8.7/10

Joaquin Phoenix is already miscast Napoleon was 27 when he took over the French military and that is not Mr Phoenix😅 this movie has so many real life logic gaps it's unreal😂😂😂

Your talking rubbish the austerlitz sequence is rubbish and a historicalthe longer one is just more tripe

Napoleon was a military genius and Napoleon 2023 portrayed him as a weak cuck.The movie was not good and everyone knows it.Fragmented into bits and pieces this movie in no way portrays Napoleon the way it should have which is a story about Napoleon in full flight as a fighter and strategist .Instead we got a right royal mess.I was looking forward to this so much .Napoleon could have been a classic but it is far from being that.

I thought this movie was terrible tonally.

😂

Never mind the horses. They’re just for riding, betting on and eating!

Looks like a great movie to see with my History Buff friends!

Joaquin Phoenix ❤🎉😊

It is an okay movie.

American accents in a historical drama?? Napoleon shouldn’t sound like a MAGA frat boy “bro”

I don't get what you two saw. I found the main characters difficult to care about and not developed at all. The result was s boring and disjointed slog through French history.

Depending on what is out, I’ll probably see it even though as an American, we really don’t have interest in Napoleon.

Great genius represented as a childish man. Terrible movie.

Umm.... Napoleon was French. But we don't get French accents or French dubbed with English subtitles... we get Joaquin speaking like... Joaquin..... really?

Just saw it. Boring. Crap. Not historic. Terrible actor doing Napoleon. Rod Steiger was the best in this role. It should have been called Josephine. Not epic but thin battle scenes. No flow, little drama.....makes Napoleon look like a goof and the French look like idiots. Not historic. Ridley blew this big time. This movie sucks. I'm a huge fan of Napoleon and history and this was a movie I looked forward to but I knew Joaquin was not going to be a great choice....I was bang on. He sucked.

Pathetic. Watch Waterloo or Soviet War and Peace if you want to see why he was a great man and how battles looked in 19th century. If you are doing a movie about one of the greatest generals of all time, maybe you should show why he was one of those. Phoenix is not acting, he is being Joaquim Phoenix. Its time for Retirement home Ridley. And of course, Sun doesnt shine in the past. Edgy.